Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 56) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Look, as we all know, as the cliche goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And while our colleagues on the other side are heralding the program that they produced, through what I believe to be their good intentions, they are terribly misguided.

But it does draw strong philosophical differences between the two parties and our approach. Yes, you would like to privatize Social Security. Yes, you would like to privatize Medicare. And this bill, essentially, is the privatization of Medicare masquerading as prescription drug relief and forbids explicitly the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating directly for lower price while the VA commissioner does.

But then you say you introduce competition. Wow. Everybody is for competition. So how do all these plans, why were they enticed into it? The government pays and incentivizes the private sector to get involved in this? That is interesting competition. They incentivize the private sector to compete against the government program. They fund them the money.

Oh, and by the way, there is no penalty and no risk if they pull out. The only penalty and risk are on the elderlies' backs, because they can cancel the formulary, they can pull out with no risk and no penalty. It is only the people that fall into the doughnut hole and only the people that have to pay the extra prices that understand why it is so important that government step up and level the playing field for its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which holds tremendous hope for the 100 million Americans affected by devastating diseases and medical conditions.

In 2001, President George W. Bush announced his final decision on the use of Federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. According to the National Institutes of Health, of the 78 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for Federal funding in the President's executive order of August 2001, only 21 lines are now still available for researchers. The 21 stem cell lines that remain available today are contaminated with ``mouse feeder'' cells, making their therapeutic use for humans uncertain.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which increases the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible to be used for Federally-funded research. The bill also authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to support research involving embryonic stem cells meeting certain criteria, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from an embryo. This legislation authorizes the use of stem cell lines generated from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics and it has strict ethical guidelines. These guidelines include stipulating that embryos can be used only if the donors give their written consent and receive no money or other inducement in exchange for the embryos.

In the 109th Congress, this bill passed the House by a vote of 238- 194 and in the Senate by a vote of 63-37. Unfortunately, the President used his first veto to stop lifesaving stem cell research and set back the hopes of so many who are suffering. Today, we owe it to the millions of Americans with chronic diseases like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and ALS to invest in this promising research and renew the hopes of millions.

Expanding stem cell research has the support of more than 70 percent of Americans. This vote today has the potential to unlock the doors to treatments and cures to numerous debilitating and life-threatening diseases and will send a clear signal that this Congress is committed to improving the lives of millions of patients affected by these diseases. Passage of H.R. 3 is critical and I hope the President listens to the American people by signing this bill that will allow this groundbreaking research to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, legislation that will fulfill our promise to America's working families by providing a long awaited increase in the federal minimum wage.

Passage of this bill today will increase the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over 2 years. Inflation and increased demands on the wallets of American families have steadily chipped away at the purchasing power of our Nation's minimum wage earners, and the failure of the previous Congress to take action has left the federal minimum wage at its lowest value in more than half a century.

This legislation is critical at a time when America's families have seen their real income drop by almost $1,300 since 2000, while the costs of health insurance, gasoline, home heating, and attending college have increased by almost $5,000 annually. At the current level, a full-time minimum wage worker will make only $10,712 a year, nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. While some States, such as Connecticut, have already taken action to raise their minimum wage, many more States still fall short of providing our hardest working Americans with the income they need to make ends meet.

In a Nation of abundant wealth and prosperity, we simply cannot be indifferent to the challenges faced by those struggling to make ends meet. This vote today sends the clear message that this Congress will be committed to America's working families. Passage of H.R. 2 is a critical step towards ensuring that every American is able to earn a real living wage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, a long awaited legislative package that will finally fulfill our duty to protect the people of our nation by fully implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

After months of careful investigation into the security weakness that led to the 9/11 attacks, the bipartisan and independent 9/11 Commission proposed a series of reforms necessary to secure our country and prevent future terrorist attacks. These recommendations addressed a number of areas, including revamping the way we fund homeland security, preventing nuclear materials and WMD from falling in the worst hands, and targeting the root causes of terrorism. Yet, despite bipartisan public support for their work, 20 of the Commission's 41 recommendations--nearly half--have gone unfulfilled.

Over the past two years, the 9/11 Commission has rated Congress' implementation of their recommendations with failing grades. Protecting the American people is the primary responsibility of our government, and I am proud that one of the first bills considered by the new Congress is the implementation of all of the 9/11 recommendations. This bill meets our duty to protect the nation we serve by requiring the scanning of all air and maritime cargo, increasing resources that will enable our first responders to communicate with each other in times of crisis, and ensuring that we distribute our homeland security funding where it is needed the most.

I am particularly grateful that this bill increases our commitment to preventing the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. During public forums on nuclear nonproliferation I have hosted in the past year at St. Joseph College and Trinity College, many of my constituents expressed their concerns about nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists. That threat to our nation is real, and this bill fulfills the 9/11 Commission recommendation to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and strengthen our nonproliferation programs around the world.

More than sixty Connecticut residents lost their lives on that tragic September day in 2001. Over five years later, we owe it to them and their families to finally implement these measures and ensure that such a day will never happen again.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record the following tribute that appeared in the Winsted Journal on October 27, 2006. Mrs. Pillay began her career in fashion at Vogue, later becoming fabric editor at Glamour, and fashion director at Seventeen and Elle. Mrs. Pillay was also the author of French Tea and Tea in the East. I'm honored to submit this for the Record. My heart goes out to her entire family.

[From the Winsted Journal, Oct. 27, 2006]

Carole Manchester Pillay

Winsted--Carole Manchester Pillay, author of two

distinctive books on the preparation and drinking of tea and

a former editor of leading women's magazines, died Oct. 21,

2006, in Manhattan. She lived in Manhattan and Winsted and

was the wife of Shunna Pillay.

Mrs. Pillay started her fashion career with Vogue and later

became the fabric editor for Glamour and then fashion

director at Seventeen and Elle magazines. Her articles on

fashion, the decorative arts and tea appeared frequently in

national magazines.

Her two books are ``French Tea'' (Hearst Books, 1993) and

``Tea in the East'' (Hearst Books, 1996). The latter

publication took her on journeys throughout Asia, where she

met and interviewed ``staunch devotees of tea--planters,

pluckers, brokers, blenders, producers, promoters, and tea

lovers.''

She wrote that ``there were many trying times rummaging

through the obscure domains of tea, but at journey's end I

look back on the adversities as fond adventures.'' More

recently, she authored the book for the forthcoming musical,

``Pansy.''

Her friends regarded her as possessing an exquisite

aesthetic sense, a wonderful joie de vivre, an indomitable

spirit and a keen commitment to social justice. In addition

to her husband of 33 years, Mrs. Pillay is survived by a

brother, Dudley Manchester of West Hartford; a sister, Ann

Shubert of Acton, Mass.; and several nieces and nephews. She

was predeceased by a sister, Lois.

There will be a private service in late spring.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Lewis, to introduce the City Youth Violence Recovery Act. I want to thank Congressman Lewis for his work on this bill and for his lifelong work to unite every community into what he calls The Beloved Community.

As the media reports daily about the loss of life in the war in Iraq, we often ignore the war being fought at home in city streets across this country. After a decadelong decline of violent crime, it is again on the rise. In Hartford, for example, there have been 140 shooting victims since the beginning of 2006--this is an 18.6% increase over last year's city reports. And again, just over the weekend, gun violence claimed another young life. It was the city's 19th homicide this year. He was 19.

The challenges facing the city of Hartford are not unique. This violence, perpetrated both by and against young people, has devastated urban communities in cities both large and small. In a disturbing trend, our city children and teenagers are losing their lives, losing their friends, losing their family members, and losing their youth. They feel fear, helplessness, horror and the sense that life and safety are in danger. Tragically, many have grown numb to the violence around them.

Since community violence is caused by many things, there is no simple, single solution to eradicate it from our neighborhoods. We must address employment, housing, education, transportation, law enforcement, and other quality of life issues. Until we address these issues, we must do something to help the youth in our cities overcome the long-term emotional harm of witnessing this community violence.

In July, I was honored to have Mr. Lewis come to Connecticut to talk with local leaders and children in the Hartford community. It was clear that the community's young people require more than physical security to keep them safe from harm. They need a network of support to treat the emotional, mental and developmental harms associated with community violence. Today, I am proud to be joined by Congressman Lewis and 27 of my distinguished colleagues to introduce the City Youth Violence Recovery Act of 2006. This bill is a step in the right direction in healing the youth of Hartford and the youth in cities devastated by violence throughout the United States. Specifically, this bill would create a Department of Health and Human Services grant program to provide urban communities with funding for counseling, mental health services, post-traumatic stress type services, and violence prevention and conflict mediation for city youth.

We can no longer remain indifferent to the needs of our urban youth. As Members of Congress, as Americans, and as fathers and mothers, we cannot allow any more young lives to be lost in this war at home. Our cities' children deserve better; they deserve a future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin for his leadership on this bill. As cosponsor, I also want to express my strong support for children of all abilities to have environments where they can learn and play together.

As the father of three, I understand that play is essential to healthy childhood development. Play inspires thinking, imagination, problem-solving and creates learning opportunities that can't be found in the classroom. Playgrounds are where children can play, learn and understand the world around them. Unfortunately, in many cases, the design of traditional playground isolates children with disabilities from playing, learning and sharing with their peers.

Today, we are introducing legislation that recognizes that all children should have equal access and equal opportunity to play together on barrier-free, inclusive playgrounds. This bill would express the sense of Congress that a ``Let's All Play Day'' should be established for all children, including the estimated 6 million children in the United States with a disability that make it hard or impossible to enjoy traditional playgrounds.

As we discuss the importance of play for all children, I want to take a moment to recognize the work of the National Center for Boundless Playgrounds. The National Center for Boundless Playgrounds is a champion in bringing the joy of play to all children with and without disabilities. Formed in 1997 and located in the town of Bloomfield in the First Congressional District, Boundless Playgrounds in collaboration with Hasbro, Inc. and GameTime has helped communities in 21 states create more than 100 extraordinary ``boundless'' barrier-free playgrounds. I want to thank the Center for their tireless work and dedication in the state of Connecticut and across the country on behalf of all children.

Mr. Speaker, as children with and without disabilities learn together in classroom, we should encourage their learning together outside on the playground. I encourage my colleagues and communities across the country to join me and Congressman Langevin in celebrating the joy of play for all children, with all abilities, in every community.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the Record the following tribute that appeared in NE Magazine on September 17, 2006. For most, words never quite convey the poignancy of the moment. For Colin McEnroe, his craft and the life of his mother merge in beautiful sentiment. I did not know Barbara McEnroe, but I know many families who empathize with her son's article, ``Banana Chair Sunset.'' I sometimes believe that creative and vivid writing is genetic with the Irish, but McEnroe's love of his mother and father unfolds in this article in a way that shares with the reader the unique perspective of a family gathered at the bedside of a loved one soon to be gone. I'm honored to submit this for the Record. Our hearts go out to him, his son Joseph, and his family.

[From NE Magazine, Sept. 17, 2006]

Banana Chair Sunset

(By Colin McEnroe)

She was a tiny person born into a big world.

She was the fourth daughter of the sonless Howard and Alma

Cotton. I was told that my grandmother, knowing she would be

expected to try again, was too angry to think of a name for

the baby. The Cottons owned a general store in Dana, Mass.

Ruth, the oldest sister, finally looked at some kind of candy

display that offered a list of names. (It was a sort of game

where you found out who would be your sweetheart, I believe.)

She picked the name Barbara for her baby sister.

At least, that's one version. Ruth told it to me one night

after making me promise never to tell my mother.

The next baby was a boy, Gaylord. I don't think my mother

ever completely forgave him for being the right answer.

She was not the right answer, but she decided to know the

right answers. She was a whiz in school. She was high school

valedictorian. She was never quite at home.

She wasn't as tough or as solid as the rest of her family.

She was pretty, chatty, restless, troublemaking. Now and

then, a teacher would notice her and realize she was a little

bit lost. One woman made a point of taking her places,

letting her catch glimpses of the world outside rural

Massachusetts.

One such place, of course, was Boston, which was a very

thirsty town. Years before my mother was born, the city began

to outgrow its supply of water. Bostonians cast their eyes

around and noticed the Swift River Valley. It might be

possible to dam the whole thing up and make a reservoir. Yes,

that could be done.

And what about the people who were living right where the

enormous body of water would be?

They would have to leave.

Four little towns were dis-incorporated and depopulated.

The Lost Towns of the Quabbin. Dana was one of them. The

Cottons left a few years early, because Howard had four

daughters, and he believed that rough men would be arriving

in great numbers for the huge construction projects. He

didn't want that kind of trouble.

Gone, gone, gone, the four towns. And gone, gone, gone the

five Cottons. Ruth, Gladys, Arlene, Gaylord. And Monday

night, the last of them, Barbara.

Nothing was ever exactly home. Nowhere completely right.

``What's the best place you ever lived?'' she asked me

again and again from hospital beds and wheelchairs, really

asking herself.

She graduated from North Brookfield High School--did she

mention she was valedictorian?--and eked out a couple of

years at Boston University. She came to Hartford. She was a

bobby-soxer, overheated and frivolous. She and her friends

followed Sinatra around after his show in the city and had a

snowball fight with him.

The years went by, full of dates and parties and boyfriends

and jobs. Hartford was fun. She met a man, a very peculiar

man. He lived in a boarding house on Asylum Hill and worked

at United Aircraft. He was handsome and brooding and

mercurial. Nobody had ever heard of him. And then, on a

single day, this obscure man in the boarding house sold two

different plays he had written to Broadway producers.

She couldn't stay away from this man.

They married and lived for a while on Fifth Avenue next to

a huge park that scared her a little. They lived for a while

in Beverly Hills. Their agent was Swifty Lazar and he took

them to all the swank spots; and she didn't have to throw

snowballs at the big stars. They chatted away from adjoining

tables at Chasen's.

But that didn't last. Nothing ever seemed to last. Nowhere

was exactly home. Things were never quite right. It was hard,

really, to settle down.

She had a son, and she loved him. It was hard to tell him

that in the traditional ways. She wasn't at home in the

world. She pushed him hard to work and achieve so that he

would feel safer than she did.

She had a grandson, and she loved him. She took him to the

park and showered him with presents. On New Year's Eves, she

would decorate her apartment and buy hats and noisemakers for

her husband and the little boy, and they'd eat shrimp and

drink sparkling cider.

Her husband died, and she was alone.

And then she began to forget things. Her son took her to a

neurologist, and the doctor said, ``I'm going to say three

words to you, and I want you to remember them because I'll

ask you about them in a little while. Banana chair sunset.''

He asked her quite a few other things, and, in the most

charming manner possible, she revealed how little she could

remember. Laid out there in the doctor's office, it was

breath-taking, like the water pooling up and overspreading

four whole towns.

``Now,'' said the doctor, ``Do you remember any of those

three words?''

``What three words?'' she asked.

And that was the beginning of the end. Banana chair sunset.

A couple of years went by. She fell. She got sick.

On Monday evening, her hands and feet grew cold.

The light appeared. You know, the light? The soothing,

comforting, all-loving light? She asked the nursing home

staff to turn it off. It was bothering her. Things were not

quite right. This room was not quite home.

I picture a worried angel, conferring with his peers. She

wants the light turned off.

Has this ever come up before? Don't people always like the

light?

A few of us sat in a room, in chairs, watching the sunset

spread across the bricks of a courtyard outside the window.

We talked so that she could hear our voices. And she fell

asleep and was gone.

I am surprised to find my heart is broken. My son's heart

is broken, too.

Banana chair sunset.

Maybe there's a place you go where finally, finally,

everything is just right.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for coming to the floor this morning, and certainly those of us listening today and throughout this country can understand that our frustration here is only superseded by the frustration of millions of Americans.

I am proud of the leadership on the Democratic side that is insisting that we take up these matters discussed here on this floor today, tomorrow, or Friday before we adjourn. They are that pressing.

The gentleman from Georgia came down and criticized this as being petty and not having respect. What about respect for the families of 9/ 11? What about the respect for people who need a minimum wage increase? For the middle class squeeze that is going on with energy and college tuition, what about respect for them?

Roosevelt said it best of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``We do not question your patriotism or love of country.'' What he said, though, rings true, that ``you are frozen in the ice of your own indifference,'' your indifference towards working families, your indifference to the families of the 9/11 Commission report who seek a resolution here.

Please join us in bringing this forward.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act, I rise in strong support of this very important bill.

Connecticut is fortunate to be the home of the Farmington River, which hosts a wealth of natural beauty, a variety of wildlife, and a cultural past important to our state, region, and Nation. In 1994, Congress recognized the upper section of the Farmington--a 14 mile-long stretch that runs from the base of the Goodwin Dam in Hartland to the downstream border of Canton and New Hartford, as Wild and Scenic. As a federally protected river segment, the natural splendor and resources of

the Upper Farmington have been managed cooperatively on the local, state and federal level for over a decade. Regrettably, Salmon Brook, a major tributary, and the Lower Farmington that runs 40 miles from Canton to its confluence with the Connecticut River in Windsor do not share the same federal protection. Continued threats to the river's water quality reinforce the urgent need for a collaborative effort to preserve the unique character of both the Upper and Lower Farmington, as well as Salmon Brook, for present and future generations.

The Lower Farmington is a rare natural, cultural and recreational area for the people of the First District and throughout the entire state of Connecticut. The river's free-flowing waters support a rich ecological system and serves as the habitat for diverse fish species, including the American shad and the Atlantic salmon. The River is also home to trout, river otter and bald eagle populations. Since the 1600s, the River has prominently been featured in our state history, from the Tunxis Native American tribes who settled on its shores to the mills and dams that sprung up as part of the Industrial Revolution. Today, people from across Connecticut can enjoy the majestic views of the river along the Farmington River Trail--a former railroad line that when completed will run 26 miles along the shores of the Farmington.

Since 1968, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has protected the Nation's most valuable rivers. Through this system, rivers that possess remarkable scenic, recreational, natural, and cultural values are preserved in their free-flowing condition and are protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Designated rivers are afforded the federal protection necessary to maintain their resources and character.

The Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act is the first significant step towards designating the Lower Farmington in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring the environmental and historic preservation of these waterways by supporting the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I once again rise in strong support of H.R. 3127, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, and look forward to it being signed into law.

The scope of the Darfur tragedy is nothing less than horrific. As far as we know, an estimated 400,000 people are now dead and over two million have been displaced as a result of the violence. Thousands continue to die each month as a result of starvation, neglect and sickness. Unfortunately, little has changed since the House first passed H.R. 3127 in April: the Sudanese government has continued to ignore United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for the end of the conflict, the May 2006 peace agreement has largely been ignored and the violence against the people of Darfur has raged on.

As United Nations Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland noted in August, the situation has only gone ``from real bad to catastrophic.'' It is therefore more important than ever that the United States provide the strong moral leadership necessary to spur the world community to act to stop the killings, kidnappings and rapes in Darfur. As our nation continues to work within the United Nations for strong international action on Darfur, passage of this bill, and its enactment into law, will send a clear message to the government of Sudan that the United States will not simply stand by as these atrocities continue.

Two years ago, this Congress and the administration declared the atrocities in Darfur to be genocide and vowed to end the ongoing campaign of violence. It is in that spirit that we must continue to work to ensure that these strong words are not empty ones, that peace can be found in Sudan, and that the people of Darfur are one day free of the threat of genocide. This bill, and the other Darfur measures that we will pass today, are small but important steps towards reaching these goals.

Mr. Speaker, I once again thank distinguished members who will be joining me here on the floor to continue a process that was begun by Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Inslee called The Iraq Watch.

This was formed in the spirit of understanding, as I think the Nation has come to understand, that within this Beltway and within this Nation and specifically here in Congress, that we have one-party rule. The Republican Party controls the administration and all of its agencies, it controls the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and in the process, has stifled opportunity for oversight and review and a thorough discussion on the pressing issue of Iraq that concerns the entire American republic. I commend my colleagues for having initiated The Iraq Watch.

This evening, as in others, we start with an acknowledgement that, fortunately, because of the efforts of so many who have served in our military, we in Congress on both sides of this aisle have come to understand and differentiate between the war and the warriors, those brave men and women who serve our country on a daily basis and who are in harm's way in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around this globe on our behalf. We come here because we desire an opportunity to speak truth to power.

Earlier this evening, one of our esteemed colleagues from the other side rose and said, ``What are the Democrats for?'' We are for an administration that will level with the American people, starting first and foremost with leveling with our troops, especially the families of our troops; specifically, the Reservists and National Guardsmen who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed, and redeployed again in Afghanistan and Iraq with no certainty given to them. And we are for an administration that is worthy of the sacrifice that has been put forward by the men and women of our armed services.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, ``The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'' And in this very solemn week where we pause to reflect on our brave heroes of 9/11, those innocent people who perished in the towers in New York, at the Pentagon, and in the fields of Pennsylvania, and those brave and valiant first responders who rallied to the call in New York, here at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, we are for the vigilance of the survivors, and victims of 9/11 who called and prevailed upon this body to pass all the 9/11 recommendations.

We are for passing all the 9/11 recommendations, more than half of which have not been enacted by this Congress 5 years after September 11. We are for accountability, as Mr. Schiff pointed out in his comments, because we understand that in a one-party town where there is no oversight and review and no one willing on the other side of the aisle to speak truth to power, that it falls on the shoulders of the Democrats to speak out on behalf of the American public, to speak truth where there has been little.

Graham Allison pointed out that the occupation in Iraq has placed us in a situation where we have diverted essential resources from the fight against al Qaeda, allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan, fostered neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat, undermined alliances critical to preventing terrorism, devastated America's standing with every country in Europe, and

destroyed it in the Muslim world. We are for a new direction for this country and for America's preeminent position on this globe where we have such enormous responsibility.

We ought to start that new direction and send a very clear signal to the world, to Iraq, and to the men and women of our military that it is time for accountability. And we can start that, as Jack Murtha indicated earlier, with a call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down, for, as Mr. Schiff pointed out and the Vice President said clearly this past Sunday, if they had to do it all over again, they would do it exactly the same way. And the President, in a moment of candor, said in fact, the hardest thing that he has found has been linking terror with the war in Iraq.

At this time I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California, Representative Lee, who has stood in this well so many times and prevailed upon this body to come to grips with this war in Iraq.

Representative Lee.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for once again providing us with very clear insight into the ramifications of the administration's failed policy. As our colleague from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) points out, there are two distinct wars that are going on. There is the war on terror, more appropriately it should be called the war against al Qaeda, where, as the gentlewoman points out, America has diverted its resources away from Afghanistan and the chief target, the person responsible for bringing down the World Trade Center towers and the bombing at the Pentagon and the failed attempt to hit this Capitol with the downed plane in Pennsylvania.

I commend the gentlewoman for her remarks and thank her for joining us this evening.

I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

If the gentleman will yield, because the question has been put forward on this floor on more than one occasion, and the query is: How is it that this great country of ours could go from having virtually the entire world supporting us, because of exactly what happened in your great New York City? In Paris, they said, ``Today We Are All Americans.'' We join with Americans in the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we went from having the entire world with us to virtually having the world opposed to us, devastating our standing around the world and ruining it with the Muslim world.

I thank the gentleman from New York for his insightful comments. And, again, we all share with you and all New Yorkers, as well as people from the Pentagon and in the fields of Pennsylvania, Flight 93, a great sorrow at the loss of so many valiant Americans. And I want to commend you for your willingness to come to this floor and speak truth to power.

Someone who has done so on more than 170 occasions, from the same spot on this floor, is Lynn Woolsey. She has risen and called out and has spoken out against the war in Iraq, and so at this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I thank the gentlewoman for her vigilance in this matter and in coming to the floor. To her point, as Thomas Friedman has pointed out, in Iraq with regard to the occupation and the United States' once-lofty goal that was envisioned in terms of creating democracy in Iraq, categorized us as no longer midwifing a democracy, but in essence baby-sitting an insurrection and a civil war.

So even people that were slow to come around to your point of view and the point of view held by many others have now been joined by no less than eight generals, as Mr. Delahunt points out time and time again on this floor.

But also if you go back to the very beginnings and the lead-up to this war, who were the most outspoken critics leading up to this war? In fact, it was

not Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee or even Lynn Woolsey, it was Scowcroft, Eagleburger, and Baker because they understood as internationalists the problem that would be created in Iraq if we diverted resources from Afghanistan and didn't pursue the goal of capturing and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden, but instead got involved in a war of choice that was misguided and misdirected by an administration that was blind on two fronts. Blind to the sacrifice that would take place on behalf of our brave men and women, and also to the policies that they were pursuing and the ramifications of those policies both abroad and here at home.

Someone who understands that and has been an advocate of human rights for his entire career here in the United States Congress, someone who has traveled all over this globe and addressed the issue of human rights is the Congressman from New Jersey, Donald Payne, and at this time I recognize him for his remarks.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I am reminded in the poignancy of his story, having traveled to the Middle East several times with Jack Murtha, of a discussion we were having with our ambassador to Saudi Arabia who, when I inquired of him that it seemed like there was a gathering storm in Saudi Arabia with more than 35 percent unemployment and median income amongst the people there dropping from $28,000 to under $7,000, he said to me: ``Congressman, gathering storm?'' He said, ``You're from New England?''

I said, ``That's right.''

He said, ``I assume you've either read the book or you saw the movie. What we have here is not a gathering storm, what we have here is a perfect storm; and if we attack this toothless tiger, whereas you point out we had no-fly zones over the north and south, we will unwittingly accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. We will create a united Islamic jihad against the United States.''

Someone who understands that more keenly than most is the gentlewoman from California who chairs the Out of Iraq Caucus and has been equally vigilant in her efforts and leadership on that front.

I now recognize Maxine Waters.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank her also for factually pointing out what is happening, especially with regard to the heroin trade, and again how that only furthers and fosters the efforts of al Qaeda all around the globe.

Before I call on the gentleman from New York, Major Owens, who has served with distinction in this great body of ours and who represents the great City of New York, I want to point out that our next two speakers, both Mr. Delahunt from Massachusetts and Mr. Inslee from Washington, are the founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Mr. Delahunt, especially, having heard specifically, going back to his district, people often ask what led you to come to this floor and speak out against the war in Iraq? Well, it took place in small towns and communities where people were yearning for the truth and wanted to hear voices that because a majority rule here in a one-party Congress were notable to break through.

Is this the same Prime Minister that also has said that he will grant amnesty to those involved in the insurrection that are killing and mutilating American soldiers?

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Delahunt so eloquently pointed out, and has time and again, the Iraq Watch, which you four Members initiated along with Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Kucinich, has done a great job for the Nation.

People often ask, why do you come down and speak in what is an empty Chamber? And my response is, out of love of country. It is for love of country that you get to ask the unwelcome questions to this administration. But in a one-party town where the administration controls every agency and both Houses of Congress, we can't penetrate through, except for all of those meetings that are taking place in town halls and at forums and now on the blogs, that people all across this country get it.

Someone who has gotten it throughout his entire career and someone who has served his Nation out of love of country and a great city is Major Owens. I would like to recognize him at this time.

I thank the gentleman from New York.

For the final word, our former senator and ambassador and now great Congresswoman from the City of Los Angeles, Diane Watson.

I thank the gentlewoman from California, and my distinguished colleagues from Massachusetts and Washington State.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in marking the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Today we pause, as the nation did on Monday, to honor the brave Americans who lost their lives in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania on that tragic day.

As we debate this resolution we cannot help but remember the chaos, fee and violence we faced 5 years ago. Terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbols of our economic and military strength, in an attempt to destroy our most basic freedoms and values. Yet, as we look back we also vividly recall that in the midst of the unprecedented horror of that day, we see the very best of America: Firefighters and first responders rushing into danger, airline passengers sacrificing themselves to save others, and Americans coming together in unity and common purpose.

It is in this spirit that we not only look back at the past five years but also look forward to

the difficult challenges ahead of us and the sober reminder that the terrorist threat against our nation is still very real. Last month's disrupted plot to attack airliners reminds us why it is even more important today that we rededicate ourselves to securing our homeland by fully implementing all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and closing the gaps that still exist in our aviation, transit and port security. While there may be disagreement over whether or not we are safer today, we can all agree that much more needs to be done to protect and defend the American people.

The War on Terror that started on that fateful day five years ago is still far from finished. The threat posed by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations remains very real. Osama bin Laden and many of his allies are still at large, yet his trail has grown ``stone cold'' over the past two years and the CIA has shut down their unit responsible for tracking him. Afghanistan has become the forgotten front in the war on terror, pushed aside in favor of a war of choice against a country that posed no real threat to our nation and in which we find ourselves mired in a seemingly endless occupation. The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan who supported Al Qaeda's attack on our nation, has grown again in strength as we have grown distracted by Iraq.

This is a time of great consequence for our nation. Unfortunately, slogans and partisan attacks have once again become substitutes here for serious debate on the national security challenges we face. This is clearly evident in the resolution before us, which contains divisive language designed to score political points instead of bringing this country together. As we move ahead, I hope that we can remember that which unites us as Americans and not which divides us as partisans.