Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 139) expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should address the ongoing problem of untouchability in India, as amended.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to commend our distinguished colleague Mr. Trent Franks of Arizona for introducing this resolution. Roughly 20 million people in India are subject to discrimination, and sometimes worse, simply because of their caste. Discrimination inflicted against people known as Dalits and Tribals in India is solely based on being born into a certain family. This is an unethical practice and is outlawed under the Indian Constitution. The whole concept of untouchability itself is banned by the Indian Constitution. However, enforcement of this law ought to be strengthened, and crimes against Dalits ought to be prevented, more vigorously investigated and prosecuted. This resolution seeks to state clearly the sense of the United States Congress in this regard. We must continue to raise this issue in our bilateral meetings with our good friends in the Government of India, especially at a time when the United States-Indian relationship has entered into an unprecedented and unparalleled partnership. Furthermore, we must ensure the antipoverty programs and other programs we support in India incorporate the needs of the Dalit community. Our government and our companies that do business in India ought to make a special effort to help these people, because right now they may often have little help in their own communities, although there are programs of the Indian Government also focused on meeting these needs. It is our moral obligation to speak out against abuses of human rights, wherever we see them, even in countries that are our allies and excellent partners. That is why Congress must address the problem of the treatment of Dalits and Tribals in India. We need to be consistent. It is easy to criticize our adversaries, but we have even more impact when we point out the failings, both past and present, and the need for improvement of our friends and allies. The world's oldest democracy, the United States, and the world's largest democracy, India, should work together to end legacies of ethnic discrimination in both of our countries. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that we adopt the bill.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself as much time as I may consume. In 1968, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the world's great champion of people with intellectual disabilities, created the Special Olympics. For Mrs. Shriver, the founding of the Special Olympics was a capstone of her decades-long effort to improve the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. It is a testament to her dogged dedication that the Special Olympics thrives today. Eunice's idea was simple: give people with intellectual disabilities the same opportunities other young people have to develop their physical fitness, to create friendships, and to enjoy the thrill of competition. Today, the Special Olympics offers year-round training in 30 summer and winter sports for both children and adults with intellectual disabilities. The Special Olympics serves more than 2.25 million intellectually disabled people through 200 programs in 160 countries. I want to salute my colleague Mr. Sali from Idaho for introducing this legislation. Mr. Sali rightfully takes pride that his State has landed the honor of hosting the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games. Being named host of the 2009 winter games is a tremendous achievement for the great State of Idaho. There could be no better backdrop than the stark beauty of the State of Idaho and the Sawtooth Mountains. The Special Olympics has become an important global event. The 2009 games will include thousands of competitors from over 100 countries competing in seven different winter sports. It will be the largest multisport event in the history of the State of Idaho. Idaho will be a terrific host for an event that empowers these brave young men and women and builds their self-esteem. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first express my appreciation to our colleague from the great State of New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) for introducing this important and timely resolution. I know the gentlelady from New York would like to be here, and if I speak very slowly may yet get here before we conclude, but whether she is here in person, she is certainly here in spirit. The little village of Lake Placid lived up to its name on two spectacular occasions in the last century. The 1932 Winter Olympics and the 1980 Winter Olympics were two of the most exciting events of our time, featuring the most beautiful backdrops in the history of the games. The organizing committee of the 1932 Olympics faced an uphill battle, raising money for the games in the middle of the Great Depression. But symbolizing the American spirit of generosity, Dr. Godfrey Dewey donated land owned by his family to be used for the all-important bobsleigh run. In fact, the Winter Olympics that year became a real distraction from the Great Depression for all the residents of the State of New York, and, in fact, the entire world. In those 1932 Games, Eddie Eagan became the only Olympic athlete ever to win a gold medal in both the Summer and Winter Games. A great, versatile athlete, Eagan had already earned gold as a lightweight boxer in the 1920 Summer Games. At Lake Placid in 1932, he was part of the four-man bobsleigh team that triumphed in first place. This resolution takes the opportunity to congratulate and celebrate Lake Placid upon the 75th anniversary of the games it hosted in 1932. This town deserves full congressional credit for the efficiency and grace with which it represented the United States during the Games of 1932 and, again, in 1980. But Lake Placid outdid itself in 1980, when it had new facilities and a renewed spirit to host thousands of people for those Winter Games. Those Games became famous for the unbelievable Miracle-on-Ice conquest, when the United States hockey team, a group of amateurs and college kids, captured the hearts of the Nation by upending the Soviet Union's intimidating hockey machine in a dramatic 4-3 semifinal victory. They went on to win the gold. Lake Placid's involvement with the Olympics has grown larger than just those two games. Lake Placid maintains world-class Olympic facilities and serves as one of the United States Olympic Committee's three national training centers. The small town in Upstate New York continues to host international sporting events, as well as some 2.2 million tourists every year. I encourage Members to support the resolution recognizing Lake Placid's historic place in Olympic history and encouraging the USOC to select this idyllic town for future bids in the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games so long as they are not in competition with an applicant from the State of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 521) celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the 1932 Winter Olympic Games in Lake Placid, New York.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify for the record my vote on June 28th in support of the Emanuel Amendment to H.R. 2829, the ``Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act''. During consideration of H.R. 2829, Rep. Emanuel offered an amendment that would strip funding from the Office of the Vice President. I voted in support of this amendment for two reasons. First, I believed that it was important to send a strong rebuke to Vice President Cheney for inappropriately claiming that his office was not in fact a part of the Executive Branch, a claim made as part of a flimsy effort to reject compliance with an executive order relevant to safeguarding classified national security information. Additionally, it was apparent that the amendment did not have the requisite votes needed for successful passage and consequently my vote would not result in the actual denial of funding for operations within the Executive Branch, but my vote would help strengthen the rebuke.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, on June 28, 2007, I inadvertently failed to vote on the Stearns Amendment to H.R. 2829 (Rollcall Vote No. 604). Had I voted, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify for the record my vote on June 27th in opposition to H.R. 1830, which extends the Andean Trade Preference Act until February 29, 2008. When an issue is complex and worthy of substantial analysis, and a bill is presented to us in a format which short-circuits that analytical process and legislative debate, it is my policy to resolve any possible doubt in the direction of a ``No'' vote. Bringing up this bill as a suspension was inappropriate. Furthermore, the Ways and Means Committee marked up H.R. 1830 on the same day that the House considered the bill. Under such circumstances, members of the House had virtually no time to review the bill and I felt obliged to vote no. Had the bill been reported under a rule that allowed perfecting amendments to be considered, I might have reached a different conclusion.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. The visa lottery program is based on the absurd notion that the group of people coming to the United States are insufficiently diverse. There has never been such a diverse group of people. The diversity lottery discriminates against those who live in Mexico, China or the Philippines on the theory, an absurd theory, that an immigrant from Paraguay will add more to American culture than one from Mexico. I think it is time to end this absurd cultural discrimination. It makes sense for our country to let people come here for family unification or because the immigrant brings special skills. The diversity lottery admits people who bring neither. They need no family ties nor special skills. Our other immigration programs require that the person either have a job or a family member who will issue an affidavit of support. Those coming here under the visa lottery have neither, and therefore are free to become a charge to our taxpayers. I look forward to having a comprehensive immigration law so that our immigration laws make sense, but let's kill the one element of our immigration laws that make the least sense now. We shouldn't discriminate against those with family in the United States, those with special skills, or those from Mexico, China or the Philippines, on the theory that somehow we enhance our culture more by admitting immigrants from one country as opposed to another.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman from Illinois not only for recognizing me, but for his leadership in putting together this hour and so many other hours. I thank him also for mentioning that the subcommittee which I now chair has the trade jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee because there is a great debate in this country as to whether to continue, basically, our trade policy or whether to go in a completely different direction. On the side of continuation, and those who favor continuation, they want to dress it up a little bit, add a little perfume, try to make it smell a little better, but those who basically want to continue the policy come in two forms. One is what I call ``the chattering classes,'' the lawyers and MBAs, because frankly trade has been a boom to those in those particular groups. The whole world looks to the United States for lawyering, for management, for advanced management classes. And in fact, those at the upper end of business and law have done extremely well under our trade agreements, notwithstanding the effect they've had on America. The second group are those who took Economics 101 and became so enamored of the theory, so proud that they understood the basic theories, that they chose never to question whether those theories actually applied to real life. On the other side of this debate are those from the heartland who have seen the actual effects of trade on their districts, and those of us who are just a little skeptical of a policy that has cost America a trade deficit last year of $800 billion. What does that mean? That means that we bring in the Toyotas and the Volvos and the Mercedes, and what do we give in return? We give IOUs, promissory notes, investment assets, stocks and bonds. So every year we have to borrow $800 billion, and that number will be higher; it was a little less than $800 billion last year, it will be a little more than $800 billion this year. Now, when those Toyotas and Mercedes come over, they are never going back to Germany and Japan. But those promissory notes, those stock certificates, those bonds, those U.S. Government bonds, the private sector bonds, not only do we have to sell another $800 billion of them this year, but we have to fear that they are going to cash in the ones we gave them last year and the year before. The Mercedes are never going back to Germany, but the promissory notes we gave to Germany, they're coming back someday. And so those of us who are not on the front lines in terms of our districts have to worry about what our trade policy has meant. So why is it that the theory breaks down? Isn't trade good for everyone? And isn't the way to encourage trade and fair access and open markets to negotiate a reduction in tariffs around the world? Sounds great, doesn't it? If you think the whole world operates the way America operates. You see, if you are sitting in Beijing, and you want access to the American market, then you realize that the only way we in Congress, the only way we in the Federal Government affect the behavior of consumers and businesses is to pass written laws and regulations. And so, if you're in Beijing and you want access to America's markets, you negotiate to change America's laws and regulations. And once you do, then your goods can come flooding into the United States because individual businesses and individual consumers will buy them. And we, being basically ignorant of the world and in love with our theories, somehow picture China as just a poor, but larger, version of the United States, a place where their markets will be open if they only will change their written laws and regulations. And so we sign deals, and laws and regulations are changed. And when laws and regulations are changed, the United States, the effect is dramatic. And when laws and regulations are changed in an awful lot of countries, there is no effect at all, because if a society is not a society that follows the rule of law, then when we negotiate for a change in laws, we negotiate for an empty sack. And that is what happens, for example, with China. Imagine yourself a Chinese business person, and you get a call from a commissar, maybe a member of their Parliament, saying, Don't buy the American goods, buy the French goods, because the French are smart enough to demand fair trade; they are going to insist on balanced trade. If we want access to the French market, we've got to buy their stuff. So buy the French stuff. That will help our international position. Don't buy the American goods. You get that instruction orally. There is nothing America can do about it. Even with all of our wiretapping, it's highly unlikely that we will ever hear the conversation. And what happens? We don't sell the American goods. That is where the theory breaks down. A society that follows the rule of law, negotiating for a change in laws with a society that does not follow the rule of law. That is why it is foolish for us to enter into these trade deals. So, those who want to keep our trade policies pretty much the way they are are a little angry because the facts aren't on their side. Last year's trade deficit was bigger than the year before and bigger than the year before that, and this year's will be still higher. So they resort to ad hominem attacks on people like the gentleman from Illinois and myself. They describe us as simpletons, too dumb to understand their highfalutin theories, as Luddites, as xenophobes, and as people protecting the parochial interests of the heartland and Midwest. Well, I am certainly no proof of whether we are all simpletons or not; I can't offer you anything there. I'm sure we are going to hear from quite a number of quite eloquent and brilliant legislators who will give the lie to that argument. But I can give the lie to the argument that we are here protecting parochial interests of the American heartland, because, as the gentleman points out, I am from Los Angeles. Our port is doing real well. The goods come into the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in enormous quantities in those containers, and then the containers go back empty or filled with raw materials and scrap iron. And also, in addition to representing the city of Los Angeles and its port, the port isn't actually in my district, but my city runs it, I also represent half the city of Burbank. And if there are any industries that benefit from these trade agreements, there are those industries that don't really produce much of a physical product, but rely on getting paid for intellectual properties, our drug companies and our entertainment companies. And so, if I was here out of parochial interest, I might point to this or that different industry in my district or my city. And if any district should support these trade deals, it ought to be mine, but no district in America should support these trade deals because they are undermining the value of the dollar, they are undermining the power of America, and, ultimately, they are unsustainable. For how many years will the world loan us $600-, 700-, $800 billion a year? For how many years will the world send us the Toyotas and Mercedes and expect nothing but pieces of paper in return? The day of reckoning is coming. Perhaps the implosion of the U.S. dollar is coming. But things that cannot go on forever don't, and a trade deficit of $800 billion and growing is simply unsustainable. I have a lot more to say, but so many others do as well. I will yield back to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address two issues involving international economics. The first is the World Bank. The entire world has been fixated on whether Mr. Wolfowitz arranged $195,000 for his paramour, which shows how little attention we pay to things at the World Bank that really matter. Because while we were focused on that, no one focused in the media on the fact that the World Bank is sending over $1.3 billion, roughly a quarter of it our tax dollars, to the government of Iran. Now we are told that this is for wonderful projects in Iran having nothing to do with the government. We here in the House understand something about politics. One of the ways you get reelected, one of the ways the Iranian government holds on to power is to bring home the bacon. I know it's not kosher, I know it is not halal, but that's what that government does, and the World Bank helps them do it. Now, we saw how did the United States use its clout inside the World Bank? Not to stop these loans to Iran and not to stop their disbursements, over $200 million being disbursed by Mr. Wolfowitz himself, but for only two goals. One was to try to prevent the World Bank from being involved in family planning; and the other was to protect Mr. Wolfowitz's career, notwithstanding his errors of judgment. Where is this administration when it comes to prioritizing and representing the national security interests of this country? Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and all we can do with our clout in the World Bank is try to protect one individual of flawed judgment. Second, I would like to address the idea of granting Fast Track to this administration. I am sure that when the President seeks an extension of Fast Track, he will offer those of us on the Democratic side all kinds of wonderful promises. But keep one thing in mind: Any trade deal that requires on this President for enforcement will be enforced only to the extent this President wants it enforced. Look at the Iran Sanctions Act. This President refuses to acknowledge that any facts exist that require him to even decide what to do with regard to investments in Iran. I assure you that if we sign a deal with the best possible labor standards but Presidential enforcement and something were to come to pass, perhaps a coup in Peru and all of a sudden every labor leader in the country is shot in cold blood, this President will not act to enforce those labor standards. He may express some concerns, but any agreement involving our trade which requires this President to acknowledge facts occurring on the ground is a nullity except to the extent that the President chooses to. Because we could have a circumstance where there is no enforcement of corporate interests without Presidential action, and he will act; and we could have a circumstance where there is no enforcement of labor standards without Presidential action, and you can be sure he will not. So I look forward to changing the policies of this administration. Let us hope that at the World Bank we focus on preventing loans to Iran, rather than irrelevancies involving one particular paramour; and let us hope that this House takes responsibility, its responsibilities under article I of the Constitution to deal with international trade issues in regular order and not to put American jobs on the Fast Track abroad.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for taking the time and focusing on an issue that is relevant to just one district, namely mine, a facility that is in my district. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for coming out to my district and for meeting with veterans and for meeting with those who run the VA in our area and for understanding this issue so well; and for meeting with the one developer who opposes this bill. And I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida for taking her time to study an issue that after all just relates to one district and one facility. Now, let me tell you why we are here. It is a story that I can relate briefly. A developer came to our community and said they would like to provide housing for 150 homeless veterans with substance abuse problems in our suburban neighborhood. You can imagine in some communities those who believe in NIMBY-ism, ``not in my backyard,'' would have said, oh, take care of veterans, but not here. I am proud of my community. I had countless meetings. Yes, there were a few naysayers. But finally after many meetings, the community was clear, we want to help this project. We want to help veterans, particularly those that are homeless and suffering from substance abuse problems. We as community organizations want to volunteer, our veterans organizations want to send people, our employers want to provide jobs, all so homeless veterans can get the help they need not only with housing but with substance abuse problems. What we got in return was a clear statement of three principles: that the facility would be for veterans only; that there would be adequate staffing ratios set forth in the lease so that as long as the lease would run, we would know that it was adequately staffed; and, finally, that the facility be clean and sober because it was designed for homeless veterans with substance abuse problems. We wanted to provide the special environment these veterans need to recover. And we assumed that once we as a community urged the VA to go forward with a program, they would open it up to a variety of organizations and say we've got two empty buildings right here in the City of Los Angeles in the North Hills community; come and give us your proposals. Instead, something else happened. First, for reasons I do not understand, the VA decided to spend a lot of time just focused on one developer. Second, that developer, who had promised our community, and these promises were reduced to writing, that the program would have guaranteed staffing ratios, decided to back out of that promise, decided that they would rather not have to provide any particular level of funding. They had come to us and said the program would be veterans only and would be alcohol free. But then they discovered that certain sources of funds would be available to them only if it was for general public housing; and that in order to get certain sources of funding from HUD, they would have to open it up to non-veterans and they would have to allow alcohol because in a general housing facility open to all types of homeless people, you don't turn to every homeless person and say, We will give you a roof, but you can't have a beer. So they had to change the proposal from a design to treat homeless veterans' abuse problems in the best way possible, to one that was a general proposal. And VA headquarters decided they had already had so many discussions, it was easier for them, they wanted their statistics to look good, they wanted to cut the ribbon on a facility, that they would just go down the road and provide a 75-year, rent-free lease on valuable land in valuable buildings in the City of Los Angeles to this developer, allow non-veterans, allow alcohol use, not require any staffing ratios. Now, what does my bill provide? It says to the VA: have an open process; allow the Salvation Army to submit a proposal; allow U.S. Vets to submit a proposal; allow the groups that met with the chairman in my district to submit proposals; and do your best to get a facility that is veterans only; that has adequate staffing ratios guaranteed; and that provides the alcohol-free therapeutic environment these veterans need. Do it in less than a year, says the bill. And if for some reason you can't find some qualified organization to submit a qualified proposal, then go forward. Do your best for veterans, but go forward, because we don't want to delay the use of these buildings to provide care for veterans for any significant amount of time. I am confident that if the VA opens its process that these groups who have met with me and who have met with the chairman will come forward. Now, I have recently seen a letter that is issued by the one organization that does not want an open process. They would rather just go ahead and sign a lease. Keep in mind the four issues: staffing; alcohol prohibited; veterans only; competitive bidding. This comprehensive and long-letter response doesn't deal with the staffing issues because there is no reason to sign a 75-year, no-rent lease without the VA at least putting in there you will have so much staff. This long response does not deal with the issue of alcohol use because there is no reason that an organization that wants to help homeless veterans with substance abuse problems would allow alcohol except for the reason that that opens up funding sources that they otherwise don't have. Instead, they focus on two other issues. The first is they say legal counsel has advised us that restricting the project to veterans only would expose us to legal liability. That is their phony argument for not having it veterans-only. Why is it phony? I used to be a lawyer. I could have advised any client who paid me that they would face legal liability if they scratched their nose. The fact is while anybody can get sued for anything, any activity, including breathing, can subject you to theoretical legal liability, all over this country we have veterans-only housing. We have a dozen projects in L.A. County alone. And while you can always find a lawyer to say something could subject you to possible legal liability, none of these hundreds of veterans- only housing facilities has been sued. What is the real reason? They say we have located funding sources that will not allow veterans only. That happens to be true. The Salvation Army and U.S. Vets, I am convinced and they are convinced, can find the funding sources that will allow for veterans-only projects. But this New Directions group has found only the wrong funding sources. It is true there are many properly funded veterans-only clean and sober housing facilities across this country, but it is harder to do that kind of project than to do a project that can accept funding from those sources dedicated to general public use. This may be an issue we in Congress want to look at. We may want to make it easier to have veterans housing in this country, to allow veterans-only projects that are alcohol-free to compete for the HUD money from particular programs, but that is a national issue. The local issue is that many organizations can do it right and can get their funding from sources that want to fund veterans-only clean and sober facilities. Now this organization has given me an oral promise that at least initially they will only have veterans living there; but it is a 75- year, rent free, no-competitive bidding contract; and we will have no assurance that within years this project will not include both veterans and non-veterans. This is of such importance to veterans of L.A. County because there is valuable land owned by the VA in my district, and even more valuable in an adjoining district, and every group with a good cause comes and says, Let us use this land for a non-veterans project. Sell this land and give us the money and we will help people somewhere. But the veterans of L.A. County are very clear.

Mr. SHERMAN. So what this bill does is it opens the process to competitive proposals. It allows other groups like U.S. Vets and the Salvation Army to submit proposals. It urges the VA to try to create what we always wanted to create--veterans-only, staffing ratios, alcohol-free, and it gives them 1 year to do this. I hope they will act much, much more quickly, and I will push those other groups to submit their proposals very quickly. Speaking of quickly, I should end this speech quickly.

Mr. SHERMAN. I am convinced the goal could be done in months. The bill does not provide for a super technical process. It simply says invite other groups under this bill to provide competitive bids, and it provides an absolute limit of 1 year. So this is a short-term process. We already have other groups thinking about making proposals. They are reluctant to make proposals until they are asked for it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. You know, it is heartwarming to sit here for a while and to listen to these personal tales of our good friend, Juanita Millender-McDonald. I first got to know Juanita in our days as activists during the 1980s on the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee. Both of us entered State government in the early nineties; both of us came here to Congress in the mid-90s. Juanita broke barriers. Juanita led the charge. She was the first African-American woman on the Carson City Council, the first African- American woman to chair the Revenue and Taxation Committee of the California Assembly, where I enjoyed working with her on State tax issues. Juanita was the first African-American woman to give the Democratic Radio Address response. And finally, she was the first African-American woman to serve as Chair of the House Administration Committee. Now, her fine work on that committee has been detailed by so many of the prior speakers who have come to this floor. And the prior speakers have also spoke of her work on the Transportation Committee, where we in Southern California are so grateful to her for her efforts on behalf of the Alameda corridor. Juanita will be missed, of course, by her husband James, by her five children and by her five grandchildren. She will be remembered here for her record of legislative accomplishment, and she will be remembered here for the spunk she showed every day. And finally, she will be remembered for the courage she showed in these final days, because Juanita barely mentioned to her closest friends that she was a bit under the weather. Right up to the end she was fighting the good fight. Juanita's courage and strength will be remembered.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Eshoo for offering this important legislation that I am proud to have cosponsored, honoring the life and achievements of Leo McCarthy and expressing the sorrow of the House of Representatives on his death. The resolution properly recounts and reflects Leo's many accomplishments, a lifetime dedicated to effective service on behalf of the people of California and of the United States. Yet Leo McCarthy's life was much more than the titles he earned and the awards he accumulated. He was a loving husband to Jacqueline, his wife of 51 years, and a father of four children and 11 grandchildren. When Leo McCarthy died on February 5, he also left a world of friends. It is fitting that my colleagues have obtained the opportunity to speak of Leo's many outstanding personal accomplishments and his qualities, his loyalty, his friendliness, his wise counsel. Those of us who knew Leo knew these qualities well. As Speaker of the California Assembly for 6 years, and then during his unprecedented three terms as Lieutenant Governor, Leo was responsible for path-breaking legislation such as the California Coastal Act and the Nursing Home Patients Protection Act. He led the way toward implementation of important initiatives to educate business on the value of employer-provided health care and programs to help welfare recipients move into the workplace. Leo was a charitable man who encouraged public service through his contributions and his service at the University of San Francisco and as head of the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good. I join in expressing the profound sorrow of this House and in offering my personal condolences to the McCarthy family on Leo's death. Our prayers are with all of you who mourn Leo McCarthy.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a process that shows our troops that America is a functioning democracy, and that we are engaged in discussing a resolution that reflects the views of the vast majority of the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, a distinguished Member of the Congress and of the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a long war on radical Islam, a war the President has analogized to the Cold War. Two roads in that war lead to disaster. The first disastrous road would be to abandon the battle, appease, disarm, blame America, and speak to Syria and Iran about what concessions we are going to give them. The second disastrous course is to stay the course in our utter fixation on Iraq as the only battlefield in the global war on radical Islam. Those who propose that we stay the course, an erroneous course, I might add, give four different reasons: First, they say that if we do not stay in Iraq and prevail, then terrorists will have a place to gather and plot against us. Mr. Speaker, terrorists can plot against us in the deserts of Somalia. Terrorists are plotting against us in the mountains of North Waziristan, in the mountains of Pakistan. Mr. Speaker, terrorists can plot against us in an apartment building in Hamburg. Even if we prevail in Iraq, terrorists will always be able to find a conference room. The second reason we are given is that if we do not prevail in Iraq, the terrorists there will follow us home. Well, keep in mind on 9/11, the vast majority of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a country with an apparently stable and obstensibly friendly government. So even if Iraq were stable and friendly, individual Iraqi terrorists might well come to the United States and carry out actions against us. Third, we are told that we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to stay there, to stay the course. We have liberated the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, a man who killed millions in his war against Iran and against the Kurds. Now we have given the Iraqi people an opportunity to come together. We have bled sufficiently for Iraq. Finally, we are told that we owe it to those Americans who died in battle to stay in Iraq until Iraq is a model democracy. I would argue that instead we owe it to those who died to have an intelligent foreign policy that safeguards America. That starts with learning the lessons of the Cold War. Remember the 1960s and the 1970s, when we were told that if we didn't support every escalation in Vietnam, then the Communists would follow us home or, in the parlance of that day, there would be Communists on the beaches of southern California. Well, we won the Cold War because we pulled out of Vietnam. The short-term outcome in Vietnam was not what we would have liked, but even if we had stayed in Vietnam another decade, it would have been no different. We won the global war on communism because we waged it globally, and we did not become fixated forever on Vietnam. The time has arrived to pull back from daily battles on the streets of Baghdad. It is time for Iraq to no longer be viewed as the sole or exclusive battlefield in the war on terrorism. It is time instead for us to focus on the one part of the global war on terrorism that could lead to hundreds of thousands of American deaths, and that is Iran's nuclear program. We need to mobilize all of our diplomatic leverage to reshape our policies towards Russia, Europe and China, toward the single goal of putting together a coalition that will put the pressure on Iran necessary to force that country to abandon its nuclear program. We owe this to those who have died in Iraq, and we owe it to the American people. Finally, we are told that this resolution is nonbinding, meaningless, that the President will ignore it, that the only way we have of affecting policy is to cut off funds, which is constitutionally problematic, since it involves tying in the hands of the Commander in Chief while we have troops in the field. But the very people who say this resolution is meaningless have it in their power to make it meaningful, have it in their power to avoid such constitutionally problematic approaches. Because if the Republicans will vote for this resolution, they will make it meaningful, they will make it decisive, the President will not ignore it, we will jolt the President into abandoning his stay the course, escalate the course approach. Those who vote against this resolution may keep it from being meaningful. But if even a third of the Republican caucus votes for this resolution, then the President will no longer stay the course, he will be jolted, he will work with Congress cooperatively towards a foreign policy that makes sense for our country. I look forward to having enough votes for this resolution so that it is, indeed, meaningful. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Oberstar.