Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, if we want to reduce the threat of terrorism against the United States, we must rust reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Nothing threatens our country and our security more than our reliance on oil from repressive Middle East regimes like Saudi Arabia and Libya.

Of the 21 million barrels of oil consumed by the U.S. each day, 14 million are imported from other countries. Most are imported from the Middle East, where as we know democracy is not pervasive. This lack of democracy allow the authoritarian leaders of many Middle East countries to pocket billions of dollars each year from American oil purchases.

So while the leaders of these countries are becoming increasingly wealthy, the rest of their people fail to benefit from the oil proceeds. Sadly, this economic disparity allows the powerful elite to tighten their hold over their people.

This repressive power structure allows the conditions which give rise to terrorism, resource scarcity, extreme poverty, and lack of education to run rampant. It is quite clear that we need to decrease our dependance on foreign oil in order to keep America safe from the threat of terrorism.

But there is a right way, and there is a wrong way to accomplish this goal. Many Members of Congress have suggested, today in fact, that we can simply drill for gas and oil off the coasts of our shores, or in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to solve our energy crisis.

Unfortunately this suggestion is just plain wrong. In fact, drilling for oil in the United States would do little to immediately reduce our dependance on foreign oil, because it would take at least a decade to get a drilling operation up and running in ANWR or off our coasts, and even then there is no telling whether there is usable oil.

That does not sound like a comprehensive energy strategy to me. No. Drilling for oil just is not the answer. We need to accept the fact that fossil fuel is a thing of the past. To solve the current energy crisis and to prepare for a secure and successful future, we need to invest in conservation and renewable and efficient sources of energy.

For example, providing tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings and manufacturing energy efficient heating and water heating equipment could save 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 50 years.

By failing to take advantage of renewable energy technologies, we are continuing to promote our national insecurity by providing billions of dollars each year to repressive regimes.

That is why I have reintroduced the smart security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158. SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism.

SMART will help secure America for the future by preventing the threat of terrorism, by reducing nuclear stockpiles, eliminating the possible use of nuclear weapons through diplomatic means, and establishing a new Apollo project to secure America's energy independence.

Many Members of Congress understand the importance of reducing our dependance on foreign oil to ensure our national security, and that is why 49 of my colleagues signed on as original cosponsors to the SMART security resolution.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's energy and foreign policies are interconnected. One cannot address one without addressing the other. That is why SMART security promotes a new Apollo project that will ensure our Nation's energy security within the next 10 to 15 years.

If we fail to address this problem, we will only ensure the continuation of deep disparities of wealth in the Middle East. These misguided policies will encourage future acts of terrorism, which will encourage future warfare.

And speaking of warfare, do we know for sure that our reason for attacking Iraq was not to take control of Iraqi's oil? Until we are independent of our need for foreign oil, we will always be suspect. It is time to get serious about our reliance on foreign oil, which will lead directly to a smarter security strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I was recently playing a card game with my 5-year-old grandson, Teddy. And he knows it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of the game just to win. But the Republicans do not seem to play by any rules. If they sense vulnerability, they will rewrite historical laws to suit their needs. That is exactly what they did in the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and that is exactly what they are trying to do by eliminating the filibuster in the judicial nomination process.

Americans do not want this Nation to be run by leaders willing to change the rules, to forgo the laws of the land, to cater to their special interests. They do not want judicial nominees that are bullied through Congress. They want qualified candidates that receive bipartisan approval like the other 200-plus Bush nominees approved by the Senate.

Changing the rules of the game to make an exception for 10 judges is not democratic. It is a blatant abuse of power. Mr. Speaker, this is something even a 5-year-old can understand.

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

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for a new national security strategy because our current path will only lead to future acts of terrorism and an increasingly insecure United States of America.

Most Americans understand that the best way to protect our country is through smarter policies right here at home, not through aggressive military combat abroad. In fact, a poll released today indicates that support for the war in Iraq is at its lowest level yet. Maybe that is because most Americans know that Iraq never possessed weapons of mass destruction, never had a connection to al Qaeda, and never played a role in the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Yet the Bush administration claimed each of these examples as fact in order to justify going to a war in Iraq and just over 2 years ago the U.S. invaded Iraq. Since then, more than 1,600 American soldiers, at least 24,000 noninsurgents Iraqi civilians, have paid for this false war with their lives, and over 12,000 American soldiers have been wounded forever.

Clearly the Presidential national security platform is not just immoral, it is incompetent. There has to be a better way, a better way than this. Fortunately, there is. Earlier tonight I reintroduced the SMART Security resolution for the 21st century. SMART security clearly has increasing support among Members of Congress because at the end of the 108th Congress we had 50 cosponsors to the SMART security bill. This year alone, SMART already has 49 original cosponsors, and myself, and it was just introduced today. SMART, which is Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism, has five major components.

First, we must prevent future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and the rule of law. For the past 4 years, the Bush administration has worked to discourage international cooperation. Most recently, his example of hostility toward diplomacy is the nomination of the hard-line unilateralist John Bolton to represent our country to the United Nations. Unilaterialism is not the answer because terrorism is not just America's problem.

We can reinvigorate our international relationships by encouraging our United Nations and NATO partners to help us root out terrorist networks and put a stop to financing international terrorist groups.

Second, we must stop the proliferation and spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the past, President Bush has indicated this is the greatest threat America faces. Yet he has both aggressively pursued new nuclear weapons like the bunker buster bomb, and he does not support international treaties that seek to end the spread of chemical and biological weapons.

Not only does SMART security promote compliance with America's commitments to existing treaties, it also calls for the United States to set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the development and testing of new nuclear weapons.

Third, we must address the root causes of terrorism. The first front line in the war on terror has to be confronting the despair and deprivation that foster it. There is a demonstrated link between an educated citizenry and a decrease in support for terrorism which is why SMART security wholly encourages democracy-building; human rights education; sustainable development; and education, particularly for women and girls in these nations. These are the programs we need to pursue in Iraq, not continued military operations.

Fourth, we must shift America's budget priorities to more effectively meet our security needs. We need stronger investments in peacekeeping, in reconstruction, and humanitarian and developmental aid. We simply cannot afford to spend billions each year on outdated or unproven weapons systems like the missile defense shield which has yet to be proven successful.

Fifth, the U.S. must pursue to the fullest extent alternatives to war. War needs to be the very last resort, to be considered only after every single possible diplomatic solution has been exhausted.

Mr. Speaker, the security of the American people is perhaps the most important issue we must address in the post-September 11 world, but we must address it in a smart way. As the world's largest democracy, we have a responsibility to utilize all diplomatic possibilities before resorting to force.

Mr. Speaker, much like its elder cousin NAFTA, CAFTA has promised to raise the standard of living in its poorest member countries. But thanks to NAFTA, we already know how this story ends.

A typical Central American earns only a small fraction of an average American worker's wage. More than 40 percent of workers in the region labor for less than $2 a day, placing them below the global poverty level.

Mexico now ranks as one of the world's 10 largest economies. Its overall wealth has increased since passing NAFTA, and, unfortunately, so has its poverty. It is said, ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' This is not the case for the poor in Mexico and will not be the case for the impoverished people in the Western hemisphere's poorest nations.

For this and other reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, minutes ago the House approved the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriation bill to the tune of, underwhelmingly, $37 billion. In a vacuum, $37 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but when you consider that Congress has appropriated over $100 billion on the security of Iraq this year alone, and more than $200 billion overall, $37 billion sounds much less significant. In fact, the $37 billion spending bill that was approved today represents less than 5 percent of the U.S. annual discretionary budget. Yet the Iraq war this year, this year alone, represents well over 10 percent of our annual discretionary budget.

Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Spending on homeland security, while inadequate in its amount, focuses on the right things to protect America: First responders, border and port security, and cargo inspections. On the other hand, funding for the war in Iraq continues to focus on poorly planned military operations and irresponsible no-bid contracts to war profiteers like Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root.

At the same time, the Iraq supplemental spending bill of over $200 billion has neglected to provide adequate funds for body armor for the troops. This is a particularly egregious mistake in light of the 2004 study indicating as many as a quarter of all troop deaths could have been prevented if the most advanced body armor had been provided to every single soldier in Iraq.

It is important to note the irony in our funding priorities. The Homeland Security budget, which is vitally important towards ensuring the safety of the American people, is drastically underfunded. On the other hand, the Iraq war, which was a war of choice, not a war of necessity, is so overfunded that last year $9 billion in reconstruction funds went missing. Nine billion dollars. That is more than a quarter of this year's homeland security budget.

And let us not forget another more recent report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq's reconstruction. This report states that another $100 million for reconstruction projects in southern Iraq is also missing and cannot be accounted for.

Mr. Speaker, we need to focus our spending on programs and policies that will help ensure the safety of the American people. The war in Iraq will not make Americans safer, because this conflict is causing the United States to be perceived by the Muslim world as a colonial occupier, not as a liberating force. This perception, combined with our continued military presence in Iraq, has assisted radical Muslim terrorist groups like al Qaeda in their recruiting efforts. The result is that 3\1/2\ years after September 11 Americans are less safe.

Fortunately, there is a way to achieve sensible spending while also keeping America secure. Over the last 2 years, I have developed the SMART Security Strategy for the 21st Century. SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. SMART Security urges a shifting of America's budget priorities to more effectively meet our national security needs. That means spending more money on port security, cargo inspections and airline security, and less money on warfare, outdated weapon systems, and new nuclear weapons.

Instead of funding continued military operations in Iraq, the SMART platform would encourage other nations to work with the United States and spend more money on peacekeeping, on reconstruction and developmental aid to ensure long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.

In fact, it has been proven when debt relief increases, terrorism and the conditions that give rise to terrorism tend to decrease. That is why the SMART platform encourages wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries. After more than 2 years of fighting, it is clear that the war in Iraq cannot be won through military means. We need to be smarter. We need to be smarter than the terrorists, not just bigger and stronger.

The fight to secure our country must be fought on more than the battlefield. We must be smart in the way we prioritize our national spending by focusing on true security needs instead of superficial security needs. Homeland security is a true security need. Let us remember the next time President Bush asks for money for Iraq, which I understand will be sometime this summer, we need to know which is secure and which is not.

Mr. Speaker, how disappointing that instead of using the first months of this new Congress to address the important issues facing our Nation, we have spent most of our time on issues that cater to special interests.

Instead of helping retirees by strengthening our pension system, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to dismantle Social Security. They want to take away the safety net, a safety net that seniors depend on, in favor of giving even more money to Wall Street.

Instead of developing a meaningful energy policy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we spend time on the House floor passing an energy bill that will do nothing to relieve rising gas prices, but instead give tax incentives to big oil and gas companies.

The Republican leadership must stop abusing this body and the people we represent. They are doing it for their own self-interests, and it is time the people take this House back. It is the people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has done a woefully inadequate job of reaching out to the Muslim world. To quote an oft- used phrase, ``They never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.''

I believe that fundamentally they fail to understand that most Muslims do not want to blow up Western sites and buildings; they want to live in a free society, one which allows them to worship the God of their choosing and raise their children in safety, much like every American.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration because of this lack of understanding has twisted the September 11 attacks in order to achieve a veritable clash of societies. The President uses phrases like ``us versus them'' and ``you are either with us or against us.'' Quotes like these cause many nonviolent Muslims to oppose the United States as they see a U.S. engaged in a war not against terrorism but against Muslims. They see the United States as a colonial occupier, not as a liberating government.

This has encouraged radical Muslim groups to step up their recruiting and their tactics. The net result is 3\1/2\ years after September 11, Americans are much less safe, not safer than they were. Instead of responding by reaching out to the Muslim world to address the root causes of terrorism, deprivation, resource scarcity and lack of educational opportunities, this administration invaded Iraq, a country that was not previously a haven for terrorists and had no relationship whatsoever to the events of September 11.

Regardless, in April 2003, the United States invaded Iraq with the support of a weak coalition of nations. Most countries, even those that fought in the first Gulf War in 1991, chose not to enter the second war in Iraq. They could not legitimize a war based on such faulty and wavering premises as the ones we heard in late 2002 and early 2003.

The war has been a disaster from nearly the beginning. Since April 2003, more than 1,600 American soldiers and at least 24,000 Iraqi civilians have paid for this arrogant foreign policy with their lives. At least another 12,000 Americans soldiers have been seriously wounded and of course the U.S. has incurred a tremendous financial burden, so far a $200 billion IOU.

Instead of addressing the threat of future terrorism by engaging the Muslim world through smart national security policies, the Bush administration took the fight to a country that became a terrorist enclave only after the U.S. invaded. It is quite clear that the war in Iraq was the worst possible response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead of stopping terrorism, the war has actually hindered our efforts, including any effort to capture Osama bin Laden.

But fortunately, there is another way. Over the last 2 years, I have developed and refined a national security platform called SMART Security. SMART is Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. Unlike our current policies, it will achieve real results. SMART Security will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging the Muslim world. Instead of rushing off to war for the wrong reasons, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues.

There is a demonstrated link between debt relief and lack of support for terrorism, which is why the SMART platform will encourage wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries.

Not every international problem has a military answer; and that is why SMART Security will prevent terrorism, by addressing the very conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place.

SMART Security also encourages democracy building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities for women and girls, and strengthening civil society programs in the developing world.

Programs like these are the best way to encourage democracy in countries like Iraq, not through wars that cause thousands of deaths, cost billions of dollars. The SMART approach is a way to reach out to the Muslim world. It is time we stop putting all of our eggs in the military basket and start getting smart about our national security.

Mr. Speaker, it boggles my mind that Republicans continue to criticize Democrats for blocking judicial nominations. Their facts are deceiving. Their facts are inaccurate, and their actions to force through extremist judges are just one example of their abuse of power in the Congressional Chamber.

The fact is that 208 judges have been confirmed and 10 have been turned down because of extremist positions. That represents a 95 percent approval rating. These same Members, by the way, blocked 65 of President Bill Clinton's nominees. These same Senators would like you to believe that the only way to get the judicial process moving is to eliminate the 200-year-old filibuster rule that grants Senators the ability to speak their minds if they feel an action is not right for the country.

The Republican greed for power is eroding our political system. They should remember that a democracy is not a one-sided body of government. It is time for my Republican colleagues to respect that basic notion and end their abuse and their bullying in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the ink has hardly dried on the latest supplemental spending bill for military operations in Iraq, but that has not stopped top officials in the Pentagon from starting preparations for the next supplemental bill.

It was reported yesterday that the Pentagon has begun laying the groundwork for the next supplemental requests which may come as early as this August. The Pentagon will likely request more than $25 billion more, but some in Congress have indicated that they will ask for as much as $50 billion more.

The Pentagon which receives over $400 billion annually from the United States Treasury acts like 25 or 50 billion is a mere drop in the bucket. Likewise, when supplemental requests are doled out in these smaller, ha-ha smaller, $50 billion increments, many Members of Congress and much of the Nation have absolutely no concept of the true cost of the war in Iraq, which at the moment adds up to over $200 billion. But when you think about the financial strain being felt at home like the fact that we are not fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act or that we are not paying for adequate health care for our returning veterans, it does not take long to realize that $50 billion more for Iraq takes a toll on the American people here at home.

Mr. Speaker, why are we funding a war, especially one that was entered into on false pretenses, through repeated supplemental spending bills? This method of funding underscores both a fundamental lack of planning for the war in Iraq, as well as a hostile contempt for the financial strain on the citizens of the United States.

If the President and his administration had a strategy to peacefully resolve this war in Iraq, they would submit to Congress a plan, a plan detailing the further U.S. military operations there. This plan would indicate how long they expect troops to remain in Iraq and at what levels and in what capacity, how much the war will cost, and exactly how they plan to finance this burdensome cost. This plan would define when and how we are planning to bring our troops home.

Anything less than a comprehensive strategy is a slap in the face to all the hard-working American people in this country whose tax dollars are financing this misguided mission. Sadly, I think the real reason the administration has failed to provide such a strategy is because they apparently have no plan to end the war in Iraq. Americans

have a right to know where their money is being spent. For instance, why did the Army recently award Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, with $72 million in bonuses for ``the company's excellent performance''?

Perhaps the definition of excellence has changed since I attended school, because in my day excellence meant working hard and achieving positive results, not conning the American people out of millions, even billions, of dollars while failing to secure Iraq.

And why have $9 billion in supplemental funds gone unaccounted for? How does $9 billion just vanish? Given the administration's poor track record for spending American taxpayers' money, why does our Congress continually fail to demand accountability for how the supplemental funds are being spent?

Mr. Speaker, there must be a better way than this, because the current system is broken. That is why I have developed a SMART Security platform for the 21st century. SMART is a Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART will help reinvigorate America's foreign policy by focusing our spending priorities on conflict prevention, international diplomacy, and multi-lateralism.

Instead of Congress's current open check book policy we have for Iraq, SMART Security wisely invests U.S. dollars in development funding. It invests in peacekeeping and reconstruction, adequately funding these important programs because then that will go a long way towards ensuring long-term peace and stability in troubled countries and troubled regions.

If we had invested in SMART Security in the first place, we would not have become embroiled in a war that has cost the lives of more than 1,600 American soldiers and at least 24,000 Iraqi civilians. This shameful war has also permanently injured over 25,000 American soldiers whose lives will be changed forever. We must focus America's efforts on a smarter strategy for our national security instead of continuing our shameful policy of preemptive military combat.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, addressing gang violence across this Nation is absolutely an important step so that people can feel safe in their communities and so that our youth will grow up to be productive, happy, satisfied adults. While I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for addressing this important issue, I am deeply disappointed in their legislation.

Gang violence affects most communities across the United States. In fact, I represented the Sixth District of California, which is north of the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. In my district, there is no exception. We too have gang violence. The largest city in my district, Santa Rosa, is increasingly faced with gang violence. Drive-by shootings are becoming so common that the newspapers no longer report the incidents on the front page.

Local communities must address this problem, no question; and Santa Rosa is working hard to do so. With the help of new State of California funding through Measure Zero, a sales tax that passed in the last go- around, the city is providing diversion programs that appeal to youth, such as after-school programs and increased recreational activities. Community leaders are finding more job opportunities for young people, and adults are mentoring them and exposing them to situations that are positive alternatives to gang life. Even the conservative think tank, Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Foundation, agrees that these are the best ways to curb gang violence.

This bill does not provide significant funding to States and local communities to build on their successful local programs. Rather, H.R. 1279 creates new death penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, and measures to prosecute children in adult court, in other words, applying adult punishment to young people. This is the wrong approach, and I cannot support it. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1279 and insisting that we go back and prepare legislation with real workable solutions and alternatives to gang violence.

Mr. Speaker, the level of abuse in this House by the Republican Party has become an embarrassment. Instead of working on the pressing problems of this Nation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to push an agenda controlled and influenced by special interests.

According to a report released by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the Committee on Rules' ranking Democrat, all of the major bills passed by the Republican Party in the 108th Congress were written with big business or special interests in mind. These interest groups do not look at what is best for the American people. They look at what is best for their bottom line. If the Republican Party is as compassionate as they profess to be, they would be writing legislation that protects workers from harm and even death, not dismantling OSHA in order to save big business money. They would be helping families get paid sick leave and family leave rather than focusing on rolling back family and medical leave protections to save businesses money on the backs of working people.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the trial of low-level military officers involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq reached a climactic turning point. Colonel James Pohl, the military judge trying PFC Private First Class Lyndie England declared a mistrial in the case. Now this case will have to be tried again from the very beginning.

England's case was thrown out after Private Charles Graner claimed that the photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison were taken for training purposes. This claim contradicts England's guilty plea in which she accepted responsibility for her actions and admitted that she had acted outside the scope of military orders.

There is no shortage of evidence that England is guilty of having participated in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners which included subjecting the prisoners to forced nudity, savage beatings, electric shock and harassment by dogs. Some prisoners, as a matter of fact, died as a result of the abuse. Nor is there a question that the abuse of prisoners violates our American ethical and moral code. Red, the color of blood, is the color that resulted from the beating in Abu Ghraib Prison last year. But now yellow is the color of the high-ranking military and administration officials who are cowering behind junior soldiers, hoping to duck responsibility for setting up a culture supporting the use of torture in American-run prisons in Iraq.

The question is, who is responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison? Charles Graner's testimony suggests that the prison abuse scandal extends much higher than we have previously been told. Yet, only low-ranking soldiers have been held accountable for these abuses. Why have prosecutors investigated from the bottom-up instead of going straight to the source to find out who condoned these abuses? Why is there such a denial of culpability at the highest levels of the government?

Mr. Speaker, we must get to the bottom of this scandal because not only were the events at Abu Ghraib brutally inhuman and contrary to the democratic ideals of our open government, they also have endangered the American people. At a time when the United States is courting the support of the Arab world, the last thing we need to do is engage in the same atrocious violence as the thugs and terrorists that we are opposing. The images of American soldiers violating Iraqi prisoners is no doubt a rallying call for all those who want an excuse to hate and attack the United States.

Fortunately, there is a better way than this. I have developed a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism, and it will help reinvigorate America's foreign policy by focusing on conflict prevention, on international diplomacy and on multilateralism. SMART security recognizes security threats and addresses them, but instead of conducting our policies behind closed doors and through the barrels of a gun, SMART pursues open diplomacy and regional security arrangements to achieve our democratic goals.

Indiscriminate violence will not address the threats we face, because most of the post-September 11 security threats require a softer touch. That is why SMART security calls for dramatic increases in development aid and debt relief for the world's poorest countries to reduce the destitute conditions that give rise to terrorism. And they will simultaneously increase educational opportunities for the world's poorest people. These programs will also help counter the image problem that America has cultivated around the world and particularly in the Middle East.

Instead of encouraging militaristic policies that give rise to events such as

those at Abu Ghraib, SMART security encourages security through diplomacy. Perhaps, if the Bush administration had not been so keen on going into a misguided and illegal war, we could have utilized international diplomacy to encourage democracy in Iraq, instead of fighting a war that has thus far cost the lives of more than 1,600 American soldiers, at least 24,000 Iraqi civilians, and of course, there are also more than 12,000 American soldiers who have been gravely wounded as a result of war.

Let us utilize the SMART approach to address the threats we face. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important legislation which I am reintroducing next week.

Mr. Speaker, we recently passed the conference report on yet another supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Iraq, bringing the total amount of taxpayer money being spent on this ill- conceived, built-on-lies war to over $300 billion. The longer we keep funding this irresponsible effort, the more harm we are doing, not just to the people of Iraq but also to our very own troops.

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that as many as one out of four veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq treated at VA hospitals in the past 16 months were diagnosed with mental disorders. Alarmingly, this number has been steadily rising, and we can only guess how many soldiers do not come forward to get help because of the stigma that is associated with mental illnesses.

Post-traumatic stress disorder, also known as PTSD, is the most common disorder seen in returning soldiers and has been diagnosed in 10 percent of returning soldiers at VA hospitals. Other mental disorders that are being seen are drug or alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety disorders. Also phobias and panic are part of the whole diagnosis.

These are the hidden scars that young men and women who serve in combat are left with when they return home. While mental and emotional problems cannot be seen as easily as a physical wound, they are just as debilitating.

Large numbers of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home, and they are showing up in our homeless population in numbers that have not been seen since the end of the Vietnam War. This is a shameful epidemic, and we must work to confront it before it is too late.

Serving in a combat zone not only affects soldiers but also their families. When service members come home, they face a real challenge in learning how to readjust to civilian life, often taking a toll on relationships with family members and sometimes leading to even more mental and emotional problems.

Every time we send our young men and women into combat, we are asking them to make a huge sacrifice for the rest of us. Their lives and their health are the real follow-up costs to any war. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, asking for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Thirty-three other Members of Congress have signed my resolution with me, because we know that the longer we keep our troops in harm's way, fighting a war of occupation, the higher the costs in human lives. Coupled with that bill, I am also reintroducing legislation to support a SMART security platform for the 21st century.

SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation, and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations, with an emphasis on women's health and women's education.

We must take a smarter approach to our foreign policy and homeland security measures. The sacrifices made by our soldiers are so great. We should be asking them to make sacrifices only after careful and thoughtful deliberation, not rushing to war on unreliable

intelligence and on personal grudges. We must take careful and measured steps when putting lives on the line, something that the Bush administration has not done.

As we work to protect those who protect us, instead of throwing our money into an ill-advised war, we must commit first to keeping our troops well equipped with safety gear and modern equipment, and we must provide them with real and comprehensive health care, including mental health support services, when they come home.

Mr. Speaker, war has long-lasting effects on those who serve. Let us work to ensure that we limit those effects by using our troops only when we must and treating them with the dignity they deserve when they return.