Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today Congress is yet again faced with the choice of approving the Bush administration's unconstitutional expansion of executive branch authority in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, or defending the Constitution and protecting the civil liberties of Americans. The choice could not be more clear and consequences more grave.

Passing this legislation today will be the enduring legacy of the Bush administration. It will provide the Congressional seal of approval for years of the White House's stonewalling on Congressional oversight, eroding Congress's authority, and violating the Constitution. A vote in favor of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, is a vote for the Bush administration's expansive interpretation of executive power and against the Constitution. That's why I must oppose this legislation.

H.R. 6304 permits mass, untargeted surveillance of all phone and email conversations entering or leaving the U.S. without basic, let alone adequate, protections for Americans' civil liberties. Communications of millions of Americans will be swept up because of reduced reverse targeting protections and minimized court oversight. This bill enables the Government to walk through an enormous loophole by suspending prior court review of intelligence surveillance applications at their discretion. Additionally, there are no safeguards to protect Americans whose information is unintentionally obtained. H.R. 6304 dispenses with real oversight by the court, a requirement fundamental to upholding the Constitution.

Furthermore, this legislation provides nothing less than de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law. District courts will be forced to dismiss pending cases if they receive a certification from the Attorney General that telecommunication companies were asked to turn over their customers' records. There is no determination if the request was legal. No due process. No penalty. No accountability. Exactly what the Bush administration wanted all along.

We should never sacrifice commitment to the rule of law and our system of checks and balances for broad, unbridled power to suspend Americans' civil liberties at will. Unfortunately, this new FISA bill does just that. Elected officials have a solemn responsibility to defend our country, and, like my colleagues, I support a modernization of our intelligence laws. But being asked to support either our intelligence community or protecting civil liberties is a false and dangerous dichotomy. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that, ``those who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.'' With this bill, I believe we have proven him right.

Madam Speaker, ensuring that local law enforcement officials are provided with the resources they need to effectively protect our communities requires nothing less than our sustained commitment and dedication. That's why I am proud to support of H.R. 3546, the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, Reauthorization Act.

The Byrne-JAG program provides State and local governments with the tools necessary to prevent and control crime while strengthening our criminal justice system. These grants help fund law enforcement programs targeting school violence, hate crimes, and victims of violent crimes. Additionally, Byrne-JAG grants enable state, regional, and local agencies to confront and overcome the threats posed by drug trafficking through providing essential funding to improve drug enforcement and treatment programs. By using these grants to develop multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, law enforcement officials from around the country have been able to foster institutional collaboration built on their shared expertise and training.

Last year, the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County in my Congressional District were fortunate enough to receive Byrne-JAG grants, which went to support programs designed to assist in the prevention of drug use, treat non-violent offenders, and improve the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 3546, which would reauthorize the Byrne-JAG program until 2012. Despite the Bush Administration's efforts to eliminate funding for this important program, I commend the Democratic Leadership for demonstrating their commitment to full funding for Byrne-JAG by bringing this legislation to the Floor.

Local law enforcement officials depend on Byrne-JAG grants to invest in strategies that combat crime and drugs. Without these resources, State and local law enforcement cannot take the steps they need to protect our families and our country's most precious resources, our children and young adults, from violence and drug abuse. Madam Speaker, it's our responsibility to make certain these brave men and women have the support necessary to perform their jobs. It's the least we can do.

Madam Speaker, on June 24, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 442. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 442--``no''--On Motion to Adjourn.

I would like to thank the chairman for the time and for this legislation that is bipartisan.

When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act nearly two decades ago, we did so to ensure that persons with disabilities can learn, work, and live their lives just like everyone else. People with disabilities just want the same opportunities as everyone else. And if their disabilities can be reasonably accommodated, we must make it possible and make sure that they are given the chance to do so.

By saying that people with disabilities who use medication or prosthetics to manage their disabilities are no longer considered disabled under the ADA Act, the courts have prevented many with disabilities from receiving the protections Congress intended for them.

H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act, would ensure that the ADA protects all people with disabilities from workplace discrimination by clarifying the definition of discrimination. This bill further clarifies that individuals who are able to manage their disabilities enough to participate in major life activities, like holding a job, should still be entitled to protections from discrimination.

The ADA was passed to ensure that all people with disabilities have equal access and opportunities, and it's time that we bring back its original intent. Today we can do that. It's a matter of doing what is right.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, the importance of homeownership can't be underestimated. That's why I support H. Res. 1271, a bill to recognize National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.

For most Americans, homeownership represents security for themselves and their families. Unfortunately in recent months, homeownership (a cornerstone of the American Dream) has been tarnished by an unscrupulous mortgage industry that has trapped far too many families into paying for homes they can't afford. In my district, all over California, and across the country, we are seeing family after family fall into foreclosure, as their dreams turn to dust, and they hand over their prize possession to the bank.

So, as we consider this bill in support of homeownership, I think it's important that we also don't forget the homeowner . . . those past, present and future, who need the assistance of this Congress to ensure they get a fair deal.

Mr. Speaker, it's my hope that those who vote in favor of this bill, H. Res. 1271, will also join in passing real housing reform to bring about systemic changes to help more Americans be able to achieve the goal of owning their own home, on fair terms, at affordable prices.

Mr. Speaker, nothing has stained the honor of the United States in recent years like the use of torture against detainees, detainees in Iraq and detainees elsewhere. Torture goes against our Nation's most basic values, and it undermines the American people's reputation as a compassionate and committed people to human rights.

Torture is not only immoral; it has a practical damaging effect on our foreign policy. When America is involved in torture, we lose the moral authority that is our most powerful weapon in the fight against terrorism. How can we lead the world against terrorism when the world believes that we don't respect the rule of law ourselves?

That is why I want to call attention to a new report on torture that was issued last week by the group Physicians for Human Rights. This group assembled a team of doctors and psychologists to evaluate former detainees held in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The team found that the detainees were tortured, even though no charges were ever brought against them or any explanation ever given for their imprisonment.

The torture consisted of beatings, electric shocks, involuntary medication, shackling, and sexual humiliation. Other techniques were used, but they are far too awful for me to mention here. One Iraqi detainee who was held for a time in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison said he was subjected to psychological abuse as well as physical torture. He said that his captors threatened to rape his mother and his sisters.

Former Major General Anthony Taguba, who conducted the Army's investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004, wrote a preface to the report. He said, ``In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The U.N. Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored . . . ''

He continued: ``Through the experiences,'' he said, ``of these men . . . we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted, both on American institutions and our founding values.''

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there will be some people who will try to discredit this report by charging that it was prepared by a group determined to embarrass the administration. But if they don't believe this report, perhaps they will believe the reporting of the McClatchy newspapers, which conducted an 8-month investigation of the U.S. detention system created after 9/11. The McClatchy investigation found ``that the United States imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights, and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay into a school for jihad.''

This House did the honorable thing a few months ago when it voted to stop the use of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation techniques. Forty-three retired generals and admirals supported that bill. Eighteen national security experts, including former Secretaries of State and national security advisers, supported it as well. But the President vetoed this bill, sending the world a message that America condones torture.

Torture doesn't work. It doesn't produce good information. It exposes our own troops to torture if they are captured. It creates enemies. In short, torture doesn't make us stronger; it makes us weaker.

Congress must recognize these facts and move to restore our Nation's good name. The best way to begin to do that is by redeploying our troops out of Iraq and then help the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives and their country. I know that this won't happen soon given last week's vote on funding for the occupation of Iraq. But sooner or later, Congress must act. Redeploying out of Iraq will help to heal the wounds of torture and right the wrongs.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for America to be America again: peace loving, compassionate, and a true champion of human rights, and restore our dignity.

Mr. Speaker, for over 5 years, the administration has had a single-minded obsession with the occupation of Iraq. It has poured our troops and our treasure into a misguided foreign adventure, while ignoring our Nation's real security needs, both at home and abroad.

I want to mention just a few of the ways that Iraq tunnel vision has blinded us to what we really need to be focusing on. First, the occupation of Iraq has weakened our efforts in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Gates has acknowledged that many Europeans do not support the NATO mission in Afghanistan because they oppose the American occupation of Iraq.

He has said, and I quote ``Many (Europeans) have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan.''

Second, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves have said that the use of the Guard and Reserves in Iraq has seriously weakened their ability to protect us from threats to the homeland. These threats could include terrorist attacks using chemicals, biological and nuclear weapons.

Third, just as our Guard and Reserves have been stretched too thin, our entire military has been stretched to the breaking point. Many of our most senior military leaders have been warning us for quite some time now that the occupation of Iraq has compromised our ability to respond to genuine threats elsewhere in the world.

Fourth, our occupation of Iraq has strengthened the hand of the pro- nuclear regime in Iran. The occupation has destabilized the region, giving Iran the chance to gain influence among its neighbors.

We must stand with our international partners, and we must work with international organizations to put strong diplomatic pressures on Iran to behave responsibly. We must begin direct negotiations with Iran. We cannot allow the occupation of Iraq to spread to a war with Iran. That would be another catastrophic mistake.

Iran would retaliate against our troops in Iraq and against our allies and interests throughout the region. Oil would spike, further threatening our economy right here at home.

Fifth, the occupation of Iraq has seriously undermined America's standing in the world. My colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Delahunt of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, issued a report on this subject just last week, a report that I hope every Member of the House will read.

The report describes the alarming decline in how the people of the world view the United States. There has been a 45-percent drop in America's favorability rating in Indonesia, a 41 percent drop in Morocco and a 40 percent drop in Turkey.

The United States is now viewed unfavorably by 82 percent of the people in Arab countries, and there has been a 26-point increase in Europe for the view that U.S. leadership in world affairs is undesirable. The report finds that two of major causes for this unprecedented and widespread decline are the occupation of Iraq and the torture and abuse of prisoners.

In addition, the people of the world believe that America's decisions are made unilaterally without regard to international law or standards, making our rhetoric about democracy quite hypocritical.

The administration has told us that the occupation of Iraq is all about spreading democracy in the Middle East. Yet, here we have clear evidence that their policy is failing, because you cannot bomb and blast your way to democracy.

There can be no doubt that the occupation of Iraq has weakened America's

defenses in many, many ways. The only solution is to responsibly redeploy our troops and military contractors out of Iraq. That way we can get back to the business of conducting an effective foreign policy, safeguarding our Nation's security, and working with the international community to bring peace to the world.

First I want to thank Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Maloney for this excellent, excellent bill. Thank you, and I know that it has been 10 years in the working, and I also know it is time that it passed.

Mr. Speaker, investing in our working families is the very best way we can strengthen our workforce, our economy, and our country. I am the chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and, as the leader of that committee, and with the hearings we have held, we have learned that the most generous leave policies don't help families who cannot afford to take leave without pay. It's as simple as that.

As a Nation, we must support working families, and we can do that by providing them with the help they need to balance their work and their family. No parent should ever be forced to choose between the needs of their family and the needs of their job or the possible loss of that job.

I look forward to the day that my own legislation, the Balancing Act, will be passed. The Balancing Act provides working families the help they need to balance work and family, paid leave, increased child care, voluntary universal preschool, school breakfast, afterschool programs, and incentives for flexible work schedules.

If children are lucky enough to have two parents, both parents are probably in the workforce. They are working long hours, they are commuting long distances, and these very same parents are working to put food on the table.

They put food on the table, but they are quite often not able to be there to eat that food with their families. H.R. 5781 is a perfect example of what we must do as a Nation. It is a step in the right direction. It will prove how important it is to provide leave with pay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not to the rule but to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today will go down in history as a failed opportunity. For $165 billion we could begin funding a safe and responsible redeployment of our troops and military contractors from Iraq. Instead, we are giving the President a blank check . . . actually, more than he asked for.

Our Nation--whether through blood or treasure--cannot afford to continue this endless occupation of Iraq.

This bill will appropriate $165.4 billion for the Department of Defense. That could be a down payment on real change for Iraq--for reconciliation, reconstruction, and refugee resettlement.

We have spent half a trillion dollars . . . and we have lost 4,101 troops and over 30,000 have been injured or maimed. Four million Iraqis have been displaced and unknown thousands have been killed.

The cost is unsustainable and we must put an immediate stop to this madness.

We must not cave to the demands of the White House. I urge my colleagues to vote against funding for the occupation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated on House Resolution 1247 and House Concurrent Resolution 350 to the end that the Chair put the questions de novo.

Mr. Speaker, an informed citizenry is one of the cornerstones of our American democracy. In order to make the right decisions about our country's policies, Americans must know the facts. That is why every member of the administration and every Member of Congress has the duty to be honest and open with all of us. This is especially true when it comes to decisions about war and about peace, because the lives of our soldiers are actually on the line.

But recent events have reminded us that when it comes to Iraq, we have not always had the information that we need. Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report on Iraq that actually proved this. It showed that before the invasion began, the American people were told that there was a strong connection between Iraq and terrorist groups like al Qaeda. But the committee found that there was no conclusive intelligence to support such a claim.

Also, the American people have recently had the chance to read the book by a former White House press secretary who acknowledges that propaganda was used to sell the American people on supporting the invasion of Iraq.

And this House, this House of Representatives, is pretty familiar with the Pentagon's spin operation to get retired military officers to give us a rose-colored view about the situation in Iraq. The House has voted to stop the Pentagon from continuing such a program, and the Pentagon is expected to respect that ban.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They need to have a true and accurate picture about what is currently happening in Iraq. That's why every Member of this House should be demanding that the administration give Congress the facts about its current status-of- forces negotiations with the Iraqi Government. I have repeatedly demanded that the administration share this information with Congress, including the establishment of permanent bases, because there was an alarming report in the press that the United States may actually be planning nearly 60 permanent bases in Iraq, this happening after the House has voted multiple times to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq.

Over the weekend, senior Iraqi leaders called for a complete exit of all U.S. troops, and they called for this at the expiration of the current U.N. mandate which comes this fall. Imagine their opinion of the United States' permanent bases in their country. Sixty permanent bases are absolutely unacceptable. One permanent base is unacceptable.

This House has voted many times, as I said, against the establishment of permanent bases, and the administration should not try to get around that by making fine, legalistic points about what constitutes a ``permanent base.'' In fact, we must apply the duck test. If it looks like a permanent base, if it walks like a permanent base, it is a permanent base.

Because the economy has replaced Iraq as the top news story of the day, some may be lured into thinking that nothing very important is happening in Iraq these days. Well, one important statistic is, if it has not happened today, we are about to report 5,000 of our troops dead, but nothing could be further from the truth about not being important.

While we aren't paying attention, the administration is negotiating status-of-forces negotiations that could make our country a foreign occupying power in the Middle East for years or for even decades to come. What a grave mistake that would be keeping our troops in harm's way and continuing the best recruiting tool that the terrorists could ask for.

Instead of planning for a permanent occupation, the United States needs to follow a very different path. We should redeploy our troops and military contracts. We should give the Iraqi people back their sovereignty. We should help them rebuild their shattered country. We should work with the international community to bring peace and stability to the region.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must demand to know what is being negotiated in the name of the American people. What deals are being cut? What is going on behind closed doors? What exactly is the administration demanding and why? It is time for the American people to have the facts, and it is time to safely and responsibly bring our troops and independent contractors home and to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of a valued colleague, Santa Rosa Mayor Bob Blanchard. Mayor Blanchard died June 14, 2008, at the age of 70, leaving a hole in the heart of his community and his family. He will be long remembered for his good humor, enthusiasm, and commitment to the city he loved.

Twenty-seven years ago, Bob and his family moved to Santa Rosa from southern California. He and his wife Angelyn raised their two children, daughter Cameron and son Matt, in the city, where they appreciated the quality of life it offers to families. It was his dedication to ensuring this quality for future generations that led Bob into public service.

After serving a stint in the Army, Bob had worked as a deputy sheriff in Riverside County as well as teaching at Riverside Community College. In 1978, he earned a doctorate in government, and his career shifted toward administration and teaching in the field of criminal justice and political science. This direction led to his move to Santa Rosa to serve as the director of Santa Rosa Junior College, SRJC, Police and Fire Academy. He eventually became a dean and a political science instructor at SRJC where he enjoyed working with young people. Although he had retired as a member of the regular faculty, Bob had stayed involved as an adjunct instructor.

Bob was also a founder of Tomorrow's Leader Today, a program that prepares high school juniors to be community leaders. He is remembered for his warmth and humor in inspiring the teenagers to be their best.

In 1994, Bob was appointed to the Santa Rosa Planning Commission, serving until his election to the City Council in 2002. He was re- elected in 2006 and then selected by his council colleagues to serve as mayor.

Bob and I have not always agreed on issues, but his ability to work with all sides to address concerns facing the city of Santa Rosa made him a leader for all and a spokesman on important issues such as transportation, outreach to diverse communities, public safety, and boosting the city whenever and wherever he could. He always endeavored to forge an appropriate compromise with the same humor and good spirit that characterized all his relationships.

``Work'' is the operative word for Bob. Despite his off-and-on battle with cancer, he maintained a heavy work load, representing the community to the best of his ability and never losing his enthusiasm. During this time he traveled to Santa Rosa Sister Cities in Korea and Mexico and was instrumental in helping the city earn a designation as All America City.

In addition to Angelyn, his wife of 41 years, and his two children, Bob is survived by two grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I know Bob's colleagues would agree that he respected all people on all sides of an issue and dedicated himself to finding solutions. Whether serving on regional commissions, presiding over council meetings, or representing the city at civic events and in the halls of Congress, Bob did it with the grace, intelligence, and compassion that will be his lasting legacy. I will miss working with him, and I will especially miss his friendship.

Madam Speaker, for over 5 years, the American people have seen the administration break one promise after another when it comes to Iraq. Now, another promise is being broken. This time, it has to do with the stop-loss policy, a policy that forces soldiers to stay in the military when their unit deploys to Iraq within 90 days of the end of the soldiers' enlistment period. Stop-loss means that troops must continue to serve even when their enlistment period has expired.

In January 2007, Secretary of Defense Gates ordered the military services to limit the number of stop-loss troops. For a while, in fact, the order seemed to be working. The number of troops affected by the policy dropped to about 8,500. However, now the number is back up to 11,000, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said just last week that the number of stop-loss troops would continue to rise over the next couple of years.

Stop-loss soldiers are forced to serve an average of over 6 months more than they signed up for. This creates enormous stress, Madam Speaker, and it also creates great strain on the soldiers and on their families. The multiple deployments that many of our troops face make the hardship even worse.

The stop-loss policy is actually a backdoor draft, but it is even worse than that. It is a breach of trust with the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. They deserve a lot better treatment and a lot more respect than that.

The stop-loss policy is causing a great deal of suffering, but our troops and veterans are suffering in many other ways as well. It is easy for some of us to convince ourselves that everything is just hunky-dory with our troops now because Iraq has disappeared from our television screens. But while the conflict may have disappeared from television, it has not disappeared from the lives of our troops and from the lives of their families.

Over 300,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have major depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Rand Corporation. That is one in five who have served, and an additional 320,000 have sustained head injuries. The great majority of these injuries were sustained in Iraq.

Only half of those suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress have sought treatment actually because many fear that it will harm their military careers. And half of those who have received treatment have gotten only ``minimally adequate'' treatment. That, too, is according to Rand.

And there was also a very disturbing report in the press today that the Veterans Administration has tested drugs on veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress without telling them about the possible mental side effects. Congress must conduct a full investigation of that report.

Most tragically, suicides among members of the Army have been rising steadily during the occupation. In 2007, 150 soldiers committed suicide, Mr. Speaker, compared with 67 in 2004. About a quarter of the deaths occurred in Iraq. And an average of five U.S. soldiers attempted suicide every day in the year 2007. Before the occupation, the number was one per day.

However, not everyone is being hurt by the occupation. Some people are doing quite well, thank you, and they've got the money to prove it. Chairman Waxman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has asked the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to investigate ``potentially thousands of criminal cases involving fraudulent contracts in Iraq.'' Hundreds of millions of dollars could be involved.

And the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has already reported that millions of dollars in contracts have been wasted.

Mr. Speaker, we must hold the administration accountable for every dollar spent in Iraq. We must do everything we can to give our veterans the best possible care. We cannot allow war profiteering to go on while our injured veterans lack the care that they need.

Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, I join U.S. and international labor organizations in their strong concern about this bill.

As introduced, the bill goes a long way to improve upon the President's request. The human rights protections have been strengthened, but must be further improved.

We must ensure that before any agreement is authorized and funded, the most basic human and labor rights have been guaranteed.

I have strong concerns about abuses committed by Mexican and some of the Central American law enforcement agencies.

Labor activists and community leaders have been harassed, arrested, and physically assaulted. Many live in fear for themselves and for their families.

I am concerned that these same law enforcement officials will be receiving military-style training, transportation, and weapons. Do we want to be putting military helicopters and weaponry in their hands?

We must proceed with extreme caution on this proposal. I will have to oppose the legislation in its current form. I hope that we will be able to address the concerns of human and labor rights leaders here at home and in the Merida nations when the bill is in conference with the Senate version.

Madam Speaker, I have believed for a long time now that the best way to bring peace to Iraq is to launch a diplomatic surge to encourage regional and international partners to get involved in addressing Iraq's problems.

The first step in this process would be to withdraw all of our troops and military contracts, which would create a positive climate, a climate that would allow diplomatic efforts to actually begin. But today, the administration is taking our country in quite the opposite direction. It is negotiating long-term security arrangements with the Iraqi Government, arrangements that could actually keep us bogged down in Iraq for decades and destroy Iraq's sovereignty.

It is hard to know exactly what the administration is demanding in the negotiations because it has refused to share the information with Congress. Reports, however, and whatever we can find out, indicates that the administration is asking for unilateral authority over all U.S. military operations in Iraq, the right to arrest and detain Iraqi citizens, legal immunity for American military contractors, control over Iraqi borders and air space, and perhaps permanent bases, making Iraq a virtual American colony.

All this has brought a wave of protest from Iraqis of all political and religious stripes. It seems that we have finally succeeded in uniting the Iraqis against us. An Iraqi Government spokesman actually has said, ``The Iraqi Government's vision differs from that of the Americans, who think the agreements will give them almost totally a free hand in Iraq, and that, as a military force, they must have absolute powers.''

In addition, members of the Iraqi Parliament representing the majority of parties in that body wrote a letter to the Congress which was released just last week by my colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, Representative Delahunt, the chairman on the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight. This letter includes a demand for the withdrawal of American troops. It said, in part, that ``the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military security, economic, commercial, agricultural investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq in accordance with the declared timetable, and without leaving any military bases, soldiers, or hired fighters.''

Madam Speaker, by moving for a permanent military presence in Iraq, the administration is sending the wrong message to the Iraqi people. The American people are also getting that message, along with the rest of the world. It says to the Iraqi people that they will continue to live under foreign military occupation with no end in sight. It tells the American people that the occupation will continue to drain our resources at a time when our citizens are facing dire economic problems at home. And it proves to the world that the administration is determined to tie the next President to the failed policies of the past.

The best course for America is to begin the immediate, responsible redeployment of our troops and military contractors out of Iraq, as this House has mandated. But since the administration is clearly unwilling to do that, the next best thing is for Congress to demand full knowledge of the negotiations, with the right to approve any agreements.

Madam Speaker, the United States must give full national sovereignty back to Iraq, and we must stop acting like an arrogant occupying power. After more than 5 years of bloody occupation, this is no time to talk about staying in Iraq forever. Instead, it is time to give the Iraq people back their independence. And it is time to bring our brave troops home.