Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and thank the gentleman (Mr. Knollenberg) for introducing it. No matter what one's views are on the Iraq war, or war in general, our men and women in uniform sacrifice a great deal so that we may live freely.

It is a fact of life that in every war anyone who serves in war runs the very real risk of losing their lives. This is a tremendous burden that few of us can ever imagine. However, from the moment they rise in the morning, every U.S. soldier knows that they could fall in the line of duty that day.

Unfortunately, 2,309 U.S. soldiers have paid the ultimate price in Iraq and 278 have died in Afghanistan. Thousands have died in the wars that the U.S. has fought--Vietnam, World War I and World War II, Korea, Desert Storm and others. All of these soldiers, regardless of when they served, deserve our thanks, our prayers, and our respect.

This burden is shared by not only every man and woman that puts on the uniform, but each of their families, too. In order to adequately honor those that have fallen, we must continue our responsibility to those that they have left behind.

Mr. Speaker, we must show our support for these fallen heroes and their families. This resolution is a small way of showing our gratitude.

I strongly support this resolution and thank our soldiers for their service. My prayers are with those who have lost their lives and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from Texas that calls for the sunset of this legislation in 5 years, if enacted.

You know, I have heard a lot from the other side of the aisle about poverty programs that did not work, and I saw a lot of work to get rid of those programs.

This is a program that does not work. We need to get rid of it, and we need to get serious about doing something about drugs in America. We are sitting here talking about these HIDTAs. We are talking about advertisements while we have an unprotected border with the drug lords shooting it out with our sheriffs down in Texas and other places, bringing drugs into our country.

HIDTA does nothing to stop that. We have the deaths from overdoses from methamphetamines, crack cocaine, cocaine, pills, Ecstasy, heroin, marijuana, you name it. And we are doing nothing. America can do better than this.

Why should we keep a program without reviewing it, just put it into law forever? This is what you are trying to do. We need to sunset it. Period. As a matter of fact, I would get rid of it; it would not even be authorized. But if you insist, at least review it. Why do you want to put it in law forever without the kind of reviews that are necessary to determine its effectiveness?

This does not work. It is costing the American taxpayers $870 million to run this ineffective program. I think we should get rid of it, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor today to speak on behalf of people of the gulf region of New Orleans, of Mississippi, of Alabama who have in many ways been dismissed, marginalized, even violated. I rise in strong support of the passage of S. 1777.

Six months after Hurricane Katrina, life for Louisiana and Mississippi residents remains an uphill battle. Houses have not been rebuilt. Many are still without gas, electricity, and other needed utility service; and those who once resided in the New Orleans ninth ward are still unable to return home, and other areas also. Yes, some help has been given; however, much more needs to be done.

There has been a lot of talk in the news about how America is not a country that will cut and run. Yet that is what we are doing to Hurricane Katrina survivors if we do not extend the services they so desperately need. If passed, S. 1777 will extend the much-needed unemployment assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The unemployment rate of the hurricane survivors has reached epidemic proportions. This effect is compounded by the fact that the affected areas had some of the country's highest unemployment rates prior to the storm. Six months have already passed, although it seems the desperate images of survivors was just yesterday. As a result, providing unemployment assistance for survivors for up to 39 weeks is not only desperately needed but it is the right thing to do.

S. 1777 will waive the $25,000.00 limitation faced by individuals and household under existing law. As we have seen many individuals and families have to rebuild their entire lives from nothing. A recent media report chronicled the life of one woman whose sole possession after Hurricane Katrina was one dining room chair. The amount of funds these individuals receive needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill introduced by the gentlelady from Florida. As a member of the Congressional Women's Caucus, I applaud Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for her leadership as the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appointment of Justice O'Connor added life to the women's movement, and when Justice Ginsburg was appointed, we had 2 very strong allies when these matters came before the high court. Her judicious leadership stood out when she joined Justices Souter and Kennedy in crafting a compromise to uphold Roe v. Wade in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision--that included the standard of limiting state regulation of abortions to the threshold of causing an ``undue burden'' on a woman's right to choose.

Justice O'Connor helped to protect affirmative action by making the swing vote in the 5-to-4 decision of Grutter v. Bollinger. This decision was a landmark that still has precedential value in terms of preserving the notion that there is not only the right to due process in the law at stake but the value of racial diversity in education.

Most recently, though, many of us on both sides of the aisle commend Justice O'Connor for her dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. City of New London et. al (No. 04-108. Argued February 22, 2005--Decided June 23, 2005), in which she stated that

[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another

private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be

random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens

with disproportionate influence and power in the political

process, including large corporations and development firms .

. . [t]he Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

`[T]hat alone is a just government,' wrote James Madison,

`which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his

own.'

I hope that the Court will continue this kind of sound judgment and leadership on matters of such great significance to our disadvantaged communities.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I thank Justice O'Connor for her service to our Highest Court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 335 which honors the NAACP on its 97th anniversary.

I rise because of the sacrifice of Goodman, Cheney and Schwerner, Thurgood Marshall and Rosa Parks. I rise and stand on the shoulders of Daisy Bates, Emmett Till and the great Medgar Evans. I rise because the NAACP is the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the United States and has been a force to be reckoned with in every stage of this country's battle for racial equality.

They were there when four little girls died when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed in Montgomery, AL. They were there with the Little Rock Nine when they entered the doors of Central High in Little Rock, AR. They were there fighting for equal educational opportunities in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education.

And more recently, they were present during the battle to end apartheid in South Africa and they continue to fight for increased voter participation and human equality not only in this Nation, but across the world.

These battles have been waged in the face of intense adversity and widespread resistance, yet the NAACP has endured for 97 years. Throughout the civil rights movement, freedom fighters proclaimed with pride that they were ``card carrying members of the NAACP.'' They knew then, as we know now, that the NAACP not only stands for equality, it stands for justice, fairness and a better way of life.

We must not forget that the NAACP is the name but the organization is comprised of people. Everyday people that have dedicated their lives to making this world a better place.

So, in honoring the NAACP today, I also honor the people, of all races, that have united as advocates for civil rights and human equality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to address the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Over the past 10 days, we have seen a country on the brink of civil war slide into civil war.

On February 22, a bomb exploded at the Golden Mosque causing significant damage to one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines and setting off the latest and most violent sectarian violence since the war began in 2003.

Since the war began, we have witnessed almost daily bombings in Iraq. Thousands of IEDs have been exploded. Hundreds of suicide bombings have been staged. Tragically, the number of such attacks has grown each year, a stark contrast to the Vice President's prewar assessment that we would be greeted as liberators.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the number of insurgent attacks on our soldiers, Iraqi security forces, and civilians increased 29 percent in 2005 when compared to 2004. Specifically, the number of car bombs increased to 873 in 2005, more than twice of the number of car bombs in 2004, and the number of suicide car bombs went to 411 from 133.

Conservative estimates suggest that more than 30,000 Iraqi men, women and children have been killed since the war began. Unfortunately, Iraqis are not the only ones caught up in these attacks. More than 2,296 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq and more than 16,825 have been injured. And I am sorry, I do not have the number of amputees or suicides tonight. But they are serious.

Our very presence in Iraq fuels the death, destruction and has helped create the civil war which now endangers millions of lives. These are not just my words. The same thoughts and sentiments are being echoed throughout conservative America.

It was said here earlier tonight, William F. Buckley, Jr., the founder of ``The National Review'' recently wrote, ``One cannot doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.''

Bill Kristol, one of the war's staunchest defenders recently said, ``We have not had a serious 3-year effort to fight a war in Iraq.''

Even columnist George Will recently described Iraq in this manner. ``This is a civil war,'' he said.

The bombing of the Golden Mosque pushed Iraq over the edge. Thousands of Iraqis are in the streets protesting and others are attacking their historical enemies in retaliation to the bombing of the Golden Mosque.

According to today's Washington Post, more than 1,300 individuals have been killed, and more than 1,000 Sunni mosques have been attacked since last week's bombing of the Golden Mosque. Instead of putting a stop to the violence, Iraq's security forces are contributing to the murders. It is clear that some Iraqis have joined the Iraq Army to continue family or tribal feuds under the protection of the Iraqi military uniform and that many Iraqis do not trust the military because of ethnic divisions.

This is a stark difference from the President's words that the Iraqis are successfully assuming the role of protecting their fellow countrymen. It is very interesting to note that the very week that Iraq has seen the most violent sectarian violence in years, the Defense Department announced that the number of Iraqi Army battalions capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. help had fallen from one to none since September 2005.

Last summer, a defense official claimed that there were three battalions ready to take on the insurgency. However, in September 2005, General George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting independently of U.S. troops had dropped from three to one. Therefore, despite 3 years and more than $260 billion, we find that the number continues to decrease.

Now, the President is asking Congress to pass a supplemental appropriations request of $75 billion for the Iraq war, the war on terrorism, and the gulf coast recovery efforts. The lion's share of this money, about $63 billion, is for the Iraq war. If this bill passes, the total amount we will have spent on the war will be over $350 billion.

The President is asking us to spend $350 billion a war that his Administration claimed would be of minimal cost to American taxpayers.

Perhaps worse, the President wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this war at a time when the Congress is pushing through tens of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare, education, Community Development Block Grants and other important programs.

Mr. Speaker, the Administration has failed. It is long past time for our troops to come home. Civil war has broken out--we can not expect our soldiers to try to sort out which side is which in this civil war and we should not take sides. I urge the President to conclude this war and bring our troops home.

I thank you very much. Congresswoman, I am very pleased that you have taken time to come to this floor to talk about what has just happened in Haiti.

As you know, Haiti for too long has been dropped off of the corporate media's agenda. And whenever they have written stories, for the most part it has been distorted information which helped to lead to the unrest and the destabilization of Haiti. But you are absolutely correct. There was a coup d'etat that removed President Aristide from office. They did drop him off in the Central Republic of Africa.

I got together with Randal Robinson and a few other people, and we chartered a plane, and we traveled to the Central Republic of Africa, and we negotiated with President Bokassa I think it is, who was holding him there and was afraid to release him because they had some kind of agreement with the French and also because the United States had brought him there. But we were able to convince them after many hours up in that country that they should let him go.

As a matter of fact, they did not want us to leave. They had said we could not leave the night we came in. We basically said to them we had to leave and we had to leave with him and that if I was not back in Washington by the next day or so, then they would consider that he had kidnapped me also and that he was holding Aristide prisoner. And they did not want that reputation. They were negotiating at the World Bank at the time, and they did not know what it all meant, but we finally got him out of there.

We took him to Jamaica where they kept him for 6 weeks. P.J. Patterson, the president there, gave him refuge until President Mbeki could be reelected in South Africa. After his reelection, he gave him asylum in South Africa, and that is where he is now, and now he is working with the university. But the fact of the matter is he is alive and he is well.

I hope that he gets some joy in understanding that the Lavalas Party did win, even though there was an attempt maybe to deny them the win. The people rose up. The people went into Port-au-Prince, and the people went to the Montana Hotel, and they were basically nonviolent, but they went in numbers. And they had no choice but to work something out.

I think Congresswoman McKinney is telling you about the ballots and we will be talking about that a little more. I yield back and thank you very much, Congresswoman.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I appreciate your generosity.

Mr. Speaker, I really came to the floor today to congratulate Rene Preval, the President-elect of Haiti. Rene Preval was just declared the winner in Haiti's presidential elections this morning with 51.15 percent of the vote. President-elect Preval has said that his first priority as president will be to provide relief to the two-thirds of Haiti's population that is living in extreme poverty. His plans include universal public school education and at least a free meal a day for all of the poor children.

A little bit about him. He was first elected President of Haiti in 1995 as a member of the Lavalas Party, the party that represented the poor majority. He succeeded President Aristide and served until President Aristide's reelection in 2000. President Aristide, of course, as we have just talked about, was forced to leave Haiti 2 years ago in a coup d'etat that was planned and implemented and orchestrated by the United States, France and Canada.

This election that took place on Tuesday, February 7 was very interesting. At first, the early results showed an overwhelming victory for Rene Preval. Many polling stations posted their results the day after the election, and Preval won between 60 and 90 percent of the vote in all of these polling places. But then something happened. By Thursday, the election officials, the one heading the CEP, reported that, well, no, at that time by Thursday they reported that he had 61.5 percent of the votes counted thus far.

Then Haiti's anti-Aristide elites who opposed him, Rene Preval, they were opposing him because they believed

that he was influenced by President Aristide and he would carry out President Aristide's policies, policies that benefit Haiti's poor. These elites, of course, are the same people who helped to organize the coup d'etat in 2004 and the same people who have been responsible for oppressing the people of Haiti for decades in order to continue to operate the sweatshops and to profit from cheap labor and keeping the living standards low.

Well, the elites reacted to the news of Preval's decisive victory and we believe that there really was something in play, an attempt to steal the election. And there was evidence of election fraud. It was abundant. Just yesterday hundreds and possibly thousands of burned ballots marked for Preval were found in a garbage dump.

The counting rules used by Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council seemed to be rules that were designed to deny Preval a victory. About 125,000 ballots, or 7.5 percent of the votes cast, were declared invalid because of alleged irregularities. And another 4 percent of the votes were allegedly blank, but nevertheless they included them in the vote count, thereby pushing Preval's percentage below 50 percent.

When they announced that he was allotted 47 percent, I mean, not only did I, I simply could not believe my ears, the people of Haiti, the Lavalas Party, people normally referred to as shemeres, they said, oh, no. Not only do we want our President. These are people who were denied polling places in Cite Soleil and Bellair and other poor places.

I am told that they were given assurances that there would be an election and there would be polling places in all of the provinces and that the rumors that we were hearing about the CEP not having the polling places in Cite Soleil and Bellair would not happen. So when they said it I was suspicious, and I thought that perhaps she was saying that to try to appease them at the time.

But we know that the Secretary of State has not paid any attention to Haiti. This is not on her radar, and I did not expect that there would be any follow-through to ensure that the people would have access to the ballot.

As a matter of fact, they did have the polling places. But people got up in the wee hours of the morning, and they walked for hours, and they stood in line and they demanded that the polling place be open. When they got there, the polling places were supposed to be open. They were not. They demanded they open them. They stayed in line, and they voted in record numbers. They voted in record numbers. And that is why, when the announcement came that somehow his majority had fell below 50 percent, we were all upset, and I fired off a press release that was not too nice at all.

The Haitian people have suffered tremendously for decades. Haiti has been ruled by brutal dictators such as Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier. They really were doing the bidding of the elites there. They kept their feet on the necks of the people so that the elites could profit from the cheap labor and from slave labor. These dictators controlled a brutal army that protected the interests of the wealthy elite and foreign visitors while oppressing poor people.

Haitians worked in sweatshops for foreign investors, receiving just pennies a day. Those who protested the exploitation and demanded better living conditions were arrested or killed by the army. The U.S. Government trained the army and supported the elite. After all of this suffering it would have been outrageous for the U.S. government to allow of the anti-Aristide elites to deny the Haitian people who have withstood so much pain, poverty and disenfranchisement and who persevered on election day, walked for miles, and waited for hours, the right to be governed by the president of their choice.

Well, the people have spoken, and I think it is clear, and this interim government that was put in, Mr. Latour from Boca Raton and the others, they should pack up their bags and go home. They should get out of the way and allow this new President to do everything in his power to really exercise democracy in Haiti. They stole it and they took it from President Aristide.

He was a priest who came from Cite Soleil, who was of the liberation theology, who preached for the least of these and who fought for the poor and fought for them, became a voice for them, speaking to them in Creole, in ways that had never been done before because the elite spoke in French to keep the poor people from even knowing what they were talking about. They never had a responsive government. Now they have got to give Preval a chance.

My message today is, Mr. Andy Apid of the Group of 184 that helped to implement the coup d'etat, Mr. Apid, get out of the way of Mr. Preval and allow him to preside.

To the Group of 184, to the elites who have profited so mightily on the backs of these poor people, they have to get out of the way.

To Mr. Wolfowitz over at the World Bank, you need to meet with Mr. Preval right away.

The International Monetary Fund, the funding agencies, USAID, let us get the resources in there to put in a water system so that people can have clean water. Let us support a health care system. Let us deal with the poor. Let us make sure that they have an opportunity to live and to grow and to have a decent quality of life.

I am optimistic.

And for all of those who have denied the people the right to just have a decent quality of life, I am not personally, and I think you, Congresswoman, we are going to say, okay, let bygones be bygones. If you do not try to oust this president, if you do not try to kill him, if you do not try to jail him, we are willing to work with you. We are willing to work in every way that we can to involve our country and our government in a way that it should have been involved before, for the people, on behalf of our neighbors in this very poor country.

So my message today to all of those who have undermined Haiti for so long, who have profited on the backs of the people for so long, give Haiti a chance, give this President a chance. We look forward to working with everybody, but we are certainly going to work with Mr. Preval. We are going to be there with him. We are going to back him up. We are going to stand with him. Now is an opportunity for a new day in Haiti.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you so much, Congresswoman, for sharing this moment with me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to the lack of opportunity that a five-week sunset will provide but to the underlying legislation that it extends, the USA PATRIOT Act passed during the 107th Congress, Public Law 107-56. Similarly, I felt that the prior- enacted five-week extension, Public Law 109-160, that expires this Friday, February 3, 2006, was inadequate. For the sake of the American people and pursuant to the words of the President of the United States just last night in his State of the Union Address, I hope that the draconian provisions that were contained in the House-passed measure have been removed or drastically improved. Alas, even the process of negotiating the betterment of this very important legislation was kept a secret until brought to the Floor.

I voted in favor of a motion to recommit this Conference Report with instructions, which would have replaced the text of the conference report with the text of the original bill passed by the Senate. The original Senate bill included many more civil liberties protections than does this conference report. That Senate measure would have included a process of judicial review for recipients of a National Security Letter as well as a standard requiring the Government to show a connection to a suspected terrorist or organization when requesting business or library records. The sunsets to the Conference Report that we consider today still require the Government to demonstrate ``relevance'' in an investigation.

The underlying conference report seeks to make 14 of 16 controversial PATRIOT Act provisions permanent. In making these provisions permanent, Congress will relinquish its responsibility to review their use, granting more permanent power to the executive branch. Congressional oversight has been maintained only through the two provisions scheduled to sunset in 4 years, as well as through the inclusion of a ``lone wolf'' provision, also scheduled to sunset in 4 years. Congress has a responsibility to check the power of the executive branch, not cede that authority, potentially threatening the civil liberties of our citizens. The underlying conference report unfortunately still fails to safeguard individual privacy rights, and allows the Government, with little burden of proof, to scrutinize nearly every aspect of a person's life.

The President stated in his ``State of the Union'' address last night that ``Our country must . . . remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home.'' However, in doing so, we cannot allow terrorism to erode our national security or our civil liberties.

I would like to address the following words stated by the President, again in his address:

. . . based on authority given to me by the Constitution

and by statute--I have authorized a terrorist surveillance

program to aggressively pursue the international

communications of suspected al-Qaida operatives and

affiliates to and from America. Previous presidents have used

the same constitutional authority. I have--and Federal courts

have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate Members

of Congress have been kept informed. This terrorist

surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It

remains essential to the security of America.

I authored a letter to the President that is currently being circulated and has already been signed by 50 of my colleagues that categorically negates these assertions based on well-settled caselaw, Federal statutes that remain in the books, and the words of the U.S. Constitution.

At no point during the floor debate of the Authorization to Use Military Force, AUMF, Resolution was there any discussion that the authorization to use military force would extend to the use of warrantless searches and vest the President with the broad authority to intercept telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens on American soil without first obtaining a warrant. To the contrary, it was stated during the debate that the authorization ``provides no new or additional grants of power to the President.'' (see Congressional Record dated Sept. 14, 2001, page H5677)

It is our duty to uphold the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, preserve the system of checks and balances between branches of our Government, and to protect the rights of the American people to the greatest extent possible. We must remain committed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks and to exercise our legislative responsibility to support any lawful means of preventing any future terrorist activity. However, it is our duty to clarify the mischaracterization of our actions. Congress simply did not intend for the AUMF to be used as justification for programs such as the one currently in use by the NSA.

I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing the underlying conference report for H.R. 3199.

Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite detention of immigrants and noncitizens who are not terrorists. (Carlina Tapia Ruano, Statement for Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act before the House Committee on the Judiciary, June 10, 2005.)

Among these troubling provisions are those that:

Authorize the Attorney General, AG, to arrest and detain noncitizens based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In order to grant

someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation.) When relief from deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions.

Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within seven days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove otherwise.

Make material support for groups that have not been officially designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions on material support should be limited to those organizations that have officially been designated terrorist organizations.

Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely on speech protected by the First Amendment. The laws punish those who ``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech that incites violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States' efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.

Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their beliefs or associations.

While every step must be taken to protect the American public from further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections that make American democracy so unique.

While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider the following:

Its been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism.

It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge.

Its been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim Scholar to teach at Notre Dame University.

Its been used to unconstitutionally coerce an Internet Service Provider to divulge information about email activity and Web surfing on its system, and then to gag that Provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public.

Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times its been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader information on more than 200 occasions since September 11.

Its been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting Internet Web site links to objectionable materials, even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's Web site.

Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of power by the Administration. Since September 11, our Government has detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and targeted tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate Muslim and Arab Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our own county--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism conviction.

Mr. Speaker, the sunset proposed in the bill before us is insufficient to allow adequate consideration by the House; therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank John Conyers for organizing our ability to be on the floor today to remember the life and times of Dr. Coretta Scott King.

Let me just say that Coretta Scott King was a friend of mine. We have worked on so many projects together. We have been in countless meetings together. And not only did I know her well; I held her in high esteem, the greatest respect for a woman of dignity, a woman who conducted herself in such a respectful fashion, a woman who was well disciplined, and a woman who suffered a lot. A woman who suffered during the years that she was raising her small children, having to literally put up with the threats and the intimidation. A woman who took care of the children, raised them in her husband's absence because Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was out fighting for civil rights. He was out putting himself on the line so that this country could be a better place for us all. So Coretta Scott King had to be mother and father, and she did a wonderful job of it. She raised her children, and they are wonderful children.

Yolanda King is a wonderful woman who lives in Los Angeles who is an actress and who has devoted her time to putting on plays that will help further the cause of civil rights, equality, and justice. Martin Luther King III was an elected official and headed SCLC, did a fine job of it; and I traveled to Georgia to give him support at some of the dark hours of the organization. And, of course, there is Dexter, a fine young man who has a responsibility for making big decisions as it relates to the King Center and all of the intellectual property that is associated with it. And even when it is very difficult, they are going to get through whatever they need to get through in order to make sure that Dr. Martin Luther King is remembered in the way that he should be remembered.

Then, of course, there is a young daughter, Bernice, who decided that she wanted to walk in her father's footsteps as a minister. I have seen her on many occasions, not only at the White House, but in churches all over America, a young woman who is a fine minister and preacher and a teacher. So

Coretta Scott King and Dr. Martin Luther King did a fabulous job, and Coretta Scott King instilled in her children the values that will hold them in good stead.

Let me just close by saying I was pleased to be an honoree at the Dr. Martin Luther King Center just a few years ago when I was invited by the family to come and to remember Dr. Martin Luther King at the King Day events that are held in Atlanta, and I am very appreciative of that, because I had an opportunity to spend some time with Coretta Scott King in a way that I had not been able to do before.

I can recall that we ended up in a little diner, at Pascal's, the favorite soul food restaurant in Atlanta, where we had an opportunity to talk about a lot of things, and we revisited the time that Buthelezi came to Atlanta. I was so opposed to him coming, and Coretta tried to talk sense into me and said, ``Well, we all support Nelson Mandela and we all know that Buthelezi is a person that was opposed to the work of Mandela, but we must be bigger than Buthelezi, we must be bigger than that, and we must understand that we must try to use an opportunity to influence him.''

She was that kind of person. She would think through very carefully her response and her responses to information that was out about whatever work she was doing, and she always responded in such a fashion that not only caused people to respect her, but it also showed the patience that she had, the ability to take people with all their faults and still not be bitter.

So the world is going to miss her. John Conyers is absolutely correct; she put her work into making sure that Martin Luther King memorials were organized and committees were organized all over this country, all over this world, and that they literally celebrated his birth and they carried out his work, and they continue to do that, and it was because of her traveling from city to city, from town to town, from legislature to legislature, that she has these Martin Luther King committees all over the country.

So today we pay our respects, and we just say farewell to her. We will always remember her, and we will always know that because of her, Martin Luther King was able to do what he was able to do; because of her, her children are doing what they are able to do; because of her, many of us are able to see things a little bit differently and honor the work of Dr. Martin Luther King and support nonviolence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 612. I congratulate the Iraqis for the election, and I agree with Barbara Lee: it is time to bring our troops home, and there should be no permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I truly wish democracy for the people of Iraq, and I commend the people of Iraq on yesterday's election. However, to claim success is really premature. Our soldiers are still at great risk. The insurgents are just as dangerous today as they were the day before the election.

This resolution quotes the President saying, ``When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' Under those terms, our soldiers could be in Iraq indefinitely.

This resolution is merely more rhetoric about how many Iraqi soldiers have been trained. In February 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed there were more than 210,000 Iraqis serving in the security forces. Just 7 months later, Secretary Rumsfeld said 95,000 trained Iraqi troops were taking part in security operations. According to the figures in the President's November 29 speech, there appears to be between 84,000 and 96,000 Iraqis trained.

However, independent experts in a November 30 Christian Science Monitor article said that they believed the President's numbers were much too high. Instead, they said 30,000 was a more accurate figure.

Mr. Speaker, not only are the number of Iraqi soldiers uncertain, their readiness is also in doubt. In September, General George Casey told Congress that the number of Iraqi battalions rated at the highest level of readiness had dropped from three to one, which means the Iraqis have about 800 soldiers which are at the highest level of readiness.

If the President's criteria for concluding our involvement in Iraq is the Iraqi army standing up, it appears we are nowhere near achieving this goal.

Mr. Speaker, nearly everything this administration has said about the war has turned out to be false. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not attempt to purchase uranium yellow cake from Niger. There was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin or other al Qaeda leaders. We were not greeted as liberators. Iraq's oil revenues have not paid for reconstruction costs. In fact, it has cost U.S. taxpayers $251 billion so far. The insurgency is not in its last throes. And the war has not made us safer. It has provided an opportunity for al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to recruit new members, and it has also diverted hundreds of billions of dollars away from efforts to secure our Nation.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay my respects to Edward R. Roybal.

Congressman Roybal was a true leader. He opened the doors for Hispanics and minorities in so many ways. He was the first Hispanic to serve on the City Council for the City of Los Angeles. He should have been the first to serve on the County Board of Supervisors.

He went on to be elected to the Congress of the United States, where he distinguished himself as a courageous defender of minorities, senior citizens, and the poor. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, he defended Social Security and Medicare, both of which are now under attack. He also worked to expand access to health care and improve long-term care.

He was a gentle man. He was a man of impeccable integrity. He was a man whose face reflected what he really cared about and who he really was. I will never forget those huge eyes and the way he looked at you. You knew you had to handle yourself a certain way in his presence. You had to handle yourself in a proper way. He was a very dignified man.

I shall never forget how I felt each time I was in his presence; and a testament to who he was and what he cared about certainly is reflected here today in his daughter, Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4128.

I was one of those individuals who was shocked at the Supreme Court decision. On June 23, 2005, Kelo v. The City of New London, the Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the city's use of eminent domain to implement its area's redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed economy was a public use satisfying the U.S. Constitution, even though the property would be turned over from private homeowners and businesses to private developers.

Never in my wildest imagination did I think there would be a Supreme Court ruling that would take private property and give it to private individuals for private use.

This decision was born out of what took place with the giant pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Pfizer built a plant next to an area called Fort Trumbull, and the city determined that someone else could make better use of the land than the people who actually lived there: the Fort Trumbull residents. The city handed over its power of eminent domain, that is, the ability to take private property for public use, to the New London Development Corporation, a private body; and that private body then exercised eminent domain to take the entire neighborhood for private development.

The Supreme Court decision is wrong, and I cannot see how any Member of the House of Representatives could support the taking of private property for private use. Someone spoke of this as being a pillar of democracy. It is a strong American value that we hold dear, and I do not think that we should not do something, exercise our power in this House to deny the Supreme Court decision to be used by all of these cities and redevelopment agencies and other entities. I believe that we have to protect the American people.

As a matter of fact, one Member came and said, well, you know, this is an isolated case. It is not. I have over 125 cases throughout the United States where cities and other entities, community redevelopment agencies, in those cities where they can give the eminent domain rights to private developers, such as they did in this Kelo decision, are taking people's private property.

What is more, many of these entities are trying to take private property, take homes and businesses to give over to the big-box developers who need a lot of land to put down these big-box shops.

I do not believe we can stand by and not do something. There are those who would argue that the Federal Government should not be involved. If not us, who will protect people? We know that you are getting lobbied, Members are getting lobbied by Members of city councils, even by mayors; but many of them are lying with these developers. They have relationships; money is changing hands. They are in bed with the very developers who want to take the private property for private development.

Again, we cannot afford to let this happen. What we do here today will help to slow down this taking of private property for private use. As far as I am concerned, the bill could have even been stronger because we have got a few exceptions in the bill that I question.

I wanted a pure bill with no exceptions. My chairman who worked so hard on this bill made a case for some takings for certain kinds of very, very important public use of private lands. And even though I am supporting the bill, I could support an even stronger bill because I think there should be no exceptions, none, zilch, zero, no exceptions. I do not believe in taking private property to give to someone else for private use to make money off of.

You will hear this described in any number of ways, the taking of private property to get rid of blight. Whose blight? By whose definition? The taking of private property by economic development. What kind of economic development? Who is going to make the money? Who is going to suffer?

Your home is your castle. And for those people who save their money and invest in their homes, raise their children, that home should be their castle in toto. That home should never be in jeopardy because some city government, some redevelopment agency decides that they want to take it. I do not care what for. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) came and talked about the taking for ballparks. I disagree with that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, this is not a Democrat-Republican issue. The people who care about property rights, the people who respect homeownership, the people who believe that this is an important value are standing up for the citizens of this country. Folks who believe that somehow the government has a right to take private property for private use are standing on the side of the developers.

While I respect Members on both sides of the aisle, I have had some Members on this side of the aisle talk about what they have done for poor people, and you will hear people talk about what they do for minorities, that they are doing this to get rid of blight, to create better communities. Well, on this one, I would like to say to all of my would-be friends who are helping poor communities and minority communities, we do not need you on this one.

We need you to respect the right of those minorities and those poor people to hold on to whatever it is they own, whether it is a little, small business or whether it is a two-room shack or a one-room shack or whatever it is. It is theirs. They have a right to it. And no one, no mayor, no city council member, no one has the right to think they know better; that they can take that property for a private use.

I think it is unconscionable for anybody that is elected by the people to

undermine the people by supporting the taking of private properties for private use. I would hope even those Members who have been past mayors, who have been past city council members who agreed with the developers, indeed listen to this debate here on the floor today and agree that if we want to do anything to support the right of citizens to own property, we will support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

This amendment does not change the bill in any substantive way. Rather, this amendment seeks to clarify some of the exceptions that provide for the use of eminent domain for those uses that have traditionally been considered for a public purpose.

This amendment also enhances the sense of congress provision and points out that the bill does nothing to restrict the Federal Government from fulfilling its obligation under current law when it exercises eminent domain.

Most importantly, this amendment serves to reflect the bipartisan interests of the various committees that have been at the forefront of this issue, Agriculture, Resources and Judiciary. I am pleased that we have been able to work together on what I feel is an appropriate response to the Kelo decision.

I just want to say to Chairman Sensenbrenner, you know how strongly I feel about this issue. And while I offered some amendments in committee so that there would be absolutely no exceptions, I think that if we are able to pass this bill today we will have taken a giant step to stop what I think is a wrongheaded decision by the Supreme Court. So I am willing to certainly support the chairman's amendment, and if we have to continue to work on this issue to get to where I want to be with no exceptions, then I will look forward to working with the gentleman in the future on it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this statement against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. Essentially, this amendment eliminates the teeth of this bill: the denial of Federal funds for 2 fiscal years to those States and cities that have violated this act. The denial of Federal economic development funds should serve as a real deterrent for those States and cities that want to exercise eminent domain for development, that is, the taking of private property for private use. Without this provision, this bill will not be taken seriously, and the eminent domain abuses that many in this country are complaining about will continue.

I just waved before my colleagues a list of over 125 cases of the taking of private land for private use, or attempts to do that; and I think the bill that we have before us today will stop this kind of abuse of eminent domain.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment also. I am tired of poor people and working people having to go and find lawyers and pay them. Who can afford $250 and $300 an hour? The average poor person certainly cannot. So you are right, let us put it on the entity that is trying to pull these tricks in the first place to take these properties away from these citizens.

So I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this statement against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to prohibit a taking of private property only when the taking's primary purpose is economic development, maybe for the parking lots he described.

I am fearful that such an amendment would create a loophole for States and cities, allowing them to take property in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, by arguing that the economic benefits of the taking were incidental rather than primary.

Also, this amendment seeks to confine property owners to a 7-year period in which they must bring a suit under this Act. This means that an owner who has had his or her property taken better hope that the State or the city puts the property to use in 7 years. If a State or city takes property for a public purpose, sits on it for 8 years and then puts it to use for economic development, the owner has no recourse.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that you can argue that the statute of limitations is too long. These people, citizens buy their homes, and they expect to live in them for life. They do not expect someone to come along and say that we have decided that we are going to give it to someone else, a developer to develop for private purposes to make money on.

So I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner). This is the most dangerous of all the amendments that have been offered today.

We take up the Private Property Rights Protection Act today in an effort to provide all property owners with greater protections. The Turner amendment will essentially create a blight exception. By prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development in almost all instances except blight, we make blighted communities an easy target for States and cities.

This is why the NAACP supports this bill also. Too many of our communities, the minority, the elderly and the low-income have witnessed an abuse of eminent domain powers. Given this history of abuse, we would like all legislative responses to Kelo to be sensitive to that.

Historically and today, it has been too easy to characterize minority, elderly or low-income communities as blighted for eminent domain purposes and subject them to the will of the government. If legislative proposals contain language that could potentially excluding these communities from protection against eminent domain abuses, we have failed to be sensitive to the interests of this constituency.

These communities should be afforded the same rights and protections all homeowners, business owners, and other property owners will be afforded in a Federal policy response to Kelo.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claimed this time to raise some concerns about the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. I believe the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Texas have a sincere interest in furthering this Nation's development of brownfields, land that is difficult to expand because of environmental contamination. However, I believe that such development is already protected under the bill.

First, this bill will provide an exception for removing harmful uses of land

provided such uses constitute an immediate threat to health and safety. If land truly constitutes a brownfield, then it meets this exception.

Second, brownfields are often acquired by clearing title on, for example, old industrial property where ownership exchanged numerous times without proper recording. The bill creates an exception for clearing defective claims of title; and, again, brownfields would be protected.

Brownfields are also protected under the abandoned property exception that is in the bill. Owners often abandon these properties to escape liability. I am confident that there are sufficient protections in this bill for brownfields in question if an additional exception needs to be created.

We do not want cities to now use the brownfields label as an excuse to take private property and turn it over to a private business or developer. Worse yet, we do not want brownfields to become the modern- day blight exception.

You can see that we have heard requests for any number of exceptions, and if we stayed on this floor for 24 hours or 48 hours, more Members, perhaps, could think of reasons why you should take private land for private use. I maintain that if you want to package land or you want to acquire land, you have to work within the marketplace to do it. You have to go out, you have to find the owners, you have to negotiate market rates, you ``have'' to convince people it is for good uses. You have to work. And you have to engage in order to acquire land. You cannot simply come up with every excuse that is convenient to mayors and city council members and to developers to take people's private land.

If it is private, if it is owned, whether it is residence or business or ``vacant'' land, whatever, it belongs to somebody, somebody paid for it. They have a right to it. The government does not have the right to take it. And so I would simply be opposed to yet another request for an exception to this very good bill that is put forth to protect the citizens of the States.

I commend the chairman and those of us on both sides of the aisle for stepping forward in the manner that we have in a timely fashion to say no.

I have often criticized my friends on the opposite side of the aisle for accusing courts and the Supreme Court of creating law, of creating legislation. They did it on this one. They absolutely did. The Constitution simply says that you must compensate for the taking of land for public use.

We are not opposed to eminent domain for public use. I question it from time to time, but that is not what this is all about. This is about the taking of private land for private use.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I respect the gentleman's request for yet another exception, but I oppose it. I think that the chairman and the framers of this legislation have been very responsible in the way that we have tried to advance a piece of legislation to protect the citizens of this Nation from a bad Supreme Court decision.

A lot of people may be inconvenienced by our bill, people who want to acquire property, people who want to take private property for a development, people who want to make money, people who will use any means necessary by which to gain property that they think will help to bring them additional profits. There are a lot of reasons why people will be inconvenienced by this bill.

The bottom line is we do not wish to continue to abuse and inconvenience, marginalize and deny property owners of this country. We feel that our number one responsibility is to the property owners. We are elected to represent our citizens in the best way possible. There is no better way to represent citizens than to say we stand with you in the ownership of the land that you have bought, that you have inherited, that you have invested in.

We know a lot of people may not like it. It may inconvenience some people. You may not be able to build that parking lot, you may not be able to develop that shopping center, but we stand with the people against those kind of inconveniences. We ask for a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for accepting the gentlewoman's amendment, and I would like to thank her for this very timely amendment.

While we began to work on this simply because of the Supreme Court decision and the danger that American citizens' homes and lands were placed in with this decision, the gentlewoman is absolutely right: We have to take another step to protect those victims of Katrina.

There has been a lot of discussion from homeowners and others who are observing what is going on and what could possibly happen, wondering if there are not schemes already going on that would deny these homeowners who have lost their homes the ability to hold on to that land, whether or not the speculators are cooking up schemes with those in local government even. So this amendment would protect the victims of Katrina, and they will be very grateful for this, and they will be very, very thankful that the gentlewoman provided the leadership in thinking about them as this legislation was winding its way through the government of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this evening as one of the organizers of the Out of Iraq Caucus to talk about what we have done in that caucus, what we are attempting to continue to do, and where we feel we are at this point.

We now have 69 Members who have signed up as part of the Out of Iraq Caucus. We have been meeting on a regular basis. We have had invited speakers and experts come to our caucus to talk about the war in Iraq, to talk about our image in the world as it relates to the war in Iraq, to talk about any number of subjects to help us try and guide this House and this Nation on this war. We think it is extremely important for the Members of Congress to be involved in this way because there are so many questions that are being raised by the American public about the war in Iraq.

When we organized this caucus, we did not organize the caucus with the conclusion that we had to get out right now. We did not organize the caucus with the strategy to adopt an exit strategy or to try and force the administration to adopt an exit strategy. We did not organize the caucus around the idea that we should stay there for as long as it takes to train Iraqi soldiers and then exit.

We simply organized the Out of Iraq Caucus because we all felt that we must get out of Iraq, and we did not try to say when. We did not even try to say how. We wanted to bring together the kind of discussion that would lead us to adopting the right kind of strategy, to provide some leadership to the Congress of the United States and to this administration.

While we have been doing that, over 2,032 U.S. soldiers died while serving in Iraq as of November 2. In the month of October, 93 United States soldiers died in Iraq. October was the fourth deadliest month for U.S. soldiers since the war began on March 29, 2003, and the deadliest since January when 106 U.S. soldiers died. The second most violent month was November 2004, when Americans battled Sunni Arab rebels in Fallujah. The third most violent month was in April 2004, when U.S. soldiers fought militiamen loyal to the Shiite cleric in Najaf. More than 15,353 U.S. soldiers have been injured while serving in Iraq, and we are told there are over 404 amputees.

The administration has allocated about $357 billion for military operations, reconstruction, embassy costs, and various foreign aid programs in Iraq and Afghanistan since the September 11 attacks. Of that $357 billion, $251 billion of that total has been for Iraq and about $82 billion for Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, we are told, despite these casualties, despite these amputees, despite what appears to be our inability to get a handle on the insurgents and all of these roadside bombings, we are told that we are winning this war. As a matter of fact, the President rolled out May 1, 2003, on an aircraft carrier all decked out in the proper dress to accompany his speech and said ``mission accomplished.''

The American public has trusted that this administration knew what it was doing. They gave the administration the benefit of the doubt, even when Mr. Rumsfeld was being urged by people much more expert than he that we did not have enough troops on the ground in order to win the war. He insisted that he knew better what he was doing. He did not increase those numbers. The American public sees now that he did not know what he was talking about.

The American public has stayed with this administration despite the fact that the President said that we were going to get enough money from the oil wells in Iraq to take care of rebuilding the infrastructure. That has not happened. The insurgents continue to blow up the oil wells. We have gotten no money from the oil in Iraq.

The American people continue to try and trust the President of the United States, but the lack of getting a handle on these insurgents and the killing of our soldiers, the lack of getting any profits from the oil wells, the lack of being in control and getting a handle on what is going on in Iraq is causing the American people to move away from support for the President of the United States and this war.

At first, the American public was saying, no, we do not like the way this administration has handled this war, but we think perhaps the President may be right. Perhaps we need to stay there until we have trained enough Iraqi soldiers to wind out of the war.

But that does not appear to be happening. As a matter of fact, we keep getting muddled information about how many Iraqi soldiers have been trained. We have been told numbers that we cannot confirm. We have been told that it is just a matter of time before we will have trained enough of these soldiers to whom we can turn over the operations.

We have had all of these different military operations. We started out with Operation Iraqi Freedom, which was the name of the entire Iraqi effort that began in March of 2003. At its height, we had over 300,000 troops in the region. Currently, we have about 139,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

We had Strike and Awe, which described the initial military action in the opening hours and days of the war. We have had Operation River Gate, which took place in the al Anbar Province near the Syrian border. American forces were trying to retake three towns from al Qaeda insurgents.

Some 2,500 U.S. troops along with Iraqi forces participated in Operation River Gate.

Then we had Operation Iron Fist, similar to Operation River Gate, which occurred shortly before Operation River Gate.

Then we had Operation Lightning launched in early May 2005, to break the insurgency. Approximately 40,000 Iraqi troops and 10,000 U.S. soldiers were deployed in and around Baghdad.

Then we had Operation Matador. Operation Matador was launched in the first weeks of May 2005, after U.S. intelligence showed insurgents had moved into the northern Jazirah Desert after the losses in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi.

Operation Spear began on June 17, 2005, with 1,000 Marines and Iraqi soldiers in western Iraq to hunt for insurgents and foreign fighters. Operation Spear took place in the Anbar province. The operation came one day after Air Force Brigadier General Don Alston called the Syrian border the worst problem in stemming the influx of foreign fighters to Iraq. Syria is under intense pressure from Washington and Baghdad to tighten control of its porous 380-mile border with Iraq. Yet we do not know whether or not the insurgents are really the Sunnis and al Qaeda inside Baghdad, inside Iraq, or really all of the insurgents coming from Syria.

Operation Dagger. About 1,000 U.S. Marines and Iraqi troops, backed by fighter jets and tanks, launched a second offensive Saturday against insurgents operating in restive Anbar province. That was called Operation Dagger. Operation Dagger aims to uncover insurgent training camps and weapons caches in the southern part of the Lake Tharthar area in central Iraq, 85 kilometers northwest of Baghdad.

And now, Operation Sword. Operation Sword included about 1,000 U.S. Marine soldiers and sailors from Regimental Combat Team-2, as well as about 100 Iraqi soldiers. It was the fifth operation launched in late spring, early summer 2005, designed to pressure insurgents in the country's expansive and restive Anbar province west of Baghdad.

We are not in control of what is happening with this war that we launched because there were supposedly weapons of mass destruction. We are losing our soldiers. We are not getting Iraqi soldiers trained. The President of the United States said we may be there for the next 10 years.

The American people have had enough. I believe that those of us who are working in the Out of Iraq Caucus have had enough. It is time for us to review what we are doing. It is time for us to call on this President to tell the American people when and how we are going to get out, and we cannot accept that we will be there until hell freezes over if that is what it takes.

We cannot accept that all of these operations have not worked. We cannot accept that we cannot find a way to stop these roadside bombings. We cannot accept that we are bleeding the American taxpayer dollars with over $1 billion a week being spent in Iraq and over $1 billion a month being spent in Afghanistan. So we come here tonight to challenge the President and this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to my colleagues who have come here to discuss this very, very serious matter with us. First, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for his eloquent and very thorough evaluation and assessment of what is happening in Iraq. He has been an absolute stalwart in trying to help bring this Congress to its senses and this administration. And I am so pleased that he was here this evening to further share with the American public our very, very deep concerns and our very deep feelings.

The gentleman's call for an end to this war, I think, is right on target. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) to further discuss not only her long-time involvement with trying to help frame a direction for this Nation, her long-time commitment to challenging this administration, about the way that it went into this war, and what has been happening since we have been in this war, all the work that she has done, the many nights that she has been on the floor, the resolution that she did so well on with this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for her commitment, for her hard work, and for her sincere desire to provide leadership for this Congress to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard from two of our hardest workers this evening about the war in Iraq. You have heard their assessments. You have listened to their advice.

I think it is important for us all to understand that not only have we gone into this war under false pretenses, having the American people believe that there were weapons of mass destruction when, in fact, there are no weapons of mass destruction. We have gone into this war with this administration making the American people believe that somehow Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks when that certainly is not true. And al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden who have been determined to be responsible are still not contained, have not been apprehended.

The idea that somehow we must stay in Iraq because it is going to make us safer is the kind of argument that the American people just will not accept any more. As a matter of fact, I think the American people understand we are less safe because we are in Iraq. We are less safe because we have created a breeding ground for the training and development of these insurgents. We are less safe.

While the President talks about homeland security, it takes but a natural disaster to help Americans know that really we do not have a handle on homeland security at all. If, in fact, we can witness what happened to us as a result of Katrina, if we understand that not only were we not able to handle a disaster despite the fact we have this huge bureaucracy of homeland security under FEMA, and with all of that people were left stranded without food, without water, still we do not have a handle on how to get those people into temporary housing, let alone permanent housing.

So people have to be suspicious about what would happen to us in the event of a terrorist attack, and people have to wonder why are we putting all of this money and all of this effort into Iraq when the folks who were responsible for 9/11 still have not been apprehended.

People have to wonder what is it about this relationship with Saudi Arabia, when we know that the perpetrators of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, trained in the madrassas of our so-called friends, trained by the royal family's money that helped them to learn to hate the United States of America, yet we wrap our arms around them, we call them our friends. And after the 9/11 attack we went to their aid, and the members of that royal family that was in the United States of America, we picked them up one by one. We had airplanes dispatched across this country. We put them on those airplanes when Americans could not get on airplanes. When airplanes were grounded, when the Vice President of the United States could not get an airplane, we picked up the Saudis, we put them on the airplanes. We protected them, and we got them out of here.

We did not know whether or not they were tied to those that were responsible to 9/11. We did not understand how the funding of some of the so-called nonprofit operations were really funds that were going into terrorist operations. We did not do an investigation. We did nothing but pick them up, protect them, and send them on their way. And we talk about homeland security. Give me a break.

We cannot trust that this administration can secure the homeland and certainly we are spending the taxpayers dollars, billions of dollars, billions of dollars in Iraq when perhaps we do need that money in our ports. We need those monies in our airports. We need those monies with helping to fund the first responders.

I have been holding emergency preparedness town halls all over my district. What do the first responders tell us? They do not have enough money. They do not have enough resources. They do not have the communication systems by which in the event of an attack that the various first responders can communicate with each other just as they did not have it in New Orleans.

So this effort that has been put forth by this administration is not a good one. Not only did they not plan well for the war, they never had an exit strategy going in. They never knew how they were going to get out. The headiness of Mr. Rumsfeld with his shock and awe campaign that led people to believe that somehow we were going to bomb people into submission, make people think that somehow we were protecting them from terrorism, that we were making this country safer, somehow because of the might of the bombs and the sophisticated artillery that somehow we were going to make Americans believe everything was all right.

At the moment the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' the insurgents said, now let the war begin. And, guess what? They do not have the sophisticated technology that we have. They do not have the resources that we have. But you know what? They are wreaking havoc on us and our soldiers. They are killing our young people.

As it was said by some of my colleagues, it is all right to say we will be there for as long as it takes. But whose children are we talking about? Whose young people are we sending into war, a timeless war, when we cannot tell the American people how we are going to get out of it, where we never had a plan to get out of it? Whose children are dying?

The American people are fed up with this war. They have trusted this President and this administration long enough. Mr. President, it is time to bring our soldiers home. It is time to get out of Iraq.

The President consistently tells the American people that we will stand down when the Iraqis are ready to stand up. However, there is little evidence that the Iraqis are ready to take over their security responsibilities.

In July, the House Armed Services Committee ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),

told us that he believed there were only about 5,000 trained Iraqis, even though the Bush administration claims to have trained 170,000.

General John P. Abizaid, who leads the U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in September that a single Iraqi battalion was at level one combat readiness, meaning it was capable of taking the lead in combat without support from coalition forces.

During the same testimony, General George W. Casey, Jr., who oversees U.S. forces in Iraq, said the number of level one battalions had dropped from three to one since June.

We cannot even get the right information, and that is why the Senate Democrats will take the action that they took. They had to go into closed session. They had to confront the Republicans in the Senate about the so-called investigations, about going on to phase two, to try and get information about what happened with our intelligence community. What did we know and when did we know it and what did we do about it? You cannot hide this information forever.

The tactics of this administration, misleading, not giving out all of the information, distorting information, will come to an end; and the retaliation against those who speak out is being unveiled now in a way that is causing the indictments and more to come.

The fact of the matter is this administration attempted to punish Ambassador Wilson by outing his wife, Valerie Plame. These tactics of distortion, intimidation, misleading information, rolling out Republican relations campaigns, all of this must come to an end. Americans cannot stand to be misdirected. Americans can stand no longer to be told mistruths. Americans can no longer take from their President and this administration that kind of treatment.

So we stand here tonight to say again and again, enough is enough. We have got to bring an end to this war. We have got to redirect our resources back to the people of this Nation. The war in Iraq has cost us almost $3 billion so far. The funding would provide much-needed resources for Americans here at home for the money that we are sending in Iraq.

Let me just give you some idea what could have been provided: Health care for 46,458,000,805 people. Health care could have been provided for the amount of money that we are spending. 3,545,016,000 elementary schoolteachers could have been paid for. 27,93,000,473 Head Start places for children. 120,351,991,000 children's health care could have been paid for. We could have built 1,841,000,833 affordable housing units. We could have built another 24,000,072 new elementary schools. On and on. 39,000,665,748 scholarships for university students. 4,000,000,699 public safety officers or 3,204,000, 265 port container inspectors. I could go on and on.

The American people deserve to have their tax dollars spent not only to protect and secure us but to provide universal comprehensive health care. It is unconscionable to talk about we are going to be confronted with a pandemic but we do not have enough medicine. We do not have enough resources. We do not have enough hospitals. We do not know how we are going to take care of people in the event of a pandemic. It is unconscionable to talk about how in the event of a pandemic so many people are going to be at risk, to anticipate that so many people are going to die.

It is unconscionable to talk about you cannot pay for Katrina or Rita or any of these disasters that are confronting us unless we go back into the budget and reconcile and cut the budget deeper and deeper and deeper and do all of this while we continue to give a tax break to the richest people in America.

We are sick and tired of these policies that do not make good sense. We are sick and tired of the direction that is keeping us at war while we are hurting and undermining the people of this Nation. We are sick and tired of public policy that does not make good sense.

I am pleased that my colleague said this evening at the beginning of their discussions, we support our soldiers. Do not forget it was really this side of the aisle who forced the issue of protective gear for our soldiers when we discovered that, with all of the talk from Mr. Rumsfeld about we had enough soldiers and they had everything they needed, and we discovered that they were over there with spit and glue, literally trying to build protection, literally trying to figure out ways by which to stop the bullets. It was this side of the aisle that forced getting more money.

And we will continue to do that because we do respect, we do support our soldiers. We love them. That is why we want them home. We want them out of harm's way. We cannot tell them why they are there. We cannot tell them why they are losing their lives.

Many of those young men and women went there because they are patriotic. They believed their President. They went there because they thought they were doing something good for their country, only to discover that they were misled, that there are no answers.

Many of them went there because they were looking for a way out. They were looking for ways by which to provide for their families. They were jobless in America, in the rural communities, in the inner cities.

We have not done right by our young men and women. We have not done right by them. We have neither provided them with the security and the protection that they need to serve in this war, nor have we respected their right to have the answers to the questions that they are raising.

I would like to at this time have a colloquy with my dear friend from California who has worked so hard on this issue.

Do you believe that if we bring our soldiers home that we will be taking the kind of action that will not only bring resources back to this country that could be spent domestically, but in the final analysis, we are taking them out of harm's way because if they stay there there will be more and more deaths, and we still will not be able to contain what perhaps is going to be a civil war anyway between the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds?

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, they do not even talk about Osama bin Laden anymore.

I am absolutely outraged that we put money into Pakistan. We think we have a friend there, Musharraf; but we know that that border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is where we have al Qaeda, is where we have terrorists. We believe that is where Osama bin Laden is. I believe that he is being protected by those who we are trusting in Pakistan. I believe that we are not putting enough time and effort on that border where we have not only the terrorists and al Qaeda, but increasingly, the Taliban is rising again from the Afghanistan side of all of this.

So we just have a misdirected administration who has messed up everything. They have created a crisis. Our young men and women are dying. We are spending American taxpayers' dollars. This money is going out of the window. We are not accomplishing anything. We are getting ripped off in more ways than one. Halliburton is making all of its money. They have been cheating us, and we have slapped them on the wrist, and we have let them go.

We are sick and tired. Enough is enough, and I would like to say to the gentlewoman from California, if you have one last word in this 1 minute or so, please.

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather embarrassing to have to come to the floor of the Congress of the United States to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country when, in fact, that is what we were all elected for, to make sure that this democracy works.

I am opposed to this rule, and I cannot believe that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle would jeopardize the opportunity for us to provide housing for people who are victims of these hurricanes that have hit this country because they have interjected politics into this bill.

This is absolutely outrageous. There is nothing in this bill that would allow any nonprofit or profit-making organization who wished to produce housing for low- and moderate-income people to use this money for any political activity. It is not fair. My colleagues are making it up, and it is absolutely outrageous.

As a matter of fact, we were so concerned about making sure that everybody had an opportunity to provide housing, to produce housing, we put in an amendment that would make sure that this money would not go to one or two big organizations; that it would be available in rural communities; it would be available to the faith-based communities; it would be available all over this country to small- and medium-sized organizations, not just a few large ones.

So we have been very democratic. We know that there are some people on the opposite side of the aisle that did not like the idea of providing funds for low- and moderate-income housing; but we also know, because of the leadership of some people on the other side of the aisle who understood the homelessness and the crisis that we have in America, lack of housing, the low-income people, that they were able to prevail, and we came out with a good bill.

Do not get up here and fuss and talk about closed rule, modified rule, manager's amendment. It has nothing to do with that. My colleagues either want to provide low-income housing and not put politics in it and prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights or they do not want anything for anybody.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me the time and for the job he has done to shape this legislation.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for the tremendous cooperation and the leadership that has been shown that helped to get bipartisan support for this legislation. When it left our committee, it was a good bill. It was a bill that even some people who had not wanted to support it went along with, because in the final analysis, it was going to bring about reform of the GSEs.

Now, some of us know that there is a need for reform with the GSEs. We are concerned. We do not want them carrying debt that is not shown, that we do not understand, because we do not want these humongous general services enterprises to somehow get in trouble and we have to bail them out the way we did with the S&Ls.

So despite the fact that we think there was an effort by some on the opposite side of the aisle to basically deal with the some of the arguments of the banks and savings and loans about the GSEs being too big, getting too retail, basically taking over their markets, we support reform; and we voted for the bill because we support reform.

Because of the vision of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), we were able to do something for working people and for poor people by creating this very, very special arrangement that could be used for the production and preservation of low-income affordable housing, this kind of set aside.

It would be the after-tax profit from these GSEs that will be used to produce low-income housing. And so despite the fact that for years there has been kind of a confrontation between the GSEs and the banks and S&Ls about market share and all of that, we thought it made good sense to make sure that the GSEs were not too big, carrying too much debt. So this reform is good.

But what is absolutely mind-boggling about what has happened, from the time the bill left committee until the time it has reached the floor today, is this politicizing of the fund by some of those on the opposite side of the aisle who never supported this fund for low- and moderate-income housing to begin with.

What did they do? After the bill left committee, they decided that they were going to try to put some unconstitutional boundaries on nonprofits, and I guess profit-making organizations alike, that would not allow them to participate in the production of low- and moderate- income housing no matter what the need, no matter what the crisis, if, in fact, they exercised their constitutional rights to assist people and lead people in doing voter registration.

That is so unbelievable because, number one, it is unconstitutional. It is absolutely unconstitutional. This government has shown that it indeed supports reaching out to the citizens of this country to encourage them to be involved in voting and participating in this democracy. We have the Motor Voter Act, which says motor vehicle departments all over the country, when people register their vehicles, encourage them to vote; give them voter regulation slips; do whatever you can to get them involved in the political process. We are on record with doing that.

And now to have those Members from the opposite side of the aisle say that you cannot produce low-income housing if you exercise your constitutional right by helping people to get registered to vote is absolutely mind-boggling. And let me tell you what is even more mind- boggling about this. We know that we have gone through some terrible, terrible times recently here in this country, down in Florida, where there were databases that were developed of people supposedly who had been incarcerated and committed felonies that were supposedly not allowed to vote. But it turned out to be fraudulent databases.

We have had attempts to stop people and discourage them from voting by having uniformed officers question them when they come into the polling place. I would think that they would not want to continue with that kind of reputation.

I will not vote for this bill no matter how much it is needed, as long as the constitutional rights are violated.