Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when I opened my holiday cards this season, one in particular stood out. It was bigger than the others. It was more colorful. It had several pictures instead of just one. It was from the Matsui family, and just about every picture included young Anna Matsui, Bob's only grandchild.

The love that this man had for his family, and this little girl in particular, practically jumped off the page. It saddens me deeply that Anna won't grow up knowing more of her grandpa, but I am certain that her parents and her grandmother will not let her forget him. She will grow up strengthened by his leadership, his integrity, and his kindness.

I couldn't look at Anna's pictures without thinking that, when Bob was her age, he was living in an internment camp with other Japanese- Americans who had been rounded up and incarcerated after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was, of course, one of the great stains on our Nation's history, and Bob spent his public life trying to somehow correct that ugly injustice. I imagine that Bob's connection to Anna was stronger because his own early years were so unsettled, because he wanted his granddaughter to have a childhood full of innocence and happy memories.

Bob Matsui stood out in this Chamber--for his policy intellect; for his sense of compassion and justice; for the esteem he earned on both sides of the aisle; but most of all for his fundamental decency. That decency was apparent in his work, whether he was securing flood protection for Sacramento or fighting for Social Security. And there's no question that we'll miss Bob Matsui's expertise as we debate the future of Social Security this year.

There was no separation between Bob Matsui's private virtues and public virtues. They were one and the same. He treated everyone with respect; he didn't raise his voice a lot; he was a lot more steak than sizzle. To be honest, these are qualities that are not in abundance around here these days. I hope that our memories of Bob Matsui will lead us to conduct ourselves with greater civility in this new Congress.

Very few of us knew that Bob was sick, which is why the news of his death came as such a shock. But that modesty was consistent with the way Bob lived. Rather than go public with his illness, he preferred simply to be surrounded by the love of his family.

Of course, even the most unassuming among us have another side to them. As I was reading the obituary in the Sacramento Bee, I was taken aback by one friend's remembrance--of a shirtless Bob Matsui in the stands at a Cal football game rabidly rooting for his team and challenging the other team's fans.

Now, if you asked the Members of this body to rank their colleagues in order of most likely to remove their shirt off at a football game . . . Bob would've finished close to 435th of 435. And remember that includes more than 70 women.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Bob's wife, Doris Matsui, whom all of us know as an impressive advocate and public servant in her own right. And with Brian, Amy and Anna Matsui and everyone who loved this dear man. Bob Matsui--rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, today we are removing language that allows Appropriations Committee members and their staff to look at citizen's tax returns. This language was in a 3,500 page spending bill, which Members only had hours to review before voting. Privacy was at stake here and it is right to correct this wrong.

But another provision in this bill also threatens privacy. The privacy of women and their conversations with their doctors. The Federal Refusal Clause language inserted in this bill robs women of their right to access comprehensive health care. No matter how you

look at it, this provision goes one step further by making it impossible for women to exercise their reproductive choices and once again subjects them to the wrath of the anti-choice movement. This was a misguided measure that has dangerous implications for women's reproductive health and for our health care system as a whole. If we were truly correcting the bad policy inserted in this bill we would be removing this language as well.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents want us to get it right the first time around. Let's not make a mistake now that we have a second chance. I urge my colleagues to support the removal of this anti-choice, anti- privacy language.

Mr. Speaker, not all Members of Congress supported the war in Iraq, but we all have to live with its consequences. The global havoc wreaked by this war will affect the world in ways that we can only imagine today.

Let us not forget that more than 1,200 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Over 9,000 have been wounded, and an estimated 16,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of this war. In fact, 16,000 is probably a very low estimate.

The growing Iraqi insurgency, like the global War on Terror, cannot be won by being stronger than the insurgents. We cannot win this war with guns and bombs, because for every insurgent we kill, three more sign up. We have to be smarter than the insurgents. We are going to win this battle of conflicting ideologies only if we use our good senses and our good hearts.

We know that the anger at the heart of the Iraqi insurgency stems from, at least in part, a deep resentment over the American presence in their country. After years of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime, the Iraqi people see the United States as just another occupying force.

We have to make a choice in Iraq. Do we want to address the root causes of the insurgency or do we want to continue down our current path, shooting

and bombing everything in sight and perpetually fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

We must reopen the debate about the situation in Iraq to determine why our current policies are not working. We must figure out why the insurgency continues to grow despite our military efforts. Only through a robust, public dialogue can we begin to get to the bottom of these questions.

To address the root cause of terrorism around the world, such as the current insurgency in Iraq, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism.

SMART security calls for the United States to address the root causes of terrorism by engaging our United Nations partners, by engaging also the world humanitarian community and all of our United States allies in the international and civilian-led reconstruction and political transition processes that we are involved in.

Can my colleagues imagine what Iraq might look like if, instead of rushing to invade the country, we had waited just a few months and continued to engage the rest of the world community in the weapons inspection process? We would have learned that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. We would have prevented the deaths of thousands of American troops and innocent Iraqi civilians.

Imagine if, after the invasion, we had allowed other Nations and the U.N. to partner with the United States in engaging the Iraqis in the reconstruction program. We would not be faced with billions of dollars of debt because the finances of cleanup would have been offset by dozens of other donor Nations.

SMART security calls for increased developmental aid for programs that are integrated with peace building and conflict prevention measures. Unfortunately, we are struggling to provide funds for Iraqi's development because we are too busy paying for military operations, and the insurgents are busy working against our every effort in that regard.

Already, the White House has asked Congress to pilfer $3 billion from Iraq's reconstruction funds in order to pay for military operations. That request represents a complete failure to adequately plan and prepare for this war.

Mr. Speaker, the United States must stop engaging in this reckless national security strategy, a strategy whose current path only encourages future terrorist activities.

It is time we pursued a SMART security strategy for America, a strategy that will secure Iraq, a strategy that will keep America safe and secure for the future, because, if we do not, all we will be left with are the consequences of our current failed policies.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H. Res. 853, because I am disappointed with the Boy Scouts of America's exclusionary policies that prevent gay boys and teens from participating in scouting. While the Boy Scouts' positive work within our nation's communities is notable, the message that the organization sends to gay children and teens by shutting them out diminishes its greater goals of teaching respect, personal honor, and service.

It is important to encourage and support all of our children and by excluding gay youth the Boy Scouts of America is preventing every young man from experiencing the positive benefits Scouting can offer.

Mr. Speaker, first I rise to say good-bye to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). Good-bye for now, and to thank him for all of his contributions to the people of this Nation and to all of us in this body. He has been the ultimate Energizer Bunny. I have never seen such steady, good energy in anybody in my life. I thank the gentleman, and I want him to know he will be missed.

Next, I rise in opposition to the anti-choice, anti-woman provisions in H.R. 4818. This is a misguided measure which is very dangerous for our health care system as a whole. Let me be clear, this provision is nothing more than a payoff to the religious right. The majority party has made it quite clear that winning an election is worth sacrificing the health of American women.

This bill robs women of their right to access comprehensive health care. No matter how Members look at it, this provision goes one step further by making it impossible for women to exercise their reproductive choices and once again subjects them to the wrath of the anti-choice movement.

The current state of our health care system is weakening by the day. Many of our constituents are experiencing increased premiums with others being dropped by their health plans altogether. This provision would effectively strip States of their right to enforce laws that were designed to protect women's health. Instead of putting patient access to care in further jeopardy, we should be figuring out how to improve access to quality health care. Not only is this a direct assault on women's health and the authority of health care providers; it is a slap in the face to State and local governments that have implemented policies that put a woman's health ahead of bad politics.

We cannot fall for this outrageous antic of the anti-choice community. We cannot let them twist another health care issue into a political one. That is why I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this extremely harmful measure.

Mr. Speaker, I did not support this bill, H.R. 1350, when it first came out of our subcommittee and then our full committee and then passed the House. But, since then, there has been a lot of bipartisan effort, and now I believe we can achieve what we were aiming for.

We can have and will continue to set aside our political differences so that we work together in our children's best interests. For that I thank our conference chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the conferees from both the House and the Senate.

I believe that this process, if we follow it, can and must be the standard for the new Congress. Imagine a Congress that puts children before politics. That would be something in and of itself. Today, we are setting an example. We have raised the bar. We have set a standard that together, both sides of the aisle, both the House and the Senate have said, oh, my, let us put children first.

Let us support the rule, support the bill and support the countless students and parents and teachers and school administrators who advocate for children with disabilities who have come to us to make certain that we understand how IDEA works for them and where it does not work. In this bill today we are making a difference in the lives of people who are affected day in and day out by what we will be voting for.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. I did not support this bill when it first passed out of the committee, and I did not support it when it passed out of the House. But now I believe it is an example of what we can achieve when we set aside our political differences and work together in our children's best interests.

For that, I thank my conference chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller); the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the conferees from both Houses. I echo the thanks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) to every one of our staff who have worked so hard. There is not one of us who does not know and believe that, without them, we would not be here today.

But I would also like to thank another group, and that is my Subcommittee on Education Reform dealing with special education. Because my Democratic members of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny Davis), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), they were my backbone. They came to every single hearing. They participated. They were at every markup. They had their additions and their changes, and they were always keeping me and the subcommittee and the committee in general aware that children are our number one interest, not politics.

I believe that the process we followed here in the House and then with the conference can become and must become the standard for the next Congress. Imagine: A Congress that puts children before politics.

I also want to thank the countless students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and others who advocate for children with disabilities, because that is the group that makes sure that we understood how IDEA works for them, the people who are affected day in and day out by what we are doing today.

In this bill, we have protected the right of a child with a disability not to be punished for conduct she cannot control because of her disability. That does not mean that we are going to give kids with disabilities a free pass to misbehave. What it means is that we are going to make sure they get the support they need so that they can be fully engaged in learning.

We have also protected the rights of parents to play an active and effective role in their children's education. Now, some people might think that those particular provisions pit kids with disabilities and their parents against schools and teachers. I do not. I know that schools and teachers are committed to educating all children and that they believe this bill will help them do just that. I believe it will do just that, also.

For example, we have provided flexibility to ensure that children with disabilities will be taught by highly-qualified teachers. We have provided new opportunities for parents and schools to work out their concerns without having to file complaints. We have provided greater flexibility for parents and schools to change a child's individualized education program without every member of the child's IDP team having to meet and to meet by telephone or other alternative means, if the parent and the school agree.

And I am especially pleased that there is another way this bill will help schools and that is because we have included bipartisan language that I developed along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). The language makes it clear that Federal funds for IDEA go to schools to use for special education, not for States to use to get out of paying for their required funding or not for States to use to solve their general budget problems. That is something that my home State of California has been doing, and according to the American Association of School Administrators, this practice cost California and their schools $120 million in the year 2003 alone. I am going to keep working to see that Congress's intent to stop it is enforced.

I am also going to keep working to see that Congress keeps its promise to fully fund our commitments to IDEA. I am disappointed again that this bill does not require full funding of IDEA now. I know it does over 7 years. I want it now, even though virtually every single member of Congress routinely says that they support full funding. But I am pleased to support this report because I think it is good for parents, teachers, schools, but most importantly because it will help students with disabilities and special needs reach their potential.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to improve educational opportunities for all of our children and to ensure that the funding required to achieve these goals will be eventually and immediately put into place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who was head of this subcommittee when we first started talking about reauthorizing IDEA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), who is leaving the committee and who will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis) and want to recognize her as one of the most informed members of our subcommittee.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time we have remaining on this side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the voice of our subcommittee, who represents Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman for an explanation of his request.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Just as an aside, I would like to say, as a Member of Congress, if there is any subject I wish I had paid more attention to, it would have been American history. I support this bill, which improves history and civics education, primarily by funding workshops for history teachers. It recognizes the importance of teaching our children history and allows for Federal support for an effective and widely respected program, National History Day.

This bill creates both Presidential Academies for Teaching of American History and Civics and Congressional Academies for Students of American History and Civics. I am pleased that it will ensure that these are quality programs by ensuring that grants are awarded only to those who have demonstrated expertise in historical methodology or the teaching of history.

A very important feature of this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Education to award grants to the National History Day program, a highly successful, year-long national program that trains teachers and sponsors a national competition among junior high and high school students. They produce dramatic performances, imaginative exhibits, multimedia documentaries and research papers based on research related to an annual theme.

The National History Day program, which reaches 2 million people annually from nearly every State, teaches students important literacy skills and engages them in the use and understanding of museum and library resources. It inspires students to study local history and challenges them to expand their thinking and apply knowledge of local events to national and, at times, international issues. The program also teaches students to become technologically literate through the use of computer and Internet research methods and the use of technologically advanced applications in their presentations.

For more than 25 years, National History Day has used history to help students develop research, thinking and communication skills. I am pleased that this bill would help continue and expand its important activities.

All Americans benefit from a better understanding of history, and this bill is a positive step toward ensuring that future generations have the background and tools for appreciating history and applying those lessons to our daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1446, the California Missions Preservation Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for introducing this bill, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor.

The California missions provide an important part of California's past, and their history can be traced to 1493. The Sixth District of California, located across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, is the district I am so pleased to represent. We are fortunate to have one of these missions, the San Raphael Mission and another, the Sonoma Mission, is just outside of my district.

The San Raphael Mission was originally built in 1817 as an outpost chapel of the San Francisco Mission. Named for Saint Raphael, the angel of bodily healing, it was thought that the sunny hillside on the north side of the bay would be a good place for the sick to convalesce. In only 5 years, it became a healthy settlement, and on October 19, 1822, it became an independent mission. After it was secularized, the mission fell into ruin, and 32 years later the original mission was torn down. But in 1947 a new mission was built near the original site, based on a painting of the old mission.

The San Francisco Solano Mission, founded in 1823 in Sonoma County, was the last and most northerly of the 21 Franciscan missions of Alta California. Sonoma Mission, as it is properly called, was the dedicated goal of the young and zealous Padre Jose Altimira. He headed into the northern wilderness to find a more healthy location for a mission than the crowded San Francisco area. In Sonoma Valley he found his ideal location, with fertile soil and mild, sunny climate.

Secularization of the mission in 1834 was followed by neglect and decay. In 1881, the church and padres' quarters were sold and used as a hay barn, winery and blacksmith shop. However, the mission was rescued from disintegration in 1903 when it was bought by the Historic Landmarks League and turned over to the State. Full restoration began in 1911.

There is still so much more to do to restore these historic treasures. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we save these missions so they can pass on their history to future generations. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the worst attacks on this country's soil took place on September 11, 2001, when planes hijacked by terrorists slammed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. The last plane which crashed into a field in Pennsylvania was likely headed for the very building in which we are now standing, the U.S. Capitol.

Shortly after these devastating attacks, the House and Senate intelligence committees requested that the Office of the Inspector General at the Central Intelligence Agency provide a comprehensive report on the events surrounding 9/11.

In June, 2004, an 11-member team from the CIA's Office of the Inspector General completed its report after a 17-month investigation. Congress, however, still has not received this important report.

According to several intelligence officials, the CIA report is potentially damaging to the White House because it details pre-9/11 failures by members of the Bush administration. According to one official, ``What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that.''

Unfortunately, even though the CIA team finished its exhaustive report in June, it has yet to make its way to the House and Senate intelligence committees here in our Congress.

My colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the chairman and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote to the CIA in early October asking for delivery of this crucial report. They received no reply. Several sources in the intelligence community have stated that the reason for the delay has been the White House itself, which wanted the document released only after the November presidential election.

This should surprise no one.

What should surprise everyone is that the failure to deliver this report on time is unprecedented. The CIA has never failed to submit a report to Congress or delayed a report's submission for purely political reasons.

Mr. Speaker, the truth behind 9/11 is too important for the Bush White House to use for partisan applications. President Bush officially opposed the creation of the independent 9/11 Commission in the first place. Only when public opinion became unwieldy did he relent and allow its creation.

Then, after the Commission was created, the President opposed providing it with enough time to complete its congressionally mandated investigative report. He relented only after public opinion weighed in against him.

President Bush initially refused to allow National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to testify before the Commission, then relented under public pressure. Then he refused to testify before the Commission himself but relented under public pressure but only behind closed doors and with Vice President Cheney by his side the whole time.

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way to respond to the threats America faces than by hiding behind closed doors. Instead, our government should depend on openness and transparency. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 3792, a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for sensible multi-lateral American response to terrorism. SMART Security embodies a government that is fair, open, and transparent. SMART Security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multi-lateral partnerships, and it controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements and vigorous inspection regimes.

SMART Security will defend America from future terrorist attacks by relying on the very best of America, not our nuclear capability but our capacity for multi-national leadership and our commitment to peace and freedom around the world.

If we fail to maintain the democratic principles upon which the country was founded, then we will have lost more than any terrorist could ever have taken away.

SMART Security is tough, pragmatic and safe. It depends on a government that is open, honest and transparent, and it is the right choice to keep Americans truly secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lynn Victor of Santa Rosa, California, who retires after a remarkable 30-year career of creative and innovative work to improve the lives of low-income Americans.

Beginning at the Community Action Council of San Joaquin County in the 1970's, Lynn created innovative solutions to the needs of low- income communities. As energy costs rose, she helped to develop and then administered the Nation's first home weatherization programs funded by state regulated utility companies. Based on its great success, regulated utility companies in 22 states now provide weatherization services to millions of their low-income customers around the Nation. These programs not only help disadvantaged families reduce their energy costs, they also conserve energy for America, helping toward energy self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Lynn then went on to design the Nation's first education program to help low-income and non-English speaking communities understand the deregulation of the telephone industry, enabling them to obtain and keep vital telephone service at the lowest possible cost. She designed a program to help millions of low-income people understand the privacy and security implications of new telephone technology. In this effort, she created education materials in 32 languages and Braille so that, for the first time, major telephone companies were able to reach California's huge immigrant populations through community action agencies, domestic violence shelters and other community based organizations. Once again, this program became a model for utility companies throughout the Nation to understand and address the needs of their hard-to-reach customers and bring them important consumer protection information.

Lynn's work has always featured collaborations with Community Action Agencies (CAA's), our Nation's network of over 1,000 anti-poverty agencies that serve millions of low-income Americans. CAA's operate Head Start, Energy Assistance Programs, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and other services that reach millions of disadvantaged Americans. For the past 4 years, Lynn has worked as Executive Director of the California/Nevada Community Action Partnership, helping this two state association of CAA's address the causes and symptoms of poverty in their communities.

An immigrant born in England, Lynn grew up in New Zealand, arriving in America in 1963. As a single parent of Michael, Lizabeth and Kristina Victor, Lynn had many hardships to face with no family to turn to. However, she found her new family in her community.

Mr. Speaker, as innovator, organizer and inspiration, this remarkable woman exemplifies the spirit of American immigrants who contribute so much to the vibrancy of our Nation. She is leaving her post having set a new standard for all who will follow after her, and she has put into place programs that will serve the neediest of us well in the future. Thank you, Lynn.

Mr. Speaker, George W. Bush will lead the United States, and the free world, for another 4 years. With the weight of the Presidential contest behind him, it is my sincere hope that he will take this opportunity to shun the aggressive, unyielding, and unilateral approach to world affairs that has bedeviled his first term and ostracized the United States from our allies. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the President must lead the country in a new, stronger and safer direction, one that makes use of aggressive diplomacy and the rule of law to accomplish what needs to be done. The point has never been clearer that, in the vast majority of situations, negotiations work; and the recent developments in Iran are a perfect example. The Bush administration's approach to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons has consisted of little more than saber-rattling and aggressive posturing. While the U.S. has attempted unsuccessfully to flex its muscles, three European countries have banded together to achieve real results. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany announced earlier this week that they had reached a deal to prevent the development of Iran's nuclear program for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons. In exchange, the three European powers promised that Iran would not face U.N. Security Council sanctions. The promise will be upheld because France and the U.K. are both permanent members of the Security Council and can veto any sanctions against a fully compliant Iran. To be sure, it will take months, if not years, to assure that Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to the rest of the world, but the consequences of these negotiations are significant.

By engaging Iran in direct talks, instead of a political wrestling match, three European powers were able to achieve tangible results. Negotiations worked, while U.S. aggression has not.

There has to be a better way to respond to the threats America faces, a better way than the chest-thumping aggression that was adopted by the first-term Bush administration. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART Security Platform For the 21st Century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. SMART security 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 uncompromising diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, not our nuclear capabilities but our capacity for multinational leadership and our commitment to peace and freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush should view the example of Iran as a lesson in how to engage so-called ``rogue nations'' over the next 4 years. He no longer has a reelection campaign to worry about, and there is nothing to stop him from using smarter alternatives when conducting America's foreign policy.

What kind of world will the President leave when he steps off the global stage in the year 2008? A world at war for the foreseeable future, or a world at peace, guided by the smart choices of diplomacy and engagement? The choice is in his hands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that the military draft is alive and well in the United States of America. But, this time, it is the Bush administration's shameful behind-the-scenes version: a ``backdoor draft,'' specifically targeting soldiers who have already served and poor young men and women from rural areas who enlisted because the military helped them pay for a college education they would not have been able to get otherwise.

Since the war in Iraq began, the Bush administration has done everything in its power to cajole and deceive soldiers into serving longer than they want or longer than they agreed to.

Depending on members of the Army Reserve and National Guard, who almost always serve the country only here at home in the United States, to serve in Iraq was just the tip of the iceberg. This administration has also started the shameful policy of issuing ``stop loss'' orders, which allowed the military to break its contractual obligations to a service member in order to keep that soldier in the military for longer than he or she has agreed. They have resorted to the shameful policy of recruiting the ``ready reserve,'' a group of retired soldiers, who, after completing their years of service, agreed to serve their country should a national emergency arise.

I have got news for the President. Our invasion of a country that never threatened us, did not have weapons of mass destruction or even a weapons of mass destruction program, and did not have links to al Qaeda, does not qualify as a national emergency.

These shameful Bush administration policies all add up to a ``backdoor draft,'' a means for the administration to dishonestly and dishonorably force soldiers who have already served their country to be serving now or to force soldiers to serve 6 or even 12 months longer than they agreed to. In fact, many soldiers have been manipulated into extending their contracts with the Army. They have been warned that if they do not reenlist on time, their brigade could be shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, at the same time that President Bush and his fellow Republicans have pursued an all-too-real ``backdoor draft,'' just this week, the House Republican leadership placed on the schedule under the suspension calendar a controversial bill to reimplement the draft. The suspension calendar, of course, and we all know this, is reserved for noncontroversial legislation. The reimplementation of the draft is hardly noncontroversial, and surely, it should be subject to hearings and expert testimony.

The administration must assess the military's recruitment and retention rates, the military's manpower needs, and the extent to which our troops are overextended in the field. The American people deserve better than this.

Our troops who will still be in Iraq after we leave here today should not be left with the message that Congress did not have the time to discuss in detail what must be done to help them in the field.

There has to be a better way, Mr. Speaker. A better way than voting one way and acting another, especially when American lives are at stake. We need new policies that will make America stronger at home and more respected around the world. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. We would not be in Iraq if we had pursued a SMART Security strategy in the first place.

SMART Security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships, and it controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART Security means respecting our Nation's servicemen and women by respecting their service contracts and then providing them with the care and the benefits they deserve once they have returned home. It does not mean tricking our brave soldiers into serving for longer than they expected or agreed to. SMART Security is tough, pragmatic, and safe, and it is the right choice to keep America truly secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Edgar Wayburn of San Francisco and Marin County, California, on the occasion of the recognition of Tomales Bay as a Ramsar site. Designated by the U. S. government, the Ramsar Bureau in Switzerland maintains a list of Wetlands of International Importance under the Convention on Wetlands. Ed Wayburn's support for this nomination was crucial in securing the Ramsar listing.

With a long history of environmental activism, Ed Wayburn has promoted understanding of the importance of the land/marine interface and, in 1998, successfully nominated Bolinas Lagoon as a Ramsar site, the only other such designation in California. Now 97, he has a record as one of the most successful environmental leaders in the country. Locally, Ed and his late wife Peggy are known for their roles in the expansion of Mount Tamalpais State Park and the creation of Pt. Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Nationally, they spent 13 years fighting to protect 104 million acres of Alaskan wilderness, an achievement that doubled the size of the national park system when President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act, which added substantially to six parks, in 1980.

A family doctor born in Georgia, Ed Wayburn came to California in 1927. The natural landscape awed him at the time, and the post-World War II boom that saw much of the Bay area paved over turned him into an activist. Five times president of the Sierra Club, he worked in a different style from his legendary colleague David Brower, the Club's executive director during the 1950s and 1960s. Skilled at working persistently behind the scenes, Wayburn could negotiate the halls of Congress and the offices of Interior Secretaries as comfortably as the wilderness trails he loved. In 1995, he won the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism, and, in 1999, he won the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, for his exceptional service on behalf of environmental preservation.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Edgar Wayburn is principally responsible for saving more open space than any other living American. Although not the hiker he used to be, he is still awed and inspired by the natural world. ``Wilderness is enjoyed not only by the young and hardy,'' he says. ``Sometimes it is simply enough to know it exists--to remember and to dream.'' We share the dream of Ed Wayburn for a world in which mankind honors and preserves our natural heritage.