Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in a mood to lament what is going on in this House. The American people, I think, sometimes do not understand what it means to have one-party government. The United States right now is in the hands of one party from the Presidency through the Senate, right on through the House of Representatives. One party makes all of the decisions. That has a very strong effect on what happens around here. Issues that might raise questions if they are in the hands of the majority party are clearly not raised. If they are an issue of the minority party, who cares because the majority is running the place and there is really very little that the majority cannot do, from the way it has handled the Committee on Rules to the way it handles bills all up and down the line. If it was just the processes of the House that I was depressed or upset about, that would be one thing. But there are huge issues that I think affect the American body politic. When people think about the Congress, there is often a saying, that people like their Congressperson, but they do not like Congress in general because of the things that they see happen here. The first issue that brought this to my mind was the issue of the outing of a CIA agent by someone in the White House. I am not someone who is enamored of the CIA, but still someone who knows the importance of the CIA; and I believe that the protection of CIA agents is absolutely paramount. We cannot have an intelligence agency that is being exposed on every hand by anybody for any political purpose. The issue comes up, there is no outrage in this body. We will give them $40 billion more for the budget for that agency, but we will for political purposes out an agent anytime we feel it is politically, or some people will, anytime they think it is politically expedient. It obviously came from the White House, and we are several months down the road, and there is nothing happening. They have moved it now to a special prosecutor in Chicago. Why there, I do not know. Finally, the Attorney General felt he could not handle it; it was too hot to deal with in the Justice Department, so it is gone. There are other things that happen here. We have intelligence leaks in the other body. There is no outrage anywhere. No one demands an inquiry because the man who did it apparently, we do not know, and it is not clear who did it, but it is clear there should be an investigation of an intelligence leak. It does not happen. Where is the outrage in this place? Is it only Democrats in the minority that feel outrage? Are there no Republicans who care about the intelligence agencies in this country that allow leaks, allow outing of agents? The other thing that we do in this House is we deal with public policy, huge public policy, policy that affects 20, 30, 40, 50 million people at a swipe, not little issues. Sure, there is the museum that goes up in somebody's district, and people get all excited about the pork involved in that kind of thing. Those are not the issues people should be outraged about. The outrage ought to be about issues like, take the pharmaceutical bill. It comes to the floor. Medicare affects 40 million people. The issue sits on this floor frozen in time for almost 2 hours while the leadership of the majority tries to get the votes. We are told that the voting closes down after 15 minutes, but that issue could go for 2 hours. Where is the outrage in this body? Mr. Speaker, one Member even suggested he was given a little extra encouragement.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I think that as we prepare for this evening, the necessity of putting up a minority report on the state of the Union is crucial for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Independent, which is a major newspaper in the United Kingdom, called ``George W. Bush and the Real State of the Union.'' [From the Independent, Jan. 20, 2004] George W. Bush and the Real State of the Union Today the President gives his annual address. As the election battle begins, how does his first term add up? 232: Number of American combat deaths in Iraq between May 2003 and January 2004. 501: Number of American servicemen to die in Iraq from the beginning of the war--so far. 0: Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender to the Allies in May 1945. 0: Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home from Iraq that the Bush administration has allowed to be photographed. 0: Number of funerals or memorials that President Bush has attended for soldiers killed in Iraq. 100: Number of fund-raisers attended by Bush or Vice- President Dick Cheney in 2003. 13: Number of meetings between Bush and Tony Blair since he became President. 10 million: Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, setting an all-time record for simultaneous protest. 2: Number of nations that Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into the White House. 9.2: Average number of American soldiers wounded in Iraq each day since the invasion in March last year. 1.6: Average number of American soldiers killed in Iraq per day since hostilities began. 16,000: Approximate number of Iraqis killed since the start of war. 10,000: Approximate number of Iraqi civilians killed since the beginning of the conflict. $100 billion: Estimated cost of the war in Iraq to American citizens by the end of 2003. $13 billion: Amount other countries have committed towards rebuilding Iraq (much of it in loans) as of 24 October. 36%: Increase in the number of desertions from the U.S. army since 1999. 92%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that had access to drinkable water a year ago. 60%: Percentage of Iraq's urban areas that have access to drinkable water today. 32%: Percentage of the bombs dropped on Iraq this year that were not precision-guided. 1983: The year in which Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs. 45%: Percentage of Americans who believed in early March 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks on the U.S. $127 billion: Amount of U.S. budget surplus in the year that Bush became President in 2001. $374 billion: Amount of U.S. budget deficit in the fiscal year for 2003. 1st: This year's deficit is on course to be the biggest in United States history. $1.58 billion: Average amount by which the U.S. national debt increases each day. $23,920: Amount of each U.S. citizen's share of the national debt as of January 19, 2004. 1st: The record for the most bankruptcies filed in a single year (1.57 million) was set in 2002. 10: Number of solo press conferences that Bush has held since beginning his term. His father had managed 61 at this point in his administration, and Bill Clinton 33. 1st: Rank of the U.S. worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. $113 million: Total sum raised by the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, setting a record in American electoral history. $130 million: Amount raised for Bush's re-election campaign so far. $200 million: Amount that the Bush-Cheney Campaign is expected to raise in 2004. $40 million: Amount that Howard Dean, the top fund-raiser among the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, amassed in 2003. 28: Number of days holiday that Bush took last August, the second longest holiday of any president in U.S. history (Recordholder: Richard Nixon). 13: Number of vacations days the average American worker receives each year. 3: Number of children convicted of capital offenses executed in the U.S. in 2002. America is the only country openly to acknowledge executing children. 1st: As Governor of Texas, George Bush executed more prisoners (152) than any governor in modern U.S. history. 2.4 million: Number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration. 221,000: Number of jobs per month created since Bush's tax cuts took effect. He promised the measure would add 306,000. 1,000: Number of new jobs created in the entire country in December. Analysts had expected a gain of 130,000. 1st: This administration is on its way to becoming the first since 1929 (Herbert Hoover) to preside over an overall loss of jobs during its complete term in office. 9 million: Number of U.S. workers unemployed in September 2003. 80%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce now unemployed. 55%: Percentage of the Iraqi workforce unemployed before the war. 43.6 million: Number of Americans without health insurance in 2002. 130: Number of countries (out of total of 191 recognized by the United Nations) with an American military presence. 40%: Percentage of the world's military spending for which the U.S. is responsible. $10.9 million: Average wealth of the members of Bush's original 16-person cabinet. 88%: Percentage of American citizens who will save less than $100 on their 2006 Federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes. $42,000: Average savings members of Bush's cabinet are expected to enjoy this year as a result of the cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes. $42,228: Median household income in the U.S. in 2001. $116,000: Amount Vice-President Cheney is expected to save each year in taxes. 44%: Percentage of Americans who believe the President's economic growth plan will mostly benefit the wealthy. 700: Number of people from around the world the U.S. has incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 1st: George W. Bush became the first American president to ignore the Geneva Conventions by refusing to allow inspectors access to U.S.-held prisoners of war. +6%: Percentage change since 2001 in the number of U.S. families in poverty. 1951: Last year in which a quarterly rise in U.S. military spending was greater than the one the previous spring. 54%: Percentage of U.S. citizens who believe Bush was legitimately elected to his post. 1st: First president to execute a federal prisoner in the past 40 years. Executions are typically ordered by separate states and not at federal level. 9: Number of members of Bush's defense policy board who also sit on the corporate board of, or advise, at least one defense contractor. 35: Number of countries to which U.S. has suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court. $300 million: Amount cut from the federal programme that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes. $1 billion: Amount of new U.S. military aid promised Israel in April 2003 to offset the ``burdens'' of the U.S. war on Iraq. 58 million: Number of acres of public lands Bush has opened to road building, logging and drilling. 200: Number of public-health and environmental laws Bush has attempted to downgrade or weaken. 29,000: Number of American troops--which is close to the total of a whole army division--to have either been killed, wounded, injured or become so ill as to require evacuation from Iraq, according to the Pentagon. 90%: Percent of American citizens who said they approved of the way George Bush was handing his job as president when asked on 26 September, 2001. 53%: Percentage of American citizens who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president when asked on 16 January, 2004. This article lists the accomplishments of this administration. We all know we are engaged in a war that the President could not keep us out of; he had to go to war. We have had 501 people die. But what people do not know about is that 40,000 of our troops whose enlistments have ended are being kept in under stop-loss orders. There is a major crisis, and the likelihood of the President talking honestly tonight about what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion, is zero, because he cannot talk about solving this problem with soldiers if people do not want to reenlist, or enlist for the first time. They are offering $10,000 to people in Iraq to reenlist while they are in country, and 4,000 people are chafing to get out and go home. Now, that is a situation that is, I think, undeniable. Worse than that, in the President's rush to go to war, is that when he came into office, he had a $127 billion surplus. In the first 6 or 8 years I was in the Congress, there was endless talk from the other side about, we have to have a balanced budget amendment. Bill Clinton did it and actually started reducing the debt. Now, in this year, in 2004, the President will pile up a deficit of $374 billion and counting. Now, that means in this country, or it explains, perhaps, why we have the record number of the most bankruptcies in a single year: 1.57 million bankruptcies in 2002 under Mr. Bush. He wants to tell us this is a recovery. Well, explain that for me. Mr. Speaker, 2.4 million people have lost their jobs, and 221,000 jobs have been created since all of those tax cuts. He promised over 300,000 last month. We got 1,000 jobs. That is 20 in every State: 20 in Washington, 20 in Maryland, 20 in New York, 20 in California, and so on. Yet, he has not asked for an extension of unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, 68,000 people in the next 6 months in the State of Washington will lose their unemployment benefits because the President refuses to ask for an extension of unemployment benefits. Now, presently, we are spread out across the world: 130 of the 191 countries on the face of the Earth have an American military presence. Forty percent of the world's military expenditures are done by this country. Will the President suggest that Mr. Rumsfeld's office be changed to the Secretary of War? I doubt it. They are going to keep talking about defense. But, in fact, we are making war. The average income, and this is where the tax cuts are really amazing, the average income of Mr. Bush's cabinet was $10.9 million. Eighty-eight percent of Americans will save less than $100 in 2006 as a result of those 2003 tax cuts. The average American makes $42,000. Vice President Cheney will save $116,000 in taxes every year. Remember, $42,000 is the average salary. The President cut $300 million from Federal programs that provide subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes in a cold winter. I wonder if they have turned the heat down over at the White House. Think so? No. He will come and tell us everything is great: the economy is picking up; everybody is doing better. Look at the stock market. One cannot eat the stock market; one has to have a job. And this President has done relatively nothing. The previous speaker talked about his assault on public health and environmental laws. As a physician, this has been the most disastrous administration in history. Mr. Speaker, 200 separate issues they have undercut, undermined, done away with; and it has all been done on Friday afternoon about 4 o'clock. They come out, they put a little bit in the paper, and they change the Mercury in the water, or they change the air quality, or they change something. They have made a full-scale assault on the environment in which all of us live. The state of the Union is not good. If we think about the whole question of the amount of greenhouse gases, the United States leads the world in greenhouse gases; and the President says, we refuse to deal with the rest of the world on this. We are 5 percent of the population. We use 25 percent of the energy in the world. We do not have to care what the rest of the world thinks. Will he make a proposal tonight to get us off our oil addiction, or are we going to continually be at war over oil reserves in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan? This President is taking us into a situation from which it is going to be very difficult for anybody else to dig us out. The next President of the United States will have a tremendous problem. That is to say nothing of what he has done with the question of Medicare and what he has done, or not done, with Social Security. He has borrowed all of the money, and we are still going to have a deficit of over $300 billion. And tonight he is going to say, hey, look, folks, I have a plan for us. You ought to privatize that Social Security. You could be doing a lot better if you just had that money yourself. You should not be giving it to the government and getting a guarantee. Let us just give it back to you and you can open your private accounts, and you can all get privately rich. What do you think the people of Enron think who lost everything and all they have left is their Social Security? George Bush and Ken Lay could not figure out how to get that away from them, or they would not have that either. So the question tonight is going to be a rephrasing, in my view, of a question that Ronald Reagan asked us a number of years ago. And I really think this crystallizes the problem with where we are tonight in this State of the Union. Ronald Reagan said to the American people, ``Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?,'' making it all a very personal thing. Now, the problem with the speech we are going to get tonight is going to be more of the same sort of stuff to confuse the American people: I am going to make the tax cuts permanent; I am going to go to the Moon; I am going to go to Mars, trying to confuse the American people and get reelected. The question that should be asked tonight is, Are we better off than we were 3 years ago? The question the President needs to answer for us is, What is the common good, Mr. President? Why, why does all the money in the tax cuts, why does it all go to people on the top? Why is it all for those people? What about the people at the bottom, the kids that are going to college and get deeper in debt; the older people who have still got to come up with $3,500 out of their pocket to get anything out of this pharmaceutical benefit? The question tonight should be, What is in the common interest? What is the common good for all of us? If it is good for all of us, we will support him. But if it is just for his friends in the oil industry and the munitions industry, then I think he deserves to get a pretty silent response. He does not deserve clapping when he stands up and says the economy is great. Mr. Speaker, 1,000 jobs last month, 1,000. 68,000 people in my own State are losing jobs, and no unemployment benefit. How can you call that good?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a constituent in my district named Virginia received something very special this Christmas. The gift, if we could call it that, came directly from the Bush White House and the Republican leadership. Pretty impressive. It arrived on December 23 and stayed through the holidays. It was a notice saying her extended unemployment benefits would end soon. Merry Christmas, Virginia. Eighty-two thousand other Washington residents face the same fate in the first 6 months of this year. It does not matter whether there is money in the account or there is a jobless recovery underway, we realize last month we got 20 jobs in the State of Washington, 1,000 in the whole country. Virginia and thousands of other average Americans will remember this Christmas for a long time as the Christmas when she was forgotten by the Republican leadership and the White House. Tonight, the President will be upbeat. I just gave my colleagues the State of the Union in one household in my district. Virginia is anything but upbeat. She is frightened, she is angry. She calls it unconscionable. We ought to call it disgraceful. I call upon the President and the Republican leadership to recognize the ordinary Americans and support them by immediately passing an extension of unemployment benefits. Eighty-two thousand people in my State will remember.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Well, Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker. We are here, and we are going to have a party down at the White House tonight, and everybody is going to be full of happiness and gemitlichkeit, but the workers of this country are not going to get anything done by the Republican legislature. The leadership of the Republican Congress is ignoring the need to extend benefits this year, just like they did last year. We will be back in January; and there will be all this clamor about, oh, we have to do something about unemployment. We know it now. We not only need to extend these benefits, but we need to fix a quirk in the law that keeps people in Washington State from even getting it if we would extend it. Now, the administration likes to trumpet, oh, the stock market is up and there are a few jobs here and there, but this economic recovery is a mile wide and an inch deep. Two out of every three people will not find a job. That is the statistic out of the Department of Labor in the Bush administration. We know there are no jobs out there. We say, well, try harder. Go work harder. Walk around. Mr. Speaker, no matter how dedicated you are, how willing you are to accept a job, if there is no chance, it sounds to me like, you know, it is like being on the Titanic and looking down to see how many life boats there are and saying, well, I guess I am not getting into one, but I guess maybe the ship will make it. Washington State remains one of the hardest hit States in the Nation, despite being a diverse economy that is a model and a microcosm of America. Too many people are falling through the cracks, and the leadership of the Republican Party does not care. They want martial law in here in this Congress. They would be willing to put martial law out on the streets if the unemployed in this country rose up. For every person we know who is unemployed, there are many more who have been given up, dropped out of sight and out of reach. Washington citizens from all walks of life look to us for leadership, look to us for a helping hand in time of hardship. They deserve it, and for the good of America we cannot turn our backs on our own people. Now, we can go have that party down at the White House, and there will be bands playing and violins, and lots of drinks and good food; but it is sort of like Old England. It is Scrooge's business. Let us have a party, but we will not worry about the people out on the streets. Vote against the previous question and make this leadership bring up unemployment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, his full name was Nayaran Dilip Keshavan Ayyangar, but everyone simply knew him as Kesh. Kesh was a journalist, a Hill staffer, a community activist and a friend to anyone who cared passionately about the political, economic and cultural relationship between his adopted country, the United States, and his native country, India. Last Thursday, November 13th, Kesh was doing what he had done for the past 2 decades. He was advocating that India's interests were in confluence with the United States'. He had just finished taping an appearance on Lou Dobbs's Moneyline on CNN. Ten minutes after leaving the studio, Kesh was dead of a massive heart attack at the young age of 53. Mr. Speaker, as a former Chairman of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, I know first hand the gravity of the loss both countries have suffered. Not only was Kesh's knowledge of U.S. India relations comprehensive, the breadth and depth of his contacts, here in Washington and back in Delhi, was truly amazing. A review of Kesh's career will give our colleagues an idea of why Kesh was such a critical player in the U.S India dialogue. For the past 2 years Kesh served as President of the New York City Chapter of the Indian American Forum for Political Education. Prior to that he was the Executive Director of the India Caucus here in this body. And for more than 15 years before coming to Capitol Hill, Kesh was a distinguished journalist, serving as Editor in Chief of the India Post, as the Washington Bureau Chief of the Indian American, as a reporter for the Washington Times and as the Chief Diplomatic Correspondent for the New York City Tribune. Kesh was educated here in the U.S. at the School of Journalism at Syracuse University and also in India at Osmanis University in Hyderabad, where he obtained a journalism degree, and at Andhra University, where he was awarded a degree in pharmacy. Mr. Speaker, I am certain all members of this body join me in expressing our condolences to his father, a former head of the Indian Geological Survey, his sister, and his many friends, both here in the United States and back in India. We have all lost a devoted public advocate. Kesh's loss will be felt for many years.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, partisan divisions are common in the Congress, but a few issues regularly escape those boundaries. International trade typically is one of them. Although the votes that gave President Bush Trade Promotion Authority confirm that even international trade can be an intensely polarizing issue, it frequently garners support across the political spectrum. I first traveled to Africa in 1961 with Operation Crossroads to build a school in Ghana. Africa in the '60s underwent a vibrant surge of optimism as independence from colonial rule spread throughout the continent. My experience in Ghana changed my view of the world, and many Members of Congress have had experiences similar to mine. Many Members also believe, as I do, that when the United States opens its markets to poor countries, we extend an enormous opportunity to create jobs and raise living standards, and also provide greater value to American consumers. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, underscores the common goals that Republicans and Democrats can share. By any measure, AGOA is a resounding success. It is spurring economic growth and bolstering economic reforms. It is fostering stronger ties between sub-Saharan Africa and the United States, and it is reaffirming Africans' conviction that they can compete in any market. AGOA, which provides temporary benefits, requires periodic review by the Congress to assess its effectiveness. It was designed this way in part because policy makers, like myself, did not know the precise recipe to attract the type of investment in sub-Saharan Africa we were seeking. We made a few good guesses in this regard, but we probably missed the mark in other areas. We guessed right when we decided that we should provide sub-Saharan Africa greater access to the U.S. textile and apparel market. Over the last three years, tens of thousands of jobs were created in this industry, thanks to AGOA benefits. Expiring next year, however, is the provision in AGOA that allows Africa's poorest countries to buy fabric outside the region--where it is inexpensive and high in quality--to create finished apparel products for export to the U.S. Today, I join several of my colleagues, like Representatives Ed Royce, Amo Houghton and Charles Rangel, to introduce legislation to extend AGOA and spread its benefits to other sectors of sub-Saharan Africa's economy. The AGOA III Act, H.R. 3572, marks the beginning of another bi-partisan effort to develop a plan to improve U.S.-Africa trade. When my colleagues and I set out to write this bill, we saw the need to address four key issues. First, the third-country fabric provision available to Africa's poorest countries through AGOA expires at the end of next year, at the very same time as worldwide quotas on apparel disappear due to the WTO's Multi Fiber agreement. Third-country fabric must be extended to allow sub-Saharan Africa to participate in a market dominated by the Asian giants. There will be robust debate about how long Congress should extend this provision. We suggest in the AGOA III Act that these benefits should last as long as four years. Second, the United States needs to provide technical assistance to African farmers to enable them to export their products to America. To do this, the AGOA III Act places dozens of American agricultural experts throughout sub-Saharan Africa to work with farmers and their governments. Third, the biggest barrier to investment in sub-Saharan Africa is the lack of infrastructure. But building roads, ports, energy grids, telecommunication and water systems solely to increase trade flows is simply not feasible. It is the ``chicken or the egg'' dilemma. We cannot increase trade flows without adequate infrastructure, yet why build infrastructure if trade capacity is not at a level that requires it? We must find ways to develop and maintain new infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa as trade capacity improves. One way we can do this is by fostering sustainable ecotourism in sub-Saharan Africa. This industry is expected to grow 30 percent over the next decade. We can help sub-Saharan Africa position itself to take advantage of this because the region enjoys an international comparative advantage with its extensive protected areas that host a variety of ecosystems and cultures. National parks and reserves in sub-Saharan Africa can become a basis for regional development, involving the communities living within and adjacent to them. The infrastructure used to support an ecotourism industry can also be used to increase trade flow. There are several initiatives in the AGOA III Act that seek to help sub-Saharan Africa develop its infrastructure, in part by helping build a viable ecotourism industry. Fourth, we must address AIDS, which is not just a health crisis. AIDS is an economic catastrophe. In the 1990s, AIDS reduced Africa's per capita annual growth by nearly 1 percent. In the most heavily affected countries, 2 percentage points will be sliced off per capita growth in coming years. This means that after two decades, many economies in sub- Saharan Africa will be about 20-40 percent smaller than they would have been without AIDS. That is an enormous decline that no trade policy can overcome. In addition to fully funding international programs to combat the virus, we can provide tax incentives through AGOA to leverage private-sector contributions to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The AGOA III Act would provide a tax deduction to U.S. firms operating in AGOA-eligible countries when they make a cash donation to the Global Fund. As I speak with African entrepreneurs, civil society, and the African diplomatic corps, the enthusiasm about AGOA and sub-Saharan Africa's economic possibilities remind me of the excitement of 1960s. But unless all of us work together as we did before--Democrats, Republicans, civil society, and the governments of sub-Saharan Africa--to build a consensus about extending and enhancing AGOA, I fear that this enthusiasm will go the way of our '60s optimism, as genocide, apartheid, civil war, and famine swept over Africa. We have a rare opportunity to ensure that Africa continues to share our markets. We must not let this moment pass us by. I hope that when the Congress convenes next year, addressing U.S.-African trade will be at the top of Congress's agenda.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, several times this week the House has used emergency procedures to pass partisan legislation. Yesterday, the Congress found time to give tax credits to Wal-Mart, but the Republican majority refuses to consider what is truly an emergency to millions of families, the fact that they do not have jobs, and millions of these workers are about to run out of unemployment insurance. Last year, the same thing happened. The Republican Congress left town about Christmastime without extending the temporary program that provides employment benefits, leaving hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers to worry over the holidays about whether they were going to get the unemployment benefits that they had been expecting. We have heard it has been reported that the majority leader said, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' Mr. Speaker, the esteemed majority leader does not know what he is talking about. Washington State's unemployment is still among the highest in the Nation. It has grown for two solid years as we felt the brunt of the Bush recession. If the Congress does not extend the Federal program that provides unemployment compensation and fix a technical flaw in the Federal-State extended benefits program, over 83,000 workers in my State will stop, at Christmastime, receiving unemployment benefits. I know the economy created 100,000 jobs last month, but 150,000 jobs must be created each month to maintain the employment rate because our population continues to grow. Two days after Christmas, the temporary Federal unemployment benefits program is scheduled to expire, denying benefits to nearly 90,000 workers every single week. The unemployment picture today simply is not much better than it was last year, Mr. Speaker. According to the Department of Labor, there is still only one job opening for every three unemployed workers. In other words, of the 9 million unemployed American workers, 6 million of them have no chance of finding a job in the current economic climate. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that Congress can consider an emergency that faces millions of families, the Nation's unemployment problem. It is Thanksgiving for heaven's sakes, and we are not even going to provide them a turkey at Thanksgiving or at Christmastime. That is really Scrooge, and it is really hard-hearted. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. State of Washington, Employment Security Department, Olympia, WA, November 13, 2003. Hon. Jim McDermott, House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman McDermott: This letter is in response to your request (dated November 7, 2003) for unemployment projections and data. Washington State's Seasonally Adjusted Total Unemployment Rate (SATUR) remained at 7.5 percent for the month of September, and this percentage is 116 percent of the same rate two years ago, keeping the State of Washington in a period of Extended Benefits (EB). The next issuance of the SATUR numbers is scheduled for November 21, 2003. Our forecast for October still shows that the State of Washington will again be above the required 110 percent of the same period for either of the past two years, and will remain in EB status for that period as well. Statistics due out on December 19, 2003 are indicating that the 110 percent criteria will not be met, and we would thus be out of EB for weeks after January 10, 2004. Tables 1 and 2, enclosed, provide SATUR forecasts through calendar year 2005. As shown, the State of Washington Forecast Council estimates that the State of Washington's SATUR will remain above 6.5 percent through 2005. Table 3 provides a count of claimants exhausting all benefits, by entitlement, for the first six months of 2003. Unemployment statistics are very cyclical and we believe the exhaustion rates for the first six months of 2004 will be very similar to those of 2003. Claimants exhausting Regular UI benefits become eligible for the TEUC program and claimants exhausting TEUC become eligible for the EB program. If the TEUC program were not continued, we estimate that close to 54,000 claimants would be without benefits in the first six months of 2004. Additionally, if the EB program were to end in January of 2004 due to the ``look-back'' provision, an additional 28,508 claimants exhausting the TEUC program would be without benefits. Table 4 provides a summary of total dollars paid out to claimants by month ad entitlement, for the first six months of 2003. Similar to exhaustion rates, we believe that payment totals will be very similar in 2004. We estimate that we would pay $282 million out under the TEUC program and close to $83 million under the EB program. Also enclosed for your information is an additional fact sheet on current unemployment insurance data. Please let me know if you have any additional questions, or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Annette M. Copeland, Assistant Commissioner.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. It basically absolutely contradicted what has come out of this Weekly Standard article, and in fact, the Weekly Standard is really the mouthpiece for the neocons, Perle and Wolfowitz and all these people who have been involved in this, and the Defense Department came out and said, this is wrong. I mean, they are trying to bury it. They are trying to stonewall it, and that is why we are out here tonight.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, well, I think you and I and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) all voted no on this. So when I say our ``country,'' I was really referring to the President. You are absolutely right. It was he and his advisors, a very small group around him known as neocons who believed from the day after 9/11, on 9/12 they started talking about how they could go to war in Iraq. And they had the most powerful military in the world and they knew they were going to win the battle, so to speak. But they had no plan for what they would do after that. They did not have one generator, one water purifier, one policeman, one anything ready to put on the ground to bring security and civil society back in Iraq. And the mess we are into now is really about this. That is why it is so good that the gentleman brought this up tonight.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for having this session tonight. I come out here, it is 11:35 at night. You ask yourself, why does a Congressman come into the well at 11:30 at night to talk about Iraq. Well, today was an absolutely stunning day. And I will submit into the Record an article in the Guardian Newspaper from Thursday, November 20, entitled, ``War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal.'' Mr. Speaker, now in an absolutely stunning statement today, Richard Perle, who has been the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, this is the board that talks to the President about what he should do with defense, today he said, ``I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.'' Now, consider what that means. International law says what we are doing is illegal, but we are going to go ahead and do it anyway because we made the decision that what we think is more important than international law. [From The Guardian, Nov. 20, 2003] War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal (By Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger) International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr. Perle told an audience in London: ``I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.'' President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq--also the British government's publicly stated view--or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law. But Mr. Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that ``international law . . . would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone'', and this would have been morally unacceptable. French intrasigence, he added, meant there had been ``no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein''. Mr. Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war. They're just not interested in international law, are they?'' said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. ``It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it.'' Mr. Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event. Certainly the British government, he said, ``has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq''. The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined ``a divergence of view between the British government and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law''. Mr. Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self- defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr. Bush reiterated America's ``sovereign authority to use force'' to defeat the threat from Baghdad. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security . . .

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think that says a lot about why we are in the problem we are in. Because Perle went on to say that international law would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. He admits it. International law would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. Now, how can the President of the United States come before us and present this as an imminent danger and all this stuff when the law says you cannot do it? He did not want to go to the United Nations. We understand why he did not want to go to the United Nations. Why? If he had had to stand up to international law, he would never have been able to do this. Perle went on to say, this is unbelievable, really, when you think about it, he said, ``A divergence of view between the British Government and some senior voices in American public life who have expressed the view that, well, if it is the case that international law does not permit unilateral preemptive action without authority of the U.N., then the defect is in the international law.'' Now, that is like driving down the highway and saying, well, I am in a hurry, and the speed says I can only go 40. The defect is in that sign. It is in the ordinance. I should be able to go 60 when I am in a hurry. I should not have to pay any attention. This country was hell bent to get into war. And they got into war.

Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman raises the question about what the plan was before the war. There was a lot of talk in the government that they wanted to use a guy named Chalabi. And I asked some Iraqis in the United States here about whether Chalabi would be the right guy. They said he is hated by the Kurds. He is hated by the Sunnis. He is hated by the Shia. Maybe it is a good idea to put him in there because he is gone. We are putting all our eggs in Chalabi's basket.

Mr. McDERMOTT. My colleagues are both lawyers. My understanding is they broke a law. It is a felony. Somebody broke the law.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is doing is shining the light on the fact that we never finished the job.

Mr. McDERMOTT. They never put up a sign that said mission accomplished for Afghanistan.

Mr. McDERMOTT. And left a mess and went on to Iraq, and now we have got two messes on our hands. The gentleman is absolutely right, what is happening in Afghanistan is a terrible mess.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think we have said enough for tonight, but this issue will not go away. One fact that I will finish with, this week now, more people have died in Iraq since the war began than died in the first 3 full years in Vietnam. So if we do not think we have got a developing mess on our hands, just remember how we eased into Vietnam, and this is where we are going if this administration does not begin to develop a plan.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I only want to make two points. The reason that this is a bad bill is that it does not take into account what is in the common good. The idea of Medicare is that everybody pays into the pot and then, if God forbid you get sick, you take money out to pay for your health care. Everybody in the United States who is over 65 is covered. Everybody gets the same benefits. It does not make any difference where you live, Alabama, Arizona, or wherever, you get the same benefits. And what this bill does is change the basic concept. What this bill says is we are going to guarantee that you have enough money individually as Americans to go out and buy your own bill. Now, everybody who is 65 and older in this country is not in the same health status, and they are going to get different coverage depending on their health status, depending on where they live, and how much money it costs in their area. Everybody is going to get something different. And the fairness in this program will be gone. Now, that is the first thing that is wrong with this; that we have taken away the idea of a common good, where we take care of each other. Now, they will say, oh, but you can stay in the old Medicare program. Let me tell you what is wrong with that. What they say is that the old Medicare program has to compete with these private insurance companies. So if you do not want to take your voucher and go out to a private insurance company, you can stay in the old Medicare program. Now, we have already heard my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) say that the insurance companies, in meeting the enrollment criteria for their program, they will find some way to figure out where the healthy old people are. They are not going after the 95-year-old mother that I have living in a retirement home in Seattle. They will not be going and recruiting her to get into their health care plans. They want to leave her over here with this bunch. Now, what will happen is the old and the sick will be over here and the young and the healthy will be on this side. And, of course, the costs will be less over here. So if this side has to compete with that side, and the costs are higher, they are going to stick the ones who stay in the old health care, in the old Medicare, with higher premiums. So not only is my mother not going to have the same benefits, she is going to get a higher premium. I, because I am younger and in better shape than she is, will be on this side, and I will get a deal with some insurance company, and I will do much better than my mother. Is that fair? Is that what we want to do? Do we want to separate out the healthy old people from the sick old people and say to the sick ones, well, you are kind of on your own, folks. Hope it works out. Hope you have some kids to pick up the difference. Because my mother has four kids to help her, but not everybody has four kids to help them. So you are setting up a situation where you are saying to grandma, here is your voucher, good luck. Vote ``no'' tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Medicare bill that we will soon consider. This is one of the most important bills in the 16 years I have been in the Congress because we are dealing with an issue that is about the question of what is in the common good. The way Medicare works is, everyone pays money into the pot, and if someone gets sick, then their health care is paid for. So the only people who cost money are those who get sick and need health care. Nobody wants to get sick, but it's good to know that Medicare is there to take care of us. But if we allow this Medicare plan to go into effect, the Republicans would change Medicare into a voucher system, where seniors pay private insurance companies to provide them with health care coverage. And if we use private, for-profit health insurance, we--the government and the taxpayers--are going to pay them money every single month to ``cover'' our seniors, but not necessarily to provide health care. Because if somebody does not get sick or use health care, the insurance company keeps the money. So the insurance company has every reason to not provide health care and every reason to want to get only the healthiest among us in their plan. And that will leave us in the situation where we're paying insurance companies to do little, and they will leave the oldest and sickest Medicare beneficiaries in the traditional Medicare plan. Now, it gets even worse. Because the Republicans want the oldest and the sickest to pay more. They want traditional Medicare to ``compete'' with these private insurance companies based on their costs. But we know the insurance companies will get the cheapest people into their plans. They'll advertise at health clubs, at the top of the stairs. They've done this before; they're good at it. So for those who stay in traditional Medicare, their premiums will go up because the insurance companies will only target and recruit the people who wouldn't use health care. The Republicans will let the insurance companies take just who they want and leave the most vulnerable amongst us on their own. We already know this will happen, because this is exactly what happened before. Back in 1997, we set up this big program, ``Medicare plus Choice''. The Republicans believed then, as they do now, that it would be better to break Medicare up into private managed care plans-- to put everyone in an HMO. They said it would be cheaper, and better. Well, we know what happened. Every year since the Medicare Plus Choice plans came into existence, they have pulled out and left seniors scrambling back into traditional Medicare. In 1999, there were about 7 million people in these M+C plans. Now there are about 4.6 million people in these plans. So nearly 3 million seniors have already been abandoned by these private plans. But the plans were happy to take our money first. We know the private plans take the healthiest seniors, and we know that these people would be cheaper to insure if they stayed in traditional Medicare. We know that these very healthy seniors are 16 percent less costly. These are the healthy people the private plans are trying to get. And the insurance companies are making money on them, hand over fist. They are either making a ton of money for doing nothing, or they are so inefficient that they are losing this 16-percentage point spread. Either way, they aren't very good for us. In their new plan, the Republicans throw even more money to the insurance companies. The insurance companies will be paid even more per person then they already get, probably 10 t0 15 percent more. And we know how these plans operate, they will do their best to get the healthy folks in, the ones they can make money on. And for those who want to stay in traditional Medicare, the price per person is going to go up, so they are going to raise the premium on anybody who stays in the regular program. This is not thinking about the common good. It is wrong, it is un-American, and it is undermining the whole concept of Medicare. Republicans have tried for many years to shift Medicare away from a program of real benefits to a voucher program. This time around, the Republicans call this a ``demonstration project,'' they say it will just be a test. But it could involve 6 million or more seniors, and could be expanded to cover the whole country after six years. And this ``demonstration'' is not something you can volunteer for, or decide not to do--if they pick your city, you're in, whether you like it or not, you're a guinea pig. Don't be fooled. This is not an experiment, this is not a test--this is the first step towards privatizing Medicare, pushing all our seniors into the private market and telling them to make it on their own. This is not insurance, this is throwing them to the wolves. The Republican plan to use the promise of much-needed prescription drug coverage in order to push their agenda of privatizing Medicare is just wrong. We can't do this to our seniors. We can't just give them all a voucher and say, ``good luck finding coverage, good luck finding something you can afford.'' And, just in case you're wondering if this is all, here are a few more things wrong with their Medicare bill: 1. Millions of seniors will lose their existing--and better-- retirement benefits. Companies will use Medicare providing a drug benefit as an opportunity to eliminate coverage they currently provide for their retirees. At least 2 million Medicare beneficiaries will lose their current benefit, which is almost certainly better than the scant coverage provided under this plan. This will make these beneficiaries worse off. 2. The drug coverage provided is weak and inconsistent. Seniors will pay a premium of at least $35 a month, and many will pay more into the program than they will get back. The Republican plan contains a large coverage gap--after $2,200 in total costs, there is no coverage until a senior has paid $3,600 out of pocket, and purchased $5,044 worth of prescription drugs. This means that of the first $5,000 a person spends, only $1,000 of it will come from their insurance. They will pay $4,000 of it on their own. This is not much of a benefit. This means that seniors who spend more than $180 per month on medications will have many months in the year when they pay 100% of their drug costs but will still pay a premium every month. Seniors will only be eligible for drug coverage through private insurance companies that will have wide latitude in setting premiums and deductibles. Private insurance companies will also be able to make decisions about which drugs are covered, as well as which pharmacies seniors can use. 3. This bill is designed to protect an increase drug companies' and insurance companies' profits. The pharmaceutical industry will reap about $140 billion in profits over eight years if this bill becomes law. The bill explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of America's 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. And, the bill does not allow Americans to import drugs from countries where prices are lower. Insurance companies receive tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to take Medicare's business. We take the risk and the insurance companies take the profits. If insurance companies lose money on Medicare, this bill says we, the government, will pay for it. 4. Their ``Cost-containment'' measure is designed to hurt Medicare beneficiaries and providers. Under their plan, Medicare's financing will be unstable and under assault. If general tax revenues account for more than 45 percent of Medicare spending, Congress would have to consider cost-control measures. We know this will probably happen by 2016, or even earlier. Congress could reduce benefits, increase beneficiary premiums, raise payroll taxes or reduce payments to providers.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a little over a month ago, this Act came before the House and I voted for it. I believe that Syria's occupation of Lebanon and questionable policies toward terrorist groups are reprehensible. I also believe it is important for the Syrian government to realize that Americans of every political stripe (including those who, like me, opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq) are aware of and disapprove of many of Syria's actions. I believe it is entirely appropriate for the United States to apply political and economic pressure on Syria to change its policies. However, I have decided to vote against the Syria Accountability Act tonight. I am concerned about the increasing bellicose statements we have been hearing from London. I am concerned that our President may be setting the stage for the imposition of his vision of democracy in more and more places, and that he may use the many findings, senses of Congress, and statements of policy in this Act to promote actions that are contrary to the best interests of the United States. This act is filled with nonbinding provisions that build a case against Syria, based on soft intelligence and reasonable, but undocumented, assumptions. Ultimately, I fear that those provisions could be used to build a case for a military intervention against Syria. For example, the bill before us contains language that speaks of ``hostile actions'' by Syria against U.S.-led forces in Iraq as though this is something we firmly know to be true. It is certainly possible that it is true. Yet there is no conclusive evidence as to the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks that have been carried out against our troops in Iraq. It is just this kind of poorly sourced insinuation that I fear might be used to build the case for a preemptive invasion of Syria. It is unfortunate that the dangerous doctrine of preemption to which President Bush so obdurately subscribes makes members like me, who are truly concerned about wrongdoing by Syria, fearful of supplying the Administration with language like this to wield. I remember that similar language regarding Iraq was misused by the Administration. We meant to express concerns and admonish the Iraqi government, but our words ended up being used as evidence for military action. The standard of proof for a House expression of concern is and should be lower than the standard of proof for an invasion--but I don't think any of us can count on the Bush Administration to draw that distinction. Therefore, I must vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to see comparisons being made between the U.S. situation in Iraq and the situation we were in in Vietnam. Some are valid; some are not. One comparison is completely valid and could apply to any conflict. Soldiers get hurt and maimed and die. As a young doctor, I served as a medical officer in the Navy from 1968 to 1970. I worked in California with troops evacuated from Vietnam, and I see those faces when I go up to Walter Reed today. The issues that we discuss on the floor, who was pushy with the CIA, who knew more than he said, who knew less than he claimed, are important; but they are not important because we want to play some kind of political game of ``gotcha.'' They are important because they are key links in the chain of events that led to more than 130,000 Americans being deployed in Iraq, that led to more than 400 dying, and led to wards filled with boys on Georgia Avenue who do not have arms and legs anymore. More Americans have died in Iraq in the past 8 months than died in the first 3 years in Vietnam. Regardless of whether this war makes or breaks the Bush Presidency, they are dead. I did not support the President's decision to go to war. I believe that whatever threat the Hussein regime posed was being effectively contained. I believed and still believe that the presence of large numbers of U.N. inspectors roaming around Iraq was doing a credible job of making sure that Hussein's desires and ambitions did not materialize into weapons and delivery systems. Containment, however, has a bad name in this administration. But I am old enough to remember President Reagan using it to bring down the Soviet Union. But containment was abandoned on March 19; and it is not over, that war they started. While it is important for us to continue questioning how we got into the war and learn what lessons we can, our urgent task now is to figure out how to get out. We need to know whether there are 5,000 guerillas fighting us, as General Abizaid says, or 50,000, as the CIA apparently believes. This is no small matter. Our Defense Secretary has created his own in-house Office of Special Intelligence to rival the CIA. We do not know which agency is closer to the truth. Lawrence of Arabia in World War I did awfully well with just 3,000 Arab irregulars. They tied down nearly 70 times that many Turkish troops. With a ratio like that, 5,000 guerrillas could tie down 350,000 of our troops. If 50,000 is the right number, we are looking at 3\1/2\ million of our own troops. And remember the Turks did not beat Lawrence, just as the Russians did not defeat the Afghan mujahedeen and Carthage did not rout Rome. Our troops are identified as crusaders, invaders, occupiers, the superpower. American troops are magnets for centuries of resentment and targets for those who within Iraq are happy for the opportunity to stir those resentments up. We need to know whether there is a plan to get out in a reasonable way or not. I do not believe we should walk away and leave the Iraqis in chaos. However much I deplore the way we went in, I do not want to have to deplore the way we get out. It is tempting to do what Senator Aiken from Vermont suggested in Vietnam, declare victory and get out; but it would be wrong. What would be right is to level with the American people, level with our allies, level with the U.N., and make a sustainable plan to leave Iraq; and I pray to leave Iraq better off than when we found it. So far, the President has only said we were going to have an election after we had a constitution. Now we are going to have an election before the constitution and we are going to be out of there on June 1. It looks like it is all tied to the timing of the election in 2004. That is unfair to the people that we are serving in Iraq who have lost arms, who have lost legs, who have been severely injured. The President should be honest with us and honest with the U.N. and strike a workable deal. It can be done, but it requires the President of the United States to get off this attitude of ``bring them on.'' That was foolishness from the start, and now we have people coming in from all over the Middle East to be involved in taking on our troops, and each day we lose more. There is no excuse. But the President goes out to fund-raisers. He goes to Great Britain. He says he will meet with the bereaved over in Great Britain. But he does not go to public ceremonies honoring our dead in this country. Why is that? Is he afraid? Why does he not go forward and stand next to the mothers and the fathers as they lower their loved ones into the ground? This President has never been straight with us about this war, and he is going to have to be, or we are going to wind up exactly as we did in Vietnam, running from the top of the embassy or some other way that we leave the country in disgrace. We should not allow that to happen to our troops.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three outstanding physicians, Dr. Margaret Allen, Dr. Ramoncita (Raye) Maestas, and Dr. Christine Surawicz, who have been nominated for the Local Legends project, sponsored by the American Medical Women's Association and the National Library of Medicine, to celebrate the lives and achievements of America's women physicians around the country. Dr. Allen currently is Medical Director at the Hope Heart Institute in Seattle, where she conducts promising research on tissue repair and remodeling in cardiovascular disease, and cardiovascular gene therapy. Dr. Allen is a pioneer in the field of cardiovascular disease. A cardiothoracic surgeon by training, she was recruited in 1985 by the University of Washington to develop and head its cardiac transplant service. This program received accreditation under Dr. Allen's leadership, and it has been a strong regional asset for many years. Dr. Allen served as director of the program from 1985 to 1996, and also directed the Pediatric Cardiac Transplant Program at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center. Dr. Allen has been active in numerous professional and non-profit organizations throughout her career. Among other positions, she has served as President of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). Dr. Allen has worked diligently to improve access to organ transplantation and to diminish disparities in access across communities. Dr. Maestas is a family physician at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, and a member of the faculty at the University of Washington School of Medicine. Dr. Maestas has dedicated her professional career to caring for the medically underserved. Following her residency, Dr. Maestas practiced at the SeaMar Clinic, a federally qualified health center serving a largely Hispanic population. She then practiced and taught at the Providence Family Practice Residency Program within the Providence health care system, which has a long history of charitable care in the Seattle area. Her current practice site, the Harborview Medical Center, provides much of the safety net care to Seattle and King County residents. Dr. Maestas is a distinguished educator. She serves on the faculty at Providence and the University of Washington, and is a leader in developing the new medical school curriculum at the University of Washington. Dr. Maestas also has made significant contributions to the community. Her prominent work on issues of domestic violence and cultural competency has gained her national recognition. Dr. Surawicz is a gastroenterologist and faculty member at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle. Dr. Surawicz has distinguished herself as a clinician, educator, researcher and administrator throughout her career at the University of Washington. She has directed the Gastroenterology Department since 1981, and since 1993 has served as Section Chief of Gastroenterology at Harborview Medical Center, which serves Seattle and King County. In 2002, Dr. Surawicz was appointed Assistant Dean for Faculty Development in the School of Medicine, a measure of the regard for her leadership among her peers. Dr. Surawicz is widely recognized in her field of gastroenterology. She has published extensively in national and international peer- reviewed journals, and has held several board-level positions in national organizations, including service as President of the American College of Gastroenterology, and as Chair of the FDA's Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Council. I am honored to announce the selection of these physicians, nominated by their peers, each of whom has made significant contributions to her field of medicine and to her community. These extraordinary women are to be congratulated for their years of dedication and hard work. I ask my colleagues to join me today saluting Dr. Margaret Allen, Dr. Ramoncita (Raye) Maestas, and Dr. Christine Surawicz for their service and commitment to their profession and to our community.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, King George II's return to Great Britain reminds me of the return of Richard the Lionheart from the Crusades. The President is coming back to England. He says he is going to meet with the families of the bereaved from 9/11. Apparently, he does not know that 400 people have died in the United States in their service in Iraq. He has never seen fit to meet with them. In less than 1 year, we have lost more people in Iraq than we lost in 3 years in the Vietnam War. But the President has a secret plan he is now revealing. His secret plan is that he is going to declare victory and have the troops out by June 1. Mr. Speaker, this President is leading us over the cliff with no respect for the people that he has put in harm's way. He ought to come up to Walter Reed and visit the wounded and then go out and visit some of the families that have lost people in Iraq. To do less than that is to ignore the sacrifice they have made.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, more Americans have died in Iraq in the last 8 months than died during the first 3 years of Vietnam. There are three Members of Congress who have not put themselves in the secrecy bag in this place, so I represent the 280-some million people in this country who do not know what is going on in the secret world. But it is very obvious from reading the newspapers, whether one reads the American newspapers or the European newspapers, there is an enormous fight going on between the intelligence agencies and the White House. The Secretary of the Army, or the Secretary of War, or whatever we want to call Mr. Rumsfeld, saw fit to establish his own agency which gave information to the President, and the President stood in this very well and told us things which apparently he believed, but have turned out to be absolutely fallacious. Nobody, even the President, has come back and said it is not true. Now, this report, this motion is the minimum that we can do for the American people. We want to know why those kids are dying, why the intelligence was so bad, and why the President took us over there into something that he is now saying, we are not going to cut and run, but what he is doing is calling Mr. Bremer over and saying, how can we get out of here before the election? Now, we have to hurry. We have to get out of here by next June. We were going to have a constitution, and then we were going to have an election; but never mind the Constitution. Let us have the election, and then we will sort of give it to them and run away. Now, the kids that have died, and if you go up to Walter Reed Hospital and you meet those kids who have lost arms and legs, and you say to them, what was the point of what we were doing? If we run out of Iraq, leaving chaos behind us, we will have diminished what they did. They bravely fought for us. I spent 2 years during Vietnam taking care of kids who went through that, and we cannot put these kids through that same thing. I urge everyone to adopt this resolution, or this motion to instruct. It is the minimum.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of a record Federal budget deficit during a time of war, the House today is considering a $23.5 billion tax cut, the overwhelming bulk of which will be enjoyed by oil, gas, and other traditional energy companies. Sometimes tax incentives can be a valuable tool to help spur innovations in the energy sector. This bill, however, merely provides expensive incentives for the status quo that has only increased our reliance on oil that comes from Middle East monarchies that control the price of our oil through a global cartel. Even though Republicans argue about the merits of free market competition, the Republicans-controlled House is about to pass a 1000 page measure created behind closed doors with energy industry executives that would provide billions of dollars in Federal subsidies to oil, coal, and nuclear energy companies. These benefits are provided at a time when the price of oil per barrel is over $30, a price that yields generous profits for oil companies. Never before has our nation cut taxes in a time of war. We didn't cut taxes during the Civil War, either of the World Wars, Korea or Vietnam. Despite our deteriorating fiscal situation, the burgeoning budget deficit, and escalated costs and casualties in Iraq, the Bush Administration and the Bush Congress is intent on sacking our children and grandchildren with an additional $23.5 billion in government debt. In addition to my budget concerns, this bill erodes laws that protect our environment. The quality of the air that we breathe and the water we drink will be worse tomorrow than it is today, if the Congress adopts this Republican-authored bill. This bill would roll back portions of the Clean Air Act to allow certain cities to ignore air quality standards. It would exempt construction at oil and gas company sites from rules on wastewater runoff designed to protect our lakes, rivers, and streams. It provides a waiver of liability for producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has contaminated the drinking water of countless American communities. This waiver, which is sought by Republican Majority Leader, Tom Delay, would shift the cost of MTBE cleanup from its producers to its taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I can create a list as long as my arm detailing the poor policy choices embodies in this energy measure. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.