Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you, I just want to add, before reserving the balance of my time, I want to thank Mr. Allen for offering a very specific plan and to once again remind all of you who are watching the debate that to charge the Democrats don't have a plan simply isn't true. We have a large number of them. We are just trying to get the Commander in Chief to start paying attention to them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I guess the first thing I want to point out, and there are other arguments I want to make, but during Mr. Lewis' comments, and I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from California, he mentioned that, you know, George Washington never retreated. Well, as it happens, I just read a biography of Mr. Washington, and not to go puncturing holes in the midst of our great Nation, he retreated a fair amount, actually. In fact, I don't know where we got this idea that the great leaders of our time only went forward. We have heard about President Kennedy and President Truman. At one time or another, they retreated from a fair number of battles. Now, sometimes that was a wise and tactical maneuver to win the larger war. Sometimes it was a mistake. History judges, but I think it does sort of portray the thinking of the President that the only way is forward, regardless of the details. A little more thought, I think, might help us. I will return to that point at the end of my remarks. But the first thing I want to say, I think this is by and large a very good debate on a very important issue facing our Nation. The only time I become troubled in this debate is when speakers on the other side say that this is just political, and that this resolution is irrelevant. What they are saying is that the opinion of the United States House of Representatives on the most important public policy issue facing our Nation today is irrelevant. The opinion of the people's House doesn't matter. Now, that explains a lot for the last 4 years while the minority party was in the majority, when they did not question this President, when they did not express their opinion in a way that would move us in a more positive direction. I feel very strongly that it is absolutely the responsibility of those of us in Congress who represent people, our constituents, to express our opinion. In a way we are expressing their opinion. That is what we are supposed to be here in the House, the most directly reflective voice of the people of this country. So to say that this is irrelevant is just an absolute attack on the Constitution and the way this country is supposed to be set up. We must express our opinion on the most important issues of the day. Then we come to the next issue, which is, you cannot question the Commander in Chief. He is the guy in charge, he knows more than the rest of us. You cannot question him. It undermines everything. Let me say I express a certain amount of sympathy for the view that we should place faith in the Commander in Chief. That is a good part of the reason why I voted for this resolution 4 years ago. A little more than a year after 9/11, our President was saying to us, To prosecute the broader war on terror I need this authority. And I had my doubts, but, by and large, I want to be supportive of the Commander in Chief, recognizing the power he has. But the question I have for the minority is for how long? How many mistakes does this President have to make before we don't have an obligation, not just a right, but an obligation to express our disapproval and try to get him to move in a different direction? Books have been written, more than I can count, about all of mistakes that this President has made in Iraq; books not written just by opponents of the war, many of them written by proponents, outraged that they took their idea, the President took their idea and made such a hash of it. We have an obligation at some point to stand up and say, enough. Mr. Commander in Chief, I am sorry, but based on 4 years, we do not trust you enough to give you a blank check anymore. We have to express our opinion, and that is what this resolution does. Let me also assure you, we want to win. We, on this side of the aisle, recognize everything that has been said on that side about the threat that al Qaeda and their followers present. We will fight them anywhere, anytime, because we recognize that threat. In fact, I believe that there is al Qaeda in Iraq, and we should fight them. But what we are talking about specifically today, and Mr. Buyer mentioned the 21,000 troops, that is the aspect of the plan that we focused on, precisely because that is the aspect of the plan that is most wrong, that does the exact wrong thing, sending 21,000 U.S. troops to fight in a civil war that has been better described by some of my colleagues, so I won't go into it any further, that they cannot possibly sort out the bad gays from the good guys is the exact wrong thing to do. Given that feeling, and I have personally thought about this a great deal, I met with the President on a couple of occasions as he outlined this plan. I talked with many soldiers who served, gotten many opinions on this, and have come to the honest conclusion that it is a mistake, that it undermines our ability to win that larger war against al Qaeda, which is the war we are fighting. Given the fact that I feel that way, I would be betraying everything that I said I was going to do when I got elected if I didn't on the Record express that opinion. That is what this resolution does. So I know this hope will go unfulfilled, but I would hope at a minimum that the minority can stop saying that the opinion of this House is irrelevant. If they feel that way, they should all just go home. All right, it matters. You may disagree with the opinion we are expressing. I urge you to vote ``no'' if you feel that way, but I don't feel that way. I feel we need to tell the Commander in Chief that he has led us down one too many blind alleys. We disagree with him. We want him to change course, and that is the will of the people's House, being expressed by us. That is not just our right. It is our duty as Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly four years since the war in Iraq began--four-and-a-half since President Bush and his team in the White House started the effort to launch our nation on the path to this war. We learned a lot during that time frame, but two things stand out. First, the war effort has failed to achieve the outcome the President hoped for, instead creating problems he clearly felt would not come to pass. Even he admitted that he is dissatisfied with the way the war has gone. Second, at every step along the way, beginning with the way the President got us into the war, right up to the President's latest plan to once again increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, President Bush and his administration made mistake after mistake--failing to an almost incomprehensible level to learn from past errors or to demonstrate even a modest level of competence in prosecuting this war. Countless books from all points on the political spectrum lay out in painful detail all the mistakes this administration made in Iraq. It is way past time for this Congress to stand up and say enough. We disapprove of what President Bush is doing in Iraq. But our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that such a statement is meaningless. This is an astounding assertion. The United States House of Representatives--the elected voice of the people of our Nation--stating clearly and on the record how they feel about the single most important policy issue of our time is meaningless? This opinion, expressed by the minority party, perhaps explains the utter lack of oversight and accountability that they employed when they were in charge--standing by and acting as mere cheerleaders for the President's actions in Iraq as he made mistake after mistake. The other side of the aisle at least has a consistent record of believing that the opinion of Congress, a body our Constitution set up as a coequal branch of government with the Executive, is meaningless. As much as I disagree with this conclusion as to the proper role of Congress in expressing its opinion on the Iraq War, I do understand this initial reluctance to pressure President Bush to change course. In a time of war we all want to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief as a first option, and the powers of the presidency make it difficult for Congress to, in a clear-cut straightforward manner, direct the President in the conduct of war. But the President's record of mistakes in Iraq makes it clear we can no longer cling to this first option, and, difficulties notwithstanding, the cost of continuing down the same path the President has been pursuing in Iraq has reached the point where Congress must at least try to force a change in direction. This effort should logically begin with a clear statement from the House that we disapprove of the way the President is conducting the war in Iraq. That is what this resolution does. With this vote members can no longer hide behind, ``on the one hand, but then again on the other'' statements. We can all mutter about things we don't like in Iraq, but an official on the record vote is required to make that disapproval clear. Do you support the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq? Yes or no. And make no mistake about it the President's plan to increase the number of U.S troops in Baghdad represents no change in policy. It is stay the course, more of the same. In the last year we made large increases in the number of our troops in Baghdad twice already. Both times violence went up in the city, and as we have begun the current increase in troops that violence has once again increased. The lesson should be clear at this point--United States military might will not stop or even reduce the violence in that city. Listening to the arguments against this resolution helps to understand why our President insists on making some of the same mistakes over and over again in Iraq. We are told that our fight in Iraq is a clear-cut battle against the same type of al Qaeda-backed extremists who attacked our Nation on 9/11 and that we are defending a worthy Iraqi government against these evil forces. If this were true, I would support whatever increase in troops was necessary to defeat that evil force. But it is not even close to true--it is instead a dangerous attempt to paint a black and white picture on a situation that is far, far more complex. Baghdad is caught in a sectarian civil war. Both Shia and Sunni militias are battling each other as well as United States forces and the Iraqi government. It is a complex web of frequently changing alliances and interests that makes it impossible for our troops to separate good guys from bad guys. This is why our troops cannot stop or even reduce the violence. And the Maliki government we are being asked to support spends as much time acting like they are supporting the Shia side of the civil war as they do acting like they want to bring Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds together to form a stable Iraq. Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we should continue to target them, but that effort will require a far, far smaller U.S. military presence than we have there today. Currently we are expending an enormous amount of resources in Iraq, most of which is going towards putting our forces in the middle of a chaotic civil war where our efforts do not advance and may even retard our fight against al Qaeda. That massive military commitment reduces our ability to pursue al Qaeda in the dozens of other nations where they have influence--most glaringly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This larger, more important fight is not solely or even primarily military. Diplomacy and other efforts to move disaffected Muslim populations away from joining al Qaeda are a huge part of our battle, and we need to enhance those efforts. But we can't, because we're hamstrung both by a lack of resources--financial and strategic--that are tied down in Iraq, and because our open-ended occupation of Iraq continues to undermine America's standing in the world. Instead of sending more troops to Baghdad the United States policy in Iraq should be to instruct our military leaders there to put together plans to as quickly and responsibly as possible reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We need our troops to focus on al Qaeda and its supporters, not to be bogged down in a sectarian civil war that is only tangentially related to the larger fight against al Qaeda. The first, critical step in this process of changing our policy in Iraq is this resolution. Congress must make its disapproval of the President's policy in Iraq clear and on the record. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). (Mr. JACKSON of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I would just argue, first of all, I respect the gentleman from Texas, but I have only been here for an hour and 15 minutes and I have heard countless alternatives from many Democratic speakers. May not like those alternatives, may not think they are the best course, but it is wrong to say that the Democrats have not offered alternative courses of action in Iraq. They have offered a good many. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support the Conference Report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This bipartisan legislation makes critical improvements to strengthen our domestic and international security efforts and provides the resources necessary to detect tampered cargo before it enters our ports. Passage of the SAFE Port Act today is vital to our national security. For Washington state, the SAFE Port Act will bring greater regional coordination, new security grants, increased Customs personnel for Puget Sound and radiation detection equipment that is both modern and appropriate for the Port of Tacoma's increased rail capacity. The SAFE Port Act also takes important steps to plan for and immediately recover from any incidents on our docks. With the increased role of western ports like the Port of Tacoma and the Port of Seattle in our global economy, we must ensure the free flow of commerce. Passage of the SAFE Port Act will help protect our communities, our critical infrastructure and our homeland. The SAFE Port Act will move America in the right direction.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight and commend the service of Ray L. Peretti of the Ninth Congressional District of Washington, for his service to his community and the Nation as a member of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents. Mr. Peretti recently completed his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and has also served in many positions of responsibility in the association. Mr. Peretti has been a member of the board of directors of PIA National since 1995. He was also a member of the board of directors of PIA of Washington/Alaska, which is now part of the PIA Western Alliance, serving as vice president, president-elect and president and on various committees. Mr. Peretti has served on the State of Washington Property and Casualty Advisory Committee. He was named Agent of the Year by PIA of Washington/Alaska in 1995, received the Hartford/Jonathan Trumball Council's Chairman's Award. Mr. Peretti was also honored by the Insurance Fire Mark Society of the Pacific Northwest with its Presidential Award, and is the recipient of a public relations award from the Insurance Women of South King County. Active in his community, Mr. Peretti is the owner of the Hub Insurance Agency of Renton, Washington. A lifelong member of the Renton Lions Club, he is also a member of the Renton Chamber of Commerce, serving 6 years as a member of its board of directors, and has been a member of the Renton Arts Commission and the Renton Ethics Board. As a professional insurance agent, Mr. Peretti's dedication to the highest standards of his profession has earned him the respect of his friends, associates, business colleagues and of the insurance industry as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to recognize the good work that Ray L. Peretti has done throughout his career as a member of the insurance community, and to again congratulate him on the completion of his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight and commend the service of Ray L. Peretti of the Ninth Congressional District of Washington, for his service to his community and the Nation as a member of the National Association of Insurance Agents. Mr. Peretti recently completed his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, and has also served in many positions of responsibility in the association. Mr. Peretti has been a member of the board of directors of PIA National since 1995. He was also a member of the board of directors of PIA of Washington/Alaska, which is now part of the PIA Western Alliance, serving as vice president, president-elect and president and on various committees. Mr. Peretti has served on the State of Washington Property and Casualty Advisory Committee. He was named Agent of the Year by PIA of Washington/Alaska in 1995, received the Hartford/Jonathan Trumball Council's Chairman's Award. Mr. Peretti was also honored by the Insurance Fire Mark Society of the Pacific Northwest with its Presidential Award, and is the recipient of a public relations award from the Insurance Women of South King County. Active in his community, Mr. Peretti is the owner of the Hub Insurance Agency of Renton, Washington. A lifelong member of the Renton Lions Club, he is also a member of the Renton Chamber of Commerce, serving 6 years as a member of its board of directors, and has been a member of the Renton Arts Commission and the Renton Ethics Board. As a professional insurance agent, Mr. Peretti's dedication to the highest standards of his profession has earned him the respect of his friends, associates, business colleagues, and of the insurance industry as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to recognize the good work that Ray L. Peretti has done throughout his career as a member of the insurance community, and to again congratulate him on the completion of his term as the president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have left.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to close and to once again thank Representative McMorris and to point out how important chronic disease management is in saving money. This is an outstanding opportunity for us to use technology to do that, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Representative McMorris. Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield to myself as much time as I may consume. I want to thank Representative McMorris for her leadership on this bipartisan issue. This amendment really gets at the heart of why health care information technology is important in the first place, and there are really two big reasons. Number one, it can significantly improve the quality of care for patients; and, number two, it can significantly reduce health care inflation. Right now, if you want to do anything to improve the quality of health care in this country getting inflation under control is job one so that people can access that. That is what health care information technology has the promise to do; and this amendment, in particular, focuses on one aspect of it where it could really reduce the costs and improve the quality of care, helping a specific class of patients get the best information possible for the best disease management possible. All across the world, information is being developed even as we sit here on how to better deal with all kinds of different diseases. But how do we make sure that both patients and providers have real-time access to that best information and employ it? That is what this amendment aims to do. For diabetes patients with Medicaid, it can give us a real case example of how we can save money and improve the quality of care for these patients. I think there is unbelievable potential if we have the best information possible. Too often now patients do not know what the best care is. Too often providers do not even know at the moment what the best care is; and as a consequence, they do not get it and the patients do not receive it. Health care quality goes down and costs go up, as procedures are either repeated or the wrong procedures are done. This amendment gives us a great opportunity to do an isolated case study on how to make this work in disease management to improve the quality of care and get costs under control. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), my friend.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment, but I would claim the time unless somebody is.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor an extraordinary individual from my district who is a true American hero, Jack Michaels. He is an ordinary man with an extraordinary story. Unless you are a friend or a family member you may not recognize his face, or have ever heard his name. Indeed, there are millions of Americans like him--Americans who have sacrificed so much for our country and do not receive nearly enough recognition in return for their service. Let me introduce you to one of many forgotten warriors. Jack Michaels flew an assault helicopter in Vietnam that was shot down in 1970. His copilot was killed and Jack was left in a wheelchair for life. For his sacrifice he received a Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart. From that point on, he became determined to advocate for the rights of disabled veterans. His own experiences inspired him to help launch the Northwest Chapter of the Paralyzed Vets of America. Though it began with only 10 members, it has grown into a strong organization with over 400 members. The national PVA director calls him the backbone and guiding light of the chapter. Through his support, the Northwest Chapter has evolved into a strong advocate for veterans. To illustrate his commitment, before the Northwest Chapter was even a part of the national PVA, he was instrumental in lobbying with the Washington Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities to get the King County Metro bus system to buy buses that would allow people in wheelchairs to ride. Before his work on this issue, no bus in King County was equipped to take a person in a wheelchair. This change has dramatically improved the lives of many by giving them the power of mobility. Impressively, Washington State's version of the Americans with Disabilities Act is actually stronger than the Federal version as a result of Jack's efforts. Jack has also worked tirelessly on a range of other issues affecting disabled veterans. Now, 30 years after Jack Michaels helped launch the Northwest Chapter of the PVA, Jack is retiring as the chapter's executive director. Despite his upcoming retirement, he still plans to continue his battle for disabled veterans and will continue his work as a volunteer for the chapter he has served for so many years. Jack Michaels made a sacrifice for his country, and in the following years has continued to give still more. Over the years he has made his local and national community a better place by fighting for the rights of his fellow veterans. He deserves our utmost respect, admiration, and commendation for his achievements. I thank him for continuing to fight for liberty at home, and for volunteering to improve daily life for his fellow veterans, knowing all too well the sacrifices they have made.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a moment to discuss the important work being done at the National Defense University to help ensure that our military continues to harness innovation in Information Technologies (IT) to improve our national defense capabilities. During the past decade, the Department of Defense (DoD) has taken enormous strides in harnessing IT to support major combat operations. We've seen this in the development and fielding of key systems to support precise position location and timing, such as Global Position Systems, as well as precise weapons delivery and communications systems. The effect of these systems on our major combat operations has been profound, increasing the speed, efficiency, and precision of our operations, while minimizing loss of life and resources, as we have seen in coalition operations in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. These IT-enabled military capabilities are extraordinary, and the U.S. needs to maintain them, explore ways to expand them, and ensure our future ability to benefit from such innovations. It is important to appreciate that the information technology that underlies these extraordinary capabilities is largely commercially driven. Thus, although the U.S. has so far been able to exploit this capability effectively, it is an advantage that may be easily lost and regained only with great difficulty. If The U.S. is to continue to exploit commercial IT effectively, it must implement processes to identify promising technologies early in their lifecycle to ensure that they include the features required by the DoD. In addition, mechanisms must be instituted that facilitate the introduction of these key technologies into DoD systems. Over the last several years, Congress has supplied a critical activity at the National Defense University (NDU) to ensure that the DoD retains and enhances the ability to identify and exploit innovative commercial IT. A small group at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) has performed in excess of forty analyses, workshops, and conferences that have characterized the nature of the problem, identified key shortfalls, and proposed innovative recommendations. At the request of Congress, CTNSP has recently prepared and submitted a report that documents the key findings and recommendations of their work. It is particularly notable that the efforts of this program have had significant visibility and impact in the DoD. As an example, the IT program at NDU has provided various studies and recommendations to the highest levels of the military, including the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and combatant commanders at the U.S. European Command and Joint Forces Command. These NDU products have had a very positive impact on efforts to enhance the early injection of commercial IT into key DoD policies and procedures. Currently this NDU program is extending this work into additional critical areas. For example, they are exploring options to enhance the injection of IT into stabilization and reconstruction operations. One member of the NDU IT program has just returned from Afghanistan where he was conducting a detailed study of the impact that communications technology can have on our Nation's success there. The program has also been pursuing ways to adapt technologies currently used by the Chicago Police Department to make them relevant to our counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq. In yet another critical area, the group is in the process of developing a framework to assess the impact of enhancements in cyberspace on America's cyberpower. And finally, the group is reviewing defense spending in the area of computer science to see if it is adequate. These constitute some of the most critical issues that DoD must confront as it proceeds further into the information age. During the past few years, the Congress and the House Appropriations Committee has been extremely supportive of this initiative. Although the investment in the effort has been modest, I believe it has had extraordinary payoff for DoD and the Nation at large. If we can retain our strong technological lead, we can save billions in defense dollars later that would otherwise need to be spent on catch-up activities. Therefore, I hope, as we look toward conference on this bill, that the Congress is able to continue to fund the NDU Technology Pilot Program's important work by setting aside $1,000,000 for the program in account PE 65104D8Z for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking up an important piece of tax legislation, the Timber Tax Act of 2005. Unfortunately it is attached to a fiscally irresponsible tax cut that I cannot support. However, I do support the Timber Tax Act and hope that the House will bring this legislation to the floor for a separate vote. In today's economy, the forest products industry is very important to Washington State with 8.5 million acres of privately owned forestland. There are more than two million people in the U.S. who make their living working for the forest products industry and more than 45,000 in Washington alone. This industry is the state's second largest manufacturing sector. Timber is a unique and risky investment compared to other long term investments. It can take between 20 to 70 years to grow timber that is ready for harvest, which means significant upfront investments in forestry are also subject to risks of nature, clearly demonstrated by last year's hurricanes and wildfires. If passed, the Timber Tax Act would encourage reinvestment in forestland, which supports an industry that provides important jobs to many Washington State residents.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this debate on this resolution, and the resolution itself, continues two very dangerous patterns that have sort of governed all of our actions in Iraq for far, far too long. First of all, there are no specifics, as Congressman Snyder said quite articulately, as to how we are going to achieve this victory. When this debate was billed, we were told this was going to be the floor of the House, the People's House talking about how to deal with the very tough challenges that now present themselves in Iraq. Even the President admits that things have not gone the way we had planned, and we need to step up and figure out how to fix the problems. And yet, this resolution doesn't say a thing about that. It says, terrorism is bad, our troops are good, and we want to win. This House is failing in its mission with such an open statement that does not get at the how of winning. How are we going to deal with an open-ended commitment to Iraq? How are we going to pay the price for that? Is it even in the best interest of our goal of a stable and peaceful Iraq to say that our troops will stay there for as long as is necessary? Those questions are not answered. Unless we in this House are willing to step up and put policy forward, we shouldn't say that this is a debate about the future of Iraq. It is not. We have many hard questions that need to be answered. This resolution does not do that. And the second dangerous trend is the pattern of the President and the majority in this Congress to say anyone who disagrees with them is somehow unpatriotic and defeatist, which to my mind means that we all need a refresher course on why democracy is important. We are all very good at saying that it is important. It is important so that we hear all the voices, not just those who disagree with us. That way we can learn from our mistakes, which we desperately need to do in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I rise in disappointment--though I must say, not in surprise--about the exercise the House is engaged in today. This is not a true debate about our policy in Iraq. A real debate on Iraq would allow us to consider alternative proposals and vote on meaningful amendments that could help us improve the very difficult situation there. Instead we have before us an un-amendable, rhetorical document about the war on terrorism that barely focuses on Iraq itself, and certainly doesn't deal with the real challenges we face there. This process is an offense to our democracy. What is even more troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that this kind of undemocratic approach is precisely what led to the Bush administration's many costly mistakes in Iraq. Americans have seen how the administration's stubborn single-mindedness and refusal to consider alternative views and dissenting opinions have cost us dearly in Iraq. The facts are all-too-well-known: When General Shinseki said that far more troops would be needed to secure the peace in Iraq, he was ignored and soon retired--and the result was that the troops we did send struggled unnecessarily to prevent and control a massive insurgency. When advisors warned the administration not to de-Baathify and disband the Iraqi military and security forces, they were ignored. As Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly admitted, this was a grave mistake that effectively pushed thousands of military-trained, disempowered Sunnis into the streets, fueling the post-war insurgency. And the administration's refusal to heed dissenting views on Iraq continues to this day. Now that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has brought to light massive amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse in the reconstruction contracting, I understand that the administration and the Republicans in Congress are trying to prematurely end his mandate. This is a clear pattern, Mr. Speaker, and the consequences of this arrogant, undemocratic approach are real. It has cost us dearly in American lives and resources, undermined our efforts to build peace and stability in Iraq, and delayed our departure from the country. Mr. Speaker, I supported the use-of-force authorization in October 2002 in order to give the President the leverage to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his threatening behavior and refusal to submit to weapons inspections. And that is what makes it all the more frustrating that the President misused that authority by rushing to war and committing so many grave and costly mistakes in Iraq. So no, Mr. Speaker, this is not a real debate. A real debate would allow us to consider the important questions in Iraq: Can we afford to make an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq? Has our troop presence there reached the point where it is inhibiting a successful transition to full Iraqi sovereignty? Can our strained military and ballooning national deficit handle it? How can we accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty and responsibility for their own country? How best can we engage in more robust diplomacy with our allies and key regional players who can help bolster the new Iraqi government and contribute to its reconstruction? How can we improve Congressional oversight so that we can identify and rectify the enormous mistakes the administration has made in Iraq? These are the questions we should be debating, Mr. Speaker, because they directly affect our ability to achieve success in Iraq. We owe it to our brave men and women in uniform and to the American people to ask these questions. But instead, we have a resolution before us today that is basically irrelevant when it comes to the real issues in Iraq. It says, essentially, that we support fighting terrorism and that we are committed to achieving success in Iraq. I agree with that, but that doesn't say anything about how we get there. That is the important question. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is continuing to utterly abdicate its oversight responsibility. Since the outbreak of war, this Congress has done little more than endorse the administration's policy in Iraq, instead of asking the tough questions and scrutinizing that policy, as the Constitution requires us to do. Mr. Speaker, I hope, despite this Congress' refusal to conduct oversight, that we can be honest today as we look ahead in Iraq. We all want to see an Iraq that is stable, secure, and free. Our troops are doing an outstanding job, and they deserve our full support and respect. But the fact is that success or failure in Iraq increasingly depends on the decisions of Iraqi leaders, and they must understand that. In order to achieve success in Iraq we must accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty. I believe that significantly reducing our military footprint is critical for making that happen. While we cannot simply abandon Iraq at this point, drawing down our forces levels in a responsible way in the coming months will force the Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own security and reduce their dependence on U.S. forces. It will also send an important message to the Iraqi people that Americans are not there to occupy the country, but rather seek to begin leaving as Iraqis take control of their own country. Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in Iraq, both the future and the past matter. We must make the best of a difficult situation by working diligently to help Iraqis take full responsibility for running their country so that our overburdened troops can come home. And we must do so in a manner that does not give the violent Islamic terrorists in the world any greater strength. Yet we must also be willing to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes so that we can chart a new path forward. That requires holding the Bush administration and this rubber-stamp Congress accountable for their failures.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 173: On ordering the previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 174: On agreeing to H. Res. 821, the rule providing for consideration H.R. 5385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 175: On the Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 5385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 176: On final passage of H.R. 5385. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that today the House of Representatives passed S. 1382, a bill which would allow the Puyallup Indian Tribe to convert parts of their tribal land into a Trust held by the Department of the Interior. The Puyallup Tribe has worked in partnership with the State of Washington, the Port of Tacoma, Pierce County, the Cities of Fife, Puyallup, and Tacoma to finalize an arrangement that will enable more than $450 million in new investment and create an estimated 4,000 construction jobs and nearly 6,000 permanent jobs in Pierce County. Under the multi-party agreement--which builds on the 1988 Puyallup Indian Land Claims Settlement--relocation of some of the tribal lands will enable construction of a major new container terminal on the Blair Waterway. S. 1382 is critical to the success of this broad-based agreement, and I look forward to the President signing this important legislation into law so that it can be fully implemented and the region can realize the benefits. I commend all parties involved on the way they worked together to allow for this expansion which will be an economic driver for the region.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation which will address one of the most significant challenges identified by the 9/11 Commission: an attack at our ports. I commend my colleagues for working together to bring forth this important piece of legislation that will enhance our security, improve the efficiency of trade and provide necessary funding for the critical missions of our Coast Guard, Customs and Border Agents, and others involved in the maritime industry. The Puget Sound region has a long maritime history. As we've moved towards a global economy, Washington state had responded accordingly and has become an important global partner in facilitating and improving international commerce. It is estimated that 95 percent of U.S. trade flows through the nation's 361 ports, equaling almost $1 trillion annually. As trade with Asia continues to grow, west coast ports, like the Port of Tacoma, are playing an ever larger role. I am proud to have the Port of Tacoma located in my district. It is the nation's sixth largest port by cargo container volume, it handled over 2.1 million containers last year and continues to be a major economic engine in the South Sound region. In addition to its growing capacity, the Port of Tacoma is also one of the nation's strategic military ports, helping to transport Fort Lewis-related cargo overseas in support of our troops. I commend the Port of Tacoma for taking the necessary steps to tighten facility security and continue to serve the vital role in the national homeland security efforts. With the Port of Seattle to the north and the Port of Olympia to the south, the Port of Tacoma works collaboratively with its sister ports and takes a regional approach to improve the security in and around the facilities. In fact, the Port of Tacoma and Port of Seattle worked together in Operation Safe Commerce, a federal program designed to create the knowledge base required for international standards for containerized shipping. Both ports are actively working with private and public entities to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and develop improved methods and technologies to ensure the security of cargo entering and leaving the United States. Many lessons were learned in working with manufacturing and shipping partners and this knowledge will help us improve our efficiency while protecting our citizens and critical infrastructure. I am pleased to see that additional funds are available in this legislation to continue this important program. The SAFE Port Act takes many critically important steps to prevent another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This bill strengthens our domestic and international security efforts by making improvements to high-risk cargo targeting and tracking systems. The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems to our major ports by the end of next year. Ports will also have the much needed resources they need through the Port Security Grant Program to improve facility security. Screening containers prior to its arrival at our U.S. ports is critical and I am pleased to see that the Department of Homeland Security is working to evaluate new radiological and other detection devices for use at foreign seaports. I believe these new technologies will arm our security officers with improved information and allow us to better protect our critical infrastructure. The bill also includes improvements to our international screening programs: the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). The important role that our ports play in security and commerce has too often not received the appropriate level of priority. As a result, funding for the security of our ports has been sorely inadequate. This legislation moves forward in the right direction. We must do all we can to protect our communities, our critical infrastructure and our homeland. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the SAFE Port Act today.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and accomplishments of Sam Volpentest, who recently died after a lifetime of service to the citizens of Washington state. Although born in Seattle in 1904, Sam was best known for his work on behalf of the Tri-Cities in the Eastern part of our state. From the time he moved there in 1948, Sam was a respected member of the regional community, operating a variety of businesses and co-founding the Tri- Cities Nuclear Industrial Council, now TRIDEC, to foster development in the Richland, Kennewick and Pasco communities. He served as president of the Richland Chamber of Commerce and the Richland Kiwanis, and said his greatest I achievement in 40 years as a registered lobbyist was having the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, an Energy Department science lab, built in the Tri-Cities. Sam served as a mentor to many Members of our state's Congressional delegation, and I will always remember the energy and commitment he demonstrated when I worked with him as a Member of the Armed Services Committee. When I first worked with Sam, I remember a man in his mid- 90s who worked harder on his issues than anyone else. His enthusiasm and knowledge of the issues affecting the Tri-Cities provided this region with a respected voice advocating its interests in Congress. Our state's delegation will miss the insight and perspectives of this community leader. The Tri-Cities--and indeed all of Washington state-- will always remember the commitment and dedication of Sam Volpentest.