Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Michael J. Parman, who had a long and distinguished career as editor and publisher of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, the newspaper of record in Sonoma County.

Mike Parman died on July 1st after a long fight against pancreatic cancer. His rise to the top of the North Coast's publishing world was marked by grit, determination and independence. His tenure at the Press Democrat was marked by excellence and community involvement. And his final days marked by self-awareness, humor and grace.

Orphaned at 14, Mike raised himself in Reno, Nevada under the guardianship of two far-apart relatives. He attended Reno High School where he played basketball and was on the wrestling team. Inspired by his journalism teacher, Rex Daniels, he became a sports writer, and the school paper's sports editor, and wrote a weekly column for Reno's daily paper. Mike went on to the University of Nevada at Reno, where, while earning bachelors and master's degrees, he wrestled and boxed and worked as editor and sports editor of the campus paper, and continued to write for the Nevada State Journal.

In 1967, he married Michaele McCulloch, the daughter of journalist Frank McCulloch and Jackie McCulloch, a marriage that lasted until his death and produced two children, Chris and Leah, who are now parents themselves.

After completing his master's degree in 1968, Parman was called to military duty. He served as an Army journalist and photographer in Vietnam, where he earned a Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal.

In 1970 he was hired as a reporter by the Pioneer Press, a group of weekly newspapers on Chicago's North Shore. He quickly rose to managing editor and at the same time worked as a stringer for Money Magazine. In 1973 he headed west for California, and worked briefly as a copy editor of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat before being hired at the Sacramento Bee. Starting at the copy desk, he successively was promoted to executive sports editor, weekend editor, assistant managing editor, and finally managing editor.

When the New York Times acquired the then privately-owned Press Democrat in 1985, Mike saw an opportunity play a major role in remaking the paper. At the Press Democrat, Mike Parman, first as editor, then as publisher, oversaw several major graphic redesigns of the paper, the construction of a regional printing facility, and the winning of dozens of awards, including a Pulitzer for Photography and a Polk Award for a series of articles.

During his 20 years at the Press Democrat, Mike Parman not only improved the look of the paper and the quality of its journalism and expanded its circulation; he also became deeply involved in community affairs. Mike Parman served as the President of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, on the board of directors of the Sonoma County United Way and on the Advisory Board of the Green Music Center and the North Bay Council.

When Mike Parman retired for health reasons in December 2005, he did not give up his public voice. Instead, he took to the new media, and began writing an Internet ``blog,'' which gave a very personal account of how he, his family and friends were dealing with his cancer. Mike's blog revealed a man facing mortality and the terrors of cancer with courage, compassion and good humor. Going on vacation, Mike wrote that his cancer was a thing that he chose to leave behind. While undergoing chemotherapy, he wrote that he anticipated speaking at a rally where ``I will mop my sweating brow, gray hair will explode from my head and little children will run home screaming.'' And if he used medical marijuana, the rather straight laced Parman feared he would be ``Thrown in jail and forced to wear paisley pajamas the rest of my life.''

Mike Parman's blog brought heartfelt responses from dozens of cancer patients and survivors, because he not only expressed his own feelings, but hit a universal chord.

``We make every moment count,'' Mike Parman wrote. ``We love deeper. We live deeper. We soar on hope and laughter. We appreciate everything and nothing is taken for granted.''

Mr. Speaker, if only we could all live that way every day of our lives.

Madam Speaker, today the House is considering H. Res. 921, a resolution condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel.

The resolution focuses on the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel and expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of the recent violence. While the resolution is not perfect, it does call on the international community to cooperate to bring an end to the violence in the region.

The two sides cannot resolve this by themselves, and it is clear that only a diplomatic track will help to address the wide-spread unrest in the Middle East. Believing that, I would prefer the resolution do more to solidify the U.S. as an honest broker in the conflict.

It is unfortunate that while the violence has continued for more than a week now, Secretary of State Rice still has failed to travel to the region. Even further, she has declined to send a Special Envoy to focus exclusively on the crisis. This is yet one more example of the Bush Administration's failure on the foreign policy front.

The Administration must become engaged with the international community in pursuing a peaceful and just resolution to this on-going crisis instead of standing by while innocent civilians are killed. President Bush's stubborn involvement in Iraq has made it difficult for the U.S. to focus on this and other conflicts in the region. Instead of bringing parties to the negotiating table, President Bush and Secretary Rice have ignored the region while it has literally gone up in flames.

History has shown that the U.S. is most successful when it supports evenhanded, diplomacy-based foreign policy. This can be achieved by supporting and implementing the legislation I introduced earlier this year, SMART (H. Con. Res. 158). SMART steps include:

1. Preventing future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and respect for the rule of law;

2. Reducing the threat and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction;

3. Addressing the root causes of terrorism;

4. Shifting U.S. budget priorities to more effectively meet our national security needs; and

5. Pursuing to the fullest extent alternatives to war.

Until the Bush Administration adopts principles like these in the Middle East, and throughout the world, the cycle of unrest will continue.

Unlike previous Congressional acts, SMART strives to achieve a balance of support for all parties and puts the U.S. in the role of a partner for peace in Middle East.

With my constituents and colleagues, I call on the President to dedicate himself fully to the peace process and to guarantee the safety and well-being of all innocent civilians involved in the chaos in the Middle East.

Madam Speaker, today the House is considering H. Res. 921, a resolution condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel.

The resolution focuses on the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel and expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of the recent violence. While the resolution is not perfect, it does call on the international community to cooperate to bring an end to the violence in the region.

The two sides cannot resolve this by themselves, and it is clear that only a diplomatic track will help to address the widespread unrest in the Middle East. Believing that, I would prefer the resolution would do more to solidify the U.S. as an honest broker in the conflict.

It is unfortunate that while the violence has continued for more than a week now, Secretary of State Rice still has failed to travel to the region. Even further, she has declined to send a special envoy to focus exclusively on the crisis. This is yet one more example of the Bush administration's failure on the foreign policy front.

The administration must become engaged with the international community in pursuing a peaceful and just resolution to this on-going crisis instead of standing by while innocent civilians are killed. President Bush's stubborn involvement in Iraq has made it difficult for the U.S. to focus on this and other conflicts in the region. Instead of bringing parties to the negotiating table, President Bush and Secretary Rice have ignored the region while it has literally gone up in flames.

History has shown that the U.S. is most successful when it supports even-handed, diplomacy-based foreign policy. This can be achieved by supporting and implementing the legislation I introduced earlier this year, SMART--H. Con. Res. 158. SMART steps include:

1. preventing future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and respect for the rule of law; 2. reducing the threat and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; 3. addressing the root causes of terrorism; 4. shifting U.S. budget priorities to more effectively meet our national security needs; and 5. pursuing to the fullest extent alternatives to war.

Until the Bush administration adopts principles like these in the Middle East, and throughout the world, the cycle of unrest will continue.

Unlike previous congressional acts, SMART strives to achieve a balance of support for all parties and puts the U.S. in the role of a partner for peace in Middle East.

With my constituents and colleagues, I call on the President to dedicate himself fully to the peace process and to guarantee the safety and well-being of all innocent civilians involved in the chaos in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Miller for this motion to instruct the pension conferees because a defined pension plan is a promise. It is a promise that workers count on when they come to the end of their employment. It is a promise that they plan their future around.

Many workers have been promised benefits at the end of their work service. In fact, many have accepted retirement benefits instead of pay increases. Now remember that. Many people choose to forgive a pay increase and get an increase in their pension instead.

Now, unless we have reform that allows companies to convert to cash balance programs, programs that don't consider the older worker, a worker who has planned for years and years how they are going to live the rest of their lives in dignity, we have broken a great promise to these wonderful workers.

Not protecting their retirement would result in many, many times reducing their benefits by at least half. Imagine trying to live, through no fault of your own, on half of what you had planned on. We would not expect people to live on half of the amount of food or half the amount of medicine they would need; how can we expect them to live on half of a pension?

These pension benefits have been earned. They must be honored. Mr. Speaker, these workers were promised defined retirement benefits. They have earned those benefits. The Congress cannot allow companies to go back on their word. We, as a Congress, must support them. We must ensure these hardworking Americans that they will get the pension benefits they have been promised so they can plan, they don't have to look over their shoulders or go live with their kids or have half of their medications.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Miller motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is the 161st time that I have come to the floor to deliver a 5-minute Special Order about the United States occupation of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, this effort would not have been possible, it would have been totally impossible, without the excellent words and guidance and general assistance of a member of my staff, Eric Powers.

Mr. Speaker, Eric will be leaving my office tomorrow, after 3 years of service and 161 5-minute speeches, to attend Washington University in St. Louis, law school, where he will have the opportunity to further his work in the international law department. Mr. Speaker, believe me, Eric Powers will be missed and, believe me, Eric Powers is appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, Iraq is burning. It is becoming hard even to read the news accounts. The last few days have been marked by two of the deadliest attacks on civilians in months.

A new U.N. report concludes that roughly 6,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed just in the last 2 months. Random violence, fear, and lawlessness are ruling the day. People cannot leave their homes. Vicious thugs and vigilantes control the streets where people are pulled from cars, where they are tortured and executed.

Do not bother calling the police. They have been infiltrated by militias and are brutally corrupt themselves. One Sunni sheikh laughed as he said this about the police to the New York Republic: ``The good ones just take bribes . . . the bad ones rip off your head.''

Monday's New York Times cited an Iraqi Army official who notes that in a recent attack some of the gunmen wore the uniform of the Iraqi Security Forces. As he put it, ``You cannot recognize your friend from your enemy.''

To those who insist that all hell will break loose if our troops leave, I say hell has already broken loose. How much worse can it possibly get, and how many American lives must we endanger for a civil war that we are virtually powerless to stop?

I am not saying that democracy will be busting out all over once the last American soldier takes her last step on Iraqi soil. But we cannot begin the process of putting Iraq back together again until our troops come home. Every day that the occupation continues will make it that much harder for the United States to play a constructive nonmilitary role in Iraq as a construction partner rather than a military occupier.

If you will recall, the architects of the earlier Iraqi war and the resulting occupation did not just promise us democracy in Iraq. According to their fairy tale, an invasion was going to have this glorious ripple effect, spreading peace and freedom across the Middle East. These were Vice President Cheney's words in 2002.

Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.

Of course, this week's open hostilities between Israel and Lebanon have proven that statement tragically wrong. The Iraq war hasn't spread freedom anywhere. It has made all of us, Iraq, its neighbors, the United States and the world, less safe.

There is no question, we have reached a point of diminishing returns in Iraq. In fact, the bloodbath in Baghdad has only gotten worse in the month since we moved more troops into the capital as part of a security crackdown that we called Operation Forward Together.

You know how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Well, last week, General Casey said that we might need still more troops to contain the violence in Baghdad. This is madness, Mr. Speaker. Our soldiers were not trained for this. They are largely powerless to control hostility that is rooted in a religious conflict that dates back centuries. It is time to bring them home

Mr. Speaker, I honor the long-term marriages of my colleagues, all, in this Congress, but this so-called Marriage Protection Amendment isn't about trying to reduce the divorce rate, or it is not about helping married couples work through their problems. This bill is about keeping two adults from making a life-long commitment to each other. With everything that is happening in this world, it seems like this should be the least of our worries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the majority party to quit intruding on our private lives and start working on the issues that really matter to the American people and to their families. The American public wants us to work together, to bring our soldiers home from Iraq, to address the rising cost of gas, to raise the minimum wage.

Faced with such important issues, amending the Constitution to decide what we should do in our private lives is nothing more than a cheap stunt.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a celebration of bad policy. I voted against it when it was a Clinton proposal, and I voted against it because my fear was, based on having been a past welfare mom, my fear was that ultimately it would be the kids who suffered. And how right I was.

So when the Congress reauthorized the welfare program recently, not a single Democrat voted for it, because Democrats know that what this bill does is fail to help families reach economic independence. Instead it pushes families off welfare, into the workforce without sufficient education, without adequate child care, and without a path to self- sufficiency.

If the Republican leadership was truly interested in improving families' welfare, it would be debating and passing an increase in the minimum wage, and we would be doing that today, instead of talking about celebrating welfare. The sad fact is that this Congress is more interested that fewer people get help than whether fewer people need help. And that is a shame.

I encourage my colleagues, please oppose this resolution, a resolution that is trying to celebrate bad policy. A policy that keeps children in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, for months and months we have been hearing from the Bush administration that the training of Iraqi security forces is going as planned. America will stand down just as soon as Iraq stands up, they said. A milestone which we were assured was just around the corner.

Well, now we know the truth. Not only can they not stand up; they can barely crawl. And when they do crawl, all too often they are fighting each other or U.S. troops.

The Los Angeles Times published a shocking report over the weekend about the violence and corruption that is permeating the Iraqi police. According to the Times, we are talking about ``the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, assassinations of police officers, and participation in insurgent bombings . . .

``Officers have beaten prisoners to death. They have been involved in kidnapping rings, sold thousands of stolen and forged Iraqi passports, and passed along vital information to insurgents . . . ''

In one Baghdad neighborhood known as a militia stronghold, police tortured detainees with electricity and beatings.

I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that the United States and its military have no moral authority to combat such gruesome tactics. Why? Because the right to torture prisoners of war, indeed, the exhortation to torture them, was the official policy of our government for several years.

Of course, the minimum requirement of a functioning society in Iraq will be some kind of trustworthy law enforcement system. But with insurgents and militia groups having infiltrated the police, Iraqi citizens have absolutely no recourse, no legitimate authority committed to their safety and their security.

Another recent article, this one from the Washington Post, tells of a Baghdad resident who dialed the Iraqi equivalent of 911 after a Shiite militia, called the Mahdi Army, firebombed a local mosque. The call went through to the ministry of interior, which is allied with the Shiia and its militias. The dispatcher told the man that he, the caller, was a terrorist, said the Mahdi Army was just doing its job, and hung up. How is that for freedom on the march?

Mr. Speaker, rather than bringing stability and rule of law to Iraq, it has turned out that we have a chaotic killing field, a hot bed of terror over there. The only law that seems to apply is the law of the jungle. The streets are controlled by thugs and murderers. The Iraqi Government is impotent at best, complicit at worst. They are in a civil war.

The least we can do is remove our soldiers from this inferno. Bringing the troops home will not be a panacea for Iraq, but it will get Americans out of harm's way while we help facilitate the long, arduous process of Iraqi reconstruction and reconciliation.

Iraq cannot be put back together again as long as we persist with a military occupation. Every day that our soldiers are there makes it harder, not easier. Every day that the occupation continues, we move further away from, not closer to, the kind of democratic society President Bush says he wants in Iraq.

Bring the troops home. It is the right thing to do for America, and it may be Iraq's only hope for peace and stability.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Representative Miller for offering this motion and for his continued leadership in fighting for America's workers.

Thirty-eight years ago I was a single, working mother with three small children. In fact, my children were 1, 3 and 5 years old at the time. Receiving no child support, earning just above the minimum wage, even though I was working, I was earning so little that my family was forced to go on Aid for Dependent Children, welfare, to provide for the child care, the health care and the food that we needed to make ends meet. Even though I had a good education and I had good job skills, I still wasn't earning enough from my job to fully support my children. And believe me, I worked hard and I worked full time.

My personal story bears repeating because too many families today are in the exact same predicament I was in 38 years ago. So this Congress, if it wants to, can do something to seriously address poverty in this country. And we can do it by increasing the minimum wage, paying working parents enough to support their families and enough to take care of their kids. But increasing the minimum wage is absolutely, absolutely necessary in getting that going.

The Bush administration continues to repeat that profits are up. They may be up, but working Americans aren't experiencing this benefit. They don't see it in their daily lives because their wages are stagnant. In fact, the Federal minimum wage has not been increased since 1997.

You know, a rising tide should lift all boats, not just the yachts. Mr. Speaker, it is time for American workers to share in the fruits of their labor, and it is time to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, the more President Bush entangles this country of ours in the Iraq occupation, the less committed it seems he is to the real national security threat we face, global terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Over the holiday weekend, when few people were paying attention, it was reported that the CIA has closed down ``Alec Station,'' its special unit that was charged specifically with tracking down and capturing Bin Laden.

We've sure come a long way since the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the President promised to get him, dead or alive. So much for Sheriff Bush. The tabloids are doing a better job of hunting down Tom Cruise's baby than this administration is at finding bin Laden. But this latest decision is of a piece with the Bush approach to bin Laden.

In the fall of 2001, he had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, but the President let him get away by relying on local warlords rather than moving American troops in to finish the job.

And a few months later, at a White House press conference, the President's cavalier approach to bin Laden was on full display. ``I don't know where he is,'' the President said. ``I just don't spend that much time on him. I truly am not concerned about him.''

Well, 300 million other Americans are concerned, and they want to know why we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy and foment civil war in Iraq, but we can't maintain a single intelligence operation office devoted to apprehending the man responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans. And this from a President who has never missed an opportunity to wave the flag of 9/11, to exploit that tragedy in order to score political points and justify the reckless use of American power in Iraq.

The evidence is clear. This President is not serious about fighting terrorism. If he were, he wouldn't have diverted energy and resources away from the struggle in order to chase this white whale in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein, as we know by now, was not an ally of bin Laden's and was not a threat to U.S. security. But by invading Iraq, President Bush has turned that devastated country into a jihadist breeding ground and made all of us less safe. The Iraq war has created terrorists rather than stopping them.

There is only one answer. It is time to bring the troops home and end the occupation of Iraq. Then we can redirect our resources, military and otherwise, toward finding bin Laden and

pursuing a true counterterrorism strategy, a counterterrorism strategy that instead of invading countries willy-nilly, makes use of multilateral partnerships and strong intelligence capabilities.

That, in addition to toppling the Taliban, would be the proper way to respond to 9/11. That would be the right strategy to meet the national security challenge of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2003, the United States stopped fighting a war in Iraq and became the occupants of Iraq. That was when the U.S. occupation began.

March 1, 2003, is the day that President Bush, speaking under a huge banner with the words ``Mission Accomplished'' declared major combat operations in Iraq had ended. At that moment, the United States military should have left Iraq.

Military commanders and policy experts advised the President, but he failed to grasp that deploying hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq and invading Baghdad would be like sticking your hand in a beehive and trying to remove it without getting stung.

Even the President's father, President George H.W. Bush, agreed on this point. That is why during the first Gulf War during 1991, he stopped short of having the U.S. military actually enter Baghdad.

If we had left after, according to the President, the ``mission'' had been ``accomplished,'' we could have prevented the deaths of over 2,400 American soldiers. More than 18,000 others wouldn't have returned home with life-changing injuries, and thousands of others wouldn't suffer from severe psychological trauma as a result of fighting a war halfway across the world. And countless thousands, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed might still be alive in Iraq.

The last 3\1/2\ years since the President's ``mission accomplished'' speech have been unsuccessful in all ways in Iraq. This war has drained America's coffers of nearly $400 billion, money that could have been used for underfunded programs right here at home, like addressing key homeland security needs, providing health care to all Americans, giving all American children a first-class education.

This war has diminished America's role as an international leader. Our role and our image have suffered great damage as a result of our involvement in Iraq. We are even less safe here at home, and Iraqis are less safe in Iraq than before the United States invaded Iraq.

It is actually the very presence of 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq that has enraged and dissatisfied the people of the Arab world.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a war; this is an occupation. The Pentagon and the White House have turned our troops into occupiers against their will, placing them in an absolutely impossible situation. This is not what they were trained for. Soldiers can win a war, but how do they win an occupation? An occupation is by its very nature unwinnable. There is no winning; all you can do is come home.

The President does not seem to understand this truth which is made very clear in comments he makes like ``we will accept nothing short of total victory in Iraq''; or ``we will stay in Iraq until the job gets done.''

Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that there is no such thing as ``getting the job done in Iraq'' because it is not a job, it is an occupation. What Congress needs to do is take back the powers it gave to the President more than 3 years ago. It is time to rescind the legislation that gave him the authority to use force in Iraq. And while we are at it, let's do the right thing for our soldiers, their families and the entire country: end the occupation.

The least we can do for our troops is thank them for their service and bring them home to their families.

Mr. Speaker, some of the most frightening violence in months has erupted in Iraq over the past week. In fact, today was reported to be the worst day of death and violence since the United States started the war 3\1/2\ years ago.

On Saturday, Sunni insurgents bombed and destroyed a Shiite mosque. In response, Shiite gunmen dragged random motorists out of their cars in a Sunni Baghdad neighborhood, killing them, killing them with impunity.

The situation has become absolutely terrifying. And, sadly, the cycle of retaliation and revenge is getting worse, not better. Those who think Iraq has not already devolved into a civil war are just kidding themselves. They must think a civil war looks something like two pitched armies battling it out across from each other with muskets and cannons in a giant field.

Unfortunately, today's version of a civil war is a lot more murky. It involves fighting on the streets, not a battlefield. It involves innocent civilians, men, women, it involves children, who are losing their lives, who are living in a great deal of pain and a great deal of uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, what we can be sure about is that our presence in Iraq is not helping the situation. In fact, the presence of nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq has become a rallying point for dissatisfied people in the Arab world. This latest surge of violence has coincided with an announcement by U.S. military officials that four more soldiers have been arrested in connection with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and three members of her family.

To be sure, the vast majority of all American soldiers currently stationed in Iraq are bravely and honorably serving their country, but the destructive actions of a few very bad apples have added fuel to the fire, and the Iraqi people want us to leave their country.

The sad truth is that our troops have been failed by their civilian leaders in Washington. They have been misguided. They have gone on a mission that has been fraught with failure from the very, very beginning. The White House is more interested, it appears, in trying to make Iraq seem like a success than actually fixing the problem that plagues the country.

If you go to the White House Web site and if you search for ``Iraq,'' you will find a section called ``Renewal in Iraq.'' This page contains such platitudes as, and I quote the Web site, ``Together, Iraqis and Americans are making progress''; and another one, ``The United States will settle for nothing less than complete victory in Iraq.''

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that words like ``will settle for nothing less than complete victory'' or ``we'll stay in Iraq until the job is done'' are no more than tired old slogans. Most Americans and nearly all Iraqis understand that an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq doesn't serve anyone's interests. The very perception that we plan to stay in Iraq permanently is one of the greatest catalysts spurring the Iraqi insurgency.

It is clear that the time is long overdue to bring our troops home. It is time to end the bloodshed and to send a clear message that the United States has no plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely, that we won't occupy permanent bases in Iraq and we won't control Iraqi oil, and that our troops will be coming home. They will be leaving Iraq. They will be coming home to their families.

The American people know this and they want their elected leaders in Congress and the White House to catch up with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Don Organ, my old friend and advisor, of Marin County, California, who died June 21, 2006, at the age of 77. Don advised me on my first congressional campaign in 1992 and continued to be a valued supporter through the ensuing years,

Don's career in politics evolved after he retired from a 27-year career managing nonprofit organizations, mostly in the public health field. After my 1992 campaign, he went on to develop a political consulting business with his wife Doris that focused primarily on Democrats and women candidates. He ran Barbara Boxer's ``Be a Boxer'' campaign as well as efforts for local candidates such as Marin Assessor Joan Thayer, Judge Vernon Smith, Community College Trustees Eva Long and Greg Brockbank, and City Council Members Paul Cohen, Barbara Heller, and Carole Dillon-Knutson.

Born in Minneapolis, Don was raised in Los Angeles and graduated from Pomona College. After serving in the Korean war, he studied education at UC Berkeley and taught high school for a short time before entering the nonprofit world. With his wife Doris and his two sons, he moved around the country to pursue this work, and the family lived in Wyoming, Chicago, Washington, DC, Birmingham, and Kansas City, before settling in Fairfax in Marin County in 1987.

Don soon joined the Marin Democratic Central Committee, ran unsuccessfully for the Marin Community College Board, and rapidly became a political fixture in the county. He was an active member of the National Women's Political Caucus in Marin where his support was so valued that he was the only male included in their 2006 Movers and Doers Calendar.

That first unsuccessful campaign for College Board is fondly recalled by Don's son Kris: He recruited my brother Larry and me to walk precincts with him, which I thought was pretty bold of him, as he and Mom had just moved to Marin County the year before. Larry and I were the established names in Contra Costa County.

We handed out a piece of literature Dad had put together stating his goals for the College, giving his background and including a photograph. We walked a Novato precinct, and a voter said to him, ``Oh, I'm glad I met you in person. You look fat in this picture, but you're not fat. Fat people should never get elected, because they're lazy. But, I'll vote for you.'' Dad replied with his broad smile, ``Well, I'm glad we met too. All this precinct walking has been good for me.'' Then, he told his boys, ``That's how important a good picture is!'' He came in last for the College Board, but I think those lessons made a difference in handling other candidates whose pictures were always the best.

Don is survived by Doris, his wife of almost 52 years, and two sons, Kris Organ, Executive Director of Service Employees International Union Local 949 and his daughter Serena; and Larry Organ, civil rights attorney, his wife Susan and 3 daughters, Robyn, Meg, and Jane, all of whom live in Marin County.

Mr. Speaker, Dan Organ enriched Marin with his work and his support of many candidates, both men and women, who are leaders in the community. His family has asked that we ``keep his memory'' in our hearts. I will certainly do that as I mourn the loss of this friend and colleague whom I valued as an ally in my endeavors on behalf of California's Sixth District.

Mr. Speaker, the majority party says that we need to find a better way to end our energy crisis and a way to bring gas prices down. Well, that sounds really good because that is exactly what we need to do. But the solution they are offering today is not a solution. There is a better way, and that is for certain.

In fact, by providing tax incentives for the construction of energy- efficient buildings and heating equipment, by doing that alone, we could save more than 12 times the Interior Department's estimate of economically recoverable gas outside the central and western Gulf of Mexico.

This plan they are offering for more offshore drilling for four States makes every other use of coastal waters subordinate to drilling for oil.

Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't even be discussing it. Do they really think that the people of this country don't get it? Well, let me tell you, the people in my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties north of San Francisco, get it. They know that what makes this bill even worse than being a Band-Aid is that it is a destructive solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, Army General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, presented civilians leaders here at home with a plan for sharply reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq for September of this year.

According to reports, General Casey shared his plan with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace; and even President Bush himself.

The idea of an actual plan for how to end the war in Iraq is something that many of us in Congress have been calling for over the last several months and years. General Casey's plan reportedly suggests reducing our troop presence by as much as 60 percent. But, unfortunately, without a plan about how best to accomplish bringing our troops home, a plan to protect the safety and ensure the safety of 135,000 American soldiers, this could haphazardly actually endanger the remaining 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers and leave them behind as sitting ducks.

Mr. Speaker, I have been calling for the President to present a plan for bringing our troops home since December of 2005; and in May of last year, when we held the first debate on Iraq on the House floor after the beginning of the war itself, 128 Members of the House, more than one-third of the Members of the House of Representatives, agreed that the President needed to come up with a plan for bringing our troops home and share it with the appropriate congressional committees.

Today, more than a year later and with the majority of the American people agreeing that this senseless war needs to end as soon as possible, that number would be surely higher.

The idea that the President invaded a country in the very first place without a strategic goal in mind and without a plan for how to win and how to leave is absolutely incomprehensible. And no one should confuse the Bush administration's tired old line about staying the course for an actual plan or a strategy. Lines like ``we will stay in Iraq until the job gets done'' are nothing more than trite slogans.

What most Americans and nearly all Iraqis understand is that open- ended U.S. military presence in Iraq does not serve either Americans or Iraqis. The very perception that we plan to stay in Iraq permanently at any level is one of the greatest catalysts spurring the Iraqi insurgency. Just yesterday, 11 Sunni insurgent groups publicly stated that they would immediately halt all terrorist attacks in Iraq, including those against American troops, if the United States would publicly commit to leaving within the next 2 years.

It is clear that the time is long overdue to bring our troops home. For goodness sakes, the American people are for this. The Iraqis are for this. Why can't Congress be for this? Is it not time we caught up with the people we are supposed to be working for?

Every week, every day, every hour we stay in Iraq is costing us dozens of American and Iraqi lives, hundreds of physical and psychological wounds, and billions of dollars. Let us send a message to our troops, let us send a message to the rest of the world that the values of diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and respect for others' freedoms are the paramount American values, the qualities we stand for as a Nation, not endless war and certainly not the occupation of a sovereign people.

Since the beginning of the war, President Bush has said we would leave Iraq as soon as the military commanders on the ground told him it was time to do so. Well, now the highest-ranking military leader in Iraq has presented a plan for bringing our troops home. For the sake of our soldiers, their families and the people of the United States and Iraq, it is time for the President to keep his end of the bargain, but, Mr. Speaker, not without a plan, one presented to the Congress. He didn't have a plan going into the war, he didn't have a plan to win the war, but he must have a plan leaving the war. Otherwise, our troops will once again be under great danger.