Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the last speaker the weapons of mass destruction are in the minds of the administration.

If anyone needs a reason to send this administration packing, here it is: the President has announced the biggest land grab in U.S. history. The beneficiaries are the big timber companies. The victims are our national forests and the American people.

The President has proposed new rules that would declare open season for big timber companies to log 58 million acres of our most precious wilderness areas and our most precious national forests. Roads to nowhere will scar the land forever. It will turn old growth into board feet, two by fours.

Unless we act, this administration will repeal the last protection of our wilderness areas.

Our only hope is for a new administration that can prevent this environmental disaster from happening.

We have 112 days before we get rid of the biggest national disaster we have ever had, the President and his environmental policies.

Mr. Chairman, there are two bases on which to go for this amendment. One is the economic one, and one is the health one.

You heard my colleague from Maryland give all the reasons on the health side, but if you look at the simple facts out of the Department of Agriculture, the price supports presently for the tobacco quota system gives the highest yield per acre, $3,855 per acre in the year 2002. Now, that compares to corn at $312 an acre, $215 for soybeans and $95 an acre for wheat.

This is not an industry that is dying. If this money were going to the little farmers, that would be one thing. But if you look at the distribution, the way this money is going out, it goes to the big people, who also get a break in their taxes if they sell overseas. So what they are going to get out of this is cheaper production costs and cheaper taxes overseas.

And what do the American people get? Nothing. We get no regulation from FDA, we get no protection for our children, and it costs us $9.6 billion.

Vote for the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week had barely begun before three more U.S. soldiers died in Iraq. The U.S. casualties keep mounting and that is a tragedy, but this administration remains silent on a coming travesty in Iraq.

The President's appointed interim Iraqi government is preparing to offer amnesty to Iraqi insurgents, amnesty to the very people who are killing and wounding U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Our soldiers remain on patrol in the most dangerous place on Earth; and the snipers, bombers, and militants are about to be offered amnesty. What in the world is going on in this administration? Is this what the administration calls the road to peace? What is the President going to tell the families of every U.S. soldier killed or wounded in combat? What is the President going to tell the U.S. people?

The interim Iraqi government was created by the U.S. administration, make no mistake about that, so no one should think that this policy was not put in place without the express approval of the White House.

Now, Iraq says it is in their national interest to offer amnesty to the very insurgents U.S. soldiers have been battling day by day. This administration had no reason to start a war with Iraq. This administration had no plan to prosecute the war with Iraq, and now this administration demonstrates it has no plan to end the war in Iraq. What do we say to the dead? What do we say to the families of those who died? What do we say to the soldiers injured by roadside bombs and mortar attacks and snipers?

Is this the President's exit strategy in Iraq? 160,000 soldiers remain in harm's way in a country that is about to offer amnesty to the people who are attacking them. If the interim Iraq government can offer amnesty, why can the U.S. not offer every U.S. soldier the option to leave? If Iraq's insurgents are offered freedom, why are U.S. soldiers not offered the freedom to choose whether they stay?

Why will the people shooting at U.S. soldiers get special treatment while our soldiers get stop loss orders, forcing thousands of them to remain in harm's way. What in the world is going on in Iraq? We have to be brave enough to accept our people and embrace all Iraqis. That is a direct quote from Iraq's interim President, Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar.

So much for the U.S. being seen as a great liberator. Even the interim government sees the U.S. as an occupier. So in their view it is okay to cut a deal with the insurgents. It is a statement about the instability of the entire country and the inability of the government to do anything about it. It is the most glaring statement yet that the administration was completely wrong in its need to go to war and unequivocally wrong with the consequences of post-war Iraq.

There have been more U.S. casualties since the President's declaration of ``mission accomplished'' than during all the major combat operations. Now the world has become even more dangerous and no amount of denial will alter the images of the Iraq prison.

Why talk about this shame again? Because it is entirely possible that this administration continues to ignore the most fundamental international protection for every prisoner. Abu Ghraib showed the world that the Geneva Convention was something the administration left out of the Iraq war plan. After those revelations, the administration made sweeping statements about their support of the Geneva Convention. Yet just today, the International Red Cross said it fears this administration is secretly holding more prisoners around the world.

Quoting a Red Cross spokesperson, ``Some of these people who have been reported to be arrested never showed up in any of the places of detention run by the U.S. where we visit.''

How bad does it get before the administration follows international law? Who does the administration think benefits from its failures to protect prisoners and follow international law? The International Red Cross tried to work behind the scenes before the Abu Ghraib scandal. The administration ignored them. The Red Cross tried to act as a catalyst for positive change in the wake of the scandals. Today's news makes clear the administration still believes it can flaunt international law. There can be no peace without justice, Mr. President, not in Iraq or anywhere else.

Justice begins by treating prisoners we capture in the same way, with the same rights that we would expect to be extended to an American. Justice delayed is justice denied. Act now before another day goes by. Give the International Red Cross unrestricted access to every secret U.S. location where prisoners are being held. Prove once and for all that America stands for human rights and justice. Let the Red Cross see and the world know if America is true to its words. Let the Red

Cross see and the world know if the prisoner abuses have stopped.

Do not tell the world the administration supports the Geneva Convention. Do it by following the Geneva Convention. One call, Mr. Speaker, is all it would take for the President to let the Red Cross in and the world know. Our soldiers deserve nothing less. Our Nation demands nothing more than the truth.

We only have 112 days left of this administration, but that is a long time if you are serving in Iraq under a stop loss order. The President has got to act to protect our people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I think it is really commendable that the gentleman would get up here at this hour of the night and call this group together to talk about the President and Vice President of the United States.

You know, you think about him, and you realize this man is one heartbeat away from the Presidency. If something should happen to George Bush, he would be our President.

The legendary comedian George Carlin made famous the seven no-no words, and the Vice President has already used one in an exchange with one of his colleagues in the other body. Just picture the situation. Here are Members of the other body getting together for a group picture, kind of like college graduation or a wedding picture or whatever.

In the middle of that, there is an exchange of ideas about the fact that one Member of the other body did not think that the Vice President was being straightforward about the Halliburton issue. And the Vice President of the United States, now, this man is the man we are thinking about would be the next in line to deal with the world leaders, with the prime minister of Germany, with the prime minister of England, with all these people, and the only word that he can think of is a word that, when Bono said it on television at the Academy Awards, all the roof fell down. I mean, everybody was just outraged that this guy would be out on television using a four-letter word.

The Vice President does not even apologize. He says ``I am glad I used it. I would use it again.''

Obviously, there are different standards for people like Bono and the Vice President of the United States; he can do anything he wants, I guess. And he really has shown that characteristic through his whole behavior. It would really be good if he would come out and be honest and talk about the fact that he has been part of the deception that has gone on in this setting.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Ohio is a psychologist, and I am a psychiatrist, and we know a little bit about human behavior, and it is true, we have occasionally gone beyond where we intended to be. But there is a pattern with the Vice President. He is never wrong. He is never wrong.

Now, the 9-11 Commission came out and said that there is no tie between al Qaeda and Iraq, and the Vice President said, I have information here that I never gave them. So they said, well, give us the information. And he said, no, I am right, because I know what I have in my information here. I mean there is a pattern of behavior here that says, when I say something, it is right, and nobody can change it, nobody can challenge it.

The same is true with holding the meetings in his White House office. I mean when we have all, all the leadership, including Ken Lay, I mean this is the guy that took Enron into the ground and put enormous costs on people all over the west in this country because of the manipulation of what they did; when you have those people in your office and you have a meeting to design the energy policy for the United States and then do not even think you have to tell us who was there, much less what you talked about or what was decided. And then you have the gull to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Oh, and of course, in order not to have there be any slippage, we will go hunting with one of the members of the Supreme Court, just so that they have a chance over a bottle of beer or, excuse me, a cup of coffee, to talk about what is coming up before the court. This man is never wrong. He is never wrong.

Now, he dismisses it all as just simply people who are unpatriotic or partisan; he has a whole series of things that he brands on people who question him. He cannot be questioned. I cannot wait for the debate between the Vice President and John Edwards, a trial attorney. I think this is going to be fun, because even members of his own party have to stand by while he distorts the truth, and I think that he is going to be called to account, to some accountability in the debate which occurs, I think in Cincinnati or Cleveland in Ohio, is that right?

I mean, when we see what the State Department has done, and they tried, and I think Colin Powell actually made a genuine effort to tell the President what was what about Iraq. But the Vice President of the United States saw fit to go out to Langley, that is where the CIA is, out in Langley, Virginia, to go out there 5 times to tell them, look harder at that data. You are not coming up with the right answer.

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things the gentleman is saying gets to one of the things that is really troublesome about this. The American people do not know at a given time what the facts are. They assume that the President, that is his responsibility to do it. He is gathering information, he is gathering intelligence, he is making reasonable decisions. And basically, we put our trust in him.

Now, when you put your trust in someone, and then it is shown categorically that it is not true, as by the 9-11 Commission, you have a man who cannot accept reality. I mean the members on the Commission, they were not all Democrats, it was not all Republicans, it was not people who are far to the right or far to the left or anything else; it was a mixture of very well-qualified people to sit in judgment on these issues. And when they make a judgment and the Vice President says I do not believe it, I simply do not, how could somebody like that make decisions for us?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the Vice President, not only on war issues, big issues, but let us get down to little issues like millions of dollars that he gets in residual payments from Halliburton. Here is a guy who says, I have no connection to those people. Yet the newspapers report that his assistant is there when they give the contract, the no-bid contract to Halliburton. Now, the ability to look into the camera and absolutely misrepresent the truth is a real skill. This guy is very qualified at this. I mean the facts are in the newspapers.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The question of what is in the paper, I suppose, is always a question of whether that is the truth or not, but the truth sometimes categorically is in opposition to what the Vice President says.

Now, of course, the people have to make their mind up about that. They can say, well, you know, we do not think he is telling the truth, or they can say well, maybe he forgot, but I do not know how you would forget that you were getting millions of dollars in residual payments from Halliburton. I do not know how one would say they forgot that one of your aids, your number one guy is the guy who was there explaining that they got the new contract. People will see that and, I think when they think about that, and they come into this election and then they say, do I trust him to take care of us? If the Cuban missile crisis came, would you want somebody who cannot accept reality?

One of the things that John Kennedy did, one of the really important things for us to understand is, he got us into the Bay of Pigs and when they confronted him with it, he said, the buck stops here. I was wrong. When it came to the Cuban missile crisis, he said to Bobby, go out and get everybody on both sides of this issue, on all sides of this issue. I want to hear people who are telling me that I am right, people who are telling me that I am wrong; I want to hear the whole thing. Now a man who knows it himself what the answer is, has the information in his own pocket here, and does not share it with the 9-11 Commission, that does not sound like the kind of person one would want to trust with our youngsters.

I mean I had the experience during the Vietnam war of taking care of casualties, and I took care of casualties who were people who went to Vietnam believing something because they were told by their President, and they went there and found out it was not true.

And they came back really messed up by that experience, and you have had a report already coming out of the New England Journal of Medicine talking about the fact that 1 in 5 are going to come back from this war, because the leadership of this country would not tell them what really was happening, they are going to be messed up from this, and this President, this vice president, he just does not seem to be bothered by that. It is quite amazing when you think about it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

We have read those stories. Can we think of any explanation for why the vice president would say that he has no contact with this in the face of that e-mail?

May I take a minute to make a recommendation to my colleagues and anybody watching, there is a book called ``The Imperial Hubris.'' It is written by anonymous. That means this is somebody who worked for CIA for a number of years and they are not allowed to put their name on here, but the subtitle is ``Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.''

What we are talking about tonight is the character of the leadership of Mr. Cheney is clearly related to why we are having so much difficulty in Iraq. They will not listen to people. They give private contracts to the private industries and say, you guys do all of this stuff, and their friends are making money hand over fist, and yet our kids are dying over there.

Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress a number of years ago, I served on the OTA with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and the bipartisan group that made the decisions. There were four Democrats, four Republicans from the Senate and the House. It was not a partisan committee. It was a committee set up to give us good advice.

A decision was made in 1994 to disband that, and we have since that point been really operating more on ideology I think sometimes than on real scientific bases. We need that. We appropriate billions of dollars on issues like treatment of AIDS and what are appropriate kinds of energy questions, and we have no knowledge except for the prejudices of one or another Member about what it is. It is very helpful to have a nonpartisan group to whom we can hand that problem to and say look, at this issue, tell us where we can make the best decisions.

And I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for doing this. I think that we need it, and it is time that we get back on a scientific footing in this Congress.

Virtually every issue facing America today has roots in science and technology.

From battling terrorism, to alternative fuels, from fighting HIV/ AIDS, to stem cell research, not a day goes by that we don't rely on science and technology.

Yet, virtually every day, critical decisions involving science and technology are being made using a hodge-podge of data and opinion from well-intended groups. They often lack the resources and scientific expertise to provide the in-depth analysis we need.

There's nothing wrong with opinion, but it is not a substitute for empirical data and analysis.

We've got too much at stake as a nation to let things continue this way.

Congress needs credible data. The nation needs confidence that we are making decisions based on evidence and not conjecture.

Today the General Accounting Office provides independent, bi-partisan reports to Congress.

It's time science and technology gets the same level of attention.

The GAO is a great working model, so let's use it as the home for a Center for Science and Technical Assessment.

We can't hope we get it right when we make a decision.

There's far too much at stake to do anything but recognize we have a problem and a solution is at hand.

Madam Speaker, elections, not fear, make America strong.

I just returned this afternoon from my district. All last weekend, everywhere I went in Seattle people kept asking me the same question, are they really going to take away our election? Now, I did not go to the secret briefing that they had last week. It is my practice and my policy not to go to secret briefings.

The day after the briefing, however, there was a stunning administration press conference revealing that the Department of Homeland Security thinks we should all be more afraid but that things are not bad enough to raise the terror alert level from yellow, and we should all be vigilant, but not about anything specific.

Now, that secret meeting that they had the day before had everybody's mouth zipped shut in this place. Then they go out on the street and say what they told us not to talk about; and, by the way, we need to figure out how to legally delay the election, just in case. That was the bottom line, what they were talking about. The homeland security spokesman referred to this as an effort ``to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election.'' Please, folks, could we not at least avoid the Orwellian language?

Now we have got the people flooded with fear, and the conspiracy theorists are having a field day. It is everywhere, in all the clips today in the paper, everywhere all across the country just

what was going on in my district. I did not know where it came from, but when I got back to Washington and read what was going on nationwide, it is everywhere.

How does this contribute to our national security? How does it do anything except keep everybody off balance and crazy?

This ratcheting up the level of alarm is always followed by a pause though there is no change in the evidence or lack of evidence of a terrorists' ill-intentions and the relaxation of the tension is always followed by another call to fear.

There really are people out in the world who want to hurt us. Let us direct our attention to them. Let us work on the problem, instead of working on the nerves of the American people.

I do not want to anticipate that the Department of Homeland Security is going to fail. I want the Department to do everything possible to make us and our elections safe.

So I have some advice for the Department of Homeland Security, Madam Speaker. Stick to your knitting; try to keep the homeland secure; analyze the chatter; do not chatter yourself; do not add to the noise; do your job; do not stir up fear.

We are a vast and strong Nation. For the people in our government to be saying that if there is a terrorist event we will get rid of the election, excuse me? They do not do that in India. They do not do that in Germany. They do not do that in any country. You are acting like one event somewhere in this country is going to give the President the right to call off the election. Absolutely nonsense.

We got through the British burning the White House and the Capitol, this very building was burned to the ground in the War of 1812, without suspending an election. We got through the Civil War without suspending an election. You can go downstairs and see pictures of troops bivouacked on the campus of the Capitol, but we had an election in 1864. Some people thought it should be delayed, but it went right ahead. In a democracy you do not have to be afraid, and we will get through the election of 2004.

The Presidents who made these decisions to go ahead with the election, despite threats, were fighting ground wars right here in D.C. and in its suburbs, not 8,000 miles away. They had it right on their doorstep, but President Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, and President Lincoln, who saved the Union, believed in this country and in its people. They believed that people would persevere and prevail, and that is what I believe.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the Members of this body and our administration to repudiate this fear mongering, the rumor generating, the chatter about delaying our elections. What kind of nonsense is that for the leadership in this country to be even talking about? It insults our intelligence. It distracts us. It harms our country. It is ill- befitting of this American democracy that we are all so proud of.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress voted to restore civil liberties yesterday, and then the Republican Party stole the election. Again.

In America, you get to vote once, but not in a Republican America. In Republican America, they vote again and again and again and again until the Republicans get the preordained outcome the administration decrees. That is what happened yesterday in this Chamber.

The House has gotten to the point where the U.N. will have to send election monitors to ensure the votes are not rigged in the elections on November 2.

The vote was rigged yesterday. Today, they can spy on your private lives. Today, they can see what you read, what you watch, and play with your mind about what you are thinking. Today, they say America is safer because everybody is afraid. America is only more vulnerable and less free.

Yesterday's vote was not about anything but controlling the American people's freedom to read and dissent. This administration wants to end dissent. They want no one to say anything about anything they do whether it is in a prison at Abu Ghraib or giving contracts to Halliburton or anything. That is what yesterday was about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question in order to consider the McGovern amendment, and I do so because I think the question before this House really is under what set of rules are we operating?

We say we have the Jefferson book, and we bring it out here and it is a foot thick, of all the rules this place runs under. But the leadership on the other side operates on another set of rules called the King George II rules. Those rules have made it possible for the President of the United States to serve for 3\1/2\ years without using his veto pen on one single occasion.

The White House sends down the message to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and says this is what I want, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says yes, sir, and comes out on the floor, and if it is not coming out that way, we switch from the House rules to the King George II rules.

Now, you might say yesterday was an anomaly. No, this is just a little blip in the curve. We all remember fast track. Fast track came out here and it got to a point where it had lost; and the word came from the White House, and, lo and behold, some arms were broken, there were bodies down here in the well, and suddenly we had four or five votes from the Carolinas and other places that suddenly changed that vote.

Then we came to Medicare and we see that this is a bill that came out here, and it lost, it was going to lose. And the message came from the White House, keep that vote open. They sent Mr. Thompson over from HHS, they sent everybody in sight over here to walk around on this floor to make sure that that vote came out under the King George II rules.

Yesterday, we have the President of the United States, we have the Attorney General going nationwide, trying to pump up people to believe that the PATRIOT Act is the best thing since sliced bread. But on a bipartisan basis on this floor, we turned it down. We said, we need to tighten it up. We opened it too much when it was passed some months ago. But the King George rules turned on and said no, no, you are not changing one word. You are not going to change one word. When we send something over there to you guys, you remember how the PATRIOT Act came to be. It was worked out in committee. It was a vote, bipartisan effort, it came out of the Committee on the Judiciary; it went to the Committee on Rules and the King George rules came into play: throw that in the wastebasket. Here is the bill that we will print tonight and tomorrow morning you will vote on. Very few of us knew the details of that bill. Having seen it in action, we now want to change some of it. That is the democratic process. But the King George rules are meant to shut down debate, to shut down dissent.

What would this body be if suddenly people from all over the country; in this legislative body, the first part of the Constitution, article I, says we are the ones who are supposed to decide the policy in this country. Yet, when we come to a decision, suddenly a phone call from the White House and bingo, it turns over. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is not a free man. I do not think he is a bad guy. I think he is doing what he is told. This is a one-party government that is trying to stop dissent, and we need to resist that. We need to vote for the McGovern amendment.

Mr. Speaker, knowledge is power. That is the hope for America right now. That is the hope, that the American people will see what is happening in the people's House at the direction of the White House.

Democracy was subverted in a brazen manner here, and it is because of the administration that has a policy that States' ignorance is a virtue.

The President of the United States proudly says, ``I don't read newspapers. I don't read books, except for children's books when there is a photo-op possibility. I only take information that is pre-chewed by my staff and brought in to me and given to me.'' We will talk more about that later.

But the fact is the reason they want the PATRIOT Act is because as a part of this ``ignorance is a virtue'' policy, we have got to keep the American people ignorant. How can you do that? Keep them out of the libraries. We do not want them going into the libraries and reading books and finding out things that the President does not even know. What will happen if the people know more than the President?

So, the PATRIOT Act says, give the CIA and the FBI the ability to come into the library and see what you, the American people, are reading. What is going on here?

Now, this body came out here and took that power away. But it was suppressed. Democracy was suppressed in this body. After we restored the basic freedoms and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we took away the people's right to read whatever they want without having the government snooping over their shoulder.

Democracy was censored after the American people's representatives had spoken loudly and clearly through their elected representatives, Democrats and Republicans. This was not just Democrats. The people told us to restore some of the basic freedoms and the civil liberties subverted by the PATRIOT Act. We did it out here on this floor.

But King George III did not want that. He wanted a different outcome. Democracy was subverted in a brazen display of raw political arrogance ordered by the administration and executed by the Republicans. America has never been so divided.

The Republican America is a place where the polls stay open until the Republicans win. Now, you have all voted in an election. You go to the polls and they close at 8 o'clock. You cannot come at 8:10 and say, ``Hey, I want to vote.'' They are closed. It is over. You only can vote until then.

The Republican America is a place where the voice of the people is drowned out by the iron will of this administration. They did it right here on the floor. The Republican America is a place where fear is useful and greed is very, very good.

The Republican America is a place where democracy is endangered by an administration unwilling to accept the will of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, knowledge is power. The administration preordained the war in Iraq. They decided they were going to war. They manufactured reasons and they remanufactured responses as knowledge of the President's war choices began to reach the American people and turned out to be false.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has just put out a report which is just the tip of the iceberg. They say the CIA gave bad information to the President. Remember, the President does not read anything himself. He does not read the newspapers, he does not read books. He lets people he trusts come in and tell him what has happened.

So, the CIA is at fault for why we are in Iraq. There is no other answer. Our President could not be at fault, because he took the word of people he trusted.

Now, the CIA is not without fault, but they are not solely to blame. What about the trips that Vice President Cheney made out to Langley to the CIA headquarters, and twisted arms and said, ``Can't you find some reason here why we can go into Iraq?'' He did it five times, so that when the information came from the CIA to the President, who did not know anything else, he took what Mr. Cheney squeezed out of the CIA. The process behind the intelligence was tainted. What did the administration know? What did they ignore, mischaracterize or discount, because it did not fit their agenda?

The checks and balances of this government were broken down by an administration that had a blank check from the Congress: ``Go out and do anything you want on the war on terror.'' So they had the blank check in their pocket.

Then they had to have a clear intent for why they should invade Iraq, so they had to go to the CIA: ``Give us a reason. Come on, give us a reason. There has got to be a reason. Come on.''

The CIA is not without fault, but they are far from alone in leading us to war in Iraq. The administration will happily make them a scapegoat. Put it all on them and send them out in the wilderness. Blame George Tenet, blame all the analysts, public servants, all the public officials. Nothing at the White House. ``We are blameless,'' they say.

I ask every American to compare what the administration will do in the next few days. On this weekend they are going to spin that idea all weekend. ``We are blameless. We are blameless. The CIA is to blame.''

Just compare that with what John Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs. President Kennedy accepted responsibility. He had the CIA telling him things. He listened to them and he allowed it to happen, and he said ``The buck stops at my desk. I made the decision. I was wrong.''

Now, does anybody in this country believe that the President will admit that any mistakes have occurred in Iraq because of his decision making? Will this administration tell the American people that they should be held accountable for a needless war in Iraq?

Can you imagine the President coming on television and saying, ``Well, we made some mistakes and I shouldn't have taken us into Iraq. The 1,000 people who have died were for naught.''

John Kennedy accepted the blame. Will this President do that? The buck

stops at the White House with this bunch for only 116 more days.

Mr. Speaker, the administration likes to wrap itself in so-called middle-class values. Let us compare the rhetoric to the record.

This administration has gutted section 8 housing. America's most vulnerable citizens literally may be evicted from their homes as a result.

This administration has refused to extend unemployment benefits, even though the money is there to help America's economically disadvantaged.

This administration has rolled back environmental regulations, fouling the air we breathe and the water we drink.

This administration has lavished tax cuts on the rich, and crumbs on the middle-class.

This administration has underfunded education to such an extent that every child is left out, not just a few left behind.

This administration did such a good job of working with big drug companies that they were able to raise prices three times the rate of inflation before the prescription drug bill passed.

These are not middle-class values. Middle class values are common sense, common decency and the common good.

Middle-class values are going to return to the United States in 117 days.

Mr. Speaker, let the President know he ought to start packing. They are about to leave.

Mr. Chairman, in the Bush-CIA-created democracy in Iraq, they just adopted martial law. The human rights minister said it is just like the American PATRIOT Act.

The Congress has tackled some unusual legislation recently. The Senate just voted to reaffirm that we actually support the Geneva Conventions, and today we are in the House debating no less than the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment in our Constitution, freedoms that were compromised in a rush to judgment by this administration.

They did not get in martial law here yet, but they have got it in mind. They want to have the government able to reach into our lives, no matter what we are doing, no matter what you read in the library. Do not buy a ticket to ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' on the Internet, because they will get your Internet records. They are going to get everything about your life, and they will continue to do it until we finally wind up with martial law.

The amendment before the House would grant Americans the freedom to read books from the local library or your favorite bookstore, without the FBI looking over your shoulder.

Yes, we are here to restore one of the founding principles of this Nation. Today, we have to legislate freedom. There is a strong possibility that Republicans will vote against the amendment and kill the right for an American to read without fear of snooping by the government

There is every reason to believe that Americans will end this day not really knowing whether the book they just checked out of the library has placed them on the FBI watch list. Who is to say what books might get you placed under surveillance by the government.

Maybe you like history and want to know about the people who led nations against us. That alone would prompt Attorney General John Ashcroft to consider you a subversive. And, you will never know.

The so-called Patriot Act has made a patsy out of the first amendment. There is a secret court that can let the government peer into your private life. They can pry, snoop, spy, intrude, watch, poke around, and access your records, your life, without your knowledge, forget about consent.

The Attorney General wants the power. He insists he must have the power to protect America from Americans, any American he deems shady. What's the threshold? Well, that's a secret and a moving target. Today, maybe John Ashcroft won't like Catcher in the Rye and consider you subversive if you check it out. Tomorrow, maybe it will be The Great Gatsby, or perhaps Germany's Secret Weapons of World War II, or The Da Vinci Code. There's no limit to what the Attorney General might consider subversive. There's no limit to the spying he can order. There's no limit on government intrusion in your life. There are, however, new limits, severe limits to what this country is all about-- freedom.

Are there bad people out there? Of course there are. And there are effective laws available to the Attorney General and the FBI to

find these people. Every American does not need to be put under surveillance in order to protect America.

If you let government break into any American's private life without a rational check and balance, a cold wind will blow across this Nation and make us less free and no less vulnerable. We can fight the war on terror without declaring war on freedom. We can keep America safe and keep America free.

I urge the House to restore freedom to every American. I urge the House to pass the Freedom to Read Protection Act. If we are to remain the Land of the Free, we need to defend civil liberty as vigorously as we prosecute the war on terror.

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

Madam Speaker, another four soldiers died today in Iraq. Families mourn the loss of loved ones. Our Nation mourns the loss of brave soldiers. Over 900 Americans have died in Iraq so far. As many as 10 times that number have been injured. Americans spent $150 billion, and we know tens of billions dollars more will be spent this year. If only one soldier had died, the number would be too high, but the casualties and the grief are much worse.

The truth is we have not even begun to see the casualties of the Iraq war. The truth is that thousands of soldiers will face a lifetime of injury from the war. The truth is we will have not even begun to count the casualties that will come from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The magnitude of the coming casualties among returning U.S. soldiers is staggering. The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in its most recent issue, which I will enter into the Record, gives a glimpse into the coming medical crisis facing our soldiers, families, and the Nation. The journal is known for credibility, thoughtful and factual reporting and analysis. The journal conservatively estimates that one in five soldiers will be afflicted with PTSD. In many cases, the symptoms will not even surface for a year or more. The casualties from the President's war of choice will affect tens of thousands of soldiers. There are 160,000 soldiers in Iraq today. Using the journal's conservative estimate, 30,000 U.S. soldiers will become post-traumatic stress disorder casualties in this war. Most do not even know that they are sick yet. Most do not exhibit any symptoms outwardly and will not for months or years. Tragically, when symptoms do appear, many soldiers will not ask for help.

Call it the tough-guy stigma. Soldiers are trained to be fearless no matter what the danger. Too many consider it a sign of weakness to need help. They will try to suffer in silence, but PTSD is as powerful as an artillery shell. Without help, PTSD can tear too many brave military men and women to shreds psychologically. I know. I was a Navy doctor and psychiatrist who treated soldiers returning from Vietnam with the post-traumatic stress disorder. Gut-wrenching is the only polite way to describe the anguish and suffering these soldiers experienced. Many of them still struggle against the demons of this disease.

As a doctor, you can do everything you can to help. All too often it is not enough, and all too often the only thing you can do is comfort the afflicted. You realize just how inadequate modern medicine is.

Some wonder why I strongly oppose the President's war of choice. Because I have seen the casualties. I have seen the pain inside the mind that no bandage can cover. I have treated the wounded, only to know in the dead of night just how little I and every doctor could do. We wanted to end the suffering. Who would not? We wanted to heal their wounds. Who would not?

Years later, long after the Vietnam War, years later after the media moved on to other issues, PTSD was still there haunting soldiers' minds. I saw it when I was a doctor working and treating prisoners in the King County jail. They include former soldiers who got into trouble because they struggled keeping their emotions under control. They struggled with PTSD. People who had served their country with no prior history of mental illness suddenly found themselves on the wrong side of the law. Were they felons or fallen heroes in need of help? I know what I think.

PTSD preys on the peace and happiness every American deserves, especially those who were drafted to fight in a war which this country came to loathe. After Vietnam, soldiers did not even have the thanks of a grateful Nation. We blamed them for the government's arrogance. It took decades before the wounds of the Nation began to heal. Thousands of names on a wall made us realize how much we had lost, how little we had gained, and how wrong it all was.

At least today America honors our soldiers, even as the opposition to the President's war grows. And it should. We are just beginning to realize the consequences of the President's war of choice. America has about 10,000 soldiers already dead or wounded. We face another 30,000 casualties. The wounds have already been inflicted. They are just not visible yet.

And they wonder why I strongly oppose the President's war of choice. The administration keeps inventing new reasons why we had to invade Iraq. They cannot even explain why 10,000 have already suffered or why 30,000 more will.

This is not about my opposition to the war, though. This is about preparing to help the men and women coming home from war. This is about

honoring our soldiers by facing the truth about the coming wave of casualties here at home from PTSD. This is about a call to action in every city and town across America and in every home and every workplace. We must help them.

This is about a call to action in every city and town across America, in every home, in every workplace, PTSD is as real, as painful, as devastating as any shrapnel wound. If the effects could be seen like a bullet wound, we'd race the patient to the hospital for immediate care.

But PTSD doesn't work that way. It's silent. It's almost invisible. It's a war raging inside a person and we have to help. We can help by debunking the tough guy stigma. We can help by talking, listening and watching for signs of stress as our loved ones come home. We must help by demanding that the Veteran's Administration receives the funding to treat our returning soldiers. It's not a one-year supplement.

It is the recognition of the long-term consequences of the Iraq War. It is the commitment to treat our soldiers afflicted with PTSD with the best possible care for as long as necessary--and it will be years for many.

Every night the evening news graphically shows us the latest casualties and consequences of this war. It's awful. It didn't have to happen. And the overwhelming number of casualties are ahead of us, not mission accomplished. Before it is over, Iraq's casualties will top 40,000 U.S. soldiers. For what? Nothing at all.

[From The New England Journal of Medicine, July 1, 2004]

Acknowledging the Psychiatric Cost of War

(By Matthew J. Friedman, M.D., Ph.D.)

The date presented by Hoge and associates in this issue of

the Journal about members of the Army and the Marine Corps

returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring

Freedom in Afghanistan force us to acknowledge the

psychiatric cost of sending young men and women to war. It is

possible that these early findings underestimate the eventual

magnitude of this clinical problem. The report is

unprecedented in several respects. First, this is the first

time there has been such an early assessment of the

prevalence of war-related psychiatric disorders reported

while the fighting continues. Second, there are

predeployement data, albeit cross-sectional, against which to

evaluate the psychiatric problems that develop after

deployment. Third, the authors report important data showing

that the perception of stigmatization has the power to deter

active-duty personnel from seeking mental health care even

when they recognize the severity of their psychiatric

problems. These findings raise a number of questions for

policy and practice. I focus here on post-traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD), because there is better information about

this disorder than about others and because PTSD was the

biggest problem noted in the responses to an anonymous survey

among those returning from active duty in Iraq or

Afghanistan.

The rigorous evaluation of war-related psychiatric

disorders is relatively new, having begun with the National

Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study. This national

epidemiologic survey of male and female veterans of Vietnam

was conducted in the mid-1980s. The veterans were therefore

assessed 10 to 20 years after their service in Vietnam. The

prevalence of current PTSD was 15 percent among men and 8

percent among women. The lifetime prevalence of PTSD was

higher--30 percent among male veterans and 25 percent among

female veterans.

A retrospective cohort study of veterans of the Gulf War

that was conducted between 1995 and 1997 showed a prevalence

rate of 10.1 percent for PTSD among those who had experienced

combat duty, in contrast to a prevalence rate of 4.2 percent

in a matched cohort of Gulf War-era veterans who had not seen

combat. The adjusted odds ratio for PTSD for those who had

been in combat was 3.1; this is similar to the odds ratios in

the present study of 2.84 for soldiers and 2.66 for Marines

after deployment to active duty, as compared with soldiers

before deployment.

In a longitudinal study of New England veterans of the Gulf

War, the prevalence of PTSD more than doubled between the

initial assessment performed immediately after their return

to Fort Devens, Massachusetts, and the follow-up assessment

performed two years later. The rates increased from 3 percent

to 8 percent among male veterans and from 7 percent to 16

percent among female veterans. Higher levels of symptoms have

been reported among members of the National Guard and the

Reserves than among active-duty personnel.

Finally, a retrospective survey of American male and female

soldiers deployed to Somalia between 1992 and 1994 showed an

estimated prevalence of PTSD of approximately 8 percent, with

no difference according to sex. When the focus of this

mission shifted from a United Nations' humanitarian

peacekeeping operation to a more traditional military

deployment to subdue to Somali warlords, there was greater

exposure to traumatic situations and a higher prevalence of

PTSD among the American troops.

It is unclear at this time whether the prevalence of PTSD

among those returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom or

Operation Enduring Freedom will increase or decrease. On the

one hand, it is encouraging that the Department of Defense

has been active in providing mental health care in the war

zone and psychiatric resources in the United States and has

demonstrated a commitment to monitor psychiatric disorders,

as reflected by the present report. Furthermore, the findings

of the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study suggest

that considerable recovery for PTSD among veterans is

possible, as shown by the difference between the lifetime and

the current prevalence of this disorder.

On the other hand, the National Vietnam Veterans

Readjustment Study cannot tell us whether the onse of PTSD

occurred while Vietnam veterans were still in uniform or at

some time later, during the 10 to 20 years between their

exposure to war and the survey for the study. Indeed, there

is reason for concern that the reported prevalence of PTSD of

15.6 to 17.1 percent among those returning from Operation

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom will increase in

coming years, for two reasons. First, on the basis of the

findings of the Fort Devens study, the prevalence of PTSD may

increase considerably during the two years after veterans

return from combat duty. Second, on the basis of studies of

military personnel who served in Somalia, it is possible that

psychiatric disorders will increase now that the conduct of

war has shifted from a campaign for liberation to an ongoing

armed conflict with dissident combatants. In short, the

estimates of PTSD report by Hoge and associates may be

conservative not only because of the methods used in their

study but also because it may simply be too early to assess

the eventual magnitude of the mental health problems related

to deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation

Enduring Freedom.

A recent reanalysis of the data from the National Vietnam

Veterans Readjustment Study and the Hawaii Vietnam Veterans

Project suggest that after the development of PTSD, the risk

factors for persistent PTSD are ``primarily associated with

variables relating to the current time frame: current

emotional sustenance, current structural social support, and

recent life events.'' This information is clearly useful for

mental health policy and planning, because it raises the

hopeful possibility that PTSD may be reversible if patients

can be helped to cope with stresses in their current life.

There are obviously important distinctions between the

period after the Vietnam War and the present. Americans no

longer confuse war with the warrior, those returning from

Iraq or Afghanistan enjoy nation support, despite sharp

political disagreement about the war itself. In addition, the

field of study of PTSD has matured to the point where

effective evidence-based treatment and practice guidelines

are available for use by the Departments of Defense and

Veterans Affairs and by civilian mental health practitioners.

Cognitive--behavioral therapies have been successful in the

treatment of PTSD, and two selective serotonin-reuptake

inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug

Administration. Practitioners in the Departments of Defense

and Veterans Affairs are sophisticated and strongly motivated

to continue to improve their skills in treating PTSD.

Collaboration between mental health professionals in the

Department of Defense and those in the Department of Veterans

Affairs is at an all-time high. For example, the Veterans

Affairs National Center for PTSD and the Defense Department's

Walter Reed Army Medical Center collaborated to develop the

Iraq War Clinician Guide (available at www.ncptsd.org/topics/ war.html) and to conduct a multisite, randomized trial of

cognitive--behavioral therapy for PTSD among female veterans

and female active-duty personnel.

In the best-case scenario, active-duty, Reserve, and

National Guard personnel as well as veterans of Operation

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom with symptoms of

PTSD will take advantage of the many mental health services

available through the Departments of Defense and Veterans

Affairs. Educational initiatives will be implemented to help

veterans and active-duty personnel recognize that the loss of

social support or the effect of recent adverse life events

may precipitate a return of the symptoms of PTSD. Veterans

and active-duty personnel will also be encouraged to monitor

their psychological health and to seek treatment if and when

it becomes necessary.

Alas, there is also a worst-case scenario that demands

immediate attention. Hoge and associates report that concern

about possible stigmatizaion was disproportionately greatest

among the soldiers and Marines most in need of mental health

care. Owing to such concern, those returning from Operation

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom who reported the

greatest number of the most severe symptoms were the least

likely to seek treatment for fear that it could harm their

careers, cause difficulties with their peers and with unit

leadership, and become an embarrassment in that they would be

seen as weak.

These findings are consistent with those in an earlier

report that showed low use of mental health services among

Navy and Marine Corps personnel. In contrast to a rate of

28.5 percent among male civilians with a psychiatric disorder

who sought

treatment, only 19 percent of servicemen with a psychiatric

disorder sought treatment, Furthermore, among military

personnel with PTSD, the rate of seeking treatment was only

4.1 percent, which is substantially lower than that for other

psychiatric disorders. This finding may indicate that within

the military culture, ``succumbing'' to PTSD is seen as a

failure, a weakness, and as evidence of and innate deficiency

of the right stuff.

Hoge and associates suggests that the perception of

stigmatization can be reduced only by means of concerted

outreach--that is, by providing more mental health services

in primary care clinics and confidential counseling through

employee-assistance programs. The sticking point is

skepticism among military personnel that the use of mental

health services can remain confidential. Although the

soldiers and Marines in the study by Hoge and colleagues were

able to acknowledge PTSD-related problems in an anonymous

survey, they apparently were afraid to seek assistance for

fear that scarlet P could doom their careers.

Our acknowledgment of the psychiatric costs of war has

promoted the establishment of better methods of detecting and

treating war-related psychiatric disorders. It is now time to

take the next step and provide effective treatment to

distressed men and women, along with credible safeguards of

confidentiality.

Source Information

From the National Center for PTSD, Department of Veterans

Affairs, White River Junction, Vt.; and the Departments of

Psychiatry and Pharmacology and Toxicology, Dartmouth Medical

School, Hanover, N.H.

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker wonders why the rest of the world does not want any more of George Bush. If he would travel outside of his district, he would find out they say it everywhere you go.

I was just in India. This administration's economic policy can best be summed up in the word, ``Oops.'' They like to swagger about how tax cuts for the rich have propelled the U.S. economy to staggering new heights. Staggering is the right word to describe the U.S. economy and what this administration has done to it.

Job creation is nowhere near, not even close to what America needs just to make up for the jobs lost during this administration. The administration can pretend all it wants, but people know that long-term unemployment is the highest in 20 years, few new jobs have been created, the few that have been pay less than the ones they replaced. Health care is crushing family budgets and forcing too many Americans to choose between medicine and food.

Americans know a staggering economy is the mark of an administration that has overstayed its welcome and does not deserve a second chance.

November 2 is exactly 118 days away. Please, Mr. Speaker, let the President know so he can prepare to move out.