Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the administration has launched a new campaign to win the Iraq war. The offensive is not in Baghdad or Fallujah or Sadr City. It is in New York and right here in Washington, D.C. The administration has launched another public relations campaign. They did it in the run-up to the war, and they are doing it again in the run-up to the election. The administration will have its Iraqi functionary here in a few days to speak to this Congress. The appearance by Mr. Allawi in the U.S. Congress is meant to give the American people the illusion that Mr. Allawi was elected, not appointed. It is meant to suggest stability amid a sea of escalating violence. The American people will decide what they believe to be true. They have already had a preview, because England was the first stop on the PR campaign. This is what the American people are going to hear over and over and over again. In London, Mr. Allawi downplayed the growing violence in Iraq. Since the middle of June, in just the last 90 days, the chaos in Iraq has claimed more than 2,000 Iraqi lives and more Americans than in any other part of this war, yet the administration's hand-picked administrator says of the insurgency, ``It is not getting stronger. We are squeezing out the insurgency.'' Then, he changed that glowing assessment for a different British audience where Mr. Allawi said, ``Terrorists are coming and pouring in from various countries.'' Now, what is the real story? We will still be asking that question after Mr. Allawi leaves. At a time when the American people need straight talk about what is happening in Iraq, we are going to get carefully planned photo opportunities. The groundwork has already been laid. Just the other day, the President told the American people, ``I am pleased with the progress.'' Really, Mr. President? Iraq today is more violent than ever. Insurgency is either being squeezed out or terrorists are pouring in. Check the morning paper tomorrow or the nightly news if you are not sure which of those statements is correct. Iraq is so out of control that religious clerics are being assassinated in broad daylight. Hostages are being kidnapped from guarded homes and beheaded. And U.S. soldiers are in greater danger than ever. Iraq is so out of control that a new offensive by the U.S. military is being planned for later this year, but not until after the election. Sounds a lot like Nixon's secret plan to end the war. The administration is delaying action because it denies the magnitude of the crisis in Iraq. Instead, they want carefully-scripted political appearances and speeches to make the American people believe that your eyes and your ears deceive you. The coming public relations events are meant to do just that. The President says he is pleased with the progress. Mr. Allawi says elections are coming. Mr. Allawi also admits that the so-called free elections in January may only be about half fair. When he speaks before the Congress, I hope Mr. Allawi will clarify which half of the Iraqi election will be fair and which will be rigged. The American people deserve straight talk, but we are getting double-talk. So is the rest of the world. At the United Nations today, the President said he is ``enforcing the demands of the world.'' Less than a week ago, the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the world that the Iraq war was illegal. At the U.N. today, there was every opportunity for the President to tell it like it is. Instead, he told it like the spin doctors want it, and the world heard the sound of a President in total denial. Later this week, Mr. Allawi will say exactly what the administration wants him to say as their puppet here in the House. He is their guy. This is their war, and they need more money. They will say what they want us to hear, despite the deafening sounds of daily violence underneath their very words. They will say what they hope will silence the critics, because they cannot silence the gunfire. They will say whatever they think will win another term in office, because that is their first and only priority. That is not the way to fight a war or win the peace, but it is the only way this administration knows, which is why Iraq's best chance for peace can only be realized by a regime change in the United States. It will happen on November 2.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, 3 trillion is a very, very big number. Astronomers think there may be a tenth planet 3 trillion miles from the earth. Astronomers are using the biggest telescopes on earth to peer into the darkness of space. Something out there is causing a wobble in passing comets 3 trillion miles away. But here on earth, the President's plan to spend $3 trillion over the next 10 years is causing a wobble in the U.S. economy and a black hole in the budget deficit. Mr. Speaker, Members do not need binoculars to see it or astronomers to explain it. It is not a tenth planet; it is the Republican economics by a Congress controlled by Republicans and the White House. At the rate this economy is going, the phrase ``to infinity and beyond'' will stand for where the deficit is going; but it is only going to go until the second of November.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my home State of Washington is considered a swing State this November. Yesterday, Washington held its fall primary election, the first litmus test between Republicans and Democrats. The results make clear that Washington is going to vote Democratic in a very big way on November 2. Christine Gregoire is going to make a fine Democratic Governor. Patty Murray, Senator Murray, will remain a U.S. Senator. Dave Ross is going to make a fine Democratic Congressman from the Eighth Congressional District, one new seat for the Democrats. Don Barbieri is going to make a fine Democratic Congressman from the Fifth Congressional District. That is another new seat for the Democrats. People know, Mr. Speaker, what 4 years of Republican control has done to America. People know and they are paying attention. So, Mr. Speaker, ask the President to keep coming out to Washington and spend all the money he can. It will be good for tourism. It might even create a job or two, more than he has done in the other Washington. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I got 86 percent, too. We are all coming back and we are going to get our country back in 47 days and a wake-up.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, among all the chaos and the economy and Iraq, the administration is bellowing these days about tort reform. It is the solution to a national health care crisis, they shout. That is the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine and just as phony. Tort reform is a smoke screen by the administration to cover its own failure to do anything about the health care crisis. The administration squandered 4 years and did nothing on premiums, slamming Americans with double-digit increases year after year. Americans cannot find decent jobs. That is why millions do not have health care. Millions of other Americans with jobs cannot afford the premiums. But the administration has to cover its tracks, so they launch a diversion against the lawyers, and they are blaming the other guy because John Kerry actually has a health care plan. The President has a plan. It is called more of the same; 4 more years of record profits for special interests; 4 more years of skyrocketing costs for the average American; 4 more years of failure; and a 17 percent increase for seniors. America needs a leadership transplant, and surgery is set for the 2nd of November.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you an American story. While I will not mention her name, the person is real. The woman is retired and she receives about $900 per month in Social Security. That is the average amount that a retired American receives. So this is more than a story about the one person I know. This is a story about millions of people across America. Millions of retired Americans receive $900 per month to pay for food, clothing, housing, health care and everything else. The administration recently professed its intent to address the health care crisis in this country. The President said so in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The very next morning the administration announced a 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums. Seventeen percent is the largest increase in the history of Medicare. Let me translate the increase into the every day life of an average senior citizen like the one I know drawing an average monthly payment. Over one-third, 37 percent of senior citizens entire monthly Social Security check will go to Medicare in 2006. That is just 2 years away. One-third of that $900 is gone. Now, if a senior is lucky they might have a family as this woman does who can give them some extra money each month. What about those without a family? What about the retirees who have seen their loved ones, their children struggle this these last 4 years without jobs or health care for themselves? After, all over the last 4 years 5 million Americans under the age of 65 have lost their health care coverage. Those who still have it are under increasing pressure from employers to pay more and more of premiums. Every labor dispute is over health insurance. Companies like Ford and GM bluntly say they can not remain competitive as things stand now. These are just the most recent headlines, the tip of the iceberg. The crisis gets deeper. Everyone in America today is either struggling with health care or knows someone who is. Health care is an urgent national crisis, just like the drought we just heard about. But we are not treating it that way. If a category 5 hurricane were bearing down on us in the United States, as one really is, we would see bulletins in the media about the dangers to life and property. And we would see action by government to protect the citizens and get them out of harm's way. Well, America's health care crisis is the perfect storm and it is already on shore wreaking havoc across this country. The damage to lives and property from health care crises is greater than a season of the greatest storms, yet we are forcing everyone to go it alone. Here is one example. A law passed by the Republican leadership on behalf of the President forbids the Federal Government from negotiating lower prescription drug prices for American senior citizens. Never mind the other 250 million Americans who are getting no relief. When a health care plan announces a double digit increase, Americans have a choice, either pay or go without. When companies shift more of the health care burdens to employees, workers can either pay or go without. When half the bankruptcies in America today are from unpaid medical expenses democracy is at risk. There is something fundamentally wrong in a society when people fail because they get sick. When an American gets sick the outcome ought to be health care that makes them well, not medical expenses that make them insolvent. But that is the way it is. When 37 percent, remember, of seniors total Social Security goes to Medicare premiums, when seniors spend another hundred or more dollars per month for supplemental coverage, when they have not included any cost for prescription drugs it begs the obvious. How does someone buy food or shoes or pay for housing? Every senior citizen listening to me right now knows what I am talking about. When medical expenses take at least half of what a senior gets in Social Security, it is time to declare a medical emergency in U.S. health care coverage. It is time for universal health care. As a medical doctor let me immediately vaccinate you from the certain administration attack. They will call it socialized medicine. And they will try to frighten the be-jesus out of you. That is standard procedure for the President and his surrogates. We do not say that about police and fire and roads and schools and everything else we do collectively. But with health care we say, you are on your own. You should be afraid of what they have done over the last 4 years. Nothing for you but lots for special interests like big drug companies. I think the drug companies deserve to make a profit. I mean, they should make something. I also think senior citizens deserve to eat every day and not have to choose between medication and food, and I think every American has the right to get well without going bankrupt. America needs a universal health care system designed, built and financed by Americans. We can look at what other Nations have done and learn from their mistakes and successes. We can create a universal health care system that is of the people, by the people and for the people. The President will call it socialized medicine; I call it ``Made in America.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, every time I hear the administration announce that the economy is going very well, I wish they could ride home on a United Airlines flight with me. On the way back today, four out of the six flight attendants raised the same question with me: Is there money in the pension guarantee fund for our pensions? Mr. Speaker, we know that this country is in a mess. USAir declared bankruptcy this morning. There go the pension for those folks. And Delta Airlines over the weekend, they are talking about it. They are saying if the pilots take those pensions, they will bankrupt the company; it will be gone. United is in the same position. All those people who were out there with Enron, Enron went down; and what did they have left? All they had left was Social Security. Nothing, if this administration had its way. We have an administration that has to be changed. We have lost 1.4 million people's health insurance, 1.5 million people's jobs, and countless numbers of pensions. The regime change ought to come in 49 days.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in the one minute it will take to read these remarks, an Uzi can fire off 1,700 rounds. Uzis and similar assault weapons are about to be legal again, as if we don't have enough to worry about in America. For the past ten years, the assault weapons ban has protected Americans from these lethal, military-designed guns. These weapons are not used for hunting animals. They are used to kill human beings. The assault weapons ban has bipartisan support, both in Congress and across the nation. Seventy-five percent of Americans want to see the ban extended. Even two-thirds of gun owners favor renewing the ban. Yet the Republican leadership has refused to take action. Now, these killing machines will be back in circulation. Good and decent people won't buy them. Those who hate us will, and we have just made it easier. The President says he favors the ban, but he made no effort to get his Republican leadership, which controls both the House and Senate, to bring the issue up for a vote.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ohio has shown one of the hallmarks of this administration, its ability to spin a tale. Say it often enough and the American people may actually begin to believe it. In fact, they are so good at it they may have begun to believe their own press releases. The other day, Secretary of War Rumsfeld delivered a major speech at the National Press Club. Along the way, terror got a new name, Osama Hussein. Or was it Saddam bin Laden? In English, the rule is I before E except after C but in this administration I equals A. Iraq equals al Qaeda because they say so, not because there is a shred of evidence. There is not. Mr. Rumsfeld appeared to link Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath. He has got them all confused in his head now. He has said the story so many different times and they still are trying to connect the al Qaeda with what happened on 9/11. Or maybe it was just a stumble compounded later in his appearance by another gaffe. Or was it reading too many spin memos that your head begins to turn and spin and spin and you do not know where you are. At the very least, this shows the effect of a PR campaign that began well before the invasion of Iraq. The separation between the rhetoric and the reality has blurred into one and the same. Over and over again, the administration has exaggerated the tie between Iraq and al Qaeda. When questions from the Congress and the American people outstripped the rhetoric, the administration's rhetoric got louder, a lot louder. Today it is so loud that it is hard to hear the quiet truth. But it is there. It has been over a year and a half since the President ordered the beginning of hostile action against Iraq. It has been over a year since the President declared ``mission accomplished.'' Absolutely no one on the planet believes that the mission has either been accomplished or will be anytime soon. Even some Republicans are now talking about a presence in Iraq over the next two decades. Is that the plan for winning the peace? Is that the plan or the consequence of going to war in Iraq? Today, U.S. military commanders are using more air strikes in Iraq. If that helps save American lives or keep soldiers safe, out of harm's way, I am all for it. If this is a new military strategy, then it raises the question, why can we not get a lot of American soldiers out of Iraq and get them out of harm's way? It has been almost 3 months since the so-called handover. In those 90 days, 150 soldiers have died and 900 have been wounded. We cannot ask what we are going to do to win the peace because U.S. soldiers are still fighting and dying in a war. This is not the time to ask how the administration plans to win the peace, because there is no peace in Iraq today. Colin Powell came out yesterday and said we have a secret plan that sometime soon we will roll out so we can get stability at the time of the election. What is he waiting for? The election? Or the fact that he does not know what he is doing? U.S. forces managed a weekend without a military death but the death count of innocent Iraqi citizens is up dramatically over the last 48 hours. In another day of war, there can be no peace. Today, the American people have a fog of war, reality obscured by an administration which would prefer that we merely accept their version of reality or versions when the story needs to change. While it may have been a slip of the tongue the other day at the National Press Club, one wonders whether Secretary Rumsfeld inadvertently expressed publicly what he thinks privately. Are bin Laden and Hussein two different faces of evil, or are they some kind of split personality? Spin the rhetoric around enough and it gets hard to separate it from the reality on the ground, here or there. The administration has wrapped itself in the mantle of fighting the war on terror. Just today this administration could have struck a major blow against terrorism simply by extending the ban on assault weapons. These are bona fide weapons of mass destruction. We know where they are and we know how to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys. The President said he favored the ban, but then he did absolutely nothing to make it happen. You think he could not get the leadership in the House of Representatives to act on this if he meant business? He never meant anything close to that. The administration did not need weapons inspectors from the U.N. or air strikes from the military to find and isolate weapons of mass destruction that will threaten police officers and our security officers and our homeland security. All the President needed to do was tell his surrogates in this body and the other body to extend the ban. That did not happen, despite overwhelming support from the American people, despite overwhelming support from law enforcement officers. Instead, the administration used empty rhetoric to disarm a true weapon in the war on terror. The regime is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, in 49 days.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republicans have performed a hat trick. They have control of the House, the White House, and the Senate, and now they are trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. They need money, piles and piles of it. The President's tax giveaway to the very rich soaked average Americans and drained the U.S. Treasury. The President's Iraq war is bleeding the U.S. economy and ballooning the Federal deficit. It will only get worse. Administration surrogates now openly talk about remaining in Iraq for decades. The Pentagon's annual budget is already close to the entire Federal deficit. To feed the President's war, every domestic program, from Medicare to veterans' health, to low-income housing, is on the table. Make no mistake. Domestic programs are going to be squeezed hard, just like the middle class. This is the lemon that we have in the White House. It is the Republican way. Why be fair when you can govern by fear? Think about it. The 2nd of November, it is coming.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, The New York Times today says: ``U.S. Conceding Rebels Control of Regions of Iraq. Pentagon is not certain when central areas can be secured.'' Iraq has come to that. From the day the President launched his crusade, we feared that casualties would mount, and they have. One thousand brave Americans have died. The marker somehow brings it more in focus for the American people. As if 999 would not, or if even one death in this war is not tragic enough. One thousand soldiers killed in Iraq, over 6,000 wounded and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and injured; and the American people still do not know why. The President has changed his reasons for going to war so often that we have lost sight of another casualty. The truth has fallen alongside of those brave U.S. soldiers. We cannot bring them back, but we can honor them by demanding the truth on the 2nd of November. It is coming, Mr. President.

Mr. McDERMOTT

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, young men and women are giving up their lives nearly every day to sustain the President's war in Iraq. They are not in Iraq toppling Saddam. That has been done. They are not in Iraq dismantling weapons of mass destruction. There never were any. They are in Iraq dying in George Bush's crusade. I think it is only fitting that we should give each of the dead a minute of silence here on the floor. But we cannot because we would have to stand here silent for 16\1/2\ hours. That is because today we lost the 1,000th American in Iraq. For what? For what? The President says we took out Saddam Hussein because he was a bad guy. Well, that could apply to an awful lot of people all over the face of the Earth. They went in there with no plan for establishing the peace. And more people have died since the President made his fabled landing on the Abraham Lincoln saying ``mission accomplished'' than died before that. More people have died since they handed over control to the Iraqis than died before the mission was accomplished. This has been an unending disaster. So since we cannot give a minute of silence for every member, let me tell you who has died from my State thus far in Iraq. And I hope every Member will come to the floor and do what I am doing tonight, speak the names of the dead. Think about the futures they have lost and the families they leave behind. And then I hope every American will ask the President why. Why? From Washington State we have lost Lance Corporal Cedric E. Burns, age 22; Specialist Justin W. Hebert, age 20; Private Duane E. Longstreth, age 19; Private Kerry D. Scott, age 21; Second Lieutenant Benjamin L. Colgan, age 30, distinguished soldier who made his picture on to the front page of Time magazine, very courageous and very good soldier; Specialist Robert T. Benson, age 20; Specialist John R. Sullivan, age 26; Captain James A. Shull, age 32; Specialist Nathan W. Nakis, 19; Sergeant Curt E. Jordan, Jr., age 25; Staff Sergeant Christopher Bunda, age 29; First Lieutenant Michael R. Adams, age 24; Sergeant Jacob R. Herring, age 21; Sergeant Jeffery R. Shaver, age 26; Private Cody S. Calavan, age 19; Lance Corporal Dustin L. Sides, age 22; Staff Sergeant Marvin Best, age 33; Specialist Jeremiah W. Schmunk, age 21; Sergeant Yadir G. Reynoso, age 27; Lance Corporal Kane M. Funke, age 20; Lance Corporal Caleb J. Powers, age 21; Sergeant Jason Cook, age 25. These men have died in this crusade in a war that was never understood by the people who started it. They had no reason to go to Iraq and they went anyway, and these people from my State paid the price.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as I got up this morning, I heard on CNN news that the Republican leadership had already decided we cannot do anything about the 9/11 report until next year. What we come to this morning is, first, the gentleman from Florida, now the lady from Tennessee, to tell us that the problem is Sandy Berger. Hey, folks, do not pay any attention to that report, just look at Sandy Berger's picture. Come on, look at Sandy Berger's picture. Look at Sandy Berger's picture. That is what you want to do. This is a distraction by the White House. This is a damning report, and we can spend all the time we want to blaming people here, but the question is what are we going to do. The Republicans say they care about terrorism. This here is a report that gives us concrete things to do; and the leadership of the Republican Party says, well, put this up on the shelf, this 9/11 report, just put it up there, and let us go down and talk about Sandy Berger. Did anything get lost? Did the commission say they could do not their work? Did the Justice Department come to it with any charges against Mr. Berger? No. Now, we do not want to talk about the White House and Vivian Plame, or whatever her name was, that they outed or the majority leader who seems to be in some difficulty in Texas. We do not want to talk about that stuff. Let us talk about what needs to be done with the terrorism report.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the President and his Trade Representative say that the U.S.-Morocco free trade agreement is a good idea because it will strengthen our economic ties with moderate, I emphasize moderate, Muslim countries. Well, first of all, two-way trade flow between the United States and Morocco is around a billion dollars a year. Morocco is a tiny economy with little economic significance. The U.S. Commerce Department indicated the trade agreement will have a negligible impact on trade and negligible impact on our economies. Furthermore, while I recognize that King Mohammed VI has made great strides recently, particularly with regard to the rights of women, we should not forget two very important issues. One, Morocco is a monarchy and the king is deemed the country's religious leader. This FTA is really about strengthening ties with moderate monarchies; Jordan, Bahrain and others have preceded it. There are dozens of Muslim countries that are vibrant democracies, Egypt, that we should have chosen to pursue trade agreements before we chose Morocco. But, two, the way in which Morocco has handled the Western Sahara is really a stain on their nation. In 1975, when the Western Sahara went free from Spain, the Moroccans moved in immediately and said this is our country. It is a very, very wealthy country in natural resources. Both oil is being drilled for by Kerr McGee and other American and British companies, and the fishing industry off the coast is very proficient. So before signing an agreement with them, with a nation that has been occupying a territory to which it has no legal claim for 25 years, a nation that has erected a 2,000-kilometer wall to keep the inhabitants of Western Sahara from fleeing, with a country that has no respect for the right of self-determination, we should have ensured that the area of Western Sahara was justly and peacefully resolved. It would have been a lever we could have used to get them to resolve this. The U.N. has said you should have an election and they just never quite get around to having it for 25 years. I am really pleased, however, that the chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), have worked with me to insert language into the official committee documents to indicate that in no way does the free trade agreement cover trade investment in the Western Sahara. The issue is this: If you drill oil in the Western Sahara and the Moroccans take it into Morocco, is it then eligible for tariff-free dealings with the United States? And the answer should be no, and there should really never have been a trade agreement until that legal claim was relinquished or we had some sort of agreement on all of this. What we do have is a letter which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) inserted in the Record. I suspect I have one very similar to his but he will insert it also in the Record. I will include a letter from the Trade Representatives saying that in dealing with Morocco we are dealing with Morocco as understood by the United Nations and the United States, and we are not using this as a kind of end- around to go out and get more oil. One wonders why did we go to Morocco? What is it about Morocco? It is a little tiny country, very little trade with us. What is being done here that really needs to be done? I think we need to protect the indigenous people of the Sahrawi who live in Western Sahara. They need to have the protection from this United States reaching in and taking their resources by the back door. I thank the chairman for bringing this issue to the floor. Executive Office of the President, The United States Trade Representative Washington, DC, July 20, 2004. Hon. Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McDermott: Thank you for your letter of July 19, 2004, concerning our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Morocco and the status of Western Sahara. The Administration's position on Western Sahara is clear: sovereignty of Western Sahara is in dispute, and the United States fully supports the United Nations' efforts to resolve this issue. The United States and many other countries do not recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and have consistently urged the parties to work with the United Nations to resolve the conflict by peaceful means. The FTA will cover trade and investment in the territory of Morocco as recognized internationally, and will not include Western Sahara. As our Harmonized Tariff Schedule makes clear, for U.S. Customs purposes, the United States treats imports from Western Sahara and Morocco differently. Nothing in the FTA will require us to change this practice. The Administration will draft the proclamation authorized in the legislation implementing the FTA (H.R. 4842) to provide preferential tariff treatment for goods from the territory of Morocco. Preferential tariff treatment will not be provided to goods from Western Sahara. I hope this letter addresses your question regarding the FTA and the status of Western Sahara. I encourage you to support the FTA. It will create economic opportunities for U.S. manufacturing and service firms, workers, and farmers, and will support economic reforms and foreign investment in Morocco. Thank you again for your letter. Please feel free to contact me should you have further questions. Sincerely, Robert B. Zoellick.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, C. J. Chen soon will be concluding his term as Representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (``TECRO''). In this capacity C. J. Chen has spent the past four years as Taiwan's unofficial ambassador to the United States, an important posting and a critical position for the twenty-three million people on Taiwan. Few diplomats have a greater understanding about East Asia and the United States than C. J. Chen. He has been a member of Taiwan's foreign service for more than three and one half decades, and he has spent most of that time focused on fostering ties between Taiwan and the United States. By all accounts, he has done an excellent job. Representative Chen's diplomatic career has been most impressive. He has held a number of important positions in Taiwan's Ministry of External Affairs and capped his long diplomatic career in Taipei by being named Foreign Minister. During the past four years while serving as head of TECRO, Representative Chen has used his vast experience to preserve and expand ties between Taipei and Washington. Representative Chen's advice and counsel have always been sought by Members of Congress who have a keen interest in matters involving the Taiwan Straits. Therefore, his impending departure is a loss for Taiwan's friends in Washington. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I wish Representative Chen and his lovely wife Yolanda well as they prepare to return to Taipei for new challenges. I look forward to seeing him again in Taipei or when he returns to Washington in the months ahead.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this amendment. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans are doing today is a ``needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle . . . without precedent or justification.'' These were the very words used by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1937 when they opposed President Roosevelt's court packing scheme. it was exactly 67 years ago today that the U.S. Senate voted down that dangerous plan. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that you are asking this August body to consider is no less dangerous. This legislation, the so-called Marriage Protection Act, is championed by the Republican leadership. It aims to manipulate, to indeed disrobe the Third Branch of our government, The Judiciary. Any why, Mr. Speaker? Because the Republican Party and this Republican Congress wishes to deny a particular class of people their right to come before the federal courts and defend their unalienable rights. What a horrible precedent. Mr. Speaker, Alexander Hamilton--the man on our ten dollar bill--in Federalist 78 said that the courts of justice are the bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments, and are there to safeguard the private rights of particular classes of citizens against unjust and partial laws. What the Republican bill does is attack the very foundation upon which our Founding Fathers built this great republic. The Republican party says that we ``need to protect marriage from activist judges.'' Maybe there are a few activist judges out there, but this bill strips all federal courts--even the Supreme Court--from considering the constitutionality of a federal law that attacks the rights of a particular class of people. The Defense of Marriage Act is clearly a legislative encroachment upon the Constitutional rights of Homosexuals. Why else would you bring a bill out here that denies judicial review over that unjust and partial law?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland. This is an auspicious night tonight. The President had a dinner downtown and raised $25 million from some of his closest friends. In the recent motion picture, in talking to them, he said, some people say you are the elite, but I say you are my base. Well, we ought to talk about this man's base.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, well, here we go again. Anytime the heat is on the Republicans, the Bush administration, they leak something out and try and smear somebody. The 9/11 Commission report is coming out tomorrow, and just 3 days before it they bring up something that has been investigated for 9 months. They leak it out of the Justice Department. Now, even conservative reporters like Norm Ornstein and David Gurgin have said they are enormously skeptical about this whole thing. David Gurgin said it is suspicious. It is not suspicious. It is what they always do. Whenever there is something coming up, they find a way to leak out something like against Ms. Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission. They never wanted the commission, and now it is going to come out and say bad things about them. So they are going to smear all the people around it as quickly as possible. That is a standard operating position for these people, and it is despicable. Why do they not let the Justice Department do the report? It was 9 long months ago it started. Let them bring it out when there is going to be an indictment. We will do the same for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and we will do the same for all the Members on the Republican side who want to raise these kinds of issues. Why do we not wait until the people in the Justice Department make the decision?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are getting close to election again. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) Congress says it is time for simplifying the Tax Code. But, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that ``tax simplification'' is just the term the Republicans use to start talking about the need for a flat tax or a sales tax. Every year at this time it comes up. The Committee on Ways and Means had a host of hearings about this same issue in the mid-1990s under Chairman Archer. At one point during the hearings in 1995, the chairman said he was convinced that the Tax Code needed to go to a flat tax. He even said he was going to introduce legislation to do it. But, after all the hearings and all of the rhetoric, he never even introduced a bill. Mr. Speaker, we can do two things with money: We can save it or we can spend it. Now, rich people have more to save than do poor people. If all that we do is impose taxes when people spend money, then poor people are going to spend the larger share of their paycheck on taxes than rich people are. I mean, anybody knows that. Poor people spend every dime of every paycheck; rich people spend some and then they put a whole bunch in the bank or in the stock market or in something else. A system based on consumption taxes hardly is fair at all. Legislation has been introduced in the past to convert our tax regime to one that relies solely on consumption taxes. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has introduced legislation to abolish the IRS, abolish it, and force the Federal Government to rely on a national sales tax, a proposal that the majority leader supports. This proposal would be a boon to the wealthy elite. His proposal would tax all purchases on goods and services in our economy, including food, health care, home rents, and new home purchases. The Joint Committee on Taxation did an analysis of the Linder proposal. The study indicated that in order for the bill to be revenue neutral over 10 years, the estimated national sales tax rate would be between 36 and 57 percent. In other words, the price of blood transfusions, prescription drugs, and a pair of sneakers would increase between 37 and 57 percent. Does that sound fair to my colleagues? How do we sell this proposal to simplify tax structure to the baby boomers of this country who are about to go onto a fixed income? We have this big bulge of people who are just about, in 2008, going to start going onto Social Security. You cannot, and that is why they call it tax simplification. It sounds like a good idea. The Health Insurance Association of America states that one of the consequences of a flat tax bill is likely to be a rapid increase in the number of people without private health insurance coverage. One economist estimated that there would be 8 million more people without health benefits if a flat tax proposal were enacted. James Poterba, an economist at MIT, estimated that eliminating the current tax law benefits for purchasing homes could result in a 17 percent decline in the value of the U.S. housing market. Now, what about the payroll taxes? A flat tax proposal may eliminate the deduction that employers pay for their payroll taxes, amounting to a massive tax increase on businesses of all sizes. The American public is not naive, Mr. Speaker. They know that when it is election time and the Republicans start talking about tax simplification, it really means they want a flat tax. If you just give us one more chance, we did not simplify it over the last 10 years that we have been in control. Give us another chance and we will get our flat tax in. Now, when are they going to be honest about these goals for the people? When are they going to be honest and tell the American people that the Tax Code has only become more complex since they controlled the Congress and its tax-writing committees. They have 105 more days to run this charade, but it is coming. There is going to be a change, and not in the Tax Code, but in who runs this House.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me a couple more minutes. After listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), I always can think of things to say. The gentleman tells us that this bill, that I am probably for it; the gentleman is right. This is nothing. This bill does not do anything except do what the gentleman told us he was not going to do. The gentleman said he was going to make the expensing for a while and then stop it. Now my Republican colleagues are making it permanent. It is just one more of those things. But the real point here is, you say this is a start. It is not much. It is a start on the way to what? I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the 900th U.S. soldier died today in Iraq. A brave soldier whose name we do not know yet died in the line of duty. Four other soldiers died yesterday in Iraq. The fighting and dying goes on in Iraq, but the administration does not say much about it. The President did not mark today's sober note. Instead, he hit the campaign trail and did not say anything about the 900th American dead or of the 899th or the 898th, or the other brave men and women who have died just yesterday, not to mention since the war was launched by the President. Iraq is not popular with the American people, so it has fallen out of favor in the President's remarks. By the Republican convention, finding any comments about Iraq by the President will be akin to finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Just not there. They have moved on as quickly as possible, but remember meanwhile, 160,000 U.S. soldiers remain in harm's way in Iraq, fighting and dying because America sent them there, but the America they left behind, not the America they have come home to. That is worth some discussion. We have an administration that talks tough on terror, but they completely overlook Iran. Ten years later the administration's best sound bite today is we will look into it. That is not a plan to combat terror at home or anywhere else. The administration had 10 years to look into it. Instead, they looked to someone they knew on evidence that was flimsy at the start and proven false since; the President committed American soldiers to a war in Iraq. When they could not find weapons of mass destruction, the administration changed the reason for going to war. Then they changed it again. Is that the administration's plan to combat terror? Yes. There is terrorism in the world, but we need real leaders and a real plan to meet that threat. There is terrorism in the world, and America is capable of meeting that threat, but not with bullets and bombs alone. And if you look at the record of this administration, you have to conclude that they do not have a plan on terror. They hold news conferences to tell everyone, presuming they include terrorists, that America should be vigilant, but afraid. America should go about its business, but be afraid. That is not a plan. That is rhetorical duct tape. America needs to be strong, not afraid. We did not win World War II by being afraid. We won by being American. We won by being American by fighting for American values, by fighting for American freedoms, but today American freedoms are under attack, and it is happening right here by this administration. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the administration switched language in the middle of the night and America woke up to something called the PATRIOT Act. There is nothing patriotic about depriving Americans of their civil liberties. There was nothing patriotic a few days later when the House voted to restore some of the civil liberties taken by the PATRIOT Act. Then Republicans deliberately left open the vote until they could force enough Republicans to change their vote. Yes, I said change their vote. The White House had preordained the outcome of the vote, so Democrats and Republicans voted. Then the Republicans voted again. The process was rigged. Civil liberties never had a chance. That is what the administration calls its plan to combat terror. Monitor the books you checked out of the library or the movie tickets you are buying online. They can go to a secret court and gain access to your entire life. George Orwell called it ``1984,'' his legislative novel that we used to think could not happen in America. It is happening. We have law enforcement agencies, smart, dedicated public servants who know how to catch the bad guys. We have the financial resources to arm the agencies with the funding they need to support our people. We do not need 1984 in 2004. Every time the administration says, oh no, that is not what we are doing, another story surfaces about America under suspicion for doing something like taking pictures at a popular tourist site in Seattle, for example. The administration does not have a plan to combat terror. It has a terror alert stuck on ``be afraid, always.'' The American people deserve more than that. America is strong enough to fight the war on terror. It needs a leader strong enough to do it. John Kerry is a decorated combat veteran, a war hero who has seen the face and the horror of war firsthand. America can win the war on terror, but not by subverting American freedoms and civil liberties. America can win the war on terror under the leadership of a sailor who led men in combat and who risked his own life to save others under fire. America can win the war on terror, but it needs a combat veteran to do it. John Kerry is just such a man. We will have him in 104 days.