Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, last night we watched a very sad event. The President of the United States came out here to try and convince the American people to support him yet again. The problem is that the President did not recognize while he was standing there that nobody trusts his judgment. Nobody trusts the vice president's judgment, the man who says we are in the last throes of the problems in Baghdad. Even Rumsfeld has come forward and said, ``We are going to be there 12 years.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, when the President comes and tries to sell us another 12 years and says things are going well, it just does not work. This was ill-conceived. It was ill-prepared for. It has been poorly executed by the management, not by the troops on the ground. They have done the best they could. But they are there because the President of the United States wanted them there. This is George Bush's war. This is not a war on terrorism; this is a war of conquest by George Bush.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. McDERMOTT. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it really speaks volumes that there is no one who wants to come out here and talk about what happens to ordinary people here in this country. The last election was one in which people said the issue was whether people had values or not. The values that the Democrats have stood for for 70 years, really since the Depression, were a minimum income for everyone. Now, let us start with the minimum wage. We have not raised the minimum wage in this House since 1997. We raised our own salary yesterday 2 percent or whatever it was. I do not know. But the people at the bottom have not had an increase since 1997. We take a young woman who has got a kid and got out of high school and did not graduate, and we send her out and say, go get a job, go get a job; and she gets a job at minimum wage which amounts to about 50 percent of the poverty level. That is not a value that I support. Housing is another value that we should be talking about. These people are struggling to find a place to live in the city close to their job. In Seattle you cannot find very many places inside the city. As we gentrify the centers of the city, the people have to move out farther and farther and farther to the point where the bus lines require a couple of hours to get into the city to work at a minimum- wage job. Health care, another value. There should not have to be a colloquy over here about whether we are going to provide health care for these people. We know that we need a workforce that is healthy. We need people going to work who are healthy, and we need children who are healthy who can go to school and learn and become part of an educated workforce. To fail these children in their earliest years is to present ourselves with a problem. Maybe not us, because we will not be here when the kids who are on welfare today become a problem for the Congress, but 20 years from now people are going to say, why did we not have health care? The reason we wound up with a school lunch program in this country was because when they went to drafting people in the Second World War, they had so many recruits that had nutrition-related diseases that they had to reject them. And so, Mr. Truman, it was not some big-hearted thing, he started the school lunch program so that we would have healthy kids. And yet we are still questioning whether these youngsters, we are putting the pressure on the States to make cuts in welfare in every single jurisdiction. The chorus of hollering is going to start when these bills start passing and State governments have to deal with what we have put out there as an insurmountable problem for them, a mandate from us that they have to find the money for. Finally, education of kids. That is a value. You want kids to have an education. You want parents to have an education. Kids follow the model of their own parents. If we do not help these people on welfare get an education, if we make it an insurmountable task, the kids do not see their own mother or own father get an education. My belief is we can do better than this, and I hope when we pass a permanent bill we will.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, these are going to be the two classic glass-half-empty/ glass-half-full speeches because the chairman has told you the good things that have happened, and there are some. But, today, we have two bad choices in front of us. The first is to support this BandAid approach that has temporarily continued the funding for TANF and the child care development block grants for yet another 3 months. The other alternative is to abandon our most vulnerable citizens until the Republican majority accepts its responsibility to chart a new course that provides a helping hand, not a slap on the wrist. Now, I deplore these kind of crossroads at which we stand. Ten times in the last 3 years we have stood right here, as we do today, the lives and welfare of the disadvantaged hanging in the balance. At a time like this, America should shine. Instead, the Republican majority strains the needs of our most vulnerable citizens to the breaking point. Ten temporary extensions over 3 years should send the House a clear and unmistakable message. We need to treat America's disadvantaged as first class citizens by charting a new course for the long-term reauthorization of the TANF program. On this Republican watch, the House has taken up hopelessly divisive bills that have drawn the condemnation of mayors, governors, welfare directors, religious leaders and poverty experts. Time and again, the Republicans have tried to terminate Federal responsibility by replacing State flexibility with unfunded mandates and changing the focus of welfare reform from real jobs to make-work. Nothing good comes from this approach. Instead, this wrong path has led to legislative gridlock. Those who suffer most are those who most need our help. The disadvantaged need our compassionate ideas and commitment to promote reforms that will help them leave welfare and actually escape poverty. This goal is particularly important when you consider that an additional 4.3 million Americans have fallen into poverty over the last 3 years for which we have data. In 2003 alone, almost another 800,000 children fell into poverty. Now, that should be a rallying cry, driving us to act. But, instead, the Republicans use the misfortune of some Americans to suggest that poverty is rising because welfare recipients are not working hard enough. That is just wrong. It is callous and cold- hearted. The problem is not the unwillingness of people on welfare to work. The problem is too many of those leaving welfare are not finding work, or they are finding jobs that do not lift them out of poverty. We could, of course, help by providing more child-care assistance, job training and a higher minimum wage, but the Republican leadership and the President have resisted such reforms. Instead, the Republicans try to sell the same worn-out threadbare suit of clothes again. It happened again in March when the majority unveiled their new 3- year old idea from the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. Nothing has happened since. Nothing, leaving many to believe the Republican leadership intends to include the welfare legislation as part of the upcoming budget reconciliation bill rather than considering it as a separate measure. Such a process will make it harder to provide the necessary investments in child care because Republicans know the budget reconciliation process is meant to cut programs, not improve them. And that is just fine by the Republican leadership because they do not believe working families deserve any more help for child care. Like so much from their leadership, the rhetoric does not match the reality. According to data from their own HHS, Health and Human Services Department, only about a quarter of the children who are eligible for child-care subsidies under State eligibility criteria actually receive assistance. This fraction drops to roughly one out of seven, if you use the Federal eligibility standard for daycare assistance. The data does not lie. We are falling short in helping low-income families meet the challenges of raising a family and at the same time going to work. President Bush's response to this problem is to make it even worse. His proposed 2006 budget shows the number of people receiving child assistance will decline, decline by 300,000 over the next 5 years. So the administration is proposing even greater work requirements for welfare recipients at the same time that the President proposes cutting child care. So much for a helping hand. My friends on the other side of the aisle suggest their bill is modestly more generous on child care than the administration's budget. However, that Republican package, in reality, underfunds child care assistance by $10.6 billion over the next 5 years. That is their calculation. Republicans want to outsource Federal responsibility to the States without a dime more to address a $10 billion deficit. That leads nowhere except forcing States to face deep cuts in child-care assistance for the working poor. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. We have proposed legislation that gives the States the flexibility and the funding needed to move welfare recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. It is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. And with that hope, I support this temporary extension of the current law. I will not abandon disadvantaged Americans at the very time they need us most. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, President Bush has a golden opportunity to level with the American people tonight about Iraq. The question is: Will he? The President stands at a crossroads. His credibility and the integrity of the entire administration is on the line. The American people have had enough of administration rhetoric. For a sitting Vice President to dismiss reality and proclaim the insurgency in its ``last throes'' grossly understates the threat to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and seriously undermines any shred of credibility that the administration has left with the American people. They know that U.S. involvement in Iraq is going badly. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel summed it up last week when he said, ``The White House is completely disconnected with reality . . . The reality is that we are losing in Iraq.'' The American people want the President to deliver a straight story and a realistic plan, something he has been unwilling to do up to now. We will see if we hear it tonight.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to amplify on the Iraq proposal that I made last night in the House. I believe the solution in Iraq lies with the United Nations and that it is time for direct U.N. involvement to replace U.S. forces and to allow our troops to return home safely and in an orderly way. The evidence is mounting that America's current approach in Iraq will not work. When was the last time anybody heard the word ``coalition'' to describe the military activity in Iraq? The world largely perceives the United States as going it alone in Iraq. Furthermore, large portions of the Arab world believe in the insurgency rhetoric that America is an occupier in Iraq for selfish oil reasons and not to serve the needs of the Iraqi people. Administration claims about the insurgency do not square with the news coming out of Iraq every day or with the sober assessment by America's best military leaders. U.S. and Iraq civilian casualties are mounting. That is what Americans see every night on the news. What Americans want is a sober assessment of Iraq that reflects reality and for the Congress and the administration to work together to come up with a solution. Americans are sick of the politics. They want a solution that will protect U.S. soldiers and make what they are fighting and dying for, and what has taken untold numbers of Iraqi lives, worth the enormous sacrifice. We need a new strategy in Iraq. We need a new plan. This one is not working. The more the administration denies it, the more time we waste and the more lives we lose because we do not do what we need to do. We do not need permanent bases in Iraq. Every day that goes by with the current war scenario, this country loses credibility around the world. Every concrete block that we lay is sowing seeds of mistrust, anger, and resentment that will affect us for generations. Consider that we are still dealing with Vietnam 30 years later trying to establish relationships with them. It is time to involve the rest of the world in Iraq and stop anyone from calling this is the U.S.-Iraq war. Only the United Nations has the international imprimatur to lead an international coalition in Iraq. Only the United Nations can credibly install a peace-enforcing force in Iraq that is seen as such by the entire world. We did a similar thing under UNTAC in Cambodia. We have done it before. I have never supported this war, but I would gratefully support a Republican resolution to get the U.N. into Iraq. This would be a positive development to safeguard U.S. ground forces and send a positive signal to a skeptical Arab world that America's intentions are not what the insurgents claim them to be. We need a bold stroke in Iraq if we are to succeed in stopping the loss of lives and spread of terror. We cannot just fight insurgents in the streets day by day if there is any hope of peace in Iraq. The world has to believe we are only there to benefit Iraq. As long as the war is called and perceived as the U.S.-Iraq war, the insurgents have new ammunition to recruit, terrorize, maim, and kill. We have an opportunity to work together as Americans, not Democrats and Republicans, but to create a plan that creates a new role for the U.S. in Iraq, contributing to the U.N. peace-enforcing force. We have an opportunity to safeguard American lives we are replacing, not withdrawing U.S. soldiers from Iraq. Today, too many military experts in our country quietly say that the Iraq war could go on for the indefinite future. David Hackworth, the most decorated Vietnam veteran, said we are going to be there 30 years. We cannot afford the price in dollars, and more importantly, in loss or shattered lives for our soldiers. The way to win the war in Iraq is to allow the world, not the United States, to lead the war in Iraq. Since the Republicans are the majority party in the House, I willingly submit my proposal to the Republicans to call their own, get the President on board, turn it into legislation that we can pass by unanimous consent. The best military option for the United States in Iraq is to act under the command and direction of the United Nations. U.N. leadership offers the best chance for a lasting peace and the fastest orderly way for American troops to return home. Mr. Speaker, please put politics aside and let us act together. Yesterday, 82 members of the Iraq parliament submitted a letter to their speakers saying get the troops out of Baghdad. We ought to be working with them and make it happen, but it will take both Republicans and Democrats to do it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue which is beginning to be much more of an issue in this Congress, and certainly in this country, and that is the question of how long are we going to stay in Iraq? There are those who think that we should stay endlessly, apparently. The military is preparing for a couple of years of staying. Last week a couple of oil workers from Iraq came through talking to various Members of Congress. These 55-year-old Iraqi oil workers said there will be no peace in Iraq until the occupation is over. Until you leave, the present conditions will continue. Now, there are a lot of people who still believe the President. Remember, this is the President that told us that there were weapons of mass destruction and there were connections to al Qaeda, and that now they have the White House saying we are in the last throes of the insurgency. But when you talk to Iraqis who live on the ground, work on the ground, work in the oil industry, they said we are at 1\1/2\ billion barrels a day, and we will never get any more than that until we are able to get some peace and calm and some investments to come in and change the oil industry. Now, you say, well, that is just two oil workers. Well, 82, remember that number, 82 Iraqi Parliamentarians have sent a letter to their Speaker of the House demanding that the U.S. withdraw its troops from Iraq. Those are not wild-eyed people in the United States who are calling for the withdrawal of American troops. This is 82 members of the Iraq Parliament who were elected. I mean, we say they have a democracy over there. Some of these leaders come from the United Iraqi Alliance, which is a collection or a coalition of religious Shiite parties that has a majority of the 275 seats. So, again, we are not talking about a splinter group somewhere, we are talking about people in the main governing group in the Iraqi Parliament are calling for an end. Their demand is still, although not a majority, it is a large majority, and it has not been endorsed by the Prime Minister yet. But the demand will certainly come from an ever greater number of Parliamentarians as time goes on. At the moment, most Iraqi politicians already wish the United States would leave, but are afraid that the guerilla movement will kill them without U.S. protection. This letter has not been released in the United States. You have to find it somewhere on the Web. Now, in this House we have a group called Out of Iraq Caucus. And the question is, what are we up to? What do we really want to do? Well, I think you ought to have a plan. And there are certainly a lot of plans that have been laid out. One of them is laid out by Gerald Helman, who was a former Ambassador of the United States, who says, first of all, the United States should have a phased withdrawal to be completed in 1 year. Why is that? Because you do not want to create chaos. If we walked away tomorrow, we would have chaos. The second thing he says, by prearrangement before that withdrawal occurs, the Iraq and Arab League, or collection of Arab states, would ask the United Nations Security Council to establish a transition political, economic development, and peace enforcement authority to assist the Iraqi Government in its recovery efforts. And finally, the United States could offer logistical support. We are really the only ones capable of doing it, and the financial support as well as the military units on a transitional basis under U.N. command, under U.N. command. I think we can handle a Brit or a German or somebody being in command. The United States, Japan and the other oil Arabs can contribute money and NATO could provide much of the staff, planning and headquarters personnel, but competent boots on the ground will be hard to find. They are going to have to use some of our people. We all watched the United Nations do this very same thing in Cambodia. Most people were unaware of it, but that is exactly the method. We have to begin the process of withdrawal from Iraq. There is no way we are going to win it all and have peace and harmony as long as we are viewed as conquerors and occupiers, and 82 members of the Iraqi parliament have asked. That must be only the beginning. Helman on UN Option Ambassador Gerald B. Helman writes: ``. . . On replacing the US with the UN in Iraq[:] It seems clear that US public opinion is ready for a real exit strategy. But I suspect that the Administration has not yet given up its hope of turning Iraq into a long-term strategic base and asset allowing control of the Middle East and the oil that goes with it. And to turn it all over to the UN would be humiliating. Much would depend upon how the process is rolled-out. Here's an example: The US would announce a phased withdrawal, to be completed one year hence; (by prearrangement) Iraq and the Arab League (or a collection of Arab states) would ask the UNSC to establish a transition political, economic development and peace enforcement authority to assist the Iraqi Government in its recovery efforts; and The US would offer logistical (we're the only one capable) and financial support, as well as military units, on a transitional basis, under UN command (we might be able to swallow the humiliation if the commander is a Brit or German). The UK, Japan, the oil Arabs and others can contribute lots of money. NATO could provide much of the staff, planning and headquarters personnel. But competent boots on the ground might be harder to come by. I agree that the Cambodia operation (and, more recently, East Timor) could serve as a model. While Cambodia was a mixed success, it was nevertheless a success.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes.)

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House had an opportunity to see what really happened at Guantanamo Bay. If the Republicans are so sure that nothing bad happened there, why can we not have some hearings? Now, they continued to be reassured by the White House. This is the White House that told them there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is the administration that told them that the oil industry in Iraq would pay for all the reconstruction. We are now about $300 billion in. And this is the administration that last month said we are in the last throes of the insurgency. If anybody on this floor ever served in the military, you know that what went on in Abu Ghraib and what goes on in Guantanamo did not start at the private and the corporal level. It started at the top. And until we do an investigation of the policy papers that were put out of the White House from the Attorney General who was then the President's counsel and the general, General Sanchez, he just got promoted. This is the guy in charge of Abu Ghraib. They put six or eight guys in jail, but he got a promotion. That needs an investigation.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on Friday, June 17, 2005 due to a previously scheduled event in my district. Had I been able to, I would have voted: Against the Royce amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 274). Against the Fortenberry amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 275). Against the Flake amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 276). For the Chabot amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 277). Against the Pence amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 278). Against the Gohmert amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 279). Against the Stearns amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 280). For the Lantos amendment to H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 281). Against Final passage of H.R. 2745 (rollcall vote No. 282).

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill; and I do this in the name of freedom and justice for all Americans. I call it the Carlos Lazo amendment, named for a brave U.S. soldier from Seattle who has been denied his right and freedom to visit his children in Cuba because of onerous new travel restrictions imposed by this administration. Sergeant Lazo is a medic in a combat unit that served for a year in Fallujah, one of the most dangerous places in Iraq. He is a shining example of everything positive about America and about the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces. But Carlos Lazo has been victimized by the administration's policy which has gone tilt. Carlos is caught up in the latest ploy by the United States Government to topple Castro. This time the administration is banking on restricting travel to overthrow the Castro government. The greatest impact from this new policy is that Sergeant Carlos Lazo cannot visit his children in Cuba. One man desires only to be a father on Father's Day. This is a man who risked his life in defense of America, a man who risked his life to reach America on a raft, a man who wants only to see and hug his children, a man in uniform defending America even as America denies his freedoms. Last June, Carlos tried to visit his children in Cuba before the stringent new travel restrictions were put into effect. He was on leave from Iraq and went to Miami to board a charter flight to Cuba, but he was turned away because flights were flying empty to Cuba. There he stood in his uniform, having just come back from the combat zone. He stood in an airport with a ticket in his hand, barred from a chance to visit his children, denied the most basic freedom in this country. Carlos returned to the war zone in Iraq without seeing his children. That is the way it will stay unless the government intercedes. Current law allows Americans to visit a family in Cuba only once every 3 years. No exceptions are made for soldiers serving abroad, families with medical emergencies, or other hardship cases. As it stands now, Carlos can do nothing except wait for an arbitrary deadline to expire. It will take another year before he can go to Cuba. He is a naturalized American father who has been caught up in a national obsession to overthrow Castro. Decade after decade, plot after plot, the facts remain the same. The policy, or the plot, call it what you will, the new travel restrictions inflict pain and suffering on an American, not Castro. Carlos is a person, not a political pawn, a soldier who defended his country and asks only for his country to defend his freedom. He came to America on a raft in the 1990s. Since then he has made a new home and a new life. He has given back to his country and served with distinction. He is a patriot. The least we can do is allow Carlos to visit his children in Cuba. Allowing him to travel to Cuba would say much more about freedom and opportunity in America than any new administration policy. You want to hurt Castro, send Carlos to see his children. His freedom, like any American, to travel freely and speak freely and act freely will say more about what America stands for than all the rhetoric and rules the administration could ever implement. The Department of Treasury oversees the travel ban. So far they have refused to grant him any kind of waiver. It will take us to cut through that. Let Carlos be reunited with his children in Cuba in time for Father's Day. There is room in the heartland of America to have a heart. I urge the passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am here to express gratitude for the free press, in England. Because it is only for the English that we can finally find out what went on in the White House with Mr. Cheney and the oil boys. It says in the Guardian this morning, after the meeting with Mr. Blair yesterday, President Bush's decision not to sign the United States up for the Kyoto Treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company. In briefing papers given before the meeting to the U.S. Secretary of State, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's, quote, active involvement in helping to determine climate policy. The President of the United States rejected Kyoto in part, and this is a quote, rejected in part on the input from you, the Global Climate Coalition. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States runs the most secretive operation down there and does not tell us that the oil companies are running our energy policy. As long as that is what is going on in this country, we will continue to continue to be enmeshed in the Bush war and whatever goes on in Iran and whatever goes on anyplace else, and we will continue to destroy the environment. It is time to end that, Mr. Speaker. [From the Guardian, May 8, 2005] Revealed: How Oil Giant Influenced Bush White House sought advice from exxon on kyoto stance (By John Vidal) President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to U.S. State Department papers seen by the Guardian. The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate U.S. policy. In briefing papers given before meetings to the U.S. under- secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2002 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's ``active involvement'' in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable. Other papers suggest that Ms. Dobriansky should sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto. Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the U.S. government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under U.S. freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case. ``Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition],'' says one briefing note before Ms. Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto U.S. industry group, which was dominated by Exxon. The papers further state that the White House considered Exxon ``among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions''. But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and technology committee in 2003, Exxon's head of public affairs, Nick Thomas, said: ``I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto.'' Exxon, officially the U.S.'s most valuable company valued at $379bn (K206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House's unwavering scepticism of international efforts to address climate change. The documents, which reflect unanimity between the company and the U.S. administration on the need for more global warming science and the unacceptable costs of Kyoto, state that Exxon believes that joining Kyoto ``would be unjustifiably drastic and premature''. This line has been taken consistently by President Bush, and was expected to be continued in yesterday's talks with Tony Blair who has said that climate change is ``the most pressing issue facing mankind''. ``President Bush tells Mr. Blair he's concerned about climate change, but these documents reveal the alarming truth, that policy in this White House is being written by the world's most powerful oil company. This administration's climate policy is a menace to humanity,'' said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace's executive director in London last night. ``The prime minister needs to tell Mr. Bush he's calling in some favours. Only by securing mandatory cuts in U.S. emissions can Blair live up to his rhetoric,'' said Mr. Tindale. In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms. Dobriansky meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments both of which have followed the U.S. line against Kyoto. The purpose of the meeting with Mr. Pearlman, who also represents the secretive anti-Kyoto Climate Council, which the administration says ``works against most U.S. government efforts to address climate change'', is said to be to ``solicit [his] views as part of our dialogue with friends and allies''. ExxonMobil, which was yesterday contacted by the Guardian in the U.S. but did not return calls, is spending millions of pounds on an advertising campaign aimed at influencing politicians, opinion formers and business leaders in the UK and other pro-Kyoto countries in the weeks before the G8 meeting at Gleneagles.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeri Rice, an acclaimed entrepreneur in Seattle who personifies the spirit, courage, and commitment to see peace in her ancestral homeland of Israel. Jeri Rice is a distinguished Citizen Diplomat. The Israel Policy Forum has selected Jeri Rice as a 2005 ``Focus on the Future'' Honoree. It is a wise choice and speaks volumes about the profound and positive impact one person can make in our world. Jeri Rice is fearless in tackling tough issues. I know that firsthand. With a self confidence rooted in faith and family, Jeri guides everyone she comes in contact with toward a path of peace based on mutual respect and moderation. She willingly--and often--opens her home to promote peace in the Mideast. I've joined her personal peace process, and I can affirm that Jeri's involvement is a shining example of personal commitment and heroism. Jeri's involvement in good and noble causes is well known and highly regarded in Seattle. Jeri is a founding member of the University of Washington Center for Women and Democracy. She is a strong advocate and community leader in many organizations, including: United Way; University of Washington Academic Medical Center; Harborview Medical Center; and, PONCHO. She serves on the board of the Cornish College of the Arts, and since 2000, Jeri has been involved with Steven Spielberg's Shoah Foundation. She is also a member of the International Women's Forum. Jeri is a person of deep personal conviction and strong family bonds. Without hesitation she proudly proclaims her mother as her heroine. When asked who inspires her, Jeri quickly names her son. As to the world leader she most admires, Jeri names Anwar Sadat. It is, therefore, worth recalling a passage from the historic speech that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat delivered to the Knesset on November 20, 1977: ``I have come to you so that together we should build a durable peace based on justice to avoid the shedding of one single drop of blood by both sides. It is for this reason that I have proclaimed my readiness to go to the farthest comer of the earth.'' I ask every American to join me in congratulating Jeri Rice on the honor the Israel Policy Forum will bestow upon her. Her unwavering optimism reminds me of the affirmation contained in the Book of Ecclesiastes, ``To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.'' This is the time for peace in Israel and throughout the Mideast. People like Jeri Rice will do everything possible to make it so. We honor them. We thank them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I, like many, believe that the First Amendment is currently under attack. Yesterday I attended a forum titled ``Media Bias and the Future of Freedom of Press.'' I'd like to submit to the Record the statement that I distributed there yesterday, as well as the Freedom of Information request that I filed with the Department of Justice. I'd like to call attention to an issue of extreme and growing importance: an alarming trend in the dilution of First Amendment rights regarding freedom of the press. Today reporters are being compelled to reveal their confidential sources--or else face jail time and/or stiff fines. Prosecutors are insisting upon this and judges are backing up their demands by ordering reporters to testify and provide confidential information. This is turning the news media into an investigative arm of the judicial system and a research tool of the government--exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to be. The increasing pressure on journalists will most certainly lead to a decline in investigative reporting, threatening freedom of press and the public's need, and right, to know. This trend is not just talk, although anecdotally, the past few years document the greatest assault on source confidentiality in the U.S. in decades. Hard evidence and more specific statistics are being sought so that this issue can be brought to the attention of the nation without room for dispute. In fact, in an effort to uncover statistics that the government is unwilling to disclose, I have just filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Department of Justice, asking for access to and copies of records which show the number of subpoenas requested, as well as the number of subpoenas authorized, in order to obtain information from, or about, members of the news media in the years 2001-2004. I believe this information will prove that my concerns with the First Amendment go farther than just anecdotes. As soon as I obtain this information, I will release it to the public, as I feel it will be very eye-opening. The protection of freedom of the press is a central pillar of our democracy, and sharing information with the public is imperative in a nation with these strong democratic traditions. Other countries are being sent the wrong message when they look to us and see the precedents that we are setting. For example, when Venezuelan officials were recently criticized for adopting a restrictive new media law, they immediately cited a ruling that sentenced a Rhode Island journalist to six months house arrest for refusing to divulge a source. As is evident from Venezuela, instances such as these are bound to weaken freedom of press in other countries, where reporters are already more frequently forced to cooperate in government investigations. The last thing we need is for international journalists to be questioning our dedication to upholding free speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. We must do something to remedy this situation that is making honest journalism and true confidential sources a thing of the past. The administration and judiciary should exercise greater discretion in requiring reporters to reveal their sources so that journalists and every American can regain their confidence in the First Amendment's protection.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, Monday's Guardian's editorial line was, ``U.S. Military to Build Four Giant New Bases in Iraq.'' The violence in Iraq has never been greater. That is not what winning looks like to me. The President's strategy is to re-create the Old West: Build four forts capable of withstanding mortar rounds. With the death toll and casualties mounting, the President's best idea is to keep U.S. soldiers in the midst of uncontrollable, horrific violence. This administration has put this Nation and our generals in a no-win situation. We have been there before in Vietnam, and we vowed never to let it happen again. But this administration has frayed the military, keeping soldiers in the target zone without enough armor to protect them and without a plan to bring them home. Colonel David Hackworth died about 2 weeks ago, a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, eight Purple Hearts, a soldier's soldier who recently died, said we will be in Iraq for 30 years, 30 years. Colonel Hackworth was a man who saw the battlefield and could see the folly of the Iraq war. The American people know the truth. The President misled this country into war, and it is time to get out. [From the Guardian, Monday, May 23, 2005] U.S. Military To Build Four Giant New Bases in Iraq (By Michael Howard in Baghdad) U.S. military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal. The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by U.S.-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. However, the decision to invest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the U.S. expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq. Politicians opposed to a long-term U.S. presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan. ``They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists,'' said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party. A senior U.S. official in Baghdad said yesterday: ``It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves.'' Under the plan, for which the official said there was no ``hard-and-fast'' deadline, U.S. troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide ``logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis''. The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country. He said the place of the ``troop consolidation'' would be dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures. A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north. U.S. officers told the paper that the bases would have a more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand direct mortar fire. A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: ``We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the U.S. leaves.'' Three Romanian journalists kidnapped in Iraq were freed yesterday after two months in captivity.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress are in danger of becoming as irrelevant to medicine as the use of leaches are to the cure of patients. Last night the House took what some called a bold step to approve to thoughtful, modest bill to advance stem cell research to use science to alleviate pain and suffering and prolong life. To its credit the House followed the guiding principle written thousands of years ago by Hippocrates, the father of medicine. ``I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.'' That statement was taken directly from the Hippocratic Oath that I and every other medical doctor swears to uphold. That is what we did last night. We took a small step on the path of hope last night but it will not go very far. The President, bowing to the religious fanatics, has already declared he will veto the stem cell bill. Vowing allegiance to the right wing, the President will use the veto stamp to wash his hands of any hope that science can commute a sentence of debilitating pain and suffering, or even death, imposed on countless Americans. Other nations are intent on living in the 21st century with or without the United States. Under this administration, we are more dependent than ever on countries to loan us money to keep the lights on under the Republican budget assault. Now the administration intends to make us more dependent than ever before on countries for advances in medicine and science. We have great research scientists in this country, including the University of Washington. The President will tell them that his administration chooses the religious right over the human right to live your life without pain and suffering. For this, history will judge us equal to the political leadership last seen in the Dark Ages. Despite this, I believe that we are at the dawn of a new medical renaissance, and not even the extreme right wing in this country can stop it. The mass of Americans will stop it. We have all known someone who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or Lou Gehrig's disease or diabetes or a spinal cord injury, and now we have hope that stem cell research can unlock the secrets to relieve suffering. We could get there faster if we renew our relevance as political leaders and support groundbreaking scientific and medical research, but we will get there. Today, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Millions of other Americans can barely afford health care and still others avoid going to the doctor because of copays or having to work a second or third job to make ends meet. More and more companies are forcing their workers to shoulder most, if not all, of the financial burden of obtaining health care. Health care costs in this country are soaring and there appears to be no end in sight. This is health care in America today. But tomorrow it will be different. Scientists have cracked the genetic code, taking the first steps to predicting serious illness and disease before a baby is born. Treatments will come before the baby is born. The day is coming when we will be able to predict and treat serious illness and disease before it strikes. Traditional health insurance as we know it will end. We will have no alternative, but to have universal national coverage. Today, we talk about prevention and we mean going to the doctor before we get sick. Tomorrow we will redefine prevention as curing what ails you before it ails you. The heroes and heroines are working in the research laboratories right now. People do not read about it in the newspapers or see it on television, but they are there and they are changing their world for the better. It will not come easy and it will not come quick, and in some cases, it will not come cheap. I look ahead to see a world where we care enough about one another that we will vow as a nation to follow the oath I take as a doctor. Do everything in your power to alleviate pain and suffering. We voted for hope in the House of Representatives last night. The President will try and take that away. But he cannot stop the spark of genius God gave to men and women of faith and science. The American people may not have reason to believe in their national leaders, but they do have every reason to be proud of the men and women who use science, intellect and personal faith to save lives and end suffering. Universal coverage is coming sooner than you think.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, while Europe and Singapore and California and Korea are moving forward in an effort to relieve human suffering, the United States Congress, 435 theologians, have gathered here to decide a values decision. We have no guidance. There was no in vitro fertilization or stem cell research when Jesus walked on the Earth. We are left to make the decision on our own. The decision comes down to this: a man and woman come in to a physician. He presents some semen. She presents some eggs. They put them in a jar or they put them in a petri plate, and it becomes an embryo. They have several of them; so they use one. They put it in the mother. She has a baby. And there are a bunch left. Now what shall we do with those? Shall we throw them down the sink, wash them away, or shall we use them to help people who have terribly debilitating diseases? That is what this issue is about. Like the last speaker, I am a physician. I have counseled people who were dying with Lou Gehrig's disease. To watch somebody drown in their own secretions, someone that you know and care about, and then come in here and say we are not going to look for a way to relieve that kind of agony, we will not worry about a 13-year-old kid who gets diabetes and has to give himself thousands and thousands of shots and loses the length of life that most of us expect because of that disease; we will say to them, well, Jesus wanted us to do this. I do not remember the Lord ever saying that. I do not ever remember his saying, I gave you a brain, you human beings. I do not want you to figure anything out. I do not want you to make it any better. This is a perfectly good values judgment on which everybody should vote ``yes.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order time out of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the word ``nuclear'' holds special meaning in our world. It is a word that has become synonymous with chaos, total destruction and annihilation. Nuclear is the word that for the last half century has struck fear in the hearts and minds of people across the United States. For the last 2 months, Republicans in the Senate have threatened the nuclear option, like destroying the world was something you planned for and even boasted about. Over and over, the Republican-controlled Senate threatened to go nuclear, as if they were shouting ``lock and load'' at some local gun club. For far too long, the Senate majority leader has been a trigger happy gun slinger who set aside a Colt 45 and ordered up a thermal nuclear warhead in its place. Just imagine the outcome if he had been President staring down Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. Today, Senate Republicans released the nuclear warhead and the blast zone extends east or west, north to south, incinerating the rights of every American. It will be the first strike launched on behalf of the radical right aimed at annihilating the safety, security and freedom of every American. This is not about politics. The real Republican target is the U.S. Supreme Court and the judiciary. The Republican leaders said so in the House, and the Senate leaders said so in the Senate. No fallout shelter will keep us safe from the nuclear winter they plunge America into. The radical Republican right has an agenda and they intend to use every weapon at their disposal to enforce their will upon the American people. The radical Republican right wants to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body. The radical Republican right wants to abolish women's rights one court decision at a time. Republicans just gave the radical extremist the right to abolish Roe v. Wade. Republicans just handed the radical right the keys to our democracy. Women's rights will be nuked. Republican extremists will replace a woman's right to choose with a requirement to be subservient. The Republican Party intends to stack the Court and stack the deck against women. They intend to violate the environment, too. Republican extremists want to stack the courts so their corporate lobbyists and special interests are shielded from liability, protected from acting responsibly, and given the right to foul the air, pollute the water, dump toxins on the ground, and spew carcinogens in the atmosphere. Greed is God to these radicals who are attempting to subvert democracy with religious idolatry. Run for your lives, America, the Republicans are coming. Right wing extremists in the Republican Party control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they want the new trophy, and it is called the Supreme Court. They want to send their militants into your homes, into your lives, next to your death bed, to force their will upon you. The Republicans in charge today want to replace the Constitution with the Bible. The Republicans in charge today would like nothing better than to enforce a literal interpretation of the Bible in every American home, every American school, and every American mind. The Republican majority leader from Tennessee wants America to return to 1925 when the Butler Act in his State told people what to think and what to believe. But before the Republicans shout their Hosannas on high, let me recite a passage from the Bible. It was used by the defense in the Scopes monkey trial. Dayton, Tennessee, science teacher, 25 years old, John T. Scopes was persecuted and prosecuted for teaching science and not religion in the classroom. The great attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes, called upon the Bible. ``A holy book, a good book, but not the only book,'' Darrow said, in defense of a man who was convicted but later acquitted by the Supreme Court of the United States. And I recall his words today to remind the Senate majority leader and every Republican intimidated into hypocrisy to remember the Bible. Clarence Darrow quoted Proverbs, chapter 11, verse 29, and here is what the Bible says: ``He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.'' Tonight we begin the ice age because the wind is going to be cold coming out of that Senate. Remember, ``He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today on behalf of 21 original Democratic co-sponsors, I am introducing the Depleted Uranium Munitions Study. The stakes could not be higher for U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and there is not a moment to lose, and I hope the Republican leadership will put it on the Suspension Calendar. DU, as it is called, is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process. It is toxic and has low-level radioactivity, and it is widely used by the United States military in Iraq. There are countless stories of mysterious illnesses, higher rates of serious illnesses and even birth defects. We do not know what role, if any, DU plays in the medical tragedies in Iraq, but we must find out. The Pentagon says there is no evidence that DU is harmful; yet the Pentagon also says soldiers should wear protective gear, including special clothing and a respirator, using DU. An Iraqi child has no protective gear. The Iraqi people have no respirators. If DU is so safe, why do American soldiers need to wear protective clothing in the first place? We do not know if DU is safe or harmful; yet we have used 150 tons in the war so far. Let the Pentagon prove that it is safe.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the interest of protecting Members of Congress, journalists and the general public, officers of the Capitol Police advised everyone to run for their lives, and we did. Today, I wish that a Capitol Police officer would have been on hand at the Committee on Ways and Means hearing to shout the same warning. Run for your lives is the very best nonpartisan advice that anyone can give the American people over the President's plan to create a private insecurity social system. The President wants the American people to cut Social Security benefits. His proposal would devastate the program, break the promise and destroy the trust made between the government and the American people. The President wants the American people to accept his word that privatizing Social Security is in the best interests of Main Street and not Wall Street. The President, amid much bravado, said his plan is on the table and his plan stays on the table, take it or take it. Since the President will not take private insecurity off the table, let us look at what else the President put on the table with his plan. It is the only guaranteed outcome of the President's plan: senior citizens retiring into poverty. We need only look back in history and revisit the dark and stark reality of our own past. Americans by the thousands retired into poverty before Social Security was created by President Franklin Roosevelt. They retired into poverty because there was no way to protect them. There was no security, and that is exactly what the President wants again. The President says he does not read newspapers. How about American history? Can someone in the White House please get him an American history book? It did not work. He ought to know that. Americans who have worked a lifetime were forced to live in poverty because there was no Social Security. Millions of seniors did not have the money for food, clothing or shelter. You want to revisit America in 1932? My mother still is alive, thank God, and she would be the first to tell you that 1932 was not good. It was economically and humanitarianly a disaster for America. Millions could not afford to eat. Millions had no home to call their own. Americans did not have a lifeline, much less a safety net. It was a dark and horrifying period of American history. Why in the world does the President continue ignoring history? He proposes a plan; no, the President demands a private insecurity social system. He says he will listen to any idea as long as it is his. So, today, the President's water is carried by the distinguished but misinformed chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. I said it before and I say it again: The President's plan for a private insecurity social system is dead as disco. Nobody goes to discos anymore. It does not work. It does not even have those fancy twirling disco lights on the dance floor. The President's plan does not offer real benefits. It offers real cuts. The President's plan reflects America in 1932, a place with little security and a lot of greed, a place at a time when Americans suffered and lost hope until a great leader renewed a trust with the American people. A President, in the worst of times, created Social Security to provide every retired American with economic security, guaranteed, something this President wants to destroy. President Roosevelt created a program that is not Republican or Democrat. It is not east or west. It is not north or south. He envisioned the Nation strong because it defended the weak, stalwart because it valued its people, mighty because it was humble enough to care for the sick and the aged. No one was left behind by President Roosevelt. This President will leave tens of millions behind in a risky scheme that rewards the greed of Wall Street while it destroys the values of Main Street. Americans will not be better off with the President's private insecurity social system. Americans will be as vulnerable again as they were at the darkest economic moment in our history. It will be back in the arms of Wall Street. The President offers no plan and no choice. The President offers only a stark reality: Slash the benefits right now, and he put it right out there a couple of days ago in his news conference; and also cut your bond with the American people; cut the ties that bind us together; destroy the trust and certainty that senior citizens will not retire into poverty because we will not let them. They cannot, if Mr. Bush has his way. There is only one course open to the Congress and the American people. If the President will not remove the private insecurity social system from the table, then the American people should remove the table. Throw it away before somebody gets hurt. Remove it from America's house because it does not belong there. We are a Nation of people who want our children and grandchildren to have an opportunity for more than we had. We will be the first generation to expect our children to have less because we planned it that way. The President wants to create a Nation of people wanting for the basics of food, clothing and shelter. We lived through that once. We do not need to live through it again. FDR was right in 1935, and he is right in 2005.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida got up here and talked about the fact that we should work together as Democrats and Republicans. Let us have a little review of history, and I think the gentleman was here when it all happened. In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton presented a health care plan for every American. The Republicans took the position that any plan run by the government was a bad one, and they took pride and bragged in the next election over the fact that they had killed the Clinton health care plan. Now, 1994 is more than 10 years, and we have yet to see any proposal come out of the Republicans. Not a single member of the Republican caucus has been able to get a hearing or lay a bill before a committee. There are many of us who put bills before the Congress. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) put one forward, I put one forward, as did the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Where are the Republican proposals to do anything about the American people's health care problem? It is the number one cause of bankruptcy. It is time.