Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills in the middle of the night; this is a 21-page summary. There isn't anybody here, perhaps four or five conference members may know what is in it. None of us have seen the bill, so you have got to trust the leadership. Now, this bill imposes new red tape and fees on employers that wish to provide their employees with defined benefit pensions. It makes it harder to give a defined benefit. Those opposing this measure of course will say they believe that the bill's new requirements will impose requirements to discourage employers from offering a traditional pension plan. Supporters are saying this bill will strengthen everything. But if the aim of this bill is to strengthen pensions, why does it exempt Halliburton from the bill's requirements? No one could possibly have read the text of this bill. But we do have this 21-page summary, I say, which says that the proposal delays the effective action on funding and benefit limitation rules for defense contractors. Those who are ripping us off in Iraq by the billions are not being brought under this bill. This provision was not in the House nor was it in the Senate version of the bill. If the funding and limitation rules are so good for everyone, which is what the majority contends, why aren't they good enough for Halliburton? Of course, I know Halliburton is a friend of the Vice President. Perhaps we need CSI to come in here to uncover how this bill got put together, but we know enough to oppose the bill. This proposal continues to promote the philosophy of conservatives, which is that people are better off alone. You are on your own, folks. We are going to give you a 401(k), and good luck, no defined benefits anymore. This is to end pensions as we have known them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have come to this floor and have wondered why there isn't moral outrage. Well, when you have a President who leads you into war on all kinds of misrepresentations, when we have now lost 2,500 Americans, and when we have spent $400 billion with no moral outrage about that, who would expect there to be moral outrage about the fact that somebody is making $5.15 an hour in this country? Now, we have Members of Congress, of course, who have indexed their salary to inflation. And this year we are all going to pick up $3,300. Nobody is going to blink. That is a third of what a minimum-wage worker makes working all year. If we had indexed the minimum wage to inflation, they would be making almost $13 an hour. But, of course, we can't think of doing something like that. That would be humane to the people that we have kicked off welfare and all the other things we have done in this society. We have taken away pensions. We have put companies in bankruptcy. We have shifted jobs overseas, and the few that are working in this country, we want them working for as little as possible. Well, the Republicans found a cure for that. They waited till after the news had closed for Friday. In the darkness of the night, on a Friday, they are going to pass a bill that they are going to use for their press releases on Monday when they get home to their districts: I voted to raise the minimum wage. I care about the working people of my district, they will proclaim in loud voices. But the fact is, they know this bill isn't going to pass. And what is going to pass, they hope, is the $300 billion for the richest among us, those poor rich people who can hardly get by. Their hearts are bleeding, but the Republicans are taking care of it. Don't worry, you rich folks. They have got you in mind. They don't care what happens to the poor.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, as a long time supporter of India and one of the co-founders of the India Caucus I have watched with gratification over the past decade as India and the United States have emerged as strategic partners. I believe the world's oldest and largest democracies have a lot to learn from and share with one another. I am concerned, however, that the Bush administration seems to have focused all of the energy in this bilateral relationship on the recent proposal to commence nuclear cooperation. I understand India's growing energy demands and shortages (a crisis which we in the United States also face) and I believe that our two countries should cooperate and share technologies to promote energy independence. That is why, despite serious reservations about the proposed U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement and the Bush administration's ability to properly implement it, I cosponsored H.R. 5682. I believe it is important that we continue to engage India on this important issue, and I supported this legislation to move this process along. But I have serious concerns with the agreement as it stands. India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and this type of arrangement with a nonsignatory to the treaty is unprecedented. Exporting American nuclear fuel to India has the potential to supplant the domestic uranium India is currently using to generate civilian nuclear power, freeing up this uranium for military purposes. I worry about the message this arrangement would send to the region and the world, and I do not believe further production of nuclear weapons is in India's or the South Asian region's best interests. Nuclear weapons remain the most dangerous threat to mankind, and I worry about a mistake in Mumbai or Islamabad. The idea that these weapons can be used tactically or surgically is nonsense; we should be working to scale down nuclear weapon production in the region, not escalate it. I do not believe this agreement is unworkable, but I do feel that there is one very important thing that India needs to do to move this forward: end its production of fissile material. This would show the U.S. and the world that this agreement is truly going to address India's domestic energy needs and not going to enhance its nuclear arsenal. To this end, I voted in support of the Berman/Tauscher amendment, which would withhold exports of nuclear reactor fuel to India until India stops producing fissile material for nuclear weapons. However, the Berman/Tauscher amendment failed. In the absence of an Indian commitment to end fissile material production, I cannot support moving forward at this time with this agreement. I hope that those of us who do not support an agreement in the absence of such a commitment do not send the wrong message to our Indian friends. We will continue to support India and there are many areas in which our two countries can continue to engage, including trade, space exploration, anti- terrorism, and other defense cooperation. But I cannot in good conscience support an agreement that, even indirectly, increases India's nuclear weapons arsenal. I don't believe that serves India, the U.S., or the South Asian region well.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday a number of countries met in Rome and they discussed what ought to happen between or in Lebanon, and they came to a decision there ought to be a cease-fire, except one country said no, it was the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, how can it be that the United States of America can condone the continuation of people dying on both sides of the line? The explanation of who started it or who won't stop or who is at fault or when it started or all that must be decided at a peace table. As long as people are dying, the peace table is going to be harder and harder and harder to work out. The sooner we bring the parties to the table, the better off the whole world will be, not just Lebanese, not Israelis, everyone in the world will be better off if we have a cease- fire. Please, Mr. President, listen to us.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Mr. Tim Friedman's 30 years of dedicated service in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Democratic Cloakroom. Now 30 years may seem like a long time, but really it's only 6 in ``Tim Years.'' That is to say, six World Series wins resulting in rings for the Yankees. I have to wonder if Tim's retirement may have something to do with the prospect of Barry Sullivan's Boston Red Sox winning a few more World Series' and narrowing the Yankees' lead in titles. Now safe at home--quite literally--I can publicly disclose how I caused one blemish on Tim's otherwise perfect congressional record. The March Madness NCAA basketball tournament bracket was overseen by Tim for years, and he ran a tight ship. You were in by the deadline, or you were out of the pool--except for this one time. On a late flight home I realized that I had forgotten to put my entry in for the congressional NCAA pool. As soon as I returned to D.C., I petitioned the court of last resort, Tim Friedman, believing my cause was virtually hopeless, but imagining myself shooting that desperate last second three-pointer to win the big game. To my complete surprise, Tim allowed my desperate shot to count, and he allowed me to slip in my late entry. Even with his charity, I still managed to go 0 and out in the Big Dance! Still, I'll never forget his wisdom for letting me in, and my folly for believing I could handicap the results. Tim's sports enthusiasm--near-fanaticism, really--will be sorely missed around the Cloakroom. More than that, however, we will miss Tim Friedman's smile, his warmth and his gracious humanity. We hear a lot about world-class athletes. Tim Friedman is a world-class human being. It has been my distinct pleasure to work with him, an honor to know such a genuine and goodhearted man, and a sad but proud moment for me to say goodbye and best wishes.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is sort of amusing to me that one minute Mr. Herger and I can be working together, and the next minute we have little differences. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Leavitt, sent a letter up yesterday asking for this increase in financing. Nowhere in his letter does he say we ought to terminate it. They have a funding mechanism by which they think they have the money. I am very seldom with the President, but sometimes I am when he is right. In this case I think we ought to keep the program. I really think that it is unusual that the theory gets out on the floor here that in order to have oversight over a program you have to kill it. You don't have to have the body. I mean, it isn't like an autopsy. Sometimes you can do oversight on a living program, a program that is actually going on. Now maybe we need to kill the Halliburton program and just kill the whole $18 billion, then we can do oversight. But I think it would be much more reasonable to do oversight on a program that is going on. I can't imagine how much abuse you could really have in a million dollars, in this sort of situation, given the kind of abuse that we have simply paid no attention to in the Halliburton situation. So while I think that we can agree that we need some more money in this program, I don't think we want to just put ourselves in the situation of coming back one year from now and putting this program back in. It may not be called the same thing. We will change the name. But the effectiveness of putting it in the law was that people anticipated that there would be situations like this before. We have had situations in Rwanda, we have had situations in the Middle East, we have had situations in the Mediterranean, we have had all kinds of places where Americans get caught in a cross-fire and we have to extricate them, and we make available some money to take care of Americans. That is why this is a good idea and shouldn't be ended simply as a way of saying we are controlling a national budget deficit of $5 trillion, or whatever it is. This is $1 million, guys. Come on.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the good things the Federal Government does is provide a lifeline to American citizens who suddenly find themselves in grave danger. That is exactly what has happened to 25,000 American citizens in Beirut who had signed in at the embassy when the Middle East crisis erupted. There were plenty of pictures on the evening news of Americans desperately trying to flee the conflict. Many were able to escape on chartered flights. When they arrive back in the United States, a government employee will meet them at the airport and ask whether they need any assistance, including help in securing and paying for connecting flights, temporary lodging, food, or medical assistance. Many don't need much help, but some do. And an important, but little known, program of the Social Security Act enables us to help Americans who escape the conflict with their lives and little else. This is government at its best: helping our citizens in a time of crisis, responding quickly and effectively to meet the needs of our people. We are doing more than watching a crisis unfold on television. We are actually helping American citizens. And the Republicans, for some strange reason, want to kill this program. So much for the common good. Now, this program has worked effectively for a mere $1 million a year in funding. But the crisis in Lebanon has drained the fund, and the administration has requested a temporary increase to $6 million. That is all it will take to make sure that Americans have a lifeline to reach our own citizens. But the Republicans intend to cut the lifeline. They will support an increase of $6 million to help Americans trying to flee a war, but only if the House kills the program. Americans remain trapped in the middle of a war zone, and the Republicans cannot bring themselves to help without extracting a pound of flesh from ordinary Americans. They want to kill a $1 million program. This is with trillions of dollars in debt out there. And they claim they are cutting the trillion-dollar deficit. They want to cut a lifeline to ordinary American citizens, because rich people won't need the help and the rest of the American people don't matter. We saw that same response in Hurricane Katrina, and we are seeing it here today. The philosophy of the Republicans that we should not prepare for a disaster is what made those awful pictures on television about Katrina; and they create the same thing here today, deliberately, when they are using the program, they are saying, it is like the house is on fire, yes, we should give some gas to the fire truck, but after the fire is over, sell the truck, we don't need it any more, we'll never need it again. Anybody who knows about what is going on in the world can imagine that we may need this program again. Americans are fleeing a war-torn nation, and it is perfectly all right for the Republicans with the notion that they are on their own. They intend to terminate the program at the end of it. They terminated their concerns for Americans a long time ago. They are telling us the only way to save the program this year is to kill it next year. Exactly what American value are they addressing by cutting a lifeline to Americans trying to flee a war? Democrats are outraged by this Republican hostility to our own people. With my colleagues Sandy Levin and Ben Cardin, I introduced legislation yesterday that would simply provide a temporary increase in the repatriation program cap so that we can continue to help Americans leave Lebanon. Now, there is no reason I can think of why that shouldn't be done. But it is just too easy for our friends on the other side of the aisle. They want to pretend they are fighting government spending. This is a million dollars, folks. That is not a rounding error. That is not drippings. That is practically nothing compared to what they have done in tax cuts for the rich. Of course that zeal applies to the $5 million, but it doesn't apply to the $18.4 billion they gave to Halliburton, $5 billion of which nobody has any idea where it went. No oversight in this House on an issue like that. But on this, this $1 million, we can't have that program. And we know we are going to need it. Now, the next time the problem happens, the program won't be there. We will have to come into the House in emergency session and create this program to help Americans get out of someplace that has become a war zone. This sums up the values of the Republican leadership. Big bucks for the big donors and not even pennies for everyone else. We can do better than that in this House. I think the Senate will send us a better bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have before us today the Senate companion bill to the Herger-McDermott Child Family Services and Improvement Act. We have put the Senate version on the House calendar to facilitate action. The Senate version is slightly different than our bill, but we want to move ahead as quickly as possible, so we are going to strike the Senate language and insert the Herger-McDermott language in its entirety. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a pleasure to work with Mr. Herger on this issue. In doing so, we will make America a little safer for vulnerable kids. Countless children across America need us to protect them from harm. In effect, the House today is fulfilling its obligation as first responders. For too many children, we are the first and the last line of defense. Mr. Herger and I have produced bipartisan legislation that takes a modest step forward in safeguarding vulnerable children. This bill is an attempt to find common ground so that together we can pursue the common good. I believe this can be a model for the future. Certainly more needs to be done, but every journey starts with the first step. This legislation renews the program called Promoting Safe and Stable Families. This is a small but vital program that supports the States in their efforts to prevent child abuse from occurring or from reoccurring. We maintain the flexibility of the current program by allowing the States to use Federal money to provide a wide variety of family support, preservation, reunification and other services, and we provide greater support to Native American tribes for these purposes. We also recognize and support the courageous caregivers serving on the front lines. For the first time in 7 years, the bill provides new Federal funding to the States, $40 million, to help them meet the challenges on two fronts. The first is having the resources to enable monthly caseworker visits for children in foster care. The second is investing more in the child welfare workforce. We know that more frequent interaction between caseworkers and foster kids leads to better outcomes. We also know that difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified caseworkers negatively affects the safety and permanency for at-risk kids. In fact, the Government Accounting Office warned us in 2003 report about the risks incurred by children when the average tenure of child care worker is less than 2 years. A lot of caring, dedicated caseworkers leave their job, not because they want to, but because they are forced to leave due to financial circumstances. We begin to address this issue in a bill with a $40 million downpayment. This shows, I think, that we mean business. The legislation also makes changes in other child care support programs that have proven to be effective, and we want to keep them working to benefit kids and families. Despite naysayers, government can be an instrument for good. Today in this bill we can prove it. Again, I thank my colleague Mr. Herger for his work. Working together, I think we have produced a good piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this House will be treated to a real interesting historical event. The Prime Minister of Iraq will be here. His article today in the Wall Street Journal says: ``Iraq is a sovereign nation.'' He goes on to talk about one province of Iraq that has some stability and makes that appear that that is the Iraq that he is here to represent. If one reads the European newspapers, the Independent, and I will enter this into the Record, the Independent from Great Britain says, and the title of this article is, ``Sectarian break-up of Iraq is now inevitable admit officials.'' They talk about the fact that Mr. Maliki yesterday met with Tony Blair in London, where he talked about the fact that things were going just fine. But the article goes on to say that senior Iraq officials are saying that the break-up of the country is inevitable. This is a quote from one: ``Iraq as a political project is finished. The parties have moved to plan B, that is that the Shiia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking for ways to divide Iraq between them and decide the future of Baghdad where there is a mixed population. There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into the Shiia, east Baghdad, and the Sunni west Baghdad.'' The foreign minister said in an interview with the Independent, before joining Mr. Maliki in London ``that in theory the government should be able to solve the crisis between Shiia, Sunni and Kurd,'' but then he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration where senior Sunni members praise the anti-government insurgents as the heroic resistance. So you have ministers inside the government praising the insurgency that is making this huge instability in the country. To show you how bad it really is, there is an average of 100 deaths of Iraqis every single day. This month there will be more killed than were killed in June. 3,148 people died in sectarian violence. A civil war. Even the New York Times now calls it a civil war. And the Prime Minister is going to come here and try and tell us that everything is just fine. Now, that is a part of our domestic politics, it is to give the American people and the Members of Congress a feeling that things are just going swimmingly. But what the Iraqis are saying to reporters from the Independent is, the government is all in the green zone, like the previous one, the one that was in before. And ``they have left the streets to the terrorists.'' That is a quote from Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraq politician. He said, ``The situation would be worse but for the war in Lebanon, because it would intensify the struggle between Iran and the U.S. being waged in Iraq.'' The Iraqi crisis will now receive much less humanitarian attention because of what is going on over in Lebanon. It is taking the focus off. And we have Mr. Maliki coming in and standing behind me tomorrow, and he will say that things are going just fine. Now, clearly this is not true. And what is happening in Iraq is that the leadership is now deciding the south will be for the Shiia, the north will be for the Kurds, and the west will be for the Sunnis. It will be tied into Jordan. Jordan already has a million Sunnis living in it. People who have fled from Baghdad because they are not safe, bankers, university professors, doctors, the intelligentsia, anybody with any money in the Sunni community has left Baghdad because it is such a dangerous place. And the decision now is only how do they break it up, and what do they do about the oil revenue. This situation is an absolute mess. On top of it all, Mr. Maliki has taken the position that what is going on in Lebanon as caused by the Hezbollah is okay. He is encouraging it. He thinks it is a good thing. Now, this is a man that we hold up as our democratic leader. But the fact is that the country is in absolute chaos, and the Members of this House should understand that tomorrow when they listen to the speech that the American newspapers are not telling you what is going on in Iraq. [From The Independent, July 24, 2006.] Sectarian Break-Up of Iraq Is Now Inevitable, Admit Officials (By Patrick Cockburn) The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, meets Tony Blair in London today as violence in Iraq reaches a new crescendo and senior Iraqi officials say the break up of the country is inevitable. A car bomb in a market in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad yesterday killed 34 people and wounded a further 60 and was followed by a second bomb in the same area two hours later that left a further eight dead. Another car bomb outside a court house in Kirkuk killed a further 20 and injured 70 people. ``Iraq as a political project is finished,'' a senior government official was quoted as saying, adding: ``The parties have moved to plan B.'' He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. ``There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into [Shia] east and [Sunni] west,'' he said. Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The Independent in an interview, before joining Mr. Maliki to fly to London and then Washington, that in theory the government should be able to solve the crisis because Shia, Kurd and Sunni were elected members of it. But he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration in which senior Sunni members praised anti-government insurgents as ``the heroic resistance''. In the past two weeks, at a time when Lebanon has dominated the international news, the sectarian civil war in central Iraq has taken a decisive turn for the worse. There have been regular tit-for-tat massacres and the death toll for July is likely to far exceed the 3,149 civilians killed in June. Mr. Maliki, who is said to be increasingly isolated, has failed to prevent the violence. Other Iraqi leaders claim he lacks experience in dealing with security, is personally very isolated without a kitchen cabinet and is highly dependent on 30-40 Americans in unofficial advisory positions around him. ``The government is all in the Green Zone like the previous one and they have left the streets to the terrorists,'' said Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician. He said the situation would be made worse by the war in Lebanon because it would intensify the struggle between Iran and the U.S. being staged in Iraq. The Iraqi crisis would now receive much reduced international attention. The switch of American and British media attention to Lebanon and away from the rapidly deteriorating situation in Baghdad is much to the political benefit of Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush. ``Maliki's trip to Washington is all part of the U.S. domestic agenda to put a good face on things for November,'' a European diplomat in Baghdad was quoted as saying. Ever since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a succession of Iraqi political leaders have been feted in London and Washington where they claimed to have the insurgents on the run. Mr. Maliki's meetings with Mr. Blair today and Mr. Bush tomorrow are likely to be lower key but will serve the same purpose before the U.S. Congressional elections in November. U.S. commanders are considering moving more of their troops-- there are some 55,000 near the capital into Baghdad to halt sectarian violence. Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein has begun to receive fluids voluntarily after being taken to hospital following 17 days on a hunger strike to protest against biased court procedures and the murder of three defence lawyers. Among fellow Sunni his defiant court performances have rehabilitated his reputation, though he is still detested by Kurds and Shia.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it was with unwavering support for Israel, its safety, security and right to exist, that I cast a vote today against House Resolution 921. Hezbollah, not Israel, started this conflict with an ambush, and Israel has every right to defend itself. There is no doubt about that. Nor is there any doubt anywhere about America's deep and abiding commitment to Israel. A resolution in the House of Representatives will not change what the world already knows, but it might encourage what the world already fears: a wider war with greater casualties, undermining fragile but crucial support for Israel among Arab nations, and further endangering Israelis and other innocent civilians across the region. I am especially troubled by the fact that H. Res. 921 goes far beyond reaffirming our unwavering commitment to Israel by declaring unlimited support for potential military action anywhere in the region. The resolution says we: ``support Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it.'' This raises the ominous prospect that the House has given the administration a pre-recorded vote to support any action, at any time. Could that include a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities? The resolution is a blank check, and we know that policy has failed in Iraq, and has only incubated further violence and terrorism. No one can for one moment accept rockets in Haifa, Nazareth, or anywhere in Israel. But demanding that the Lebanese government rein in Hezbollah while bombs rain down on a variety of targets, some civilian, is not the answer. Widening the war will inflame tensions, increase casualties and decrease any prospect for a permanent peace. The United States can best support Israel and the Arab world by vigorously pursuing an end to the violence, the resumption of a peace process and a commitment to unite the region to isolate terrorist groups and all who oppose a just and lasting peace for all people. [From the Daily Star, July 19, 2006] Back to Beirut, Ready To Defy Israel (By Rami G. Khouri) I must be one of the few people in the world trying to get into Beirut, rather than flee the city that is being bombarded daily by Israel, with explicit American approval. Israelis should grasp the significance of this, if they ever wish to find peace and a normal life in this region. My wife and I were on a trip in Europe when the fighting broke out last week and we could not return directly to our home in Beirut. So we have returned to our previous home in Amman in order to find a reasonably safe land route back into Lebanon. I want to return mainly because steadfastness in the face of the Israeli assault is the sincerest--perhaps the only--form of resistance available to those of us who do not know how to use a gun, and prefer not to do so in any case, for there is no military solution to this conflict. Of the many dimensions of Israel's current fighting with Palestinians and Lebanese, the most significant in my view is the continuing, long-term evolution of Arab public attitudes to Israel. The three critical aspects of this are: a steady loss of fear by ordinary Arabs in the face of Israel's military superiority; a determined and continuous quest for more effective means of technical and military resistance against Israeli occupation and subjugation of Palestinians and other Arabs; and a strong political backlash against the prevailing governing elites in the Arab world who have quietly acquiesced in the face of Israeli-American dictates. The Lebanon and Palestine situations today reveal a key political and psychological dynamic that defines several hundred million Arabs, and a few billion other like-minded people around the world. It is that peace and quiet in the Middle East require three things: Arabs and Israelis must be treated equally; both domestically and internationally the rule of law must define the actions of governments and all members of society; and the core conflict between Palestine and Israel must be resolved in a fair, legal and sustainable manner. Because these principles are ignored, we continue to suffer outbreaks of military savagery by Israelis and Arabs alike, for the sixth decade in a row. The flurry of international diplomacy this week to calm things down was impressive for its range and energy. But it will fail if it only aims to place an international buffer force between Hezbollah and Israel, and leave the rest of the Arab-Israeli situation as it is. Protecting Israel has long been the primary focus of Western diplomacy, which is why it has not succeeded. For decades now Israel has established buffer zones, occupation zones, red lines, blue lines, green lines, interdiction zones, killing fields, surrogate army zones, and every other conceivable kind of zone between it and Arabs who fight its occupation and colonial policies--all without success. Here is why: protecting Israelis while leaving Arabs to a fate of humiliation, occupation, degradation and subservient acquiescence to Israeli-American dictates only guarantees that those Arabs will regroup, plan a resistance strategy, and come back one day to fight for their land, their humanity, their dignity and the prospect that their children can have a normal life one day. In the past two decades, with every diplomatic move to protect Israel's borders and drive back Arab foes, the response has been a common quest to strike Israel from afar-- because the core dispute in Palestine remains unresolved. Three Arab parties to date have missiles of various sorts that can strike Israel from greater and greater distances: Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah. All three have made the concept of buffer zones militarily obsolete and politically irrelevant. New buffer zones imposed by the international community to protect Israel, while leaving Arab grievances to rot, will only prompt a greater determination by the next generation of young Arab men and women to develop the means to fight back, some day, in some way that we cannot now predict. Piecemeal solutions and stopgap measures will not work any more. Ending these kinds of military eruptions requires a more determined effort to resolve the core conflict between Israel and Palestine. This would then make it easier to address equally pressing issues within Arab countries, such as Hezbollah's status as an armed resistance group or militia inside Lebanon, which itself is a consequence of Israeli attacks against Lebanon and the unresolved Palestine issue. In Israel's determination to protect itself and the parallel Arab determination to fight back, we have the makings of perpetual war. Or, for those willing to be even- handed for once, an opening for a diplomatic solution that responds simultaneously to the legitimate rights of both sides. In the meantime, I keep looking for a reasonably safe route back to our home in Beirut. Standing with the people of Lebanon in their moment of pain is the highest form of solidarity I can think of, and also the only meaningful form of defiance and resistance to Israel that I--and several hundred million other Arabs--can practice at the moment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have before us today a Republican resolution that should be backdated to the last Democratic President, if it is to be honest, because when America actually made great strides in decreasing poverty it was during that administration. But that is not what we are about today. This is a PR event. H. Con. Res. 438 is a Republican attempt to take a victory lap on something they have done right. I mean on the war and gas prices and everything else, they cannot say anything. But in the run-up to this election, they are borrowing the vision and the success under the leadership of Mr. Clinton. The resolution is not about reducing poverty. It is about increasing Republican poll numbers. America's poor and disadvantaged deserve a fair shake, not a glad hand. It is unmistakably clear that domestic priorities under the current Republican administration and Republican Congress have focused on the rich, not the middle class, not the working class, and certainly not the disadvantaged class. And the record will show the great strides we have made to reduce poverty peaked in the year 2000, the beginning of the Bush administration, and they have been on a downward spiral ever since. The rate of poverty has been climbing during the Bush administration. The number of two-parent families living in poverty has increased during the Bush administration, and the number of American children living in poverty has also increased during the Bush administration. Now, you have to draw the line somewhere; so I intend to vote ``no'' because I want a real agenda for reducing poverty in America. Congress needs a renewed commitment, not a disingenuous celebration. It was the pre-Bush economy that boosted the value of work. And that is not all. This resolution ignores the domestic priorities championed by Democrats that have made a meaningful difference in the lives of ordinary Americans, like the earned income tax credit. Instead of a resolution meant to increase the poll numbers, we ought to be passing legislation to increase the minimum wage. We have tried and we have tried, and you can really do something for poverty if you would do it. In one stroke we could do more to reduce poverty in this country than all the resolutions that you have offered since the President took office 6 years ago. That is an honest assessment of the situation. There is a concurrent resolution I authored with Mr. Levin. Since the Republicans will not allow us to consider it, let me take a moment to discuss it. It offers an honest assessment of where we are today. It highlights the progress made in the second half of the 1990s on poverty and unemployment. It also makes it clear that poverty has increased since 2000 with more than 5 million more Americans falling into poverty, including 1.5 million children. If you call that success, it is a strange success. The percentage of single moms who are working today has declined by 4 percent since the beginning of the Bush administration. And we are sticking the States with new unfunded mandates; so there will be much less money available in the next several years to deal with this growing problem. That is the Republican solution. Our resolution makes reducing poverty a national priority, not wishful thinking, by supporting the States, who are the Nation's first responders in fighting poverty. We would like to have a great debate over whether or not America's best interest is served by a Republican resolution created for the campaign trail or by a Democratic resolution created to meet America's needs. As it now stands, the debate is about Republican photo ops and press releases, which I am sure have already been mailed. This resolution is designed by the Republicans so that they can try to take a victory lap after some successes in the welfare. But there cannot be a victory lap because the race is not over. Poverty is up, wages are down, and the working poor are losing in the Bush economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ 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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we go through a policy like this in 20 minutes. The Republican policy toward children is, you have no entitlement to anything. The point of welfare reform was to take away the entitlement of health and welfare, and housing and food from children, to take away the entitlement and put it to 50 States to whatever they want to do. And we have 50 different plans in this country. The Republicans define welfare, people, those eligible for TANF, in such a way that you can drive down the numbers. You can push people off into work. And there is nobody on this side who has not worked in their life, who does not think it is a good idea to work. But what we believe is that you ought to work for a wage that is fair and provides a decent living. The Republicans for the entire period this has been in place have refused to raise the minimum wage. You want to drive people into poverty, and you did drive them into poverty, because when they are in poverty you can make them do anything. That is the way you keep the costs down in business, have a workforce of people who have to work for the minimum wage, and that is it for them. Now, you have cut Medicare. Medicare in every State in this country is in a terrible mess. There are 300,000 children eligible for child care in California who do not have access because there is no money. You say to the mothers, go out and work. Leave your kids at home, leave them a package of graham crackers, leave them a television, and leave them with their 12-year-old sister. That is the Republican plan. You also take away their housing benefits. When they go off of TANF they do not get access to those housing benefits they had before. So you take away every single piece of security for a child who knows they have a home, who knows there is going to be food on the table, who is going to have a parent there when they come home from school. And then you ask yourself why you have a drug problem in this country. Why you have kids getting in trouble everywhere, why the prisons are full. This is the result of a public policy that says we do not believe in the common good. We cannot tax the rich, oh, no, no, we must not tax the rich, they need another wall around their compound. But you can put kids out on the street, with their mother working down at the local motel cleaning beds for $5.15 an hour, that is all right with you. It is that that we object to. It is not that we do not think people should work, we just think they should work for a decent living, a decent wage, and you will not give them that. You want to define success. The press release will say, we have reduced the welfare rolls from 5 million, as it was in 2000, to about 1.9 today. But you will say nothing of the human misery you have created by these policies. The reason none of us voted for the reauthorization was, you put no additional money in for child care. And you cut the benefits for health care. And you do not take care of the needs of the kids. This is not about adults. Adults can make it. But it is a question about whether we as Americans, as a part of the common good, think children are entitled to a decent and safe childhood. And your answer is, we cut the welfare rolls, raise the flag, let's march around and have a big parade and we will send out press releases, we cut the welfare rolls. But poverty has increased. You have 5 million more people in poverty since Mr. Bush became President of the United States. That is not an enviable record; 1\1/2\ million more children are in poverty. How can you celebrate that? Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the time remaining?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the question is, Does silence mean agreement? The United States is the only superpower in the world; yet the President has been on the sidelines since the start of the Middle East crisis. There are 25,000 Americans in harm's way in Lebanon, but the President has yet to reassure them, or us, that the United States is doing everything possible to protect our citizens and get them out of harm's way. A U.S. warship was ordered to sail out of the Port of Haifa. Why weren't U.S. helicopters flown in to evacuate Americans visiting Israel? And why are we only now flying helicopters into Lebanon to begin evacuating Americans? The President had days to speak, but waited, and then let the G-8 nations issue a joint communique. Why didn't this President dispatch the Secretary of State to the region immediately? The United States must lead if there is any hope of restoring stability to the region. The President's silence is unacceptable. In the midst of this crisis, his silence is intolerable. He is AWOL.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the bodies of 20 kidnapped and murdered bus drivers were found in Iraq today. That occurred just before a suicide bomber walked into a Baghdad restaurant and blew himself up, killing seven people. Then Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld arrived on an unannounced visit and said: ``Each time I come to Iraq, I see progress.'' That is a direct quote from the UPI. Iraq is convulsed by sectarian violence. It is a nation disintegrating into homicidal chaos. It is a killing zone where Iraqi citizens purchase fake documents in hopes of staying alive if confronted by militias. It is a place where the killing has moved from the streets to inside the homes of Iraqi citizens. It is a country whose leaders acknowledge it is on the brink of all-out civil war, and the President's secretary of war, the man controlling the fate of 129,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq stands up and flat out misleads the troops who don't get to go home to the United States at the end of the day like Mr. Rumsfeld does. America's independent government watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office, just released a report that confirmed what everyone except the President and his political appointees already know: There is no adequate plan to stabilize Iraq, and the occupation by U.S. forces is fueling the sectarian violence. Rumsfeld can claim things are getting better to reporters while standing inside a fortified U.S. base, but that flies in the face of the facts. U.S. troop strength in Baghdad has been increased from 40,000 to 55,000 people. The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday about rampant corruption inside the Iraqi security forces, including direct ties to the insurgents. Our soldiers are becoming surrounded by a growing insurgency, and the civilian leader says things are getting better. Secretary Rumsfeld was going to meet with Iraqi government leaders to tell them how to deal with the crisis. He told reporters he was going to tell the Iraqi leaders to do this: ``They are going to have to persuade as many people as possible that it is in their interest to support the government and participate in the political process.'' He went on to say, ``And anyone who doesn't want to, they're going to have to go find and do something about.'' He neglected to say that plan was tried and failed last month. It was called Operation Forward Together, and it didn't work. How could it? The presence of an occupying force is fueling the violence. And despite the fact there are 267,000 Iraqi security forces, the American people are told repeatedly that they cannot defend Iraq on their own. Three years later, the only plan the President and the secretary of war can articulate is to ``stay indefinitely.'' Our military generals know full well this so-called plan guarantees more needless U.S. casualties, and Iraqi leaders know it guarantees more sectarian violence. In the past, I and others have called for the resignation of the Defense Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld. Today, I offer a better plan. The President should keep his political appointee. In fact, the President should transfer Secretary Rumsfeld to Iraq. He should be stationed there until every last U.S. soldier leaves the Nation we are now occupying. The Secretary says he sees progress every time he visits. Imagine what he might see by actually living and working there. There is no higher priority for the President, the U.S. military and America these days than Iraq. It stands to reason that the President's military appointee should be directly able to report for duty in Baghdad. Rumsfeld could personally work with the leaders of the Iraq government and show them how to implement his plan. By working in Iraq, the Secretary could accept direct responsibility for generating more of what he calls progress every time he visits Iraq. He could show America and the rest of the world the progress that only he and the President pretend to see. The only true thing we can say about Iraq today is that it is on the brink of dissolving into unspeakable violence. We cannot pretend our way out of Iraq, and we cannot pretend that the Iraqi people believe that our presence is stabilizing the country. Iraq needs a plan that does not include the occupation of that country by foreign soldiers, including U.S. soldiers. Until this administration admits that it cannot shoot its way to victory, Iraq will grow more and more violent. If Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was stationed there, America might finally get an honest assessment of the war and a road map to peace.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim Mr. Brown's time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sorrow that I rise to extend my deepest regrets to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the people of India over today's deadly attack. Often on this floor we become very centered in our own events and don't notice what is happening in the rest of the world. I have traveled many times to India. I have enjoyed the company of the Prime Minister. He is a good man and a great leader, and I know that India's best defense in this time of grave trouble is to be led by a man of boundless integrity. As I speak, far more is unknown than is known about this cowardly act of violence, which occurred today in Mumbai. There is little doubt, however, that the atrocity was carried out by people who worship hatred, because there is no religion on Earth that condones the killing and maiming of innocent people. I recall the words of the great Indian leader, Gandhi, who wrote, ``The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion and equally noble motives.'' Before long, I have little doubt that those responsible will hide behind one of the world's great religions to claim sanctuary for their violence. The world must not be fooled into accepting their claim. In the words of Gandhi, ``Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.'' Weaving a web of lies cannot conceal this one single thread of truth. There is no religion on the planet, not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Islam, or all the others, that preaches or condones hatred. None do. And only the perversion of a great religious ideal and great historical figures would pretend otherwise. That is done to try to spread more violence. An atrocity like the one that occurred today in India is done by extremists who are hollow inside. Violence is what they espouse because humanity is what they do not possess. Gandhi said about this violence: ``The roots of violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, and politics without principles.'' The world is filled with problems. No nation is immune. Yet today's bombs and the bullets and the bloodshed will not move the world one step closer to peace. We cannot shoot our way to peace. Those willing to ambush the innocent are not trying to change the world, but they are trying to destroy it. The world needs people willing to change the world. Change it to produce a blue sky morning, not a world in mourning. Gandhi said: ``The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems.'' Poverty is a scourge of millions in Africa, and it is not lessened by one single dime by today's violence. The spread of HIV/AIDS that is infecting Africa and now India, millions across India, will not be stopped by the blast of a bomb. India is a great nation, and the noble spirit of its people will overcome today's heartbreak. The bonds between India and the United States go much deeper than the democracy that we both practice as nations. The personal roots in my hometown of Seattle are deep and strong, and I know we all mourn this terrible loss. We proudly collaborate on so many levels, from trade and economic ties to cultural and charitable exchanges. We have grown close, and the people of Seattle would want me to extend to the people of India our deepest sympathies over this senseless tragedy. I am sure this is true across America. The truth is wanton violence meant to divide the world can unite it, in sadness today but, to be sure, in strength tomorrow. I am proud that I was one of the cofounders of the Congressional India Caucus over a dozen years ago. It has grown into a large bipartisan body. When it comes to India today, there really is no political divide in this House. We are very saddened by what has happened, but we are united in offering our support to a nation I am so very proud of. India, we stand with you.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.