Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here to express my opposition to H.R. 4200, the fiscal year 2005 Defense Authorization Act. Among other things, the bill would approve an additional $25 billion for the war in Iraq. For those that may have forgotten, let me refresh your memory.

Last November, that was a mere 6 months ago, Congress approved $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, President Bush misleadingly declared that no additional funds would be needed until the year 2005. Since then, funds allocated for Iraq appear to have been misused, misspent and in some cases downright stolen by the companies assigned the tasks of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.

It would be totally irresponsible to provide another blank check to this administration, which still has not accounted for how the last $87 billion was spent. But the last $87 billion and the $78 billion before that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The cost of maintaining our forces in Iraq alone costs the United States taxpayers $5 billion a month, and that does not take into consideration the vast reconstruction costs, and more importantly, the tremendous human costs that we are occurring every single day. That is $60 billion a year just to continue our military operations in that one country, assuming nothing goes wrong.

And as events in the streets of Fallujah and the abuses within the walls of the Abu Ghraib Prison have shown with this administration in charge, inevitably there will be more things going wrong. In fact, some estimates suggest that the cost of the war in Iraq could approach a total of $400 billion by 2006.

There are programs in H.R. 4200 that I support, including extending coverage under TRICARE, the military's health care system, to the National Guard and the Reserve forces and their families who lack health insurance.

H.R. 4200 also provides an across-the-board pay increase for military personnel, and it authorizes permanent increases to the imminent danger pay and the family separation allowance.

And finally, H.R. 4200 eliminates the widow's tax which veterans' spouses currently face by improving the existing survivor benefit plan.

I support all of these measures, and I have been working for their passage because each is an important step in keeping our promise to our Nation's servicemen and women, those who have sacrificed so much for their country. But to my great disappointment, in order to support these important measures for our troops and veterans, I would also have to support the development of new nuclear weapons and a gigantic missile defense system, which has never been proven effective, not to mention another gigantic $25 billion spending bill for the war in Iraq.

An open check for the President, despite the fact that, one, we have no idea why we are in Iraq in the first place; two, we have no idea how our money is being spent; and three, we have no exit strategy.

There has to be a better way, Mr. Speaker, because the Bush doctrine of spending without accountability has been tried in Iraq and it is failing.

But there is another way. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism.

Instead of spending billions on new bunker-buster nuclear weapons and the President's beloved missile defense system, which would not provide an effective defense against a full frontal missile attack, SMART security calls for stronger and smarter investments at home, on homeland security and first responders, and abroad on peacekeeping and conflict-prevention programs.

SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America: our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Let us be smart, let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and SMART security will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Miller motion to instruct conferees because it ensures that those making as little as $23,660 a year are able to retain the overtime privileges they currently receive.

Mr. Speaker, I was a human resources professional for ten years in a manufacturing company, and then for ten more years, I had my own company, advising high tech companies on their personnel policies and practices . . . including wage and salary structures. I know a thing or two about work structures.

Under the new overtime rules a ``team leader'' would be ineligible for overtime. I'm going to tell you what a team leader is: first of all, a team leader is not a professional that has a whole group of professional people working as a team negotiating for some grand project in some community. That team leader is a professional period, not a person paid on an hourly rate or a salaried nonexempt person.

In reality a team leader is a senior employee who has the background and the experience to earn the top of their pay rate. And because they've been around, because they know something, they've been asked to show more junior workers how to do the work, and to give them confidence and to give them guidance.

But they're doing the work right alongside of the worker they are mentoring. Today this person earns the top of their pay grade plus overtime. Under the new rules, without that overtime, that ``Team Leader'' is probably going to earn less than the person that they're working and guiding. The person the ``Team Leader'' guides will still qualify for overtime for the same hours worked.

So what are we talking about here? We're talking about people at the top of their pay grade getting less because they happen to have institutional knowledge, even though they are doing the same job. And I just don't see how anybody here in this chamber believes that any new rules that impact workers like these are good for most Americans.

These rules help big business plain and simple, such as the newspaper publishers who were standing up and cheering Secretary Chao when she announced how these rules would allow them to stop paying overtime to journalists. They knew they were going to save money, lots of money.

Well, a rule that works for a handful of business owners and against most of the workers can't be the rule that works for the people of this country.

That's why I urge my colleagues to support the Miller motion to instruct conferees and prevent our hard working Americans from losing the overtime they have come to depend on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2728 because it appears to be another way for this administration to distract from real needs facing our nation's workers. What employees deserve is a safe working environment that protects them from harm and allows their families peace of mind.

Yet, with this legislation, we put the company's bottom line above the safety of American Workers.

With the narrowing definition of ``Willful Violations,'' we will make it easier for employers to avoid responsibility after disregarding a safety standard requirement. This bill would allow companies to receive filing extensions even if they lost track of a citation due to their own negligence.

Why should any worker be forced to suffer in unhealthy conditions or even worse, lose their life, because of inefficiencies within a company's system or blatant lies to avoid penalties?

That's why I support real workplace reform not favors to business like H.R. 2728 provides. I support strengthening worker protections and forcing employers to face real consequences when their poor safety standards cause a wrongful death.

You cannot put a price tag on life, and injury, and we can all agree every workers' life is more precious than a profit. That's why I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this H.R. 2728.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2729 because our workers deserve to know that their interests will be represented on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and they need to know this will be an unbiased judgment.

But first, let me be clear that these four bills we are talking about now are not a worry to any of us up here when we are looking at the employers who actually take care of their workers, the employers who know that workers have families and they are very concerned when they put their policies for safety and health in place. They are concerned about these families. They are concerned about these workers.

But those are not our worries. Our worry is about the employer that does not do that.

This legislation, I believe, will threaten one of the only hopes a family has for justice when a loved one is harmed at work. By increasing the membership of the commission from three to five, the administration could play politics with the commission with anti- employee-safety employees and requiring quorums for a meeting, which could delay a decision indefinitely, ultimately making good decision- making almost impossible through the inefficiency of gathering a group. If you cannot gather a group of three, how will you gather a group of five?

Since Bush took office, it has been clear that he intends to use OSHA to protect big business rather than worker safety. First, he signed legislation overturning workplace safety rules to prevent ergonomic standards. Then he advocated budget cuts for job safety agencies such as OSHA and NIOSH. He went even further by suspending 23 important job safety regulations.

The list goes on and on, and it is my opinion that this legislation is just another way for the anti-OSHA weakening that the administration is hoping for.

Employees need to know they are considered to be as important as business interests. They deserve to know that they matter as much as the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not what workers need or what workers want. They want to know that their voice will be represented on the commission; they want to know that their grievances will be taken seriously and handled efficiently, and for that very reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2729.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2730 because instead of working to strengthen OSHA, my Republican colleagues have again presented us with another piece of legislation aimed at weakening it.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, before being elected to the House of Representatives, I spent 20 years as a human resources professional, and I was also a small business owner. I can speak with authority when I say that workers do a better job for their employer if they are protected and if their health and safety is of concern to that employer.

When there is an accident resulting in injury and/or death, workers and their families, I can tell you absolutely, want any resolution to be handled fairly and efficiently and with their best interests in mind. They need to trust in the review. They need to trust in the final decision that results. And the Secretary of Labor is, obviously, the best final authority on how OSHA law is interpreted.

This bill, H.R. 2730, works to undermine the Secretary's authority, giving the commission too much latitude in how law is interpreted. The Secretary of Labor needs an unbiased group of peers to turn to for appeals. And if the commission's authority on the interpretation of the law trumps the Secretary of Labor, what legal basis would the Secretary have to appeal a decision with which he or she disagrees?

The commission's role is to fact find and review the case with the Secretary of Labor as the enforcer. If the commission becomes both the fact finder and the enforcer, the employee cannot be assured protection from bias, bias which undermines the entire appeals process. It is unnecessary, and it is not in the best interest of the employer or the employee.

If the administration were truly interested in helping workers, Mr. Speaker, it would not be focusing on these unnecessary changes in the law, but instead it would be granting workers what they really need. They need an increased minimum wage, they need to know they are protected, their health and their safety at their workplace, and they know that increased penalties for employers that ignore safety regulations would help in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting real worker reforms and voting against H.R. 2730.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for what he has been doing on worker safety issues all these years. If we would just listen to every word he says, we would all learn every day from his wisdom. And I thank him also for the hearings that he held last week. Anybody that sat in those hearings and listened to those families who had lost a family member to a work- site tragedy, it would have strengthened their resolve absolutely that our goal is to strengthen OSHA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2731 because workers deserve to know that their interests will be represented and represented fairly by OSHA. As I said earlier today on another bill, we are not the least bit worried about employers who manage in good faith. We are worried about the ones that ignore near misses and important safety standards, employers who know they have a major problem after the experience of an employee's death or severe injury, but ignore the problem and carry on business as usual until another fatality or another severe injury occurs. Those are the employers we are concerned about.

When workers and their families suffer due to poor safety at the workplace, they feel angry and they feel betrayed. They are not protected and they know it. They do not need to feel betrayed further by their government when they are seeking justice for their original betrayal. This bill threatens the lives of thousands of workers because it forces OSHA to consider costs of attorney's fees before deciding whether or

not to take action. Putting this unique burden on OSHA may take away the only recourse many, many employees have to stand up for their safety or for their families in demanding redress.

Since President Bush took office, it has been clear that he intends to use OSHA to protect business interests rather than workers' health and safety. First, he signed legislation overturning workplace safety rules to prevent ergonomic standards; then he advocated budget cuts for job safety agencies, such as OSHA and NIOSH. He went further by suspending 23 important job safety regulations, and the list goes on and on. This legislation is one more way to weaken OSHA, and it will make it that much easier for business to avoid OSHA regulations.

If my colleagues really wanted to help workers, they would raise the minimum wage, and they would do it now; they would extend unemployment benefits; they would also increase penalties for employers that ignore safety regulations; and ensure that workers and their families have the support they need and deserve to address faulty employer practices.

Mr. Speaker, this administration has lost sight of what workers really need, a safe working environment, a fair wage, and meaningful reforms in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2731, which is an unnecessary attack on worker protections.

Mr. Speaker, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction and keeping the American people safe must be our highest priority. On that point, President Bush and I agree. Where we differ is how to avoid equating our security with aggression and military force.

I have introduced legislation to create a SMART Security Platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism.

SMART Security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements and vigorous inspection regimes.

SMART Security would maintain the United States commitment to existing international treaties, like the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, which the United States became a state party to in 1970, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the U.S. signed in 1996, but never ratified. Both treaties are vital to international security interests.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the only binding commitment to disarm nuclear weapons by states that possess them. The goal of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is simple: to ban all testing of nuclear weapons.

Earlier today, I offered amendments to the defense authorization bill that would express the sense of Congress that the United States Government should fully implement and observe all commitments and obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and should work towards the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. By expressing the sense of Congress to support both of these important international treaties, the United States can once again assume the role of global leader in the area of nuclear weapons.

Let us send a message that you do not need nuclear weapons to be a world power.

SMART Security also means supporting and adequately funding programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, CTR, which works with the Russian Federation to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles and secure nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. This program is crucial to nonproliferation efforts.

In 1991, an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons existed throughout the former Soviet Union. These conditions led to the serious concern that nuclear materials could be smuggled beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union or that Soviet nuclear scientists might be able to export their expertise or actual nuclear materials to rogue nations or terrorist groups.

CTR enlists the Department of Defense to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles and secure nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union. Under CTR, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formally tasked to create nuclear weapons, have now worked to dismantle nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads, 479 ballistic missiles, 435 ballistic missile silos, 97 bombers, 336 submarine-launched missiles, 396 submarine missile launchers and 24 strategic missile submarines.

That is why today I offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would replicate this program in Iran, to help rid that country of the nuclear materials that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency are discovering every day.

The United States and Iran need to work together toward the common goal of reducing the world's supply of nuclear weapons because, in the long run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than scaring them into submission.

The Bush doctrine has been tried and it has failed. There has to be a better way, and there is, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with American values. SMART Security defends America by relying on the very best of America, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Let us be smart about our future. SMART Security is tough, it is pragmatic, it is patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, as we once again celebrate Cover the Uninsured Week, I rise to support a sensible legislative proposal that will do just that: Cover the Uninsured.

I know that I've heard from constituents who wish they had the opportunity to purchase the same kind of high quality health insurance that we enjoy as Federal Employees. And they are right. The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program is an excellent model for effective health care coverage.

That's why I rise to proudly support the Kind-Andrews Substitute, which would give small businesses and their employees the opportunity to purchase coverage similar to ours.

The Small Employer Health Benefits Program created by this substitute would not ask employees to sacrifice the guaranteed coverage and protections provided by State law.

Small businesses and their employees would have real health coverage that provides them with access to the care they need--not sham insurance that serves only those who are healthy.

We've talked a great deal about how to expand health coverage to the uninsured this week, and I urge my colleagues to support their words with action by supporting this sensible substitute.

Mr. Speaker, the administration's war in Iraq has failed. It has failed to make the world safer from terrorism. And, actually, it has made the world less safe and more susceptible to acts of terror. Who should be held accountable for this mess?

The war is not going well. Over 740 brave American soldiers have already lost their lives as a result of this deadly conflict, not to mention the innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed and the thousands of troops injured.

The Pentagon just released a report that 18,000 American troops have been evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons. That is 18,000, or one- seventh of the number currently stationed in Iraq. This speaks to a systematic failure of leadership, Mr. Speaker. And, sadly, examples of this failure are widespread and easily recalled: the failure to secure Iraq's borders; the failure to prevent postwar looting; and the failure to provide the security necessary for reconstruction.

In fact, the recent abuse of POWs at the Abu Ghraib Prison is yet another

example of failed leadership by the Bush administration. But one of the most shameful aspects of our involvement in Iraq, our greatest failure of all, I believe, is the failure to adequately provide our soldiers with the equipment, the guidance, and the leadership they need to ensure their survival and their success in Iraq.

We failed to immediately provide our soldiers with the essential survivor tools, body armor capable of stopping bullets, armor for tanks that would help prevent the destruction of U.S. military convoys, and the necessary water equipment to keep them hydrated in the desert heat. This issue is one that should have been accounted for during the planning phases of the war, not as an afterthought when our troops were in harm's way, already halfway around the world.

In fact, this protective equipment has not been fully provided yet, after Congress approved $155 billion in supplemental spending bills last year. I ask again, who should be held accountable for this mess? Should it be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who President Bush claimed was doing a superb job, and who Vice President Cheney, in a recent statement, called the best Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history? If Donald Rumsfeld is doing a superb job, then I really want to know what is a bad job.

For his consistent failure to adequately plan for the war in Iraq and the postwar phase, during which the lives of far more American soldiers have been lost than during the war effort itself, Donald Rumsfeld should resign his post with the best interest of this Nation in mind.

We must also take heed of the quote made famous by President Harry S. Truman: ``The buck stops here.'' President Bush would be well served to embrace this policy, a policy which served President Truman and our Nation well during an earlier war.

To prevent a similar situation, I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century, H. Con. Res. 392. 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 education.

The Bush doctrine of unilateralism has been tried and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy based on America's commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. Let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Miller motion to instruct conferees because it ensures that those making as little as $23,660 a year are able to retain the overtime privileges they currently receive.

Mr. Speaker, I was a human resources professional for 10 years in a manufacturing human resources company, and then for 10 years I had my own company, advising high tech companies on their personnel policies and practices, including wage and salary structures. I know a thing or two about work structures.

Under the new overtime rules a ``Team Leader'' would be ineligible for overtime. I'm going to tell you what a team leader is: First of all, a team leader is not a professional that has a whole group of professional people working as a team negotiating for some grand project in some community. That team leader is a professional period, not a person paid on an hourly rate or a salaried nonexempt person.

In reality a team leader is a senior employee who has the background and the experience to earn the top of their pay rate. And because they've been around, because they know something, they've been asked to show more junior workers how to do the work, and to give them confidence and to give them guidance.

But they're doing the work right alongside of the worker they are mentoring. Today this person earns the top of their pay grade plus overtime. Under the new rules, without that overtime, that ``Team Leader'' is probably going to earn less than the person that they're working and guiding. The person the ``Team Leader'' guides will still qualify for overtime for the same hours worked.

So what are we talking about here? We're talking about people at the top of their pay grade getting less because they happen to have institutional knowledge, even though they are doing the same job. And I just don't see how anybody here in this Chamber believes that any new rules that impact workers like these are good for most Americans.

These rules help big business plain and simple, such as the newspaper publishers who were standing up and cheering Secretary Chao when she announced how these rules would allow them to stop paying overtime to journalists. They knew they were going to save money, lots of money.

Well, a rule that works for a handful of business owners and against most of the workers can't be the rule that works for the people of this country. That's why I urge my colleagues to support the Miller motion to instruct conferees and prevent our hard working Americans from losing the overtime they have come to depend on.

Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely outraged last week when along with the rest of the world I learned that U.S. service members and private American contractors in Iraq had abused and tortured Iraqi prisoners of war and had forced them to commit heinous sexual acts. War is devastating, it is terrifying, but even in war there is no place for actions such as these. The abuse inflicted by a few soldiers is causing much ill will around the world. What is worse, I feel it will further embolden our enemies to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and horrific acts of abuse against our own troops should they be captured.

But almost equally reprehensible was the response of our Commander in Chief to the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib, the prison in Iraq. Instead of claiming full responsibility for the actions of members of the United States military, President Bush expressed his regrets that the abuses had occurred while distancing himself from those abuses. At another time, President Harry Truman did not try to distance himself from abuses that occurred during his watch. In his January 1953 farewell address to the American people, President Truman made an important assertion in that regard, saying, and I quote, ``The President, whoever he is, has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.'' President Truman is also the person who made famous the quote, ``The buck stops here.'' President Bush would be well served to take notice of this quotation which Harry Truman thought was so important that he kept it as a sign on his desk in the Oval Office.

Mr. Speaker, the buck does not stop with the young woman who was photographed holding an Iraqi prisoner on a leash. The buck does not stop with Brigadier General Jannice Karpinski, the U.S. general in charge of running the prisons in Iraq. The buck does not stop with Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, one of the highest-ranking military officers in Iraq. The buck does not even stop with Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. The buck stops with the Commander in Chief. At the moment, that happens to be George W. Bush. That is where the buck stops. Remember what Harry Truman said at his 1953 farewell address. He said the President cannot pass the buck to anybody.

There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of unilateralism and passing the buck within his own administration has been tried and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with the best American values. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century, H. Con. Res. 392. 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 education.

Remember, the buck stops with the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. No more passing the buck, Mr. President. Instead, let us rely on the very best of America, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world and our capacity for multilateral leadership. Let us be smart. Let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, it is pragmatic, it is patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy, heavy heart. When we turn on the television or the radio or open a newspaper, what we hear and what we read is the great sadness that accompanies the deaths of so very many people around our world.

Reading the newspaper this week, we read that the lives of innocent men, women, and children are being taken in such disparate places as Sudan and Uganda in Africa; Israel, the Palestinian territories and Iraq in the Middle East; Haiti in the Caribbean; Chechnya and Afghanistan in Asia; and countless others places around the world.

Today, another distressing event took place, the beheading of an American civilian in Iraq, a video of which was posted on a militant Islamic Web site. This was a man who ventured to Iraq to help with the rebuilding of its infrastructure, a man whose only crime was traveling to an unstable country, thinking he might be able to make a contribution in the midst of all the chaos. He was 26 years old. This is a terrible tragedy.

But we are no longer surprised to hear that tragedies of this sort are occurring every day around the world. No country is immune. No group of people can avoid the misfortune that is accompanied by simply existing, by simply being alive in today's world.

In Haiti, for example, hundreds of innocent people have died of starvation. They are so hungry they are eating cakes made of butter, salt, water and mud. Mud. Yet here in the United States we do not act.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has introduced a sensible resolution that would establish comprehensive health systems in Haiti. Despite the amount of news coverage that Haiti has received these last few months, less than 10 percent of this House has signed on to the gentlewoman from California's (Ms. Lee) important legislation.

We watch, as we did during the catastrophic Armenian genocide of the early 1900s and during the Holocaust of the 1940s. We make claims of never again, but then we sit back and watch as these events occur again and again and again.

Is this the way humans are going to live out their lives on this Earth? Are we not destined for more? Are we not better than the sum of all these innocent deaths? Can we not address the economic gap between rich and poor, between rich countries and poor countries, between rich individuals and poor individuals?

There has to be a better course for humankind than the one we are currently on; and there is, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with the best American values.

I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats wars as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with a 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 education.

The Bush doctrine has been tried, and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America: our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

SMART security is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. SMART security is smart, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William Levinson who is retiring after 12 years as Superintendent of Tamalpais Union High School District in southern Marin County, California. His passion for education is evident in is work in the district as well as in his meritoring of other superintendents and his leadership in working with government agencies, the business community, and non-profit organizations to maximize resources for children and families.

Bill grew up in White Plains, New York, and graduated from the University of Michigan in 1964 with a BA in English literature. In 1966 he earned an MA in Elementary Education at the same university. There he met his Judy Falick, his wife of 36 years. He later earned his doctorate in Educational Leadership and Administration at Teachers' College, Columbia University. His daughter JoAnne was born in New Jersey and graduated from Redwood High School in 1994.

Bill's work experience has included stints at the New York City Welfare Department and as a Vista Volunteer as well as teaching in schools in New York, New Jersey, and California. He also served as superintendent in the Reed School District in Tiburon and the

Sonoma Valley Unified School District in Sonoma. As superintendent for Tamalpais Union High School District, he managed to raise teacher for salaries so that the students could have the best and brightest teachers possible.

Membership in the Marin County School/Law Enforcement Partnership, School to Career Partnership, the Treasury Oversight Committee, and the Joint Legislative Advisory Committee demonstrates Bill's commitment to education on the community level. He has been President of the Marin Association of Superintendents and the Special Education Local Plan Area Operational Steering Committee and worked statewide on behalf of small school districts and basic aid districts.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levinson's commitment to education extends beyond his duties as a superintendent. Talk to him and you understand that he is all about the students. I am proud to salute an educator who demonstrates the passion we need to ensure that our nation's children will grow up to be the leaders of tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and its failure to disclose nuclear enrichment projects to the international atomic energy agency. Surely the United States must utilize its influence as the world's largest democracy to encourage countries that have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--like Iran--to forego the pursuit of new nuclear weapons. However, there is a right way and there is a wrong way to register our influence in situations like this.

In October of last year, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom met in Tehran to negotiate the possibility of IAEA inspections of Iran's nuclear sites. Iran agreed to this deal. In the months since the Tehran summit, inspectors have found several sites that seem to have some connection to the production of nuclear materials. That means the inspections have been at the very least reasonably successful.

Today Congress voted on H. Con. Res. 398, a resolution condemning Iran's nuclear activities. This resolution demands that Iran immediately cease all efforts to acquire nuclear enrichment activities and calls for the country to honor its stated commitments to grant IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear sites. But the resolution also calls upon all state parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--including the United States--to use ``all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.''

Doesn't anyone remember the last time we provided someone with the authority to use all means ``necessary and appropriate?'' In case you've forgotten, let me remind you: When we granted President Bush the authority to use all means ``necessary and appropriate,'' he lead us into a devastating conflict in Iraq, one which has already cost the lives of over 740 Americans and thousands of unarmed, innocent Iraqi civilians. Supporting another resolution that promotes the use of ``all appropriate means'' is like giving your kid the keys to the car after he's already wrecked it once. Even if this bill doesn't authorize the use of force against Iran, codifying the language of pre-emptive war is a dangerously slippery slope to tread.

We need to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and keeping the American people safe must be our highest priority. But we must avoid equating our security with aggression and military force. There has to be a better way, and there is. One that emphasizes brains instead of brawn. One that is consistent with American values. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for ``Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism'' and it calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements and vigorous inspection regimes.

SMART security advocates maintaining our commitment to existing international treaties, like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. SMART Security promotes adequately funding programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works with the Russian Federation and the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles, and secure nuclear weapons in Russia. And we must replicate this type of program in other troubled regions, like Iran, because in the long

run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than scaring them into submission.

The Bush doctrine has been tried, and it has failed. It's time for a new national security strategy. SMART Security defends America by relying on the very best of America--our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART Security is tough, pragmatic and patriotic. SMART Security is smart, and it will keep America safe.