Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as we come to the floor again as part of what we have come to call our Iraq Watch, and I am grateful that we are joined by several colleagues this evening, Mr. Bishop from New York, Mr. McDermott from Washington State, and others that will be joining us throughout this early part of the evening.

Now, let me start, as we always have, by recognizing the valiant service of the men and women who wear the uniform. And as our leader Ms. Pelosi often says, our men and women who wear the uniform deserve a leadership that is worthy of the sacrifice that they make on a daily basis. I am proud of this Congress, inasmuch as it has been able to distinguish the warriors from the war, and so we continue to honor those brave men and women who wear the uniform of this country and who sacrifice daily on our behalf.

And yet, as events unfold around the globe, but specifically in the Middle East as it relates to Iraq, what we find is even amongst those who initially favored the war, such as pundits like Thomas Friedman, who now have come to say that we have got to come to the realization that we are no longer midwifing democracy in Iraq but, in essence, babysitting an insurgent civil war. So this evening we come here to discuss Iraq from the context of the mistakes that have been made and the need for accountability, starting with the resignation of the Secretary of Defense.

At some point, somewhere along the line, there has got to be accountability for the actions that have transpired in Iraq. We were wrong about the information that led up to going into the war. In fact, the strongest critics against us going into the war were people such as Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Kissinger and Baker, hardly left-leaning liberals, but people who understood international policy and the severe consequences that would result if we ended up going into Iraq without the full support of the world. And so Americans everywhere kind of have to scratch their heads and say, how is it that we had the entire world with us when we invaded Afghanistan and end up virtually with no support in Iraq.

It is clear from discussions with policymakers and former generals that a series of mistakes have been made, not the least of which was going against our own national policy, the Weinberger Doctrine, which stated very clearly the United States should never go to war against another country unless its vital interests are threatened; and the Powell corollary to that, if we do go in, we should go in with overwhelming force.

In both cases, that doctrine and corollary were rejected in favor of the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism, which has left our allies looking at us as we twist slowly in the winds of Iraq, as Friedman says, babysitting an insurrection and civil war while our most precious of resources, our men and women who serve this country, are in harm's way.

We need a new direction. We ought to send a very clear signal to the world, to the people in this country that it is time for accountability; that it is time to say that mistakes were made and then move on. And we can start with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stepping down, as he should.

The head of the 9/11 Commission has indicated to both Republicans and Democrats alike that we need to continue to adopt those resolutions and recommendations that they have found in their studies, 20 of which still aren't implemented, which is over half. And so in order to prosecute the war on terror, we have got to be able to accomplish those goals. But without a Congress that wants to hold the President accountable, that is not going to happen.

A gentleman that has been doing just that and speaking out in his district has been Tim Bishop of New York, and at this time, I would like to yield to him.

If the gentleman will let me ask a question, knowing you are from New York and knowing specifically you are from Long Island, and, of course, with a solemn date approaching us of September 11, do most citizens in New York understand, in your estimation, the difference between the war on global terrorism and the war in Iraq and see

them as different subject matters, or, as Ike Skelton on the Armed Services Committee has been so nobly trying to demonstrate, the difference between the insurrection and civil war in Iraq and the war on terror? Or has the administration's attempts to blur the lines confused people? What is the sense of New Yorkers?

We have been joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I think for a number of our listeners, really the whole idea for coming to this floor came from Bill Delahunt. The idea really wasn't hatched here on the floor of the House of Representatives. It was an idea that was hatched in town hall meetings in Nantucket and on the Cape that Bill Delahunt held. He encouraged other Members, including myself, who had them in West Hartford and Manchester, Connecticut, and from there, because our voices were muffled. Or if you spoke out against the war, you were deemed unpatriotic. But it was because of his efforts in organizing an Iraq Watch that this has persisted and the truth has been able to continue to come out with regard to our involvement.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the founder of this great movement.

I would like to ask the gentleman a question: What you are telling me and you are telling our viewing audience this evening, you voted, and I believe the vote was near unanimous in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to invade Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom; is that correct?

Was not the rest of the world united in that effort with the United States?

So how is it then, given all that you have said, that with the world behind us in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, that we would, if you will excuse the phrase, why did we ``cut and run'' in Afghanistan and then focus on Iraq?

As the gentleman from New York pointed out, people are able to distinguish between the enemy who actually knocked down the Twin Towers in New York, struck the Pentagon, and, as Tim Roemer pointed out yesterday, were it not for those brave souls on Flight 93, would have hit this Capitol. How did we go from the whole world being behind us, abandoning what has become, as Mr. Van Hollen often points out, the forgotten front in Afghanistan, take our eye off the prize and expend the amount of money, and, most importantly, our most precious resource, our men and women who serve this country in Iraq?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The President has asked to engage, and the gentleman made several good points and one of them was about a new dialogue, long overdue, and I think welcomed by the American people. But as the gentleman from Maryland points out, a one-way street.

Certainly no one knows better than the gentleman from Washington State. No one was vilified more, both on this floor and in public, because of love of country and speaking out, than Jim McDermott.

I recognize the gentleman from Washington State.

Is the gentleman suggesting that the more than $9 billion that is unaccounted for, that this Congress actually ought to go and find out what happened with those no-bid contracts, $9 billion?

The gentleman from Maine who has been to the floor several times to talk about this very subject recently traveled to New Orleans also where he traveled with the Army Corps of Engineers where he saw firsthand what was going on there. As the gentleman from Washington states, one of the many salient points he made is the lack of accountability and the corollary between what has happened here domestically with Hurricane Katrina and Iraq.

I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

The gentleman from New York started and began this conversation by talking about what has transpired, and the gentleman from Maryland talked about the President and his calling over the last several days, both he and the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President have been out there, along with the Secretary of State, talking about this new agenda, and I believe the gentleman from New York has some thoughts on that.

What is the Congress's report card again?

And we are approaching the fifth anniversary.

Are any of those issues going to be brought to the floor? Those recommendations, those outstanding recommendations, will any of them be brought to the floor before we adjourn for elections?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Maine, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington State for coming down here this evening.

We come down here out of love of country and the desire to fulfill our constitutional responsibility. There is no doubt in my mind that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle love their country as much as we do.

I cannot understand why an administration continues to attack those who, out of love of country, speak out and dare to speak truth to power, that are willing to ask the unimagined questions and perhaps give unwelcomed answers to the administration. But that is the work that is required of elected Members of the United States Congress under our Constitution. That is our sworn obligation to the people of this great country of ours and will continue to be our obligation.

It is our sincere hope that we can move this Nation in a new direction. And with a Democratic-controlled Congress, we believe that is the best hope for our colleagues on the other side to join with us in creating what is in the best interest of our troops, our families, and the very security of this Nation.

Thank you, gentlemen, each of you, for joining us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, the First Congressional District lost a great friend, supporter, and leader this past week. George Bahamonde, President and CEO of the United Way of the Capital Area, died suddenly on Thursday while on vacation in Maine.

George moved from Cuba to Bridgeport, Connecticut with his family when he was 11. He placed great value on education and received his bachelor's degree from the University of Bridgeport and earned a master's degree in business administration from the University of Miami and a master's degree in education from Fairfield University. He stressed the value of education throughout his career in public service and was especially proud of his work introducing the Girls and Boys Town Well-managed Classroom training model to the Hartford school system. A five-year assessment of the program showed that academic achievement had increased and school suspensions had decreased in the schools where it was implemented.

In 1970, George began a career in human service that lasted the remainder of his life. He started as a caseworker for Catholic Family and Community Services in Bridgeport, then joined the United Way in 1972 at the United Way of Eastern Fairfield County. He also served the United Way of Puerto Rico, the United Way of Portland, Maine, the United Way of Aurora, Illinois, and the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

Connecticut was fortunate to see George return in 1994 to become President and CEO of the United Way of the Capital Area. His vision for the forty towns served by the United Way was to improve the lives of children and families and better community conditions. To this end, he created numerous initiatives and partnerships and worked tirelessly of their behalf. George worked as easily with nonprofit organizations as he did with corporate donors.

What truly made George special though was not just that he cared about the communities he served, he cared about each individual in those communities. He was a great friend to many and will be remembered for his quick smile, his wit, and his professionalism. He was always willing to share a laugh, talk baseball, or offer words of advice and encouragement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in expressing condolences to George's wife Jenny, his son Matthew, and the rest of his family. The Hartford area has lost a truly caring person and a quietly effective leader. However, George's work will be carried on by those who believe in his vision that we can make each person's life better.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 347, a resolution honoring the National Association of State Veterans Homes and the 119 State veteran's homes nationwide who serve the health care services to our Nation's veterans.

The long and distinguished history of the Connecticut State Veterans Hospital can be traced back nearly 140 years of 1864 when Benjamin Finch opened the first veterans' home in the Nation, Fitch's Home for Soldiers and Their Orphans in Darien, to care for veterans of the Civil War. Now located in the First Congressional District in Rocky Hill, the modern day State Veterans Hospital has served Connecticut veterans since 1940. Over the years, the State veteran's hospital has grown to include nearly 40 buildings on the 90-acre Rocky Hill campus, including a domicile providing rehabilitative care and other health care services. In addition to serving the general health care needs of the State's 280,000 veterans, the hospital provides other critical services meant to help veterans in all aspects of their lives, including substance abuse treatment, education and vocational assistance, and job skill development and training.

While the staff of the State Veterans Home provides unmatched professional care for their veterans, the hospital's core facilities and campus infrastructure are almost 70 years old and is struggling to meet the needs of the veterans they serve. That is why I worked so hard in helping the State obtain a $22 million grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs' State Home Program to fund the first new construction on the Rocky Hill campus in nearly 65 years. This funding will be used to build a new state of the art facility with five new residential wards, a 25-bed Alzheimer's unit, a hospice facility, and an occupational and physical therapy department. In addition to improving service for current residents and veterans, this new facility is especially important as more soldiers in need of medical and mental health treatment return home each day from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our veterans have given so much to our Nation and they deserve the highest quality of care in return for their service. Even after 140 years, the Connecticut State Veterans Home remains an essential component of our long-term veterans' care and helps fulfill the promise of quality care for those who have proudly served our country. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our State Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Linda Schwartz, and her staff to ensure that they have the resources they need to serve the veterans of our State and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 908, which congratulates the Italian national soccer team for their 2006 FIFA World Cup championship. The World Cup is a true testament of nations of the world putting aside their differences to come together in competition and athletic excellence.

Following Fabio Grosso's goal in penalty kicks sealing the Italian victory, people around the globe joined the people of Rome, Naples, and Milan in celebration of Italy's return to World Cup glory. Even back in my district, Italian Americans took to the streets of Franklin Avenue in the south end of Hartford with Italian flags, jerseys, face paint, and smiles in jubilation of the Italian victory.

I join my fellow colleagues, those back in my district, and Italians around the world in congratulating the Italian national soccer team on their undefeated tournament run and their incredible achievement of the Italian nation's fourth World Cup victory.

Madam Speaker, once again we come to the floor this evening as part of Iraq Watch. We do so this evening with both heavy and somber hearts for everything that is going on as we currently speak in the Middle East. Our hearts especially go out to our great ally Israel, as it wards off vicious attacks by Hezbollah. Once again, it only underscores the need for us in this body to do the kind of oversight and review and have the kind of dialogue and discussion that has been absent on the floor of this House and in our respective committees.

Madam Speaker, as we have on so many of these occasions, we begin this evening by once again honoring as well those brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country. They serve this Nation so valiantly.

Let me also acknowledge so many veterans and individuals who have played such a key role, especially those from the Vietnam era, in understanding and helping us recognize that it is so important to differentiate between the warriors and the war. So we salute those brave men and women who are in harm's way, who are dealing with untenable situations they are confronted with in Iraq.

I especially want to draw attention again to a bill that we have before this body that we are still seeking more signatures to, and requesting and asking the Speaker and the majority leader to bring it to the floor by unanimous consent.

I do not believe that there is anyone in this body that does not understand the need for making sure that the Iraqi government does not grant amnesty to those who kidnap, kill, torture and maim American citizens and American troops.

And so I think it is so vitally important that this message be sent, especially as the insurgency only intensifies in the region. Brookings Institute and others who have polled find that 47 percent of the people in Iraq believe that it is okay to kill Americans. It is time that we send a clear message. That is why we come to the floor on successive evenings to send a clear message to the American public about what is transpiring before our eyes.

We pause, as I said earlier, both in somber and peaceful resolution that this conflict can be resolved speedily and we especially pray for those Americans who need to be evacuated from harm's way.

Madam Speaker, I am joined this evening by several of my colleagues who have come to this floor on repeated occasions to talk about a new direction that is needed in the Middle East, a new direction that needs to be taken by this Congress, a new direction that needs to be taken by this President, so we provide an opportunity for this great country of ours to once again move us forward out of harm's way and into a peaceful resolution to what has become consistently a quagmire known as Iraq.

With that, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman makes a great

premise that he asks us to respond to. But what I would like to do, if I could, is respond by quoting from a column in the New York Times yesterday by Frank Rich, who said: ``The Bush doctrine was a doctrine in name only, a sales strategy contrived to dress up the single mission of regime change in Iraq with the philosophical grandiosity worthy of FDR. There was never any serious intention of militarily preempting either Iran or North Korea whose nuclear ambitions were as naked then as they are now, or striking the countries that unlike Iraq were major enablers of Islamic terrorism. `Axis of evil' was merely a classier brand name from the same sloganeering folks who gave us compassionate conservatism, and `a uniter not a divider.'''

Madam Speaker, with that I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his insightful comments, many of which were echoed by Paul Krugman in a New York Times article today called March of Folly.

With that I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen.

The gentleman makes an excellent point. Every time I travel back to my district, the question that more often than not is raised at every forum, every community gathering, every town hall meeting is, How is it that the United States could go from a position in the aftermath, the immediate aftermath of September 11th, with having the entire world on our side, to the point where we are today where so many are opposed to our policies?

What is it that took us down that perilous course? How could it be that the former President, Bush the first, if you will, and his advisers, were the most outspoken critics about going into Iraq, warning this current administration of its folly, of its danger?

I can remember very distinctly being in Saudi Arabia with Jack Murtha and talking to our Ambassador there, and saying to him that, oh, it seems as though you have a gathering storm here in Saudi Arabia, in August of 2002.

He said, gathering storm? He said, Congressman, you are from New England, aren't you? I assume you either read the book or saw the movie. He says, we have over 35 percent unemployment. We have a median income that has dropped from 28,000 to under 7,000 per household. What we have here is not a gathering storm, what we have here is a perfect storm.

If we preemptively strike this toothless tiger in Iraq, we will unwittingly accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. We will create a united Islamic jihad across the Middle East and drive it into chaos. The voices of reason, the voices screaming out at the time were Snowcroft, Eagleburger, Baker, Kissinger, all warning against this folly.

Yet as you point out, we persisted.

Madam Speaker, we have been joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who certainly has embodied from the outset in opposition to this war the voice of reason as it relates to getting us out of Iraq.

That is what the General Accountability Office says as well. The GAO report calls for a new direction in Iraq. The GAO report of July 11 says that the administration's national strategy for victory in Iraq is questionable and victory cannot be achieved without significant change in the President's current stay- the-course strategy. It is unclear, it goes on to say, how the United States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq, given the significant changes in assumptions underlying U.S. strategy.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentlemen, I think, words of both my distinguished colleagues from Massachusetts and Maryland are summed up very well in Frank Rich's article yesterday when he said, This Presidency never had a vision for the world. It, instead, had an idea fixed on one country, Iraq, and in pursuit of that obsession, recklessly harnessed American power to a gut-driven improvisation and PR strategies, not doctrine, that has not changed, even now.

And with that, let me at this point recognize our colleague, the distinguished lady from Texas, who has also come to the floor this evening.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for joining us again and again pointing out that she, like so many of us, has said good-bye to troops, mainly to Reservists and members of the National Guard who have been deployed and redeployed, and our hearts go out to their families and, as we have at the outset at the end of every one of these Iraq Watches, spoke about the difference between the warriors and the war, and we continue to salute them. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas.

We only have a few more minutes, and I want the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentlewoman from California to have the opportunity to close. But I do want to thank the Members for coming down here from New York and Maryland, Texas, California, and Massachusetts and say to the American people that we come here out of love of country. It is because of love of country and because we are more often than not denied a voice on this floor, not only denied a voice on this floor but in the committees, where oversight and review is so important.

Why is that so, you might ask? It is so, unfortunately, because this is a one-party town where our erstwhile colleagues on the other side are in control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the executive branch of government. And they are able to shut off debate and stifle this side of the aisle even from coming forward with alternative resolutions on matters so important.

Mr. Chairman, after much delay and hankering by the Republican leadership about bringing this bill to the floor for a vote, I am proud to rise in strong support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. As a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting any poison pill amendments meant to dismantle the broad agreement on this crucial piece of civil right's legislation.

No congressional duty is more profound than ensuring and protecting the voting rights of all Americans. As Members of this House, we cannot, we must not, be divided or indifferent in reaffirming America's promise that everyone is created equal. The vote is sacred in this country. Throughout our history, Americans have given their lives for freedom and the right to elect their leaders, from Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, to Seneca Falls in New York, to Selma and Montgomery in Alabama, Americans demand the highest standards; the highest confidence; the highest protection in their right to participate in the democratic process.

The fact remains that not too long ago many Americans were denied the right to vote based on their sex or their skin color and in all honesty, many still battle the remnants of this discrimination today. It has been more than 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson called upon Congress to ``extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land'' and pass the Voting Rights Act eliminating illegal barriers to the right to vote. Since that time, the face and even the language of the American voter may have changed, but our government's commitment to protect the integrity of every vote has not.

So today, I ask my Republican colleagues to put aside their partisanship and petty political gamesmanship and join me in protecting the most fundamental right of the American people, who are the rightful owners of this American government. I urge the Members of this House to reaffirm our commitment to protect democracy and support the clean final passage of H.R. 9.

Mr. Speaker, again we come to the floor this evening as part of what we have come to call the Iraq Watch. And first and foremost, as my distinguished colleagues have in previous occasions, I note that we want to distinguish first and foremost the war from the warriors.

The men and women who serve this great country of ours deserve our unending respect and support for the kind of valor, the kind of job that they perform on a regular basis. Having said goodbye to far too many of them, many in our Reservists and National Guards who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed and then redeployed again, it is gut wrenching and heartrending to see what their families are going through. And so our thoughts and prayers are always with them, along with the support of this Congress.

I further would like to say that it is important to distinguish the war from the warriors so that we have an opportunity to lay out policy for the American public. I want to start this evening with a policy that I believe sends a very strong message to the men and women who wear the uniform and their families here at home that are caring for them and caring about them.

We have introduced a resolution that directs the President to send a clear message to the Iraqi Government that during this time of insurrection, a time when the Pew poll most recently indicates that 47 percent of the Iraqi people believe that it is okay and justifiable to kill American soldiers, it is unacceptable; and we must send a clear message to the Iraqi Government that American soldiers who have been killed, maimed, wounded, kidnapped, tortured, that we will not, in any shape, manner or form, tolerate amnesty for those who have perpetrated those acts against these brave men and women.

In my humble estimation, there is no reason why this shouldn't be a bipartisan resolution. We have over 100 Democratic signatures on the bill. We would like to get this bill passed before we adjourn for the August recess. We have been able to bring so many incidental bills to this floor by unanimous consent. Surely we can bring a bill to the floor that sends a clear message to our troops that we are putting the Iraqi Government on notice that it is not okay to kill, maim, kidnap, torture American men and women in our armed services.

And so it is my sincere hope, and we have had some overtures from the other side of the aisle, but so far, no movement. And this should be a nonpartisan issue where we bring this resolution to the floor and take it up and pass it, and send it on to the President so that he can send a very clear message.

More important than sending a clear message to the Iraqis is also sending a message to our troops that we here in this country stand behind them and their sacrifice that they have made and will not see this all go for naught being waived with an amnesty provision in the midst of an insurrection of paramount proportions that is currently going on within Iraq.

So I want to start there. And then I would like to quickly just segue to a quote. This quote was put together by Graham Allison, and Mr. Allison is a Harvard professor who had this to say that ``with regard to the current situation that we face in Iraq, it is clear that we have diverted essential resources from the fight against al Qaeda. We have 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 with the Muslim world.''

Mr. Allison goes on to say: ``Are we any safer today from the threat of nuclear attack, especially by way of a dirty bomb, than we were on September the 11?'' His conclusion is, no. And he says: ``It can be summed up in one word as to the reason why we are not safer: Iraq.''

And with that, let me acknowledge and yield to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has, from the outset of this war, through public forums and discussion, been on record of having protested the sending of our troops into Iraq.

Well, to your point, you know, if we go back to the outset of the invasion of Iraq, we can trace it back to the summer of 2002, with the President's address at West Point, where he announced the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism. And as you will recall, who were the staunchest critics of the President at the time? It was not Senator Kennedy. It was not Senator Byrd. It wasn't Bill Delahunt or Jim McDermott or Maxine Waters or myself. It was Scowcroft, Eagleberger, Baker, Kissinger, because they understood the perils present in this kind of foreign policy, to abandon the precepts of Casper Weinberger and saying the United States should never enter into a military conflict unless its vital interests are threatened. And we knew that that was not the case, and the Powell corollary to that which is, if we go in, we go in with overwhelming force and secure the country.

I yield to the gentleman.

We did not.

Because of the word of Ahmad Chalabi. So what has become the Chalabi-Cheney nexus has led us into this quagmire that we find ourselves into today. And as you point out, we have diverted the necessary funds that are needed to combat terrorism.

We still do not have Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. They are still at large. And we need to make sure that if we are going to send a strong message around the world that this kind of terrorist act will not be tolerated, that we refocus and regroup.

It is also pointed out in several articles over this weekend that we still can prevail in Afghanistan if we put the resources there and support President Karzai and make sure that we regroup and redetermine our effort to put down the Taliban and to focus on weeding out those elements of al Qaeda that still exist along the Pakistani border and throughout Afghanistan that has become once again overwhelmed with warlords.

Reclaiming my time, I thank you, Mr. Delahunt, for your comments; and as you point out, we have been joined by several of our esteemed colleagues. Maxine Waters has been in the forefront of making sure that the message continues to get out across this Nation with regard to the current situation in Iraq. She has been forthright in leading the Out of Iraq Caucus in the Democratic Caucus, and also has embraced wholeheartedly Jack Murtha's proposal.

And, with that, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Reclaiming my time, when you say ``poppy fields,'' you are referring to drug trafficking, correct?

I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I would like to further substantiate what she had to say before about the trafficking of narcotics, especially opium poppies. Since 2001, it increased from 200 metric tons to over 4,200 metric tons in just 2004.

And our colleague from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, has written in the Washington Post and, I think, given very insightful comment on the situation in Afghanistan; and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from Maryland is so on point with his comments. I would like to read some remarks by former assistant Secretary of State James Rubin. He says that the Bush administration, that they have allowed Afghanistan to become the forgotten front on the war on terrorism, the forgotten front on the war on terrorism.

As the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, these were the individuals who took down the World Trade Center, who hit the Pentagon, and but for the bravery of the people on board that heroic flight, the other plane ended up in Pennsylvania, in the fields of Pennsylvania.

Afghanistan is the central front on the war on terror, and yet this administration does not have a long-term strategy for success in this crucial fight. They have allowed a war of choice in Iraq to distract from our critical mission in Afghanistan, a point the gentleman from Maryland articulated earlier.

Mr. Speaker, the parallels of history are so important, and to think now as you point out so well that we have nearly abandoned the effort in Afghanistan and find ourselves imperiled in Iraq, much in the same way Russia found itself imperiled in Afghanistan, with the rest of the world watching as we continue to expend our resources, over $400 billion, and our most precious of all resources, the men and women who serve this country; and in the meantime, Afghanistan has become the forgotten front on terrorism, something the gentleman from Maine knows about as well as anybody in this great body of ours, and I yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine, as always, for his very thoughtful comments; and I want to make a statement consistent with what the gentlemen from Maryland and Massachusetts have said and ask the gentleman from Washington State to join us as well.

But clearly, as the gentleman from Maine points out, our continued presence in Iraq only helps to fuel the insurgency and prolong instability between Iraq's regional and sectarian factions. Instead, our Nation needs a new direction that redeploys our forces to win the war in Afghanistan, tracks down key al Qaeda leaders, and refocuses on fighting the war on terror, something the gentleman from Maryland articulated so well.

Instead, we get nonbinding resolutions that come to this floor when virtually this entire Chamber was united in the effort to make sure that we went after those criminals who perpetrated the acts of September 11, and instead, we have abandoned this front in Afghanistan. Astoundingly, as the gentleman from Maryland points out, the CIA is disbanding the unit that was focused on going after Osama bin Laden and allowed the Taliban to continue to regroup in Afghanistan. Talk about cut and run. Where is the debate on this issue?

On the front line of terrorism, as Ms. Waters pointed out, with what we know is a regrouping of the Taliban, and where we know the funding of terrorism comes from the source of opium trade and that it is allowed to flourish and, in fact, expand and grown since 2001, it is time for a change in policy.

With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland for remarks and then we will go over to the gentleman from Washington State.

The gentleman from Washington State.

The gentleman from Washington State makes a very good point when he says, as the viewers all across this country tune in, and they see people coming down to this floor and speaking from their hearts and their heads about the situation we find in here, the one thing we want the people of this country to know is that the main purpose that we come down to this floor is because of love of country.

The gentleman from Washington State loves his country, as do the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Maryland. And yet we found ourselves in this situation here where oftentimes our voices are muffled. We do not get an opportunity, even in a nonbinding resolution, to present our alternative point of view. This is a one-party town where the other side of the aisle, our erstwhile Republican colleagues, control the Presidency and all of its agencies and both Houses of these Chambers.

And it is because of love of country and a concern to make sure, as we said from the outset, that we distinguish the warrior from the war, that we have an obligation to come to the floor and speak truth to power.

That is why I commend all of you for coming down to the floor, as you have since the outset of this war. And again pointing out this evening that we need a new direction, a thoughtful, provocative direction that all of you have expressed this evening. Articulated by the gentlemen from Maryland and Maine and Massachusetts and Washington is the sense that the American people intuitively understand this and are yearning for their Nation to leave. But our inability in the minority to break through causes us to come here evening after evening in the hope, in the silence of this great hall, in this great room, that our message reaches out across this Nation and is heard by people who love this country.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle love their country as well. But our patriotism and our belief in this Nation stem from the fact that we are a nation configured through the rule of law.

And that is why I am so proud to stand here with each and every one of you this evening. Thank you so much for again coming out for Iraq Watch.

I want to thank you and the 30-something Group for the enormous work that you have done on this floor. Again, as you rightfully point out, we do not have and are not provided the opportunity. You would think in this great democracy of ours there would be ample opportunity for these issues to be debated, but unfortunately time and time again we are not allowed the opportunity even to provide a countervailing measure on something as important as Iraq. Or we find the Voting Rights Act all of a sudden mysteriously is shunted off the floor. The Voting Rights Act, something where there is near bipartisan, almost unanimous approval that is worked out. And you would think in the spirit of this great Chamber that we would be able to proceed. But unfortunately, as I said before, this is a one-party town. And when the Republicans control the House of Representatives, as they have for the last 12 years, and the United States Senate and the Presidency, in their arrogance they believe I guess that we shouldn't have a say, that there shouldn't be this discourse and dialogue.

And that is why I am so proud of the 30-something Group that has consistently come down to this floor. And I am proud to say also that so many people in my home State of Connecticut have called and written and said that they have heard you. And your message is getting through. And I commend you as well for linking up with a number of the blogs around the country who tune in on a regular basis so that they get an opportunity to hear from you and Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and the way that you are able to articulate these issues.

I see that we have been joined by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, another individual who has been able to on so many occasions come to this floor in the silence of this Chamber, in the din of the night because we are not allowed the opportunity during the day to express our concerns.

While the gentleman is getting his chart, I would just like to comment again and commend him, and also commend him in the bipartisan nature and nonpartisan way that you have come down here. I say that with this in mind, because you have heard me talk about the nature of this being a one-party town and what it means in terms of stifling debate and dialogue. And yet we do have plans and we do have ideas and vitality. And so one has to ask himself, Why is it that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to stifle, to cut off debate, to be seemingly uninterested in the proposals that Democrats put forward? The answer I believe lies in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to say about our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: it is not that they aren't good people. They certainly are. It is not that they don't love their country as we do. They do. But he said that they seem to be frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Indifference towards making sure that there is a workable, living minimum wage. Indifference to working people, indifference to the men and women as Mr. Delahunt has pointed out time and time again who are lined up along the highway to Crawford, Texas, seeking only an audience with the President of the United States to talk about their sons and daughters who have given their lives. Indifference, as Ms. Jackson-Lee has pointed out, to the senior citizens of this country who have become refugees from their own health care system and have to travel to Canada to get prescription drugs that they can afford.

Indifference to what we are doing to college students today, cutting back the funding that they so desperately need. Indifference to what happens at the gas pumps where people who are struggling to make a living and have to get back and forth to work find themselves. And I thank you for combating that indifference here on the floor every single night.

It is our direction, the new direction that Leader Pelosi is taking this party and this country into is what this Nation desperately needs, and that is why I am so proud to be down here with you.

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

This evening I come to the floor to continue the discussion that this Congress has had with respect to our policies as it relates to Iraq.

I was fortunate this past weekend to attend yet another ceremony, in this case, with the 1048th Tankers Division from the State of Connecticut who was being deployed to Iraq.

We in this country continue to owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who wear the uniform and who have served this country so valiantly and with such courage. But we also owe a deep debt of gratitude to their families in what has become gut-wrenching ceremonies as you watch young children and mothers and grandparents say goodbye to their loved ones who are going over to Iraq, including a mother who has three sons that are now over there, and another mother who saw her son off and her husband had just left the week before.

So it is very disconcerting when you find that the only people that we have asked to make a sacrifice in the war on terror have become the men and women who serve in the front lines and their families who are left behind.

Our hearts go out to all of them. And what they deserve, more than anything else, is a Nation that will level with them, that will provide them with a plan, that will tell these troops, especially in the case of the National Guard and the reservists who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed again, their stays more so than at any other point in the history of this country, and they do so with a salute and they follow orders. How grateful a Nation we should be.

And yet here at home we hear, just in the previous hour, discussions that center on a tax cut and how important a tax cut is. I have never met anyone that didn't favor tax cuts. But it is disconcerting when you look out at these families and you see that this Congress focuses on tax cuts for the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent, making sure that we ladle on more tax cuts to those already impoverished oil companies who are experiencing unprecedented profits.

Yet I look out into that audience in Connecticut, in the State armory and see these families, many who will struggle during this time, many whose gas prices will rise during the time of this 18-month deployment.

So you say to yourself, well, where is the plan? What is the exit strategy? What do we owe these individuals? Do we not at least owe them the truth?

So there was a debate enjoined on this floor 2 weeks ago, a nonbinding resolution, in essence, a conversation, a conversation where 99 percent of the people on the other side of the aisle said, stay the course, while the Nation and while this side of the aisle clamors for a new direction for America.

When I looked out into the eyes of the audience of those families and I saw their concern and need, they want a new direction for the country, especially as it relates to Iraq.

Isn't it amazing that they can get a plan from the Iraqi government, that they can get several plans from Democrats, whether it be Jack Murtha's bold plan that, well, seemingly the Iraqi government agrees with, or whether it be Carl Levin's plan, well, that seemingly now General Casey agrees with?

So we find the Pentagon and the Iraqi government, Jack Murtha, Carl Levin, and several other Democrats offering thoughtful plans, and the Republicans saying stay the course and a President still unable to level with the American people and unwilling still to meet with parents who have lost their kids, who line the highway on the way to Crawford, Texas, or wait patiently outside The White House for an audience.

It amazes me that, while the Iraqis can say that they have a position and they know that they have to take on responsibility, that we will somehow let the Iraqis determine the faith of our brave men and women, so much so that there has even been talk of amnesty, amnesty for those who have killed, maimed or kidnapped American soldiers or citizens. There can be no amnesty for that. There is no honor in the great sacrifice that our men and women have provided. No matter what the Iraqi government might say, we, as the United States Congress, have an obligation to our men and women and the citizens that are in Iraq working on behalf of this country to make sure that that cannot stand.

And what do we get from our erstwhile colleagues on the other side of the aisle and why was this debate conducted in the manner that it was?

Well, let me tell you why. Because Karl Rove hatched a plan in New Hampshire. You see, he went there and laid out this strategy; and the strategy was a very simple one. It is one that they used before. They just dusted off the playbook and said, you know, it works when we attack Democrats. We attack them for their patriotism.

It worked successfully against Max Cleland. We were able to take that man, who gave three of his limbs for this country, to make him appear to be unpatriotic and go after him personally.

It worked against John Kerry. We were able to swift boat him during the Presidential campaign, to tarnish his service and the medals he earned.

And it is working against Jack Murtha, they think. So that we can turn around and tarnish him as well.

And Karl Rove launches his strategy, and then John Boehner rolls out the talking points for the caucus, and then the debate is neatly sandwiched in between the time allotted, with no Democratic alternative being allotted, and the White House picnic, just in time for the President to take a surprise trip to Iraq for a photo-op and to return home.

The Nation deserves better than that. If the Iraqi security advisors can provide us with a plan, why can't Donald Rumsfeld provide us with a plan?

No wonder, in the Washington Post today and the New York Times over the weekend, people are wild over the fact that, if all that debate and discussion was truly about a course for this Nation, how is it that General Casey's plan sounds identical to Carl Levin's plan? And how is it that the Iraqis can acknowledge what Mr. Murtha acknowledged last November?

On this side of the aisle, we have come to know what it is all about. It is about the continued hypocrisy as it relates to leveling with the American people and, more importantly, leveling with our troops, with the National Guard and reservists and their families and the kind of sacrifice that we have asked them to do, and we have prevailed upon them, and they have done

with honor. And yet we can't level with them?

We find ourselves right now with the congressional Republicans that have no plan for Iraq, a flawed plan for going in, a failed plan to win, and no plan to get out. Stay the course is the slogan. And that is all it is, a slogan, not a solution. It is a prescription for an endless occupation of Iraq.

The Democrats are united on the need for a new direction in Iraq. 2006 must be a year of significant transition. Iraqis must take control of their security and begin a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops.

There has been no person who has addressed that issue more eloquently on this floor and back home in her native California in the city of the Angels than the gentlewoman from California, who has led a task force here in this Congress that focuses on a meaningful plan for an exit strategy from Iraq.

At this time, I would like to yield to the distinguished lady from California, Maxine Waters.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman; and I just want to buttress her point here. In The Washington Post, first, Carl Levin, our distinguished Senator and brother of Sander Levin here in the House, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said that ``probably the worst kept secret in town is that this administration intends to pull out troops before the mid-term elections in November. It shouldn't be a political decision, but it's going to be with this administration. It is as clear as the nose on my face,'' he said, ``that it is all about November and this election.'' And as the gentlewoman pointed out, it shouldn't be.

Jack Murtha has said over and over again only the Iraqis can solve the problems in Iraq. They are fighting with each other, and our troops are caught in between.

And no one less than Iraq's National Security Advisor said, ``Iraq has to go out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems.'' Repeating again exactly what Mr. Murtha has been advocating.

I want to now also turn to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee), who has been part of the Iraq Watch and from the very outset of this war has come to this floor almost on a regular basis to talk about the concerns that so many Americans in this

country care deeply about, most notably the men and women who serve this country.

I yield to Mr. Inslee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington State again for his insightful comments and pointing out the new direction that this country needs to forge and that certainly that the people of this country desire and, as you so eloquently pointed out, as importantly, the people of Iraq.

But I would also add that this is something that the generals of this country who have come forward and spoken out with great clarity also feel strongly about.

Lieutenant General Greg Newbold: ``What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.''

Major General Paul Eaton: ``Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our Armed Forces. His failure to build coalitions with our allies has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. He has shown himself to be incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically.''

Lieutenant General John Riggs: ``They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda,'' speaking on National Public Radio about the Bush administration. ``They only need the military advice when it satisfies their own agenda.''

General Wesley Clark: ``They pressed for open warfare before diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic blunder.''

General Anthony Zinni: ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of planning were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here by this administration.''

Someone who has sent that message consistently also hails from Washington State, the senior member of the delegation, Jim McDermott, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Reclaiming my time, in my opening remarks, this is confusing to American citizens, because Karl Rove, the Sunday prior to the debate that started here in this House, was in New Hampshire; and he laid out the strategic vision for the Republican Party. It was a political gathering, but he laid out that strategic vision. I can understand why the public gets confused, because he said very publicly that what we have to do is ``stay the course,'' and then it was the Democrats who wanted, to use one of their slogans, ``cut and run.'' But they were going to stay the course.

Then that was followed by the majority leader's talking points that were disseminated on the floor here which, of course, was again discrediting Democrats, and most notably Mr. Murtha, about cutting and running.

Then it becomes even more confounding, because the debate that ensued was, as you point out, I think uplifting in some circumstances, because it was trying to define where people stand. Ninety-nine percent of them felt very strongly that we ought to stay the course, while 78 percent on this side felt there ought to be a new direction. So people became somewhat confused. And that was all sandwiched in between the President's flight and photo-op to Iraq and the White House picnic.

Then, lo and behold, last week, the debate in the Senate, where it even reaches a feverish pitch, and we have had more plans hatched and looked at by the Democrats, including the Murtha proposal, as Maxine discussed, and the Levin plan in the Senate, as well as Ike Skelton's proposal and David Price's proposal down here. It goes on and on. So people can get confused.

Then, as you are chronicling these events, all of a sudden the Iraqi security adviser says they have a plan; and their plan includes, as Mr. Inslee pointed out, that the Iraqi people want us out of there. Eight- seven percent want us out of there. Eighty-seven percent believe that they are better off taking control of their own destiny. And now you are telling the American people, though, that, look, this really doesn't have anything to do with all of that. This is about an election. Not their election.

Briefly reclaiming my time, could it be that one of the reasons they are not speaking out as forthrightly as they should, and I am just surmising this, is because part of this reconciliation that has been discussed is the granting of amnesty to Iraqis who have murdered or kidnapped American soldiers or civilians?

We have put forward a resolution here. It was debated during our discussion here, but not a nonbinding resolution. We put forward a resolution that will actually bind the Congress to instruct the President to send a message to the Iraqi Government that that cannot stand; that we, this Congress, and the American public will not stand by and let them recuse people who have taken American lives, who have kidnapped and tortured and mutilated Americans.

We will never stand by and let that happen. Could that be part of the reason?

One gentleman who has been doing that consistently is the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, who, along with Mr. Inslee, headed up the Iraq Watch from the inception of this war, and who always provides us with insightful observations.

I am sure he is intrigued, as both Mr. Inslee and Mr. McDermott are, with the developments of this past weekend with General Casey's proposal, et cetera. I would yield to him at this time.

One of the reasons that we come to the floor this evening, and Mr. McDermott alluded to it, is making sure that we do not sit idle to miss the so-called debate that Mr. Delahunt suggested took place both here in this Chamber, a nonbinding discussion, if you will, and in the Senate.

Because in the past, charges have been made and leveled, slogans tossed out, and they have not been responded to. We are not going to stand by, because the American public desires a new direction, and more importantly desires people who are willing to speak truth to power.

That is why Jack Murtha is so celebrated across this country. It is not so much for the particulars of his plan, but for the fact that he had the temerity to speak truth to power. And so we will not stand idle, and we will come to this floor on successive evenings to drive home the point to the American people.

Mr. Delahunt, you articulated so clearly the need to level with the American public. And I started this evening talking about saying goodbye to the Reservists and National Guard of the 1048th Truckers Division from the State of Connecticut, a very painful thing.

And most important is the need to level with our own troops and the families, who, as you point out, are the only ones who have had to make a sacrifice since September 11. The only people that our government has requested sacrifice of are the men and women who wear the uniform and their families.

Well, if the gentleman will yield, I think Graham Ellison has stated it most eloquently. He said ``Americans are no safer from nuclear terrorist attack today than we were on September 10, 2001.'' He said, ``A central reason for that can be summed up in one word: Iraq. The invasion and occupation 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 the public in every country in Europe, and destroyed it in the Muslim world.''

That about sums it up, where we were and why we need a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for joining me this evening.

If the gentleman will yield.

I profusely thank you and hope you will join us in signing H.J. Resolution 90 that we have put on the floor and we hope to bring to a vote before the 4th of July so that we send a very specific message.

I think that is something that everyone in this Chamber will agree with.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the Republican leadership and their priorities in this House. Instead of moving forward with the minimum wage increase that was approved last week in the House Appropriations Committee, the Republican Majority places yet another irresponsible estate tax cut bill on the floor.

Let me make my position clear, I support tax relief to help small businesses and family farms. I have voted 5 times in the past six years for balanced reforms to the estate tax that would have virtually exempted all estates. However, again and again the Republican Majority has pushed legislation through this House that helps only the few and costs much more than we can afford. The underlying bill, H.R. 5638, would give tax relief to estates worth more than $3.5 million, which will cost the American people $762 billion over 10 years. Only half of the 1% of Americans affected by the current estate tax would benefit from this bill.

In comparison, the minimum wage increase opposed by the Republican Majority would help 7.5 million American workers earning between $5.15 and $8 an hour. Since Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 1997, its buying power is at its lowest level in 50 years. An increase from $5.15 to $7.25 over two years would help the workers most in-need in this country.

Every day the American people are growing tired of the misguided priorities of this Republican Majority and Administration. In a time when the Nation is facing record deficits, a national debt of $8.4 trillion, a gallon of gas is $2.87 and a gallon of milk is $3.23, the American people are looking for leadership in Congress. We need a new direction on economic policy in this country and not more of the same tired Republican proposals that explode the federal debt.

This Congress should help more Americans help themselves. Unfortunately, this Republican Majority has different priorities. Since the Republican Majority blocked the balanced Democratic substitute that would exempt 99.7% of estates from estate tax liability, I urge my colleagues to do better for the American people and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Murtha for having the temerity to speak truth to power. Thank you for having the temerity to separate the war on terror from the travesty that is taking place in Iraq.

It is amazing to me, and this used to be a place, as Professor Remini writes, where Members would come down, unrehearsed, without charts or graphs. They would speak from their heart. They would talk about this institution and what it means to democracy all over the world.

What a sham today. We should all glorify in the aspects of democracy that take place all around the world and in Iraq. But what a sham this is today when we are denied any alternative resolution.

Mr. Lantos eloquently stated that earlier today, when he talked about Bob Michel and his eloquence standing on this floor, talking about speaking truth to power. And that is what is so upsetting to the American people and why Mr. Murtha has been recognized all around this country for standing up and speaking the truth to the American people, something this administration and, frankly, this Congress, has been unable to do. Level with the American people. Let's start with leveling with the American troops, leveling with all of those families of reservists and National Guardsmen who I speak with on a regular basis, who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed and redeployed again many times because we haven't had a plan.

Here we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe, and you guys bring to the floor a political document not designed for a new direction or to bring the country together to discuss this issue the way it should be, but instead as talking points outlined by Karl Rove in New Hampshire, sandwiched in between the President's photo op and a picnic this evening.

Americans are outraged that we don't have a citizenry and Members here who are willing to stand up and have accountability. We all support the war on terror. And this party, from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy, to Jack Murtha, has stood on the watch wall of freedom and stood there valiantly, but collectively with the American people and in this body and in this Chamber, but that is not going on here today. Instead it is right out of the playbook, attack Jack Murtha. Attack the messenger. That is a formula that works. It worked against Max Cleland. It worked against John Kerry. Geez, that will work against Jack Murtha also. Discredit this guy. Discredit what he has had to say because he had the temerity to speak truth to power in an administration that can't level with the American public, can't level with you.

Why don't you criticize General Baptiste, General Zinni, General Van Riper, all of these generals? Are they all wrong too for speaking truth to power? Shouldn't we be talking about how we can collectively move forward in a new direction for this country, instead of a tried and true playbook of political jargon on a resolution that is nonbinding? Speak truth to power.

I am proud to associate myself with Mr. Murtha and everything he stands for.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I was present and voting during the series of rollcall votes that included rollcall No. 226, final passage of the FY2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. While I believed that I had voted ``yea'' on the measure, apparently the electronic voting system did not register this vote. I would like to ensure that the record reflect that my vote, had it been recorded, would have been ``yea'' on rollcall No. 226.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay great honor to Congressman Robert N. Giaimo, who passed away on May 24, 2006. Bob proudly served in this body from 1958-1980, representing the New Haven area in Connecticut. Bob was a profound figure who believed in public service and worked tirelessly for the people of Connecticut.

The son of Italian immigrants, Bob was raised in North Haven, Connecticut and was elected in 1958 to serve the Third District of Connecticut. During his 22 years in Congress, Bob made many significant contributions to this country. Bob co-sponsored a bill that created the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, which has allowed people in this country to reach their creative potential. He also led the first successful effort to end funds for the fighting in Southeast Asia. Bob worked to eliminate the loyalty oath in the National Defense Education Act, and to include the old New Haven Railroad in the Penn Central merger. Bob's priority in Congress was to create meaningful change and he represented

the values and aspirations of the people of the Third District of Connecticut.

Bob was well-respected among his colleagues. During his 11-terms in Congress, he served on the House Budget Committee, which he chaired for 4 years, the House Commission on Information and Facilities, and the Joint Committee on Intelligence. Bob also served on the House Appropriations Committee, and its subcommittees on Department of Defense, District of Columbia, Treasury Postal Service and General Government, Legislative Branch, and Housing and Urban Development. Bob was an inspiration to his colleagues and the people he represented.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring the life of Robert N. Giaimo. Bob's legacy lives on in this Nation and among his family. My thoughts and prayers are with Bob's wife, Marion Schuenemann Giaimo, his daughter Barbara Giaimo Koones, and his granddaughter, Tracy Elizabeth Phillips. Today, we lost a tremendous person who worked hard to improve the well-being of this country and the state of Connecticut.

Madam Speaker, I regret that because of a family medical emergency I could not be present when the House voted today and I would like to submit this statement for the record in support of H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.

Hamas' continued refusal to recognize the existence of Israel, enforce existing peace agreements and renounce terrorism represents a real threat to progress in the Middle East peace process. It is therefore critical that the United States send the strongest possible signal to Hamas that a government based on fear and intolerance is unacceptable. H.R. 4681 is an important step towards addressing the extreme and unproductive positions currently held by Hamas-Ied Palestinian Authority. However, there are some in Connecticut and across the country that remain concerned that the bill goes too far in restricting the financial assistance the Palestinian people rely on or may have far-reaching and unintended consequences. To this end, I look forward to

working with my colleagues to ensure that this bill achieves our common shared goal of fostering a Palestinian government that is a full partner in achieving a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.