Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine has sent me a short and moving poem; and I want to share it tonight.

She writes, ``I weep for my country. We seem to have completely lost our way. I want the government to be as generous as private people are. I want my government to do as well as WalMart is doing. I weep for my country. I want black faces to count as much as mine. I need hope, not statistics, platitudes and phony, staged play-acting. I weep for my country. We need a Marshall Plan. We need a New Deal. We need leaders in Congress to start talking about conservation, pulling together, car pooling, not opening the Alaskan oil fields. Oh, God, how I weep for my country.''

I was moved by my friend's words, and I am committed to turning her words into action. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock I will be convening a hearing to discuss concrete strategies for ending the war in Iraq. We will hear from Middle East experts, military leaders, and others as they offer their ideas for how we can bring our troops home and move toward a peaceful but constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society.

This morning brought news of a deadly series of bombings in Iraq, killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, more than 150 people in all, making it one of the deadliest days of this horrific war.

Is this what the march of freedom looks like? Is this what Vice President Cheney meant when he said the insurgency was in its last throes?

It is more clear than ever that the American military presence is inspiring terrorist insurgents rather than defeating them. Al Qaeda has taken credit for this wave of violence and al Qaeda was not even a factor in Iraq before the U.S.-led occupation began.

The American people understand this. Nearly two-thirds of them give the President poor marks on his handling of Iraq. They are desperate to hear alternatives to the administration's disastrous policy. That is why I have organized this hearing tomorrow, to give voice to a widely held conviction, to spark a national debate, to demonstrate that many of us do not want to just speak out against the war. We want to discuss pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts solutions, in fact, a road map to our very disengagement.

That discussion should eventually go beyond Iraq to include a complete reassessment of our national security priorities. It is time to end the reflexive impulse of using military force to solve our international conflict. It has, by the way, the appearance of strength, but, as Iraq has shown us, it often undermines our national security, rather than enhancing it.

I have proposed a new approach. It is called SMART Security. It stands for Sensible, Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances. But that does not mean SMART is not serious and smart about protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but it does so with stronger multi-lateral alliance, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection regimes, and aggressive diplomacy.

SMART would shuffle our national security budget. No more billions thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead be invested in energy independence and other efforts that truly are relevant to the modern security threats that we face.

SMART also includes an ambitious international development agenda to help address the root causes of terrorism, democracy building, education for women and girls, addressing resources scarcity. These are key ingredients to building stable societies in Iraq and elsewhere.

It is my hope and belief that the grievous mistakes we made in Iraq will lead us to this new, smarter national security policy. SMART Security protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, and our compassion for the people of the world.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Sunday marked 4 years since the painful terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. Sunday was a day for solemn reflection and remembrance, but our Government, specifically the Department of Defense, threw a propaganda party instead.

Sunday's so-called Americans Support Your Freedom Walk included a

pro-war speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a concert on the National Mall by Clint Black, whose lyrics implicitly accuse war protesters of standing with Saddam.

Sunday was supposedly about honoring our troops. The problems is, Mr. Speaker, most of our currently deployed troops are on a mission that has nothing to do with 9/11. It has long been established that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the murderous plot executed by al-Qaeda 4 years ago.

Ironically, Sunday's march, which was supposedly about celebrating freedom, took place in the most tightly controlled circumstances imaginable. March participants were required to pre-register. Tall fencing encased the marchers throughout. The media was kept at bay. Helicopters flew overhead. The Park Police issued a public threat that they would arrest anyone who joined without the proper credentials. And what were those credentials? Enrolling 2 days in advance to be checked out to ensure that participants were what? Pro Bush? Pro war? Pro propaganda? Pro continuing the lies of 9/11 linking to Saddam Hussein? And, for good measure, a Pentagon spokeswoman declared that protesting the march would be the equivalent of protesting our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, this was nothing more than mere propaganda, a transparent attempt to shore up the President's dwindling poll numbers, especially his poor marks on Iraq.

For the umpteenth time, they are trying to use the national unity inspired by 9/11 to justify a divisive, controversial and immoral war in Iraq, a war that has cost us nearly 2,000 American lives, thousands of severely wounded veterans, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed.

If we want to support the troops, the best thing we can do, the only thing we can do, is to bring them home, out of Iraq, where their very presence is animating the insurgency and giving rise to more intense anti-Americanism than ever.

For some time now, I have been calling for hearings on Iraq. But having received no satisfactory response, I am convening my very own hearing scheduled for this Thursday, September the 15th, from 10 to 1 p.m. in Room 122 of the Cannon Office Building.

We will hear from respected Middle East experts and military leaders about how we might achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq. We hope to break the silence on Capitol Hill, help fill the policy vacuum and spark a broader public debate about our policy options in Iraq.

Bringing the troops home, Mr. Speaker, and ending this occupation should be the beginning, not the end of a complete reassessment of our national security priority. National security means more than the use of military force which, as we have seen in Iraq, can have the appearance of strength but can undermine our national security rather than enhance it.

To that end, I propose a new approach. It is called SMART security, which stands for a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances.

But that does not mean that SMART is not serious and smart about protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but it does so with stronger multilateral alliances, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection regimes and aggressive diplomacy.

SMART would reshuffle our national security budget. No more billions thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead be invested in energy independence and other efforts that are truly relevant to the modern security threats that we face. SMART Security protects America by relying on the very best of American values, our capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, and our compassion for the people of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sorrow for the tragedy that has struck the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; but I also want to express my sorrow that we are not learning from this tragedy. Have we not seen firsthand this week just how much help is needed for the most vulnerable people in our Nation? We are seeing it as they are victims of Katrina: the elderly, the disabled, the poor, particularly children. Of course, we must do everything we can to help overcome the challenges in the short term. But we must also address the long-term needs of the most vulnerable in this Nation.

This bill is short term. I will support it, but it leaves so very much undone. Of course, we need to give States immediate access to funds, funds that they otherwise would not have received until October 1. We need to provide emergency funds for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; and we need to reimburse other States for emergency cash assistance that they are providing for evacuees. This bill does those things.

But there are many things it does not do. For example, it does not address the pressing needs of children in foster care, the unemployed and parents who need child care, and it does not address child care needs that are even more critical than ever for parents of young children, parents who are trying to find jobs.

As I said, I will support this bill, but I am concerned that we are responding to Katrina with this bill, and others, both literally and figuratively, by helping the victims bail out the water, but not fixing the holes in the infrastructure that lets the water in. We need to do both, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, tonight on the heels of Hurricane Katrina, I cannot help but ask how the victims would have been helped had our National Guard and our military and our Corps of Engineers equipment been made available here at home, not across the world, making trouble instead of fixing troubles here as we responded to Katrina.

Tonight I will discuss what is happening in Iraq since we were last in session 5 weeks ago. For the last 4 years, the Bush administration has often justified the war in Iraq by boasting of the new-found freedoms Iraqi women would supposedly enjoy thanks to our military intervention.

Many of us remember that staple of the President's stump speech, that the first voter in the Iraqi elections was a 19-year-old woman. In this very Chamber, an Iraqi woman sat with the First Lady during the State of the Union address and flashed the victory sign in celebration of the election that had just taken place.

Well, that was then, Mr. Speaker. That same woman, now Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, is one of several Iraqis now publicly criticizing their nation's draft constitution and its treatment of women's rights.

``When we came back from exile,'' she said, ``we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened. We have lost all of the gains that we made over the last 30 years. It is a big disappointment.''

In fact, the very second article of the Iraqi Constitution declares that Islam is ``the official religion of the state,'' and that ``no law may be enacted that contradicts its established provisions.''

You do not have to be a theologian, Mr. Speaker, to know that adherence to strict Islamic tradition is incompatible with equal rights and dignity for women.

Most depressing of all, perhaps, is that this constitution may actually represent a weakening of women's rights from the previous regime. That is right. Women may have fewer legal protections in this new so-called democracy than they had under the rule of that famous feminist and egalitarian Saddam Hussein. Is this what nearly 1,900 American soldiers have died for, so that Iraq could slip into repressive theocracy? Perhaps this is the noble cause, the cause we have been hearing so much about: second-class citizenship for Iraqi women.

The weapons of mass destruction claim was discredited long ago. The Iraq-al Qaeda link is nonexistent. Now it even appears that the spreading-freedom-and-democracy rationale for this war is also a fraud.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one more reason that we must end this occupation and bring our troops home as soon as possible.

One week from Thursday, I will be holding a hearing here on Capitol Hill where we will hear from experts about how we might achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq. Bringing the troops home should be the beginning; it should not be the end of a reassessment of our national security policy. It is time to end the reflex impulse of using military force to solve world conflicts and erroneously planned actions based on citizens' fears. This has the appearance of strength; but as Iraq has shown, it often undermines our national security rather than enhancing it.

I have proposed a new approach. It is called SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances.

But that does not mean that SMART is not serious and smart about protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But it does so with strong multilateral alliances, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection regimes, and aggressive diplomacy. SMART would reshuffle our national security budget. No more billions thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead be invested in energy independence and other efforts that truly are relevant to the modern security threats we face.

SMART also includes an ambitious international development agenda, to help address the root causes of terrorism: Democracy-building that includes women as equals; education for women and girls; addressing resource scarcity--these are key ingredients to building stable societies in Iraq and elsewhere.

It is my hope and belief that the grievous mistakes we've made in Iraq will lead us to this new, smarter national security policy. SMART Security protects America by relying on the very best of American values--our capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, and our compassion for the people of the world, all people, women and men alike.

Mr. Speaker, Katrina, the Category 4 hurricane that hit the gulf coast last week, leveled nearly everything in its path. It tore apart homes and destroyed entire coastal cities. It has taken the lives of countless hundreds, if not thousands. It will cost an estimated $150 billion to rebuild and repair the affected region.

Sadly, the Federal Government's response to Katrina was lackluster at best and shamefully negligent at worst. Despite the public's forewarning that there was a knowledge of Katrina's severity, the Bush administration failed to provide adequate Federal aid and hands-on support for the thousands of citizens stuck in the storm's aftermath. A large part of this failure stems directly from the lack of qualified first responders, the thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists who are currently stuck fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is during wholesale natural disasters like these that Americans should be able to rely on our Nation's capable National Guard and Reserve forces.

Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way because the Bush administration has more than 50,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists stationed in Iraq. That amounts to just over 40 percent of the total U.S. military forces there.

The Army's Guard and Reserve units are supposed to be our Nation's emergency force, America's defenders of last resort. Yet the Army's Web site actually defines the Army reserve as being ``like a part-time job that enables soldiers to keep their civilian careers while they continue to train near home.''

But the President has 50,000 of them fighting in a war very, very far from home, shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden in Iraq. He has them suffering for a war that was supposedly about weapons of mass destruction and then about Saddam's link to al Qaeda and then about bringing democracy to Iraq. But no matter how we slice it, the war in Iraq was never a war of last resort. The emergency units should have remained here at home in case of a real emergency. In fact, all 3,700 of Louisiana's National Guardsmen are currently stationed in Iraq and will not return home to help their devastated State or their own families, for that matter, for another week. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before the deployment of thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists to Iraq ended up hurting Americans right here at home.

The city of New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast has learned that lesson in a painful way, losing family members, loved ones, friends, and pets that could have been saved if their government had provided more human support and a smarter approach to dealing with Katrina's aftermath.

It is my hope that our national overreliance on military solutions during the past 4 years, made painfully clear by the Katrina hurricane, will lead us to a smarter national security strategy in the future. That is why I have introduced SMART Security: a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that we should pursue the military solution only in the most extreme circumstances and after every diplomatic solution has been exhausted. SMART would divert resources for military spending and foreign wars to homeland security and energy independence, from outdated weapons systems to an ambitious development plan for the troubled regions both in the United States and around the world.

Democracy-building, international aid, human rights education, small business development, these are the cures to poverty, to oppression, to hopelessness that plague both the people of Iraq and the survivors in the gulf, particularly in New Orleans. SMART projects protect America by relying on the very best of America, not violence and conquest, but our capacity for global leadership, our belief in freedom, and our compassion for the vulnerable people here at home and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, Katrina's aftermath has given us a firsthand look at what happens when a nation's forces are stretched thin. That is why it is time for us to start bringing our troops home. The Iraqi people need the United States, they need the U.S. National Guard out of Iraq, and no less important, the American people need them here at home where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Petaluma Argus Courier, my hometown newspaper, on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary.

The first edition of the Petaluma Journal and Sonoma County Advertiser, the forerunner of today's Argus-Courier, was published on August 18, 1855. That's 3 years before the City of Petaluma was incorporated.

It is a compliment to the Argus-Courier and its staff that the newspaper has kept in step with the vast changes that have taken place in Petaluma over this 150-year period. As the 10th oldest newspaper in the State of California and one of Petaluma's oldest business institutions, the Argus Courier is an eyewitness to Petaluma history.

The Argus-Courier has always fulfilled its obligation to its community by providing sound information and vigorous leadership on all matters affecting its citizens since 1855--from the Civil War to the Iraq wars, from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake to Loma Prieta, and from Petaluma's fame as the ``egg basket to the world'' to its status as telecom valley. The fact that the Argus-Courier has been published continuously for 150 years is evidence of its devotion to the public interest and its contribution to the growth and development of the community it serves.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Petaluma Argus Courier on its sesquicentennial and know that it will continue to inform, entertain, and be a valued messenger of news and information to my constituents and me for many more years to come. And, I know that the Argus-Courier derives much satisfaction from the knowledge that it has had a part in the growth and in the furtherance of the free press that has helped to make this Nation great.

Mr. Speaker, the energy bill conference report before us today is horrible for the consumer, horrible for the environment, and makes America neither energy independent nor more secure as a nation.

This conference report does too little to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. By promoting the interests of corporations over consumers, and pollution over conservation, this bill makes the United States much less secure.

America's continued reliance on Middle East oil for the majority of our energy needs is the single largest factor that contributes to our lack of national security. This conference report fails to adequately address our reliance on foreign oil.

Worst of all, the conference report includes a huge provision, inserted in the middle of the night after the conference finished its work, to give $1.5 billion to big oil companies from Texas.

It would be wrong for anyone who cares about our nation's well-being, or the fight against extremism in the Middle East, to vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that, ``You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.'' While I am happy that the FY06 Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes $1.5 billion to make up for the funding shortfall for the Veterans' Administration, VA, it does not mask the horrible choices that were made in the rest of this bill. It's still a pig. This legislation includes cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, decreases in the number of STAG grants, and completely eliminates many conservation grants.

Ensuring that the VA has the funding it needs is one of my highest priorities, which is why I am so disappointed that this money was included in a bill that undermines our environment. It is sad that veterans' have been shortchanged by President Bush who was all to eager to send troops off to war, but failed to account for the cost of their care after they had dutifully served their country. The underestimation by the White House of $1.5 billion for this year is only the tip of the iceberg with the shortfall for next year already projected to be $2.6 billion. Unfortunately, the shortsightedness of the Republican majority failed to include this spending where it should be, in the Military Quality of Life Appropriations bill.

However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the shortcomings for the environment, I will vote for this bill to support our troops.

Mr. Speaker, America must build relationships with our neighbors, relationships that benefit both our future and theirs. But CAFTA is one more example of the White House agenda that does neither. It benefits multinational corporations while it devalues workers and communities, putting corporations on equal footing with democratically elected governments. What is this about?

Trade agreements should reflect our national values and our character. CAFTA fails on both measures. Labor and environmental standards must be an integral part of any trade and negotiation, and CAFTA fails. By failing to protect minimum labor rights, including protection for female workers against discrimination, and failing to enforce environmental standards, CAFTA not only benefits the multinational corporations against our communities, our families, and our environment, but it also works against our trading partners. We know that this is wrong.

We must get CAFTA back on track. We must scrap this version, and we must start over. Trade agreements that promise jobs in the U.S. as well as advancing the economies of our neighbors, that is how we must go. Vote against this dog today.

Mr. Chairman, it is about time Congress took up this important postal reform bill. this legislation is long overdue and I am happy a bipartisan compromise was reached that meets the needs of postal professionals and the Postal Service.

For years I have been hearing from letter carriers, postmasters, mail handlers and other postal employees about the obstacles that prevent them and the postal service from serving our taxpayers in their fullest capacity. I have also heard about their struggles to retain their benefits and receive a livable wage.

That's why I am happy to support H.R. 22 today. This postal reform legislation takes a positive step for the future of the United States Postal Service. Now it will be able to remain competitive while protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs held by dedicated workers. Universal service will continue to expand and meet the demands of our modem mail system. Delivery will improve, rates will become more affordable and communities will have better access to mail services.

Mr. Chairman, again I am pleased that this compromise has advanced, and I look forward to an even greater postal system for our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, there currently are 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance and are looking for real solutions for their lack of health care coverage. Unfortunately, H.R. 525, the so- called Small Business Health Fairness Act, is not their answer. In fact, this bill allows insurance companies to preempt State law, making possible a race to the bottom by associated health plans as companies, because of this bill, can offer the cheapest insurance with the least coverage.

The idea that we would allow insurance companies to trump State law is really outrageous. Laws to protect those with diabetes, those with cancer, and a host of other ailments are at risk under this plan. That is why I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), that would protect mammograms and cervical cancer screenings from being preempted by association health plans. Unfortunately, the Republican majority does not see the value in protecting women from breast and/or cervical cancer, because they would not allow our amendment to come to the floor to be debated before we voted on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in my district, the Sixth Congressional District of California, the women of Marin County are plagued by an unusually high rate of breast cancer, and particularly young woman have the high incidence of breast cancers. But, fortunately, in California we require insurance companies to cover mammograms. So while the women of Marin County still have to worry about their community's high rate of breast cancer, at least they know their insurance companies cannot deny them access to the best available screening tools.

I cannot accept the idea of even one woman in this Nation foregoing an annual mammogram or a pap smear only to be diagnosed later with advanced breast or cervical cancer because an association health plan does not provide coverage. This is a risk we cannot afford, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 525.

Mr. Speaker, the preemption of State law that is allowed under H.R. 525 makes no sense. For example, 49 States guarantee that health insurance plans include mammograms, and for good reason. We know that if a woman has health insurance, the likelihood she will receive a mammogram is promising. We know that early detection increases a woman's chance of surviving breast cancer. No one knows this better than my constituents in Marin County, California, who suffer from the highest rates of breast cancer in the country. They deserve more protections from this deadly disease, not a rollback in coverage of the most basic screening tool we have, mammograms. They are looking to Congress to help more women get the services they need to catch this disease before it becomes fatal. Instead, today we are telling them that insurance companies are allowed to trump State law and decide what is best for their health.

I am sure that all of the men and women here today want their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters to have annual screenings as recommended by physicians. It is common sense. I urge each of my colleagues, support the women in your lives. Support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my continued sadness and frustration with the Nation's Iraq policy. As much of Washington now focuses on a Supreme Court nomination, and as many Americans prepare for August vacations, I hope none of us forget the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and the disastrous decisions that put them in harm's way in the very first place.

We are fast approaching 1,800 deaths in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, and for what? Are we any safer from terrorism? The recent attacks in London would seem to indicate that we are not. If the Iraq war has done so much to enhance American Security, why did we have to expand the PATRIOT Act last week and clamp down even further on our civil liberties?

The truth is our military presence in Iraq is contributing to the chaos there, not alleviating it. The occupation has sparked more intense feelings of anti-Americanism and breathed new life into the insurgency. A recent government report even voices concerns that terrorists and insurgents are succeeding at infiltrating the Iraqi police force.

Like all of my friends in Congress, I believe nothing is more important than supporting our troops, but I believe the best way to support them is to bring them home to their families as soon as possible. Ending the war should be the first step in a complete overhaul in our approach to a national security policy. We must redirect our priorities and our resources so that peace and diplomacy, not aggression and chest-beating, become the guiding lights of our foreign policy.

I have come up with a plan that I have labeled SMART Security, with SMART standing for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. There are five components to SMART.

First, stop future acts of terrorism, not by arbitrarily invading sovereign nations, but by collaborating with NATO and the U.N., by strengthening our intelligence capabilities, and by enhancing efforts to cut off financing of terrorist organizations.

Second, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, not by deposing regimes that do not have them, but with diplomacy, enhanced inspection regimes, and regional security arrangements. The United States should also work more closely with the states of the Soviet Union to secure loose nuclear material, and we should set an example for the world by living up to our own international nonproliferation commitments.

Third, address root causes of terrorism, like instability, despair and hopelessness. So SMART includes an ambitious international development program, debt relief, democracy building, sustainable development education, especially for women and for girls, and more for poor nations.

Fourth, shift U.S. budget priorities. Does it make any sense at all, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to invest billions of dollars in a missile defense shield? The Cold War is over, and our defense priorities should reflect the new threats of a new era. Among other things, we ought to be investing in renewable energy sources that will help wean the Nation from Middle Eastern oil. It is unbelievable to me that the Congress may soon pass an energy bill that costs us billions of dollars, but barely addresses the problem of dependence on oil imports.

Fifth, pursue alternatives to war. At its core, SMART is about choosing peace over war and resorting to force only in the most extreme circumstances. So it includes an emphasis on effective conflict assessment, early warning systems, multilateral response mechanisms, and other tools that will help avoid military action.

Mr. Speaker, our current national security posture is not only morally questionable, it is functionally flawed. My objection is not just a philosophical one, but a practical one. What we are doing now is not making America safer.

It is time to get smart about national security. It is time for a new strategy that protects America by relying on the very best of American values, our love of peace, our capacity for global leadership, our belief in freedom and opportunity, and our compassionate fellowship with the people of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 20 of last year, I spoke in this Chamber in opposition to the war in Iraq and my belief that we needed a new SMART Security plan to protect America.

Since then nearly every day that this body has been in session, I have again taken to the floor to express my outrage about our Nation's disastrous Iraq policy and the urgency for a different approach. Today I rise for the 100th time on this gravely important topic.

Since I first spoke out last spring, look at what has happened: The Abu Ghraib story broke soon thereafter. We learned that the Pentagon sent our troops into battle without basic safety equipment. The Downing Street memo revealed that the decision to invade Iraq had been made as early as July 2002 with the intelligence and facts being fixed around the policy. And they were so committed to the lies peddled to sell this war that the President's top aide was willing to blow the cover of a CIA agent to smear a White House critic. And most importantly, since last April more than 1,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, with thousands more wounded, and let us not forget the countless innocent Iraqi civilians who have died simply because they had the misfortune of living in a nation we wished to occupy.

And what have we paid for the right to kill and be killed? More than $80 billion in supplemental appropriations for Iraq since last April alone. Since then America and Americans have gradually begun losing confidence in the administration's handling of Iraq. Fifteen months ago when I began, few people dared discuss an end to this war; but by this May, 128 Members of the House voted for my amendment to the defense authorization bill which called on the President to develop and implement a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Bush administration remains tone-deaf on this life- and-death issue.

This White House, so famous for refusing to admit mistakes, continues to keep its head down and recite the talking points. Their stubbornness is costing us an average of about 17 American servicemen and women a week and over $1 billion every third day. Over this period I have become even more convinced that we must end this war and bring our brave men and women home to their families as quickly as we can. But that is not enough.

The end to the war must mean the start of a whole new way of thinking about national security, like my SMART Security plan, with SMART standing for sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism.

At the core of SMART is the belief that the use of military force must be an absolute last resort to be pursued only in the most extreme circumstances. SMART recognizes that America faces threats that cannot be ignored, like terrorism and the spread of deadly weapons; but it would address these threats by strengthening our global alliances, improving our intelligence capabilities, and upgrading weapons inspections regimes. SMART would also redirect the money we are currently spending on outdated Cold War weapons systems towards homeland security and an energy independence plan. And SMART is based on the belief that the only way to truly address terrorism is to do something about the poverty and despair that gives rise to terrorism in the first place.

So SMART also includes an ambitious international development component, helping underdeveloped nations with democracy building, human rights education, conflict resolution, sustainable development of natural resources and more.

SMART protects America by relying on the very best of America, not violence and conquests, but our capacity for global leadership, our belief in freedom, and our compassion for vulnerable people around the world.

This first step is to return Iraq to the Iraqi people and return our troops to their families. Until that happens, I will continue to speak out in this Chamber as I have done 100 times. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will not have to speak 100 times more, but if I must, I will.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to and utter disgust

with this bill. Just as a bad movie is often followed by an even worse sequel, so it is with the PATRIOT Act.

PATRIOT II does nothing to correct the major flaws in the original legislation. Basic civil liberties continues to be in jeopardy. The bill expands police powers, it continues to authorize invasive violations of our medical records, our library borrowing habits and other private affairs. PATRIOT II restricts freedom, instead of expanding it.

The irony is cruel, Mr. Speaker. In defense of freedom, we are undermining freedom. I believe many of my colleagues voted for the original PATRIOT Act because of the sunset provisions, because they were assured this was a temporary measure for extraordinary times.

Now, all but two of the sunsets have been stripped from the bill, and those two come only after 10 years. So now we know the truth: the PATRIOT Act was never intended as an emergency, post-9/11 action; as a matter of fact, it is not limited to terrorism. It appears now that its authors were always interested in a permanent clampdown on civil liberties.

This bill is constitutional graffiti, Mr. Speaker. Patriotism means affirming and celebrating the values that have made America strong for more than 2 centuries. Legislation that violates several constitutional amendments has no business calling itself the PATRIOT Act.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the overall bill.