Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, these are going to be the two classic glass-half-empty/ glass-half-full speeches because the chairman has told you the good things that have happened, and there are some. But, today, we have two bad choices in front of us. The first is to support this BandAid approach that has temporarily continued the funding for TANF and the child care development block grants for yet another 3 months. The other alternative is to abandon our most vulnerable citizens until the Republican majority accepts its responsibility to chart a new course that provides a helping hand, not a slap on the wrist.

Now, I deplore these kind of crossroads at which we stand. Ten times in the last 3 years we have stood right here, as we do today, the lives and welfare of the disadvantaged hanging in the balance. At a time like this, America should shine. Instead, the Republican majority strains the needs of our most vulnerable citizens to the breaking point.

Ten temporary extensions over 3 years should send the House a clear and unmistakable message. We need to treat America's disadvantaged as first class citizens by charting a new course for the long-term reauthorization of the TANF program.

On this Republican watch, the House has taken up hopelessly divisive bills that have drawn the condemnation of mayors, governors, welfare directors, religious leaders and poverty experts.

Time and again, the Republicans have tried to terminate Federal responsibility by replacing State flexibility with unfunded mandates and changing the focus of welfare reform from real jobs to make-work. Nothing good comes from this approach.

Instead, this wrong path has led to legislative gridlock. Those who suffer most are those who most need our help. The disadvantaged need our compassionate ideas and commitment to promote reforms that will help them leave welfare and actually escape poverty. This goal is particularly important when you consider that an additional 4.3 million Americans have fallen into poverty over the last 3 years for which we have data. In 2003 alone, almost another 800,000 children fell into poverty. Now, that should be a rallying cry, driving us to act.

But, instead, the Republicans use the misfortune of some Americans to suggest that poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not working hard enough. That is just wrong. It is callous and cold- hearted. The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to work. The problem is too many of those leaving welfare are not finding work, or they are finding jobs that do not lift them out of poverty. We could, of course, help by providing more child-care assistance, job training and a higher minimum wage, but the Republican leadership and the President have resisted such reforms. Instead, the Republicans try to sell the same worn-out threadbare suit of clothes again.

It happened again in March when the majority unveiled their new 3- year old idea from the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. Nothing has happened since. Nothing, leaving many to believe the Republican leadership intends to include the welfare legislation as part of the upcoming budget reconciliation bill rather than considering it as a separate measure. Such a process will make it harder to provide the necessary investments in child care because Republicans know the budget reconciliation process is meant to cut programs, not improve them. And that is just fine by the Republican leadership because they do not believe working families deserve any more help for child care. Like so much from their leadership, the rhetoric does not match the reality.

According to data from their own HHS, Health and Human Services Department, only about a quarter of the children who are eligible for child-care subsidies under State eligibility criteria actually receive assistance. This fraction drops to roughly one out of seven, if you use the Federal eligibility standard for daycare assistance. The data does not lie. We are falling short in helping low-income families meet the challenges of raising a family and at the same time going to work.

President Bush's response to this problem is to make it even worse. His proposed 2006 budget shows the number of people receiving child assistance will decline, decline by 300,000 over the next 5 years. So the administration is proposing even greater work requirements for welfare recipients at the same time that the President proposes cutting child care. So much for a helping hand.

My friends on the other side of the aisle suggest their bill is modestly more generous on child care than the administration's budget. However, that Republican package, in reality, underfunds child care assistance by $10.6 billion over the next 5 years. That is their calculation.

Republicans want to outsource Federal responsibility to the States without a dime more to address a $10 billion deficit. That leads nowhere except forcing States to face deep cuts in child-care assistance for the working poor.

Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. We have proposed legislation that gives the States the flexibility and the funding needed to move welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. It is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. And with that hope, I support this temporary extension of the current law. I will not abandon disadvantaged Americans at the very time they need us most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it really speaks volumes that there is no one who wants to come out here and talk about what happens to ordinary people here in this country.

The last election was one in which people said the issue was whether people had values or not. The values that the Democrats have stood for for 70 years, really since the Depression, were a minimum income for everyone.

Now, let us start with the minimum wage. We have not raised the minimum wage in this House since 1997. We raised our own salary yesterday 2 percent or whatever it was. I do not know. But the people at the bottom have not had an increase since 1997.

We take a young woman who has got a kid and got out of high school and did not graduate, and we send her out and say, go get a job, go get a job; and she gets a job at minimum wage which amounts to about 50 percent of the poverty level. That is not a value that I support.

Housing is another value that we should be talking about. These people are struggling to find a place to live in the city close to their job. In Seattle you cannot find very many places inside the city. As we gentrify the centers of the city, the people have to move out farther and farther and farther to the point where the bus lines require a couple of hours to get into the city to work at a minimum- wage job.

Health care, another value. There should not have to be a colloquy over here about whether we are going to provide health care for these people. We know that we need a workforce that is healthy. We need people going to work who are healthy, and we need children who are healthy who can go to school and learn and become part of an educated workforce. To fail these children in their earliest years is to present ourselves with a problem. Maybe not us, because we will not be here when the kids who are on welfare today become a problem for the Congress, but 20 years from now people are going to say, why did we not have health care?

The reason we wound up with a school lunch program in this country was because when they went to drafting people in the Second World War, they had so many recruits that had nutrition-related diseases that they had

to reject them. And so, Mr. Truman, it was not some big-hearted thing, he started the school lunch program so that we would have healthy kids. And yet we are still questioning whether these youngsters, we are putting the pressure on the States to make cuts in welfare in every single jurisdiction.

The chorus of hollering is going to start when these bills start passing and State governments have to deal with what we have put out there as an insurmountable problem for them, a mandate from us that they have to find the money for.

Finally, education of kids. That is a value. You want kids to have an education. You want parents to have an education. Kids follow the model of their own parents. If we do not help these people on welfare get an education, if we make it an insurmountable task, the kids do not see their own mother or own father get an education.

My belief is we can do better than this, and I hope when we pass a permanent bill we will.

Madam Speaker, President Bush has a golden opportunity to level with the American people tonight about Iraq. The question is: Will he?

The President stands at a crossroads. His credibility and the integrity of the entire administration is on the line. The American people have had enough of administration rhetoric. For a sitting Vice President to dismiss reality and proclaim the insurgency in its ``last throes'' grossly understates the threat to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and seriously undermines any shred of credibility that the administration has left with the American people. They know that U.S. involvement in Iraq is going badly. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel summed it up last week when he said, ``The White House is completely disconnected with reality . . . The reality is that we are losing in Iraq.''

The American people want the President to deliver a straight story and a realistic plan, something he has been unwilling to do up to now. We will see if we hear it tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to amplify on the Iraq proposal that I made last night in the House. I believe the solution in Iraq lies with the United Nations and that it is time for direct U.N. involvement to replace U.S. forces and to allow our troops to return home safely and in an orderly way.

The evidence is mounting that America's current approach in Iraq will not work. When was the last time anybody heard the word ``coalition'' to describe the military activity in Iraq? The world largely perceives the United States as going it alone in Iraq. Furthermore, large portions of the Arab world believe in the insurgency rhetoric that America is an occupier in Iraq for selfish oil reasons and not to serve the needs of the Iraqi people.

Administration claims about the insurgency do not square with the news coming out of Iraq every day or with the sober assessment by America's best military leaders. U.S. and Iraq civilian casualties are mounting. That is what Americans see every night on the news. What Americans want is a sober assessment of Iraq that reflects reality and

for the Congress and the administration to work together to come up with a solution. Americans are sick of the politics. They want a solution that will protect U.S. soldiers and make what they are fighting and dying for, and what has taken untold numbers of Iraqi lives, worth the enormous sacrifice.

We need a new strategy in Iraq. We need a new plan. This one is not working. The more the administration denies it, the more time we waste and the more lives we lose because we do not do what we need to do. We do not need permanent bases in Iraq. Every day that goes by with the current war scenario, this country loses credibility around the world.

Every concrete block that we lay is sowing seeds of mistrust, anger, and resentment that will affect us for generations. Consider that we are still dealing with Vietnam 30 years later trying to establish relationships with them. It is time to involve the rest of the world in Iraq and stop anyone from calling this is the U.S.-Iraq war. Only the United Nations has the international imprimatur to lead an international coalition in Iraq. Only the United Nations can credibly install a peace-enforcing force in Iraq that is seen as such by the entire world.

We did a similar thing under UNTAC in Cambodia. We have done it before. I have never supported this war, but I would gratefully support a Republican resolution to get the U.N. into Iraq. This would be a positive development to safeguard U.S. ground forces and send a positive signal to a skeptical Arab world that America's intentions are not what the insurgents claim them to be.

We need a bold stroke in Iraq if we are to succeed in stopping the loss of lives and spread of terror. We cannot just fight insurgents in the streets day by day if there is any hope of peace in Iraq. The world has to believe we are only there to benefit Iraq. As long as the war is called and perceived as the U.S.-Iraq war, the insurgents have new ammunition to recruit, terrorize, maim, and kill.

We have an opportunity to work together as Americans, not Democrats and Republicans, but to create a plan that creates a new role for the U.S. in Iraq, contributing to the U.N. peace-enforcing force. We have an opportunity to safeguard American lives we are replacing, not withdrawing U.S. soldiers from Iraq.

Today, too many military experts in our country quietly say that the Iraq war could go on for the indefinite future. David Hackworth, the most decorated Vietnam veteran, said we are going to be there 30 years. We cannot afford the price in dollars, and more importantly, in loss or shattered lives for our soldiers.

The way to win the war in Iraq is to allow the world, not the United States, to lead the war in Iraq. Since the Republicans are the majority party in the House, I willingly submit my proposal to the Republicans to call their own, get the President on board, turn it into legislation that we can pass by unanimous consent.

The best military option for the United States in Iraq is to act under the command and direction of the United Nations. U.N. leadership offers the best chance for a lasting peace and the fastest orderly way for American troops to return home.

Mr. Speaker, please put politics aside and let us act together. Yesterday, 82 members of the Iraq parliament submitted a letter to their speakers saying get the troops out of Baghdad. We ought to be working with them and make it happen, but it will take both Republicans and Democrats to do it.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House had an opportunity to see what really happened at Guantanamo Bay. If the Republicans are so sure that nothing bad happened there, why can we not have some hearings?

Now, they continued to be reassured by the White House. This is the White House that told them there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is the administration that told them that the oil industry in Iraq would pay for all the reconstruction. We are now about $300 billion in. And this is the administration that last month said we are in the last throes of the insurgency.

If anybody on this floor ever served in the military, you know that what went on in Abu Ghraib and what goes on in Guantanamo did not start at the private and the corporal level. It started at the top. And until we do an investigation of the policy papers that were put out of the White House from the Attorney General who was then the President's counsel and the general, General Sanchez, he just got promoted. This is the guy in charge of Abu Ghraib. They put six or eight guys in jail, but he got a promotion. That needs an investigation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue which is beginning to be much more of an issue in this Congress, and certainly in this country, and that is the question of how long are we going to stay in Iraq?

There are those who think that we should stay endlessly, apparently. The military is preparing for a couple of years of staying. Last week a couple of oil workers from Iraq came through talking to various Members of Congress. These 55-year-old Iraqi oil workers said there will be no peace in Iraq until the occupation is over. Until you leave, the present conditions will continue.

Now, there are a lot of people who still believe the President. Remember, this is the President that told us that there were weapons of mass destruction and there were connections to al Qaeda, and that now they have the White House saying we are in the last throes of the insurgency.

But when you talk to Iraqis who live on the ground, work on the ground, work in the oil industry, they said we are at 1\1/2\ billion barrels a day, and we will never get any more than that until we are able to get some peace and calm and some investments to come in and change the oil industry.

Now, you say, well, that is just two oil workers. Well, 82, remember that number, 82 Iraqi Parliamentarians have sent a letter to their Speaker of the House demanding that the U.S. withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Those are not wild-eyed people in the United States who are calling for the withdrawal of American troops. This is 82 members of the Iraq Parliament who were elected. I mean, we say they have a democracy over there. Some of these leaders come from the United Iraqi Alliance, which is a collection or a coalition of religious Shiite parties that has a majority of the 275 seats.

So, again, we are not talking about a splinter group somewhere, we are talking about people in the main governing group in the Iraqi Parliament are calling for an end. Their demand is still, although not a majority, it is a large majority, and it has not been endorsed by the Prime Minister yet.

But the demand will certainly come from an ever greater number of Parliamentarians as time goes on. At the moment, most Iraqi politicians already wish the United States would leave, but are afraid that the guerilla movement will kill them without U.S. protection.

This letter has not been released in the United States. You have to find it somewhere on the Web. Now, in this House we have a group called Out of Iraq Caucus.

And the question is, what are we up to? What do we really want to do? Well, I think you ought to have a plan. And there are certainly a lot of plans that have been laid out. One of them is laid out by Gerald Helman, who was a former Ambassador of the United States, who says, first of all, the United States should have a phased withdrawal to be completed in 1 year.

Why is that? Because you do not want to create chaos. If we walked away tomorrow, we would have chaos.

The second thing he says, by prearrangement before that withdrawal occurs, the Iraq and Arab League, or collection of Arab states, would ask the United Nations Security Council to establish a transition political, economic development, and peace enforcement authority to assist the Iraqi Government in its recovery efforts. And finally, the United States could offer logistical support. We are really the only ones capable of doing it, and the financial support as well as the military units on a transitional basis under U.N. command, under U.N. command.

I think we can handle a Brit or a German or somebody being in command. The United States, Japan and the other oil Arabs can contribute money and NATO could provide much of the staff, planning and headquarters personnel, but competent boots on the ground will be hard to find. They are going to have to use some of our people. We all watched the United Nations do this very same thing in Cambodia. Most people were unaware of it, but that is exactly the method.

We have to begin the process of withdrawal from Iraq. There is no way we are going to win it all and have peace and harmony as long as we are viewed as conquerors and occupiers, and 82 members of the Iraqi parliament have asked. That must be only the beginning.

Helman on UN Option

Ambassador Gerald B. Helman writes: ``. . . On replacing

the US with the UN in Iraq[:] It seems clear that US public

opinion is ready for a real exit strategy. But I suspect that

the Administration has not yet given up its hope of turning

Iraq into a long-term strategic base and asset allowing

control of the Middle East and the oil that goes with it. And

to turn it all over to the UN would be humiliating. Much

would depend upon how the process is rolled-out. Here's an

example:

The US would announce a phased withdrawal, to be completed

one year hence;

(by prearrangement) Iraq and the Arab League (or a

collection of Arab states) would ask the UNSC to establish a

transition political, economic development and peace

enforcement authority to assist the Iraqi Government in its

recovery efforts; and

The US would offer logistical (we're the only one capable)

and financial support, as well as military units, on a

transitional basis, under UN command (we might be able to

swallow the humiliation if the commander is a Brit or

German). The UK, Japan, the oil Arabs and others can

contribute lots of money. NATO could provide much of the

staff, planning and headquarters personnel. But competent

boots on the ground might be harder to come by.

I agree that the Cambodia operation (and, more recently,

East Timor) could serve as a model. While Cambodia was a

mixed success, it was nevertheless a success.''

Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on Friday, June 17, 2005 due to a previously scheduled event in my district. Had I been able to, I would have voted:

Against the Royce amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 274).

Against the Fortenberry amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 275).

Against the Flake amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 276).

For the Chabot amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 277).

Against the Pence amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 278).

Against the Gohmert amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 279).

Against the Stearns amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 280).

For the Lantos amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 281).

Against Final passage of H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 282).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill; and I do this in the name of freedom and justice for all Americans.

I call it the Carlos Lazo amendment, named for a brave U.S. soldier from Seattle who has been denied his right and freedom to visit his children in Cuba because of onerous new travel restrictions imposed by this administration.

Sergeant Lazo is a medic in a combat unit that served for a year in Fallujah, one of the most dangerous places in Iraq. He is a shining example of everything positive about America and about the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces.

But Carlos Lazo has been victimized by the administration's policy which has gone tilt. Carlos is caught up in the latest ploy by the United States Government to topple Castro. This time the administration is banking on restricting travel to overthrow the Castro government.

The greatest impact from this new policy is that Sergeant Carlos Lazo cannot visit his children in Cuba. One man desires only to be a father on Father's Day.

This is a man who risked his life in defense of America, a man who risked his life to reach America on a raft, a man who wants only to see and hug his children, a man in uniform defending America even as America denies his freedoms.

Last June, Carlos tried to visit his children in Cuba before the stringent new travel restrictions were put into effect. He was on leave from Iraq and went to Miami to board a charter flight to Cuba, but he was turned away because flights were flying empty to Cuba.

There he stood in his uniform, having just come back from the combat zone. He stood in an airport with a ticket in his hand, barred from a chance to visit his children, denied the most basic freedom in this country.

Carlos returned to the war zone in Iraq without seeing his children. That is the way it will stay unless the government intercedes.

Current law allows Americans to visit a family in Cuba only once every 3 years. No exceptions are made for soldiers serving abroad, families with medical emergencies, or other hardship cases.

As it stands now, Carlos can do nothing except wait for an arbitrary deadline to expire. It will take another year before he can go to Cuba. He is a naturalized American father who has been caught up in a national obsession to overthrow Castro. Decade after decade, plot after plot, the facts remain the same.

The policy, or the plot, call it what you will, the new travel restrictions inflict pain and suffering on an American, not Castro. Carlos is a person, not a political pawn, a soldier who defended his country and asks only for his country to defend his freedom.

He came to America on a raft in the 1990s. Since then he has made a new home and a new life. He has given back to his country and served with distinction. He is a patriot.

The least we can do is allow Carlos to visit his children in Cuba. Allowing him to travel to Cuba would say much more about freedom and opportunity in America than any new administration policy.

You want to hurt Castro, send Carlos to see his children. His freedom, like any American, to travel freely and speak freely and act freely will say more about what America stands for than all the rhetoric and rules the administration could ever implement.

The Department of Treasury oversees the travel ban. So far they have refused to grant him any kind of waiver. It will take us to cut through that.

Let Carlos be reunited with his children in Cuba in time for Father's Day. There is room in the heartland of America to have a heart.

I urge the passage of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to express gratitude for the free press, in England. Because it is only for the English that we can finally find out what went on in the White House with Mr. Cheney and the oil boys. It says in the Guardian this morning, after the meeting with Mr. Blair yesterday, President Bush's decision not to sign the United States up for the Kyoto Treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company.

In briefing papers given before the meeting to the U.S. Secretary of State, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's, quote, active involvement in helping to determine climate policy.

The President of the United States rejected Kyoto in part, and this is a quote, rejected in part on the input from you, the Global Climate Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States runs the most secretive operation down there and does not tell us that the oil companies are running our energy policy. As long as that is what is going on in this country, we will continue to continue to be enmeshed in the Bush war and whatever goes on in Iran and whatever goes on anyplace else, and we will continue to destroy the environment.

It is time to end that, Mr. Speaker.

[From the Guardian, May 8, 2005]

Revealed: How Oil Giant Influenced Bush

White House sought advice from exxon on kyoto stance

(By John Vidal)

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United

States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a

result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful

oil company, and other industries, according to U.S. State

Department papers seen by the Guardian.

The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the

White House for discussions on climate change before next

month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how

close the company is to the administration and its role in

helping to formulate U.S. policy.

In briefing papers given before meetings to the U.S. under-

secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2002 and 2004,

the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the

company's ``active involvement'' in helping to determine

climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what

climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

Other papers suggest that Ms. Dobriansky should sound out

Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on

potential alternatives to Kyoto.

Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no

involvement in the U.S. government's rejection of Kyoto. But

the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under U.S. freedom of

information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

``Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in

part based on input from you [the Global Climate

Coalition],'' says one briefing note before Ms. Dobriansky's

meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto U.S. industry

group, which was dominated by Exxon.

The papers further state that the White House considered

Exxon ``among the companies most actively and prominently

opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse

gas emissions''.

But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and

technology committee in 2003, Exxon's head of public affairs,

Nick Thomas, said: ``I think we can say categorically we have

not campaigned with the United States government or any other

government to take any sort of position over Kyoto.''

Exxon, officially the U.S.'s most valuable company valued

at $379bn (K206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers

to share the White House's unwavering scepticism of

international efforts to address climate change.

The documents, which reflect unanimity between the company

and the U.S. administration on the need for more global

warming science and the unacceptable costs of Kyoto, state

that Exxon believes that joining Kyoto ``would be

unjustifiably drastic and premature''.

This line has been taken consistently by President Bush,

and was expected to be continued in yesterday's talks with

Tony Blair who has said that climate change is ``the most

pressing issue facing mankind''.

``President Bush tells Mr. Blair he's concerned about

climate change, but these documents reveal the alarming

truth, that policy in this White House is being written by

the world's most powerful oil company. This administration's

climate policy is a menace to humanity,'' said Stephen

Tindale, Greenpeace's executive director in London last

night.

``The prime minister needs to tell Mr. Bush he's calling in

some favours. Only by securing mandatory cuts in U.S.

emissions can Blair live up to his rhetoric,'' said Mr.

Tindale.

In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms. Dobriansky

meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who

has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments

both of which have followed the U.S. line against Kyoto.

The purpose of the meeting with Mr. Pearlman, who also

represents the secretive anti-Kyoto Climate Council, which

the administration says ``works against most U.S. government

efforts to address climate change'', is said to be to

``solicit [his] views as part of our dialogue with friends

and allies''.

ExxonMobil, which was yesterday contacted by the Guardian

in the U.S. but did not return calls, is spending millions of

pounds on an advertising campaign aimed at influencing

politicians, opinion formers and business leaders in the UK

and other pro-Kyoto countries in the weeks before the G8

meeting at Gleneagles.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeri Rice, an acclaimed entrepreneur in Seattle who personifies the spirit, courage, and commitment to see peace in her ancestral homeland of Israel. Jeri Rice is a distinguished Citizen Diplomat.

The Israel Policy Forum has selected Jeri Rice as a 2005 ``Focus on the Future'' Honoree. It is a wise choice and speaks volumes about the profound and positive impact one person can make in our world.

Jeri Rice is fearless in tackling tough issues. I know that firsthand. With a self confidence rooted in faith and family, Jeri guides everyone she comes in contact with toward a path

of peace based on mutual respect and moderation. She willingly--and often--opens her home to promote peace in the Mideast. I've joined her personal peace process, and I can affirm that Jeri's involvement is a shining example of personal commitment and heroism.

Jeri's involvement in good and noble causes is well known and highly regarded in Seattle. Jeri is a founding member of the University of Washington Center for Women and Democracy. She is a strong advocate and community leader in many organizations, including: United Way; University of Washington Academic Medical Center; Harborview Medical Center; and, PONCHO. She serves on the board of the Cornish College of the Arts, and since 2000, Jeri has been involved with Steven Spielberg's Shoah Foundation. She is also a member of the International Women's Forum.

Jeri is a person of deep personal conviction and strong family bonds. Without hesitation she proudly proclaims her mother as her heroine. When asked who inspires her, Jeri quickly names her son. As to the world leader she most admires, Jeri names Anwar Sadat.

It is, therefore, worth recalling a passage from the historic speech that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat delivered to the Knesset on November 20, 1977: ``I have come to you so that together we should build a durable peace based on justice to avoid the shedding of one single drop of blood by both sides. It is for this reason that I have proclaimed my readiness to go to the farthest comer of the earth.''

I ask every American to join me in congratulating Jeri Rice on the honor the Israel Policy Forum will bestow upon her. Her unwavering optimism reminds me of the affirmation contained in the Book of Ecclesiastes, ``To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.''

This is the time for peace in Israel and throughout the Mideast. People like Jeri Rice will do everything possible to make it so. We honor them. We thank them.

Mr. Speaker, I, like many, believe that the First Amendment is currently under attack. Yesterday I attended a forum titled ``Media Bias and the Future of Freedom of Press.'' I'd like to submit to the Record the statement that I distributed there yesterday, as well as the Freedom of Information request that I filed with the Department of Justice.

I'd like to call attention to an issue of extreme and

growing importance: an alarming trend in the dilution of

First Amendment rights regarding freedom of the press. Today

reporters are being compelled to reveal their confidential

sources--or else face jail time and/or stiff fines.

Prosecutors are insisting upon this and judges are backing up

their demands by ordering reporters to testify and provide

confidential information. This is turning the news media into

an investigative arm of the judicial system and a research

tool of the government--exactly the opposite of what it is

supposed to be. The increasing pressure on journalists will

most certainly lead to a decline in investigative reporting,

threatening freedom of press and the public's need, and

right, to know.

This trend is not just talk, although anecdotally, the past

few years document the greatest assault on source

confidentiality in the U.S. in decades. Hard evidence and

more specific statistics are being sought so that this issue

can be brought to the attention of the nation without room

for dispute. In fact, in an effort to uncover statistics that

the government is unwilling to disclose, I have just filed a

Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Department of

Justice, asking for access to and copies of records which

show the number of subpoenas requested, as well as the number

of subpoenas authorized, in order to obtain information from,

or about, members of the news media in the years 2001-2004. I

believe this information will prove that my concerns with the

First Amendment go farther than just anecdotes. As soon as I

obtain this information, I will release it to the public, as

I feel it will be very eye-opening.

The protection of freedom of the press is a central pillar

of our democracy, and sharing information with the public is

imperative in a nation with these strong democratic

traditions. Other countries are being sent the wrong message

when they look to us and see the precedents that we are

setting. For example, when Venezuelan officials were recently

criticized for adopting a restrictive new media law, they

immediately cited a ruling that sentenced a Rhode Island

journalist to six months house arrest for refusing to divulge

a source. As is evident from Venezuela, instances such as

these are bound to weaken freedom of press in other

countries, where reporters are already more frequently forced

to cooperate in government investigations. The last thing we

need is for international journalists to be questioning our

dedication to upholding free speech guaranteed in the U.S.

Constitution.

We must do something to remedy this situation that is

making honest journalism and true confidential sources a

thing of the past. The administration and judiciary should

exercise greater discretion in requiring reporters to reveal

their sources so that journalists and every American can

regain their confidence in the First Amendment's protection.

Mr. Chairman, Monday's Guardian's editorial line was, ``U.S. Military to Build Four Giant New Bases in Iraq.''

The violence in Iraq has never been greater. That is not what winning looks like to me.

The President's strategy is to re-create the Old West: Build four forts capable of withstanding mortar rounds. With the death toll and casualties mounting, the President's best idea is to keep U.S. soldiers in the midst of uncontrollable, horrific violence.

This administration has put this Nation and our generals in a no-win situation. We have been there before in Vietnam, and we vowed never to let it happen again. But this administration has frayed the military, keeping soldiers in the target zone without enough armor to protect them and without a plan to bring them home.

Colonel David Hackworth died about 2 weeks ago, a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, eight Purple Hearts, a soldier's soldier who recently died, said we will be in Iraq for 30 years, 30 years. Colonel Hackworth was a man who saw the battlefield and could see the folly of the Iraq war.

The American people know the truth. The President misled this country into war, and it is time to get out.

[From the Guardian, Monday, May 23, 2005]

U.S. Military To Build Four Giant New Bases in Iraq

(By Michael Howard in Baghdad)

U.S. military commanders are planning to pull back their

troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four

giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual

withdrawal.

The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also

foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases

that have been occupied by U.S.-led multinational forces

since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to invest in the bases, which will

require the construction of more permanent structures such as

blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign

that the U.S. expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

Politicians opposed to a long-term U.S. presence on Iraqi

soil questioned the plan.

``They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that

will only give fuel for the terrorists,'' said a spokesman

for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

A senior U.S. official in Baghdad said yesterday: ``It has

always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw

from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up

and able to take the strain. It is much better for all

concerned that Iraqis police themselves.''

Under the plan, for which the official said there was no

``hard-and-fast'' deadline, U.S. troops would gradually

concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from

where they would provide ``logistical support and quick

reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis''. The bases

would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the

country.

He said the place of the ``troop consolidation'' would be

dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of

Iraq's fledgling security structures.

A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases

would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure

supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable

locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad

in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.

U.S. officers told the paper that the bases would have a

more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings

and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in

Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand

direct mortar fire.

A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: ``We expect

these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the

domestic forces, to be handed over when the U.S. leaves.''

Three Romanian journalists kidnapped in Iraq were freed

yesterday after two months in captivity.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress are in danger of becoming as irrelevant to medicine as the use of leaches are to the cure of patients.

Last night the House took what some called a bold step to approve to thoughtful, modest bill to advance stem cell research to use science to alleviate pain and suffering and prolong life.

To its credit the House followed the guiding principle written thousands of years ago by Hippocrates, the father of medicine. ``I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.''

That statement was taken directly from the Hippocratic Oath that I and every other medical doctor swears to uphold. That is what we did last night. We took a small step on the path of hope last night but it will not go very far.

The President, bowing to the religious fanatics, has already declared he will veto the stem cell bill. Vowing allegiance to the right wing, the President will use the veto stamp to wash his hands of any hope that science can commute a sentence of debilitating pain and suffering, or even death, imposed on countless Americans.

Other nations are intent on living in the 21st century with or without the United States. Under this administration, we are more dependent than ever on countries to loan us money to keep the lights on under the Republican budget assault. Now the administration intends to make us more dependent than ever before on countries for advances in medicine and science.

We have great research scientists in this country, including the University of Washington. The President will tell them that his administration chooses the religious right over the human right to live your life without pain and suffering. For this, history will judge us equal to the political leadership last seen in the Dark Ages. Despite this, I believe that we are at the dawn of a new medical renaissance, and not even the extreme right wing in this country can stop it. The mass of Americans will stop it.

We have all known someone who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or Lou Gehrig's disease or diabetes or a spinal cord injury, and now we have hope that stem cell research can unlock the secrets to relieve suffering. We could get there faster if we renew our relevance as political leaders and support groundbreaking scientific and medical research, but we will get there.

Today, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of other Americans can barely afford health care and still others avoid going to the doctor because of copays or having to work a second or third job to make ends meet. More and more companies are forcing their workers to shoulder most, if not all, of the financial burden of obtaining health care. Health care costs in this country are soaring and there appears to be no end in sight.

This is health care in America today. But tomorrow it will be different.

Scientists have cracked the genetic code, taking the first steps to predicting serious illness and disease before a baby is born. Treatments will come before the baby is born. The day is coming when we will be able to predict and treat serious illness and disease before it strikes.

Traditional health insurance as we know it will end. We will have no alternative, but to have universal national coverage.

Today, we talk about prevention and we mean going to the doctor before we get sick. Tomorrow we will redefine prevention as curing what ails you before it ails you. The heroes and heroines are working in the research laboratories right now. People do not read about it in the newspapers or see it on television, but they are there and they are changing their world for the better. It will not come easy and it will not come quick, and in some cases, it will not come cheap.

I look ahead to see a world where we care enough about one another that we will vow as a nation to follow the oath I take as a doctor. Do everything in your power to alleviate pain and suffering.

We voted for hope in the House of Representatives last night. The President will try and take that away. But he cannot stop the spark of genius God gave to men and women of faith and science.

The American people may not have reason to believe in their national leaders, but they do have every reason to be proud of the men and women who use science, intellect and personal faith to save lives and end suffering.

Universal coverage is coming sooner than you think.

Mr. Speaker, while Europe and Singapore and California and Korea are moving forward in an effort to relieve human suffering, the United States Congress, 435 theologians, have gathered here to decide a values decision. We have no guidance. There was no in vitro fertilization or stem cell research when Jesus walked on the Earth. We are left to make the decision on our own.

The decision comes down to this: a man and woman come in to a physician. He presents some semen. She presents some eggs. They put them in a jar or they put them in a petri plate, and it becomes an embryo. They have several of them; so they use one. They put it in the mother. She has a baby. And there are a bunch left. Now what shall we do with those? Shall we throw them down the sink, wash them away, or shall we use them to help people who have terribly debilitating diseases? That is what this issue is about.

Like the last speaker, I am a physician. I have counseled people who were dying with Lou Gehrig's disease. To watch somebody drown in their own secretions, someone that you know and care about, and then come in here and say we are not going to look for a way to relieve that kind of agony, we will not worry about a 13-year-old kid who gets diabetes and has to give himself thousands and thousands of shots and loses the length of life that most of us expect because of that disease; we will say to them, well, Jesus wanted us to do this. I do not remember the Lord ever saying that. I do not ever remember his saying, I gave you a brain, you human beings. I do not want you to figure anything out. I do not want you to make it any better.

This is a perfectly good values judgment on which everybody should vote ``yes.''

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