Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I support the Kingston amendment which upholds existing law which allows for the importation of a personal-use quantity, a 90-day supply of a prescription medicine from Canada.

What the Kingston amendment will not allow, though, is the bulk importation of pharmaceuticals for the use of so-called Internet pharmacies. Internet pharmacies, you don't know where they're getting their drugs. They could come and have come from every single continent, from nearly every continent on the planet.

If we want to reduce the price of drugs, we ought to encourage the drug companies to eliminate or minimize the price disparity between what our citizens pay in the United States and what people around the world pay for their prescription drugs. And, Mr. Chairman, we ought to reform Medicare part D.

The Republican plan would subsidize the insurance industry and subsidize the drug companies instead of using that money for cheaper drugs for our own people in the United States.

But the Kingston amendment will assure a personal supply that you can get from Canada, but will also assure a safe product comes to the people of the United States when they get their prescription drugs.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 703 on the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida, I inadvertently voted ``no'', while intending to vote ``aye''.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2720.

Madam Speaker, words can hardly express our admiration and gratitude as we note the tragic passing of an awe-inspiring civil servant. On Sunday, July 15, 2007 the community of Ridgefield Park, the County of Bergen, and the State of New Jersey lost a great hero upon the passing of Stephen R. Dembski, 41, after battling a major fire in neighboring Bogota. I join Steve's family, friends, and the entire community in mourning the loss of such a dedicated public servant.

A devoted husband and father to his wife Nancy and two children Kyle and Raymond, Steve was a pillar of our community. Steve came from a long line of firefighters, starting off as a junior firefighter when he was 16, becoming a full-fledged firefighter at the Ridgefield Park Hook and Ladder Company 2 at age 18, and later serving as chief for 2 years. His more than two decades of public service and his commitment to his duties as a firefighter reveal his extraordinary dedication to the safety and security of his family, friends, and community.

Firefighters like Steve are willing to give their lives to protect the safety of American citizens and willfully advance to the front lines of danger to provide assistance to those around them. Each time firefighters courageously rush into burning buildings and willingly lay their lives on the line for their fellow citizens, their unshakeable devotion to others leads us to place our lives and priorities in perspective and also helps reaffirm in the hearts of all Americans what is really important in life. Firefighters like Steve are essential to our communities and help to ensure the safety and security of our great nation. Each firefighter is a testament to the indomitable and caring spirit that drives our nation and makes America the incredible country it is today. This nation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Steve Dembski for his service to our community. May God bless the Dembski family.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will not take my full 5 minutes. This amendment strikes an earmark for a project requested by myself and Congressman Sires who together represent the town of North Bergen, New Jersey.

The funds allocated in this bill would have gone towards the construction of a new public works building in North Bergen, New Jersey, that would have repaired and maintained all of the vehicles for that municipality, as well as all of the fire trucks for the surrounding five towns of Weehawken, Guttenberg, West New York and Union City.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Jack Sparrow, a resident of Englewood, NJ, for his work and devotion to the Hope and Heroes Children's Cancer Fund for the Children's Hospital of New York Presbyterian.

Jack Sparrow was born in Brooklyn, NY, on February 12th, 1948. He continued on to St. John's University on a full tennis scholarship. Following graduation, Mr. Sparrow worked in recreational athletics until founding his own home design and construction venture, Quintessence, about 26 years ago. Mr. Sparrow and his company's specialty is designing and building new homes, however his passion remains in historic preservation and restoration. Mr. Sparrow is responsible for numerous historical restoration projects in Bergen County, NJ. Most famously, Mr. Sparrow restored the Brayton Estate in Englewood, originally built in 1857, and his own former house on Franklin Street, built in 1860.

Mr. Sparrow is the proud father of three wonderful children, who have blessed him with four grandchildren. Mr. Sparrow has been very active in his community of Englewood for many years, as a parent, a resident, and a small business owner. He has also been involved in numerous philanthropic organizations as a premier philanthropist, including the American Cancer Society and, most notably, the Hope and Heroes Children's Cancer Fund for Children's Hospital of New York Presbyterian.

Today, I would like to recognize Jack Sparrow's dedication to the Hope and Heroes Children's Cancer Fund for Children's Hospital of New York Presbyterian and I congratulate him on his admirable philanthropic achievements. I send him my very best wishes and thank him for his dedication.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, Byron M. Baer, a successful and beloved figure in New Jersey politics. Mr. Baer died Sunday, June 24, 2007 of complications from congestive heart failure.

Byron Baer, a 50-year resident of Englewood, NJ, was a legendary figure in Bergen County, and indeed, the entire Garden State. He served 11 terms in the New Jersey State Assembly before winning the District 37 State Senate seat in 1993. He served in this capacity with great distinction until illness forced his resignation in September 2005.

He is perhaps best known for legislation he introduced in 1974, the ``Open Pubic Meeting Act'' (or Sunshine Law), an Act requiring that official business be conducted in public forums and not behind closed doors. As a champion of open government, Byron Baer worked tirelessly with the media and his colleagues in the State government to ensure that open meetings would become a national model for all States. He was singularly honored in 2006 when the Act was renamed the ``Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act.'' He was also inducted in the Open Government Hall of Fame on the recommendation of the National Freedom of Information Coalition and the Society of Professional Journalists.

Among his many notable legislative accomplishments were the enactment of the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act, a law establishing safeguards to prevent chemical industry disasters; a truth-in-pricing law; and reestablishment of the Office of the Child Advocate, an independent watchdog of the state's child welfare system; and he was a primary sponsor of New Jersey's Identity Theft Prevention Act.

His passing will leave an enormous void in the New Jersey political arena. Although declining health contributed to his retirement two years ago, he remained a respected and revered resource for state legislators in Trenton. Byron Baer was devoted to his constituency, and he was a full-time lawmaker. As such, he understood every word and nuance in the legislative process and he never gave up in his efforts to fight for the environment, organized labor, children, migrant workers, and the less fortunate in our society.

I join with his many friends and colleagues in mourning his passing and I extend my heartfelt condolences to his beloved wife, Linda, his brother, Donald, his children David Baer and Laura Baer Levine, his stepchildren Lara Rodriguez and Roger Pollitt, and his three grandchildren. He was a great man and he will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Alfred E. Zampella School (formerly Public School No. 27) in Jersey City, New Jersey. This renowned school is named after my good friend and constituent, Alfred ``Al'' E. Zampella, a lifelong resident of Jersey City and for 27 years, the Principal of Public School No. 27. As a former teacher and principal, Al was a guiding force in the lives of thousands of students as he encouraged them to remain in school and use their formal education to succeed in life.

Al retired in 1990 and on November 7, 1996, Public School No. 27 was formally dedicated as the Alfred E. Zampella P.S. No. 27 in his honor. Today the school continues the outstanding and acclaimed work started by Al Zampella, and the school recently received the prestigious ``Heart of Gold'' Award from Mission: Kindness International, Inc./ Statewide Kindness Awareness Campaign for 53,926 ``Acts of Kindness'' performed by 1,040 students and teachers.

Among these generous ``Acts of Kindness'' were school projects and fundraisers to benefit UNICEF, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, March of Dimes, the Leukemia Foundation, the American Heart Association, and countless other programs made possible by the selfless participation and volunteerism of the students and teachers at the Alfred Zampella School. They are very deserving of our congratulations and recognition for their altruistic spirit.

I am very pleased to offer this well-deserved tribute to my good friend, Al, and to the students and faculty at the Alfred E. Zampella School P.S. No. 27 in Jersey City for the ``Acts of Kindness'' they performed in their school and community.

Not only is Al a member of many boards and organizations in Northern New Jersey, he also continues to serve the people of Jersey City as one of my staff assistants and Jersey City liaison. I am pleased to join with his beloved wife, Jaclyn; his sons Edward, Walter and Gary, and his six grandchildren in applauding the spirit of kindness started by this exceptional individual.

It is only fitting that the school named in his honor was awarded such a distinguished award. My very best wishes to all the students and faculty at the Alfred E. Zampella School P.S. No. 27.

Mr. Chairman, what would my Republican friends have said if the Democrats had offered to cut the President's requested spending on foreign affairs by $700 million last year when they were in the majority? They would have said that the Democrats were irresponsible.

This year, now that the Democrats are in the majority, we are proposing to cut $700 million from President Bush's request for spending on foreign aid. The Democrats, to cut $700 million from President Bush's request for spending, and that's what we are proposing.

But my Republican friends, who were in the majority all those years rubber-stamping the out-of-control Bush budgets every single year, rubber-stamping those budgets, they say that this year, when the Democrats want to reduce President Bush's spending on foreign aid versus his request by $700 million, should be doing it another $170 million more if we Democrats were really serious.

I think people can see through that as the political argument that it is, the partisan attack when there is nothing else going for you.

Because, after all, this is the same group that says there is going to be a tax increase under the Democratic majority this year. They say it over and over again.

But, of course, that's not true. So why would someone keep repeating something, attacks on the Democrats, saying we are raising taxes this year, when it's not true? Why would the Republicans continue to say that time and time again?

Well, you would have to say, well, they must not have much else to talk about, other than to make up something that's not true.

Well, how about this for values, my friends? They talk about values. The Democrats' proposal on foreign aid will fund training of foreign troops to help us fight the war on terror, aid our allies like Israel, fighting HIV/AIDS all over the world and feeding the hungry all over the world. And they say we cut $700 million from the President's request, we should cut even more if we are responsible, when they rubber-stamped their President's high budgets before.

They are criticizing $170 million in spending, which we think is essential. They are spending $50 billion, not $170 million, they are spending $50 billion on tax cuts for Americans with incomes of $1 million a year. Americans with $1 million a year get $150 billion in tax cuts. I think the values are wrong on the other side.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from California, who was also a former Ambassador to the Federated States of Micronesia. Thank you for your leadership on this issue and on so many other issues.

To my dear friend, the ranking member of the International Relations Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), thank you for your strong support for this resolution and for countless other measures of importance to the world as well as to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 21, a resolution that I was proud to author, along with Congressman Mark Kirk from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, what do you do when you see injustice? What do you do when you see injustice? Well, as I told my children, you only have two choices when you see injustice. You do nothing, you walk away in the face of genocide, or someone else's torment or unjust, unfair treatment, do nothing, wear blinders like most of the world, or you do something, do something in the face of injustice.

Here we have the President of a sovereign nation, a Member of the U.N., Ahmadinejad from Iran, who says that a fellow nation in the world, a member of the U.N., the state of Israel, should be wiped off the face of the Earth, the people killed. Not only is that a violation of the U.N. Charter, which, not surprisingly, says one cannot, as a member nation, advocate the death and destruction of another member nation, it also violates the Geneva Convention rules against incitement to genocide.

Lest one think that Mr. Ahmadinejad, a twisted, backward, lunatic, be some nonthreatening individual crazy man who happens to talk about the death of millions of innocent people, this is the head of a nation, a sovereign nation with oil wealth and an army and with a stated goal of acquiring nuclear weapons to use to carry out his homicidal, genocidal, lunatic delusions of wiping out the State of Israel.

So we must take his threats seriously. Just as so many say in the history of the 20th century as we review it, we should have taken Hitler's threats more seriously and not just disregarded him as some lunatic who couldn't do anything about his threats.

So we have asked the United Nations, we are asking them through this resolution to enforce its own rules against the incitement of the destruction of a member nation of the U.N..

What is happening at the U.N.? Today you have Indonesia, unbelievably, standing in the way of a simple

resolution, simple statement of condemnation against Ahmadinejad's genocidal statement to destroy Israel.

Why would Indonesia not support the rules of the United Nations? Why would not they not even stand silent, they are stopping the U.N. from announcing its resolution against Ahmadinejad's genocidal statements.

Why would Indonesia do that? Whatever the reason, my friends, it's wrong.

Unless Indonesia understands clearly that it will pay a price in world opinion and in economic matters and in political relations with the rest of the world, perhaps it won't move. But let Indonesia know that this United States House of Representatives, these Representatives of the 320 million American people, know what is wrong and what is right.

It is wrong to call for the death and destruction of a nation. It is wrong to call for the genocide of a people, and it is wrong for any other nation to stand in the way of justice, and we won't forget who helped us stop injustice and who prevented us from calling for the trial of Ahmadinejad before the international criminal court and sanctions upon Iran at the U.N.

Why is it important for the United States House of Representatives to speak? Because we will not be silent in the face of this lunatic madman who threatens us and threatens our allies.

By the way, if you read the history of the United States of America, we've been standing up for Israel since its founding. And in our founding, in the 1700s, if you read the history of all of our founders, they supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine. From the 1700s in America up until today, long before the Holocaust of the mid-20th century, back in the 1700s, Americans believed that the Jews should be returned to their homeland. And now this lunatic in Iran wants to wipe out this nation.

And Israel is not just a sentimental favorite. Israel happens to be America's number one strategic military, economic ally in the entire Middle East. People say, well, you know Iraq, and we won't get into that debacle at the moment, what it's costing us in troops and our military, 150,000 troops. If the state of Israel did not exist with its powerful, pro-Western military, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, tolerating all peoples in the region, how many more troops would we have to have in the Middle East if Israel didn't exist? Another 100,000, 200,000 Americans? We don't have to.

Our ally, the state of Israel, is there for America, as it has been ever since its founding: military, intelligence, economic.

So for so many reasons, legal, moral, military, national security for the United States, we cannot let this madman Ahmadinejad threaten America's greatest ally, the only Western democracy in the entire Middle East.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I urge Indonesia to do what is right and join with us.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

My friend, you referred to a translation of a speech. The offenses of Ahmadinejad are many. And three separate remarks on three separate occasions calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, does the gentleman have translations of each of those three separate remarks calling for the genocidal destruction of the state of Israel?

Do you have them, of all three?

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, a lot of these statements occurred in the capital of Iran during the World Without Zionism Conference. Zionism is a historic movement of returning the Jews to their Biblical homeland where they were expelled for thousands of years. So when they have a conference for a world without Zionism and in that conference say that the Zionist regime will be wiped off the map, one could reasonably understand that there would be no more Zionism, no Jewish state, because that is what Zionism is, no Jewish state in the Middle East. By the way, the Middle East, which is a sea of Islamic regimes. A sea of Islamic regimes. Israel's offense is having the nerve to exist as a non-Islamic regime.

But I ask the gentleman for translations of the other matters that came before the U.N. Namely, on December 12 of 2006, during a conference in Iran denying the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad said Israel would soon be wiped out. Not the Labor Government of Israel or the Likud Government of Israel, but Israel would be wiped out. And then again just a few weeks ago on Sunday, June 2, Ahmadinejad said the world would soon see the destruction of Israel. And I say to my friend from Ohio, I know you have the best intentions.

I thank the Speaker, the gentlelady from Florida, and the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is afraid that because at an anti-Zionism ``World without Zionism'' conference, Ahmadinejad said, ``Wipe Israel off the map.'' We are quibbling over whether he said on another occasion, wipe the Israel regime, Zionist regime off the map and on a third occasion said, the world would soon see the destruction of Israel. The gentleman thinks there is ambiguity there.

This is a regime in Iran sending troops and equipment, killing our soldiers in Iraq, building nuclear weapons, threatening to kill our number one ally, the State of Israel, and he doesn't want the U.N. to look into it to condemn them? I think the gentleman is wrong.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Alfred E. Zampella School, whose outstanding work has been rewarded with the Heart of Gold Award for the Second Kindest School in New Jersey for the third year in a row.

The Kindness is Contagious program began in New Jersey several years ago as a way to encourage students, teachers, parents, and the community to work together to perform ``acts of kindness.'' At the beginning of the school year, students are taught about the values of compassion and generosity; they are then given journals to record their individual acts of kindness at home and at school while teachers, administrators, school personnel, and parents recognize and reinforce these acts. By the end of the school year, these important values are integrated into the daily education of students.

The students in the Alfred E. Zampella School--from the Pre- Kindergarten class to the Eighth Grade--have performed 53,926 acts of benevolence, empathy, thoughtfulness, and compassion in the past school year. It is clear by the sheer number of acts, that kindness is truly contagious in this school. These individual acts ranged from picking up a piece of trash in the cafeteria to a school-wide penny collection to raise money for leukemia research. The students not only learned how to improve their school community but also discovered the valuable life lesson of doing good works for other people--not for the recognition, but because it makes another person's life better.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in commending Principal Sandra Frierson, the staff, and students of the Alfred E. Zampella School for the tens of thousands of acts of kindness they have performed. They are a great credit to our country and its steadfast spirit of generosity and goodwill.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the men and women of our Armed Forces, to the families of those who have died, who have been wounded or are presently in harm's way.

My prayers and all of my efforts as a United States Congressman are devoted to ensuring the well-being and support of our military, as they fight to protect our Nation, to honoring their memories, and to helping them when they return to our country.

Mr. Speaker, after we deposed Saddam Hussein and removed him from power, it became clear to most Americans and most people around the world that so much of what our President had told us about Iraq was not true. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam had no intention of sending Iraqi agents to slaughter Americans on our shores, and Saddam had precious little, if any, contact with foreign terrorists or anyone else who wanted to do harm to America.

Mr. Speaker, now after nearly 4 years and the death of more than 3,100 American servicemen and -women, after more than 23,000 American men and women have been wounded, and after the United States has spent almost one-half a trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we have met our moral obligation to the people of Iraq.

We have given the Iraqi people an opportunity over nearly 4 years to decide whether they will live together with themselves in peace, neighbor to neighbor, Iraqi, Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi people have not yet decided they want to live together with one another in Iraq in peace.

Our having our United States brave young men and women standing there, being shot at, being blown up is not encouraging the Iraqis to live together in peace. Not only are our troops dying and being wounded, but 80 percent of the Iraqi people say they want us to leave their country immediately.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush implies that al Qaeda will take over Iraq if we leave. In my opinion that is nonsense. Today, you have less than 1,500 al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq has a population of 25 million people. Today, you have not only Iraqi Shiites killing al Qaeda Sunnis, you have Iraqi Sunnis killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreigners in Iraq, whether they be Sunnis, and especially if they are al Qaeda or Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the only hope that our enemies have to destroy the United States is to have us remain bogged down in the swamp of the Iraqi civil war. Are we smart enough to pull ourselves out of that swamp of the Iraqi civil war? Or are we going to continue to allow our Nation to have our soldiers bled, our resources taken away,

our equipment destroyed, taking our attention away from the other military threats and realities in this very hostile world?

I believe that the United States' vital national interests will only be served if we withdraw all of our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible for the safety of our troops being uppermost in our minds. Then we can leave several thousand in the region just in case. We can, more importantly, encourage the regional players, through diplomacy, to come together to help the Iraqis decide to live in peace.

Mr. Speaker, leaving Iraq's civil war will serve America's vital national interests by allowing us to rebuild what is now a depleted U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, a military that is not fully up to its strategic requirements to deal with all the possible threats in the world.

We need to refocus on Afghanistan and the resurgence of the Taliban. We need to be prepared militarily for the potential threats from North Korea, Iran and, yes, even the People's Republic of China.

It is also important that we take these resources that we have been spending in Iraq not only to rebuild our military but to spend the money here at home. There is al Qaeda in 60 Nations in the world. They have pledged to come to America and harm us; yet we have spent more money in Iraq since 9/11 than we have spent on our homeland security needs.

Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth and that has to change.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this resolution. Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia have an interest in stabilizing Iraq. They will not permit the destruction of that country. They are afraid of refugees coming into their countries and destabilizing their Nation.

We need to vote for this resolution and withdraw from Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the Lung Cancer Circle of Hope's President Susan Levin on her efforts to raise awareness about the dangers of radon. Radon, a radioactive gas that accumulates inside buildings, is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States behind cigarette smoke. Yet, many Americans have never even considered testing their homes for dangerous amounts of radon.

This January, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has declared National Radon Action Month, the Lung Cancer Circle of Hope rightly urged families across New Jersey to test their homes for radon. This poisonous gas can enter homes through a variety of ways and then collect indoors. The result can be a health threat that you cannot see, smell, or taste.

Every year, over 160,000 Americans die from lung cancer and the EPA estimates that radon is responsible for more than 20,000 of those devastating losses. Many of those radon-induced cancers could have been prevented had more homes and offices been tested for radon. Once again, I applaud Susan and her organization for their aggressive public education campaign to spread the word about radon to New Jersey families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, because we owe our seniors a drug benefit program that is accessible and affordable. I believe that this legislation brings us one step closer.

My fellow Democrats and I were outraged that the current Medicare Part D drug benefit forces many elderly beneficiaries to choose between their medication and basic needs, such as food and utilities. The health concerns of our elderly Medicare beneficiaries are urgent, and I am proud that we have now passed legislation that will arm the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services with an additional tool to address these needs.

The intent of H.R. 4 is to open a path of negotiation of drug prices to remove the burden of affordability from the shoulders of our elderly. This bill should neither tie the hands of private drug plans, nor create unnecessary hurdles for the pharmaceutical companies that develop life-saving medicine. Rather, the intent is to give the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the needed authority to effectively and efficiently offer affordable prices to seniors.

We need Medicare Part D to be a benefit, and not a burden, to our friends and neighbors who use it. The fact that these individuals could get prescription drugs cheaper through Canada, Drugstore.com, or Costco is not only a disservice to Americans who trust Medicare for the healthcare they need-it is not good public policy. Every year, premiums and drug prices rise, and seniors are forced to bear more and more of the cost of their healthcare.

However, we cannot let this bill and its provisions become the tool that kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. The United States is the international leader of pharmaceutical and medical innovation. Every year, we achieve numerous historical breakthroughs in medicine and treatment that improve the quality of life of millions of Americans, due to the research and dedication of our pharmaceutical companies and their tens of thousands of employees. It is because of American innovation that an HIV/AIDS or cancer diagnosis is no longer a death sentence; that an athlete and an amputee can be the same person; and that a child with asthma does not have to stay in after school.

Research and development are costly. Inherent in each pursuit is a great amount of risk. On average, only one out of every 10,000 possible medications successfully makes it through development and Food and Drug Administration approval. It can take more than 15 years and $800 million to develop just one drug. Congress should not allow any public policy to move forward that would indirectly hinder innovation or advances in medicine. As we make needed improvements in the Medicare Part D plan, we must ensure that scientific advances continue. Therefore, we must balance our encouragement of competition and innovation in the private market with public health.

I believe that with H.R. 4 we are one step closer to answering the needs of our elderly. We have a real chance to provide a more accessible, affordable, and effective drug benefit to our seniors. Americans are living longer, healthier lives than ever before, and it is our duty to ensure that this trend continues.

I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, my friends, I was asked by the gentlewoman from California if I would share with my colleagues and with you, Madam Speaker, the process by which I came to the conclusion that America should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq without delay.

Like most Americans, Madam Speaker, when the President said to Members of Congress and the entire country that Saddam Hussein intended to bring weapons of mass destruction to the United States to destroy us, to kill thousands of Americans, that got my attention, especially since it was after 9/11.

I am from northeastern New Jersey, and a great number, too many, of my constituents were killed at the World Trade Center. But nonetheless, as an American, after 9/11 I didn't want to wait to get hit again. If the President of the United States and his entire Cabinet were willing to go before me in closed session, before the country in his State of the Union address, before the United Nations with photographs and other testimony that Saddam Hussein was sending Iraqi agents to America with weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical, to be deposited in our water supply system, to bring smallpox to our Nation, et cetera, then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein and stop him immediately.

Then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein, and stop him immediately.

Again, we were told it was an imminent, immediate threat to the national security of the United States: Saddam, using agents bearing weapons of mass destruction and bringing them on our shores. And so I voted to authorize the President to bring military action against Saddam Hussein.

I think most Americans, Madam Speaker, agreed with me that we didn't want to be caught again off guard, especially if our President told us so unequivocally that these were the facts.

Well, after we deposed Saddam Hussein, removed him from power, Madam Speaker, it became clear to us, most of us and most Americans, and most people in the world, that virtually everything that the President of the United States had told us about Iraq wasn't true. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had no intention of bringing Iraqi agents to slaughter Americans on our shore and that Saddam had precious little if not zero contact of any significance with any foreign terrorists or anybody who on their own wanted to do something against America.

And so we realized after we deposed Saddam Hussein that we had been led to go to war in Iraq on false statements. I don't believe they were intentionally false, but they were false. And I believe that history will record thereafter, after we gave the President the authority to go to war in Iraq, he and his administration, Madam Speaker, committed historic military and diplomatic blunders.

But, you know, I felt in my heart that, yes, at that point there were no weapons of mass destruction. The reason for going to war had evaporated. But what had we done? Yes, we did a great thing by removing this evil murderous dictator from Iraq as an oppressor of his people. But then because of the botched way it was handled, those people were living amidst looting and insecurity and murder and terrible hardship, and I felt that we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people stabilize their country and perhaps give them a way to become a democracy, to live in freedom.

Even though they were a multi-ethnic society that had never enjoyed that kind of freedom, I felt that was our moral responsibility after we had removed their dictator and created such chaos.

Madam Speaker, after the death of more than 3,000 American servicemen and -women, after the more than 23,000 American men and women wounded in Iraq, after more than 3\1/2\ years of our Nation being at war with 150,000 troops a year there, and after spending almost one-half a trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we have met our moral obligation to the Iraqi people; in particular because we have given them a chance in these 3\1/2\ years to decide that they will live together in peace, their own neighbor on neighbor, Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

But the Iraqi people have not yet decided that they want to live in peace. And, frankly, our standing there, being shot at and blown up, has apparently not persuaded them to live with their fellow Iraqis in peace.

And we have needs here in America. Homeland security needs, al Qaeda is in over 60 nations in the world planning and plotting against us, and that is a real threat.

Homeland security needs are unmet. We don't inspect 100 percent of the containers coming into our ports; 5 percent. Cargo going on passenger airplanes is not inspected. I could go on and on. Our borders are not secure.

And our military, our brave and courageous and magnificent military, the best in the world, has been depleted, our Army and Marines in particular. Depleted by this 3\1/2\ year engagement in Iraq. They have done heroically, but some of them are on their second, third and fourth tour of duty in Iraq. It is time to bring our troops home. We should leave 20,000 or 30,000 in the region in Jordan just in case a foreign nation would want to intervene, but that is unlikely and I will explain that in a second.

But bring our troops home and rebuild our military and deal with our own homeland security needs and deal with our domestic needs in education and health care, balance our budget, and get ready to face the threats that are out there in the world that are real because we still live in a dangerous world.

The President says if we do that, there would be a catastrophe in Iraq. Well, Madam Speaker, over 30,000 died in Iraq last year. Thirty thousand. If you do the math, they only have a country of 25 million. We have a country of 300 million. If you do the math, those 33,000 dead Iraqi civilians, that is equivalent to almost 400,000 civilian American deaths last year.

If that was the case in America, 400,000 American civilians killed in a civil war, wouldn't we call that serious?

What is going on in Iraq today is a disaster already. He says al Qaeda will probably take over. Nonsense. Today you have al Qaeda, who are primarily Sunni members of the Islamic faith. You have Sunni Iraqis killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreign fighters in Iraq, whether they be American or al Qaeda.

And the Shia in Iraq are no fans of the Sunni al Qaeda, either. But the folks that they don't like the most in their midst are Americans.

The President says we believe in democracy and we went to Iraq to give them a chance for democracy. This is after there were no weapons of mass destruction and all of the other reasons had changed. He says we should be there to give them democracy, notwithstanding the fact that we are bleeding our own Nation dry of human and other resources.

Madam Speaker, what do the Iraqi people wish us to do? The point of democracy is to allow people to express their will on how they wish to be governed. The Iraqi people, 80 percent of them say: Americans, leave our country. Eighty percent of Iraqis say: Americans, leave our country. Sixty percent of Iraqis today say it is all right to kill Americans.

Madam Speaker, when we leave Iraq, and I hope it is within the next six months, caring only about the safety of our troops as we make this strategic withdrawal and rebuild our military and get ready to face others in the region, know that Iran will be very unhappy that we are leaving. Iran will be very unhappy that we are leaving Iraq.

Why? Because then Iran will have to decide if they go fight on behalf of the Shia members of the Iraqi civil war. Maybe Syria will have to come in on behalf of the Sunnis fighting the Shia because Syria is a Sunni nation.

Maybe Saudi Arabia may have to get in. That won't happen.

When we leave, the regional players in the Middle East around Iraq will finally realize this is their problem that they have to solve and can't continue to stand on the sideline causing trouble.

I appreciate all the time the gentlelady has given me, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain how now for just about a year when I announced to my constituents why I believed it was time for us to withdraw our troops from Iraq, that it is indeed time to do so. It is in America's vital national interest that we do so. It is the smart thing to do for our country. We have other needs to address, including rebuilding our military and getting ready for real threats that face us around the world. And the better results will occur in Iraq and the region after we leave. I thank the gentlelady from California.