Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point an article from the Wall Street Journal dated January 31 that talks about Exxon's excess profits, and also the one from The New York Times from April 13 about the Exxon chairman's retirement package of $398 million. [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 31, 2006] Exxon Posts Another Record Profit (By Jeffrey Ball) Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's biggest publicly traded oil company by market value, racked up another record profit, saying its fourth-quarter earnings surpassed $10 billion, a result likely to intensify political heat on the energy industry. Amid high oil, gasoline and natural-gas prices, Exxon said its net income surged to $10.71 billion, up 27% from $8.42 billion a year earlier and 8% above Exxon's third-quarter result of $9.92 billion, which itself was a company record. Exxon said fourth-quarter revenue was $99.66 billion, up 20% from $83.37 billion a year earlier. The Exxon result amounted to a profit of about $80,842 per minute during the quarter. It was one of the biggest quarterly profits of any company in history. Though a handful of other companies have posted higher quarterly profits, those were largely accounting adjustments, while Exxon's result came mainly from operations. Net income per share was $1.71, compared with $1.30 a share a year earlier. Exxon's results included a special gain of $390 million related to a lawsuit. The result surpassed the predictions of a Wall Street that expects boom times in the oil patch. At 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, Exxon's shares rose $1.82, or 3%, to $63.11. The biggest driver of Exxon's surging profit was high energy prices amid the world's increasing thirst for oil and natural gas. The company's ``upstream'' earnings--income from producing and selling crude oil and natural gas--rose 44% from a year earlier. Exxon's ``downstream'' earnings--what the company makes from refining crude oil into finished products like gasoline and heating oil and selling them--rose 2% from a year earlier. Higher prices for those products were partly offset by lower production volumes following the hurricanes that temporarily shut down a big chunk of the U.S. refining infrastructure. Exxon, of Irving, Texas, was the latest major U.S. energy company to report roaring fourth-quarter results because of high energy prices. Exxon's profit soared even though the company produced less fossil fuel. Total oil-equivalent production in the fourth quarter fell 1% from a year earlier; the company said. Oil production rose 2.5% as increased output from West Africa, Azerbaijan and the North Sea offset declines from mature fields, continuing below-normal production in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the hurricanes and other factors. Natural-gas production fell 5.8%. Exxon's record take is likely to ratchet up calls in Washington for a crackdown on energy-industry profits. President Bush today is to deliver his State of the Union address to a nation pinched by high energy costs. Sunday, the average U.S. price of regular unleaded gasoline averaged $2.34 a gallon. While that price was down from the peak after last year's hurricanes, it was up about 24% from a year earlier and up 6.6% from a month ago, according to AAA, the motoring club. The Senate has passed two provisions that would effectively raise the tax bills of major oil companies. One would reduce their ability to trim tax bills through an inventory- accounting method known as ``last-in, first-out,'' which ties the cost of goods sold to the cost of the most-recent purchases. The other would bar them from claiming credits against U.S. tax bills for the taxes they pay in some oil- rich countries. Oil-company officials say they consider the two a threat. Some analysts doubt the measures will pass the House. Exxon has been trying to pre-empt a backlash. Exxon said it is boosting spending on finding and producing stores of oil and natural gas. Capital and exploration spending in the quarter was $5.3 billion, up 26% from a year earlier, a sizable rise by industry standards.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman from California was talking, Exxon's profits went up $160,000. They are making profit this quarter at $80,000 a minute, and the Republicans don't want to do anything. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my Democratic colleagues to offer a motion to instruct the House conferees who are negotiating with Senators in a conference committee to work out differences on H.R. 4297, Tax Cut Reconciliation. We have an opportunity to stand up for America's middle class, and I urge every Member to support the two key provisions in our Democratic motion: one, closing tax loopholes for oil companies; and, two, dropping the provision to extend tax holidays for the super rich beyond 2008. The timing of this conference committee could not be more urgent. And the time has come for this House to prove to the American people that they, and not the oil companies, come first. All across this country, Americans are looking for a pump that has gasoline in it for under $3 a gallon, and nothing has happened here. The time has come for the Republicans to stop being the party of the 1 percent and to govern on behalf of all the American people. Today's gas prices are so high, you almost need a space shuttle to see the top. We are getting near $4 in some parts of this country, and by all indications, the oil companies fully intend to keep raising prices at the pump. Record-shattering quarterly profits, one after another, but underinvestigating in new refinery capacity quarter after quarter. This crisis is not about supply and demand. It is about a handful of oil companies refusing to supply the demand in order to drive up the prices. This Nation needs more than energy independence from the Middle East. It needs energy independence from oil companies who are willing to crush the American middle class. Today, oil prices are forcing American families to choose between basic necessities or more debt to pay the oilman. And how we have paid, and paid, and paid. Net income of oil companies has nearly tripled in the last 4 years. Earnings per share are up 50 percent, but the dividends are only up 10 percent. And oil companies on average have doubled their purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. They are financing the Federal budget deficit even as it soars higher because of energy prices. That is the definition in my book of a double dip. Now, the Senate wants oil companies to pay their fair share in corporate taxes, nothing more, nothing less. Republicans, however, in the House want the oil companies to continue to cook their books, using perfectly legal but completely immoral loopholes their lobbyists have fed the Republicans in the House. The Senate is right, and the House should stop defending oil companies and start protecting the American people. It is also a time to represent all the American people, not just the top 1 percent. We have a war we cannot pay for. We have a deficit we cannot control. We have a growing number of Americans going into poverty, cuts in student loans and cuts for needy families. And the Republicans think the answer is to extend tax holidays for the wealthy in capital gains and dividend cuts. Over half of this benefit goes to people earning over $1 million a year, most of whom drive into the gas station and they do not even look at the pump to see what it costs. They have extended their wealth while America has expanded its debt. This is not sound fiscal policy for the American people. It is reckless profiteering Republicans are providing the wealthy in this country. The tax holiday continues for another 2 years, but the Republicans want to reward the rich by adding another 2 years; 2008 is not enough, they want to go out to 2010. Now, the American middle class is struggling to make ends meet, and House Republicans are scrambling to reward their friends just months ahead of the election. In today's Washington Post, the majority leader of the House, Republican, says we will stop any attempt to deal with the oil companies and control their profits. It is time to put the American people first, ahead of oil companies, ahead of special interests, ahead of the super rich. This motion to instruct is a call to restore the American middle class to its rightful place in the center of domestic policy. And I urge every Member to make America the only special interest we care about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record the Federal Reserve study article that is in the Wall Street Journal which says ``Did the Dividend Tax Cut Work?'' No. Absolutely not. It ``didn't boost market's aggregate value,'' and it has been a dud. [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 6, 2005] Did the Dividend-Tax Cut Work? (By Karen Richardson) When President Bush slashed the tax on dividends in 2003, supporters hailed the move as a way to stimulate the economy and boost the stock market. At least for the stock-market part of that plan, the jury is still out. A group of Federal Reserve Board economists concludes that the tax cut, which slashed the dividend-income tax on stocks to 15% from about 30%-38%, was a dud when it came to boosting the stock market when it was announced and passed in 2003--a time period, they say, that the stock market should have reacted most strongly. Nor did the tax cut lead to a significant increase in the amount of money companies paid out to investors as a proportion of their earnings, the study adds. ``We fail to find much, if any, imprint of the dividend tax cut news on the value of the aggregate stock market,'' the economists--Gene Amromin, Paul Harrison, Nellie Liang and Steve Sharpe--wrote in a paper they presented in October. Administration supporters point to the 2003 tax cuts on dividend income and long-term capital gains (also reduced to about 15% from about 20%) as successful center pieces of President Bush's economic policy. White House officials already are lobbying for an extension of the tax cut, which expires in 2008. The White House budget office, in a memo to the Senate in November, said the extensions are ``necessary to provide certainty for investors and business and are essential to sustaining long-term economic growth.'' The Fed economists' paper compares U.S. stock-market returns with those of European stocks over various ``key periods'' in 2003. The economists tracked stock performance during a few days in early January, after the Bush administration officially announced the tax-cut proposal, and two weeks in the latter half of May, when the tax bill was being discussed in the Senate and was eventually signed into law by the president May 28. While those ``event windows'' are small, they are sufficient to capture the stock market's reaction to news of the tax cuts, the economists say. ``The markets should have absorbed the tax-cut news within a month, if not a week or a few days, afterward, since markets are somewhat efficient in responding to news,'' says co-author Mr. Sharpe. Theoretically, U.S. stocks should have performed better than European stocks because U.S. investors, who hold far more U.S. stocks than European stocks, would benefit from the tax cut and presumably drive up stock prices with their new expected windfall. Instead, the economists found that the S&P Euro 350, which covers about 70% of Europe's market capitalization, performed similarly to or better than U.S. stocks tracked in the S&P 500. The authors assumed that the anxiety of the impending war in Iraq was the main influence on all stock markets around the world over those periods. So by comparing European stocks with U.S. stocks, they aimed to control for major world events. Thus, ``any effect of the dividend tax should have resulted in a differential in performance,'' according to Mr. Sharpe. Still, the economists didn't address other factors that might have contributed to a rise in European stocks or a drop in the U.S. market during the review periods. For example, in the U.S., a stock-market rally in early January that some observers at the time said might have been driven by the tax-cut news ended after a few days when aluminum giant and Dow Jones Industrial Average component Alcoa Inc. reported bearish fourth-quarter results. Also, a terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia in mid-May rattled the U.S., along with concerns about the weak dollar. Meanwhile, some Europe firms were reporting strong earnings. While more companies paid out dividends in 2003, they didn't increase their average total payouts to shareholders as much as they have in the past. The authors found that 66% of S&P 1500 firms increased their total payouts to shareholders that year--through some combination of dividend payouts and share-repurchase programs--compared with the average of 89% that did so in the period of 1993 to 2002. ``The dividend tax cut did prompt a substitution from repurchases to dividends, but the effect on total payouts was much more muted,'' the authors conclude. Other market observers see it differently. The dividend tax-cut has ``definitely'' helped to stimulate the stock market, and has contributed to the slow but steady increase of dividend payouts this year, says Howard Silverblatt, equity market analyst at Standard & Poor's. According to Mr. Silverblatt's research, the tax cuts on both dividends and long-term capital gains will result in individual investors saving a total of $114 billion from 2003 to 2008. ``We believe a lot of that will filter back into the stock market,'' he says, pointing out that investors often reinvest their windfalls in other stocks. Also, a Thomson Financial model shows that dividend tax cuts should theoretically result in higher stock-market returns each year, while, not surprisingly, higher tax rates should lower returns. However, Michael Thompson, director of research at Thomson Financial, cautions that attributing stock-market gains to one isolated factor risks being ``intellectually dishonest.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, back in 1948, President Truman dubbed the Republican-led House the ``Do-Nothing Congress.'' He came up with the name because the House barely ever met. Would you believe that as bad as the 1948 Congress was, the Republican-led Congress of 2006 is worse? So far this year we have only been in session 22 days, and we are only scheduled to hold votes on a total of 97, which is 11 days less than the ``Do-Nothing Congress'' of 1948. There is so much to do, gas prices and all the rest, but here in Washington the House Republicans seem content just to ignore our Nation's problems. Maybe they are satisfied with the work they have already done on behalf of their special interests for the election. There is another thing this group has in common with the 1948 Republican ``Do Nothing Congress.'' Consider this comment from President Truman in 1948: ``Something happens to Republican leaders when they get control of the government. They have a hard time hearing what the ordinary people of the country are saying, but they have no trouble at all hearing what Wall Street wants.'' It is time for the 2006 Congress to do something about the problems of the people in this country.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Foreign Trade Council, Coalition for Employment Through Exports and USA*Engage yesterday distributed to members a very cogent description of some of the reasons to oppose H.R. 282. I recommend that members review it. Hon. Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Re H.R. 282, Iran Sanctions Act. Dear Congressman McDermott: Our organizations write in opposition to the Iran Sanctions Act, H.R. 282, which has been placed on the House suspension calendar for this week. While we recognize the serious concerns raised by the current regime in Iran, we are concerned that the changes which have been proposed to the U.S. sanctions program would hinder, not help, our efforts to address the situation. Specifically, these changes would remove the vital flexibility of U.S. sanctions policy, drive a wedge between U.S. and our allies in the on-going joint efforts to influence the Iranian regime, increase the involvement of courts in U.S. foreign policy, and discourage foreign investment in the United States. We urge you to oppose passage of H.R. 282 when it comes up under suspension of the rules this week to allow for fuller and more informed consideration over the negative consequences of these changes to U.S. law. In particular, we note the following concerns with the current bill as it was ordered reported by the House International Relations Committee on March 15: The bill would remove the extremely useful periodic review of the Iran sanctions regime by removing the sunset provision included in the earlier Iran Libya Sanctions Act. Sunset provisions are vital to creating an effective sanctions regime as they permit Congress to review sanctions to ensure that they are effective and useful over time. Congress engaged in a useful debate over reforms in Iran when sanctions up for renewal in 2001 and it is important that Members allow for such a debate in the future. H.R. 282 would make the United States more vulnerable to international commercial complaints and damage U.S. global financial leadership by greatly expanding the entities subject to sanctions to include insurers, creditors and foreign subsidiaries. The United States would undoubtedly face complaints and lawsuits from our trading partners questioning their legality. It would also stoke ``economic nationalism,'' which may seriously disrupt vital U.S. business overseas. The capital market sanctions contained in H.R. 282 would discourage foreign investment in the United States and could potentially damage U.S. business interests abroad. By requiring publication of the names of entities that have investments in violation of the sanctions, ordering a report by an office of the Security and Exchange Commission, and encouraging divestment of stocks, H.R. 282 sends a negative signal to foreign companies interested in investing in the United States. This bill encourages global companies to avoid investments in the United States by leaving them exposed to potential capital market sanctions. Foreign governments may also seek to retaliate against U.S. firms abroad based on their own political motivations. H.R. 282 would hinder the flexibility of the President to conduct foreign policy. The bill would require the President to direct the Treasury Department to initiate investigations into the potential for sanctioning firms investing in Iran and would require the President to determine to impose sanctions on such entities within 360 days. This provision would also apply retroactively, requiring sanctions determinations on pending investigations of prior investments within ninety days of enactment. If the President chose to waive the sanctions, which is possible under an inadequately narrow provision in this bill, he would be required to renew that waiver every six months. This policy of requiring investigations and sanctions determinations on each and every past and future investment in Iran by a person described in the Act would severely restrict the Administration's flexibility to conduct foreign policy in ways that can adapt to complex, changing circumstances. Finally, we encourage Congress and the House International Relations Committee to rethink the sanctions regime in light of their serious unintended impact on the people of Iran and our own ability to forge vital international alliances. When we hear of reports like those raised in the March 15 hearing of the Committee on International Relations--about the difficulties that humanitarian organizations have had operating to relieve suffering by earthquake victims--it seems appropriate to take a closer look at whether there might be a better way for the United States to address the serious concerns raised by the policies of the Iranian government. At the very least, we hope that there will be an opportunity to hold a fuller debate over the proposed radical changes to the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, and therefore respectfully request that you vote against H.R. 282. Respectfully submitted, USA*Engage. Coalition for Employment Through Exports. National Foreign Trade Council. U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4297, the tax reconciliation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed-- (1) to agree to the following provisions of the Senate amendment: section 461 (relating to revaluation of LIFO inventories of large integrated oil companies), section 462 (relating to elimination of amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures for major integrated oil companies), and section 470 (relating to modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to large integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers), and (2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I know it is an election year, and I know President Bush's ratings are at an all-time low, and I know gas prices are very high and the people are restless. Nevertheless, I call upon my colleagues and the President to resist the temptation to start yet another war. There is an old saying: ``Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'' Well, friends, if we fall for the case being made to go to war against Iran, it will be ``shame on us.'' And I define bombing from 40,000 feet as war. Just as we did in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, a country which had no connection to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, this administration intentionally confused us with regard to Iraq. It is doing the same with Iran. The administration says they want compliance with nuclear treaties but makes it clear that they really will settle for nothing less than regime change. When I said before the Iraq war that I believed the President would be willing to mislead us into the war if he believed misleading us was necessary to fulfill his plans, I was excoriated, but I was right. I do not characterize the President's motives. I assume he took us into war in Iraq because he sincerely believed it was the right thing to do. We know now that he was wrong about that. The world is less safe. The Iraqis are in turmoil. More Americans have died in the President's plan in Iraq than died in New York City and at the Pentagon. What the President did with our Iraq policy is being replicated with our Iran policy. There was much to criticize about Saddam Hussein, and there is much to criticize about the ayatollahs and their front men in Iran. We have every right to demand that Iran adhere to its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to pursue sanctions and other penalties. What we do not have the right to do is to make it impossible for Iran to satisfy our demands without regime change. When we started demanding regime change in Iraq instead of demanding compliance with U.N. inspectors, we put ourselves on the path to war in Iraq. We are on the same plan and the same path in Iran. We will not talk with the Iranian government, and we will not stop talking about overthrowing it. It is impossible for the Iranian government to satisfy this administration and remain a government, although this administration will immediately deny that. Every time it appears something is going to work out with the Soviet Union, or whatever, we pull the rug out from the negotiators. Because we don't want negotiation. We don't want to solve the problem. We want regime change. Somehow this administration has got it in its head that it has the right to tell other governments to step aside for people we like better. That is wrong. We tried it with Mosaddegh and put in the Shah and we are back at it again. What we should do instead is to call their bluff and let them save face at the same time. If they say they want nuclear energy, we should say, okay, if it is nuclear energy you want, you won't mind having wall-to-wall U.N. inspectors watching every move you make to keep people from getting the wrong idea. We make sure that they can't build bombs and let them have what they are entitled to under the NPT: civilian energy. We must quit making the leaders more popular. And we are doing it by making them the guys who stand up to the U.S. We must quit acting like we are going to invade any country that has the wrong regime. If we attack Iran, as I fear we are on a course to do, we will unleash a hell unlike anything this region has seen. Iran is not Iraq. It has not been under sanctions for 10 years. It has not been bombed flat by the Gulf War. It is a strong nation with weapons. We will make ourselves once again less safe if we attack them. Mr. Speaker, this administration has now been told on this floor, in public, on the record. The President will come here in about 6 or 8 or 9 months and give us a State of the Union. If he has taken us into a war in Iran, he will deserve what happens. This country does not need another war. We have already proven the failure of that in Iraq; and because they won't change their mind, they keep doing the same thing over and over again. And now there is an election coming up. The 2006 election is coming and they want to distract us. That is why they are leading us towards Iran.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, when I read through this budget, they are back again, folks. They are back again. Just a few months ago the Republicans called a final vote on the budget bill that slashed funding for child support enforcement, foster care, student loans and health care coverage for low income families. Today, the nightmare continues. They are back again doing the same thing within 3 months. Republicans propose another round of pain for Americans already suffering. The committee on which I serve is required by the Congress to cut $4 billion from the budget. Now, it will come out of my subcommittee, the one I am the ranking member on, because that is where the children are and that is where the weak and the old and the sick are. They are not going to take it away from the taxpayers. They are going to take it away for the poor and the weak. When the Republicans send the high-income earners to the trough for more tax cuts, they will starve the Federal programs to help the poor. I know it is Lent; so I am sure this is a faith-based initiative we have here, and the Republicans certainly understand the idea of sacrifice. This budget sacrifices one-third of the Social Services Block Grant, which funds assistance for abused kids, child care for working families, and vital services for the disabled and the seniors in this country. I asked the Rules Committee to allow an amendment to restore these cuts, but the Republicans said no. Mr. Chairman, why will you not allow this House to actually consider the effects of slashing programs to help the sick and the poor? Now, I know some key Republicans have left, but the fix is still in in this joint. The Republican Congress will rubber-stamp the Bush agenda and provide for those who need it least. It is Lent, and the Republican majority is ready to sacrifice common sense, common decency, and common dreams. The Republicans' budget sacrifices morality and a balanced budget for tax holidays for the rich, for the 1 percent. The party of the 1 percent is in charge in this House. Only the 1 percent at the top matters. They're back, Mr. Chairman, and the Republican budget is no apparition. It is a real assault. There is an irony that maybe some of you out on this floor may not think about, but some Members are running for higher office in State- level jobs. Some of those people are cutting the very programs that they, if they win their election in November, will have to go out and deal with the problems. If you are running for a State governorship or any kind of State office, think very carefully about how you stab yourself, because you are going to meet this when you get there after the election.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives has quietly ushered in a new form of government in America called Repocracy. For those who believe that democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people, Repocracy is absolutely the opposite of that. Repocracy is a government where open debate is replaced by lockstep discipline and where the rewards of the few become the burdens carried on the backs of the many. Repocracy puts a price on American values and deals only in hard cash. You only have to watch C-SPAN to know what the real threat Repocracy poses. For the last 6 years, the Republican Party has been a disciplined, monotone political machine. Republicans live by one rule; whatever the President wants, the President gets. War in Iraq, rubber stamp approval. Tax holidays for America's rich, rubber stamp approval. Slashing student loans, rubber stamp approval. Cutting programs for America's vulnerable children and disadvantaged families, rubber stamp approval. Legislation written by financial institutions and big drug companies, rubber stamp approval. It was all so neat and tidy. Republican Members of the House voted the way they were told and leaders would not end voting in the House until their predetermined outcome was achieved. But that was last year. What has changed? The American people noticed. The American people put a lot of faith and trust in their leaders. For better or for worse, most Americans take the big picture approach: Trust elected officials until they betray that trust. Believe that elected officials will put America's interests ahead of political interests. Have faith that your leaders will change course when something is truly not working. In other words, trust, but verify. It is precisely because the American people focus on the big picture that Republicans are doing everything possible to replace the image the American people see with a test pattern on television. The President's ratings are below sea level. Republicans are counting the number of seats in the lifeboats. It is simple arithmetic, and the addition has Republicans subtracting. Mathematics requires proof, and there is plenty. The President bequeaths to the future President any decision about Iraq. His plan takes form: Stay in Iraq until it is somebody else's problem. Invite the embattled President of Italy to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress, speaking in Italian, to use Congress as a political campaign for a backdrop in an Italian election. Charge the Iraq war on credit and mask its real impact on the deficit by leaving it outside the annual budget. The clearest sign of all is the recent change in the House of Representatives to the 2-minute vote. Call it government by stopwatch. A mere 120 seconds to decide the faith of legislation affecting the lives of every American. Under Repocracy, legislation comes to the floor of the House only when its passage is guaranteed. That is why we are going home today, because they can't get the budget. It is not guaranteed. The 2-minute drill forces blind allegiance and stiff arms democracy. But that is the intent of Repocracy. Math is math. Republicans are losing their stranglehold on power. What is a party to do? Well, Republicans have concluded the best offense is a missing offense, so Republicans have substituted the business of the state for the business of reelection. Suddenly, the House leaders feel an urgent need for recess after recess after recess. We have never had a week off for Saint Patrick's Day. It must be faith-based. The Republican mandated Congressional schedule has nothing to do with the people's business and everything to do with the Republican's reelection business. The thinking goes like this: If Members are not in Washington, D.C., the national press corps is taken out of the equation. They can't trail 435 House Members, so news coverage goes dark. With Congress out of session, Americans cannot watch C-SPAN to see for themselves what is happening, or not, on the floor of the House. The curtain closes on the big picture. Mission accomplished. The word ``Congress'' comes from the Latin ``con+egresso,'' which means come together. The idea was for an orderly and reasoned debate. Take out the stopwatch and clock 2 minutes. Then decide if you think America is governed by a functioning Congress today. Repocracy is not merely a dereliction of duty, it is an outright threat to democracy. That is the big picture, the one Republicans don't want the American people to see. But there is more than one channel, and the American people are watching. They would like to know why this is the do-nothing Congress that will be in session less than the do-nothing Congress of 1948. This will be the Congress that spent the least time discussing our problems on the floor. We are at war all over the place, we are in debt worse than we have ever been in history. We have no health care for 46 million people. But where is the Congress? They have left. They have gone home. They have got to campaign. If they were here, the people could see they were doing nothing. But Repocracy says we only do it when we rubber stamp it for the President. Otherwise we are getting out of here. Now it is getting tough because people don't want to rubber stamp for the President anymore. There is an election coming. It is coming soon.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is budget week. Over the past 5 years, the number of Americans falling on hard times has soared. A new analysis of major Federal Government programs by USA Today confirms the gut-wrenching truth. Republicans in the White House and the Congress have wielded their political power like a club on America's low income and America's middle class. The single largest increase came in Medicaid, which added 15 million Americans on the President's watch from 2000-2005. Medicaid is the health care program for the poor. It speaks volumes about how the Republican Party has treated low and middle income Americans during this administration. All but the wealthiest Americans have been left behind by the Republican Party and the Republican budget. This is a party of the 1 percent. The Republican Party deals with what is good for the 1 percent at the top, not what is good for everybody else. This is not conjecture, it is a grim statistic. Despite this administration's watch, the poverty rate has grown dramatically, as has the budget deficit. Over the last 5 years, the very rich got very much richer. At the same time, the Republicans were giving millionaires new $100,000 tax breaks, the poverty rate in the United States was climbing to 12.7 percent. This is a time to think about what the budget says, about your priorities. Remember, they are the party of the 1 percent. Republicans love the top one percent. They cater to them. They coddle them. They kowtow to them. Republicans are the One Percent Party. The other 99 percent of America does not matter to the Party of One Percent. You need proof? Look at health care. Over the last five years, another 15 million Americans have been forced onto Medicaid. And the Republican health care proposal is the One Percent illusion. Republicans want everyone to have a Health Savings Account, so you can save all the money that Middle America does not have, to pay for all those health care expenses Middle America cannot possibly afford. That is the Republican Solution to America's health care crisis. Last year, they wanted to privatize Social Security to destroy the safety net under our most distinguished citizens. This year, the President and Republican Party want to anesthetize the Middle Class, so they don't know Republicans want to amputate their financial security with a plan meant to benefit only the rich. The One Percent Party created Health Savings Accounts because these are new tickets to an all expense-paid tax holiday for the wealthy. They get to save tens of thousands of dollars tax free. The Middle Class gets to watch. It's like standing outside the window looking in, except we are standing in the middle of a country that is losing its Middle Class. The nation's number one reason for personal bankruptcy is unpaid medical expenses, but the Republican Party of One Percent can't be bothered with providing every American access to affordable health care coverage. Republicans have middle class Americans on their knees, and they are praying for change this November. The Republican Party of One Percent can't respond to the other 99 percent of America. When hurricanes destroy lives and property in the Gulf Coast, Republicans send condolences instead of competent leaders. While more vulnerable American children and families fall into poverty, Republicans call for more tax holidays for the wealthy. When distinguished Americans need help paying for prescription drugs, Republicans have drug companies write the legislation, and forbid the federal government from negotiating cheaper prices for distinguished Americans, every American 65 and older, like my Mom. The Republican Party of one percent has done more to undermine America's financial security than any administration in history. The Republican Party of one percent uses the word security every chance it gets. But our Ports are not secure, our environment is not secure, our financial future is not secure, our most vulnerable children are not secure, and America's Middle Class is anything but secure. The Republican One Percent Party has spent the last five years concerned with only one thing--the top one percent of America. Poverty is up. Middle Class wages are down in real dollars. Health care costs are up. The number of Americans with health care coverage is down. Every day, America's Middle Class hurts a little more, and every day the top one percent earn a lot more. That's Republican math. Divide a nation into the very wealthy and nobody else. That's the Republican Party of One Percent. Not all of my Republican colleagues think this way, but they have to vote the way they're told by the White House. Independence is another one percent illusion. And that is precisely why the Republican One Percent Party has to receive a one-way ticket out of power this November. They're out of touch with 99 percent of America.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we used to do the people's business in the people's House when the Democrats were in charge. Now the majority party rubber-stamps every bad policy that the administration serves up. House Republican leaders go even further with a little help from their friends. Indentured servitude to financial institutions is called bankruptcy reform. Rubber stamp. Increasing drug company profits is sold as a medical benefit. Rubber stamp. Increasing tax holidays for the super-rich, with poverty increasing among children in this country. Rubber stamp. We used to have real debate in the people's House when the Democrats were in charge, but now the Republicans schedule 2-minute votes because the outcome is preordained. Rubber stamp. When I brought this stamp out here, people laughed. Now nobody laughs because it is the order of the day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as Congress recognizes National Kidney Month, I join my colleagues in their efforts to increase awareness about the devastating effects of kidney disease. More than 400,000 Americans must receive life-saving dialysis three to four times each week because their kidneys have failed. In addition, more than 20 million citizens have chronic kidney disease, which is the precursor to kidney failure. Patients with kidney disease experience a gradual deterioration of kidney function that eventually progresses to kidney failure. Patients may live with the disease 10 or more years without outward symptoms before their kidneys fail. Once a patient develops kidney failure, his or her kidney function is so low that without dialysis or kidney transplantation death will occur from accumulation of fluids and waste products in the body. Recognizing the need to educate my colleagues on kidney disease, I founded and co-chair the Congressional Kidney Caucus with my colleague Representative Mark Steven Kirk. Members of the Kidney Caucus are especially concerned about the growing prevalence of this disease. Mr. Speaker, the leading causes of this disease is diabetes and high blood pressure, which as you are no doubt aware also disproportionately affect African Americans and Latino Americans. Given that early kidney disease has no symptoms, most people do not realize that their kidneys are about to fail. Therefore, it is critically important to increase awareness of the dangers of kidney disease, especially among the African American and Latino American communities. Individuals with high blood pressure and diabetes should ask their doctors to run simple blood and urine tests that can detect kidney disease. If treated early, individuals with kidney disease will experience an improved quality of life and be able to maintain more daily life activities, including keeping their jobs. In addition, preventing kidney failure and improving care will result in substantial savings for the taxpayer. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to raise awareness about this important issue and to show support for Americans living with kidney disease. We must act now to help Americans learn more about this deadly disease and how to prevent its development and progression to kidney failure.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to look at the calendar to find out what organization from K Street is having a big convention. But that is the only explanation for why this bill is here. This bill has not had a single hearing, not a single hearing on food safety in this country. All the relevant State agencies oppose the bill, the State Departments of Agriculture across the country, the Association of State Food and Drug Officials, the National Conference of State Legislatures. Why are we moving a bill through here without a single hearing to give the people of California and Washington a chance to say we want to have higher standards than you guys who run FEMA, who run FEMA? Remember, this is FEMA. One of the things that we did in Washington State when we had an earthquake was that the Washington State Department of Agriculture embargoed the movement of fish products contaminated by ammonia. That would be outside their ability, unless they went and got a waiver. Now, why should the people of the State of Washington have to go and get a waiver from the Federal Government to provide protection for the people in an emergency? You make it more bureaucratic. I really find it very hard that anybody in the health care industry could come out here and want to take away from the Washington State Department of Agriculture the ability to stop the movement of contaminated eggs, which were implicated in salmonella. That happened in Washington. Why would you want to stop the movement of contaminated foods and improperly labeled products? Why would you want to take that away from the States? Oh, because we are going to make it easier for the manufacturers to slide through whatever they want to slide through. Done. However they want it done. No one trusts the States suddenly. All these States righters come out here, and those legislators who sit and listen and have hearings are ignored. This is a travesty of the political process that you would bring out a health safety bill. Listen, we had an epidemic of problems with food from a company that was making hamburgers. We had a bunch of kids die in Seattle because they were getting undercooked hamburgers. Now, this Congress never did anything about it. But they did in the State of Washington. And if you cannot get this Congress to act on the safety of hamburgers in the country of McDonalds, you have got a serious problem. Somebody has got their foot on something someplace. And the people in the State of Washington ought to have the right to defend themselves against bad food products. Now, I listen to Mr. Gingrey, and I understand the debating technique. If you are going to lose the argument, change the subject. Why don't we talk about health care out here today? Let us talk about access to health care and the insurance industry and all the wonderful things they have done for us instead of talking about food safety. Talk about food safety. Why shouldn't the State of Washington, that deals with seafood products, what the heck does anybody in here know from Kansas or Nebraska or anything else, about what is going on in the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California? And even if you did know something about it, you do not allow a hearing process. That is an insult to the American people, and it has got to be about some kind of fundraiser or something related to that. I do not know what it is. Maybe the press will follow it up and see why we have a bill rifled through here. One hour or 30 minutes before we are going to get out and go down to Katrina and look at the Katrina catastrophe, we rifle this bill through here. There is something bad about this bill. It stinks. It is a bad bill. We ought to vote against the rule and vote against the bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter that I delivered to your office today regarding an event that took place on the House floor yesterday. March 2, 2006. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, Office of the Speaker, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Hastert, I am writing to express my dismay about yesterday's appearance of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of the Republic of Italy on the floor of the House of Representatives. I believe that Mr. Berlusconi's mode of address was unprecedented. I came to the House floor expecting to hear significant words from the head of state of a major ally of our country. Instead, I had the feeling that perhaps I and the other Members in attendance were being used as extras in a campaign appearance for Mr. Berlusconi's difficult upcoming election. I can draw no other conclusion considering he addressed Congress in Italian without an interpreter, a language that I and most other Members do not speak. Though we were given the text to read, who in the Chamber was able to correlate the words delivered and lead the applause that burst forth from the audience? The address was not even broadcast by C-SPAN, presumably because it took place in a language in which most C-SPAN viewers are not fluent. My discomfort increased this morning when I read in the Financial Times that the appearance was broadcasted by stations owned by Mr. Berlusconi in Italy. This has raised concerns that the Prime Minister was improperly bending Italian equal-airtime regulations during election campaigns. I would appreciate to hear your thoughts on this unusual use of the House Chamber, and whether it is expected to recur. Sincerely, Jim McDermott, Member of Congress.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank God that the Speaker is taking a trip down to New Orleans, because we have waited for a long time for this bill. Six months ago I introduced legislation to extend unemployment benefits. But the majority party has ignored the problem until today, a few days before it is going to run out. Now as a doctor and psychiatrist, I can tell you a couple of things: When people suffer a catastrophic loss, they need comfort and certainty, a helping hand. Instead, you have waited with unemployment benefits until they were beginning to run out before you acted. You have made matters worse for people who already have much damage to their lives. For 6 months this body functioned like that empty FEMA trailer when it came to meeting the needs of the people devastated by the hurricanes. The White House was in the driver's seat. No more need be said. But thankfully, at the urging of Ms. Pelosi from California, Republicans are going to do what I said 6 months ago. We are going to extend unemployment benefits to the people in the gulf coast. Later today, we will go and visit the region and tell the people all the good we are doing for them. Now, the Republicans will take credit for acting. But there is no credit for acting 6 months late. Six months ago I said we should be protecting the children of the gulf coast. I ask today, are we doing all we can to ensure vulnerable children are protected? Have we done anything to ensure that parents receive counseling and children receive the necessary social services to cope with the trauma in their lives? The answer is ``no.'' We may have sent some money to the States, but we have done nothing to ensure that Federal child welfare programs receive additional resources to cope. Kids are not as important as workers. In fact, Republicans refused to even hold a hearing, despite my repeated pleas to the chairman. We know child abuse spikes after natural disasters. We know that foster families are living in FEMA trailers. They are living with four, six and eight kids in a trailer, and the State is asking them to take more because they do not have enough places for neglected and abused kids. These trailers do not come close to passing the safety standards that we would demand of an ordinary foster home. We cannot keep pretending that the Federal Government is responding to the gulf coast. FEMA and the White House knew the storms were coming; we found that out yesterday. We knew they were going to devastate the area, and they failed to prepare and respond. For the last 6 months there has been nothing going on here. We have got a chance today to follow the Golden Rule: Treat others as we would be treated. I speak as someone representing Seattle. We know that one day we will have another shaker, another earthquake. And anybody who gets out on this floor and says, oh, well, we're throwing money at Louisiana, don't you dare come near this floor asking for money when it happens to you in California or anywhere else. This is not a local problem, this is a national problem that the Republicans refuse to respond to until it is at the last second. A day late, a dollar short.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, for 5 years there was a silence at the White House about the issue of health care and how it is deteriorating in this country. The access has gotten worse and worse and worse under this administration. The other night, in the State of the Union, the President, apparently the polling told him there is a problem out there. So he came out here with another one of his Band-Aids: Let's give everybody a health savings account. A more ridiculous proposal could not have been made on the floor to deal with the problems of average Americans. To expect average Americans to be able to put aside enough money to pay a $10,000 deductible and then buy a catastrophic plan is simply not from the real world. The average American in this country is fighting day to day, paycheck to paycheck, and our President comes up with another one of his tax giveaways to the rich. The only people who benefit from this are wealthy people who can take 10,000 bucks out of their pocket and pay it when it comes due. We ought to stop that and start a debate in this House between the Democrats and Republicans. That is the only way we will get sensible health care coverage for all Americans. They deserve it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is doubtful that we can even accurately count the number of Iraqis who have died today in their country. The President vows he will stay the course. We have heard this before over and over again, as if saying it repeatedly would alter the reality. For months the American people have spoken with an ever louder voice urging the President to redeploy U.S. soldiers to get them out of harm's way. For months, many Members of Congress, especially Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, have urged the President to redeploy the U.S. soldiers to get them out of harm's way. Now even U.S. soldiers overwhelming say that the U.S. should be out of Iraq this year. In military terms, that is enough time to quickly plan and safely reallocate U.S. soldiers. In other words, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, those in the battlefield, are saying what this administration refuses to act on. The ground the President is standing on has shrunk to the size of a postage stamp. His approval ratings have fallen so low they are below sea level. Today, not only is Iraq in the throes of relentless civil violence, even members of the administration are telling Congress that there is danger the violence in Iraq could spill outside the borders and inflame the entire Middle East. Yet despite the warnings, despite the reality, despite the Iraqi leaders urging the U.S. to stop interfering with efforts to form a new government, the President is going to stay the course. The same rhetoric spoken after every wave of violence has really worn threadbare. It is time to set a course, and we have done that. It is time to lead the U.S. out of harm's way because that is what leaders do. Another U.S. soldier died today in Iraq. The total number of U.S. men and women serving this country in Iraq who have died has climbed to 2,292. They have paid the ultimate sacrifice for Bush's folly. In my judgment, the price they paid was too high. These soldiers are heroes. That much we know. And that is of comfort to their families and this proud and grateful Nation. But we owe these heroes more than comfort for their families. Many of these soldiers died saving other soldiers. We have to ask ourselves whether we are failing as a Nation because we know Iraq is not working, and yet we leave the soldiers in harm's way. We have to ask ourselves whether we are failing as a Nation because we allow our government to act contrary to the wishes of the people. This is supposed to be a democracy. This is not about a war time when only the Commander in Chief can know everything there is to know, and we must place our trust in him or her. This is not the Invasion of Normandy. The war in Iraq is nothing like that. We know what the President knows about the situation. There are no secret intelligence reports laying out the real Iraq story. We know it. We see it on television. We read about it in the newspapers, and we discuss it online. We are truly all in this war. Everyone, except the man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania. There is not a shred of evidence or paperwork that he has that says repeating the line, ``stay the course,'' is going to benefit the U.S. or the Iraqi people. Why then are we doing it? It is time for the American people to demand that the President account for his actions and the lack of actions on the Iraq war. Iraq is reeling from its worst fear, the launch of a civil war. U.S. soldiers are bunkered in their defensive positions. But why are they there at all? Many Iraqi leaders are beginning to blame the U.S. occupation for unleashing the evil, as they call it. Every day that goes by, the reputation and credibility of our Nation bleeds a little more. That is nothing in comparison to the lost lives and shattered lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and their loved ones. William Butler Yeats, the Noble Prize laureate who was a Senator in Ireland, said in a poem called ``The Center Cannot Hold,'' it is the Second Coming. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate neat intensity. When will we learn? When will this government listen to the people? The soldiers in battle and the people at home, they know what Iraq is and is not. But two people, or maybe only one, in the White House have yet to learn it. But until they do, Iraq will be a price for which we witness relentless chaos that can be turned loose upon the whole world. We cannot stay the course when there is no course. The best thing is to come home. Mr. President, give us a plan.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great civil war. However, not our civil war but the Iraqis' civil war. We are caught in the middle of it. And there are some people who say that we do not have a plan, the Democrats have no plan. Well, today Jack Murtha sent around again to us a Dear Colleague. That is a method by which we in the House talk to one another; we let our colleagues know what we think or what is going on. Jack sent one around with his plan to pull the troops out of Iraq. Nobody is paying any attention to Jack Murtha. They make fun of him as not being a patriot or something but they are missing the point. We are deeper and deeper and deeper in this war and there is no end. Now, the American people have no excuse, nor does the Congress have any excuse for not knowing what we are into, because they put out from the Pentagon every year something called the ``Quadrennial Defense Review.'' That is to tell us what we are going to do for the next 4 years. They have changed the language. They are not going to call it the war on terror anymore. It is now called ``The Long War.'' And the one just put out and presented to the Congress outlines plans for 20 years into the future. This administration has no intention whatsoever to pull out of Iraq or to pull the bases out of Iraq, or to do anything as sensible as what Jack Murtha has laid in front of the President. Worse than that, they are going to increase this. They are looking beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. It is in the editorial today in The Guardian, which is a newspaper from England: ``Looking beyond Iraq and Iran battlefields, U.S. commanders envisage a war unlimited in time and space against global Islamic extremism. `The struggle may well be fought in dozens of other countries simultaneously and for many years to come.' '' How are they going to do that? Very simply. They are going to continue to spend us into debt. There will not be a dime to fix what is going on in New Orleans or the health care system or the educational system or anything else. Listen to what is in that report. They want 15 percent more special forces, an extra 3,700 people in black operations, in PsyOps and civil affairs units. That is an increase of 33 percent. They will have people to run in and go and run these countries. They want nearly double the number of unmanned aerial drones. Now, consider what an aerial drone is. That is something you take off in this country or take off somewhere, you fly over a country and somebody thousands of miles away says, drop the bomb over there at Seventh and Vine. Now, consider what we are planning. We are planning to invade countries from the air without even being there. It will be like war games, like kids sitting in the front room with their little board games. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about taking our Trident nuclear submarines and refitting them, not to shoot up nuclear missiles, but to send up regular missiles. So they will pull alongside a country and fire a bunch of rockets into the country and they will fix them. This is what is going on. And America is sitting quietly by and watching this happen. We are allowing the President and a very small number of people, Mr. Speaker, to make decisions. We have a Vice President who says he can now leak secret material anytime he figures he can use it. Use it to get us into another war. There are an awful lot of people on this floor, Mr. Speaker, who are very worried about the next 6 months in Iran because there is an election coming. And the only way you can get the people to vote the Republicans back in is by making them afraid. This is a vote of confidence on George Bush. And the people will have to vote ``no'' to get rid of them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, some time yesterday, a Member introduced House Concurrent Resolution 341. Earlier today, without benefit of hearings or markup by any committee or subcommittee of the House, it was brought to the floor and the vast majority of members voted for it. They voted, I believe, for it for the best of reasons: to strengthen efforts by the international community to convince Iran to meet its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The resolution makes a number of important and factual points about Iran's lack of cooperation with IAEA and then sets out six statements of Congressional policy. The first two condemn Iran's breaches of its obligations and commend the efforts of several nations to find a diplomatic means to return Iran to compliance. The final clause urges the President to keep Congress informed on this issue. All well and good. But, for some reason, the fourth declaration goes beyond what international treaties require and beyond anything that Congress has carefully studied. It reads as follows: [Congress] declares that Iran, through its many breaches for almost 20 years of its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement, has forfeited the right to develop any aspect of a nuclear fuel cycle, especially with uranium conversion and enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology, equipment and facilities. Now, let's be clear on what ``nuclear fuel cycle'' means. It means any use of nuclear technology, including the use of nuclear energy for the provision of civilian electrical power. I think there is some level of agreement that our problem with Iran is not about nuclear power plants. And it is abundantly clear that Iran intends to insist on its right to nuclear energy. If Iran's leaders want to insist that they only seek to produce electricity, we should work with the IAEA to make sure there are so many inspectors assigned to Iran that they can't produce anything except electricity. A Congressional declaration that a country cannot use nuclear power for peaceful, minutely inspected, civilian purposes is neither practical nor helpful. Had there been hearings, I believe that the difficulties with this approach would have been identified. But once again, the Republican House leadership hasn't bothered with regular process, hasn't bothered with hearings and witnesses or even markups and amendments. The Republican leadership doesn't want to hear dissent, doesn't want to hear concerns, doesn't want to hear anything but ``yes, sir!'' In addition, the convoluted language of the third declaration seems to call upon the Russian Federation to cease its unilateral efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its treaty obligations. Whether an arrangement can be designed that allows Iran access to nuclear power without creating its own enrichment facilities remains to be seen, but the attempt should not be scorned. So now the House is on record that the Iranian people should never be allowed to use nuclear power and that Russia should stop talking to Iran about solving this problem. If the resolution had not been brought to the floor today, just one day following its introduction, these problems might have been avoided.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have been occupied with the Ways and Means Committee all day and have not been able to participate in floor debate. I wish I had been able to participate in the discussion of S. Con. Res. 79 which was on the floor this morning because I have a question about the resolution. My question is: How does this resolution further the cause of peace in the Middle East or make Israel more secure? The resolution states that it is the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not directly aid the Palestinian Authority ``if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.'' Of course there is a party with that sentiment, Hamas, and--as we all know--that U.S. law prohibits aid to Hamas. As far as I know, neither President Bush nor Secretary Rice nor anyone else in our Government has proposed trying to find a loophole through which the U.S. can bankroll Hamas. So we have a resolution opposing an action which is already prohibited in existing law. We are bravely opposing doing something illegal that no one at all in the administration or Congress has proposed to do. Why? Why did we come to the floor and vote on this? Who does it help? I am submitting two articles for the Record along with this statement. The first, ``The Right Way to Pressure Hamas,'' is an editorial from this morning's New York Times. It discusses the rumors that the U.S. and Israel are trying to create conditions that would lead to new elections to oust Hamas, presumably in favor of Fatah. The editorial notes that ``in the long, sorry history of the Israeli- Palestinian dispute, there is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that pushing the Palestinian population into more economic desperation would somehow cause them to moderate their political views. In fact, experience teaches the exact opposite.'' The Times goes on to say that a wise course ``would be to step back and desist from deliberately provoking the Palestinians, and give Hamas a chance to reconsider its own options.'' The second article, ``Talking with the Guys from Hamas,'' appeared last Saturday in the Daily Star, a well-respected, moderate Beirut daily. I urge every member to take time to read it. Its author, Rami Khouri, notes that a ``Hamas-Ied Palestinian government and the new Israeli government to be elected next month face a historic opportunity.'' He predicts that Hamas ``will surely continue its 3-year slow shift toward more pragmatism and realism because it is now politically accountable to the entire Palestinian population, and to world public opinion.'' However, Khouri warns: ``It is not very helpful--as so may pro-Israel American apologists do--to focus mainly on Hamas' theology or its 1987 founding charter, any more than one should deal with Israeli parties that base their claim to all of Palestine--Eretz Israel on the book of Genesis account of God's land patrimony to the Jewish people.'' So, what was the point of today's vote? To spell out for Hamas that Congress is going to stand in the way if Secretary Rice suddenly decides to try to send them a big aid package? To tell the President that he'd better not be trying to exploit some loophole to subsidize Hamas? To clarify for Israel that the position that Harry Truman took isn't being abandoned after 58 years? Mr. Speaker, time and time again, my Republican colleagues have come to the floor with resolutions opining on various issues. Regrettably, they often serve to worsen the problems under consideration and to boil complex issues down to radio talk show-sized sound bites. This is a sensitive, dynamic time in Arab-Israeli relations, and I hope members can restrain themselves from show- boating. As Rami Khouri suggests: ``Political theologians and collectors of historical ideologies, please go home for a while.'' [From the Daily Star, Feb. 11, 2006] Talking With the Guys From Hamas (By Rami G. Khouri) I had the opportunity Thursday to explore first-hand the implications of the victory of Hamas in last month's Palestinian parliamentary elections. I went to talk to Hamas leaders at the Palestinian refugee camp of Burj al-Barajneh in Beirut, where poor, disenfranchised Palestinian refugees live in rather atrocious material conditions. After two-and-a-half hours of discussions among Hamas, other Palestinian parties and an Anglo-American visiting delegation, I now know better why Hamas swept the Palestinian elections. The human contact also reveals what the news does not convey: this exiled, marginalized, downtrodden and vulnerable refugee community walks today with its head held higher than any other group of people in the entire Middle East, because of its unique combination of self-confidence, perseverance, success and legitimacy. Hamas is the only Arab party that enjoys an authentic mandate from its people, genuinely manifested through victory in two free elections at the municipal and national levels. What does one learn from such encounters? The two most significant themes that emerge from discussions with Hamas officials--and from their many statements--are a commitment to national principles and a clear dose of political pragmatism. Both dimensions are important, and cannot be separated. It is not very helpful--as so many pro-Israeli American apologists do--to focus mainly on Hamas' theology or its 1987 founding charter, any more than one should deal with Israeli parties that base their claim to all of Palestine-Eretz Yisrael on the Book of Genesis account of God's land patrimony to the Jewish people. Political theologians and collectors' of historical ideologies, please go home for a while. Now that Hamas will share or hold power, they are likely to persist in both their principled and pragmatic ways. They will assert rather than drop their existing principles related to domestic governance, resisting Israel and liberating the Israeli-occupied territories, and potentially coexisting with an Israeli state under certain conditions. It is foolhardy to expect Hamas to reverse its principles at the moment when it has achieved a historic victory precisely because it has adhered to them. At the same time, it will surely continue its three-year-old slow shift toward more pragmatism and realism, because it is now politically accountable to the entire Palestinian population, and to world public opinion. Incumbency means responsibility and accountability, which inevitably nurture practicality and reasonable compromises. Here is where Hamas' experience is instructive, and why it is so important to speak with them to understand how they are likely to behave. My sense from such discussions, along with 35 years of watching Islamists at work, is that they do make compromises and practical concessions. But they only do so on four conditions: they talk and compromise in a political context of negotiations between two equal parties; they give only when they get something of equal value in return; they respond emphatically to the consensus position of their national constituency; and they do not compromise on what they identify as core national rights of equality, dignity, liberty and sovereignty. One more vital point to remember: Hamas and Hizbullah are the only two Arab groups that have ever forced Israel's fabled military to withdraw involuntarily from occupied Arab land (South Lebanon and Gaza). American presidents and other purveyors of fantasy are free to call this sort of unilateralism a ``courageous initiative for peace,'' as George W. Bush said of Ariel Sharon. The rest of the rational world calls this what it is: a retreat, and a tacit admission of defeat. Hamas will build on the policies that achieved this, not repudiate them. Hamas lives in the real world, not in fantasyland. It and its supporters are not so impressed with having tea in the White House. They are much more focused on bringing back a degree of personal dignity, communal self-respect, and national integrity to Palestinian life. They also know that the majority of Palestinians, other Arabs and world nations wish to coexist in negotiated peace with the state of Israel, if Israel in turn reciprocates the sentiment to the Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands it has occupied. How to reconcile these realities is a priority issue for them in the coming months. I expect that Hamas will combine its legacy of both principles and pragmatism in slowly making important decisions on key issues in coming months. These will include sharing power in Palestine, reforming corrupt and mediocre national institutions, galvanizing an effective national Palestinian leadership representing all Palestinians in the world, negotiating peace with Israel while resisting its occupation, and fostering the development of a society that is not necessarily ruled by Islamic law. A Hamas-led Palestinian government and the new Israeli government to be elected next month face a historic opportunity, if they are prepared to see each other as representing peoples and nations with equal rights. Hamas has reached this triumphant moment precisely because it has insisted on such equality, rather than pandering to Israeli-American promises as other Palestinian leaders did without success. Hamas can be pragmatic only because its resistance and consistent principles have brought it success. Understanding the dynamic relationship between these factors is the key to movement forward to a win-win situation for all, including Palestinians, Israelis and the slightly dazed denizens of fantasylands far away.