Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn and take the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. DeFazio) time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that 142,000 members of the Iraqi security forces have been fully trained. That statement leads me to wonder, if the number of trained Iraqi security personnel equals the number of United States troops in Iraq, why have we not begun to bring our troops home?

If the Iraqi people are trained to protect their country, as General Myers claims, then why has the Bush administration left our troops to be sitting ducks in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Why are not the Iraqis relying on these 142,000 security personnel for the heavy burden of keeping Iraq secure?

Sadly, the Bush administration wants the American people to ignore the fact that together 150,000 American troops and 142,000 Iraqi troops have not been able to secure the country.

That is because by invading Iraq the Bush administration has created a whole new generation of terrorist recruits whose common tie is their hatred for the United States occupation.

This immoral, ill-conceived and unjust war against a country that never provoked us and never posed a threat to the United States has made Americans, and Iraqis alike, much less safe.

Most of the 1,500 U.S. troops who have been killed in Iraq died after President Bush made those now infamous remarks about the end of major combat operations in May of 2003, with the banner Mission Accomplished prominently displayed in the background. Mr. Speaker, the way to honor our brave troops is by preventing further lives from being lost. In addition to the 1,500 troops killed, more than 11,000 Americans have been severely wounded and a staggering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have died in this war.

The tremendous cost of the war is no less dangerous to our security here at home because thousands of Iraqi insurgents have been created since we attacked Iraq. Congress has charged U.S. taxpayers over $200 billion in less than 2 years to pay for the ongoing occupation of that country.

Imagine what we could do with $200 billion. We could fund our Nation's homeland security efforts for an entire year or shore up the budget shortfalls of every single State in the country and still have billions of dollars left over to help reconstruct Iraq's decimated infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pursue a new national security plan, one which defends America by relying on the very best of American values, our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

With the help of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation and Women's Action For New Direction, I have created a SMART security strategy for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

A SMART security strategy for Iraq means providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society; building schools for Iraqi children so that they can learn about peace and freedom; water processing plants so all Iraqis will have clean drinking water; and ensuring that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable in order to avoid a fiscal collapse.

Instead of troops, let us send scientists, educators, urban planners and constitutional experts to help rebuild Iraq's flagging economic and physical infrastructure and establish a robust and democratic civil society.

It is time for the Bush administration to pay attention to its own claims. If 142,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained, as General Myers told us yesterday, then the President should agree with me that it is time for the United States to cease playing a militaristic role in Iraq and begin playing a humanitarian role.

SMART security is the right approach for America in Iraq. The SMART approach would prevent any more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians from being needlessly killed. It would save the United States billions of dollars in military appropriations, and just as importantly, it would keep America safe. It is time for America to adopt a SMART security policy.

Mr. Speaker, violent acts in this Nation and around the world must end. Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, in 1994, the United States has systematically addressed abuse and violence against women, and we have to continue that tradition; but it appears we have just begun.

Around the world, at least one woman in every three has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. Women have the right to feel safe in their own homes and on the streets, and law enforcement and health officials must be equipped to deal with the special needs of these tragic situations.

The Violence Against Women Act has been the essential part of strengthening a support system for abused women in our country. Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of VAWA in this Congress so we can continue making the lives of all women safer, healthier, and happier.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to tell the story of Mukhtar Mai, a Pakistani woman who was gang-raped by four men at the direction of the local village council. She committed no crime whatsoever, not a single violation of any kind; yet she was punished by allowing neighboring men to rape her.

Why did the village council encourage the gang rape of Mukhtar Mai? They say it is because her brother was accused of having sex with an older woman from a more prominent family. So the family's punishment was through Miss Mai. But even worse is that the accusation that Mukhtar's brother had sex with an older woman was not true. The accusation was floated to cover up the fact that her brother was actually sexually assaulted by a group of men.

Everyone in the world should be offended by these horrific acts. Mukhtar is a 33-year-old schoolteacher dedicated to educating her nation's children, and she was viciously attacked as punishment for a crime that her brother was accused of, but never committed. Sadly, Mukhtar is not alone. Extreme violence against women happens every day in countries around the world. Most Pakistani women, I am told, in a situation like this, would choose to quietly accept their unfair fate because of fear from the powerful influence of their tribal leaders.

Mukhtar was not silenced. She bravely spoke out after the rape. Her brave voice attracted the attention of media outlets all around the world. In embarrassment, the Pakistani Government reacted to public pressure by promising to swiftly punish her attackers, and a court soon tried and jailed the six men who were involved in the rape.

Unfortunately, the story gets even worse after that. These men, this week, who are all close neighbors of Mukhtar, were actually released from prison. Citing a lack of evidence, a higher court overturned the original convictions of five of the six men. With the five released, Mukhtar fears her life is in danger. Mr. Speaker, who would not be afraid, especially when the men live so close, especially when one woman went against her village traditions and spoke out and challenged her rapists and her accusers, acting bravely, not cowering and not accepting the shame of such an injustice?

This is an important story for several reasons. First, anyone who cares about the fair treatment of human beings around the world should be concerned that women are being treated this way anywhere. Also, we know there is an important link between the fair treatment of women and global security and development. In fact, the more equitably a country treats its female population, the more stable that country tends to be.

Studies in developing countries have demonstrated that the higher level of girls' enrollment in school, the less crime and violence occur in that country. The question is: Why does the United States provide millions of dollars every year to a country like Pakistan that allows this type of brutality to occur?

Last year alone, the United States provided $300 million in foreign military financing for Pakistan, a country, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, that has provided covert support for terrorist organizations that are active in Pakistan's mountainous regions, making it almost impossible to track the activities of groups like al Qaeda.

We need to pursue a smarter national security policy if we want to get serious about ending terrorism and encouraging democracy. We need what I call SMART Security, which is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st century.

Instead of providing millions of dollars in military support for countries that endorse and encourage terrorism, SMART security would spend the same dollars on educational opportunities in countries like Pakistan, especially for women and girls, in order to help encourage gender equality and economic stability. The return on our dollar will be far greater when spent on books and schools instead of guns and bombs.

Let us adopt the SMART security policy when it comes to dealing with countries like Pakistan, because SMART security will make America safer in the long run, and it will help millions of brave women like Mukhtar Mai.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the United Nations High- Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change released a report to correspond with International Women's Day 2005, which is today, March 8, 2005.

Since March is also Women's History Month, it is important to discuss the proven link between gender equality and global security and development. There is an important link here, but it is one that we seldom discuss.

The UN's comprehensive report addresses the inter-connectedness of gender equality and the threats that most affect our world: International security, extreme poverty, environmental degradation and diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Because women constitute a greater proportion than men of the world's poorest people, women stand to gain the most from the alleviation of extreme poverty. And because women around the world experience higher illiteracy rates than men, they also stand to gain more from education programs, particularly in the world's poorest countries where opportunities to receive quality instruction are extremely scarce.

The link between poverty and illiteracy and global insecurity is clear. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission that addressed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 acknowledged that poverty, illiteracy and despair do not cause terrorism, but they do breed conditions in which terrorism is created.

That is why any attempt to address international security must include a discussion about high poverty and illiteracy rates. And because women are burdened disproportionately by poverty and illiteracy, any attempt to address those plights must begin by addressing the excessive degree to which women are affected.

Even in America, women who work full-time year-round earn only 76 cents for every $1 that their male counterparts earn. And every day, in nearly every country in the world, women are beaten, raped and killed. This crisis of violence against women has reached the most dire magnitude in countries like Sudan and Congo and Angola, where rape and brutality towards women is used as a political tool and an act of war.

The international trafficking of women and girls is also a huge problem. Trafficking, the process by which women are sold into sexual slavery, is particularly rampant in Africa and in Southeast Asia.

For those who do not believe there to be an issue of concern for the United States, think again. The trafficking of women reinforces the vicious cycle that continually prevents women from earning a decent living wage, keeping them in slavery and keeping them from receiving the same quality of education as men. This in turn reinforces the root cause of global instability that often gives rise to terrorism.

Fortunately, there is a way to address this crisis. It is called SMART security for the 21st century. SMART is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security addresses the security of women by urging educational opportunities for women and girls. Studies have proven that the more girls that are enrolled in schools in developing countries, the more the population of that country stabilizes. And the more stable the country, the more violence decreases. In fact, domestic violence lessens and crime levels decrease in line with educational opportunities.

We must prevent future acts of the terrorism, and SMART security is a way to do it. Instead of trying to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun, like we have been in Iraq, let us spread it through books, by increasing educational opportunities for women and girls. Today, International Women's Day, let us make it a priority to ensure that women in the poorest countries receive the educational opportunities they need and deserve.

Just as important, women need to be encouraged and allowed to participate in the political process in every country if we are to see a more secure world. And above all else, we must remember that if international security efforts fail to include women, then they are excluding more than half of the world's population. Let us include all of the world's population and let us secure our world for the 21st century.

Mr. Chairman, once again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are claiming they want to help workers in this Nation. But, as usual, their actions say otherwise.

The newest WIA proposal does nothing more than force workers to compete with each other for services that they have come to expect and services they deserve from the WIA system. WIA one-stops provide important job training services to help those struggling to find work to get resources they need.

If this bill passes, veterans and unemployed adults will be placed second to infrastructure costs. Instead of increasing funding in the bill to address infrastructure needs separately, this bill forces Governors to choose between workers and updating facilities, all from the same pot of money. Limiting this pool of funding will deny workers quality services for reemployment and adult education programs, and that is just plain and simple true.

This bill also sets up a voucher system that will actually decrease the amount of services available to job seekers. Those receiving these new job vouchers will be able to pay for training courses or other job- searching expenses. That sounds great. But the catch is that once a worker takes a voucher, they will lose access to Federal job training programs through WIA for an entire year. Money and services are both critical for many workers to get back on track, particularly when they have become unemployed over and over again, and workers who should not have to make the choice between one or the other are continually faced with the dilemma.

This bill also changes the way in which the government will evaluate the success of WIA programs. Now workers will be judged on how they serve the company they work for rather than on the quality of services they received under WIA. Since when was WIA focused on big business' needs rather than the worker's needs?

The worst part of this bill, however, is that it will write discrimination into the law. At religious institutions receiving WIA funds, those who share the

same religious philosophies will have an advantage over those applying for employment that do not subscribe to the same views. Workers can now lose job opportunities through blatant religious discrimination at places our tax dollars are funding. This bill turns WIA into a competitive service provider, rather than an equal opportunity resource for our Nation's unemployed workers.

This is not the way we can help our Nation's workforce, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 27 as it is written.

Mr. Chairman, I will begin by correcting two misunderstandings about this amendment. First, it would not keep faith- based organizations from hiring members of their own religion with their own funds in the exercise of their faith.

Second, it would not keep faith-based organizations from participating in job training programs under this bill. What this amendment says is that if a faith-based organization accepts Federal funds for job training, then in delivering job training, it cannot engage in religious discrimination.

Yesterday President Bush called on Congress, and let me quote, ``to judge faith-based groups by results, not by their religion.''

Well, current law does judge faith-based organizations by results, not by their religion. But sadly, the supporters of H.R. 27 would allow federally-funded job training programs to judge job applicants by their religion, not by their results.

Under H.R. 27, a faith-based grantee could refuse to hire the best qualified person for the grant or even fire its best worker because they are not the right religion. That is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and it is bad policy.

When people who desperately need a job seek help, they do not care about the religion of the person helping them, they do care that the person helping them was hired because he or she was the best qualified person, and they do care that the person helping them is not concerned about their religion. But when the people providing help are hired because of their own religion, it is naive to think that religion will not permeate the help that they provide, no matter what H.R. 27 says.

The proof of this slippery slope is in the President's words. In talking about a hypothetical federally-funded Methodist alcohol treatment center, he said that the policy should be that ``all are welcome, welcome to be saved so they become sober.''

I support every American's right to seek salvation through their religion, but our only interest in federally-funded programs should be whether they provide qualified services for which they are funded. No, this amendment does not discriminate against religion, it protects people from discrimination because of their religion.

In closing, I will correct a third misunderstanding, that the faith community opposes this amendment. A wide range of faith-based organizations support this amendment because they recognize that it is not an attack on American religious freedoms, but a defense of those freedoms.

So I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for their commitments to protecting American's liberties and I encourage all Americans to join us in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, what does it mean to support America's troops? Does it mean placing a yellow ribbon on the bumper of your car? Does it mean blindly supporting the wars in which they fight? Or does it mean something else entirely?

I believe that supporting our Nation's brave soldiers means honoring, above all else, the promise to never place them in harm's way unless the safety and security of our Nation depends on it. It also means that we properly equip them in battle and then fully care for them once they are home.

Sadly, the war in Iraq has violated all three of the ways that we must support our troops. The very premise of this war violates the trust that our military places in the government. It actually violates the trusts that we will only vote to go to war under circumstances of dire national emergency when our fate as a Nation depends on it.

The war in Iraq was never about a national emergency or America's security. It was about the Bush administration's callous manipulation of the 9/11 tragedy. In the end, it was about promoting the administration's own political causes using the tactic of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and now, installing their version of a democracy in the Middle East.

The sad irony is that Iraq is now less stable than ever before. And it has never posed a bigger threat to our security here at home. Iraq has become the breeding ground for terrorists of all nationalities whose most common trait is their hatred of the United States.

This war was fought for the worst reasons, not for the security of our country, but to promote the Bush administration's political goals. The fact that the Bush administration has the audacity to label anyone who does not support this false war as being unsupportive of the troops is nothing short of hypocritical.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the President does not confuse my opposition to

this war for a lack of support for those who fight it. In fact, the Bush administration and his team at the Pentagon have demonstrated a potent lack of support for the troops through poor planning, poor planning for the long military operation of Iraq. And by neglecting to provide every soldier with the life-saving body armor needed to survive military combat.

Hundreds of lives could have been saved if our troops had not been left as sitting ducks on the battlefield without the body armor, without the plated armor for Humvees and without what would have saved their lives during battle.

Finally, the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress have clearly neglected to support the soldiers once they come home. Veterans health care continues to suffer under this administration's reckless fiscal policies, and America has not kept its promise to properly provide for the health care of our soldiers once they have returned from the war.

In fact, one of the champions of veterans in the Republican party, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was stripped of his Veterans Affairs Committee chairmanship precisely because he advocated for full support of our veterans. And then, after losing his chairmanship, he was removed from the committee.

What kind of message does that send to our troops currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If they think their lives are tough on the battlefield, just wait till they come back home and wait till they need services for either physical or mental health or whatever else they are going to need from us when they return.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced H. Con. Res. 35 with the support of 28 of my colleagues in the House. This legislation will help secure Iraq by withdrawing our troops, which will ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does not make our troops sitting ducks. H. Con. Res. 35 is part of a larger national security strategy that I call SMART security. SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. And it will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies, policies that encourage a commitment to diplomacy, a committee to international cooperation and a commitment to nuclear security. Smart security will actually make our country safer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for having this late night Special Order on something as absolutely important as Social Security for our seniors, but not just for our seniors. It is actually an insurance for every single American that they could not afford if it were not under the Social Security program, and that is survivor benefits and disability benefits.

Young people just need to step back and think what it would cost them to pay for that insurance on a month-by-month basis. First of all, they would not buy it. It would be too expensive. Then when they needed it, it would not be there, and it is there now.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I scheduled two town halls. We scheduled two town halls. We ended up having three because the second one was out to the street and we just could not pack another person in. So we committed to a third right after the second. And 80 people stayed and they waited to come in and be there for an entire third of the hearing or town hall. Who I had on my panel, I had the representative of AARP, who has not been a friend to seniors since Medicare reauthorization and the prescription drug plan. And he really redeemed himself in my community, actually.

They are mad at him now, Mr. Speaker.

Right, Mr. Speaker. And they are being discounted entirely.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, then we had a representative from the Commission to Save Social Security and Medicare. And then, finally, I had a representative from Rock the Vote, and this young man was so wonderful. All three of them were. It was a perfect panel. And they were in both of my communities with me.

And what I do, because I cannot have one person stand up and talk for 15 minutes, is I give everybody 1 minute. They can give a 1-minute speech. They can ask a very short question and get a 1-minute response, or they can ask a long question and get a short response. But they get a minute. That is all they get. And at first they are all so uncomfortable with it. Then they are so glad that that is how I set it up because they all want to speak. And we would have gone into the wee hours of the night if it had been up to everybody to have their 15- minute speech.

But what they are saying to me is: I am a senior citizen, the majority of people who were there. This is not about me. This is about my kids and their kids. They deserve to have the safety net that we have. And, yes, they need to save on top of it and we all do and that is what is missing in this country. We do not have a savings plan in this country that incentivizes particularly low-income workers to save. But that does not mean they do not need the safety net of Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, women comprise the majority of Social Security beneficiaries. They are much less likely than a man to receive pensions or have a retirement savings. And there are more than 24 million women receiving Social Security benefits. And if these were taken away, most of these women would be left in poverty. I mean what they are talking about on the other side, what the President is talking about, first of all, he does not have a plan. He just has privatization that he is talking about that does nothing to reform and save Social Security, but what he is talking about is insecurity, social insecurity. It is a gamble instead of a sure thing. And the people in the United States of America get it, and they do not like it. And I predict that they are going to pull back from it and they will not reach beyond what the people in their district are telling them.

Their people are booing them. I did not get any boos in my town hall. Did the gentleman?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, who will benefit from a private plan that invests through Wall Street? The President's buddies. It would be great if his buddies could make everybody in this country wealthy, but that will not happen. And when there is a bubble in the economy, like we had the bubble burst 2 years ago, who is going to be holding the problem? It is going to be right here, the Federal Government. Who is going to pay for it? It is going to be the taxpayers. They are not going to let all these seniors who lose their life savings in the stock market go on the streets with no food and no health care and no way to pay their rent. Absolutely we would never do that in this country, or I hope we would not, anyway. So we will do the bailouts.

But in the meantime, there are going to be a lot of people making a lot of money, and those are stockbrokers and securities bankers, and that is not what Social Security is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be a safety net.

In my town halls I was asked, Well, what would you do, Congresswoman? Why do the Democrats not have a plan? Well, actually our plan is knowing that we have got 30 or 40 years, but we can start right now. We can take a look at raising the caps, or removing the caps.

We stop paying on our Social Security as Members of Congress when we reach the $90,000 earnings level. I see no reason why we should not pay throughout the entire year. I see no reason why Bill Gates should not be paying on his billions of dollars the same percentage of those dollars that a middle-income worker pays on what they earn.

I do not see any reason why we should not have a savings plan on top of that, like we have. People say, We want the same kind of plan you have. First of all, a lot of people think that we do not buy into Social Security. That needs to be cleared up right away. Members of Congress have Social Security and we pay into the system, and we then have a savings plan on top of it that would be a plan that I would think every person in this country could have, every working person. And I think the Federal Government should match low-income savings to a point where then the savings will not be matched after you earn enough money. But, by then, do you know what? You would be used to saving. But we do not know how to save in this country. We are spenders. We do not save.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, it is also a benefit. The formula actually ensures that people at the lower wage earnings get a larger percentage of their wages back than people at the higher end. It is very progressive. It is intended to keep people out of poverty. It is not intended to make rich people richer.

They do not make a lot.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, the reason it is a majority of women at that low wage is that women earn 77 cents to the dollar that a man earns. Women are out of the workforce for a great part of their earning career because they are having the children and raising the children and taking care of their parents and their husband's parents. They are the caregivers. They are not in the workforce as long and they earn less, so they are at the very bottom. But it keeps them out of poverty; and to risk that that would not be there at all, it would throw the whole burden on their children.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, this will be my final thought because I think the gentlewomen from California that are here need to take up some of this time, but these are Social Security benefits that cannot be outlived. They are inflation-proof and they can be relied upon, and that is what would change if the system was privatized, and it is women that it would affect to the greatest degree.

Madam Speaker, there are many truths about America's involvement in Iraq. My truth is that our policies there over the last 2 years have been both immoral and ineffective. With nearly 1,500 American troops killed since the fighting began and another 11,000 injured, the time has come for a drastic change in our role in Iraq.

Leave aside, if my colleagues possibly can, the fact that the President and his team misled us about weapons of mass destruction. Forget for a moment, if they can, that they invented out of whole cloth a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 tragedy. Those lives were bad enough. But their policies, the administration's policies, have also failed to achieve one of their later stated objectives of securing Iraq. The Bush administration is not only dishonest; I believe they are incompetent.

Rather than liberating Iraq, the U.S. invasion and occupation has trapped the nation and its people in a cauldron of violent civil strife. Our presence there has not engendered gratitude but bred resentment in the form of vicious insurgency. It has emboldened Muslim extremists who hate America now more than ever. Neither Iraqis nor Americans nor anyone else in this world is safer because of this war in Iraq.

In fact, a report came from the CIA's National Intelligence Council that concluded Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the most fertile breeding ground for terrorists. It turns out that the Bush administration was right in their projection that we cannot separate Iraq from the war on terrorism. What they did not tell us is that invading Iraq fulfilled those projections and strengthened the wrong side in the war on terrorism.

Even since the Iraqi election, violence is making democracy a real long shot; and our troops, charged with somehow bringing order to the chaotic situation, are sitting ducks. Perhaps the President should ask the Iraqi people how free they feel when they must dodge bullets just to go to the market or visit a neighbor, when they stand by and watch neighborhoods being destroyed. Even in Afghanistan, which is often cited as a Bush success, there is evidence that the country is being run by warlords and drug dealers.

To help the situation in Iraq, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, legislation

that will help secure Iraq by withdrawing our troops, which will ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. So far 27 of my House colleagues have joined me as co-sponsors of this important legislation.

My plan for Iraq is part of a larger strategy that I call SMART Security, which is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies.

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. We would not abandon Iraq and we should not. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help recreate a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants, and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable.

Instead of troops, we need to send scientists, educators, urban planners, and constitutional experts to help rebuild Iraq's fighting economic and physical infrastructure and help establish a robust and democratic civil society. We need to pursue a new approach, and we need to do that because it has become clear the military option is not working. That is not the ideological statement of someone who opposed the war on principle, though I am that. It is a sober assessment of the situation in Iraq that is now shared across the political spectrum. We must truly support our troops, and the right way to do this is by bringing them home.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush's administration national security priorities are so out of balance that it is hard to know where to begin. Between the debacle in Iraq, the failure to address America's true homeland security needs and funding for research on new nuclear weapons, there are plenty of options to choose from.

Last October during the final Presidential debate before the November election, President Bush claimed that the gravest threat America faces is the threat of nuclear attack. Unfortunately, the President has done very little to address this threat.

One of the primary nuclear threats America faces is the development of such hostile weapons by countries like Iran and North Korea. That is why we need to engage these nations in aggressive diplomacy, not aggressive saber rattling.

Earlier this week, North Korea indicated that it wishes to hold bilateral talks with the United States, presumably to receive financial assistance in exchange for dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Iran, on the other hand, feels threatened by recent whispers that the Bush administration might attempt a military assault on their nuclear weapons facilities.

We absolutely must negotiate with both countries. After using the U.S. military to take down Saddam Hussein, this President probably thinks that negotiations are beneath him; but I have got news for the Bush administration. Negotiations work and foreign assistance works. We need to start relying more on nonmilitary security tools to work out our international differences.

The other major nuclear threat comes not from foreign countries, but from terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. To address this threat, we must secure the nuclear stockpiles that are out there before they get into the hands of terrorists.

Most people agree that the best program to secure nuclear materials is the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, or CTR, which enlists the Department of Defense to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles, and secure nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union.

CTR is crucial in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Terrorists know that it would not be difficult to steal material from poorly guarded nuclear plants in Russia. That is why it is important to increase our funding for CTR and provide funding to extend the program so that other regions of the world can be included.

Last year, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program received only $409 million from the Defense budget, and the Department of Defense did not even use all of this money. We should triple or quadruple our funds and our efforts for CTR in the fiscal year 2006 budget, and we should extend this vital program to other countries where nuclear materials are not safely guarded, countries like Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Pakistan.

Instead of continuing down our current path, Mr. Speaker, I believe we must pursue a new national, smarter security strategy that I call SMART security, which is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st century.

I have also introduced H. Con. Res. 35, legislation that would pursue a smarter strategy for rebuilding Iraq. Twenty-eight of my House colleagues have joined me in offering this important legislation.

The immoral and ill-conceived war in Iraq has already claimed the lives of nearly 1,500 American troops. Another 11,000 have been gravely wounded as a result of this war, and the 150,000 soldiers that remain in Iraq are sitting ducks, sitting ducks for Iraq's growing insurgency. I am sure that many of these soldiers understand what our President does not, that the military option is not working.

Yet the President and his administration refuse to consider alternatives to the way we are handling the situation in Iraq. Think about the good that could be accomplished if even a fraction of the billions that have been spent on military operations were instead spent on nonmilitary security.

We could help secure Iraq by rebuilding schools so that their children could learn, constructing new water processing plants so that the Iraqi people could have clean water to drink, and building new roads so that citizens can travel safely from one city to another.

Our assistance should not end there. If we want to be truly smart about how we rebuild Iraq, we also need to bring nongovernmental organizations and humanitarian agencies into this country to help create a robust civil society and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable.

Mr. Speaker, our discussion of the media's responsibility is incomplete without consideration of fairness and without consideration of the fairness doctrine. The public's airwaves are not just a forum for entertainment that might step beyond the bounds of decency but also a home to the marketplace of ideas on which our democracy depends.

In other words, it is not good enough to hold broadcasters accountable for inappropriate wardrobe malfunctions. They must live up to the public good if they want to continue to use the public's airwaves.

Our constituents depend on broadcasters for essential information about issues that affect their families, their lives. Too often, they are unknowingly relying on incomplete, inaccurate, or biased reports.

This happens because we do not hold broadcasters accountable to the public. Under the current rules, corporate conglomerates are free to set the news agenda based on what they think sells or entertains, not what the public needs to know.

Undercover government spokespersons are free to speak their opinions as trustworthy pundits, and media monopolies are free to use their power to provide only one part of the story. Broadcasters are failing the public when the airwaves are used this way.

Mr. Speaker, there is another challenge and threat to our most cherished free speech values: the consolidation of

media ownership. There is a movement that is reshaping the marketplace of ideas and eliminating the diversity of opinion critical to a vibrant democracy.

No newspaper, radio station or TV network is perfect, but allowing single corporations to monopolize the information that average Americans receive gives media corporations and individuals like Rupert Murdoch too much power.

In America ideas are not just another commodity like butter, steel, or cloth. Ideas are the lifeblood of our Nation. The FCC should be defending the free exchange of ideas, not giving a few corporations and their executives power to shut off the flow of ideas to American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we do not vote for this rule until we have everything in it.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our Nation's spending priorities, President Bush and his administration do not know which way is up. Already the President has given Congress a 2006 budget that is all but certain to explode in the year 2009; a ticking time bomb set to detonate after President Bush leaves office. In a move that should surprise no one, this budget conspicuously omits funding for any and all military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, leaving the funding to a supplemental spending bill that does not count against the President's deficit estimates.

These funds are not insignificant. To date Congress has funded a $154 billion military operations and reconstruction budget in Iraq, and the Democratic staff on the House Committee on the Budget has estimated that the war in Iraq could cost the United States as much as $650 billion by the year 2015. Adjusted for inflation, this amount rivals the combined costs of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the first Gulf War; the combined costs.

Let me be clear that my opposition to the President's reckless fiscal policies is not a condemnation of the service men and women who so bravely serve our country. I want everyone to know that I oppose the war, not the warriors. Hundred of thousands of selfless troops were uprooted from their families and their everyday lives to answer the call of duty for their country, and we owe them our absolute gratitude. Sadly, so far, 1,500 of these brave men and women will not return home alive. Another 11,000 will return home forever wounded as a result of injuries sustained in battle. These are the casualties of this ill- conceived war.

A lot of people talk about supporting our troops, but the call to support our troops is yet another reason to oppose President Bush's latest supplemental spending request. If the Bush administration really cared about our troops, they would take all measures to get them out of harm's way and bring them home as soon as possible. But the latest supplemental assumes that 150,000 American soldiers will stay in Iraq as sitting ducks for years to come. And this bill does not bring them home. It is wholly irresponsible for the Bush administration to fund an unending military operation without devising an exit strategy and without even considering the possibility that the military option is not working.

The supplemental spending bill that President Bush sent to Congress also fails to include any type of reporting mechanism, which means that these funds can be spent by military commanders without any accounting of how or where that money was spent. This is a woefully irresponsible way to spend American taxpayers' money.

This, on top of $9 billion in reconstruction funds that cannot be accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American governing body that was in charge of overseeing Iraq until 2004. This, on top of $3 billion in reconstruction funds that had to be reprogrammed for military operations because the Bush administration failed to account for an angry Iraqi insurgency.

What did the President think would happen when he invaded a country that never posed a threat to the United States and never wanted us there in the first place?

Instead of continuing down our current path, I believe we must pursue a national security strategy that I call SMART security, which is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism for the 21st century. I have also introduced legislation, H. Con. Res. 35, that would help us pursue a smarter strategy for rebuilding Iraq. Twenty- seven of my House colleagues have joined me in offering this important legislation.

Instead of financing billions of more dollars to continue a failed military occupation, under my plan, the United States would help secure Iraq by rebuilding schools so that children can learn, constructing new water processing plants so that this desert country does not face water shortages, and building new roads so that citizens can travel from one city to another.

Our assistance should not end there. If we want to be truly smart about how we rebuild Iraq, we also need to bring NGOs and humanitarian agencies into the country to help create a robust civil society and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable.

It is time for us to support the Iraqi people by giving them the resources they need, and it is time to support our own troops by bringing them home.

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to lose count of the number of reasons why we went to war in Iraq. First it was because Saddam Hussein was closely linked to al Qaeda, the terrorist group that conducted the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11.

After that theory was disproved, the reason for going to war became the imminent and immediate threat that Saddam posed to the United States. According to the White House, Saddam possessed stockpiles of nuclear and biological weapons.

When we learned that Saddam's nuclear weapons program had actually been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War, which was a full 12 years ago when the U.S. began its first invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration changed its rationale yet again. This time the reason for going to war was for the very cause of democracy itself, to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

Some have said that Iraq's recent elections are the very embodiment of Iraq's quick embrace of democracy. It is important right now to commend the brave 58 percent of registered Iraqis who voted in these elections, voted to select the legislators who will write the Iraqi constitution.

In fact, Iraq's voter turnout was higher than the turnout in most American elections. Believe me, the people who live in my congressional district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, know how important elections are to keeping a viable and vital democracy in a country. In last November's election, we voted with a record 89.5 percent of registered voters turning out.

Sadly, despite Iraq's elections, the Middle East is as unstable as it has ever been. The war in Iraq has made Iraq a more violent and unstable place, making America less secure from the threat of terrorism by creating a terrorist breeding ground in a country that had never been a haven for terrorist groups like al Qaeda in the first place.

Some members of the Bush administration have expressed their disappointment with the high Shiite turnout of Iraq's elections, fearing that significant participation by religious Muslims may lead to the creation of an overly religious Iraqi constitution, but that is the danger, the danger risked by invading a country when you will not admit the real reason you are there in the first place.

Are we there to stabilize Iraq so we can control their oil resources? Are we there to force our notions of democracy onto the Iraqi people? Or are we there to honor the Iraqi voters, voters who went to the polls because they want to control their own destiny?

The most important thing to recognize is that Iraq will not resemble the United States, and Iraq's constitution will not be an updated version of our own. Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that we cannot keep our troops stationed halfway around the world with the hope that Iraq will become a Middle Eastern version of the United States.

But the elections do demonstrate that the Iraqi people are prepared to manage their own affairs. That is why, now that Iraq's elections are completed, the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as the country transitions towards democracy.

We can do this by supporting the Iraqi people, not through our military, but through international cooperation to help rebuild Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure.

We owe this to the people of Iraq, who are being killed by the thousands. We owe it to our troops who are sitting ducks for the terrorists, and we owe it to the nearly 1,500 American troops who have died in this ill-conceived misadventure, as well as the 11,000 who have been severely wounded.

To help the situation in Iraq, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, which is legislation that will help Iraq secure its own future and ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. So far, 27 of my House colleagues have signed on as cosponsors of this important legislation.

My plan for Iraq is part of a larger strategy that I call SMART security, which is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter politics.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear; we should not abandon Iraq. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants, and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable.

Instead of troops, we need to send scientists, educators, urban planners and constitutional experts to help rebuild Iraq's flagging economic and physical infrastructure.