Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 this House gave the President a blank check to go to war. He has gone to war on a very, very shaky basis in Iraq. Last night, with 10 minutes' debate, we extended the presidential blank check to Iran. Every morning as I come into my office, I pass the pictures of 75 members of the military from Washington State who have died. How many more are going to die in the war in Iran? We need more than 10 minutes to debate that. When this country went to war in Vietnam and we extended the war to bombing Cambodia, there was no debate on this floor about that issue. There should be debate, and the President should have a vote of the Congress. They left off the roof with that escalation in Vietnam. They'll do it again if they don't have the support of the Congress.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, this President has used the resolution that we passed some years ago as a blank check to take us into a disastrous situation in Iraq, leaving Afghanistan half done. What we are trying to do with this amendment is simply say to the President, you have to stay where we put the money. If you want to come out and go after Iran in a preemptive way, as you did against Iraq when you had no evidence, when you came to this floor and presented evidence that turned out not to be true, and use that as a pretext for going into war, we are heading for in Iran, in my view, another Gulf of Tonkin kind of situation, where you cook up a situation. This administration took down the border between Iran and Iraq and now complains to us everywhere that we are getting all kinds of weapons coming in from Iran. Using that as a pretext, the Arab press yesterday reports that the Vice President was in the Middle East telling people that war is coming, telling them that the problems in Iraq don't keep us out of anything. They won't be any hindrance to us going into Iran. This amendment is simply an attempt to put a minor block in the way of this administration's desire to widen this war, probably to get people's minds off how bad it is in Iraq. This is supposed to be winding down in Iraq because of the escalation. But in fact that is not what is happening. We are losing more soldiers every day. We have had the bloodiest months in this war. This amendment is simply to say the United States Congress will decide where this country goes to war, not the President, who wants to go out and create whatever situation he wants in the world. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 263) recognizing National Foster Care Month as an opportunity for Congress to improve the foster care system throughout the United States, as amended.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the month of May marks National Foster Care Month. The foster care system provides a safe sanctuary for children who are unable to live safely in their homes. Its primary goal is to ensure their safety and well-being by providing them with critical services and working to find a safe and loving and permanent home. Over 500,000 American children are in the foster care system on any given day with over 100,000 of these children waiting to be adopted. They need our help, and I believe this is one place where every Member of the House can come together as one, committed to protecting these innocent children. This morning, we, Mr. Weller and I, had a hearing in the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support to review the changes and the challenges that child welfare agencies encounter in achieving positive outcomes for children and families under their service. The hearing identified a number of areas that need to be improved to strengthen children and families, which I am committed to addressing. The hearing also highlighted the commitment of some of our most selfless Americans on behalf of some of our most vulnerable children. Millions of Americans serve as foster parents, and, in doing so, have unselfishly opened their homes and their lives to children in need. These families are to be commended for working cooperatively with human service agencies and biological parents to strengthen the lives of these foster children. We should also recognize the work of dedicated case workers, juvenile court justices, physicians and the advocates who have committed their lives to ensuring the safety and well-being of our most vulnerable children. These tireless workers should be commended for their work on behalf of children and families in crisis. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing May 2007 as National Foster Care Month and commending the dedication of foster parents, case workers, judges, service providers and advocates for their commitment to our Nation's most vulnerable children. Madam Speaker, I would now ask unanimous consent to allow Representative Cardoza of California, who is the author of this resolution and a staunch advocate for improving the well-being of children in foster care, and actually an adoptive parent of a couple of kids from foster care, so he's done it at every level, to control the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we need a vote on whether this country is going to go to war with Iran. We have talked to the Speaker about it. She has promised it. But the time is getting short. Every day that we wait, we allow people down at the White House to continue to talk about this. The vote we gave in 2002 to allow the President to deal with the problems of 9/11 was not a blank check to attack any country in the world. This war on terror began with some sense in Afghanistan, and then moved to Iraq to the absolute chaos we have today. It is a quagmire from which we can't get ourselves. And, unfortunately, the President and his Vice President are leading us, it appears, toward a war with Iran. Ask why the urgency? Why do you want to come out here and talk about that tonight? Well, there was an article that appeared today in the Al- Quds Al-Arabi, which is an Arabic paper published in London. It is a very respectable paper, and it is one that most people in this body, in fact most people in this country, never heard of, nor do they understand and will never know about it because our press won't pick it up. But I read the Middle Eastern press every day. I have some in my office who read Arabic, and they translate it for me, and I get a summary every day in my office of what is going on. This article I think deserves to be quoted a little bit, because people may not get the Congressional Quarterly or the Congressional Record and read it. The article says this: ``Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday ended his tour of the Arab world that started with Iraq and ended in the capitals of four other Arab countries, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. High ranking Arab diplomatic sources close to the talks with Cheney confirmed to the newspaper that the probability of war became more likely than peace in the region.'' This is Arabs listening to the Vice President of the United States talk. ``The same sources indicated that Cheney was talking to Gulf leaders he met in a very confident and self-assured way, stressing that the involvement of this country in Iraq does not mean it is in a weak situation and cannot launch another war.'' Think about that. The Vice President is telling the Arab leaders, because we are in this mess in Iraq, just ignore that. We still can go to Iran and have a war. Cheney went and talked to soldiers and sailors on one of the aircraft carriers, ``announcing to them,'' and this again is a quote, ``in a decisive manner that the U.S. will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons and that the option of a military attack is not excluded.'' Now, he said, again quoting, ``Cheney expressed his conviction that striking Iran may be the best solution for the situation in Iraq.'' Think about it. We are going to solve our problems in Iraq by attacking Iran. He says, ``because Tehran,'' the capital of Iran, ``has the biggest influence in the country and is the source of the arms of the militia.'' Now, this is from a man who sent to Iraq a guy named Bremer who took down all the guards and all the barriers at the border between Iran and Iraq, and Iran, of course, has been coming into Iraq. This administration set it up, or else they were ignorant. You can take your choice on that. He said, ``They do not expect that there will be any retaliation by Iraq's Shiite militias. Quite the contrary, the Sunni groups and militias will take the opportunity to settle accounts with the ruling government in Baghdad under American support.'' So what he is saying is that the United States is shifting its support from the Maliki government, which is Shiite, and they are now over there telling people, well, we are going to now be supporting the Sunni elements so that they can get--Mr. Speaker, I include the translation of the Al-Quds Al-Arabi article for the Record. Vice-President Dick Cheney yesterday ended his tour of the Arab world that started with Iraq and included the capitals of four other Arab countries, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, amidst a war of words with the Iranian President Ahamdi Nijad, who launched a diplomatic counter-attack in the form of two sudden visits to the Emirates and to Oman. High-ranking Arab diplomatic sources close to the talks with Cheney confirmed to Al-Quds Al-Arabi that the probability of war became more likely than peace in the region after the round of meetings of the vice-president, and that the expected meetings between the Iranian and American sides in Baghdad might be the last chance to avoid military confrontation. The same sources indicated that Cheney was talking to Gulf leaders he met in a very confident and self-assured tone, stressing that the involvement of his country in Iraq does not mean that it is in a weak situation and cannot launch another war, against Iran. Cheney, who visited the troops of his country in Iraq and the Gulf during his last round, made sure that he met American soldiers on an airplane carrier announcing to them in a decisive manner that the US will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, and that the option of a military attack is not excluded. The Iranian President replied against that with severe threats in a press conference in Abu Dhabi, assuring that if they (Americans) make that mistake, the reply of Iran will be very strong and they will regret it. [Amedinejad said] ``All the world knows that they cannot beat us and Iran is capable of defending herself, and that the superpowers cannot stop us from possessing nuclear energy.'' It was observed that Gulf states have begun searching for alternatives to the Gulf straits to export their oil abroad. There were suggestions to build pipelines to the Red Sea or the Arab Sea across Yemen, due to fears of closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 18 million barrels pass daily. Western analysts expect that Iranian retaliation will include closing the Strait of Hormuz, bombing American bases, and burning down oil wells in the Gulf, in addition to bombing Israel with rockets from Iran directly, through Hezbollah in Lebanon or both. Cheney expressed his conviction that striking Iran may be the best solution for the situation in Iraq, because Tehran has the biggest influence in the country and is the source of arms for militias. The source added that American estimates do not expect Iraqi Shiite retaliation against American troops in case war breaks out. Quite the contrary, the Sunni groups and militias will take the opportunity to settle accounts with the ruling government in Baghdad under America's support and protection. The same source indicated that Cheney asked his allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates) to reassure Sunni groups in Iraq and win them to the American side, passing a message that the U.S. has lost confidence completely in Al-Maliki government because of its failure to control the security situation and to achieve national reconciliation, including giving the Sunnis a bigger role in the decision-making process. Cheney assured Gulf leaders that the Iranian nuclear reactor of Bushahr that lies on the other side of the Gulf will not be a target for strikes because it has no value and due to the presence of Russian experts at the reactor, and that even if it became a target of strikes, it would not cause pollution to the Gulf waters because it does not have depleted plutonium. Gulf states that obtain 90% of their water from treatment stations on the Gulf shores expressed to American officials their concerns and fears in the face of a water crisis which would be caused if a nuclear leak pollutes the Gulf waters in case of war with Iran. The same source also confirmed that Cheney's talks in the four capitals focused on Iraq and Iran only and never dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict. This was explained by a change of roles between Cheney and Rice, with the latter's role confined to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. In Abu Dhabi, there are currently rumors about Mr. Nijad's asking the Emirates for mediation with Washington in the current nuclear crisis, and that he brought forth new ideas that an Emirate delegation will present to Washington in the next 2 days. The delegation is headed by crown-price and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Sheikh Muhammad bin Zaid. The delegation left for Washington, D.C. already and has among its members the foreign minister of the Emirates.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for an explanation and a full accounting from the Department of Defense concerning an attack on Camp Falcon last year. This much is not in dispute: Under cover of darkness on October 10, 2006, Camp Falcon, America's largest military base in Iraq, which is 10 miles south of Baghdad, was attacked by insurgents, and the base was shelled with mortars and rockets. An enemy round struck an ammunition store which triggered massive explosions and huge fireballs that lit up the night sky in Baghdad. News footage and amateur video were shown on television in the Middle East, and a BBC reporter described the explosions as immense. In the days following the attack, U.S. military officers in Iraq repeatedly said that the damage would not degrade U.S. military capacity and that the attack did not injure or kill anyone at the base. In a briefing on October 12, 2006, Major General William Caldwell told reporters, ``Very fortunately, no coalition forces or Iraqi security forces were injured, nor civilian casualties that anyone is aware of at this point. We lost some munitions, but took no personnel casualties.'' That is the official line for the military. But the questions are beginning to surface as to whether the official line is the truth. It was brought to my attention yesterday during a meeting in my congressional office with Mohammed al Deeni, an independent member of the Iraqi Parliament. He came to the U.S. to talk with Members of Congress about the realities of life in Iraq. At my invitation, other Members of Congress joined me in this face-to-face legislative exchange of information. They heard what I am about to share. During our meeting, I asked Mr. al Deeni if Iraq was so unstable that a terrorist attack could claim a large number of Americans in one attack. As many of us remember, that is what happened in 1983 when a massive terrorist truck bomb struck and killed 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut. I wanted to know if such an attack was possible in Iraq. Without hesitation, Mr. al Deeni said such an attack had already occurred. He said--and others are saying online--that the attack on Camp Falcon killed 300 Americans, wounded another 200 Americans and killed or injured another 200 Iraqis. The Pentagon says there were no casualties. But a member of the Iraqi Parliament and others claim there were significant casualties. Which story is true? Satellite images, aerial photographs, videos and written accounts that purport to be firsthand can be found online. I will enter into the Record a list of some of these sites so that people can see for themselves. Internet sites which contains video, photographs, or written accounts of the attack on Camp Falcon on October 10, 2006: http://www.cawa.fr/destruction-du-camp-americain-falcon- explosions-d-armes-a-l-ua-et-ou-d-armes-nucleaires-tactiques- article00913.html. http://www.dailymotion.com/related/966319/video/xkpjv_base- falcon-irakexplosion-nucleaire/1. http://abutamam.blogspot.com/2006/10/no-reported- casualties-at-camp-falcon.html. http://zennobia.blogspot.com/2006/10/al-rashid-falcon- military-bases.html. Here is one excerpt from a site written after the attack by French journalists: ``Nine big carriers marked by the Red Cross sign transporting the dead and injured were seen by journalists . . . Silence still wraps the whole event from the side of the American military as well as the Bush administration, since there remains only a few weeks before the legislative elections, with a public opinion more and more against the war.'' This happened just before the last elections, and it is unclear as to what happened. I don't know if these stories are credible. But these reports cannot be ignored. If we lost hundreds of U.S. soldiers and other Americans in one attack, Congress and the American people have a right to know about it. I looked at the videos and the aerial photographs, and the damage appears quite extensive to buildings and military vehicles like tanks. Perhaps American soldiers and others miraculously escaped injury. That would be very good news. Or perhaps we don't know what really happened on the night of October 10, 2006 in an insurgent attack on Camp Falcon. The Pentagon should open all of its files to independent journalists. I call for a full accounting as soon as possible. Some are saying there's a cover-up in the military. I say it's time to put all the evidence out in the open.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise to call for an up or down vote on a timetable for getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq. Simple, straightforward and to the point. Do we stay or do we redeploy? All this talk about benchmarks is a diversionary tactic by the administration to keep making war. Last November, the American people elected Democrats for one reason above all others, to get U.S. soldiers out of Iraq and get Americans out of the Iraq war. The American people have given up on the credibility of the President. Every week another poll confirms another vote of no confidence by the American people against this President. In a new poll, the Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the Iraq war by a two to one margin. Newsweek magazine has the President's approval ratings even lower. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans believe the President's actions in Iraq show he is stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes. In USA Today, nearly 80 percent don't believe the President's assertion that a U.S. presence in Iraq is preventing terror attacks here at home. The American people get it. Nothing good comes from being in Iraq, and nothing worse will happen by leaving Iraq. The American people have issued orders, but the President refuses to redeploy his thinking. More U.S. soldiers and more Iraqi civilians are dying every day. Iraqi children are being traumatized every day by the sight of dead bodies in the street. Over a million Iraqi civilians have fled to Jordan and Syria, where the refugee crisis grows by the hour. And the President's plan to address this reality is spending more money building concrete walls in Baghdad. Walling in the Iraqi people isn't going to solve anything and may, in fact, worsen the ethnic cleansing that is essentially a part of a civil war raging throughout the country. How ironic that a Republican President authorizes building concrete walls to contain and separate Iraqi people. The Soviets tried it in Berlin, and it wasn't many years later that Ronald Reagan, a Republican President, told Gorbachev, ``Tear down this wall.'' Iraqi leaders are demanding that the U.S. stop building walls that are in effect concrete jail cells, locking up innocent Iraqi citizens and making them easy prey for more attacks. It may be their country, but that doesn't matter to this White House. By yesterday, 144 Iraqi lawmakers out of 275 signed a petition calling for the U.S. to set a timetable to withdraw. That is a majority. The story broke this morning on Alternet.com, and one of the reporters, Joshua Holland, has broken other significant news stories concerning Iraq. This is the first time that over half of the duly elected members of the Iraqi Parliament have gone on the record demanding a date for U.S. withdrawal. Iraqi leaders want their country back, but this President isn't going to honor that request. The President's veto of the supplemental Iraq spending bill was his de facto military escalation of the war, a declaration that he intends to keep making declarations of war, not peace, and the President's veto was his rejection of working with the Congress to end the Iraq war. A war with benchmarks is still a war. A war with benchmarks in this administration is a war without end. The only benchmark this administration will understand is an up-or-down vote on the Iraq war. And we have been promised an up-or-down vote on Iran, and we need to take that as well. Members deserve the opportunity to say with their vote what they think and what we are hearing back home from our constituents. Unless we do the job the American people elected us to do, the President won't be the only one getting a vote of no confidence. The people have spoken and spoken. In the People's House, it is time we accept the will of the American people. Schedule an up-or-down vote on setting a timetable for getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1684, including corrections to the spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we continue our debate on funding for Iraq escalation, I want to share a new version of a well-known poem entitled Humpty Dumpty: Bush, Cheney and others had a great call-- Remake Iraq, it will be such a ball. Now all Bush's troops and all daddy's men can't put Iraq back together again. Our soldiers keep dying, day after day. So why put up with more endless delay? Let's just acknowledge what everyone knows: Bush didn't and doesn't have any clothes. He broke it, can't fix it, doesn't know how; Mission impossible: out of Iraq now.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, next week Luis Carriles is scheduled to stand trial for allegedly lying to immigration authorities when he entered the United States 2 years ago. Most Americans have probably never heard of Carriles, but everyone should know the real case against him because it shows the double standard of the Bush administration and its so-called commitment to fight terrorism. Carriles is being prosecuted for an immigration violation in America, but he has been convicted in other nations for acts of terrorism, including the downing of a commercial Cuban airliner over 30 years ago that killed 33 innocent people. He is a wanted international fugitive. The Bush administration knows this, but instead of turning Carriles over to the sovereign Governments of Cuba or Venezuela, as they have asked, we are going to get him on an immigration violation. Why is the Bush administration handling Carilles in this way? Three letters say it all: CIA. Carriles was a CIA agent. He was part of the Bay of Pigs debacle, and his fierce opposition to Cuban President Fidel Castro has been reported by the media. Officially, Carriles left the CIA in the middle of 1976. That is the year that Luis Carriles was convicted in Venezuela of masterminding the downing of the Cuban airplane. The administration won't reveal what role Carriles played as a CIA agent or what his assignments were. His shadowy connections to the United States Government almost certainly continued after he and the agency parted ways. The media has reported that Carriles helped funnel U.S. supplies to the Contra rebels attempting to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Carriles himself has personally boasted of a role in the deadly bombings of hotels in Havana, Cuba, in the 1990s. And Carriles was also convicted in Panama in the year 2000 for a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. He was sentenced to prison, but he was later pardoned and set free. You would think that capturing a man like this would have the administration calling a news conference to declare their success in the war on terror with a long-sought terrorist in custody. Not so. Instead, the administration is busy trying to get a court to bar him from testifying about what he did for the CIA. Carriles' lawyers have said his client will talk about that, and the assignments during and after his official employment. One of the CIA directors during the time of Carriles' connection to the agency was former President George H. W. Bush, the President's father. The American people have a right to know what really happened in the 1970s and what role, if any, the United States played in the deadly games of Carriles. Was he a rogue agent or was he acting on CIA orders? The Cuban Government wants him, but we are not talking to Havana as long as Castro is alive and in power. Venezuela, which has an 80-year- old extradiction treaty with the United States, has repeatedly asked for Carriles. But the President isn't talking to Venezuela, either, so those requests have been denied. The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service says Carriles poses a significant danger to our Nation, but the U.S. Justice Department just hasn't acted. In a recent editorial that I submit for printing in the Record, the Los Angeles Times described Luis Posada Carriles as ``the Zacarias Moussaoui of Havana and Caracas.'' The Times points out that Moussaoui is serving a life sentence without parole for his role in the 9/11 attacks, but Carriles was released on bail and is living at home in Miami, with his family, awaiting trial next week. The U.S. is holding a person convicted of major terrorist acts in other countries, but he is going to be prosecuted for an immigration infraction. That is like bringing Osama bin Laden in and trying him for a traffic ticket. The moral compass of the Bush administration is just spinning round and round over the treatment of Posada Carriles. Next week it is going to stop on a new direction: H, for hypocrisy. [From the LA Times, Apr. 20, 2007] A Terrorist Walks: Luis Posada Carriles Has Boasted of Bombing Havana Hotels, Yet American Justice Lets Him Go Free With a misguided decision upholding bail for Cuban-born terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has done more than free a frail old man facing unremarkable immigration charges. It has exposed Washington to legitimate charges of hypocrisy in the war on terror. By allowing Posada to go free before his May 11 trial, the court has released a known flight risk who previously escaped from a Venezuelan prison, a man who has boasted of helping set off deadly bombs in Havana hotels 10 years ago and the alleged mastermind of a 1976 bombing of a Cuban airplane that killed 73 people. Posada's employees confessed to the attack, and declassified FBI and CIA documents have shown that he attended planning sessions. In other words, Posada is the Zacarias Moussaoui of Havana and Caracas. Moussaoui is serving a life sentence without parole in a federal prison in Colorado for conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks; Posada is free to live in Miami. Posada, a 79-year-old Bay of Pigs veteran who served time in Panama for plotting to kill Fidel Castro, has never been charged with crimes of terrorism in U.S. courts. Instead, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement nabbed him for lying to immigration authorities after he sneaked in the country in March 2005 and held a news conference announcing his triumphant return. Both Customs and the Justice Department lobbied to keep Posada behind bars, but U.S. law enforcement has never shown a strong interest in trying him for more serious crimes. In turn, Posada's lawyer has preemptively warned that if charged, his client would likely reveal extensive collaboration with the CIA. The United States keeps 385 suspected terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, many in isolation and all without U.S. norms of due process. Yet Posada, a confessed terrorist, is sent home with an ankle bracelet. The United States has not been able to persuade any of seven allied nations to accept Posada. A federal judge has ruled that he can't be extradited to Cuba or Venezuela because he might be tortured. The best solution would have been for the court to refuse bail until trial while the State Department keeps searching for a third-party country that would agree to try him on terrorism charges. Instead, Castro receives a propaganda victory gift, the White House has its moral authority undermined and the victims of Carriles' alleged crimes see justice delayed once more. The U.S. government has done many odd things in 46 years of a largely failed Cuba policy, but letting a notorious terrorist walk stands among the most perverse yet.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I represent a community that honors the memory and civil rights legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. every day, because King County has adopted Dr. King's portrait as our symbol, and Dr. King's commitment to civil rights as our commitment to all the people in King County, Washington. So, it is with a unique responsibility that I rise to strongly oppose this Republican attempt to turn back the lock on civil rights in this Nation, beginning with the Head Start program. The Minority Leader, the leader and spokesman for the Republican Party in the House, wants us to legislate employment discrimination within Head Start based on religion. The Minority Leader wants to turn his back on civil rights, and turn back the clock on the struggle for freedom that Dr. King and so many others fought and died for. The Republican House leader apparently finds the First Amendment inconvenient for his taste. The First Amendment protects Americans from exactly the kind of foolish proposal before us today. Separation of Church and State is one of the fundamental principles within the First Amendment: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .'' We must not roll back civil rights in this Nation, not today, not tomorrow, and not ever, but that's what the I leader of the Republican party proposes. There is no reason to justify this attempt to roll back longstanding civil rights and religious liberty protections in a program that has benefited countless children over the years. In a nation like ours with so many religious traditions, built-in protections prohibiting religious discrimination in federally funded programs represents a fundamental commitment towards a society that values the contributions of people of all faiths. Religious organizations have had a long and proud history in Head Start programs, including in my own district of Seattle, where the YWCA is a Head Start provider. Civil rights protections have never been a bar to participation by these organizations. If these safeguards are repealed, thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers and parent volunteers could find themselves no longer welcome at some Head Start programs run by followers of other faiths. Religious organizations are free to engage in faith-based hiring when they use their own funds to promote their institutional ministry, but not when they use Federal money to educate our Nation's children. It would be wrong to permit religious organizations to use Federal dollars to discriminate on the basis of religion in running Head Start programs that are intended to benefit disadvantaged children of all faiths. On behalf of the people of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., County, in Washington State, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``No.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, it is a privilege and a great personal pleasure to join in honoring my old friend and classmate, and a great humanitarian leader, Dr. Arthur J. Ammann. Art's selection as Alumnus of the Year at Wheaton College will stand as one of the defining moments in the proud and distinguished history of this institution, because it recognizes a compassionate, courageous man who has made a world of difference in our world. As young Wheaton College students, Art and I lived the vow of poverty, as do college students everywhere. One of my most cherished memories is Art inviting me to join his family in Brooklyn, New York, during a holiday. Suffice to say that was the first time I had ever been to Brooklyn, and the visit opened the eyes of this young, naive suburban Chicago kid, teaching me that we all share the same hopes, dreams and aspirations for a brighter tomorrow, no matter our surname or address. The Bible and this institution call upon us to live the teachings of the Lord, and there is no better example of living Christianity than Art Ammann. He began his professional career--as did I--by taking an oath to use all of his powers to heal the sick. While the oath comes from the Greek philosopher Hippocrates, the faith to heal comes directly from the Bible: ``My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh. Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.'' (Proverbs 4:20-23) Art is a brilliant physician who has focused his intellect on healing children and finding a cure for the HIV/AIDS pandemic that has claimed so many lives and robbed so many nations of an entire generation. While my old friend is far too modest to seek recognition, the truth is, without Art the death toll would be higher and hope for a cure would be lower. It was Dr. Arthur Ammann's pioneering research in the early 1980's, before the world knew of this terrible disease, that identified two of the three ways HIV is transmitted, and it was Art who first diagnosed the HIV infection in children. As a man of unwavering courage, compassion and conviction, Dr. Arthur Ammann did not confine his leadership exclusively to the field of medical research. Over the years, Art has served his community and country in preeminent roles such as the Presidential Task Force for AIDS Drug Development, and he has been honored many, many times. This prodigious man of science has authored or co-authored, quite literally, hundreds of books and scientific articles, and he didn't hesitate when asked to guide Wheaton College as it prepared its response to the HIV/ AIDS crisis. As a visionary scientist and yet a humble servant of the Lord, Dr. Arthur Ammann always has plowed the fruits of his labor back into the soil, so that it might nourish, protect and save others. Art founded Global Strategies for HIV Prevention 10 years ago. It quickly has become a widely respected non-profit organization, dedicated to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS, and supplying life-saving medicine to women and children worldwide. How purely this work reflects the words of the Bible: ``. . . Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God . . .'' (Matthew 5:3-11) Dr. Arthur J. Ammann has spent a lifetime displaying the strength of a lion, a heart of gold, and a spirit of living life according to the teachings of Jesus. His wife, Marilyn, and his children, Kimberly and Scott, have long known what many now will understand: Dr. Arthur J. Ammann is a good man, who does the Lord's work for the sake of peace and humanity. My friend Art Ammann is an uncommon man who renews our faith by the way he lives his faith. Best wishes and congratulations to Dr. Arthur J. Ammann, the 2007 Wheaton College Alumnus of the Year for Distinguished Service to Society.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, 4 years after the banner was unfurled, these are the missions that have been accomplished by the President: America is more divided than at any time since the Vietnam War. The Iraq Government has before it a sweetheart deal that benefits Big Oil that the U.S. brokered behind the scenes. Read Josh Holland's investigative piece on alternet.com; America is increasingly isolated in the Arab world, and countries that looked up to America now look out or look the other way. Read Rami Khouri's commentary published in the April 19 issue of the Daily Star in Lebanon; The number of Pentagon contractors in Iraq who are profiting in the spoils of war, raking in vast sums of U.S. taxpayer money, nearly equals the number of U.S. soldiers. Read ``Iraq War: a Nice Little Earner'' in the Asia Times newspaper dated April 19; Americans are so fed up with the President's state of denial that they returned Democratic majorities to the House and Senate last November. Read the April 26 editorial in my hometown newspaper, the Seattle PI: ``Iraq: Keep Speaking Out.'' Missions accomplished? All but the most important one: getting U.S. soldiers out of Iraq. That is the will of the American people and the mission of the new Congress.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the bill we just passed has the weight of a feather. It is very weak on setting a date to get our soldiers out of Iraq. If anything, this legislation bends in the wind as a sign of flexibility by the Democratic Congress to work with the President. And yet a piece of legislation so inherently weak has provoked so many attacks from the White House that its real value may be proving to the American people that the President is out of touch and out of control. The President's military escalation has only escalated the body count, but he claims we are making progress. Mr. Speaker, tell the President we are not making progress. We are making widows and widowers. The bloody awful war must end now, but the President is in total denial. How many more must die before this President opens his eyes to reality? We are not seeding democracy. We are spilling blood into the soil, and what is growing is hatred for America, contempt for the President's military occupation and the killing and maiming of America's next generation. What will the President say to the 82nd Airborne when his rationale for continuing this war is irrational? This heroic, distinguished unit of American soldiers has suffered its worst single day of casualties since the Vietnam War. Mr. Speaker, what will the President say; we are winning? There will be bad days in Iraq? We are making progress? Mr. Speaker, tell the President we are not making progress. We are digging graves to bury mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, all patriotic Americans, all of them sacrificed needlessly. They marched off to war, and tens of thousands of Americans are coming home in coffins and on stretchers. The American people have had enough of this bloody, worthless war, but the ways of Washington are not as wise and as pragmatic as the will of the American people. Today, we passed a weak-kneed piece of legislation that this President will cut off at the knees. The President will emerge from his reality-proof bunker just long enough to veto the bill. He will make a speech and what will he say? My way or no way. The stroke of the President's veto pen will be like a knife cutting away any hope of reason or sanity for ending this bloody, God-awful war. The President has retreated to a bunker where he cannot hear the American people, the Iraqi people, our soldiers, military experts and world leaders who keep telling him that the Iraq War will never end until we end it by withdrawing our soldiers and demanding diplomacy. The American people want their government to listen. The American people want this President to stop ordering soldiers into the crossfire of civil war. The American people want our soldiers home and out of harm's way. I voted for this Iraq bill today, knowing it will never become law. But I voted for the Iraq bill today because the weight of a feather can sometimes support the resolve of a Nation. This piece of legislation is the smallest step down the right road, the only road available to leaders who can truthfully assess the reality on the ground in Iraq and respond with reason. Some will say we are sending a message with this bill, but I think differently. I believe the President will be sending a message to the American people when he vetoes this bill, a bill so flexible that it could barely stand on its own. The President's veto message will be that he refuses to listen, refuses to change, refuses to work with Congress and rejects the will of the American people. The President said America will still be at war in Iraq when he leaves office in January 2009. That ought to be America's worst fear. And the only way to overcome it is for the American people to demand that the Republicans vote with the Democrats to overturn any Presidential veto that perpetuates the war any longer. And if Republicans will not do it, then elect someone who will. The American people have spoken in November and they have said, get out of Iraq. It is time for the President to stop talking and start listening. Bring our soldiers home and leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Not every child in America is raised in a safe and loving home. More often than we realize, children become the victims of abuse and neglect from the very people they should be able to trust the most, their parents. Today the Income Security and Family Support Committee that I chair is united behind this resolution to designate April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Democratic Representatives John Lewis, Pete Stark, Michael McNulty, Kendrick Meek and Republican Representative Jerry Weller, the subcommittee's ranking member, Wally Herger and Jon Porter are cosponsors of the resolution. Our goal in designating April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month is to increase public awareness of the serious threats that child maltreatment imposes on children, and to encourage Americans to break the cycle of violence. 2005 is the most recent year for which data is available from the Department of Health and Human Services. Nine hundred thousand children were victims of substantiated cases of abuse and neglect. Nearly 1,500 children, mostly under the age of 4, died as a result. Another half a million children could not live safely with their parents and were removed from the home. Child abuse and neglect has a devastating impact on the life of a child that goes beyond the immediate physical and emotional pain that is inflicted on them. Children who suffer from maltreatment are at greater risk of developmental delays and behavioral problems that could last a lifetime. Child maltreatment can delay or disrupt the normal cognitive development process which, in turn, impacts academic achievement. Children who are the victims of abuse and neglect tend to have lower math scores and English grades, and they repeat grades more frequently than other children. We know that poor academic skills can lead to a child's dropping out of school, continuing a cycle of negative consequences that can last a lifetime. A history of child abuse and neglect can also disrupt the development of skills that children use to interact with others, such as problem- solving and communication. These skills are critical in stopping the development of other serious behavior problems even among seriously troubled youth. Moreover, victims of child abuse and neglect tend to have greater levels of depression compared to other children. These children are also more likely to suffer from mental illness, experience problems with drugs, and are more likely to become teen-age parents. Not every child who has suffered from abuse and neglect will experience poor outcomes. Many maltreated children will persevere against the odds and find the ability to cope and even to thrive. They could develop and maintain the personal characteristics that will make them more resilient than others. Of course, this resilience can depend on a child's finding a safe and loving home to live in and access to support systems, educational resources, and health care. These amazing kids deserve to be recognized and celebrated for their remarkable ability to persevere over the most difficult of circumstances and for setting an example for other children. In recognition of the fact that too many of our Nation's children will become the victims of violence at the hands of their parents and many others are at risk of such abuse, Congress has expressed the commitment over the last several decades to stop child abuse and neglect. In 1935 Congress established the Child Welfare Services program to provide Federal funding for a variety of services for States to use to protect children who are at risk of abuse and neglect and who assist those who have been victimized. In 1993, Congress took another step to protect children when it created the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. This program is the largest source of Federal funding designed to stop child abuse and neglect before it starts and to support vulnerable families who are at risk of falling into crisis. Last fall we reauthorized promoting Safe and Stable Families on a bipartisan basis, and we made a number of key improvements. For instance, new funding will allow us to respond to the growing methamphetamine problem that threatens the safety of many of our children in communities across America. We provided States with additional resources to attract, train, and retain caseworkers. We required States to have caseworkers visit children in foster care once a month to make sure they are getting the proper care. And we increased funding that is available to the Native American community as well. These are only modest steps that will strengthen our ability to prevent the incidence of child abuse and support vulnerable families. Certainly more can be done, but these programs express the commitment of Congress to protect abused and neglected children. In recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month, I urge my colleagues to join me in increasing public awareness of the threat to innocent children and to promote public policies designed to prevent child abuse and safeguard our most vulnerable children. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 299) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should increase public awareness of child abuse and neglect and should continue to work with the States to reduce the incidence of child abuse and neglect through such programs as the Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families programs.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is Health Care Uninsured Awareness Week. The number of Americans without health insurance has grown about 5 million since President Bush took office. The health care crisis is America's single largest domestic issue, but the President has offered Band-Aids to cover his lack of leadership. And the people have noticed. Nine out of ten Americans told a recent CBS/New York Times poll that the American health care system needs to be completely rebuilt. Today, the number of Americans without any health insurance surpasses the combined population of 24 U.S. States: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. That is the population without health insurance. But the crisis is even worse than that. Millions of Americans are underinsured, and millions more can't afford the copay, or have to fight constant battles with the big drug companies and the HMOs. In Seattle, my congressional district, here is what one constituent wrote to Health Care for All Washington, one of the organizations I work closely with: ``My dad has prostate cancer and has taken a turn for the worse. We had to postpone a quarterly injection of his drug because we are having trouble with the health insurance over the cost of the drug. It has been extremely frustrating as the insurance company has the drug in the wrong category. They sent us a letter admitting as much, but every 3 months we have to fight with them again, anywhere from $180 to $1,800. Anyway, since we postponed it, my dad has suffered.'' Does that sound familiar? The pain inflicted by the health care crisis is hurting families across the United States. According to the Census Bureau, almost one- third of Latinos are uninsured, one-fifth of African Americans, 15 percent of children, 18 percent of full-time employees, and 11 percent of middle-class families. In other words, only the rich can afford to live without risk. Only the rich are immune, because they have been coddled by the Republican- imposed income tax shelters that can pay for health care. Every other American is one layoff, one major accident, one major illness or divorce away from being uninsured and facing financial ruin. Since the President took office, health care premiums have risen 87 percent. Have your wages gone up that much? Here is another personal story from a letter: ``I have always worked and I have never taken welfare or asked for help from anyone. Last month, I was diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. There is no cure for this slow-moving cancer. I will not be able to buy health insurance now because I have a preexisting condition. Even if I can find it somewhere, I would not be able to afford the big premiums. The only solution I can come up with is to leave America and move to another nation where I can get health care coverage.'' When American citizens consider leaving the country as the only viable option, that is not a solution, that is an indictment of a failure to act. The only solution to America's health care crisis is a single payer, universal health care system. We have tried everything else except the right idea. Under H.R. 1200, my bill, every American would be guaranteed a package of benefits. States would administer their own programs, with decisions made closest to the patient. The health care system today is all about profits, not patients. My bill would put patients back in charge. It would provide predictable and lower cost for American businesses, and everyone would be covered. The special interests have run the health care system into the ground, and millions of Americans have been ground into financial ruin as a result. The single most common cause for going into bankruptcy in this country is health care costs. America stands virtually alone in the industrialized world in not caring for its citizens, and being a loner is insensitive, incomprehensible, and intolerable. If all we do is read these poignant stories and ring our hands, we will turned our backs on the people who elected us to serve them by leading. It is time to pass universal health care. We can do it, but it will take some leadership in the White House. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until 2009 to get a President who understands that all Americans should be protected with health insurance.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 226, I was talking with the Taiwanese Delegation and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the drum beats of war are growing louder. There is a growing fear here and around the world that the President, either alone or by proxy, will order a military strike against Iran. The President has escalated the military presence in Iraq at the same time he has escalated the military rhetoric concerning Iran. The President's accusations against Iran are being planted like seeds in fertile ground. Is this how the President cultivates diplomacy, or is he sowing the seeds for another war? The House must pass legislation that would require a debate and a vote before the President orders U.S. Forces to launch a military strike against Iran. This is the people's House, and the American people have spoken. They don't trust the President, and they are worried about his saber rattling toward Iran. I think of it this way: If Iraq is a quagmire, and it is, then Iran will be quicksand, with America sinking deeper and deeper into a disastrous foreign policy grounded in brute force and producing brutal consequences: thousands of American soldiers dead, tens of thousands of American soldiers gravely wounded, billions of dollars borrowed and wasted, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed and injured, a raging civil war. And after all that, the President and the Vice President say a military option is on the table for Iran. To prove it, U.S. warships were ordered into the Gulf 2 weeks ago. It was a show of military might around the date that the Russian military intelligence sources have widely forecast that the U.S. would strike Iran in stories posted online and in newspapers. The current political regime in Iran is a government I do not endorse or support, but the record must show that the President's policies in Iraq created the problem the President now warns he will fix by military action, if necessary. After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the President installed Paul Bremer as America's de facto premier of Iraq. Mr. Bremer answered only to the White House and not to the Iraqi people. Bremer dictated a series of policies that dismantled Iraq from the inside out. With the White House calling his every move, Bremer first dismantled the Iraqi civil society, plunging an entire nation into chaos. The Iraqi civilians who ran everything from sewage treatment plants to traffic control to keeping the lights on were summarily fired. The country's infrastructure remains crippled by Bremer's order 4 years later. Bremer also dismissed Iraq's military, and in so doing, he put tens of thousands of demoralized Iraqis on the streets with a gun and a grudge. The vast majority of these people were in the military for the pay and the job, not because they supported Saddam. With Iraqi civil and military sectors wiped out over 4 years ago, there were no Iraqis left to guard the borders between Iraq and Syria and Iraq and Iran. The borders have been wide open ever since because the appointed proxy government didn't bother to understand the history of the region or a basic national security need to protect a nation's borders. We know weapons and insurgents have been walking across Iraq's open borders. Almost a year ago, leaders told me in Amman, and these are Iraqi leaders, that the most constructive thing the U.S. could do would be to withdraw from the cities and redeploy to the borders and establish border guards. Instead of doing something constructive, the President ordered a military escalation in Iraq that is destructive. The Iraqi people want us out of Iraq. The American people want us out of Iraq. But the President drives us deeper and deeper into Iraq and then threatens military action against Iran. As a lame duck President and as slave to his own failed foreign policy, Congress must ensure that the President cannot unilaterally strike Iran in the remaining months of his failed presidency. Congress must pass legislation that preserves the checks and balances to guarantee that the President must listen to someone other than the Vice President. America cannot afford to remain on a hair trigger until a new President takes the oath of office in January 2009, but that is exactly what will happen unless Congress steps up to ensure that the President stands down on a military strike against Iran. We must take away his blank check.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President is going to talk to the congressional leaders about Iraq. It is his way of trying to defuse the will of the American people. He is going to talk about his vision for a military victory in Iraq. He is going to talk about his military escalation and how well it is working. He is not going to talk about the bombing in the Green Zone last week, or the fact that about 3 hours ago there were 127 Iraqis killed by a suicide bomber. And it is only early morning. There is plenty of time left in this day. The President will say there are good days and there are bad days. In truth, there are only bad days, and worse days in Iraq. The only thing worth talking about is protecting our soldiers by getting them out of the Iraq quagmire. That is the only discussion worth having, because setting a timetable is the only way to protect and defend the U.S. soldiers he keeps sending into harm's way. Don't give him an inch, Mr. Speaker. Bring our troops home.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise this evening to focus my attention on the suicide bombing last week in Baghdad that killed and wounded several members of the Parliament, including Osama al-Nujafii. He was a member of the Iraq Parliament who participated in a historic live teleconference I hosted last month linking several of my House colleagues with several Iraq Parliamentarians. I wish him and the others wounded in the attack a speedy recovery. That attack occurred inside the Green Zone, and it confirms that no one is safe in Iraq, no matter how many checkpoints or blast walls or press releases out of the White House. It confirms that the President's military escalation has only escalated the violence and the casualties. It confirms that the President has no control whatsoever on the events on the ground. And it confirms that the American people are right to demand that the President work with the Democratic Congress and establish a firm timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. For now, most Americans are grimly aware of the weekend of bombings and killings across Iraq. But the situation is even worse. The Iraq war will live long after the U.S. forces leave the country. As a child psychiatrist, I was shocked to learn of a new study looking at the effects this war is having on Iraqi children. I submit the story from USA Today for the Record. It is the first comprehensive look at the impact the war is having on innocent Iraqi children. The Ministry of Health surveyed 2,500 primary school kids in Baghdad, and 70 percent of those young kids displayed symptoms of trauma-related stress. As the USA Today reported, many Iraqi children have been physically wounded, and many are psychologically scarred. They are the uncounted casualties of the Iraq war. Thousands of innocent Iraqi children are uncounted casualties. But for all these innocent Iraqi children, this war will rage on for them for years to come. They will face a life of anguish, and, in fact, will be the ones who, in the future, are the future violent ones we worry about. For all these innocent Iraqi children, this war will rage on for years to come. In some cases, these children will face a lifetime of anguish and suffering, and not one of these children is being counted as a casualty. These children routinely walk through carnage on their way to school, when they go at all. These children are routinely exposed to random violence and killings that burn images in their minds that will scar them for life. As a child psychiatrist, I can only echo the conclusions of one Iraqi doctor who was interviewed by USA Today. ``Some of these children are time bombs,'' said Said al-Hashimi, a psychiatrist who teaches at an Iraqi Medical School. In this excerpt from USA Today, al-Hashimi said he is concerned Iraqi children could become the next generation of fighters and fuel violence for years to come. Because of what they are living through as youngsters, ``they may think it's better to martyr themselves for religion or country,'' al- Hashimi said. The only hope for these uncounted casualties is treatment. But, as the USA Today story points out, there is only one government run psychiatric hospital in Baghdad--a city of 6 million people, or put more accurately, a city of 6 million casualties. And then there are the uncounted casualties of Iraqi children in Basra, Rumadi, Najaf, Karbala, Mosul, Kirkuk, Fallujah, Baqubah, and all the other places Iraqi children live. Until the war ends, there is virtually no chance that thousands of innocent Iraqi children will be treated for their war wounds. We can only estimate how many thousands of Iraqi children need urgent psychological attention. We know they are not going to get it until this war ends. There is a timetable for doing just that, and the President should stop listening to his discredited Vice President and start listening to reason and reality. Now, in the face of that, our Speaker has led this Congress to set a time line that the President says, I will ignore. The President said, I will ignore the people, I will ignore the vote of 2006. No matter what the Speaker does, I am going to attack her. So the Speaker took the Iraq Study Group's book that said we ought to talk to the people in Syria. For those of you who don't know, Syria is right up next to Iraq. And it is on the border. And there are Presidential accusations that people are coming in from Syria into Iraq, creating trouble and killing our troops. This is on its way to being the most deadly month in 5 years. Now, for the Speaker to take her time and carefully plan and go over and talk to the leadership of Syria about attacks being made on Americans is, in my view, it is part of her legislative responsibility to the people, not only of her district, but the entire country. And for someone to come out here and accuse her of a violation of the Logan Act. Now this is a 200-year-old act that no one has ever been prosecuted under because there are real questions as to whether it prevents Members of the Congress from using their first amendment rights to talk out on behalf of the people that they represent. In 1980, the State Department maintained that a visit to Cuba by Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern was not inconsistent with the Logan Act. Nothing in the act, they said, ``would appear to restrict Members of Congress from engaging in discussions in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.'' In 1976 the State Department was asked to weigh in as to whether former President Nixon violated the Logan Act by visiting China. The Department stated that Mr. Nixon's trip was taken entirely in his capacity as a private citizen and that the Department ``was unaware of any basis for believing Mr. Nixon acted with intent prohibited'' by the act. The Department has noted that no one has ever been prosecuted under this act. This kind of attack on the Speaker will be answered in full again and again. Make no mistake about that. The article previously referred to follows: [From USA TODAY] 70% of Iraqi Schoolchildren Show Symptoms of Trauma (By James Palmer) Baghdad--About 70% of primary school students in a Baghdad neighborhood suffer symptoms of trauma-related stress such as bed-wetting or stuttering, according to a survey by the Iraqi Ministry of Health. The survey of about 2,500 youngsters is the most comprehensive look at how the war is affecting Iraqi children, said Iraq's national mental health adviser and author of the study, Mohammed Al-Aboudi. ``The fighting is happening in the streets in front of our houses and schools,'' al-Aboudi said. ``This is very difficult for the children to adapt to.'' The study is to be released next month. Al-Aboudi discussed the findings with USA TODAY. Many Iraqi children have to pass dead bodies on the street as they walk to school in the morning, according to a separate report last week by the International Red Cross. Others have seen relatives killed or have been injured in mortar or bomb attacks. ``Some of these children are suffering one trauma after another, and it's severely damaging their development,'' said Said Al-Hashimi, a psychiatrist who teaches at Mustansiriya Medical School and runs a private clinic in west Baghdad. ``We're not certain what will become of the next generation, even if there is peace one day,'' Al-Hashimi said. The study was conducted last October in the Sha'ab district of northern Baghdad. The low- to middle-income neighborhood is inhabited by a mix of Shiites and Sunni Arabs. Al-Aboudi said he believes the sample was broadly representative of conditions throughout the capital. In the study, schoolteachers were asked to determine whether randomly selected students showed any of 10 symptoms identified by the World Health Organization as signs of trauma. Other symptoms included voluntary muteness, declining performance in school or an increase in aggressive behavior. The teachers received training from Iraqi psychologists on how to identify and help students cope with trauma-related stress, al-Aboudi said. The study ``shows the impact of the violence and insecurity on the children and on children's mental health,'' said Naeema Al-Gasseer, the Iraqi representative of the WHO. ``They have fear every day.'' The Iraqi government is aware of the problem but largely unequipped to address it, said Ali al-Dabbagh, a government spokesman. ``Until we have proper security in Baghdad, there's not much we can do to help these children,'' Al- Dabbagh said in Washington.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the biggest domestic crisis facing America today is health care. Every 30 seconds, an American files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem. So says a recent study from Harvard University. And that is just one of the chilling new statistics that should compel Congress to act. Every Band-Aid has been tried and has not solved the problem. Instead, the crisis of health care has been allowed to fester like an open wound. We cannot continue to tinker around the edges. Today, the health care system is increasingly dysfunctional. America is fast becoming a nation of haves and have-nots, those wealthy enough to afford comprehensive health care coverage and the vast majority of American people struggling to maintain coverage. It is time to provide universal health care for every American, and the only delivery system that works is a single-payer health care system, which is what I propose in H.R. 1200. We don't need to change the way health care is delivered. We do need to change the way we pay for it. Today's health care system is pockmarked with inequities, overutilization and uncertainty. We don't get the benefit or the cost- savings of a risk pool that includes every American. Instead, we have wildly different programs, costs and outcomes across this country. The casualties are mounting and spreading. America's health care crisis is fast becoming America's economic crisis, especially for small business, the backbone of the U.S. economy. Data compiled by credible organizations reveals the depth of the crisis. We are spending over four times as much on health as we are on national defense, yet 47 million Americans are defenseless because they don't have any health care coverage at all. We are spending over $2 trillion a year on health, an average of $6,280 per person, and it is too much. A Harvard study found that 68 percent of the people filing for bankruptcy had health insurance, and they also had an average of $12,000 in health-related debt. Unpaid medical expenses play a role in half the bankruptcies in this country. America is better than that. People don't deserve to fall into financial ruin in the richest nation on Earth because of an illness or an injury. We tried everything else except the only effective solution, a single-payer system that guarantees every American has a minimum set of health care coverage benefits, decisions made locally in their own town, closest to the patient, in a universal system that covers every American. We do this for essential programs and services across America, from national defense to local police and fire. It is a tried and true system that protects everyone by involving everyone working together for the common good. We have to take the pragmatic approach contained in H.R. 1200 for the good of the American people and the U.S. economy. Big business confronted an 8 percent increase in health expenses last year. Small businesses saw expenses rise by more than 10 percent. The average premium for an employer to provide health insurance to cover a family of four was $11,500 a year, and employees typically paid $3,000 of that bill. These costs are only going to go higher in the current dysfunctional system. Uncontrolled business expenses like these are unsustainable. At least one respected business consulting group projects that health expenses will overtake profits in many American businesses next year, 2008. This is not something 40 years down the road, it's next year. More Band-Aids won't stop the bleeding. America's health care system is failing the American people and business. Affordable health care coverage should be a right, not a privilege, in America; but that's not the way it really is. Those who profit most by the inefficient, bloated and broken system in place today will spend millions of dollars on ads trying to scare you into believing that paying them more and more is in your best interest. Remember Harry and Louise, that baloney in '93? You're going to see it again. Every American deserves affordable health care coverage. H.R. 1200 will do just that. We have waited too long, and we can't wait any longer. It is time to act and pass H.R. 1200, universal health care coverage for all Americans.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to what I heard out here. I was sitting in my office listening, and it is interesting to imagine yourself being like the people at home listening on television to the Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility. Now, you have just heard the figures, but I want to bring back some images to your mind because a budget is a statement of your principles and what you care about in society. I remember when Katrina hit and we were sitting watching television looking at the absolute chaos and failure of the Republicans to deal with a national crisis. Those pictures looked like the Third World. In fact, we were quicker to go out to Indonesia to deal with the effects of tsunami than we were to deal with the problems of people in our own country, in New Orleans. In large measure, I believe, the election of 2006 was a rejection by the American people of the Republican we-don't-want-government-to-work philosophy. Anybody who appoints a guy who runs cattle shows or horse shows to run the emergency management organization in this country does not care about the security of the American people. Meanwhile, giving tax breaks. Unbelievable. Spending us into a deficit. I mean, when I came to Congress, all I heard for the first 6 years were Republicans coming out and saying, We have to pass a balanced budget amendment. By God, we have got to balance the budget. So we did in 1994. We did it, and lo and behold, here comes all this money in and soon we have a balanced budget with a potential surplus. The Republicans win, and I don't know whether they had amnesia or they didn't really mean it in the first place when they talked about a balanced budget. You can choose which of those you want. Either they were deceiving the people or they just lost their minds when they got in control and spent us into this hole. Now for them to come out and say we are going to balance the budget in 2012, why don't you say you are going to balance the budget in 2049? That is as good a date as any. You don't mean it. You never meant it because when you came in, you made decision after decision after decision that dug the hole deeper. The old aphorism everybody knows in this country: If you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. But the Republicans, session after session, came out here and dug the hole deeper. I don't know what they were looking for. Maybe they were looking for china or gold. I don't know where they were going. But, clearly, the budgeting that has come out of the Republicans was phony from the outset and the people said we don't want any more of that. The people want a government that works. There is a reason why we have government. We have government to do those things for people that they cannot do for themselves. All of us over here believe in individual responsibility. We think people should be responsible. They should save money. They should get an education. They should raise their children. None of us over here disagree with that individual responsibility. But there are some things that people cannot do for themselves. They cannot prevent the effects of a hurricane. They look to the government to deal with that. But the Republicans said, No problem. Leave the jobs open. And you could find the same kind of things all through this budget, whether you are looking at the national parks or you are looking at what they have done to the environment. The President bragged about what a great education Governor he was, and he came in here and told us we are going to have this No Child Left Behind bill. Then he proceeded to underfund it by $17 billion. Now, if you are serious about schools, you put the money in schools. You don't give tax breaks to people making a half million dollars a year. They have got enough to get by. Most all of them can pretty much get by on half a million. But there are schools in this country which are failing for the lack of money to do the things that are necessary for the school system. And the choice the President made was let's give the tax break. Never mind that silly bill I had about No Child Left Behind. He didn't mean it. You didn't mean it. And that is why we had the election of 2006. And the budget you see out here is the priorities of the Democrats trying to bring some sense back to a government that we want to actually function when the people look to it and need it.