Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 5, the so-called Class Action Fairness Act.

Few of us would stand here and argue that there is too much accountability in corporate America today. In recent years, millions of our constituents have been swindled out of their retirement savings by corporate crooks at Enron, WorldCom, and other companies. For years, many unscrupulous mutual fund managers were skimming off the top of their clients' investment funds. Drug companies put new products on the market like Vioxx that they knew to be unsafe.

This bill is a windfall for companies that have profited while causing harm to others. And no industry is in a better position to benefit than the tobacco industry. It's little wonder that tobacco stocks rallied at the news that the Senate had passed this bill.

I'd like to read from a Wall Street analyst's view of how this bill would impact the tobacco industry. ``Flash--Senate Just Passed Class Action Bill--Positive for Tobacco,'' the analyst writes.

``The Senate just passed a bill 72-26 which is designed to funnel class-action suits with plaintiffs in different States out of State courts and into the Federal court system, which is typically much less sympathetic to such litigation. The practical effect of the change could be that many cases will never be heard given how overburdened Federal judges are, which might help limit the number of cases.''

I only wish that the proponents of this bill would use such candid language to describe its true intent--to make sure that legitimate cases are never heard, and to shield corporations from accountability for their actions.

The class action system is a major reason why we have safer consumer products, more honest advertising, cleaner air and drinking water, and better workplace protections than many other countries.

All of us are empowered by the right to band together and seek justice. Class actions are one of the most effective and powerful ways we have to hold people accountable for their actions.

I oppose this attempt to shut the courthouse door to people who have been wronged.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of H. Res. 86, congratulating our New England Patriots on winning their third Super Bowl in 4 years.

The word ``dynasty'' has become synonymous with the New England Patriots. And deservedly so. Only one other team has accomplished what the Patriots have done--the Dallas Cowboys of the early 1990s. I believe that these Patriots have staked a real claim on the moniker of ``America's Team.''

But when the history of this team is written, there is one word that seems most fitting: class.

Class means many things, especially in the world of sports.

Class means a head coach, such as bill Belichick, who immediately after overtaking Vince Lombardi as the NFL coach with the best playoff winning percentage talks about ``starting at the bottom of the mountain'' next season. It also means a coach who deflects personal credit as adroitly as he outsmarts opposing coaches. Similarly, class seems suitable for a coach who should rather talk endlessly about his role models than about himself, even after he eclipses those role models in all measures of success.

Class also means a team that overcomes injuries to two key starters, Ty Law and Tyrone Poole, when unheralded players, such as Randall Gay and Asante Samuel, play like seasoned veterans in the most stressful situations imaginable, to the disbelief of all observers. It means a group of players whom many

outside New England don't recognize by name or face but only as part of a team. And class might also describe a team whose accomplishments are sometimes dismissed as ``luck'' even when, by definition, ``luck'' can't explain continuous triumph, game after game, season after season, at home and on the road, in close games and blowouts, in air- conditioned domes and Foxborough blizzards.

Class refers to players, such as Tom Brady and Deion Branch, who would rather credit their teammates than tout their own efforts. Class describes players such as Willie McGinest and Tedy Bruschi, who would rather win Super Bowls than All-Pro invitations, as well as players such as Corey Dillon and Rodney Harrison, who have silenced past critics with their on-field performance not their off-field remarks.

Class means owners who care as much about the team as does the most passionate fan. The Kraft family, longtime New Englanders and Patriots' season ticket holders, seem to fit that description to a tee. Like the rest of Patriots Nation in 1994, Robert and Myra Kraft were devastated to see the team on the verge of moving to St. Louis. So much so, in fact, that they spent $200 million to prevent that from happening.

Class also means owners who view their role in the community with dignity and responsibility. Although the Kraft family builds championships and unrivaled proficiency, their off-field victories may be even more impressive. Through the Patriot Charitable Foundation, the Krafts have made charitable affairs an integral part of their community presence, and as important a goal as any Super Bowl victory.

And perhaps most importantly, class means never describing oneself as a ``dynasty,'' because dynasties are never proclaimed, but only earned--something a team with class, like the New England Patriots, knows quite well.

I join my colleagues in saluting the unsurpassed accomplishments of the New England Patriots.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill is an expansion of the Patriot Act intended to punish immigrants without making America any safer.

Any time a bill is brought to the floor with no hearings, no committee markup, and few opportunities for amendments, it indicates that its sponsors are trying to protect it from scrutiny.

That's certainly the case here. Indeed a close look at this bill shows that its true purpose is not to make America safer, but to advance an agenda of ending America's tradition of welcoming and protecting the rights of immigrants.

This bill is about much more than driver's licenses. It upends the process of granting asylum to individuals and families who have suffered torture or persecution in other countries. It expands the PATRIOT Act to allow more deportations for people with no connection to terrorism.

No one doubts the need to review standards for issuing driver's licenses. That is why Congress worked on a bipartisan basis to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The recently enacted 9/11 bill established minimum Federal standards to ensure the integrity of drivers' licenses issuance and verification. The regulations are in the process of being developed, with the input of the state agencies that issue driver's licenses. Enacting a new bill that prescribes eligibility for driver's licenses would delay and disrupt the implementation of the 9/11 bill's standards even before they have been put in place.

The strongest reason to approach this issue thoughtfully is that the process of applying for driver's licenses brings new people into government databases, which can be cross-referenced with FBI and terrorist watch lists. The only reason we had any information about the 9/11 hijackers, their whereabouts, and their connections to others, is because we could track information from driver's license databases. Shutting off this flow of information is not a smart or effective way to combat terrorism.

This bill is only the latest example of how this Congress has ignored regular order to rush a partisan bill to the floor with little deliberation or debate. I oppose this process and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, millions of average Iraqis defied the threats of violence and took a courageous first step toward democracy and self-governance. The images of Iraqis voting for the first time were truly uplifting. But before this Administration declares ``Mission Accomplished'' all over again, we cannot ignore the challenges that remain. We cannot simply hope that the elections will make the insurgency go away, or put an end to the violence. For too long, our entire strategy in Iraq has been based on waiting and hoping. Now more than ever, we need a real strategy to make Iraq stable and self-sufficient and bring our troops home.

President Bush came into office with clear ideas about when we use our military power and put our forces in harm's way. Five years ago, when he was running for President, Governor George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not having an exit strategy in Kosovo. This is what he said: ``Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.'' Two years ago, President Bush sent our armed forces into Iraq without a plan to win the peace. We had no exit strategy and therefore no victory strategy.

Two years later, we still don't. The elections are a step forward in a long process of making Iraq politically independent. But the elections don't change the fact that Iraq is still not secure. The 150,000 American troops in Iraq are no less at risk than they were last week, which sadly was one of the most tragic weeks of the war. Despite the election, the reality on the ground is unchanged--security in Iraq is not getting better--it's been getting steadily worse since the summer of 2003. The occupation is not making Iraq secure--it's only fueling the violence.

The Bush Administration has no endgame in sight. Their only strategy is to hope that security will get better. But it didn't get better after we captured Saddam, after we transferred sovereignty, or after we went into Fallujah. We can hope, but we can't plan on security improving now that Iraq has had elections. We can't count on security in Iraq getting any better as long as the United States has 150,000 troops in Iraq, and as long as we are viewed as an occupying power. That's why we need an exit strategy that includes a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. It's the only way to change the dynamic on the ground.

A new Zogby poll in Iraq that found that 65 percent of Iraqis want us to leave, including 68 percent of Shiites and 80 percent of Sunnis. We need to recognize that the presence of 150,000 U.S. forces on Iraqi soil is fueling the insurgency. Over the last year, we've sent more troops to Iraq, but the insurgency has only gotten stronger, more sophisticated, and more deadly. We're creating more insurgents than we're neutralizing. We've killed or captured more than 1,000-3,000 insurgents every month for more than a year. But the insurgency has quadrupled in size, from at least 5,000 to at least 20,000. The Iraqi Intelligence Minister estimates that there are 200,000 Iraqis who are providing support for the insurgents.

Iraqis who voted on Sunday rejected the anti-democratic, terrorist ideology of Zarqawi. But for the most part, the insurgency in Iraq is not comprised of foreign terrorists or high-ranking Baathists. More than 95 percent of the detainees we have in Iraq are Iraqis, and more than 95 percent of those captured in the strike on Fallujah. Only a handful of the Baathists on the most-wanted list are still at large.

To have any chance of success in Iraq we need to understand whom we're fighting against. The insurgency is not comprised of any one group, and they don't subscribe to any one ideology. They are united only by their opposition to the occupation. And they are receiving support from pockets of the Iraqi civilian population that have become embittered with the occupation.

The open-endedness of the occupation also threatens to undermine the credibility of the moderate Iraqi leaders who are seen working with us. Most of the main political slates ran on the platform that they would be best suited to remove U.S. forces from Iraq. It can't happen today. But as the President of Iraq, Ghazi al-Yawar, said today, the U.S. can remove some troops over the course of this year. It's

critical that we send a signal that this occupation will not last forever.

When President Bush says we're going to stay ``for as long as it takes,'' Iraqis take that to mean we're going to stay there indefinitely. Now that there is an elected Iraqi government, we need to have an endgame. We also need to make absolutely clear that we aren't seeking a permanent military foothold in Iraq. The President has not yet made that clear.

Under the plan I've proposed, the United States will announce its intentions to withdraw most of our forces this year. By next summer, only a small contingent of troops will remain, staying in the background to assist in the training of Iraqi forces. A smaller, lighter presence would prevent the formation of ethnic militias and the outbreak of civil war. But by staying in the background, it won't provoke bitterness and anti-Americanism among the Iraqi people. A timetable for a drawdown of U.S. forces sends a message to Iraq's new government and Iraqi security forces that soon they'll be responsible for their own security.

The two elements that are key to any exit strategy are training Iraqi forces and investing in reconstruction projects that will create jobs in Iraq. The training of Iraqi security forces didn't begin in earnest until Lt. Gen. Petraeus was put in charge this past June--more than a year after it should have. For too long, Iraqi forces were given only a couple weeks training and sent to fight experienced insurgents. With the United States providing an open-ended guarantee for security in Iraq, untrained Iraqis saw little reason to risk their lives. As a result, their initial performance was mixed at best.

However, their performance on Sunday was encouraging. For the first time, Iraqi forces served in the foreground, with U.S. forces in the background. After a belated start, Gen. Petraeus has the training program on track. Iraqi forces are now given months of training, not weeks. If we continue to train Iraqi security forces, we can give them steadily more responsibility beginning in the coming weeks. That will allow us to bring home the vast majority of our forces over the next 12-18 months.

As we decrease our military presence, we must maintain our commitment to the Iraqi people just as we did in postwar Europe with the Marshall Plan. Our role must change from occupying Iraq to assisting Iraq in economic reconstruction. Iraq's unemployment rate continues to be 30-40 percent, and millions of Iraqis have gone without basic services. It's an outrage that of $22 billion that Congress has committed to reconstruction, only $4.3 billion has actually been spent in Iraq. And up to 50-70 percent of that money has been spent on security for foreign contractors.

Yesterday the Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction said that almost $9 billion that the CPA transferred to government agencies in Iraq is entirely unaccounted for. That needs to change. We need to invest in projects that will provide immediate jobs for Iraqis, not foreign contractors.

Finally, there are the unresolved political issues in Iraq. The key political question in Iraq now is whether Sunnis will be at the table as Iraq's constitution is drafted. Announcing an American troop drawdown will put pressure on the new Iraqi government to include Sunnis in the process. At the same time, the less the new government is seen as depending on us, the more it gains in popularity and credibility among all factions within Iraq.

Tomorrow night, in this chamber, the President has another opportunity to present something he should have presented two years ago--an exit strategy from Iraq. 150,000 troops remain in Iraq, including the 12,000 that were sent to enhance security for the elections. President Bush is asking Congress for an additional $80 billion to fund this war. The President cannot continue to ask American troops to shoulder the sacrifice, and American taxpayers to foot the bill, without light at the end of the tunnel.

Congress must demand of President Bush what he demanded of President Clinton five years ago--an exit strategy. Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to address the most urgent issue facing our Nation today, the ongoing war in Iraq.

I recently returned from a congressional delegation trip to Iraq with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and several of our colleagues on the House Committee on Armed Services. Meeting with our servicemen and women in Iraq made me appreciate their service and their courage even more. My trip also reinforced my conviction that America needs an exit strategy from Iraq, and that is what I would like to discuss tonight.

It has been nearly 2 years since we invaded Iraq and removed one of the world's most brutal regimes; but 2 years later, America's Armed Forces are confronting a far more resilient enemy, a growing insurgency that has plunged Iraq into violence and chaos.

The elections are drawing closer. The peace and stability seem to be moving

further and further away. How we got to this point in time has been the subject of an extensive debate. How did our intelligence fail us so badly about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Was that intelligence deliberately manipulated by the administration in order to rush to war? Why did the Bush administration not give the U.N. inspectors more time to conduct their inspections, and how did we allow so much chaos to grow out of Saddam Hussein's downfall? And why did we not have a better plan to secure the peace?

Many of us have strong views about these issues, and many of us have been quite vocal in expressing them. Unfortunately, when there is a hotly contested Presidential campaign, the national debate often descends into starkly partisan terms. I believe this is what happened to much of the debate about our policy in Iraq.

In Congress the bipartisanship was lacking, and partisanship was especially bad. Most Republicans saw it as their responsibility to defend the President's policies, however flawed. Many Democrats viewed their role as questioning and criticizing all that went wrong without necessarily offering policy alternatives. The result has been a failure to forge bipartisan consensus and develop answers to the pressing questions about our involvement in Iraq. By rallying behind the administration's policy, the Republican leadership in Congress failed in its responsibility to lead, not just follow, on issues of war and peace. At the same time, many Democrats who opposed the war from the beginning have spent more energy lamenting the past than thinking about solutions for the future.

A substantive, nonpartisan reassessment of America's goals and options in Iraq is long overdue. The time has come for us to change our focus from the missteps of the past to the challenge that confronts us in the immediate future.

When I visited with our soldiers on the front lines, they were not focused on the mistakes of last year, they were concerned about what we are doing today and tomorrow. Now more than ever, with our current policy going nowhere, America needs to form a bipartisan consensus behind a strategy, a responsible strategy, in Iraq.

Today I challenge my colleagues in Congress to work together to develop answers to the most urgent question facing our country today: How can the United States put Iraq on a path toward self-sufficiency and begin to bring our troops home in a way that advances our strategic interests? We owe it to the American people and we owe it to the brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day.

All of us in Congress have met with the family of guardsmen and reservists whose deployments have been extended. We have spoken to too many mothers of soldiers and attended too many funerals to leave these fundamental questions unanswered. We must stop looking backward and thinking defensively. We must start looking forward and developing proactive ideas about the next steps in Iraq.

It is clear that the administration has no endgame in sight. It is time for Congress to reassert its role in foreign policy and take the lead on providing an exit strategy in Iraq.

The first step in Iraq to any exit strategy is an honest assessment of the facts on the ground there. It is time to take the rose-tinted glasses off and put aside our partisan hostilities and start with the basics: What is going well, and what is not? What is still possible in Iraq, and how do we get there?

In search of answers to these questions, I returned to Iraq earlier this month. The last time I was in Iraq was August 2003, 4 months after the fall of Baghdad. Iraq was hardly a safe place then, but we were able to walk the streets and talk with average Iraqis, something I had hoped to do this time. Unfortunately, the threat of violence was simply too high. Baghdad is still a war zone.

My colleagues and I traveled in heavily armed military convoys, zigzagging through the streets to avoid ambushes. In Iraq today the expectation is that any American or anyone associated with the Americans will be attacked.

The United States has spent more than $150 billion on military operations in Iraq, with another $80 billion that the administration is going to request from this House next month in a new supplemental budget. We have maintained between 100,000 and 150,000 troops for 2 years. The Army's current plan is to maintain that level until at least 2007.

Over the past year, America has sent more soldiers and more money to Iraq, but we have seen more violence. As Iraq prepares to hold elections 5 days from now, the violence is worse than it has ever been. All of us hope that the elections will proceed peacefully and safely with maximum participation, but we should be realistic that regardless of who votes or who wins, the insurgency will continue.

When Saddam was captured, we hoped the insurgents would give up. When we transferred sovereignty, we hoped that the violence would end. And when we routed the insurgents in Fallujah, we hoped it would break their backs. But with each milestone, the insurgency has come back stronger and more deadly. Attacks on U.S. forces have grown steadily both in frequency and sophistication. Attacks on Iraqi security forces, civilians and the infrastructure are also on the rise. Coalition forces have been killing and capturing 1,000 to 3,000 insurgents every month for more than a year. But over that same time, the insurgency has quadrupled its ranks from at least 5,000 insurgents to at least 20,000 insurgents in that same amount of time.

More troubling is a network of Iraqi civilians, 200,000 by some estimates, who offer both active and passive support, arms, materiel, sanctuary, and, most important, intelligence. It is often better intelligence than what our own forces have.

It is time to accept one of the basic assumptions held by the Bush administration, and many of its critics, no longer applies: More troops do not mean more security in Iraq. Despite 150,000 boots on the ground and tactical victories in Fallujah and elsewhere, the insurgency is only growing in size and lethal capacity. It may have been possible at one point in time to pacify Iraq with an overwhelming American force. Had we gone in with 700,000 troops like General Shinseki said we needed, perhaps the insurgency would not have developed. We will never know for sure. But whatever chance we had is now gone.

Ramping up our troop presence now will not turn the tables in Iraq, and it will probably make the situation worse. The undeniable fact is that the insurgency is being fueled by the very presence of the American military. Back in July of 2003, General John Abizaid called Iraq a ``classic guerrilla war,'' but we have continued to wage war as if we were fighting a conventional army.

The result has been the ``center of gravity'' of any counterinsurgency, the civilian population, has moved further and further away from us. The growing hostility is palpable in Iraq. It is measured by polls taken of Iraqis by our own government and our own State Department. In November 2003, only 11 percent of Iraqis said they would feel safer if coalition forces left; 6 months later, 55 percent did. In the most recent poll that asked the question, 2 percent viewed the United States as liberators, and 92 percent viewed the United States as occupiers.

Iraqis have grown tired of an occupation that has provided them neither security nor meaningful sovereignty. Iraqis were apprehensive of America's intentions to begin with, and every time President Bush signals our forces will remain in Iraq ``for as long as it takes,'' it reconfirms their suspicion that we intend a permanent presence. Every time Iraqi citizens see a Bradley fighting vehicle rolling through their streets or a Black Hawk helicopter overhead, it undermines our assertion that Iraq is already sovereign. Every time Iraqi bystanders are killed in coalition actions, it further erodes the goodwill we earned by ridding them of Saddam Hussein.

And even when innocent Iraqis are murdered by insurgents, the United States is blamed for failing to provide security. If the world's most potent Army cannot make the streets safe, Iraqis are asking, what is it that they are really here for?

So the first step in achieving stability in Iraq is recognizing that the United States presence there has become inherently destabilizing. We also need to recognize the fact that for the

most part we are fighting not foreign terrorists or former regime loyalists, but indigenous factions within Iraq who have united against us.

It is a native insurgency, fueled by a combination of volatile ingredients: a population of 25 million, 5 million of them Sunnis, with a median age of 19 years old; a jobless rate of 30 to 40 percent with pockets of extreme unemployment; 400,000 skilled and experienced army soldiers dispersed throughout the country with their weapons but without their salaries or pensions; 4,000 shoulder-fired missiles left over from the old regime; and 250,000 tons of unsecured explosives.

The insurgency's size and strength are unlikely to decrease any time soon. Attempting to kill or capture every last insurgent is an impossible task. And as long as that is the thrust of our strategy, we will continue along a downward spiral.

Confronted with a growing native insurgency, America is left with three options, and two of them are not really options at all. The first one is to withdraw immediately. Given the current state of Iraqi security forces, we cannot cut and run. This option is a nonstarter. Even if you believe that the United States should never have entered Iraq, it does not follow that we should leave now. The chaos that would result would be much worse than the vacuum of authority left by the downfall of Saddam, and the humanitarian consequences could be even greater.

From a strategic standpoint, immediate withdrawal undermines America's credibility and destabilizes the entire region. The second option is to stay on the same path, as the President says, for as long as it takes. I believe that this course of action would only cause the problem to grow worse. As of May of 2003, the administration was predicting that only 30,000 troops would remain in Iraq by the fall of that year. Twenty months later, five times that many remain. The most compelling reason not to continue down the same path is that the occupation has become counterproductive to stability and progress in Iraq. With United States forces serving as a focal point for tensions and violence, factions within Iraq have turned against us when they should be confronting each other peacefully in setting up a new Iraqi Government. The indefinite U.S. presence is forestalling the political compromises that are ultimately necessary to end the violence in Iraq.

I am proposing a third option, an option that Prime Minister Alawi and President Bush announce a timetable for a phased drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq. This could be done in concert either with Prime Minister Alawi in Iraq with President Bush or with the new Prime Minister who will be elected after these elections. Changing the dynamic in Iraq means handing the security of the Iraqi people back to the Iraqis and bringing an end to the occupation. Under this proposal, the United States would draw down the majority of our forces by the end of this year. Only a small and mobile force would remain by mid-2006, 2 years after the transfer of sovereignty.

Announcing a timetable for a phased-in withdrawal over the next 12 to 18 months will change the underlying dynamic in Iraq in several ways. First, it would help win the support of the Iraqi people for a political process and a government untainted by the appearance that the United States controls them. Second, announcing a drawdown would splinter insurgent groups who have set aside their own differences in order to unite against the United States. Foreign jihadists, Sunni nationalists, and Shiite extremists have little in common except their opposition to the United States' presence in Iraq.

Third, a timetable for withdrawal would encourage the Iraqi Government and the factions within Iraq to deal with each other rather than relying on American troops to make the sacrifices. A withdrawal could be structured in such a way as to create incentives for violent factions within Iraq to come to the negotiating table rather than engaging in armed insurrection.

Fourth, renouncing any long-term presence in Iraq would enhance America's legitimacy throughout the world. It would be the first step in putting the division that we have had with our allies behind us so we can focus on the war on terror. Fifth, the central political question in Iraq is not whether the United States should leave, but how soon. The politics in Iraq are such that the incoming government, no matter who is elected, will demand that the United States withdraw as soon as it is confident of its own survival. The fact that 70 to 80 percent of the Iraqi people do not want us there makes it clear, if elections determine who is in power in Iraq, whoever is elected Prime Minister will want to work with the United States to set up a timetable for a withdrawal.

Finally, a timetable for withdrawal would be that light at the end of the tunnel for our military which has been severely overstretched and unfairly deployed. While in Iraq, I met with many of our soldiers and Marines. Their spirits are high. Morale is strong. They are prepared for any mission. But they and their families want a reasonable expectation of when this mission will end. From a standpoint of readiness, a phased drawdown in Iraq would forestall what could otherwise soon become a recruiting and retention crisis in the Armed Forces.

We can withdraw the vast majority of our forces in Iraq by the end of this year under a realistic plan. This is not a cut and run strategy, but a phased drawdown that would leave a small, mobile and low-profile U.S. presence in Iraq for a reasonable time frame in agreement with the new Iraqi Government. This smaller contingent of approximately 30,000 troops could continue to fill specialty roles, such as training Iraqi forces and engaging in quick strikes against insurgent or terrorist infrastructures that minimize the risk of civilian casualties. A smaller, more remote presence would not patrol Iraqi cities or streets, but it would be enough to prevent outbreaks of civil warfare.

Two factors will allow Iraq to move forward while our troops come home. First, our highest priority must be on training high-quality Iraqi security forces. It must be our number one priority. For too long, the Bush administration assumed that Americans would bear an indefinite burden of security in Iraq. But lasting security can only be provided by Iraqis. In the words of President Bush, ultimately the success in Iraq is going to be the willingness of the Iraqi citizens to fight for their own freedom. With the United States providing an open- ended guarantee for security, there is little urgency for Iraqis opposed to the insurgency to take charge and to fight it.

In addition, the training program was set back for months by a focus on quantity over quality. A couple weeks' training is clearly not enough. One of the reasons why there were problems with our policy on training in the beginning was that we would train Iraqi soldiers for 2 weeks and then send them out into battle and oftentimes many of those Iraqi soldiers when faced with the violence of an insurgency would run away or, in some instances, join the insurgency.

While I was in Iraq, I met with General Petraeus and surveyed the training of Iraqi security forces. General Petraeus gets it. He knows that to fight a sophisticated insurgency, these Iraqis will need to be highly skilled. Despite the rocky start, the training program is moving forward. I believe 12 to 18 months is enough time to train Iraqi security forces with the skills they will need to confront the insurgency.

As important as training Iraqi security forces is, creating jobs for Iraqis is also important. It is outrageous that of the $22 billion that Congress has committed to Iraq reconstruction, only $4 billion has actually been spent. And a huge percentage of that $4 billion has gone to provide security for foreign contractors. When General Petraeus took the 101st Airborne into Mosul, he used riches from Saddam's palaces to keep Iraqi soldiers on the payroll. He invested in local reconstruction projects that put people to work immediately. It was one of the reasons that Mosul was relatively quiet for so long. It may not be a model of free market capitalism, but it is a model for success in a country that is desperate for jobs. It is worth replicating. As the United States begins to reduce our military involvement in Iraq, our investment in Iraq's reconstruction must endure.

Last week, President Bush spoke eloquently about America's special responsibility to spread freedom around the globe, but his inaugural address did not include a single mention of the actual war we are fighting, the war that 150,000 of our servicemen and -women are fighting every day in one of the most volatile and violent places on Earth. In the realm of rhetoric and abstraction, President Bush has clearly defined ideas about the struggle for human freedom, but his policy for Iraq has not yet included a clear path for when or how we will leave.

Our national conversation about Iraq needs more realism. It needs more focus on the future rather than on the past. We need to refocus on our original goal, a stable Iraq that does not threaten its neighbors, develop weapons of mass destruction, export terrorism, or terrorize and murder its own people. Hard experience and tragedy have taught us that prolonged military occupation in Iraq will not end the insurgency, will not stabilize Iraq or bring us closer to our strategic goals. It will only cause more casualties and more hatred toward America within Iraq and beyond. Iraqis want freedom, and they also want control over their daily lives and their country's future. The best hopes for a stable, peaceful Iraq are achieved by making it clear to the Iraqis that the occupation is not indefinite and that soon they will bear the burden of creating a responsible, democratic state.

Iraq's political development is occurring on a clearly defined timetable. Elections will be held this Sunday; a constitution drafted by August 15; an election to ratify that constitution by October 15; new elections by December of this year; and a permanent government in place by the end of December. Iraq needs a similar timetable for taking responsibility for its own security. By laying out a timetable for a phased-down withdrawal, the United States sends a clear message to Iraqis, and all citizens of the world, that we believe Iraq is capable of governing itself and making decisions about its future.

The removal of Saddam Hussein was a victory for the United States, but lasting success in Iraq will not be achieved until the country is stable and American soldiers have the opportunity to come home and be with their families. I believe adopting a strategy of phased-down withdrawal is the only course of action for the United States, and I would hope that the Members of the Congress of the United States would engage in this very important policy issue and have an influence on the direction this country takes in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

I am deeply gratified that today, Congress has put aside turf wars and partisanship and taken this critical step forward for our national security. Over 3 years after 9/11, intelligence reform has been sorely overdue. Today, we got it done.

But before we congratulate ourselves, members of Congress should recognize the debt of gratitude we owe the 9/11 families. Our government failed all of us on 9/11, but most of all the victims and their families. For 3 years, the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 demanded answers. They demanded accountability.

While many in Washington delayed, the families pressed Congress to find out what went wrong, and fix the problems. Today, their impassioned, tireless work has resulted in concrete reforms: a national intelligence director with the authority to coordinate our intelligence efforts and set clear priorities; a National Counter-Terrorism Center to increase our coordinated approach to anticipating future threats; a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to help us strike the balance between freedom and security.

And many other critical steps to improve our security: development of biometric identification technology for travelers; enhanced training of federal air marshals; substantial increases in the number of border patrol agents and immigration investigators; development of air defense systems; upgrades in air cargo screening; expansion of watch lists to passengers and crew of vessels docking in US ports and; a comprehensive plan for transportation security that anticipates the full range of possible attacks.

Many of the 9/11 families live in Massachusetts and traveled to Washington to lobby Congress and hold vigils. Because of their dedication, America will be more alert and better prepared to prevent future tragedies.

Today, Congress should also credit the 9/11 Commissioners, whose thoroughness, independence, and candor forced our nation to confront glaring weaknesses in our defenses.

We live in a time when partisan politics degrades nearly every important issue. It's remarkable that the 9/11 Commissioners were able to check their politics at the door, and unanimously agree on 41 concrete recommendations to present to Congress.

The Commission's work is a landmark achievement. It's a model for bipartisan cooperation that Congress must continue to follow.

Congress has taken the first steps toward making America smarter and more alert. But intelligence reform cannot be the end of our government's response to September 11. We have only begun to meet the challenge of securing the American homeland against all enemies.

With the same urgency and unity, we must move forward to secure the world's nuclear materials. Today's legislation takes the first steps toward creating a national director of nonproliferation efforts. We cannot rest until the world's most dangerous materials are permanently secured.

We must move forward to secure our cities, ports, airports, roads, bridges, and rail lines. Today's legislation directs government agencies and the private sector to develop comprehensive plans to anticipate and respond to attacks. We must ensure that local officials, first responders, and hospitals have the resources they need to execute on those plans.

And finally, we must continue moving forward in hunting down and destroying the terrorists who attacked America three years ago. By improving our intelligence, with this legislation we are one step closer to bringing justice to those who murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens.

I urge my colleagues' support for this landmark legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen hero, LCpl Dimitrios Gavriel, of Haverhill, Massachusetts.

Lance Corporal Gavriel was killed in action during the conflict in Fallujah, Iraq, on November 19, 2004, only days after voluntarily returning to the battlefield from a shrapnel wound. ``Dimmy,'' as he was known to those close to him, is survived by his mother, Penelope; his father, Chris; and his sister, Christina.

Dimmy's family describes him as a deep thinker with big dreams. A quote from his diary says it all: ``I have heard that Great Men often kept journals--I'd like to be great.''

After losing two friends in the September 11th terrorist attacks, Dimmy knew he wanted to make a difference in the world by joining the Marine Corps. When the service turned him down because of lingering injuries from his days as a high school wrestling champion, he wrote a letter to his local recruiting office pleading for them to reconsider. He would go on to turn down a lucrative career on Wall Street for the chance to serve our country as a Marine.

Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps no better way to pay our respects to Dimmy Gavriel than to

insert a poem of his into the Congressional Record entitled ``The Leader,'' in which he explores the themes of leadership and greatness. May Congress forever remember the greatness of this young man through his words as well as his heroic actions.

The Leader

(By Dimmy Gavriel)

How will words of beauty

Sprout root on deafened ears?

When many choose to follow

And so few dare to lead

Forsaken dreams lie prisoners

In vapid minds left blank

Of countless, breathing numbers

Lined up along the track

And then there are the dreamers

Who see beyond the shroud

Distinct are they among us

They shuffle through the crowd

Hope lives among so few

Yet strong it is I know

For I am still a dreamer

Along the track I go

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to an outstanding citizen of Methuen, Massachusetts Kenneth Pollard. Kenneth passed away on Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at 82 years of age.

Kenneth is survived by his wife, Betty; daughters Sharon and Patricia; sons Michael and K. Jeffrey; sisters Claire and Jacqueline; granddaughters Catherine, Haley, and Morgan; and grandsons Christopher and Kenneth.

Kenneth lived a full life and touched the lives of countless individuals. He was an accomplished athlete in his youth and a dedicated Red Sox Fan. He joined the Army Air Corps during World War II and was a member of American Legion Post 122 of Methuen. Kenneth was a successful businessman, devoted family man, and community leader. Throughout his life he volunteered much of his time to community boards and committees, as well as serving as a Methuen city councilor.

Sharon M. Pollard, who is the Mayor of Methuen, Massachusetts, delivered a beautiful eulogy to her father, Kenneth, at Saint Monica's Church on Saturday, November 13, 2004. I ask for unanimous consent to submit to the Record Mayor Pollard's eulogy to her father:

My Mom, brothers, sister and aunts wish to thank you so

much for the support you have all given us in the last few

days, weeks and months. Our family sends you a collective

thank you.

Dad was born into a loving home with his parents,

grandparents, and great grandparents. His sisters

affectionately say that in this home he was known as ``my

son-my son''.

A product of Methuen's public schools, he excelled in

school as a student and an athlete. He received letters in

baseball, football and basketball. Although mostly English,

he liked to think of himself as Irish. He used to tell the

story of how his great uncle Tom who had been born in

Ireland, wanted him to go to Notre Dame, but he decided to

stay closer to home and attend Boston College. He loved

watching the Eagles and the Fighting Irish play football.

He loved his country and served as a sergeant in the Army/

Air Force in WWII. He served in various places, but it was at

his last stop, Sedalia, Missouri where he met Mom. In May,

they celebrated their 58th anniversary and they loved each

other very much.

Dad had four children and each one of them received a piece

of him. Michael, his profession, Patty, his passion for

baseball, Jeff, his name and athletic ability and me--well we

did politics together. We were kindred political souls. And

now you know what the conversation was at our dinner table.

He was blessed with five beautiful grandchildren:

Catherine, Haley, Morgan, Kenny and Christopher from whom he

received much love and pleasure. Dad was happiest when the

children were around, but as we grew older we realized that

it was the little ones that he really wanted to spend time

with. In the last 10 years, Sundays at the beach were the

best times--he knew that the children and grandchildren would

be coming for dinner.

Dad was a very unique person. He was highly motivated and

created a highly successful business from the ground up. He

treated people with respect and dignity and spoke kindly

about everyone. He was, I believe, the nicest man I ever met.

A great businessman, he was a gentle soul and so many people

loved him dearly.

Growing up we all had a great time. Mom was from Missouri

and when she went to visit her family every summer, we would

do special things, like heading to Claire and Jacquie's at

the beach. Dad's favorite escapade with us was to the

ballpark. We would head to Fenway Park and we always went

early so we could watch the players arrive and then watch

batting practice. The gentleman in the parking lot thought

Dad was a doctor, so we always got a great parking space to

allow for a quick escape. I wonder why he thought that! He

loved the Red Sox and as a result, the whole family loved the

Red Sox. Like all of us, he lived to see the Sox win a world

series. It was a happy interlude at a sad time in his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose increasing the debt limit without putting in place any plans or mechanisms to bring our budget into balance.

``Increasing the debt ceiling'' is a technical term for what Congress is actually doing today--we've spent another $800 billion we didn't have, and now we're forced to borrow that amount of money from our children. The national debt, already $7.4 trillion, will soon rise to more than $8.1 trillion because of the irresponsible borrowing and spending of the Republican Congress.

Today marks the third time in the last 3 years that the Republican Congress has been forced to raise the debt ceiling. It's the moral equivalent of applying for a credit card in your child's name, running it up all the way, raising the credit limit, charging more money on it, raising the limit again, charging even more money, and raising the limit one more time. Only Congress is doing it on a much larger scale.

It's a fact that the biggest cause of the red ink is tax cuts--tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the highest income brackets and failed to create jobs. The second biggest cause is the Republican Congress's addiction to unrestrained spending.

Ten years ago, the Republican Party took power in Congress promising to restore fiscal responsibility and balance the budget. I was proud to work with President Clinton and my Republican colleagues to achieve a historic balanced budget agreement in 1997.

In the 1990s, working under PAYGO budget constraints, we balanced the budget, lowered interest rates, grew the economy, and charted a course to a debt-free America. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that we'd be able to pay off the entire debt of the United States by 2011.

But over the last 4 years, Congress has veered onto a different course; $5.6 trillion in projected surpluses have turned into $5 trillion in projected deficits. The dream of a debt-free America has vanished--today, about 40 percent of our mounting debt is in foreign hands. That is the legacy of this Republican Congress--giveaways to special interests, tax cuts for the very wealthy, historic levels of borrowing, all leading to a diminished future for our children.

I urge my colleagues to support the Stenholm amendment to restore fiscal and moral responsibility to Congress and oppose another yet increase the debt limit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 854, congratulating the Boston Red Sox on winning the World Series.

The 2004 Boston Red Sox were no ordinary champion. I would urge my colleagues to remember the scene at Fenway Park as midnight neared on October 17, 2004.

The Sox had dropped the first three games of the American League Championship Series--a deficit that no team had ever surmounted. The night before, they were drubbed 19-8 before the hometown fans.

The Boston bats were silent. Their arms were spent. Their gloves were shaky. Their ace pitcher's foot was stapled to the rest of his leg.

Now trailing 4-3 in Game Four, they came to bat in the bottom of the ninth just three outs away from another close call, another heartbreak for another generation of Sox fans.

In the other dugout was a Yankees team that dashed our hopes last year and won 101 games this year--a team packed with talent and carrying a monster payroll of $184 million.

On the mound was Mariano Rivera, the best and most reliable closer in the history of the game.

Hovering over all of New England was the ghost of Babe Ruth.

Only a ``band of idiots'' could have believed that they could come back. And only the 2004 Boston Red Sox could have actually pulled it off.

But the slugger Kevin Millar patiently worked out a walk. The speedy pinch-runner Dave Roberts stole second, leaving third baseman Bill Mueller with the chance to tie it. He promptly did, smacking a single through Rivera's legs, and he--and all of the Red Sox Nation--watched Roberts speed home.

The game was tied. The Sox were alive. The Bambino rolled over in his grave. The Yankees' historic choke had begun.

David Ortiz ended the game with a twelfth-inning homer, and less than 24 hours later, the heroic ``Big Papi'' won Game Five with a fourteenth-inning single.

Game Six was won by the clutch Mark Bellhorn, the mythical Curt Schilling and the medical miracle workers who put his ankle back together.

In Game Seven, the Yankees succumbed to the biblical slugging of Johnny Damon and the untouchable sinkerballs of Derek Lowe.

The Series wasn't even close. The Cardinals had a great season, but they picked the wrong year to win the National League. 2004 belonged to Red Sox Nation. After the bitter endings of 1948, 1978, 1986 and 2003, we deserved it.

All of New England breathed a collective sigh of relief as the always dependable closer Keith Foulke grabbed the final ground ball of Game Four and tossed it to Gold Glove first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz for the final out.

For the first time in 86 years, the Red Sox are the World Champions of baseball--truly World champions, with a roster assembled from the Dominican Republic, South Korea, Colombia, Red-State and Blue-State America. Congratulations to the brilliant general manager Theo Epstein.

Congratulations to our field general, Terry Francona, and his lieutenants on the coaching staff.

Congratulations to the top brass--John Henry, Tom Werner, and Larry Lucchino.

Congratulations to World Series MVP Manny Ramirez. Congratulations to the dean of the Red Sox, Tim Wakefield. Congratulations to the bullpen saviors Mike Timlin and Alan Embree. Congratulations to the steady veterans Jason Varitek, Trot Nixon, and Doug Mirabelli. Congratulations to recent arrivals Bronson Arroyo, Orlando Cabrera, Gabe Kapler, and Pokey Reese.

Congratulations to the unparalleled Pedro Martinez--Pedro, please don't go!

Congratulations to the entire Red Sox team, who will be remembered forever as the conquering heroes who Reversed the Curse and brought a baseball championship to New England for the first time since the Wilson Administration. (Woodrow Wilson, not Mookie.)

Congratulations also to all the great Red Sox players of the past, including Johnny Pesky, Dom Dimaggio, Carl Yastrzemski, Jim Rice, and Luis Tiant--this victory was as much for them as anyone., The same can be said of Ted Williams and all the other Sox greats who have passed on, but who no doubt watched from the heavens above, smiling.

And most importantly, congratulations to baseball's most loyal and passionate fans: Red Sox Nation.

Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 2005, the Red Sox will raise the 2004 World Championship banner at Fenway Park alongside its counterpart from 1918. In the visiting dugout, watching the Sox try on their rings, will be a team that has suffered without a championship since the year 2000--the New York Yankees.

Don't worry, Yankees fans, there's always next year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. As the Ranking Member of the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats Subcommittee, I believe that the product before us today is, on the whole, a solid bill.

The House Armed Services Committee pledged to make this year the ``Year of the Soldier.'' Our soldiers are performing heroically despite the worsening conditions in Iraq. This Administration failed to get them the equipment they needed, the international support to relieve the burden on them, and the clear plan to win the peace.

After a year in which our military has been strained and overstretched like never before, I'm pleased that this legislation takes important strides toward honoring our heroes and strengthening our forces.

I'm pleased that this legislation authorizes critical force protection resources, including an additional $572 million in funding for Up-Armored Humvees and $250 million for add-on armor kits. It also includes a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to cut through red tape and rapidly field in-demand equipment when our troops need it.

Additionally, I'm pleased that my colleagues recognized the need to address the gaping holes in oversight of civilian contractors. The prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were an ugly example of what can happen without proper oversight.

This conference report includes the Contractor Accountability Act, which I introduced in May to ensure that non-Defense Department contractors are covered by the Military Extraterritoral Jurisdiction Act.

Finally, the bill makes many important quality of life improvements for our troops and veterans.

It phases out the Survivor Benefit Penalty over a four-year period and includes a 3.5 percent across the board pay raise for military personnel.

It also authorizes a much-needed increase in active-duty endstrength of 30,000 soldiers and 9,000 Marines. This administration has over- stretched our military to the breaking point. We need to increase the size of our volunteer military.

With respect to the Terrorism Subcommittee's mark, several provisions in this portion of the bill deserve praise.

First, I'm pleased we included a number of recommendations to streamline and accelerate the development and acquisition of technologies to combat terrorism.

Additional resources are provided in a number of areas: including chemical and biological research and detection.

The conference report also includes a provision I offered with Mr. Turner of Texas to improve the manner in which we develop and acquire medical countermeasures against biological warfare agents.

I do not support every provision in the authorization bill.

I remain concerned about cuts to DARPA and several information technology programs.

I'm also very disappointed that the Hate Crimes Language was dropped. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious crimes. It is supported by more than 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations as well as many bipartisan members of this Congress.

The bill also is silent on providing TRICARE benefits to non-active duty Reservists. I strongly supported the Senate provision that would have ensured that all Reserve Component members receive access to health care: Unfortunately, this language was also dropped.

We will be back fighting for these priorities. But for now, I urge my colleagues to join in me passing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the substitute amendment to bring the House bill in line with the bipartisan recommendations of the September 11th Commission.

All Members of Congress should reflect on the events that have brought us here. We lost over 3,000 Americans on 9/11. 30 families from my district lost loved ones on that day.

Our government failed us on 9/11. It failed John Ogonowski, the Captain of American Airlines Flight 11, a constituent of mine who lived in Dracut, Massachusetts. Captain Ogonowski was an Air Force pilot and a Vietnam Veteran. But because of the massive failure of intelligence, and our failure to stop the terrorists and secure the cockpit door, Captain Ogonowski became a ``sitting duck'' in the words of his wife Peg.

There are thousands of families we failed on 9/11. And many of them have turned their grief into resolve--they are demanding action so that no family suffers a similar tragedy because the failures of this government.

Some of those families are here in Washington today. On 9/11, Sally and Don Goodrich lost their son Peter, who lived with his wife Rachel in Sudbury, MA. Both Sally and Don are in Washington today urging that Congress move forward on the Commission's recommendations on a bipartisan basis as soon as possible.

Last week I met with Carrie Lemack of Framingham, MA, who along with Don Goodrich helped to found ``Families of September 11.'' Carrie and her sister, Danielle, lost their mom, Judy. Carrie came to Washington to attend the committee markups. She is urging Congress to put aside partisanship for once and do what we have to do to make America safer.

Loretta Filipov of Concord, MA, lost her husband Al on 9/11. Three years later, she believes the world is no safer. But as she says, ``I refuse to live in fear.'' She's been writing and calling members of Congress urging us to work together to make the belated changes that will make us safer.

After 9/11, all of us recognized the need to improve our intelligence--but it was the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 who demanded action. The 9/11 families are the reason we had a bipartisan 9/11 Commission in the first place.

In July, the September 1th Commission gave Congress a blueprint for action. Its report included 43 very specific recommendations to fix the problems in our intelligence community and improve our homeland defense. All of the recommendations were bipartisan and unanimous.

The Senate is working on a bipartisan basis to follow the recommendations. Unfortunately, the House is taking a different approach. The Republican leadership in the House has decided to play politics with our homeland security. H.R. 10 was introduced without consulting the minority and rushed through committees days later, giving members little opportunity to look over the bill. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met in an emergency session to hear testimony on amendments without informing the rest of us.

But even more important than the process is what's in the bill, and what's not in the bill. Simply stated, H.R. 10 fails to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It ignores many of the important things we need to

do to keep our homeland safe. And at the same time, this partisan Republican bill also goes far beyond what the Commissioners recommended in curbing the civil liberties of American citizens in ways that won't make us any safer.

For example, one of the central recommendations of the 9/11 Commissioners was to establish a National Intelligence Director with full budgetary authority over our national intelligence agencies. The Senate bill upholds this recommendation. The House bill fails to give the NID the authority to establish national priorities and force bureaucracies to work together.

The September 11th Commissioners also recommended that we establish a Cabinet-level National Counterterrorism Center. The Senate bill does that. But again, the House bill doesn't give the new Center the authority to coordinate the war on terror.

The September 11th Commission recommend strengthening the programs that help us secure loose nuclear materials in Russia and around the world. The Senate bill does this--the House bill just calls for a study of the issue. Last week, I joined with Congresswoman Tauscher and Congressman Spratt in introducing a bill that would meet the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for developing a long-term nonproliferation strategy. Unfortunately, when the legislation was offered as an amendment in the Armed Services Committee last week, we were told that it wasn't germane.

The September 11th Commission called for doing more to exchange information on terrorists with trusted allies. The House bill is silent on this matter.

The September 11th Commission also urged Congress to improve aviation security--specifically, that we screen people for explosives and also put cargo in hardened containers. Again, the Senate accomplishes this while the House fails.

Finally, the September 11th Commission calls for a Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This provision is in the Senate bill but not the House bill. In fact, the House bill goes overboard in undermining civil liberties. Instead of reexamining the Patriot Act to see what is working and what goes too far, the Republican leadership has included new powers for law enforcement without even holding a hearing on them.

The Republicans knew that these provisions would prevent Congress from finding consensus, moving forward, and passing a bill before the elections. I would have hoped that, for once, the Republican leadership wouldn't have let politics get in the way of needed steps to improve our national security. Regrettably, it has. But the 9/11 families have waited three years for action, and it's not too late to follow the example and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and move forward in a bipartisan way.

This Congress created the September 11th Commission for a reason--to conduct an independent investigation into the terrorist attacks and recommend policy changes to ensure that they never occur again. The Senate bill takes these recommendations seriously. The House bill does not. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Menendez substitute amendment and adopt the language in the Senate version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a fallen hero, Army Staff Sergeant (SSG) Darren J. Cunningham of Groton, Massachusetts. SSG Cunningham was deployed as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and died tragically on September 30th when his unit came under mortar attack in Baghdad. He gave his life in service to our country, and we will forever be grateful.

Ever since he was a young boy, SSG Cunningham knew he wanted to pursue a career in the military. His eighth grade teacher recalls Darren talking about wanting to join the armed forces so that he could serve our country with pride. For Darren, the military stood for more than a respectable job: it offered education, discipline, and a chance to travel. The quote on high school yearbook page said it all: ``My ambition is to enjoy life to the fullest, see the world.''

At the age of eighteen, Darren graduated from high school and immediately enlisted in the Army. He moved up through the ranks of the 545th Military Police Company of the Army's First Cavalry, stationed at Fort Hood in Texas. He served nobly during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and returned to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom to train Iraqi police and help rebuild local infrastructure. He planned to retire next year.

SSG Cunningham leaves behind a wife and two children who adored him. His friends and family remember him as spirited, outgoing, fun, and a jokester. A great athlete, one of his proudest moments was being chosen as co-captain of the high school varsity basketball team. Today, SSG Cunningham's relatives, friends, community, and Nation mourn his loss.

SSG Cunningham died fighting for the country he loved, alongside his comrades-in-arms. Our Nation is humbled and grateful for his sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a father, husband and hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor.

I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 774, to pay tribute to the people and Government of Greece for hosting an unforgettable 2004 Summer Olympic Games.

This summer, the Olympic Games returned to their ancient birthplace. The people of Greece proudly displayed the ideals of the Olympic movement, promoting mutual understanding, friendship, and peace among nations through noble athletic competition.

Greece overcame daunting security challenges and safely accommodated more than 10,000 athletes from 202 countries, along with hundreds of thousands of spectators, foreign dignitaries, and journalists.

These visitors and the Olympics' television viewers worldwide experienced the games much as they must have been played originally, framed by ancient wonders such as the Parthenon on the Acropolis and the stadium in Olympia.

Greece also displayed its modern achievements such as extraordinary Olympic venues and breathtakingly high-tech opening and closing ceremonies.

In the words of United States Olympic Committee Chairman Peter Ueberroth, ``history will record these Games as among the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time.''

The United States and Greece have long enjoyed a deep friendship that grew from a shared commitment to freedom and democracy more than 100 years ago.

We were proud to work in close cooperation with Greece this year to ensure the safety and success of this summer's games.

I therefore join in commending the people of Greece for hosting an extraordinary 2004 Summer Olympic Games, and urge the House to pass this resolution. Zeto Ellas!

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Today in America: 8 million people are out of work--2.7 million have exhausted their unemployment benefits; 45 million people don't have access to health care; our classrooms

are underfunded by $25 billion; gasoline prices have reached $50 per barrel one-third of the intercepts from al Qaeda have not been translated into English; and, more than 1,000 Americans have been killed in a foreign quagmire with no end in sight.

It's time for bold and honest leadership, and for all Americans to unite in confronting these urgent challenges. Yet with precious few days left in the legislative session, the leadership in Congress has decided that our time is best spent trying to divide Americans for political reasons. And the device they are using to divide us is the most sacred document of all--the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution has always united Americans behind a shared set of ideals. In our history, the Constitution has been amended only to protect and expand our rights. Since the Bill of Rights, our Nation has passed constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, to give all Americans equal protection under the laws, and to extend the right to vote to former slaves, women, and young Americans.

Never in our history has a constitutional amendment been used to take rights away. The Federal Marriage Amendment destroys that tradition simply to pander to the political base of the Republican Party 5 weeks before an election. This amendment has little to do with defending the institution of marriage.

With the strains on today's families and the incidence of divorce and broken homes, I fail to see how we strengthen the institution of marriage by forever excluding couples willing to enter into a lifelong commitment.

Our society encourages and values a commitment to long-term monogamous relationships--and we honor that commitment through the legal institution of marriage.

Same-sex couples are not asking for special rights or special favors. They are asking for the opportunity to make a commitment to one another--to share in a conservative institution and the rights and responsibilities it entails.

I understand that this is an issue where good people may disagree, and where many diverse faith traditions are brought to bear. But let's be clear--if we leave the Constitution intact, every church, every community, and every State will still be free to define marriage as they choose.

There is simply no Federal issue here and no need for a Federal solution. The Supreme Judicial Court of my State of Massachusetts has found that our State law violates our State constitution. It's a State matter, and we are handling it in Massachusetts.

I have confidence in the people of Massachusetts that we will arrive at a solution based on our laws and our values. The outcome will have no effect on the laws of other States.

My Republican colleagues have decried heavy-handed solutions from Washington and defended States' rights. Vice President Cheney has asserted that this is an issue for the States to decide. So did Texas Governor George Bush before he came to Washington and flip-flopped.

I would plead with my colleagues who pride themselves as ardent defenders of States' rights and local control--we don't need Federal interference in Massachusetts.

We should be honest with our constituents that the Federal Marriage Amendment on the House floor today has no chance of passage. It has already been rejected by the Senate.

Today's vote is nothing more than a transparent political gimmick. It's a shameful assault on millions of hard-working, law-abiding Americans.

And it's a shameless attempt to divide all Americans at a time when unity is needed like never before.

I urge my colleagues to protect the Constitution, not degrade it for political reasons. Vote ``no'' on the Federal Marriage Amendment.