Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we will invest in America's future tomorrow by making college more affordable and accessible for over 5 million Americans. We are going to cut the interest rate in half over the next 5 years for undergraduates with subsidized student loans. Interest on those loans will drop from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next 4 years. Investing in America's future is long overdue. Now, the question is: Who benefits? Ordinary Americans, that is who. This legislation will help low- and middle-income Americans who rely on subsidized loans to make college a reality. It gives them a real shot at the American Dream. We know that an undergraduate college degree is a minimum education requirement for participating in the hope and opportunity of the 21st century. We also know that our sons and daughters have been forced to take on significant debt in recent years to pursue that college degree. In the last 5 years, undergraduate students and their families have seen tuition and fees rise over 40 percent at public universities after inflation. At the same time, the cost of borrowing money has gone up by 2 percent. It is a debt load that is forcing talented young Americans to pass up a college education and America cannot afford to let that happen. Americans with an undergraduate degree earn much more on average than Americans without one. In 2005, the average earnings of someone with a college degree was 60 percent more than someone with only a high school degree. In today's dollars, we are talking about $37,000 versus $67,000 for a college graduate. And there is every reason to believe this income gap will widen in coming years. Making college more affordable and accessible gives more of our children and grandchildren access to a better life, and those economic benefits ripple through the entire economy. I represent Seattle, a city where technological innovation is a daily ingredient of our local economy, from Boeing to Microsoft, through a thousand start-ups. These companies need an educated workforce to succeed. Like it or not, we are competing in a global economy, and Americans deserve every fair advantage. A college education is one of the best advantages, and it isn't just about making money. With a college degree, students have more careers to choose from. In other words, a college degree is a key that can unlock your own personal happiness. Imagine working at something you want to do every day instead of something you have to do. Today, too many promising young Americans are not going to college because it costs too much, not because they do not have the ability to succeed. And we know there are racial and gender disparities that make it imperative for us as a Nation to make college more affordable, accessible, and available. For those who do go to college, the typical student graduates over $17,000 in debt. So we are making a downpayment in this bill on America's future by cutting the interest rate on subsidized student loans, and we would be wise as a Nation to do more. Today, the United States accounts for 14 percent of the world's college graduates. That is just half of the percentage we accounted for 30 years ago. In other words, knowledge is power, and other nations have dramatically stepped up their efforts. A few months ago, the nonpartisan National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education released a new report that ranks the United States 16 among the 27 industrialized nations in the world for the number of students who complete a college education or advanced certificate degree. The data in the report also suggests there is a shortage of college-educated young Americans ready to take over as the college- trained baby boomers retire. We could be as much as 15 million college graduates short in just over a decade. That would be completely unacceptable in the United States of America. Cutting interest rates in half on subsidized student loans is a start, but it is just that. It is just a beginning. We need to find other ways to invest in America's future by investing in America's future generation. We say it over and over again, that children are our future. This is an opportunity to put in law the fact that we mean business. The 21st century will require nothing less.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues on the other side today, it seems like I am back in medical school in 1963 when the American Medical Association president told us, if we get that Medicare, that will be the end of health care in this country; there is no way we will have any kind of good health care in this country. Well, the fact is we would never have had it if we waited for you to do it. During the 12 years you were in control, you proposed not one single way to deal with the 46 million Americans who have no health insurance. Now with respect to senior citizens, they are isolated in a blizzard of confusing programs and options which cost more than a 250 percent difference in the same zip code. I live in 98119. You can spent 250 percent different depending on which program. People don't know that. My mother is 97, and you expect them to pick this up. They ought to get a lower cost, and we are going to get it for them by getting the Secretary to negotiate them, as he should. That creates a huge national pool that the companies cannot ignore, and they are going to have to work toward the common good. Now, it is time we worked for the common good in here, not for the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry or anybody else but the seniors who have to deal with the prices of their drugs. That is what they are asking for us. It is the same proposal we have used in the VA. You would think we would be doing that to the veterans if it was bad? Come on. This is good for the veterans, it is good for the seniors, and it is finally working toward the common good in this House.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the American people have not received very much information about a major issue in and around the Iraq war, and the oil industry would like to keep it just that way. Fortunately, investigative journalism is still being practiced, and I want to share information uncovered by a reporter for AlterNet, in the United States, and a major Sunday story this week in The Independent, a newspaper in the United Kingdom. The number one Iraq story for all of 2006 on AlterNet, which is an Internet-based news and opinion site, was a two-part series by a reporter, Joshua Holland, entitled: ``Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil.'' Last Sunday, The Independent carried stories with these headlines: ``Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War, How the West Will Make a Killing on Iraqi Oil Riches.'' And ``Blood and Oil: How the West Will Profit from Iraq's Most Precious Commodity.'' Members of Congress are limited in how much information we can enter into the record at one time, so I will enter into the record The Independent story. I will also encourage every American to seek out and read the complete AlterNet story, which is available online. These investigative reports paint a disturbing picture and raise troubling questions about big oil's attempting to steal the oil wealth and resources of the Iraqi people. From the beginning of the Iraq invasion, more moderate voices, especially overseas, questioned whether the ulterior motive behind toppling Saddam Hussein was a grab for Iraqi oil. In this scenario, democracy is a by-product of oil production, not the real reason for military action in Iraq. Gaining access to the oil wealth of Iraq has had oil industries salivating for years. Gaining control of that oil wealth would be a prize beyond compare for the oil industry. Iraq has the third largest oil reserves in the world, and there are many oil geologists who believe that vast additional oil reserves are just waiting to be discovered in Iraq's western desert. They call it the Holy Grail, and some believe the untapped riches could propel Iraq from third to first place in the world's oil reserves. An estimated 115 billion barrels of oil reserves are under Iraq. Today's price is $53 a barrel, and that is an 18-month low. The American people are still suffering from the oil price shocks and high prices at the pump, and the oil industry is booking record profits in the billions of dollars every quarter, record profits in a world that is addicted to oil. In 1999, Vice President Cheney was running Halliburton, and he said in a speech that another 50 million barrels of oil would be needed by the end of the decade, and the key was the Middle East. This administration and the British prime minister have repeatedly said that the U.S. invasion was not about oil. But these investigative reporters say a new law is quietly working its way through the Iraqi government that would give unprecedented access, control and oil wealth to Western oil companies. It would happen under what is known as a production sharing agreement, a PSA. Here is how The Independent put it: ``PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries.'' The news account continues: ``Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and twoexporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC.'' The PSA's would give big oil in Iraq deals that would last for 30 to 40 years. These deals, the news reports point out, would force Iraq to share its oil wealth with Western outsiders, not their own people. Up to 70 percent of the profits would go to outside producers in the first years, and the news media points out that these deals could be enforced ahead of any social and economic reforms in Iraq and ahead of any social programs. One person quoted called it ``colonialism lite.'' The President said it is not about oil. The prime minister said it is not about oil. They said Iraqi oil was for Iraqi people. But the legislation working its way through the Iraqi government is about nothing but Western access to the oil and its incredible wealth. The leaked drafts of the legislation show the West in a role with access and control, including a provision in the leaked draft document that would enable Western oil companies to transfer their wealth right out of Iraq. They don't have to leave it in Iraq at all. Quoting directly from the leaked draft, ``A foreign person may repatriate its exports in accordance with foreign exchange regulations in force at the time.'' In fact, the language is so favorable to companies that they would be able to take every bit out and sell the rest to the world. A vast amount of Iraq's wealth would be up for sale, by foreigners, to foreigners. Quoting the leaked draft: ``It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners.'' The United States has been in Iraq for over 4 years already. How long will we be there if western oil companies are given free rein to put a vice grip on Iraq's oil? If western oil companies get a 30-year agreement, we may call Iraq the 30-year war. The President said Iraq was all about democracy. News reports now give us a picture that say it might have been all about the oil. Read the news reports and decide for yourself. I include for the Record the article from The Independent. [From The Independent, Jan. 7, 2007] Blood and Oil: How the West Will Profit From Iraq's Most Precious Commodity So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves. And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil. Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as ``production-sharing agreements'', or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil. PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec. Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. ``Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome,'' said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the U.S. government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months. ``Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis,'' said Mr. Muttitt. ``The draft went to the U.S. government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had.'' Britain and the United States have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. ``The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN,'' he said. ``The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm . . . the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people.'' That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting ``Mission Accomplished'', Britain co- sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the United States and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from ``all oil revenues'' being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the United States and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: ``We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for U.S. purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary . . . It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil.'' Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country. Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated elite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs. And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector- general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400. ``In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen,'' said Greg Muttitt. ``It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now.'' Before the war, Mr. Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, ``so the people have faith in central government'', as he put it last summer. But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil--it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy--control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation. The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law. The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future. Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration. In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, ``Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state. `` It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft. Under the chapter entitled ``Fiscal Regime'', the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this. ``A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time].'' Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: ``It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners.'' The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies. It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 percent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: ``Twenty percent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount.'' In more stable countries, 10 percent would be the norm. While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 percent of revenue; 40 percent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: ``They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative.'' Dr. Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: ``It's very dangerous . . . although the security situation is far better in the north.'' Even taking that into account, however, he believed that ``for a company to take 20 percent of the profits in a production-sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large''. He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 percent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs. And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 percent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest. Production-sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed. Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's reserves--the third largest in the world--only 2,300 wells have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea. Confirmation of the generous terms--widely feared by international nongovernment organisations and Iraqis alike-- have prompted some to draw parallels with the production- sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was bankrupt and in chaos. At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after months of thinly veiled threats from the environment regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the project. Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr. Muttitt disagreed. ``The most commonly mentioned target has been for Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 or so,'' he said. ``Iraq has estimated that it would need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year, according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and $4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $lbn a year, and that could easily be made up if the security situation improved. ``PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it.'' Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary. James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: ``The U.S. and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq.'' The Iraqi authorities, he said, were ``a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The U.S. has a lot of leverage . . . Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this.'' Mr. Paul added: ``It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious.'' One point on which all agree, however, is that only small, maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in Iraq in the foreseeable future. ``Production over the next year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up,'' said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. ``The whole thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate.'' An oil industry executive agreed, saying: ``All the majors will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for U.S. and allied companies because of the disastrous war.'' Mr. Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran. Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis. ``The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors,'' their statement said. ``The occupier seeks and wishes to secure . . . energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation.'' The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a U.S. intelligence report as a cause celebre for terrorism. America protects its fuel supplies--and contracts Despite U.S. and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry--alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital--was under American guard. Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was among U.S.-based multinationals that won most of the reconstruction deals--one of its workers is pictured, tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts, mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another U.S. giant, has pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in Iraq. in just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign investors for the next 30 years A 40-page document leaked to the `IoS' sets out the legal framework for the Iraqi government to sign production-sharing agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its vast oil reserves. The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing partnerships between the Iraqi government and international oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation between Iraq's federal government and its regional authorities to develop oil fields. The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that Iraq needs foreign investment for the ``quick and substantial funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects''. It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of ``great importance to the whole nation as well as to all investors in the sector'' and that the proceeds from foreign investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term, decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues. the role of oil in iraq's fortunes Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves--10 per cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields, of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue. Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production- sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they were signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are now regretting them. The $50bn bonanza for U.S. companies piecing a broken Iraq together The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to U.S. companies. As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing coalition military presence in the country. Other companies have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course, its oil industry. In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), part of the U.S. Department of Defence, created the Project Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's reconstruction. In June 2004 the CPA was dissolved and the Iraqi interim government took power. But the U.S. maintained its grip on allocating contracts to private companies. The management of reconstruction projects was transferred to the Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office, a division of the U.S. Department of State, and the Project and Contracting Office, in the Department of Defence. The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of U.S. giant Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq worth $13bn (7bn), including an uncontested $7bn contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the giant U.S. conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation, and General Electric. According to the U.S.-based Centre for Public Integrity, 150-plus U.S. companies have won contracts in Iraq worth over $50bn. 30,000--Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in Iraq. 36--The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a U.S. company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since August 2003. $12.1bn--UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's electricity network. $2 trillion--Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the U.S., according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, getting American trade policy right is important for many reasons. We must aim to provide opportunity for American businesses and the workers they rely upon, while also providing opportunity to people in less developed nations. We have before us a consensus measure that is long overdue. Consensus building is hard work and too often those in power seek that which is easy, not that which is best and necessary. I'm very pleased the bill before us continues the trade benefits vital to the nations of sub Saharan Africa. This bill would finally launch a more just trading policy with Haiti, and bring Vietnam into the community of trading nations that abide by international rules. I am pleased this bill continues to provide discretion to the President to retain competitive need limit waivers under the Generalized System of Preferences and does not require revocation of any such waiver currently in effect. Unfortunately, this bill falls short in some fundamental ways. First, we should make permanent GSP, not merely extend it temporarily. The program should also be enhanced to meet the pledge made by the U.S. Trade Representative to extend duty-free and quota-free treatment to products produced by workers in poor countries. At the beginning of this year's session of Congress, President Bush addressed the Congress and the American people and said, ``In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting--yet it ends in danger and decline.'' The President is right. The bill before us offers a dangerous future for our dealings with our own hemisphere. It weakens our relationship with Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador. The conditions this bill imposes upon continued trade benefits for these countries are unrealistic. This bill threatens thousands upon thousands of jobs in the Andean region, feeding a growing and destructive form of populism. Mr. Speaker, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. I know when the new Congress convenes in just over three weeks, the troubling components of this bill will be properly addressed, and I therefore support the bill before us today. In conclusion, let me say I very much look forward to the new Congress, when trade policy will be constructed in public, and in daylight. I look forward to next year's consideration of policies that aim to improve the human condition, and are produced by means enabling consensus, not division.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in the House, my constituents in Washington's 7th Congressional District, and First Responders across America to join me in honoring a fallen hero, King County Deputy Sheriff Steve Cox. Last weekend, Steve Cox, an extraordinary public servant, was killed in the line of duty while interviewing witnesses to a shooting in the White Center neighborhood of Seattle, Washington. The tragic loss of this 9 year veteran of law enforcement has stunned and saddened our entire community. Steve Cox had become the White Center neighborhood's Superhero. Area residents remembered Deputy Cox in The Seattle Times as the person ``who was single-handedly making the streets safer and the neighborhood better. He became so deeply involved in community issues that he was elected president of the local Council. To his family, he was a man who had found new joy since he and his wife, Maria, adopted a baby, Bronson, who turned 1 in October.'' Deputy Cox exhibited a personal and steadfast commitment to law enforcement and community safety that spanned varied sides of the law enforcement profession. The son of teachers, Deputy Cox was an attorney and served as a deputy prosecutor in Franklin and King Counties prior to becoming a King County Sheriff's Deputy 9 years ago. I had the honor of meeting Deputy Cox in our community. I know that he touched the lives of so many that he so honorably served. Deputy Steve Cox led by example. He was and will always be a role model of selfless public service. We mourn his passing, but we are grateful for the life he led on our behalf and the legacy of idealism and heroism we will never forget.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the President has repeatedly said that he is not interested in engaging in Iran in an effort to stabilize Iraq. There is a tragic irony in the President's intransigence. While the President is unwilling to talk to Iran, his policies in Iraq, in reality, are allowing Iran to take over Iraq. But if we don't recognize and act on this soon, Iran will succeed. This is real, it is not rhetorical. Actions by the President, through his appointed surrogate to run Iraq, Paul Bremer, that date back to the first days of the U.S. invasion, have created a situation today that makes Iraq a prime candidate for what Iran could never accomplish on its own militarily; that is, taking over Iraq, its oil, its infrastructure, even its existence as a separate Nation. Iran couldn't successfully invade Iraq, but we did, and now we are playing right into the hands of the Iranians by not acting on what Iraqis see happening. The media portrays an overly simplistic picture of sectarian struggle. We hear a lot about Shi'a and Sunni Iraqis, but we don't hear about Persians; that is, Iran and the Persian versus Arab is where the real battle for Iraq will be won or lost. Every time the President meets with Iranian Shi'a clerics, or those connected or controlled by them, he confirms in the Iraqi-Arab minds, both Shi'a and Sunni, that he is ceding control to the Iranians. It began with Bremer's decision to give the Shi'a control of the governing council. Then his decision to disband the Iraqi Army and the Baathist technocrat government further confirmed to the Arabs the feeling that the United States, despite its protests to the contrary, was opening up Iraq to an Iranian takeover. The borders were open. This is not my speculation, this is what moderate leaders in the Middle East told me in face-to-face meetings I attended in Amman, Jordan recently. Moderate leaders desperately want the American people to understand what is really going on, because they see that as perhaps their last hope of getting our President to see. To the Iraqi Arabs, there are only two explanations to account for Paul Bremer's actions: a blunder based upon ignorance of the history of the region, or a deliberate decision to neutralize Iraq as a strong Arab secular nation, thereby making it more susceptible to U.S. influence in the future. Moderates in the region see it this way. The President, and therefore America, continues to openly act in ways that enable an Iranian takeover. Just the other day, the President met with the leader of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdul Aziz Hakim, in the White House. He is controlled and tied to the Iranians. This comes on the heels of the President's meeting and endorsement of al-Maliki. Meeting with Iranian-controlled Iraqis, no matter what sect they belong to, confirms to many in the region that the President doesn't understand the current situation. Moderates told me the resistance in Iraq is based on the U.S. occupation and a power grab by the Iranian- controlled clerics. Blaming it all on Sunni-Shi'a tensions is not just incorrect, they say, it is exactly what Iran hopes for, because it leaves them hidden. Here is another example. Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shi'a leader, left the coalition with the Iranian-controlled SCIRI and joined the Arab Sunnis. Al-Sadr strongly opposes the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and some see the meeting between the President and the Iranian leader of SCIRI as only deepening the passions against the United States. Friends of the United States in the region, and even foes, believe the same. To many in the region, one only need look at history to understand. Arabs and Persians have fought for centuries before Islam even existed, and their enmity remains intense. Persians are the Iranians. Arabs are the ones in Iraq. Failure by the President to understand it is Persian versus Arab or Iran versus Iraq that is going on, has produced one disastrous decision after another. The solution, they believe, is obvious. Strategically, redeploy the U.S. troops out of Baghdad, out of the cities, and onto the Iranian border to stop the infiltration of Iranian agents into Iraq. Some Arab leaders told me they estimate as many as 14,000 Persians, Iranians, have infiltrated to run death squads who are killing the Arab Sunnis and inciting a civil war as cover for the real war that is Iran versus Iraq. Unless we change the course, unless we draw back our troops out to the borders in preparation for ultimately leaving the country, the day will come when the only banner proclaiming ``mission accomplished'' will be flown by Iran. We can't let that happen. We have to change the course. The President must see this is not a sectarian fight between Shi'a and Sunni, it is between Iraq and Iran. They fought for 8 years, just recently, and now they are doing it again, and we have allowed them, the Iranians, to have the goal of making it happen.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on a day when 10 more U.S. soldiers died in Iraq, raising the number of brave Americans killed to 2,900, it is hard to find anything positive to say about the Baker Report, anything which is associated with a war which was hopelessly wrong from the outset. It was Congress that demanded the creation of a bipartisan group to critically examine the U.S. presence. At long last, the Congress, the American people, and the reluctant President have an Iraq plan to debate, except this President's interest has already begun to wane. He recently installed his own study group, which is a sign to me the President has changed his rhetoric but has not changed the course. America cannot and must not deal with Iraq in 2007 in the same way this President dealt with it in 2006. America needed a plan for Iraq long before the U.S. went in there. Many of the 79 recommendations made should have been implemented years ago. One recommendation that is imperative from any hope of success, diplomacy involving Iraq and Syria, has been rejected by the President before it is even debated out here in the Congress. The American people and the American soldiers deserve better than that. This President has led them into this mess and we have, now, a chance to lead them out. And he rejects the recommendations before they are even discussed. We need better than that out of the Presidency.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, last week the American people voted for new ideas and a new direction in Iraq. Changing the Secretary of Defense was a good first step, but we have a long way to go, and the situation is getting worse. Last week, I went to Amman, Jordan, to listen to a cross-section of moderate secular leaders from the region. They gave me their ideas for stabilizing Iraq. It is a way forward and it comes from the people in the region closest to the chaos. These leaders believe the U.S. should redeploy our soldiers to the borders between Iraq and Syria and Iraq and Iran. These leaders believe strategic redeployment can stop the infiltration of violence and get U.S. soldiers out of harm's way in Baghdad. The leaders gave me a four-point plan they believe will save American and Iraqi lives and their country. Strategic redeployment is a key element. We should do it. In medicine, doctors are taught to listen to the patient. The saying is, ``Listen to the patient. He's telling you what's the matter.'' Too often we have gone in like a doctor who had an idea that they knew what was wrong and how to fix it. We, the Congress, must listen to those moderate secular leaders in Iraq.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations. Today is a day that shows America really at its best. With one piece of legislation, we will show the world the heart and spirit of our country. In the grand scheme of things, there is not a lot of money involved here, but there is an enormous amount of history and healing involved. Democrats support permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam because granting PNTR to Vietnam allows it to join the rules- based, multilateral trading system, the World Trade Organization. Vietnam's accession to the WTO will ensure that Vietnam is bound to international rules and concessions that aim to provide trade-related economic growth that is fair. But PNTR does more than just bring Vietnam into a multinational trading relationship. PNTR continues to heal the wounds of a conflict whose wounds are still felt today. The healing of the Vietnam War continues, and today marks another important step in that process. The U.S.-Vietnam accession agreement, for the most part, is a strong one. The agreement will open an emerging market of almost 90 million people to American exporters of goods and services. This agreement will provide the Nation's exporters and consumers opportunities which are not available today. In my home State of Washington, a State that relies heavily on exports to drive its economy, products like computer software, commercial aircraft, and agricultural goods will find better access to an increasingly dynamic economy through this agreement. Subjecting Vietnam to the disciplines of the WTO and its rules and dispute settlement mechanisms will be a positive step in providing the United States more of an opportunity to ensure that Vietnam's economic reforms continue and move in the right direction. This will provide a new opportunity for the Vietnamese to improve their lives by participating in freer and fair markets. That is what makes this agreement worthy of support despite its flaws. Even as we move, I hope, to pass this resolution, we must recognize a deeply flawed process by which the resolution is brought before the House. First, this is a major trade bill that is coming to the floor on a suspension calendar, the legislation introduced and made available to the Members and the public just a few hours ago without any significant debate, without any hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, and without the opportunity of any markup. I doubt most Members know anything about this bill, which was introduced just a few hours ago, as most Members are presently flying back from their districts across the country. This is not the way the Congress should operate when we are legislating on matters of importance to the American people. We should follow the regular order, and I am hopeful that in the future we will do that. In fact, I am absolutely certain we will do that, having listened to Mr. Levin talk about it. In fact, the bill, and Vietnam's accession agreement to the WTO, omits a critically important provision. The Bush administration failed once again to negotiate a safeguard mechanism with Vietnam, which is a country with a nonmarket economy. This is a major oversight. Nonmarket economies do not respond to normal market signals of supply and demand, and thereby they often create surplus supply that can lead to import surges in the U.S. market. These surges, and this administration's failure to address them effectively, are one of the areas in which the Bush administration has failed to stand up for American businesses, for their workers and the manufacturing sector in general. In the new Congress, the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means will need to consider ways that our trade law remedies can be updated and strengthened, including the antidumping laws. American firms are among the most competitive in the world, but they cannot compete with the treasury of foreign countries. The administration should know that in the new Congress; the new majority will insist that the administration incorporate safeguard tools in future PNTR agreements. In closing, I support this bill because it is an important step that we should take to strengthen the multilateral trading system. It is an important step to provide opportunities for American and Vietnamese workers and entrepreneurs. Most importantly, this is a step we can take to improve U.S.-Vietnamese relations and our relationship with emerging Asian economies. It is unfortunate that the agreement has some key shortcomings that my colleagues on the House Ways and Means intend to address in the coming months. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I feel confident this measure before us will pass quite easily. I am glad that you have allowed the House to consider it today. I am sorry that Mr. Ramstad did not get a chance to come. We are going to miss Mr. Shaw as he leaves us. Mr. Kolbe, I am sorry he has left the floor. He was also a promoter of trade in underdeveloped countries and has been a real contributor to that effort here in the Congress. However, this House has a little bit of work left to do in trade. And I talked to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Thomas, before he left about whether or not we can get a bill between now and the time we get out of here. I would urge the Speaker and the chairman to act on a bill that extends the expiring trade preference programs, the Andean Trade Promotion Program and the generalized system of preferences. These are programs that have been in place for many, many years and have had a very positive effect in the underdeveloped world. And I think it is important that we not allow them to lapse in the midst of transition between party control and whatever. There are a lot of people out there whose jobs depend on how those are implemented. And I think that the chairman understands that and has given me his assurance that he is going to talk to the Senate about whether we can get through such a piece of legislation, because it is vital to these developing countries and the workers and the American businessmen and consumers. If you are trying to plan to source some of your material overseas and you do not know what the law is going to be applying to it, it is very hard for you to plan in advance, as the garment industry does or other industries. You need some certainty about when things are going to be available and what preferences will be in place so that the costs can be considered. I would urge the Speaker in this thing to bring us a short-term clean extension. There are a lot of things out there that can get onto these bills that really do not add, in fact are very controversial. But the clean extension should include the provisions for Haiti, which is the poorest country in our hemisphere, and certainly we want to do what we can for them. Sub-Saharan Africa is also a very undeveloped area that is having enormous economic problems. And for those kinds of supports I think there ought not to be any kind of opposition to them. The problem is they always get coupled with everything else under the sun that people have always wanted to do. I hope the chairman and the committee and the subcommittee and the Speaker will all come together and bring us a bill and we will support it as we have done this one today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida has the right to close?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are shutting down the debate in Congress today. They don't want the American people to hear anything other than Republican press releases. They have nothing else to show and offer the American people. November will be a referendum on the President's failed diplomacy, disastrous war in Iraq, and governing America by telling the American people to be afraid. Now, maybe Aesop was wrong 3,000 years ago in his fable. Maybe you can shout, ``Wolf, wolf, wolf,'' and win an election. But you can't stifle democracy and cling to power. The American people have had enough. The Republican leadership believes that they are going to have the last word today, but, fortunately, on November 7, the American people are going to choose a new direction. They don't want any more of this. They have watched it, they have given the President support, they have given him leeway, and what have they gotten? A war that is making more unsafe our world, and Americans want a new direction. They are going to get it on November 7.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know the Republican majority today has created the House Failed Diplomacy Caucus. The Republicans need another press release before they go home, so we have 20 minutes to offer our thoughts on a bad bill sent to the floor by Republicans to show how tough they are. Showing how smart we are would be a far better idea for dealing with nations like Iran and Iraq. But global diplomacy isn't the stuff of press releases; rhetoric is. So the Republicans have shut down debate by bringing legislation to the floor under a closed rule. They don't want ideas or improvements for making the world a safer place. They want leaflets to drop during the campaign, and they are being printed en mass right now. It is the Republican Iraq strategy all over again. Different nation, same flawed approach. Republicans have given us H.R. 6198, the We Run the World Act. There is no need for other nations to actually have governments, actually. We will send our press releases. Just follow along, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, and anywhere else where we think we run them. Republicans want Americans to point the finger and send along instructions. They are staging a campaign event right here on the floor. You watch how quick it makes it into the ads of television. This is not, not, going to help America chart a path to deal with what is wrong with the Iranian government. No one disagrees with the fact that it is not a government we want in control of that country. It will only entrench and bolster those who are wrong. The press release won't protect anybody. But, in fact, the Iranian dissidents don't want the money. Do you know why? Just like many Republicans today don't want Bush to come into their district and put his arm around them in the midst of this campaign, the Iranian dissidents know that, if it becomes American money, they are done. They will not be able to do what they need to. We need to vote ``no'' on this initiative.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would only point out that this bill has been supported by the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities, Conferences of State Court Administrators and Chief Justices, the Center For Law and Social Policy, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, the Mentoring Partnership, the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the National Congress of American Indians, the Association of American Indian Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good bill, and it ought to pass by a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of Senate bill 3525, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act. By passing this legislation, we will better protect our most vulnerable children, the children who are abused and neglected in our society. This legislation would not have been possible without the leadership and compassion of Mr. Wally Herger, the chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee. I thank him for that, and I recognize the efforts of his staff to collaborate with me and others to write legislation that will make a difference in the lives of vulnerable kids. For many of these children, we are the last line of defense, separating hope from despair. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act is a lifeline that will save lives. Today, we are first responders to children who need us to rescue them for abuse and neglect. S. 3525 combines the key features of the legislation we worked together to pass in this House in July, and the bill includes several important provisions authored by the Senate. So it is truly collaborative, both bicameral and bilateral here. This legislation is an example of what is possible when we forget party labels and work together for the common good. We know the problems confronting our Nation's child welfare system are staggering. We won't solve them all in one day or with one bill. This Improvement Act is not a comprehensive solution. It is, however, a modest but important step in the right direction, a step that can save the lives of abused and neglected children. This legislation extends for 5 years the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. This is the largest source of Federal funding dedicated to preventing child abuse, to safely reuniting troubled families, and promoting adoption when kids can't return home. The bill also brings the mandatory funding that Indian tribes receive from this program better in line with what the tribes really deserve, and I am proud to say that the measure does more than merely continue current resources. In this legislation, we fought to recognize the importance of a consistent interaction between caseworkers and foster children. We do this by including meaningful incentives for States to make progress toward ensuring that children in foster care are checked on at least once a month by qualified State caseworkers. Caseworkers are the first responders for children. We recognize that in this legislation, and we support them. Here is how we do it: To assist the States in assuring that children are visited by first-rate caseworkers, the bill provides States an additional $95 million over the next 5 years to improve their child welfare workforce. These funds will be used to enhance the retention, recruitment, and training of caseworkers, as well as increase their access to useful technology. I personally see this investment as a down payment in the people who are best able to protect vulnerable kids. The current level of turnover for child welfare caseworkers, that is, tenure on the job, is less than 2 years. That is detrimental to the well-being of foster kids. Our legislation also makes progress on another issue that threatens the welfare of children. That is substance abuse. Building on a proposal that originated in the Senate, the bill will provide competitive grants for States and community based organizations to launch really a rescue mission for families and children whose health and safety are threatened by their parents' substance abuse problems. We are going to be proactive, and we are going to address this issue and meet the needs head on. This new grant program would have a special focus on methamphetamine drug use because of the dramatic destabilizing effect it has on families. However, the grants also could be provided to organizations combating other serious drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine. I would also like to highlight a provision in this bill that would require the States to have disaster preparedness plans for their child welfare programs. This would require procedures to track displaced foster kids, identify children who may be newly in need of child welfare services because of disaster, preserve essential records, and have a process for communicating and coordinating with other States. We really don't have to look any further than what happened in this country in Hurricane Katrina to understand why such a requirement is necessary, or to the report I requested the Government Accounting Office conduct, showing that the States are lacking in any kind of plan. Finally, this bill would extend for 5 years a program that helps our court system track child welfare cases and a program that provides mentoring services for children of prisoners. We will also try a limited demonstration project to test the feasibility and effectiveness of providing services through vouchers. Today, we have an opportunity to launch a rescue mission for vulnerable kids. I strongly urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 6131, does some good. It would change the rules regarding the Leaking Underground Storage trust fund and allow these funds to address the MTBE leaks. That is shorthand for gasoline additives in underground tanks at your neighborhood gas station. MTBE leaks are dangerous and destructive, and this legislation will amend the energy bill in a good way. Unfortunately, these additives get into water and create problems for human beings. The legislation does nothing to address the other dangers and destructive leaks in the President's energy policy, however. It does not amend the bill to repeal the tax giveaways the President's energy bill gives Big Oil. It does not repeal the $30 billion in corporate welfare Republicans have given to Big Oil and their energy companions. It does not make America less dependent on oil, and it does not make America less vulnerable to nations that have the oil resources that we need. Oil and gas companies continue to line their pockets with American taxpayer dollars. The Republicans have delivered billions in tax breaks last year. That was after the Republicans handed over billions in 2004. Republicans gave oil companies a sweetheart tax break that climbs in value as the process and profits claim. You pay and pay, while they keep and keep. That sums up the Republican energy policy. Today, we should act to stop one big leak in the Nation's energy policy. It will take removing Republicans in the midterm election to begin to plug the other big leaks in the Republican energy policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think from the previous speaker and myself you understand that this bill does not do any harm. I think that is why we will support it. It does not do very much about the energy problems in this country, and I really think that is where we ought to be spending our time. If the Federal Government really was interested in cleaning up the environment, they would spend the money that is there. It is there for that purpose. However, they need it to cover the debts of war and a whole lot of other things which, in my opinion, are not the way this money should have been spent. So I personally will urge a voice vote and pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President says he looks to the generals on how to prosecute the war in Iraq. Yesterday, two generals from the Army and a Marine colonel who had all served in Iraq called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld. The President has repeatedly claimed he listens to the military. Well, General John Batiste told an oversight hearing that Rumsfeld and others in the Bush White House ``did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq.'' The generals have spoken, Mr. President. Your Defense Secretary misled us into combat with disastrous consequences. Rumsfeld has failed our soldiers and the American people. He just ordered another 4,000 into Iraq, into the cauldron of violence that his incompetence has created. The generals have spoken, Mr. Speaker. Tell the President to listen to us. Will you? Somebody has got to talk to the President. He doesn't seem to listen to Members of Congress. The generals have now spoken. What is he waiting for? Perhaps it is the election.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order speech at this time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday of a new intelligence assessment that confirms what the common sense of the American people concluded some time ago: The war in Iraq has undermined our efforts to fight terrorism. The national intelligence estimate says the Iraq war has made terrorism worse on a global scale. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous. These conclusions come from the agencies and specialists who work to keep America safe by keeping leaders informed of the latest verifiable information. The intelligence assessment is sobering, but the White House and Republican response is staggering in its total denial of the truth. Faced with newspaper accounts of the new intelligence report in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the White House immediately issued a denial. They went so far as to have their appointees repeat the often-heard misstatement that significant progress is being made in Iraq. Violence is the only thing that Iraq has more of today. More than 200 people have been killed in Iraq since the weekend, but the President and the Republican surrogates keep saying significant progress is being made. The Republican idea of keeping America safe is keeping America in the dark, unaware of the truth Republicans have been told behind closed door. Republicans continue to blindly endorse the President's Iraq war because those are the marching orders from the White House. There is no independence from the President. Republicans in the House do exactly as they are instructed. So when the intelligence community tells Republican leaders the Iraq war is spreading terrorism, the White House tells the Republicans to say something else. U.S. soldiers are fighting and dying in the middle of a civil war, yet the Republicans mechanically recite the same old White House rhetoric. The only thing that will help America become safer is to face the truth. The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous. Only Republicans disagree with that truth. The Republican party in power denies the facts of the intelligence community; and they keep telling America you are safer, you are safer. The facts prove the President has been wrong about Iraq all along. The facts prove the President could have changed course but instead chose to keep U.S. soldiers in harm's way and make the world a more dangerous place. And the facts prove the Republican Party abandoned the American people in favor of misleading statements, failed foreign policy, and a President who will stay his own course when America is off course. America is not safer when the President has a Republican Congress willing to accept White House press releases instead of cold hard assessments from 16 intelligence agencies of the United States Government. America is not safer when the Republican Party's principal weapon in the war on terror is misleading press releases denying our own intelligence community. But that is what the Republicans would have you believe. Republicans think a press release is more important to their future than an intelligence plan that demands we confront Iraq as it really is. Republicans had the power to change course and work with the Democrats to produce a national plan on the crisis in Iraq. They simply refuse. They go it alone. Republicans had the power to develop a plan for Iraq that was based on facts, not the President's speeches, but they refused. Jack Murtha, Ike Skelton, many on our side have offered them alternatives. The world today is more dangerous, and Republicans will not even accept their own intelligence assessments. The American people learned two important pieces of information over the weekend: The Iraq war has made the world more dangerous, and the Republican Party is not willing to act on that intelligence. They are not protecting the American people. They are protecting their own hold on power by denying the horrible mistake that they have made. They will not change course because that would require them to say, well, you know, we did the wrong thing when we let the whole Army go, when we let Abu Ghraib get out of hand. They won't admit that they have made us less safe.