Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Delivering the solemn promise we made to set a new direction in Iraq, this legislation provides us with the opportunity to reaffirm our support for the responsible redeployment of our troops and a refocusing of our efforts on the real threat that is facing America--fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, tracking down Osama bin Laden, and preventing another terrorist attack against America.

Along with a great many of my colleagues, I spoke out against the President's surge strategy when it was announced in January. We argued then, as we reiterate today, that Iraq is engaged in a civil war and thus political, not military, solutions are needed to address the problems facing the region. Yet, the President continues to operate under the assumption that somehow, some way, there is a military path to success. In other words, his strategy continues to be ``stay the course'' writ large.

It has now been seven months since the President announced his surge strategy, with the stated goal of providing stability in Iraq so that the political reforms that are needed to secure the region can take place. Since then, more than 25,000 additional troops have deployed to Iraq, of whom 600 have been killed and more than 3,000 have been wounded. All of this while the Iraqi government has failed to meet any of the benchmarks endorsed by the President in January, violence rates are at an all time high, and a recent government report estimates that al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Simply put, it is long past time for our involvement in this tragic episode to come to an end. The Iraqi people are the only ones that can bring a peaceful conclusion to this war.

It is unfair to ask our troops and their families to continue to sacrifice while Iraqi leaders have done so little to achieve the political and security goals asked of them. Therefore, it is imperative that we begin the gradual redeployment of troops as soon as possible to protect their lives and ensure the safety of America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my opposition to this war. I believe the decision to invade Iraq is the single most devastating and misguided foreign policy decision our Nation has ever made. I will vote for the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act because I believe it is time to bring our troops home and end our involvement in this civil war.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have many good things to say about this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, but let me focus on a couple of quick things.

First, it is a long overdue and much-needed infusion of support for Federal need-based financial aid programs. It raises the Pell Grant maximum from $4,310 to $5,200 over a period of years. It increases the Federal capital contribution for the Perkins loan program, a program, by the way, that this administration seems intent on killing, and it increases loan limits so that students will have access to greater support.

In doing all of those things, we help students avoid what has become termed the ``wild west'' of student lending, that is, the private loan market. We have driven students to the private loan market because we have not properly supported the programs that currently exist. And with these increases, we will be properly supporting those programs.

And lastly, the reduction in the interest rates has been characterized by the other side as not affecting access or affordability and, in fact, it does. Students make decisions about the schools that they are going to attend by virtue of their anticipated indebtedness, and we address that.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the ranking member, and I urge its defeat, and I urge our colleagues to vote in support of the underlying bill. I do so for several reasons; but before I talk about that, I would like to talk about some of the things that I have heard here today in the debate that disturbed me greatly and I think require being addressed.

First is that I believe the ranking member, I am going to paraphrase him, but I think correctly said that we just can't help ourselves; that if you give us an opportunity to spend money, we are going to spend it. And I would rephrase that, and I would say that, we just can't help ourselves. If you give us an opportunity to solve a problem, we are going to solve it, and we are going to do so in a fiscally responsible way. And the problem that we are trying to solve with this underlying bill is diminished access and affordability to higher education, a problem which, if we leave unaddressed, is going to have a very serious consequence in terms of our future and in terms of our security. And we are addressing this problem, as I say, in a fiscally responsible way. It will not cost the taxpayers one dime.

I have also heard a great deal of talk about how we are not addressing the issue of entitlement spending and how we are creating nine new entitlements. Our mandatory budget represents about 60 or 70 percent of the total expenditures of this Nation, and it includes a number of so-called entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt. And I would point out that, of all these programs, only one is truly mandatory, and that is interest on the national debt. And that number has ballooned over the last 6 years under the watch of the then majority when they controlled every lever of power in this town.

Fiscal year 2001, interest on the national debt was $200 billion a year. Fiscal year 2007, interest on the national debt is $265 billion a year. And the total debt has grown by $3 trillion.

So I would simply say that it rings hollow to hear a lecture on fiscal responsibility and to be told that we are behaving in a way that is injurious to the American taxpayer when in fact our behavior is the antithesis of the behavior that has held sway this House for the last 6 years.

Now, with the amendment here is what we would not get if we were to pass Mr. McKeon's amendment: We would get no reduction in interest rates, a condition that would influence students' decisions to attend colleges. There would be no increase in the Federal capital contribution for the Perkins loan program. I will repeat; this is a loan program that this administration is trying earnestly to kill in what is a terribly ill-advised move.

There is this notion out there that the Federal capital contribution for Perkins will increase availability of Perkins loans. And to correct a common misperception, the Perkins loan program is not duplicative of the FFEL program or of the Direct Lending program. In fact, a great many students borrow from both programs. There would be no investment in cooperative education, a program that exposes students to the world of work and help enriches their college experience. There would be no investment in placing a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, something that we absolutely must do if we are going to make the advances on the K-12 level that we simply must make, the advances that were contemplated by the No Child Left Behind legislation, advances that we now have the opportunity to put in place. And there would be diminished opportunity for students who are needy to pursue careers in public service and in

not-for-profit. We cannot have a condition in which students choose their career based on their indebtedness, and this underlying legislation will address that.

So I believe that the College Cost Reduction Act is, as I said before, long overdue, much needed and will address some very serious concerns that currently confront college students and their families, and will do so in a fiscally responsible way. And I urge its passage, and I urge defeat of the amendment by Mr. McKeon.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1704) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am joined in offering this amendment by Mr. Courtney and Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Let me start by thanking Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for their work on this bill. I think it's a first-rate appropriations bill, and I particularly want to thank them for their efforts to fully fund Brookhaven Laboratory in my district.

This amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It would prohibit

any funds in this act from being used by FERC to advance the pending application of a floating storage and regasification unit known as Broadwater in the middle of Long Island Sound.

We offer this amendment for several reasons. Let me cite three. The first is that there are serious and debilitating environmental impacts associated with this project. Serious environmental concerns have been raised by the EPA, by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the United States Department of the Interior, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The second is that there are significant safety and security concerns associated with this application, and even the Coast Guard, which would be charged with securing this facility, has indicated that a much more full public discussion needs to take place in order to determine who is going to provide that security and who will fund it.

Lastly, this is the only means available to me to represent my constituents. My constituents are overwhelmingly opposed to this application, to this facility, and yet current law vests in the FERC final authority to grant licensing for this project without any input from local government at all.

This is the only means by which I as a Member of Congress can exercise the will of the constituents I represent.

So I urge my colleagues to join me and Mr. Courtney and Ms. DeLauro in supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Courtney of Connecticut.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Bishop of New York

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review

the application for the Broadwater Energy proposal, dockets

CP06-54-000, CP06-55-000, and CP06-56-000.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize a great American patriot and World War II hero, Lee Hayes, of the renowned Tuskegee Airmen.

In 1941, the formation of the all African-American squadron based in Alabama, the Tuskegee Airmen, was largely regarded as an ``experiment'' by the U.S. military to test the combat readiness of an all-black fighting squadron. These brave servicemen demonstrated exceptional selflessness and patriotism as they fought two wars for our country-- one against the enemy overseas and the other against segregation and discrimination at home.

Among the honors bestowed upon the Tuskegee Airmen include 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 744 Air Medals, 14 Bronze Stars, and 8 Purple Hearts. Most recently, they were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor that the legislative branch can bestow.

I am proud to call one of the Tuskegee Airmen a friend and neighbor. His name is Lee Hayes. He was raised on Long Island and is a current resident of Amagansett, New York. At 88 years young, Mr. Hayes was born in Mannboro, Virginia. In the 1930s, Lee's family moved to eastern Long Island, where he attended East Hampton High School.

Lee Hayes developed an interest in flying planes at a young age, while keenly aware of the sad racial realities of the time. In his own words: ``I never thought much about whether or not blacks fly airplanes . . . It didn't occur to me that we didn't, and the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to do it.''

After the Army drafted him and after scoring a 94 on the preliminary examination, Mr. Hayes impressed his instructors by quickly learning to fly the B-25 bomber. Mr. Hayes never entered combat, as the war ended shortly before he finished his pilot training. He was honorably discharged and returned to East Hampton.

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honor to represent Lee Hayes in the U.S. House of Representatives. On behalf of a grateful nation, I encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring Lee Hayes and the Tuskegee Airmen for their extraordinary bravery and contributions to our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize a committed and respected serviceman, retiring Coast Guard Captain Peter J. Boynton, for his distinguished career.

Captain Boynton has much to be proud of in his 28 year long career with the U.S. Coast Guard. Serving 10 years at sea aboard six different cutters, his experience and commitment is not easily matched; and in June 2004, Boynton accepted the Commander position of the Long Island Sound sector.

As commander, he led 490 active duty military and civilians, 180 uniformed reservists, and 1,800 volunteers with the Coast Guard Auxiliary at 16 operational units. From his command, Captain Boynton oversaw a number of issues and missions involving coastal Connecticut, the Long Island Sound, Long Island, and offshore up to 200 miles. These included life-saving rescues, pollution responses, security enhancements, ice breaking missions, and counter narcotics enforcement operations.

Captain Boynton also served as White House Director of Global Affairs on the National Security Council and at the Department of State as coordinator of international Coast Guard operations. In addition, he has served as Chief of Intelligence for a multi-agency drug task force.

Captain Boynton's successor for the Commander position had this to say: ``Captain Boynton has been an outstanding Sector Commander who has selflessly served the people of Connecticut and Long Island for these past 3 years. I understand I have some big shoes to fill following his retirement and I will work my hardest to continue Sector Long Island Sound's track record of exemplary service to the maritime community''.

Captain Boynton will retire to Connecticut with his wife Susan, and their three children. Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate Captain Boynton for his outstanding service and a highly distinguished career. We wish him and his family continued success and a bright future in the years ahead.

I thank Congressman Israel for yielding, and I also thank him for organizing this special order, something I think that is long overdue. And let me also thank my friend and colleague from New York's Second Congressional District for his leadership role in the Center Aisle Caucus.

In a Congress that is, at times, bitterly divided along partisan lines, and that partisanship obscures the kind of discussion that we need to have on this issue as well as so many other issues, the Center Aisle Caucus stands for civility. It stands for honest and reasoned debate, and it stands for shared decision making. I say qualities that are often in short supply in this Chamber but qualities that are desperately needed, both in this Chamber and in our country.

Let me also start by offering my deepest sympathy and condolences to the family of Specialist James Lundin of Bellport in the First Congressional District, who also gave his life last week in Iraq. He represents, as you know, the 26th Long Islander to lose his or her life in the service of our great country in Iraq. His wake was today, and he will be buried tomorrow in Calverton National Cemetery.

And like you, Congressman Israel, I called his father on Monday, and I spoke with his father. And one of the things that struck me was the remarkable dignity with which he and his family were dealing with what has to be unspeakable pain. It is that kind of dignity that we need to honor in the way we do our jobs, and it is that kind of dignity that we need to bring to what will hopefully be a fruitful discussion of how we move forward in Iraq.

And, as I say, this kind of debate is a debate that must take place. It must be an honest debate; and it must be a debate that, above all, is absent in the often inflammatory and pejorative characterizations of those who offer differing views. And we all engage, at one time or another, in these inflammatory characterizations.

As you said, Congressman Israel, there is not a soul in this Chamber that does not support our troops. And, in fact, the evidence of that is over the course, the 4\1/2\ year course of this conflict, the fact that with overwhelming bipartisan majorities we have consistently given the troops each and every dime that this administration has asked for them and in some cases increased the amounts of money that we will make available to them.

We all want us to succeed in Iraq, in Afghanistan. We may have differing versions or different interpretations of what constitutes success, but that, again, is the kind of debate that ought to take place in a healthy and vibrant democracy.

But the debate thus far has been compromised, as you and others well know, when those of us who think that a time line is something that we ought to seriously consider. When that time line is characterized as a surrender date, that obscures the kind of discussion that we need to have.

When those of us who believe that we must change course in Iraq, when that is characterized by the questioning of our patriotism, that obscures the kind of debate that we need to have.

When looking for time lines or looking for benchmarks or talking about the way in which we fund our troops is characterized as abandoning our troops, that's the kind of thing that obscures the kind of reasonable debate that we need to have.

And with respect to supporting our troops, my own view, and I think this view is shared by a great many in this Chamber, that the best way to support our troops is to put them in positions where they can succeed and get them out of positions in which they cannot succeed. And I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that what has taken place thus far has put our troops in positions in which it has been very, very difficult for them to succeed. So that, if nothing else, motivates an impetus on the part of a great many of us to urge a change of course in Iraq.

I want to speak just for a second, Congressman Israel, about one of the shared principles. And, by the way, those shared principles are the kind of principles that all reasonable people should be able to embrace and support. But one is the issue of standing up the Iraqi security forces. It is a subject about which we have spoken in the past, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of the legislation that you have introduced, along with Chairman Skelton, that would create, in effect, a one-for- one exchange; that for each Iraqi brigade or battalion that we stand up, we would withdraw one of our own.

I think that that kind of approach has several advantages. One, it would be true to the goal that the President himself has set out, and I believe set it out as going as far back as January of 2004, that as the Iraqi stand up we will stand down.

Since January of '04, we have spent about $15 billion to train and equip and outfit Iraqi troops, and we have several hundred Iraqi troops right now in uniform under arms, and yet we continue to increase our own complement of troops.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable, sane, rational proposition that we impose obligations on the Iraqi troops; and as they step up to those obligations, we relieve our own troops of those obligations.

As I say, I think the legislation that you and Chairman Skelton have filed and that, as I say, I am proud to cosponsor, I think that that is very reasonable legislation. I hope to see that legislation receive the kind of debate and discussion and attention that it ought to.

We're not done yet. As you know, we have a report coming to us in September; and at that point the Congress is going to need to make another set of

decisions. Hopefully, that kind of reasoned response to a situation that none of us can support in terms of how it has gone thus far is the kind of direction in which we need to head.

So, with that, I'm happy to yield back to you.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I think it is, as I said before, a perfectly reasonable idea but also one that represents, I believe, an imperative. I think even the most ardent supporters of our presence in Iraq must recognize the enormous strain that a prolonged presence in Iraq has placed on our Armed Forces, and I believe the most ardent supporter must recognize that it will be enormously difficult, if not impossible, for us to maintain that presence at the current level or even at the presurge level. And thus if there is a chance of bringing order to Iraq, it must in the long term rest with Iraqi security forces as opposed to our own forces.

And as I say, we have spent $15 billion thus far, and I won't say we have little to show for it but we certainly don't have as much to show for it as I believe everyone in this Chamber would agree. So I think that of the shared principles, and I think they are all crucial and important, but I think this perhaps take prominence over all the others because if for no other reason, just the simple logistics of maintaining the troop presence we have given our current end strength is going to be enormously difficult, if not debilitating, on our Armed Forces.

I thank Mr. Israel for yielding.

I want to pick up on a comment that my friend from Connecticut just made with respect to how we should deal with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. You suggested that we bring those recommendations here and we discuss them and endorse them. And I think that the model is the 9/11 Commission. It was a bipartisan commission that issued a unanimous set of recommendations, which in the main we have acted upon here in this Chamber. The Iraq Study Group was a bipartisan group that issued a unanimous set of recommendations. And I believe that they are ones that we can galvanize around, and I believe that they make good sense. They perhaps don't give all of us everything that we would want on either side of the aisle, but they do represent a way to move forward. And I believe that if we were to bring those recommendations here, I believe they would attract majority support in this Chamber, and perhaps that could then be used as a means to moving with the administration, who I think now has also endorsed the recommendations of the Study Group.

Initially they seemed to reject them, or at least dismiss them, but I think now, as time has passed and as the situation on the ground has continued to evolve, they now recognize that they do have merit, that they do have legitimacy. And they also speak to several, if not all, of the shared principles that we are discussing here this evening that come out of the Center Aisle Caucus. So I thank you for making that suggestion, and hopefully we can carry forward with that.

I would certainly agree. And I think we all await General Petraeus' report. And I don't know General Petraeus, but I have been told that he is a man of absolutely rigorous and unimpeachable intellectual honesty and he will give us an honest, spin- free report, which I think is something that we all need and would value. But I also think sending that coalition of people, as you say, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, back to see on the ground conditions 9, 10 months after they wrote their report or 11 months after they wrote their report, I think would be enormously valuable and again perhaps would spur both the Congress and the administration to take their recommendations more seriously or give greater weight to them than we have thus far.

I just want to make two points. One, on the question of engaging Iran and others that we see as enemies or adversaries, you are quite right, Mr. Dent, that there is no guarantee of success if we do engage, but we can virtually guarantee no success if we don't engage. So it just seems to me that engagement is absolutely crucial.

I think I am quoting former Secretary of State Baker correctly when I quote him as saying that engaging in dialogue with our enemies is not appeasement. It is diplomacy and negotiation and dialogue, something I think we have had too little of. Hopefully we are moving in that direction now, and signs recently are that we are.

The second point I would make is that Iran has an awful lot at stake here. If, in fact, as a great many fear, Iraq becomes a haven for al Qaeda, I cannot imagine that Iran views an al Qaeda-Sunni dominated state on their borders as something that is in their best interests. So I think that they clearly do have in effect common interests with us in terms of bringing some order, some stability, to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, last week the White House recommended a veto of the defense authorization bill and said Congress wants to pay our troops too much for defending America. It is unconscionable to suggest our troops aren't worth a half percent more in pay, while many of their families scrape by on food stamps or pay for their own body armor.

Paying our troops what they deserve should go hand in hand with relieving them of taxes they don't deserve. That is why the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and I introduced a bill last week to eliminate Federal taxation of student loan reimbursements to military personnel and Federal civilian employees.

Our bill, H.R. 2363, eliminates this tax and creates an incentive to help our Armed Forces compete with private sector recruitment and retention by lowering the soaring debt faced by college graduates.

Mr. Speaker, as we salute our troops and honor our fallen this Memorial Day, let's give them the pay raise they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise in support of H.R. 2264. As I drive around eastern Long Island, an area that is heavily dependent on its economic stability on travel and tourism, it is all too common to see gas prices as high as $3.30 a gallon. I'm reminded of how few influences beyond our shores affect our economic prosperity as much as the supply of oil.

The disappointment we share after 6\1/2\ years of failed foreign and energy policies is matched by our frustration that price gouging by oil and gas companies, as well as collusion among foreign governments to restrict the flow of oil to the United States, continue unchecked.

As Thomas Friedman has written in the New York Times, we can't have an effective, forward-looking foreign policy toward the Middle East without a serious energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill, which empowers the U.S. to legally challenge foreign collusion resulting in price spikes, is a good first step towards that goal.

One of the first resolutions I introduced called on the President to demand OPEC boost oil production, which was also included in the Democratic substitute I was proud to offer to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Despite a wave of record gas prices that summer, President Bush and the then-majority ignored that call.

Consequently, the surging price of gas continues to hit middle-class families hard while we wait for the administration to produce a foreign and energy policy that finally shrinks our reliance on foreign oil and vulnerability to the whims of oil cartels.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. We can be proud that this budget finally produces a vision for our future that reflects our hopes and dreams and the promise of economic prosperity and security in the years ahead.

I commend my distinguished chairman and his staff for their hard work, which has resulted in a balanced budget within 5 years, and restoration of middle-class priorities to the budget process. While restoring fiscal responsibility, we also raise funding for veterans, for health care, and for education.

This budget contains reconciliation instructions regarding education expenditures. I believe we have the opportunity to use these instructions to the benefit of students and their families. This budget guarantees that increasing college access and affordability are paramount goals of our majority, and prove that we have followed through on our promise to set a new direction for America.

As our chairman has said repeatedly, if you can't budget, you can't govern. With this budget conference report today, we demonstrate our commitment to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the over 3 million women living with breast cancer, in strong support of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. Breast cancer remains the leading cause of death among women between the ages of 40 and 55. My sister-in-law was among them, having died at the age of only 41. While important advances have been made, we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it.

Scientific evidence as to the role the environment plays in the development of breast cancer is scarce. There is a clear need for research on the relationship between environmental factors and breast cancer. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would facilitate such research by establishing a national strategy to study the link between the environment and breast cancer by creating multi- institutional, multi-disciplinary centers that study the environmental factors that contribute to the disease.

Although there are currently 221 cosponsors, this legislation has yet to have a hearing in committee. If we are going to make a serious commitment to preventing and curing breast cancer we must pass this legislation so that one day we can announce that our mothers, daughters, sisters, and friends are free of this disease.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and pass the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act. I represent the majority of Suffolk County where 20 Head Start and three Early Head Start centers have been serving the community since 1966. In fact, my wife's first job out of college was as a Head Start teacher in one of those centers.

Parents, teachers and many of our colleagues can all agree that Head Start is one of our Nation's most prominent and successful early education programs. This bill continues to build on Head Start's successes by ensuring that kids are prepared for school, by improving teacher and classroom quality, strengthening the focus on school readiness, increasing accountability and boosting coordination.

Research finds that children who attend Head Start enter school better prepared than low-income children who do not attend the program, and that children who attend Head Start make significant gains.

If we are serious about achieving the goals set forth by No Child Left Behind, then passing Head Start reauthorization is a down payment on achieving those goals.

During the markup of this bill, I was proud to offer an amendment that would allow Head Start programs to use up to 10 percent of their quality improvement funds for transportation costs. This amendment was in response to concerns brought to me by my constituents that many have thought programs were being forced to choose between providing transportation to children or sacrificing the quality of their program.

With my amendment and so many other worthwhile improvements to Head Start, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this balanced reauthorization for the benefit of our children and future generations of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Country Reports on Terrorism

released by the State Department yesterday indicate that terrorist attacks increased by 25 percent last year, and more than 40 percent more people were killed. In these most dangerous times, this tells us we can't afford to take our focus off the global war on terror. Still, exactly 4 years after the President proclaimed mission accomplished aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, his failed Iraq policy persists in overextending our armed forces and in refusing to compel Iraq to take responsibility for their own security and future.

Today, when the President vetoes withdrawal provisions supported by a majority of Americans, he places another's obstacle in the way of what should be our priority mission, winning the global war on terror. We know the administration's stay-the-course policy in Iraq is a failure. We know it has taken our eye off the war on terror.

Now we have the numbers to back up that statement and the proof we need to stop the President from compounding this Nation's single greatest foreign policy mistakes. I encourage my colleagues to consider the hard and irrefutable evidence by the State Department, thereby advancing our withdrawal from Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate a major anniversary and an irreplaceable institution in New York's First Congressional District, St. Charles Hospital.

Established in 1907 by four sisters with a mission to provide compassionate care for those in need, St. Charles Hospital has evolved into a state of the art community hospital serving tens of thousands of patients. The hospital has established itself as a nationally recognized center for rehabilitation, providing specialized rehabilitation services for pediatric patients, stroke victims, and a variety of other debilitating diseases.

This year, St. Charles Hospital celebrates its 100th anniversary. After a century of dedicated service to the community and millions served, the hospital has remained loyal to its founding mission of compassionate care for the underserved.

Madam Speaker, there is an Arabic proverb that says: ``He who has health has hope; and he who has hope has everything.'' On behalf of the residents of New York's First District, I thank St. Charles Hospital for providing health and hope to all of us. I congratulate them on their 100th anniversary and I hope they continue to improve the lives of Long Island's residents for years to come.