Floor Statements

Thank you, Congresswoman Watson. And I want to thank Chairman Conyers for organizing this special order and for his leadership on universal health care.

I am glad to join with my colleague, Diane Watson, and Jan Schakowsky is here, and we just heard from Sheila Jackson-Lee, to highlight the need for health care for not just some Americans but all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, more than 47 million Americans are uninsured, an increase of 6 million since this administration took office. Nearly 10 million of those uninsured are children, children under the age of 18. It is unforgivable that a country as wealthy as the United States of America cannot find a way to provide health insurance to its entire population.

Actually, when there is a will, there is said to be a way. So the United States must not have the will to provide health coverage to every single American.

Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, are important safety nets for children whose families cannot afford to purchase health insurance. However, even with these programs, 10 million children still lack health insurance. Currently, Healthy Families, which is what CHIP is called in the State of California, Healthy Families serves 1.2 million children, more than 10,000 children in my district. And last year we, the Congress, had the opportunity to expand CHIP to provide services to nearly 4 million more children. This legislation would have provided health care to an additional 607,000 children in California, and would have provided CHIP coverage to many of the 5,000 children without health insurance in my district.

Unfortunately, however, the administration recklessly vetoed this expansion. Imagine when the United States is spending over $338 million a day in Iraq, we can't find $35 million over 5 years. So divide that, 5 into 35 is 7, so that would be $7 million a year to provide an additional 4 million children with health insurance.

What are these priorities?

No child should be denied quality care because his or her parent cannot afford to purchase health insurance. No parent should have to choose between medicine for his or her child and food on the table.

Mr. Speaker, even if we are able to insure every child, that still leaves nearly 40 million Americans without health insurance. We hear stories every day about people who lack medical care and whose only option is to go to our already overcrowded emergency rooms to seek care. Our Nation's health centers, hospitals and emergency rooms are doing everything they can to provide medical care to the uninsured and underinsured, but they cannot fill the need.

Actually, when an emergency room is the care center, the underinsured and uninsured do not get access to important preventive care and they do not get access to screenings to prevent disease or catch and treat them early. The shame is that we can detect and treat diseases when caught and treated early. So many uninsured, for example, who are surviving cancer and other serious diseases could have been treated with access to screenings and treatment.

No one should have to put off important medical screenings like a mammogram because she cannot afford the cost and doesn't have the time for a wait list for free screenings. If a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, she should not have to choose between food on the table or rent. What an awful choice to be asked to make, particularly if you have a family to support. No one should be denied necessary medical care because they cannot afford it. We must refocus our priorities. We must use the money that we are spending on Iraq to invest in our Nation's health care system. The 47 million Americans without health insurance deserve no less.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to find the best possible solution to address this crisis, and I thank you again, Congresswoman Watson, for holding this special order.

Madam Speaker, I ask that the following article be inserted into the Record.

A Sensible Path on Iran

(By Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom)

Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost

certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The

seemingly clever combination of the use of ``sticks'' and

``carrots,'' including the frequent official hints of an

American military option ``remaining on the table,'' simply

intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal.

Alas, such a heavy-handed ``sticks'' and ``carrots'' policy

may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The

United States would have a better chance of success if the

White House abandoned its threats of military action and its

calls for regime change.

Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear

weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil,

Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but

gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United

States threatened to change their regimes if they would not,

probably none would have complied. But when ``sticks'' and

``carrots'' failed to prevent India and Pakistan from

acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly

accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to

hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran?

To look at the issue another way, imagine if China, a

signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a

country that has deliberately not engaged in a nuclear arms

race with Russia or the United States, threatened to change

the American regime if it did not begin a steady destruction

of its nuclear arsenal. The threat would have an arguable

legal basis, because all treaty signatories promised long ago

to reduce their arsenals, eventually to zero. The American

reaction, of course, would be explosive public opposition to

such a demand. U.S. leaders might even mimic the fantasy

rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding

the use of nuclear weapons.

A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its

security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on

Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one

could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. In

either case, the United States would be held accountable and

would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian

reactions. These would almost certainly involve destabilizing

the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts

to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a

massive increase in its already high cost. The turmoil in the

Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would

hurt America and eventually Israel, too.

Given Iran's stated goals--a nuclear power capability but

not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss

broader U.S.-Iranian security issues--a realistic policy

would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The

United States could indicate that it is prepared to

negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either

side (though retaining the right to terminate the

negotiations if Iran remains unyielding but begins to enrich

its uranium beyond levels allowed by the Non-Proliferation

Treaty); or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian

willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous

U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions.

Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase

the prospects of an international arrangement being devised

to accommodate Iran's desire for an autonomous nuclear energy

program while minimizing the possibility that it could be

rapidly transformed into a nuclear weapons program. Moreover,

there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional

policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S.

relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has

helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work

in the case of Iran. The widely propagated notion of a

suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon

against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy

than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis

for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel's, either.

An additional longer-range benefit of such a dramatically

different diplomatic approach is that it could help bring

Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation

with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region.

Eventually, Iran could even return to its long-standing and

geopolitically natural pre-1979 policy of cooperative

relations with Israel. One should note also in this

connection Iranian hostility toward al-Qaeda, lately

intensified by al-Qaeda's Web-based campaign urging a U.S.-

Iranian war, which could both weaken what al-Qaeda views as

Iran's apostate Shiite regime and bog America down in a

prolonged regional conflict.

Last but not least, consider that American sanctions have

been deliberately obstructing Iran's efforts to increase its

oil and natural gas outputs. That has contributed to the

rising cost of energy. An eventual American-Iranian

accommodation would significantly increase the flow of

Iranian energy to the world market. Americans doubtless would

prefer to pay less for filling their gas tanks than having to

pay much more to finance a wider conflict in the Persian

Gulf.

Thank you, Chairman Miller.

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.

No child should be expected to learn in a crumbling school building. And this bill will give our Nation's schools the funds needed to repair and renovate their school building. That's very important because our children deserve the best opportunities in life, and that starts with a quality education in a safe building where students can focus on learning and teachers can focus on teaching.

This bill also encourages schools to make environmentally--green repairs. Schools in my district are making their facilities more environmentally friendly lately, and it's encouraging other schools to follow their lead because as our States face budget shortfalls and school districts deal with budget cuts, savings on energy costs will make a huge difference.

And it's a win-win. As a school shifts towards greening their school, students will learn about the process and the importance of preserving our environment. If you value our children, if you value our students, if you value their education and their educators, then show them; ensure their schools are the very best possible.

Support H.R. 3021.

Mr. Speaker, ours is a very generous Nation. As we have seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Southeast Asian tsunami, the depth and breadth of American giving is unsurpassed. Our dedication goes far beyond natural disasters, however.

In each of our communities we have seen families reaching out by sending care packages to our troops, or donating school supplies for Iraqi children, or giving to refugee relief organizations. With the support of the Congress, the U.S. government is beginning to follow the path of the American people. Instead of a foreign policy balanced on the tip of a gun, some U.S. programs are reaching out to the people on the ground.

These are the types of programs which should be receiving robust support, not a misguided military agenda without an end game.

The United States Agency for International Development, known as USAID, has several excellent projects that are getting relief into the hands of Iraqi families. We should be helping to rebuild communities because, as the old saying goes, ``You break it, you buy it.'' To be sure, our obligation goes well beyond military and security intervention.

One program deserving note is a USAID grant to get the Balad canning factory up and running again. The factory, one of Iraq's largest food processors, was built in 1974. It was built as

a government-owned tomato paste factory. After privatization, the factory was producing 10 more products and employing 1,000 people, including 200 women.

According to USAID, with the instability that was brought on by the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing civil war, the factory's potential for food processing was shattered. Farmers were unable to work the fields, and the factory no longer had access to the agricultural supply required to operate. Not only were factory workers suddenly unemployed, tens of thousands of farmers found themselves similarly destitute.

A U.S. Government grant for $5 million will ensure that power, water, waste treatment and steam are restored to the plant. This is essential to get the factory back on-line.

When we look at what we are spending on the military occupation of Iraq, somewhere around $9 billion a week, $5 million looks like a drop in the bucket. In fact, $5 million for development assistance actually equals 21 minutes of military spending. As some of my colleagues like to say, this is a hand up, not a hand-out.

We are rebuilding the heart of communities through jobs, through growth and investment into the infrastructure, the results of which will be seen for generations to come.

We need to take a serious look, Mr. Speaker, at our presence in Iraq. Is it any wonder that there is frustration? We can spend billions of dollars perpetuating an occupation, but we can't truly commit to humanitarian assistance, to reconciliation and a diplomatic surge?

It's simple, if we listen to the American people and to the Iraqi families. Let's end this occupation of Iraq and bring our troops and military contractors home. It is time to rebuild, not re-ignite a military conflict.

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor my friend and political compatriot Harry J. Moore, who passed away May 26 at the age of 79. Harry was an educator and political leader in Marin County, California--the kind of leader whose focus and commitment earned him both affection and respect.

Often known as ``Mr. Novato,'' Harry is particularly identified with the town he lived in for over 40 years. He and his wife Callita raised their family there, and Harry worked as a school administrator, coach, and civic leader, including a stint as mayor.

Born in San Francisco in 1929, Harry earned a master's degree from San Jose State University and served in the Army in Korea. He and Callita Temme were married in 1955, moving to Marin County in 1960 when he took a position coaching and teaching at Marin Catholic High School. His career soon took him to Novato where he eventually became a dean, vice principal, and then principal at several Novato schools including Pleasant Valley Elementary, San Ramon Elementary, San Marin High, Novato High, and Hill Middle School. At Hill, Harry spearheaded the construction of a gymnasium.

Harry's political career, stemming from his dedication to education, began with his election to the Marin Community College district board in the 1970s where he promoted the development of the Indian Valley Campus. He served an additional term from 2003 to 2007, when he lost a re-election bid.

In the early 1980s, concerned about environmental and quality standards in Novato, Harry was an active member of the Planning Commission. In 1985, he was elected to the Novato City Council where his leadership as mayor was crucial in resolving long-standing development issues at the former Hamilton Air Force Base. He left the Council in 1994 after winning election to the Marin County Board of Supervisors. There, his expertise on environmental issues (he was a founder of Sustainable North Bay) helped spur the growth of parks and open space.

Despite all these titles and accomplishments, Harry was probably most proud of the title ``Coach.'' He coached football at several schools during the 1960s and 1970s, earning a league championship for Novato High School in 1965.

In addition to his wife, Harry is survived by his four children Lillian, Jeffrey, Charles, and Kate.

Madam Speaker, Harry Moore's accomplishments were a direct result of his focus on kids and on his community. When he saw something that could be done to make the community a better place, he did not hesitate to put himself on the line to make it happen. He was an inspiration, and I will miss his leadership very much. I am proud to honor his legacy here today.

Madam Speaker, on May 22, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 355.

Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 355--``no''--Akin of Missouri amendment; for rollcall No. 357, I inadvertently voted ``no'', when I intended to vote ``yes''; and rollcall No. 357-- ``yes''--Tierney of Massachusetts amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant General William E. Odom, a great American and a true patriot. General Odom passed away last Friday at the age of 75 after a lifetime of service to the Nation. General Odom was a soldier and a scholar. He was a teacher and the author of seven books on history and international relations. He served Presidents of both parties. He was one of our Nation's top experts on military intelligence. He was a great visionary. And he was among the first to correctly and courageously warn that invading Iraq would be folly.

I am proud to say that he was a friend. He generously shared his insight and counsel with me, and I found what he told and shared to be invaluable.

General Odom was born in Tennessee and graduated from West Point. He received a Ph.D. from Columbia University and became a leading author on the Soviet Union. After teaching at West Point and Columbia, he served in the Carter administration as assistant to the President for national security affairs. Neither a Democrat nor a Republican, he also served in the Reagan administration as director of the National Security Agency. After retiring from the military, he became a professor at Yale University and a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute.

General Odom was a patriot in every sense of the word. He served in Vietnam, and his family has continued to serve. His son was wounded in Iraq. But General Odom also understood that true patriotism meant disagreeing with your government's actions when you think they are wrong.

He opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq long before it began when it was not the popular thing to do and long before most of the rest of the country opposed it. His boss in the Carter administration, Mr. Brzezinksi, had this to say of his early opposition to the invasion, ``Among senior military people, (Odom) was probably the first to consider the war in Iraq a misbegotten adventure. He believed that we're just stoking hostility to the United States in that region and developing an opposition that cannot be defeated by military means.''

In September of 2006, I and several of my colleagues in the House invited General Odom to speak at one of a series of ad hoc Congressional hearings and forums hosted by the Progressive Caucus on Iraq. General Odom described how al Qaeda's recruitment efforts had been seriously weakened by our efforts in Afghanistan, but he said that al Qaeda's recruitments soared after the invasion of Iraq. General Odom said, to (Osama bin Laden), the invasion must have been manna from heaven, probably saving his organization.'' I can't think of any more powerful argument against the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq than what he said.

General Odom did not just oppose the administration's policy. He offered a real alternative that could both end the conflict in Iraq and lay the foundation for regional peace. He said, ``No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside, and, other major powers including India, China, Japan, and Russia. It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq's borders making them more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches to restoring regional stability.''

Everyone who knew General Odom knew that he was a tireless worker and a straight shooter. He continued to oppose war virtually up until the day that he died. Just 3 days before he passed away, an op-ed article he co-authored on Iran appeared in the Washington Post. The article opposed the drumbeat of war against Iran and offered a policy of diplomacy that can stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I hope every Member of this House will read that article.

General William Odom was a military man who worked hard for peace. If we had listened to him about Iraq in 2002, we could have saved tens of thousands of lives. I hope we will listen to his words now, because they can save many more lives in the future. General Odom was a great inspiration while he was alive, and I know that he will continue to inspire us in the days ahead.

[From the Washington Post, May 27, 2008]

A Sensible Path on Iran

(By Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom)

Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost

certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The

seemingly clever combination of the use of ``sticks'' and

``carrots,'' including the frequent official hints of an

American military option ``remaining on the table,'' simply

intensifies Iran's desire to have its own nuclear arsenal.

Alas, such a heavy-handed ``sticks'' and ``carrots'' policy

may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The

United States would have a better chance of success if the

White House abandoned its threats of military action and its

calls for regime change.

Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear

weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil,

Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but

gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United

States threatened to change their regimes if they would not,

probably none would have complied. But when ``sticks'' and

``carrots'' failed to prevent India and Pakistan from

acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly

accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to

hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran?

To look at the issue another way, imagine if China, a

signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a

country that has deliberately not engaged in a nuclear arms

race with Russia or the United States, threatened to change

the American regime if it did not begin a steady destruction

of its nuclear arsenal. The threat would have an arguable

legal basis, because all treaty signatories promised long ago

to reduce their arsenals, eventually to zero. The American

reaction, of course, would be explosive public opposition to

such a demand. U.S. leaders might even mimic the fantasy

rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding

the use of nuclear weapons.

A successful approach to Iran has to accommodate its

security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on

Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one

could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. In

either case, the United States would be held accountable and

would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian

reactions. These would almost certainly involve destabilizing

the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts

to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a

massive increase in its already high cost. The turmoil in the

Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would

hurt America and eventually Israel, too.

Given Iran's stated goals--a nuclear power capability but

not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss

broader U.S.-Iranian security issues--a realistic policy

would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The

United States could indicate that it is prepared to

negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either

side (though retaining the right to terminate the

negotiations if Iran remains unyielding but begins to enrich

its uranium beyond levels allowed by the Non-Proliferation

Treaty); or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian

willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous

U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions.

Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase

the prospects of an international arrangement being devised

to accommodate Iran's desire for an autonomous nuclear energy

program while minimizing the possibility that it could be

rapidly transformed into a nuclear weapons program. Moreover,

there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional

policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S.

relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has

helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work

in the case of Iran. The widely propagated notion of a

suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon

against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy

than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis

for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel's, either.

An additional longer-range benefit of such a dramatically

different diplomatic approach is that it could help bring

Iran back into its traditional role of strategic cooperation

with the United States in stabilizing the Gulf region.

Eventually, Iran could even return to its long-standing and

geopolitically natural pre-1979 policy of cooperative

relations with Israel. One should note also in this

connection Iranian hostility toward al-Qaeda, lately

intensified by al-Qaeda's Web-based campaign urging a U.S.-

Iranian war, which could both weaken what al-Qaeda views as

Iran's apostate Shiite regime and bog America down in a

prolonged regional conflict.

Last but not least, consider that American sanctions have

been deliberately obstructing Iran's efforts to increase its

oil and natural gas outputs. That has contributed to the

rising cost of energy. An eventual American-Iranian

accommodation would significantly increase the flow of

Iranian energy to the world market. Americans doubtless would

prefer to pay less for filling their gas tanks than having to

pay much more to finance a wider conflict in the Persian

Gulf.

Madam Speaker, Employers who misclassify their employees as independent contractors rob workers of needed pay and benefits and cost government at all levels substantial uncollected revenues-- resources that are needed for vital government programs and services.

Yet misclassification is widespread. According to the General Accounting Office, at least 10 million workers in the U.S. are classified as independent contractors, and studies show that as many as 30 percent of employers misclassify their workers. Why do they do it? They misclassify to avoid the cost of payroll taxes, insurance premiums and mandated benefits, and to boost their profits. In fact, the Department of Labor has concluded that the number one reason for misclassification is to avoid the payment of workers compensation premiums, as well as workplace injury and disability-related disputes.

The cost is high for employees, who when misclassified, lose out on employee benefits, including those that are exempt from taxation or receive tax-deferred benefits, such as retirement, life insurance, accident and health coverage, qualified tuition reduction programs, benefits under a cafeteria plan, educational assistance programs and dependent care assistance programs. Additionally misclassified workers are not afforded even minimal workforce protections, including workers compensation, minimum wage, overtime pay, health and safety requirements and the right to join a union. And eligibility for Medicare, Social Security and Unemployment compensation is negatively affected as well.

The cost to society is high as well, and it is estimated that billions of dollars are lost each year; money that would otherwise be paid to the States and the Federal Government in taxes. Despite, this enormous problem, the Department of Labor (DOL) has failed not only to crack down on this practice by enforcing current laws, but has failed to coordinate with other agencies to address the issue. In addition, it is unclear under the law which standard should be employed for determining who is and who is not an independent contractor.

The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act of 2008, which Representatives Andrews, Michaud, Miller and I are introducing today attacks the problem of misclassification head-on by:

Clarifying that employee records must reflect the worker's accurate status or classification as an employee or non-employee and that it is a violation of the Act to make an inaccurate classification.

Requiring employers to provide employees and non-employees notice of their status and notice of their rights to challenge that classification.

Providing additional penalties for misclassification as well as increased penalties for violations that are willful or repeated.

Requiring state unemployment insurance agencies to conduct audits to identify employers who are misclassifying employees.

Mandating the Department of Labor (DOE) to develop a system to track and monitor States' effectiveness in identifying employers who misclassify.

Explicitly allowing DOL and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to refer incidents of misclassification to one another; and

Requiring DOL to perform targeted audits focusing on employers in industries that frequently misclassify employees.

We know that there are good employers out there who pay their employees fair and honest wages. This bill is to protect bona fide employees from the 30 percent who don't.

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of one of our notable local residents and a good friend, Elaine Bundesen. Elaine died last month at the age of 85 of complications from Parkinson's disease.

Originally from Washington State, Elaine grew up in Seattle and attended the University of Washington. After she graduated in 1945 with a degree in English, she headed for San Francisco, where she met and married Jim Bloom, a Navy pilot from my hometown of Petaluma.

After the war--World War II--Elaine lived in Guam with her husband as one of the first Navy dependents to be stationed there. Later, the couple moved to Petaluma, where Elaine was introduced to small-town life. Petaluma being the egg capital of the Nation, Elaine eventually got a job at Bundesen Bros. Hatchery, where she met her second husband, Paul Bundesen. Sadly, their life together ended when Paul was killed in a plane crash in 1967.

Elaine returned to school, and in 1974 received her master's degree in counseling at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. She worked for more than 25 years in the university's office of admissions and records. During this time, she helped form the public lecture series ``Pandora's Box'' with a small group of women whose activities started the women's studies program at Sonoma State.

Elaine is survived by her three stepchildren, Margaret, David and Laura, and many nieces and nephews.

Madam Speaker, Elaine was a wonderful woman and a good friend who influenced many lives. She was a mentor to me and will be greatly missed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support Congresswoman Barbara Lee's amendment. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if it were not for abusive power grabs, we would not need this amendment today. As Chairman Skelton just said to us, this amendment actually strengthens a right guaranteed to the Congress by the Constitution. With Congresswoman Lee's amendment, we simply affirm that any major international agreement signed by the representatives of the United States, the U.S. Government, it must be approved by the Congress.

Whether you call it a treaty, whether you call it a Declaration of Principles, this Congress will fulfill our constitutional duty today because every one of us, every Member of Congress takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and today we will do just that.

So, again, I thank Congresswoman Lee, and I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Mr. Bishop on successfully bringing this bill to the floor, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. This change to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is long overdue and clarifies the original intent of the law passed in 1993, to ensure that airline flight crews have access to job-protected unpaid family and medical leave. The Workforce Protections Subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing in April celebrating the 15th anniversary of the FMLA. And at the hearing we did celebrate the difference that job-protected family and medical leave--even if it is unpaid--has made in people's lives. But we all recognized that the law is in need of improvement.

We need paid leave and we need to expand FMLA to include airline flight crew. Jennifer Hunt, a 19-year flight attendant with U.S. Airways testified at the Subcommittee to the importance of family and medical leave and how thousands of flight attendants, including Jennifer herself, are unable to take advantage of this benefit.

Then she told us her story. In December, 2007, Jennifer's husband, John was diagnosed with prostate cancer and Jennifer needed time out from her full-time schedule to attend his medical appointments and be with him for his surgery and recovery. But without FMLA leave, Jennifer was stuck. She was able to adjust her schedule to be with John during his surgery. However, she returned to work as soon as John was out of the hospital and had to rely on friends and family to assist in his care and the care of her two young children.

FMLA job-protected leave is essential to hardworking airline personnel who face the same challenges as other workers do in balancing their work and family. I am so pleased that Mr. Bishop's bill will provide them with this important benefit.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Members of this House were given a chance to put some real action behind the slogan, ``Support the Troops,'' because one of the spending votes that we had before us included a provision to support the 21st Century Veterans Bill of Rights.

This Bill of Rights will restore full, 4-year college scholarships to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars to help make these troops, these soldiers part of an economic recovery like the veterans of World War II.

The first 2 years of the new GI Bill would cost what we spend in 2 days in Iraq. Imagine that. We could provide our veterans with 2 years of the GI Bill for 2 days of what we spend in Iraq. And yet some folks here in the House could not bring themselves to support the provision. All I can say is, what does that say to our brave men and women in uniform?

Veterans who have sacrificed for our country deserve to receive our Nation's support. The administration sent them to Iraq, and because they are vigilant and dedicated, very few of us standing here today serving in the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate have sent our sons and daughters over there.

We haven't had to watch our kids be killed or wounded.

And we must not let our troops down. A prime example of letting them down comes from one of our Nation's top research arms, the National Institute of Mental Health. In a recently released report, the Institute found that the number of suicides among veterans of the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care. According to the Director of Community Mental Health Centers, hobbled by financial limits, haven't provided enough scientifically sound care, especially in rural areas.

We've lost more than 4,000 of our Nation's bravest to deadly attacks in Iraq alone. How can a nation stand by while we lose that many men and women to suicide? It is unbelievable that we would be allowing this to happen.

According to a report by the Rand Corporation, soldiers who have been exposed to combat trauma were the most likely to suffer from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. About 53 percent of soldiers sought treatment during the past year; half of those who received care were judged by Rand researchers to have gotten inadequate treatment. That means about three-quarters of those in need of mental health assistance are going without or are receiving inadequate treatment. Is that how a grateful nation shows its appreciation?

Meeting the needs of our returning troops should be how we show our appreciation, and it should be paramount in our fiscal deliberations. But we can go one step further. We can bring our troops home. We can reject the administration's call to send more troops into the theater. Once we fully fund the safe and orderly redeployment of our troops and military contractors, we can focus our efforts on the men and women walking with hidden wounds, the wounds of PTSD.

I urge my colleagues to reject a blank check for the administration's endless occupation of Iraq. When the House receives the Senate-passed supplemental, we must oppose any bill that does not truly support our troops. We must oppose any spending that is not dedicated to redeploying our soldiers home to their families.

We must bring our troops home. We must end the occupation of Iraq. And we must provide the troops with the care and services they need. We must show them just how much we appreciate their service.

Madam Speaker, today I rise with great pride to join in celebrating the 100th anniversary of Analy High School, located in Sebastopol, CA, and one of the most successful schools in my district.

Prior to the founding of Analy High School, students from West Sonoma County commuted to Santa Rosa High School, travelling by train or wagon, or even boarding during the week in Santa Rosa. When the people of the Sebastopol area decided the student population was large enough to support its own school, the Analy Union High School District (now the West Sonoma County Union School District) was started. From its origins in 1908 with a student body of 37, Analy has grown to support more than 1,200 students this year.

In 1910, five students received diplomas--the first graduating class of Analy High School. Since then, Analy High School has been named a California Distinguished School, and has graduated more than 30,000 students, including Dr. Willard F. Libby, the 1960 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry for his work in developing the process of carbon dating; actress Karen Valentine; Chicago Bears star tight end Jim Thornton; and numerous students who went on to become teachers, police officers, firefighters, business leaders, housewives, parents and grandparents of Analy graduates.

Madam Speaker, Analy High has come a long way from the days when students rode to class on horseback. It has contributed an educated populace to Sebastopol, to Sonoma County and beyond. I am proud to have such citizens in my district, and I ask you to join me in congratulating Analy High School on the past 100 years and wishing them the best of luck and continued success for the next 100 years.

Thank you, Chairman Obey, for the time.

Today the Congressional Progressive Caucus held an event called ``Winter Soldier.'' We listened to the veterans of the Iraq occupation, and they told us about what it's been like over there and what they've learned. The meeting actually followed in tradition of hearings first held during the Vietnam War. The forum gave veterans who have firsthand experience a chance to tell their stories. It was a solemn, thought- provoking event. What these men and women saw, what they've experienced, is really heartbreaking.

But today we have it in our power, we have it in our power to put an end to the tragedy that is the Iraq war. Today, this Congress will decide if we will give the President a blank check to continue his endless occupation of Iraq, or if we will fund redeployment and reconciliation and if we will do something for the refugees in Iraq.

The American people have been clear in their demands. They want to end the occupation, not extend it. They want us to bring our troops and military contractors home. They want us to reaffirm our commitment to the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Congressional Progressive Caucus held an event called ``Winter Soldier'' where we honored our men and women in uniform who have returned as veterans. And then this afternoon, we were given another bite at the so-called apple, as if we were continuing the honor of these winter soldiers.

What happened this afternoon, what happened less than an hour ago was an amendment on the House floor to fund the Iraq-Afghanistan war until June of 2009 failed. It did not pass. It failed. Now, that is the way to honor winter soldiers: stop paying for the President's debacle, for the failed international policy, for the damages that

are being caused to our soldiers across the waters. That is the way to make up and honor winter soldiers.

So what is a Winter Soldier? In 1991, a courageous group of veterans of the Vietnam War took their cause to Washington in an event called ``Winter Soldier.'' Today, we honored that tradition, and we looked at a new generation of veterans and a new warfront, Iraq.

The event, which was organized with the Iraq Veterans Against the War, got to the heart of the issue: how this endless occupation is affecting our men and women in uniform and the Iraqi people themselves.

In recent months, we have heard from General David Petraeus, we have heard from Ambassador David Crocker, and we've heard a lot from the administration, all armed with PowerPoint presentations and colorful posters attempting to convince us that after 5 years we are finally making progress in Iraq.

That's what made this morning so unique. This was an opportunity to hear not from the military's top brass but directly from the very soldiers who put their lives on the line to carry out the administration's policies.

Today's event was a continuation of Winter Soldier hearings that were organized earlier this year at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, Maryland. Over 3 days, dozens of veterans shared their personal stories and testified about their own experiences on the ground in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These weren't pundits or analysts talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the abstract. These were the stories, these were the testimonies of the men and women who had experienced the horrors of war up close and personal.

As I listened to the testimony this morning, I was struck that while each witness brought a unique and very personal perspective towards the occupation of Iraq, there was one consistent thread that connected each and every testimony: that despite the valor and sacrifice of our troops, and at almost every level, the administration's strategy in Iraq has failed and continues to fail.

What a great response to these wonderful soldiers because today's vote says exactly what we need to say: put an end to this war, reject a blank check to extend this occupation into another year, concentrate on funding the redeployment of our troops and the redeployment of our contractors.

We owe nothing less than that to those brave men and women in uniform and those who have been there before them, and we also owe nothing less than that to the Iraqi people.