Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. This is an auspicious night tonight. The President had a dinner downtown and raised $25 million from some of his closest friends. In the recent motion picture, in talking to them, he said, some people say you are the elite, but I say you are my base.

Well, we ought to talk about this man's base.

Mr. Speaker, since 1994, when the Republicans created a Contract With America and said that they would pull the Tax Code up by the roots and simplify it, this Tom DeLay Congress and its tax- writing committee have added another 10,000 pages, which the minority whip has already pointed out, and lowered taxes on the most affluent among us. Over

the past 3 years, the Congress has watched 1 million jobs disappear, and what has it done? Well, first the Congress passed out lavish tax breaks to the millionaires so that they could send more money to Wall Street. Second, the House of Representatives sent the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to Europe. While he was there, the Europeans said, because of the WTO's ruling, you Americans need to change your tax structure to make it easier for European products to compete with American ones. How did the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means respond? He told the Europeans he would like to help them out, but that they should impose tariffs on the American products first to get our attention. He thought that if they hit us, he could get something through the House.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the Europeans are imposing a 9 percent tariff on American products exported to Europe, our largest trading partner. These tariffs apply to some of our most sensitive products like agricultural goods that come from all across America, from Florida and from the Midwest. The Europeans are imposing tariffs on paper and wood products that come from the Pacific Northwest and from the American south. Just last month, to appease the Europeans, the House and Senate passed a bill to hike up taxes on U.S. companies who export American- made products to foreign markets. At the same time the House and Senate lowered taxes for U.S. companies that operate offshore.

And what do other Republican leaders have to say about this? Well, the chairman of the Committee on Rules came out here a few weeks ago and said he was happy that European tariffs were imposed, he was happy that this Congress was raising taxes on U.S. firms that operate in America, and he was happy that we were lowering taxes for U.S. firms that operate offshore. Check the Congressional Record, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues will find I am right. This is not hyperbole. I am not making this up. This man stood right over there and said it. This is the official Record as recorded by the House Clerk.

Mr. Speaker, our tax structure is one of the most competitive in the developed world. Our effective corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the developed world. Let me say that again. Our effective corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the developed world. Only 2 nations have lower effective tax rates than ours.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that we currently tax U.S. firms who operate overseas at a lower tax rate than those who operate on our own shore, the Republican Party has pushed through legislation in the House and Senate to again lower the tax rate that U.S. firms operating offshore will pay.

This country has lost 1 million jobs, and many of those were lost because they simply moved offshore. It is cheaper to operate over there. That is why they went, and the tax structure is set up so that it is cheaper for companies to move offshore and leave the American worker behind without a job.

The Republican Party's response to an increasingly connected global economy has been to make our Tax Code more complex and to lower taxes for U.S. companies that decide to move their operations offshore.

When is the Republican Congress going to do something right and something fair for the American people, Mr. Speaker? When is the Congress going to reform the Tax Code so U.S.-based firms are not put at a competitive disadvantage, compared to U.S. firms that move overseas?

Since the Republicans took control of the congressional tax-writing committee on which I sit, U.S. firms have moved overseas, Americans have lost their jobs, and we spend more time than ever trying to figure out our taxes, because of the 10,000 pages they have added.

Since the Republicans took control over the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Government finds itself in annual an $500 billion deficit. Now, that is real fiscal responsibility. We borrow nearly $500 billion every year from foreigners, from the Chinese, from the Saudis, from the Swiss. We are in hock to half the world.

Does the Republican Party expect to control the Congress based on this record over the last decade, Mr. Speaker? If they do not make some changes pretty quick, and those 2 silly bills they brought out here today did absolutely nothing to simplify; all they were was a piece of paper that said ``tax simplification'' across the top and the body of the text did nothing, nothing. There is not a single person in this country that will have an easier time on the 15th of next time because of the silly bills they passed out of here today.

Luckily, we only have 105 more days to suffer under these people. We are going to have a change when the Democrats take over this place.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland for bringing this issue up and bringing it out here. It is late at night, but it is an issue that affects every single American, and the American people ought to know that we are thinking about it and want to change it.

Mr. Speaker, if the U.S. economy is a racehorse, this administration has led the thoroughbred into a pool of wet concrete, and it is starting to set. The speed is slower and every stride is harder to take.

The U.S. economy is not some anonymous subject. It is millions of American people. What is the health of the U.S. economy? Take the pulse of the people to find out. Over 8 million Americans are without jobs. Over 43 million Americans are without health insurance. For those Americans who are working, wages are not even keeping up, much less moving ahead. The President has lost almost 2 million jobs during his watch, a feat not seen since the Depression. The drag Republicans have placed on the economy with massive budget deficits will be felt and paid for by future generations.

The American economy is a thoroughbred. It has not lost its heart but its stride is shorter and its breathing is more labored. America does not lack for heart or for innovation. America lacks leadership. It is a shortcoming we will remedy in 105 days.

Mr. Speaker, the name Buzz Aldrin is legendary in America's manned space flight program, but the name Buzz Lightyear may be better known today. ``To infinity and beyond,'' Buzz Lightyear calls out in the movie ``Toy Story'' and everyone smiled. Buzz Aldrin actually did it.

Thirty-five years ago today, Buzz Aldrin commanded the lunar module during man's first landing on the Moon. Buzz Aldrin followed Neil Armstrong onto the lunar surface. It was a defining moment in world history and the entire world stopped what it was doing to watch. If you were alive on that day, you know where you were, what you were doing, and how good it felt to be an American.

We were proud. The world was proud of us. For a few moments at least, the world was united. How we could use that today.

In part that is why this resolution is so important. It honors President John F. Kennedy for his vision and his leadership. JFK, not Captain Kirk, was the first to challenge us to go where no one had gone before. Kennedy inspired us to believe that we could do what was almost certainly impossible, and we did it.

This resolution honors the men and women of NASA. It honors Buzz Aldrin and every astronaut for their courage, sacrifice, and extraordinary service to this country and to humanity. I hope this resolution rekindles the spirit, enthusiasm, and hope embodied in a great moment for America and the world.

The world-renowned writer Arthur C. Clarke said, ``The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.'' In other words, to infinity and beyond.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the administration that lays claim to security. They have got it under control. They have got it covered. They know, so Americans should trust them and reward them with another 4 years.

Well, it sure does not look that way. It took an independent, bipartisan panel to uncover 3 years later the fact that many of the 9/ 11 terrorists had crossed Iran's border with the knowledge and approval of the Iranian Government.

Why did the administration not know this? They made claims about their leadership in the war on terror. The administration's word rings hollow in the light of the 9/11 Commission's revelations.

When it comes to the war on terror, this revelation demonstrates this administration does not know what it does not know, but they claim to be the leaders and they claim it now. Clearly, they do not. Three years after 9/11 occurred there is no excuse for them having to find out from the 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission, with nothing close to the resources the administration has at its disposal, was able to uncover that many of the hijackers passed through Iran. Why did the administration not know this?

What else do they not know? Why have 3 years gone by without an investigation into Iran? Why is that? What does this revelation mean about Iran? We do not know and neither does this administration.

How could this happen? Very simply. The administration's obsession with Iraq. It is that simple. The administration diverted attention, resources and global support away from Afghanistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden. This administration launched a war in Iraq on thinner evidence than what has been discovered about Iran and al Qaeda.

The President talked tough today. Is he signaling the start of another prewar campaign? That was the pattern in Iraq. Start the rhetoric out in the open and plan behind the closed doors.

Is that what is going on here? Considering the overwhelming U.S. military commitment in Iraq, the truth is, the United States has limited, if any, real ability to launch another significant military action while 160,000 troops remain in Iraq.

What does that mean? It means we are overextended for one thing. It means that diversion into Iraq diverted the war on terror. It means the President's decision to invade Iraq deprived us of the right to investigate Iran. We have lost invaluable time, measured in years, when this administration beat a drum beat that turned war rhetoric with Iraq into reality.

The 9/11 Commission has given us a glimpse of what we do not know. The rhetoric only goes so far. In the aftermath of the truth about Iraq, the administration's rhetoric is long on words but very short on credibility. That is not leading a war on terror.

Today, America strains under the weight and the consequences of a misguided war that substituted rhetoric for evidence. Today, America sees firsthand the consequences of a war that diverted us away from the real fight we have. Today, America is beginning to see what was overlooked, left behind or simply ignored in the administration's rush to judgment against Iraq.

Three years later, the consequences of the administration policy makes clear the real intelligence failure began not in the CIA but in the White House. Intelligence failure was not in the agencies. It was at the top, from the people who directed them. It should never have happened, and this administration will have to account with the America people in 105 days.

We cannot afford an administration that wastes 3 years on the investigation of a country with nuclear power and other issues.

Mr. Speaker, we know the President landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. We know there have been more casualties in Iraq after the President's declaration than before. We know that Iraq was a wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place. We know the justifications offered by the administration for war were either outright wrong or grossly misrepresented. We know that the work of the United Nations' weapons inspectors was finding the truth. We know Iraq did not pose a clear and present danger or an imminent threat to the United States. We know the President has led us into a blind, box canyon. We know we have diverted U.S. resources and international attention away from the hunt for the real terrorist. We need to remember that the war goes on. The U.S. casualties mount.

When the administration pulled out of Iraq, it left 160,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq in harm's way. Not a day goes by without more U.S. soldiers being killed or injured in combat. Is the world safer or more dangerous? Did we succeed in Iraq because the administration pulled out on time, or did we fail in Iraq by going there in the first place?

A new book, published by a 20-year national security veteran, bluntly concludes that Iraq was ``a bloody and unsuccessful tool.'' Worse yet, the book is another voice saying that the war in Iraq will nurture more terrorism around the world. The book, entitled Imperial Hubris, ought to be required reading by every American, regardless of political party. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the author, you reach one inescapable conclusion: It is time for America to seriously debate and define a national terrorism policy.

Today, America has the so-called PATRIOT Act, passed in the middle of the night, that endangers the very freedoms the President claims to be defending. Today, we have a useless, so-called terror alert system fixed in permanent threat mode, as if scaring Americans on a daily basis somehow comforts them. Today, resolutions are rushed through the Congress, as if a rush to judgment will somehow make us safer. Today, we have a constant stream of terror rhetoric from the administration that speaks in broad generalities.

Some way, someday, somehow, someplace, something bad is going to happen. We will not be surprised. What we need to know as a Nation is, what are we going to do about it? Osama bin Laden may be the face of the terror, but the arms, the legs, and the rest of the body is much more than one person, and the issues involved are much deeper than the daily dose of rhetoric out of the White House.

America must face the choice before us; that we can confront the roots of terrorism by listening to everyone involved, by looking at all sides of the story, and acting from one of America's founding principles: Equal justice for all.

The Middle East is a place that wobbles on the brink of madness. A war without borders is a war carried on by people from place to place. A war without borders is a war against an invisible enemy standing in plain sight. We can confront the roots of terrorism by debating their cause, our role, and the worlds's future.

The alternative is to accept a world where we imagine that bullets and bombs can win a war without soldiers, where guns will prevail on a battlefield no one can walk on because we are standing on it, and where U.S. casualties risk going unnoticed by the Nation because the media has moved on, even as the blood of our beloved ones continue to flow.

Today, 160,000 soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq. There is no end in sight, there is no homecoming anywhere soon. The bombs and the bullets and the madness are limitless, unless we choose to stop them. We best honor those who have fallen by resolving to face the consequences of war and by confronting the origins of terror. Words alone will not end the war on

terrorism, but words are the only way to stop.

The war on terrorism can be won: First, with a great national debate, followed by an honest and global dialogue with all the parties involved. Every day we delay is another day of bloodshed, another soldier dies, another casket comes home, another family buries their loved one, and it is another day further away from real peace and real judgment for all.

Mr. Speaker, the President has 106 days to begin this debate. If he fails, we will have a new president.

Mr. Speaker, I am a doctor and I have seen some prescriptions in my time that were the wrong medicine for the right illness. I am here to tell you that is exactly what the Republicans did with their prescription drug bill. The big drug companies got the overwhelming benefit, and the seniors get the underwhelming Republican rhetoric.

Well, there is a doctor in the House and Democrats are doing something about a Republican drug bill that needs steroids to help seniors and the disabled. Democrats are circulating what is called a ``discharge petition.''

I urge every citizen, Mr. Speaker, to write, call, cajole, pester, or otherwise demand that your elected representatives go on it.

This petition would require, require, the Federal Government to use its substantial clout and purchasing power to negotiate real discounts for seniors and disabled on prescription drugs. This is the right medicine for the right illness.

I am a doctor, and I do not play one on TV. Sign the petition. Give the seniors something they deserve: real benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing this issue before the House tonight. This is an issue that I spoke about this morning, and it seemed strange to me, as I was coming in here about to ask him for some time, to realize that his thinking and the thinking of the people who have been speaking are very much where my mind was.

I think it is probably where the American people actually are because, in my view, it is past time for America to have a national terrorism policy. The line between countries we call friend and foe is blurred. The distinction between peril and safety is just as vague here at home. America has too much at stake not to consider a national terrorism policy as a work in progress.

Civil liberties hang in the balance at home. Credibility is questioned in countries around the world. Military personnel are fighting and dying in one country today, but what about tomorrow? America is spending in excess of

$150 billion in a country that has more to do with errors in judgment than threats of terrorism against the United States.

The patchwork of actions and reactions about terrorism are long on rhetoric but stop well short of defining potential threats and responses or a philosophy to guide America. Questions need to be asked and answered, and that is why what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is doing tonight is so important.

The acting director of the CIA admits that a good case can be made for a new Cabinet-level Secretary to oversee all of the Nation's intelligence agencies, but the director thinks some changes in the CIA could accomplish just as much.

Now, in Washington, D.C., turf issues are big issues. Are the remarks by the acting director turf or analysis? When it comes to terrorism, the old ways of Washington, turf among them, must change.

The President took America to war in Iraq over alleged ties to terrorism, now proven incorrect. We learned just today that eight of the 9/11 hijackers passed back and forth through Iran before the attacks. We learned the Iranian government instructed border guards to let all al Qaeda pass. The CIA says there is no evidence of an official connection, but there is tacit approval, at a minimum. The same could have been said before Iraq, but that did not stop the President from going to war.

What does this new information mean about Iran? The President says he launched a preemptive war in Iraq. Well, will the President launch a post-emptive war against Iran? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iran is openly developing a nuclear capacity, claimed peaceful at this point, but outside the scope of objective knowledge and data. Is Iran next for U.S. military action? Why? Why not?

Given Iraq, would Congress write this President another blank check for anywhere else in the world? What about North Korea? There is a regime that is as oppressive as Saddam's. There is a country that bought weapons technology from our old friend or our new friend and our old nemesis Libya. There is a country where weapons are almost certainly not theoretical. Are we going into North Korea anytime soon? We are pulling our troops back in South Korea from the border. We are thinking about moving some of them to Iraq. What does that mean?

Today, Libya must be in line for, and I am not kidding about it, a football game. Mr. Qaddafi may have isolated himself economically for years, but he could still watch television. So, today, Qaddafi is trying to buy a British sports club, hoping that the English version of football will thaw the icy relations.

Then there is Pakistan. They were not at the top of our list until we needed a friendly Nation in the Middle East after the September 11 attacks. Now, Pakistan is a key ally. We have made them a non-European NATO ally. Is that good for Pakistan and the United States? If so, why? Is it a good thing for relationships between India and Pakistan and the United States? If it is, does this mean that the world is so interconnected that the notion of friend or enemy no longer applies?

After all, we remember the television networks have shown pictures of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld bringing greetings to Saddam Hussein, not that many years ago, in the administration of Bush I. He was a bad guy then, but Mr. Bush liked him, and I guess that was good enough for those days.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago he became a bad guy. We did not like him any more, and we all know what happened then. What is the distinction between Saddam Hussein in Bush I and in Bush II? He just gassed people in his own country in Bush I. America needs a better definition of policy than just expediency. American policy today is grounded in reaction, not philosophy.

There has been enough time since the tragedy of 9/11 for the President to articulate a terrorism policy for the Nation to debate, adopt and defend. All of us gave him some slack right after 9/11. Who would not want our President to have the power to deal with what he needed to deal with at the moment, but that is a long time ago.

We see nothing. We do not have a policy, and the headlines can prove it. We have a military stretched so thin that the President launched an undeclared draft to compel soldiers to return to active military duty. If officers did not resign their commission, the service can reach back 20 years to bring them in.

The New England Journal of Medicine just carried a study that 1 out of 5 people coming home is subject to psychological problems, post- traumatic stress disorder, depression, and other problems. We are suffering casualties. If we think out of 160,000 people, 1 out of 5 coming home, that is 30,000 people, never mind all of the people who have lost an arm or leg. Now we have psychological problems coming home as well.

Does America need a draft? The administration says no, or not until at least after the election. They say this ``no'' just after they have issued stop-loss orders to prevent soldiers from leaving active duty in Iraq. We have an indefinite military commitment in Iraq. But why, if we supposedly handed the country over to the Iraqis?

America lives in perpetual terrorism-alert status. Is there nothing to be gained other than a CYA for this policy? Who decided that we should be told to be very worried just after America was told not to worry any more that we were already worried? They are moving the fear back and forth and keeping the American people on edge, and that summarizes the administration's recent public statements on terror. It also symbolizes the lack of a coherent terrorism policy.

Today the administration basically says just trust us. Just trust us. America's response should be mine from the Reagan administration, ``Just Say No.'' We did trust, and that is how we got into Iraq. The safety and security of America is everyone's business. It should be debated in this House before the People's Body. Every district, every person in this country is represented on this floor. It should not be decided by one man. I think the average American knows that and knows what the administration has given us so far is not a policy but wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker, the President has 105 days to articulate the terror policy, what he is really trying to do. If he does not do that, we are going to have a new President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee amendment, and I want to talk about what this issue really means. The issue of whether or not we give the money for AIDS to the Global Fund or to the President's Millennium Account is a big decision. The Millennium Account is limited to 15 countries. The Global Fund deals the world over, including China, India and Russia, where the rates are going up at the fastest rates in the world.

So the question, first of all, is, do we want to reach the whole world or do we not? The President actually, unfortunately, I think, says good things but then in his allocations moves backward. He says he wants to reach the whole world but reduces the amount we are giving to the Global Fund.

Mr. Chairman, I include for printing in the Congressional Record two articles, one on the 14th of July and one on the 15th of July, because these issues talk about a second problem. It is really related to this country's policies of using only brand-name drugs and making it difficult to use generics. The first thing is, they say, ``Well, they're not safe.'' One of these articles is about the Doctors Without Borders experiments. They have dealt with 12,000 patients worldwide. The multiple drug dose generic works. There is no question about it. So all this business about running all the drugs through the FDA to see if they work is simply a stall. There is no question about what they are doing.

Why is the stall there? If one company owns one drug and another company owns another drug, you can put them together in a pill and give the patient one pill, and it is a lot easier to monitor when a patient is taking one pill that has two or three components in it. But the problem of the patents get in the way of Pfizer and Merck getting together, or Ayerst or whatever company it is, they cannot work out how they can put their two drugs together in one. Who gets the money? Or what is the price?

The generics that the Indians and the Brazilians are making are much less expensive. We could get much more bang for our buck if we would use generics, because we would not only be getting less costly drugs but we would be able to get it down to single pills. If you care about this, you want to give the money to the Global Fund because they can use generics. They do not have to run it through the complicated process of the United States.

[From the New York Times, July 15, 2004]

Fixed-Dose Mixtures of Generic AIDS Drugs Prove Effective

(By Lawrence K. Altman)

Bangkok, July 14.--The first large-scale study of AIDS

patients receiving fixed-dose combinations of generic

antiretroviral drugs in poor countries documented their

effectiveness, scientists reported at the 15th International

AIDS Conference here on Wednesday.

The combinations consist of three antiretroviral drugs

formulated into one pill that is taken twice a day. The aim

is to simplify therapy because experience has shown that the

fewer the pills a patient needs to take, the better the

compliance.

Doctors Without Borders, the group that carried out the

study in 21 countries, bought the pills from two

manufacturers in India, Cipla and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Fixed-dose generic drug combinations have been

controversial. Critics contend that they may be less

effective than patented versions and not as safe.

This study expands on a much smaller study with similar

results published in the Lancet early this month.

The findings from Doctors Without Borders should assure

patients, donors, health workers, governments and others,

said Dr. Alexandra Calmy, an AIDS adviser to Doctors Without

Borders in Geneva.

When Doctors Without Borders began prescribing the fixed-

dose combinations in 2002, ``we were convinced they would

work or we would not have done it,'' said Dr. Calmy, who

specializes in infectious diseases. ``It was common sense.''

But to make certain, her group undertook the study reported

Wednesday.

``We found a very robust outcome, and the findings are

important for the Global Fund and other groups that are

recommending'' use of generic fixed dose combinations of

antiretroviral drugs, Dr. Calmy said in an interview.

The combination that Doctors Without Borders uses for

first-line therapy is the same one recommended by the World

Health Organization, drugs known as stavudine, lamivudine,

3TC and nevirapine.

Of the 12,058 adults that Doctors Without Borders has

treated with antiretroviral drugs in 21 countries in Africa,

Central America and Asia since 2002, 6,861 received fixed-

dose combinations. Since March, 80 percent of the group's new

AIDS patients have received fixed-dose combinations.

Among the fixed-dose combination recipients, the

probability of survival after one year was calculated as 82.4

percent, Dr. Calmy reported. About 60 percent of the

deaths occurred in the first three months of therapy. The

deaths occurred largely among patients who were so ill

that they began the antiretroviral therapy too late to

protect them from the infections that often kill patients

as a complication of AIDS.

Among the 6,861 fixed-dose combination recipients, there

was a significant increase in the number of immune cells,

known as CD-4 cells, that are destroyed by H.I.V., the virus

that causes AIDS. The CD-4 count rose by an average of 137

cells in a year, in about half the patients.

Because of logistical difficulties in treating patients in

slums and rural areas in countries like Malawi with poor

roads and transportation, Doctors Without Borders does not

routinely monitor each patient with the tests that measure

the amount of virus in the blood. Doctors in developed

countries

routinely use such tests, known as viral loads, to determine

the effectiveness of therapy.

However, a viral load test in a subset of patients showed

that fixed-dose combinations failed in 12 percent of the 477

tested, which is comparable to findings in developed

countries, Dr. Calmy said.

Among the 6,861 patients who had been on treatment for one

year or longer, 51 had to switch to other drugs because they

had suffered side effects to one or more of the drugs in the

fixed-dose combination. For those who had taken a new

regimen, the number of pills was 13 or more a day.

Nevirapine was the most common cause of the unwanted

effects. Of the 51 who suffered reactions such as rashes and

liver damage, 23 changed to other regimens. An additional

nine patients switched to other drugs because they suffered

nerve damage and disfiguring accumulations of fat on the

neck, back and abdomen.

The frequency of adverse reactions was comparable to that

observed among recipients of patented drugs in developed

countries, Dr. Calmy said.

In a separate part of the study conducted in Malawi, Dr.

Arno Jeannin's Doctors Without Borders team randomly tested

the amount of H.I.V. in the blood of 477 patients who had

received fixed-dose combinations there for six months or

longer. Of these, H.I.V. could not be detected in 85 percent,

showing the overall effectiveness of the fixed-dose

combinations.

The annual cost of the fixed-dose combinations was $389 or

less.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, in London yesterday Prime Minister Tony Blair did something that leaders do. Speaking to the House of Commons, Mr. Blair said, ``I accept full responsibility for the way the issue was presented and, therefore, for any errors made.''

Leaders lead, and leaders know the buck stops with them. Leaders lead, and leaders accept responsibility when things go wrong.

An independent report in England blamed its intelligence community for massive intelligence failures before the Iraq war. What did Tony Blair do? The Prime Minister got up in front of his nation and the world and accepted personal responsibility.

That did not happen when a similar report was released to the United States. The President did not accept responsibility. The President assigned blame.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy accepted full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It did not matter that the planning for the Bay of Pigs had started in the Eisenhower administration. It did not matter that the intelligence failures directly led to the foreign policy disaster that was the Bay of Pigs. President Kennedy stood before the Nation and the world and accepted personal responsibility.

At one news conference not long afterward, President Kennedy used his legendary wit and intelligence to sum it up. ``There is an old saying,'' Kennedy said, ``that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.''

The buck stops at the President's desk, except in this administration. Since the release of the U.S. report on pre-Iraqi intelligence failures, this President has done everything possible to pass the buck.

During the administration of President Ronald Reagan, the Iran-Contra scandal was a crisis that shook the Nation to its core and the White House to its foundation. President Reagan was given ample opportunity to assign the blame to Oliver North. What did Ronald Reagan do? When asked directly about Mr. North, Ronald Reagan said, ``I do not feel betrayed. He has a fine record.''

Leaders lead. Whatever your politics, you have to acknowledge that President Reagan was a leader. When our country faces a crisis, people look to the President for leadership.

Not long ago, America faced a moral crisis. America faced an ethical crisis. America faced a military and political crisis. When pictures of prison abuse stunned the world, the world looked to America, to our President, for a response. The President did not stand up and accept responsibility.

Outside the White House and then in an interview broadcast throughout the Middle East, the President did not or could not or would not tell the world he accepts responsibilities for the failures of the Americans under his command. He could not utter the words that the world needed to hear and that Americans needed to say.

Over the last half century, Presidents from both political parties have braved grave crises. They did what leaders do. They did not pass the buck. They stood and accepted responsibility, until now.

In little over 110 days, the American people will elect a new President, and leadership is fundamental to that choice.

The British historian Arnold Toynbee once said, ``As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is up to us.''

Martin Luther King Junior once said, ``The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.''

In just over 110 days, this Nation will make the most important political decision of the next 4 years. Democrats and Republicans will argue issues, and that is expected, but fundamental to the selection of the person who leads the free world for the next 4 years is the quality of leadership. Leadership is more than a commercial or a campaign brochure. Leadership is one of the most important qualities the President must have. There is a record of what America expects and what Americans demand of their President. Leadership is at the top of the list.

The President had to be taken out twice from the White House to finally say that he was sorry for what had happened to the Arab prisoners that were held in Iraq. You have to ask yourself, does this President believe that the requirement of his job is to accept the responsibility, Mr. Speaker? Because he has not shown it yet. He never has said, ``I accept responsibility.''

One hundred and ten more days, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the coming months, we are going to hear a lot of talk from our Republican friends about an economic recovery. No doubt they will use statistics to claim that the President's economic policies are working, but do not go telling that to the middle-class families in my district about a recovery, because they have not seen one.

Since the President was inaugurated, America has lost 1.8 million jobs in the private sector. Mr. Bush is in a race with Mr. Hoover to have the worst administration in this last century.

Most of the few new jobs we are creating pay lower wages than the national average, most come without health care benefits, and yet the President still maintains his economic policies, cutting taxes for the wealthy and outsourcing jobs, are the way of solving the problems.

The American people know better. The President can say things are looking up. He can repeat that line over and over and over and over again, but he cannot hide the truth. The economy is still in trouble.

Fortunately, in 111 days, the Americans will get a chance to let the President know about how they feel about his economic recovery. When they do, the President will be packing his bags and heading back to Texas. November 2 is coming, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives considers the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement (USAFTA). I support this trade initiative, because it's good for America and good for the people of Washington State in a number of important ways.

First, Australia is an important ally of the U.S. in an increasingly unstable world. Many Australian troops fought side-by-side American soldiers in the Vietnam War, in Afghanistan, and are providing resources to Americans in a part of the world where we increasingly need them.

Second, Australia has a long history of importing many American products--from agricultural goods grown in Washington, like apples and wheat, to products manufactured in

Washington, like electronics and airplanes. We enjoy a sizable trade surplus with Australia and since this agreement commits Australia to immediately remove tariffs on nearly every U.S. export to Australia, it will instantly provide further market access for products that come from the United States. In addition, Australia invests significantly in the United States, directly employing thousands and thousands of American jobs.

Third, Australia exports many products that Americans enjoy--like fine wines and many agricultural products. Since this agreement requires the U.S. to remove many of our tariffs on Australian goods, they immediately become more affordable to American consumers.

Although I support this agreement, I remain deeply concerned about the direction that the Bush Administration is taking this country, particularly with regard to our economy and our trade policy, which profoundly affects the ability of our country to maintain and create good paying jobs.

America's best export has always been the democratic values that we hold dear. While capitalism and open markets may boost trade flows, democratic values must also be a centerpiece of U.S. trade policy. Regretfully, this agreement continues to embody a short-sighted approach toward international trade that the Bush Administration has employed for the last 4 years. The USAFTA fails to lock in international labor and environment standards. It only requires the United States and Australia to continue to enforce their own labor and environment laws. This approach, if employed in future trade agreements with less developed countries, would do little to raise living standards in countries whose labor and environmental laws do not meet international standards. Furthermore, this approach would force American workers to compete on an uneven playing field. I do not think that is a direction that our country should go.

Today, however, the Congress considered liberalizing trade with Australia, a country that has well-developed labor and environmental laws, and a good track record for enforcing these laws, so I will not let Perfect be the enemy of Good. Our international assistance and trade programs should aim to raise living conditions here and abroad. Ultimately, I believe that the USAFTA advances these interests.

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a one-sided story. From the first day I came to the House of Representatives in 1989, and until my last day in this Chamber, I have been and will continue to be a staunch defender of Israel.

I wholeheartedly and unequivocally believe in Israel's right to exist, and the fundamental human right for the Jewish people to live in peace and without fear.

Hundreds of times in this House, I have backed my words with deeds on behalf of Israel: Recognizing the founding of Israel; commending the people of Israel for conducting free and fair elections; condemning terrorism against Israel; approving funds for Israel's security; embracing efforts to achieve peace; promoting Israel's economic growth and development around the world; ensuring Israel has access to stable oil supplies; demanding real counterterrorism efforts by other Mideast nations; and, most importantly, promoting peace in our time, for all time.

Let no one say, let no one think, that Jim McDermott is not a friend of Israel. I am a true friend of Israel and that is why I offer these remarks. A true friend tells the truth as he sees it, because that's what is in the best interest of your friend.

The House has before it a resolution neither requested by the Government of Israel nor by the people of Israel.

It is a resolution that will not promote peace, or dialog, in the region. It is a resolution that risks undermining the already painfully difficult process--and the hope--of achieving peace.

There are times when the House of Representatives can advance the cause for peace, or stir the world on a matter that knows no geographic border. HIV/AIDS is such a matter. This is not one of those times.

The Bible says there is a time for every thing under heaven. We can hope this is the time for peace. We can work to make this the time for peace.

We can hurt the cause for peace by passing a resolution that would seem to place the world on one side, and Israel and the United States on the other. A political wall divides just as much as a stonewall or an iron fence.

In light of a ruling by the World Court, Israel can change the path of the wall it is building. The issues involved are complex, from land to water, from borders to principles.

The legal issues involved are inseparable from the emotionally charged, and unresolved, debate over homeland, security, peace, and the future of a Palestinian State.

Although delicate and fragile, there is at least a process underway to try to resolve the issues the wall raises. The resolution in the House today could endanger the process. That's not a risk worth taking for the purpose of recording an opinion that no one asked for.

The world knows full well the United States considers Israel a close and important ally.

I believe we support Israel best by keeping the focus on the process that someday soon could tear down all the walls that separate Israel and Palestine.

Mr. Speaker, the President keeps telling America that his administration is good for the economy. I have to admit under this administration one sector is booming. In fact, booming may not be a strong enough descriptor. Stellar, bottomless, and gusher could easily describe the runaway growth in the need and use of political campaign commercials by the administration's campaign.

They are awash in cold, hard cash, and they are spending it as fast as they can get it in. They are spending more on airing a 30-second commercial than the network spends on making a 30-minute hit show. Talk about a growth industry.

The networks have brought us reality TV, but this administration has brought us fiction TV. After 30 seconds one would swear the moon is made of Swiss cheese and the U.S. economy is too good to be true. Remember what our mothers taught us, if it is too good to be true, it is not true.

Every time a new spot runs extolling the virtues of the administration, keep these numbers handy because the administration will not be talking about them: Since the President took office the stock market is down. Yes, down. Forget the slight-of-mouth they are attempting, look the numbers up. The Dow Jones industrial average is lower than when the President came in. 4 years later they have negative growth in the stock market. Is that the kind of economy America wants?

If one is saving for their retirement, they have just experienced 4 years of net loss. If one is living on a fixed income, their nest egg has 4 years of constant financial assault. If one is a tech buff, the same is true about the NASDAQ, 4 years later it is significantly lower than when he came in. Is that the kind of economy that is good for America? Four years later the money is worth less, lots less.

So the administration uses special effects in its commercials to make it seem like Americans are better off. The smoke and mirrors might cloud the truth, but the smoke is only good for 30 seconds and then reality takes over.

If the administration wants to take credit, and they say they do, then they have to take credit for the U.S. stock markets that are lower than when they came in. The stock markets tell the story about the U.S. economy under the stewardship of this administration.

This can be summed up this way: The privileged few became the beneficiaries of the administration's use of our tax money. Do not let their commercials trick my colleagues into thinking anything else. Millionaires got a cool extra $100,000 from this administration's tax cuts. Go look at your own 1040 and do the math. What did you get? The average is about $700. The administration gave the rich about $10,000 per month and the rest of America got 60 bucks a month. That is a lot of zeros. That is a lot of smoke and mirrors to cover that up.

Now the administration claims we never look at what has been going on. So let us be fair. When the President took office, the Nation's unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. Today's unemployment rate is 30 percent higher than it was when the President took office. That is the record. But one will not find it in any commercial that this administration is showing.

Millions of Americans are without jobs. I cannot call that economic growth. I call it a real life crisis for people when they cannot find a job and the administration is unwilling to help. Unemployment is 30 percent higher today than when the President took office. This administration has 2 million jobs less than when they took office. That record is only surpassed by the great Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression.

Now, there is a commercial for you. The administration would need a lot of extra smoke to cover that up. The administration's economic policies have their closest comparison with the Great Depression. These are the facts. One might say this is reality TV just in case all those fictional accounts of the U.S. economy under the administration have one confused.

With the amount of smoke the American administration is using, it is no wonder the level of pollution across America is higher than ever. America is choking from pollution caused by their fictional TV adds. They have got 112 more days and it is over.