Maurice Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Chairman, this has been a very interesting debate, and one of the aspects of it with which I find myself in agreement is the assertion by my friend on the other side of the aisle that there is a display of differences of opinion and attitudes with regard to the way in which we handle our fiscal responsibilities here, and there is no question about that. If you look at the last 6 years, while the Republican Party has controlled every aspect of this government, they managed to succeed to almost double the national debt. They now have us in a situation where we owe almost $9 trillion, $8.9 trillion. They continue to spend, as a result of their initiatives, now, about $11 billion a month on Iraq, the illegal invasion of Iraq which they perpetrated and are interested in carrying out. What we're trying to do here in this particular bill, and in the context of our budget responsibilities, is to focus attention on the needs of the American people, what we as a Congress ought to be doing in the context of our responsibilities, serving the American people, doing what's right for them, improving the possibility, the prospects of education, making it easier for our children to get the best possible education that they can get, making it easier for people to get the health care that they need, making it easier for people to deal with housing situations and circumstances so that people have proper housing. In other words, our objectives and our priorities are to improve the quality of life of the American people, while your obvious priorities and objectives are to decrease the quality of life of the American people, which is consistent with your objective in the context of this particular amendment. You want to reduce the amount of money that is available for education, reduce the amount of money that's available for health care, reduce the amount of money that's available for housing and other things that are essential to the American public, while you keep wasting more and more money in Iraq. announcement by the chairman

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the kindness of my friend and colleague from New Jersey for providing me with this time. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee which has oversight over the Food and Drug Administration, so over the course of a number of years now, I have been deeply engaged in this issue. I am glad that the FDA Amendments Act that we are discussing here this evening addresses a number of the problems that we have confronted over the course of the last number of years. These problems include giving the agency enhanced authority on post- market drug safety and developing a strengthened system for oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising. That is a very good move in the right direction. However, I am deeply disappointed that this bill neglects to sufficiently address a number of other major issues that are jeopardizing the trustworthiness of the Food and Drug Administration, the agency that is supposed to represent the gold standard for consumer protection in America. First, the FDA Amendments Act reauthorizes the Prescription Drug User Fee Act through which drug companies provide funding to the FDA for its drug safety approval and oversight activities. So, in other words, what we have is the regulated industry paying money to the agency that judges the worthiness of the industry's products and how they put those products on the market. To make matters worse, before each reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA sits down with representatives from this industry to negotiate out performance standards that the agency will achieve in return for those funds. In fact, representatives from the FDA met 112 times with representatives from the big pharmaceutical industry before the agency sent their recommendations with regard to this bill to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, the FDA only met five times with other groups, groups like consumers, medical professionals and advocates; only five times with groups like that to hear their perspective on reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. The FDA is in bed with the drug companies, and put simply, the FDA Amendments Act does not sufficiently sever this inappropriate relationship between the agency and the regulated industry. Under this bill, the FDA will continue to collect funding from a regulated industry and will continue to meet industry standards and put those standards above everyone else's interest. Second, the FDA Amendment Act does not sufficiently address financial conflict of interest among members of agency advisory committees. These committees exist to provide the agency with unbiased scientific advice on controversial issues, and such advice can easily be tainted by these conflicts; and we have seen numerous examples of how it has been. Many of my colleagues will remember voting to end such conflicts during our consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Agricultural appropriations bill. Since that time, the FDA has come forward with a new policy of its own that would stop those members with over $5,000 worth of inappropriate financial holdings from even participating on advisory committees and stop all conflicted members from voting on the committees regardless of the size of that conflict. Unfortunately, the FDA Amendment Act does not continue the movement for change that has been espoused by both the House and now internally by the FDA. Instead, this legislation would enable the agency to continue to waive conflicted members on to advisory committees. There is simply no need for this policy to continue. Finally, this legislation does nothing to keep the FDA from its current misinformed policy of preempting State law on drug policy. The Bush FDA's relentless arguments in favor of preemption robs consumers of recourse from injury and issues drug companies a free pass from accountability. As we have seen from recent flu vaccine crises, revelations of conflicts of interest, and failures of post-market drugs such as Vioxx, the FDA is clearly not a perfect agency. At the same time, drug companies are not sufficiently forthcoming about side effects related to their products. It is illogical for the Federal Government to close the door on a method of recourse for Americans who have been affected by these imperfections. In a world in which drug companies are not fully clear about the safety of their drugs, and the FDA is not sufficiently on the side of consumers, the role of the State courts in protecting Americans is more important than ever. I am very disappointed in these provisions, and I think that they all should be considered carefully in the examination of this legislation.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of this very important subcommittee, for yielding. I am very interested in the amendments that Mr. Flake is presenting and have been all of the time that he has presented them over the course of the last several years. Mr. Flake seems to be devoting his attention towards trying to make sure that as much of the spending in these bills as possible is not being done in a wasteful way, that it is being done appropriately. And if that is the motivation, then I think all of us would certainly appreciate that motivation. But the effects of the amendments, I think, are questionable. First of all, basically, under our Constitution and the provision of law, it is quite clear that every Member of this House has a fundamental responsibility, first of all, to represent the people in their congressional district. And most of these earmarks, probably all of them now under the Democratic leadership, which is much more open, are designed to do precisely that, make sure that these budgets address at least to some small degree the needs in each of those congressional districts. But if Mr. Flake and others on the other side of the aisle are truly interested in trying to regulate spending and make sure that it is done properly, I would ask them to focus their attention on other things that really need to be looked at. For example, this administration is still spending something in the neighborhood of $8 billion a month in Iraq. We have spent now almost half a trillion dollars there on that illegal, elicit war and continuing disastrous occupation. None of these amendments are focused on that. Let me just mention a new report by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which concludes, among other things, that the Bush administration has put forth a shadow government of private companies working under Federal contracts that have exploded in size. Between the year 2000 and 2005, while the Republicans controlled both Houses of the Congress here, procurement spending increased by more than $175 billion, making Federal contracts the fastest-growing part of the Federal discretionary spending. These huge government contracts are done at the expense of the taxpayers. And in this report, it is made clear that Federal spending by one particular corporation, Halliburton, which, of course, we know is directly connected to Vice President Cheney, Federal spending to Halliburton increased more than 600 percent between 2000 and 2005. Now, why aren't our friend on the other side of the aisle focusing their attention on this? We are. We are paying attention to it. We are trying to change the course of this government. The Government Accountability Office recently found that the government has wasted at least $2.7 billion on Halliburton contracts which were overpriced contracts or had within them undocumented costs. $2.7 billion. So while we are wasting all of this time on these little so-called earmarks where Members of the Congress are trying to do their job for the people they represent, people like Mr. Flake are ignoring things like $2.7 billion in overpayments and undocumented costs to companies like Halliburton. A record level of nearly 40 cents of every discretionary Federal dollar now goes to these private contractors. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious we need a new concentration of attention.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HINCHEY. First of all, before I begin, I want to express my deep admiration and appreciation to the chairman of this Environment and Interior Subcommittee, for the marvelous job he has done in putting this bill together. It is extraordinary in all that it does and improvements that it makes. Also, I express my appreciation to the ranking minority member, Mr. Tiahrt, and all of the good work he has done and his responsibility on this committee, and particularly with regard to this bill. Ironically, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas because he gives me an opportunity to talk a little bit about the Maverick Concert Hall. This small amount of money in this bill would provide for the restoration work on this Maverick Concert Hall. The Maverick Concert Hall was handbuilt in 1916 in a very unique rustic style. It was done so by famed Maverick Art Colony founder and philosopher Hervey White. Local carpenters put the building together, along with a band of resident ``maverick'' artists and volunteers. The Maverick Art Colony was a key element in the emergence of Woodstock, New York, as a nationally influential art colony. Now on the National Register of Historic Places, the hall is the home of the oldest continuous summer chamber music series anywhere in the United States. For 91 years, America's leading professional artists have presented summer concerts at the hall. The acoustics in this rural building are nearly perfect. Maverick concerts became the prototype for other summer music festivals, taking music from the cities and bringing them into rural, bucolic settings. True to the egalitarian spirit of the original colony, the concerts are offered to the public and free for children and at very affordable prices in a lovely wooded surrounding for adults. It is a marvelous place, and I am very proud to be the sponsor of this piece of this bill which would provide this very modest amount of funding for this particular project in the town of Woodstock, New York. With regard to some of the things that the author and the sponsor of this amendment have put forward, I think it is important for all of us to recognize that he is very grossly mistaken in some of the things that he said. For example, there are no tax increases in this budget, and no tax increases in any of the things that we are dealing with here today. In fact, what we are trying to do, this new Democratic majority in this House of Representatives and in the Senate as well, what we are trying to do is to rebalance the budget because in the several terms that my good friend from Texas, the sponsor of this amendment has been part of, we have increased the national debt by a huge amount of money. We have almost doubled the national debt while he was in the majority party and voting for all of those things that brought about that increase in the national debt, almost doubling it. He has been responsible, along with some others, really placing future generations deeply, deeply in debt. He talks about the need to be responsible in the way we provide Federal financing for issues across the country. I would simply remind the sponsor of this amendment that on a per capita basis, far more Federal money goes into the State of Texas than goes into the State of New York, for example. So with that fact in mind, if he was really sincere and serious about what he is saying, then he would be recommending that the people in his district reject the Federal funding that they are receiving. I don't advise him to do that, but I do advise him to be more serious, be more sincere, be more knowledgeable and understanding about your responsibilities here, the kinds of things that we are obliged to do, particularly in the context of the way we are authorized under the Constitution to provide for the people of this country. To spend the money appropriately, intelligently, doing good things for all of the people. Mr. Tiahrt understands that. It is quite clear in the way that he has helped put this bill together. And, of course, Mr. Dicks understands it very well. And we understand it, too. That is why we are going to be supporting this bill very enthusiastically and why I ask everyone here to reject this amendment from our friend from Texas.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to extend my appreciation and gratitude to Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for putting together a very fine bill. However, what we want to do is oppose a certain part of this, denying funding for monopolistic corporations to impede upon States rights and people's private personal proper rights. It's an important amendment and I ask everyone to consider it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

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

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. HINCHEY. I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Visclosky, not just for his excellent work in putting this appropriations bill together, but also for yielding me this time. It's important for every Member of this House to focus their attention on what is happening here and what we are trying to do. What we are dealing with here in the context of this appropriations bill, which, if this amendment is successful, will function out there for only 1 year, what we are attempting to deal with is an obscure provision in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which hardly any Member of this House, I bet, understood when that bill was passed because of the obscurity of this provision. What does this provision do? This provision tramples on States rights. It says if any State, any State in the Nation is unable to agree to a location for a high-tension transmission line, or if they stipulate that certain corrections have to be made, if that takes more than 1 year, which it would in almost every case, then the Federal Energy Agency steps in and they designate where the corridor will go, overriding States rights. I believe that this provision is contrary to a very significant provision in the United States Constitution, and this provision overrides States rights. That alone is good reason to vote for this amendment. But beyond that, that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which this amendment would stop in its tracks for just 1 year so that we could give it further consideration, that provision stipulates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can exercise eminent domain on people's private personal property. That means that FERC can condemn anyone's private personal property in order to establish one of these high-tension transmission corridors. That in itself is bad enough. But that provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 goes even further. It says that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, can grant that power of condemnation of individual citizens' private personal property rights to a private corporation so that the private corporation can now go in and declare eminent domain and condemn people's private personal property. This provision in this Energy Policy Act overrides States rights and the individual rights of private American citizens. It was put in there inappropriately. Hardly anybody was aware of it when that bill passed. Many of us voted against it nevertheless. Still, it is part of the law. What we are saying here in this amendment to this appropriations bill is give us another year to look at this issue. Let this issue be considered more carefully. We should not have this kind of impediment against States rights and people's private personal property rights. I ask you, on behalf of all of your constituents, please join us in support of this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, we all realize that it is the responsibility of every Congress to ensure that the current administration adheres to the Constitution and the rule of law. Most of us understand how this administration used the policy office within the Pentagon to falsify intelligence and to provide the Congress with false information in an attempt to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous military occupation which has been going on there now for more than 4 years. This amendment makes perfect sense. It simply ensures that kind of behavior by this administration is not extended now into another country in the Middle East, Iran, based upon the same falsification of information and failure to adhere to its obligations under the Constitution. This amendment must be passed. It makes perfect sense, and it ensures the security of our country and makes sure that our military personnel are not exposed to the kinds of danger that they have been exposed to as a result of the falsification of intelligence by this administration. Let's pass this amendment.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from California for raising this issue, which I think is very important. We are now confronting a situation in Iraq where the number of our military personnel who have been killed is approaching 3,400. Tens of thousands of others have been physically wounded, many of them very seriously. A good number of those deaths and wounds may be attributed to the lack of proper equipment. We went into that situation, this administration sent our military forces into that circumstance there, without properly preparing for what they had to confront. In fact, they didn't have any idea what they were likely to confront. Many of the issues are that we have not developed the kinds of protection, the kinds of equipment, including transportation equipment and personal protection equipment, a whole host of things that are relevant to this situation, while we spend billions of dollars on materials that may have been necessary during the Cold War but which are no longer necessary now. We need what this amendment calls for, a re-evaluation of those military activities and equipment, and this is a very simple thing, and it should be done.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Kenneth Lindsay, a most remarkable and distinguished constituent of mine. Mr. Lindsay is one of about a dozen living members of the Monument Men, who worked to save tens of thousands of works of art during World War II. Mr. Lindsay is also a Binghamton University Professor Emeritus of Art History where he chaired the Art History Department for 17 years. Mr. Lindsay's love of art and art history first developed while he was a student at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He signed up with the Army's Signal Corps and was preparing to go overseas in 1942. Catching scarlet fever delayed his deployment, but it resulted in his eventual assignment to the Monument Men after Victory in Europe Day in 1945. Mr. Lindsay first served as a technical corporal in London and was later sent to Omaha Beach. Following V-E Day, the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Section of the U.S. Army, whose members were nicknamed the Monument Men, worked to save and preserve works of art that had been seized during the Nazi rule of Germany. Mr. Lindsay was assigned to the Monument Men in Wiesbaden, Germany in 1945. He personally handled some of Europe's most valuable works of art. A noted piece that passed through Mr. Lindsay's hands is the Holy Crown of Hungary, one of the most famous crowns of the Middle Ages. One of the most memorable pieces that he processed was a statue of the Egyptian Queen Nefertiti, which was stolen by the Germans in 1912. Wars present perilous challenges for art, and the art world is indeed fortunate that Mr. Lindsay was available to help put the pieces back together in post-war Germany. Without the dedicated work from men such as Mr. Lindsay, a large amount of the world's culture would have been lost. Mr. Lindsay's work in World War II and as a teacher of art history has given future generations the opportunity to enjoy history and the rich cultures across the world. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to salute Professor Emeritus Kenneth Lindsay for his dedication in the Army and as a teacher. He has left his unique mark on his students, peers, and the art community.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce of Broome County, New York, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. This Chamber is a truly dynamic organization that has shown a remarkable ability to grow, adapt, and succeed over the course of its one-hundred year history and it remains a driving force for economic growth. It gives me great pleasure to recognize the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce at its centennial anniversary. The Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce serves a region with a rich history in industrial innovation and commerce, a history that stretches back to its founding father and namesake, the Englishman William Bingham, an eminent merchant and banker based in Philadelphia. By the time of the Chamber's establishment, Binghamton and Broome County had risen to become a national manufacturing and commercial force, producing everything from wagons and furniture to cigars and ``medicine.'' In the twentieth century, the region became known as the Valley of Innovation and produced industrial giants such as IBM, Link Aviation, and the Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company. While these large employers contributed greatly to the growth and prosperity of the region, they were mostly memories by the dawn of the twenty-first century. The loss of certain large employers meant new challenges for Broome County and new opportunities for the local chamber of commerce. The Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce has played an essential role in helping local businesses adapt to an ever-changing business climate. With nearly 1,000 members representing 50,000 employees, the Chamber boasts a broad and diverse membership that spans the entire county. The Chamber uses its influence wisely, successfully partnering with community leaders, playing a key role in developing and implementing strategies to grow the local economy, and always working to make Broome County a destination for people to live, work and raise families. The work of the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce is an integral part of the region's history and an essential part of its future. I look forward to many more opportunities for partnering with this dynamic organization and celebrating the continuing success story that is the Greater Binghamton Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides an honest and sensible solution to one of the most complex and volatile problems ever to confront our Nation. More than 4 years ago, this administration engaged in an unnecessary and illegal invasion of another sovereign country, and that has now been followed by almost 4 years of an increasingly disastrous occupation. All during that time, the Republican Party held the majority in this House, and they conducted no oversight of this activity whatsoever, and the consequences have been disastrous for our Nation. This bill now provides us with the means and the direction to change these disastrous decisions made by this administration and the failure of oversight of the Republican Party. It enables us to help our troops. It provides them with the equipment that they need to carry out their obligations and responsibilities now theirs. And it provides us with a means to remove ourselves in the appropriate way. Anyone with any sense is going to vote for this bill.

Mr. HINCHEY

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my coming to the floor this evening, along with a number of my friends and colleagues on this side of the aisle, is to mark the fact that tomorrow will be the 4th year that our military forces instigated by the administration have attacked Iraq and engaged in what the administration has called a war in that country. Most people now have come to realize that we are not engaged in a war in Iraq, but we are engaged now in an occupation, the consequences of which are proving to be increasingly disastrous. At 10:15 p.m. on March 19, 2003, in a televised address to the Nation, President Bush announced the start of what he refers to as ``the war in Iraq.'' The way in which the administration attempted to justify that attack has been a grave consequence for the United States, both internally and around the world. The President, of course, and others in his administration contended that there was a connection between Iraq and the attack that took place in New York and at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, that Iraq was somehow involved in that attack, when all of the evidence and information indicated that that was not the case. In spite of that, the administration continued to make that allegation. They then went on to say that it was important that the United States invade Iraq for the safety of our country and for the safety of others because Iraq was a country that possessed what they referred to as ``weapons of mass destruction,'' alleging that there was substantial amounts of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. They then went on to assert that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, and the President of the United States in a 2003 State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress and to the Nation here in this House asserted that the British Government had learned that Iraq had imported enriched uranium from Niger. When he included that sentence in his State of the Union Address, he was very much aware that the intelligence agencies in our country had said that there was no proof that that was the case. In fact, they had examined the documents upon which those assertions were being made, and they found those documents which had been stolen from the Nigerian Embassy in Rome were, in fact, forged. So what we have here is an unnecessary and unjustified and consequently illegal attack on another country and a subsequent disastrous occupation which has gone on now for 4 years, and we will be beginning the fifth year starting tomorrow. As a result of this occupation, over 3,200 American servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq since our invasion over 4 years ago. Over 24,000 troops have been wounded in action in Iraq, and the number of Iraqis killed is unknown, but the estimates range as high as 200,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, who have been killed in that country as a result of the military action. We are spending now about $275 million per day in Iraq. More than $8 billion every month is being spent in that country. And as the Speaker of the House noted earlier this evening in her speech on the floor, at least $10 billion of that money is completely unaccounted for, and much of the rest has been spent in ways that have not been productive, but have been extraordinarily wasteful. The President in January called for what he referred to as a surge of nearly 30,000 additional soldiers into Iraq. So far that has amounted to 21,500 additional troops that have gone to Iraq in January, and 4,400 more just two weekends ago. The circumstances there continue to deteriorate as a result of the corrupt and incompetent way in which this illegal invasion and subsequent occupation have been carried out by this administration. Roughly half of all of the ground equipment that the U.S. Army owns is now located in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the invasion, the Army has lost nearly 2,000 wheeled vehicles and more than 1,000 armed vehicles. To make matters worse, according to the GAO, the Army has not been keeping accurate track of what they have and what they need to reset the force, and they cannot provide sufficient detail for Congress to provide effective oversight. Between 75,000 and 100,000 pieces of National Guard equipment worth nearly $2 billion are now located in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is equipment that is needed by the National Guard here in our country to carry out the obligations and responsibilities of the National Guard around the United States. And they are now increasingly being deprived of their ability to carry out their responsibilities and obligations because of the loss of their equipment. The Regular Army has lost so much equipment which has not been replaced that they are now using the equipment of the National Guard to replace the equipment that they have lost and which this administration has failed to provide replacements for. We have a situation that is confronting us now in Iraq which is increasingly damaging, dangerous, and on the verge of being disastrous for our country as well as for others in the Middle East. We need this Congress to assert its obligations and responsibilities to oversee the activities of this administration, and that is clearly necessary because all through the 4 years during which this illegal invasion took place followed by this occupation, there has not been any significant oversight by this Congress, which, of course, was controlled by the Republican majority for all of that period of time. Now that we have a Democratic majority in Congress, that oversight is beginning. Appropriate hearings are being conducted both in this House and in the Senate, and more and more information concerning the way in which this operation has been carried out is being made available to the American people, and as a result of that, more and more people across the country are realizing what a disaster this has been. More and more Americans are understanding how they were intentionally and purposefully misled and deceived by this administration in order to carry out this invasion which had absolutely nothing to do with the attack of September 11, and which cannot be justified in any way whatsoever. This action is unlawful, and appropriate oversight and supervision based upon detailed and focused hearings by this Congress is now absolutely necessary. We have with us this evening several of my colleagues who are interested in speaking about this issue, and I would now like to recognize my very good friend from Ohio, who will address the House at this time.

Mr. HINCHEY. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the statement that was just made by our colleague from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, the respect that she has given to our military, appropriately so, and her examination of the consequences that we are confronting now in Iraq as a result of the incompetent way in which this administration has dealt with the political and economic circumstances there in that country. I would like now to yield time to my friend and colleague from New York, John Hall.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend John Hall from New York for his strong presentation and for joining us this evening in this discussion about this critical issue. I would now like to recognize my friend and colleague from California, Barbara Lee.

Mr. HINCHEY. I thank you for your very articulate expression of all of those facts, your leadership here and for joining us this evening. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize my friend from California (Ms. Woolsey).