Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was a strong supporter of H.R. 5337, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2006, which passed the Financial Services Committee as well as the House in the 109th Congress. First, I want to again acknowledge the work of our distinguished chairman of the Committee of Financial Services, Mr. Frank and Mr. Gutierrez, chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology for supporting this bill. Let me also thank Ms. Maloney, a member of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, for again introducing this important national security legislation, H.R. 556. In addition, the bill now has more than 50 co-sponsors. Last year, the House approved a comprehensive set of reforms to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) process. It is a testament to the diligence of Ms. Maloney and other members of the Committee on Financial Services that H.R. 556 is being considered so early in this session. It has been almost a year since we learned of the Committee of Foreign Investment's (CFIUS) activities related to Dubai World Ports and the implications of the proposed deal for national security. I can genuinely say that the members of the Committee on Financial Services have been most directly involved in this issue since that time. The bill the House passed last year, H.R. 5337, was designed to reform the CFIUS process based on the information gleaned from earlier hearings on the subject. We have heard about the negative impact of cutting off foreign direct investment in the U.S. However, it would be foolish to assume that we would take any such steps to prohibit foreign direct investment. At the same time, we need to consider safeguards to ensure that the CFIUS process is consistent with the original intent of the Congress concerning national security and investments. It is time that CFIUS operated within the law, and that it is made clear who is responsible for what in the decisionmaking process. Another critical issue is how decisions are actually made, and what entity is principally responsible for protecting the national security interests of this Nation as they pertain to foreign direct investment. This bill enables CFIUS to unilaterally initiate a review where an issue of concern is raised; any foreign government backed deal would be subject to review; both the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security must sign off on reviews, while the Homeland Security Secretary would be vice-chair of the Committee; and all reviews are subject to review by the Director of National intelligence. In addition, everyone knows that transparency and accountability were, in part, at the heart of the congressional uproar over the Dubai World Ports deal. Importantly, H.R. 556 like its predecessor bill requires that CFIUS report biannually to Congress on its activities. This is strong legislation that will only make Congress' job less difficult on the issue of national security and foreign direct investment. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556 without any weakening amendments. Unfortunately, there are those who would have you believe that the bill in not balanced. I would submit that the bill represents a comprehensive well-balanced measure in view of the global situation. Indeed, this bill will not undermine foreign investment in the U.S.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, and I thank the Gentleman from California [Mr. George Miller] for introducing this legislation and for bringing it to the Floor for workers in America. I am a proud original co- sponsor of H.R. 800. H.R. 800 contains three very strong protections for unions. First, it streamlines the process for obtaining National Labor Relations Board certification when a majority of employees have signed up for representation. Second, it provides for easy referral to mediation and arbitration when an employer and a union cannot reach an agreement within 90 days of negotiations so that employees are guaranteed an opportunity to reach an agreement. Third, it enhances penalties for discrimination, unlawful discharge, and other violations of the labor laws. According to a study conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, the probability of a pro-union worker being fired during an organizing campaign went up from half a percent in the period between 1970 and 1974 to one percent in the period between 1996 and 2000; between 2001 and 2005, this figure rose to 1.4 percent. America needs this legislation because workers are being mistreated and need strong and effective representation. My State of California is home to the largest number of stakeholders in support of this legislation. Nationally, there were 15.4 million union members, and a little under half (7.5 million) lived in six states--California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. One of the main reasons why we need this legislation is because although these six states make up about half of the union members in the entire country, they only account for a mere one-third of the national wage and salary employment. In California, there were 2,424,000 union members (16.5 percent of the state's workforce) in 2005 and 2,273,000 union members (or 15.7 percent of the state workforce) in 2006--which is the largest percentage in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that nationally, in 2006, there were about 1.5 million wage and salary workers who were represented by a union--even though they were not members themselves. Therefore, this legislation will help America's workers even if they do not belong to a union. This trend of retaliatory firing has played a major part in the sharp decline in organized labor. Organized labor went from 30 percent in the 1960s to just 13 percent in 2003--and during this period, America saw the largest upward redistribution of income in its history--according to a report by Human Rights Watch. In addition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2005 and 2006, the percentage of national union members fell from 12.5 percent to 12 percent. The actual number of union members decreased by 326,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million, and there has been a steady rate of decline from 20.1 percent in 1983. Madam Chairman, this legislation is necessary and drafted to address very specific problems that organized labor faces. Livable wages, a decent work environment, and a fair dispute process are rights that we should all enjoy. I support H.R. 800, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 755, Promoting Transparency in Financial Reporting Act of 2007. H.R. 755 is a simple, but important measure. It requires the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting Board to provide annual testimony by their respective chairpersons or designees of the chairperson starting next year and for five subsequent years to the Committee on Financial Services on their efforts to reduce the complexity of financial reporting to provide a more accurate and clear financial information to investors, including: Reassessing complex and outdated accounting standards; improving the understandability, consistency, and overall usability of the existing accounting and auditing literature; developing principles-based accounting standards; encouraging the use and acceptance of interactive data; and promoting disclosures in plain English. In view of the different accounting standards being used in the private sector and government, it is clear that we need to have information that is reliable and credible. Financial information that does not meet rigorous and acceptable standards sends the wrong signals to investors as well as to the public about the real the financial condition of a business. As we have witnessed over the past several years, the quality of financial information can make the difference between the true value of a company and what the public perceives to be its condition. H.R. 755 is an important first step towards making sure that the information being reported to investors and to the public is believable. As such, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 644, the Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, a bill of which I am an original cosponsor. I certainly applaud the distinguished chairman of Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, for working to get this bill to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Gary Miller, who introduced the bill and who has been working on this subject for quite some time, as well as all of the other cosponsors of this bill. The House passed a bill identical to H.R. 644 in the 109th Congress because many of us recognized the importance of preserving a means of remedying the numerous hazardous sites that remain in this country. Under the Brownfields Act, the Environmental Protection Agency awards grants for the assessment and cleanup of sites that pose a serious threat to human health and the environment than sites addressed by the Superfund. Many of these sites thwart the development and revitalization of communities in distressed areas of the country, including the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County. In fact, it is these sites that make development efforts impossible because of the potential risks. The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act becomes a powerful economic development tool when used in conjunction with other Federal economic redevelopment resources, CDBG and section 108 loan guarantees. It is precisely the kind of leveraging tool that we must utilize to spur development in places where development costs are uncertain given the presence of hazardous materials. The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act, if passed, will continue to provide four types of competitive grants: Assessment grants used as planning tools by grantees to conduct due diligence related to the affected sites; revolving loan fund grants to capitalize the loans for the cleanup of the sites; cleanup grants that provide for the recipient to undertake cleanup activities; and job training grants made available to nonprofits and educational entities to develop environmental job training programs. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to postpone passage of this bill any longer. It sends a bad signal to the communities across the Nation who are trying to rebuild, reinvest and strengthen their economic local economies. Any Federal tool to leverage private investment must be preserved, particularly in this pay-as-you-go economic environment. The Brownfields Enhancement Act is a tool, and therefore I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise as Chair of the 76-member Out of Iraq Caucus, and I will be followed by many other members during this hour. I rise in support of our troops and in support of this resolution opposing the President's escalation of this war. Madam Speaker, I support this resolution, hoping this will be a first step in ending this war and reuniting our troops with their families and loved ones. This is an unbinding resolution. The real test for this Congress is going to be whether or not we will continue to fund this war. For nearly 4 years, our troops have served bravely and admirably in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President and his administration have decided to pursue a political agenda when it decided to push for an invasion of Iraq. The President ignored the advice of dozens of experts inside and outside the government about invading Iraq. For example, the administration ignored the intelligence community's opinions about the status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The administration also ignored recommendations about the number of troops needed to secure Iraq following the fall of Saddam Hussein. In addition, the President and the administration ignored warnings about the difficulty and danger of occupying Iraq and that Iraq would likely break down into sectarian violence. In short, the administration ignored everything that conflicted with its plan to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, no one has borne the burdens of the administration's Iraq narrow agenda more than our troops and their families. The decision to escalate the war, to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq, will only increase the burden on our troops. Many of the troops serving in Iraq have served two, three, even four tours of duty. And of course the failed Iraq policy has resulted in the death of 3,109 U.S. troops, including 325 from my own State of California, and injury of more than 23,000 others. Madam Speaker, many experts believe that the President's latest plan will not work, and early indications support that conclusion. About 5,000 troops have arrived in Baghdad since the President announced the plan in January, yet the violence and devastation in Iraq is increasing. It is estimated that more than 2,276 Iraqi civilians have died so far this year and that more than 1,000 Iraqi security forces and 33 U.S. servicemen have died in just the past week. We are sending thousands more troops to Iraq in what is now known to be a civil war. Sending more troops to Iraq is not the answer. The key to stabilization is bringing our troops home and renewing our commitment to diplomacy. This resolution is the first step in reining in this President and his misguided policies. However, as many have noted, this is, again, an unbinding resolution. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the war, spending bills that will be considered in the coming months to enact meaningful changes to this failed policy and to finally bring our troops home. The future of the entire Middle East is at stake. The President does not appear to understand or appreciate the situation in Iraq is deteriorating each day. We are losing; however, we can win. And we will win by using leadership to engage and unite rather than attempting to overpower and conquer. Who are we fighting? The Sunnis, the Kurds, the Shias? Who are the insurgents? Some Sunnis, some Shias, some Kurds? Who are the terrorists? Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Syrians, Iranians? Who are we fighting? I don't think our soldiers know, and I am not so sure this administration has really given the kind of deep thought and consideration as to who we are really fighting. Diplomacy is the only answer. Today, we must oppose this escalation. However, I have no choice but in the final analysis to oppose continued funding of the American taxpayers' dollars to the war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied, but in the interest of peace, must be denied. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, the first annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day was organized on February 23, 2001, with the message: Get educated, get involved, get tested. The National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day dates back to 1999 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention funded five national nonprofit organizations known then as the Community Capacity-Building Coalition, which are Concerned Black Men, Incorporated, of Philadelphia; Health Watch Information and Promotion Services, Jackson State University; Mississippi Urban Research Center; National Black Alcoholism and Addictions Council; and National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS. On February 23, 2001, the CCBC organized the first annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. The date was changed to February 7, the following year, that was in 2002, and now it is recognized on February 7 of each year. Madam Speaker and Members, many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and many Members of Congress have joined in the struggle and the fight to find a cure to prevent HIV and AIDS. I need to congratulate all of these Members right in the CBC. I need to congratulate Barbara Lee, and Ed Towns, and Donna Christensen, and Mr. Cummings, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Diane Watson, and so many more for the years of work that they have put in on dealing with HIV and AIDS, and HIV and AIDS in the minority community. That is why back in 1998 I worked to establish the Minority Aids Initiative with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Clinton administration. The Minority Aids Initiative provides grants for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs that serve minority communities and enables health care providers and community-based organizations to expand their capacity to serve these communities. The initiative received an initial appropriation of $166 million in fiscal year 1999, and was funded at slightly less than $400 million in the most recent spending cycle. However, the AIDS virus has continued to spread in the minority communities, and more needs to be done. This year I am calling for at least $610 million in funding to expand the Minority Aids Initiative, and redouble our efforts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic which has been especially devastating to African Americans and other communities of color. But it is important to remember that HIV/AIDS affects us all. Over 1 million Americans are living with HIV/AIDS, and 24 to 27 percent of them do not know they are infected. That is why on Monday I introduced H.R. 822, the Routine HIV/AIDS Screening Coverage Act, a bill to require health insurance plans to cover routine HIV/AIDS tests under the same terms and conditions as other routine health screening. Routine HIV/AIDS screening will allow thousands of African Americans and other infected individuals to find out about their infection, begin life-extending treatment and avoid spreading the virus to others. I also very soon will reintroduce the Stop AIDS in Prison Act, a bill to require routine HIV/AIDS screening of all Federal prison inmates upon entry, and prior to release from prison. The bill would also require HIV awareness education for all inmates and comprehensive treatment for those inmates who test positive. Madam Speaker and Members, we here today come on the floor of Congress, all of us, to speak about this because it is a pandemic. It is a pandemic in the world that must be dealt with. We must lead the way here in the United States of America. And for those of us whose communities are being overtaken by HIV and AIDS, we must stand up and be counted. We must ask for the money. We must demand the resources. We must take our heads out of the sand. We must call on all of the members of our community to accept personal responsibility. We must get our churches involved, all of our social clubs and organizations. Today we make a special appeal to them.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I see that Congresswoman Barbara Lee is at the other microphone. If she, too, may engage in this colloquy. Mr. Towns, I was just wondering, in the work that we have all been doing, we have been trying so hard to educate all of our young people in our communities about HIV and AIDS and how they can take more responsibility. We have been fighting for money. Do you believe that it would be helpful if we took this resolution and made a comprehensive effort, focused effort, to get to the churches and to some of the other institutions that are so important in our community, disseminate it widely so that we could broaden the individuals and groups who are involved in this whole discussion and fight against HIV and AIDS?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this resolution before this House. His work is very important on this issue. And I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 35, supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. The first annual National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day was organized on February 23, 2001, with the message ``Get Educated, Get Involved, Get Tested.'' Unfortunately, African Americans have been gravely impacted by the AIDS epidemic. Unfortunately, African Americans account for half of the new AIDS cases, although we are only 13 percent of the population. Worse yet is the fact that African American women represent 67 percent of new AIDS cases among women, and black teenagers represent 66 percent of new AIDS cases among teenagers. That is why back in 1998 I established the Minority AIDS Initiative, with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Clinton administration. At that time we received $166 million in funding the new initiative, and this initiative for HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs serving African American and other minority communities was very helpful in helping to build capacity in these communities to deal with the problem. However, it is not enough. Last year I asked for $610 million, and I am renewing my call with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus for that amount. But the message ``Get Educated, Get Involved, Get Tested'' is an important message for all Americans. Over 1 million Americans are living with HIV/AIDS, and 24 to 27 percent of them do not know they are infected. That is why today I am reintroducing the Routine HIV/AIDS Screening Coverage Act. This bill requires health insurance plans to cover routine HIV/AIDS tests under the same terms and conditions as other routine health screenings. I also plan to reintroduce the Stop AIDS in Prison Act, a bill to require routine HIV/AIDS screening of all Federal prison inmates upon entering prison and again prior to release from prison, as well as comprehensive treatment for those who test positive. Routine HIV/AIDS screening will allow thousands of African Americans and other infected individuals to find out about their infection, begin life-extending treatment, and avoid spreading the virus to others. I urge my colleagues to support National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, and I urge all Americans to educate themselves, act responsibly, get involved, and get tested for HIV/AIDS. I thank Representative Towns for the attention that he has given to this issue.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 94, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Ninth Annual National Consumer Protection Week to highlight the importance of consumer protection, and I thank the Gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for introducing it. This resolution is important because it calls on governmental officials, industry leaders, schools, nonprofit organizations, and consumer advocates to provide citizens with valuable information and because it encourages the American people to utilize consumer protection information that is made available to them. I hope that this message resonates in my home State of California because our students are in the midst of a consumer crisis. Unless the State acts expeditiously, the consumer protection statute and the agency responsible for protecting postsecondary students from fraudulent institutions whose misrepresentations cause them to default on tens of thousands of dollars in Federal student loans will expire on June 30, 2007. The statute set to expire is called the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Act and it authorizes a regulatory and enforcement bureau to scrutinize institutions that receive Federal higher education funds. In the 1980s and 1990s, numerous abuses by unlawful institutions cost taxpayers billions of dollars in defaulted student loan debt--in fact, there was $3.2 billion in defaulted student loans in 1992 alone. More recently, in August and October 2006, two San Diego trade schools closed without notice to its students, setting 400 to 800 of them on the path to default on Federal and private student loans--many totaling $20,000 or more per student--with no education to justify it. I hope that the State of California sees passage of this important resolution as Congress' call to take whatever measures necessary to uphold the consumer rights of the American people and works quickly to reauthorize the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Act. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I participated in a rally and march here in Washington, DC, on the Mall, organized by United for Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of over 1,300 groups from all over this country. Citizens came from near and far. They came by car and bus and train and plane to urge this President and this Congress to end the war in Iraq. They were young. They were old. They were rich. They were poor. They were every age, every ethnic group, all religions, all with one message: Bring our troops home now. There were six Members of Congress who were present there, and we thanked all of the people who attended for caring enough to come to Washington, DC, to spend their money to urge their government to end this war. Mr. Speaker and Members, this was democracy at work. It was a beautiful day. People were in high spirits. We walked. We sang. We chanted. And we literally said we love this country, we love our soldiers, and we want the best for our people. We were joined by many veterans. There were several veterans groups there. But the most moving and touching part of this march was the mothers who marched with us, and they had signs. Some of them had signs of their sons who had been killed in Iraq. Some of them brought the message that they had paid a huge sacrifice and they did not wish Americans to continue paying this high price for a war that we should not be in. This is a war that it is easy to be against, because we were led into this war under false pretenses. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We have been told that we would be greeted with open arms. We were told that we would be seen as the liberators. None of that was true. We are occupiers, and they want us out of Iraq. It is not simply that the Sunnis want us out of Iraq. It is not simply that the Shiites want us out or the Kurds want us out. They all want us out of Iraq. This was a wonderful weekend because not only did we march and we rallied, but the marchers came to Capitol Hill and they lobbied their legislators. They knocked on their doors. They came from all these towns and hamlets and cities all over America to talk with their legislators. This truly was democracy at work. And today we filled 1100 Longworth, the Ways and Means room, where we had a forum with 11 book authors who have written about the war in Iraq, what is wrong with it and why we should get out, and did we have a discussion. It was one of the most beautiful discussions with highly intelligent authors who have done research, who have put a lot of work into producing these books. And they shared with us in a very profound way what they knew and why they had decided to take a part of their lives to stop and write about what is wrong with our being in Iraq. So this was a wonderful weekend. This has been a wonderful time. I keep saying this is democracy at work because this is what the Constitution is all about. It is about participation of the citizens. The citizens of this country are sick and tired of this war. I don't know why the Members of Congress are allowing the citizens to get way ahead of them. They elect us to come and represent them. They think that we have the resources to know what is going on. We give a lot of money to our intelligence agencies. We should be able to tell the people what is wrong and what is going on in Iraq. But, instead, they are ahead of us; and they are urging us to stop this war. But, in the final analysis, they know everything about what we are doing. It is not enough to talk the talk. You have got to walk the walk. They know the difference between nuancing and posturing, and they want action. And they know that we are about to have a resolution over in this House that will disagree with the surge, the escalation that is being advocated by this President. But they also understand that we can't stop that, that the President has already started to resend soldiers. These are not new boots on the ground. These are soldiers that have done their tours, that have been sent back a second and third time, and they say that is not enough. They will know whether or not we mean business if we are prepared to stop funding this war.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, last night the President reiterated his plans to send more troops to Iraq, despite bipartisan opposition in Congress and the opposition of most Americans. Iraq is in a civil war. The violence that plagues Iraq is increasing, and our troops are caught in the middle of Iraqi sectarian violence. We have lost 3,032 of our brave men and women in this war. Mr. Speaker and Members, despite the fact that the President talks about his surge, or what we know it to be, an expansion, we have to remember, these are not new boots on the ground. These tours are being extended. These tours are being extended, and some of our men and women in the military are being asked to extend their tours two and three times. They are also shortening the length of time that these soldiers have at home. Many of them, who have been on two tours and expect to go home and spend a little time with their families, are being told, no, you won't be able to spend the time that you thought you were going to be able to spend. You have got to come back after having been home a shorter period of time. Even the National Guard. They are now eliminating the limitations on how many times they can be called up for Active Duty. So these are not new boots on the ground. As the Iraq Study Group noted in its report, ``Attacks against U.S. coalition and Iraqi security forces are persistent and growing. Total attacks in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006. Daily attacks against Iraqi security forces in October were more than double the level in January. Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month.'' The United Nations estimated that more than 34,000 civilians were violently killed across Iraq in 2006, with an average of 94 killed every day. The U.S. Department of Defense claims that the number of Iraqis that are trained and equipped is increasing each month. In fact, they claim that there are almost 300,000 Iraqis trained. However, our troops are in a difficult situation, and they cannot trust many of those who serve in Iraq's security forces. For example, American troops often complain that Iraqi police and soldiers tip off the targets of raids ahead of time. American troops also say that Iraqis flee during some of the security operations. It is also reported that the Iraqi desertion rate is high among those who serve in Iraqi security forces. Sending more U.S. troops to Iraq will only put more of them at risk. Mr. Speaker, and Members, I am worried. I am worried that our Nation, our Commander in Chief is on the path to confrontation with al-Sadr and al-Sadr City, and I believe that this is going to be disastrous. First of all, I don't trust Maliki, who is friends with al-Sadr. Remember when the President of the United States went to Jordan to meet with Maliki, he was stopped from going into that meeting by al-Sadr. He finally did meet before he left Jordan, but that was an exercise of power by al-Sadr. And I don't want this confrontation. There are over 50,000 Iraqis in that militia, and I don't want our soldiers, with so-called Iraqi soldiers working with them, fighting with us, who may desert them, who may tip them off, to confront this militia. I want our soldiers out of there before it happens. On Saturday, I will be marching with Representative Lynn Woolsey and thousands of other Americans who want to end this war and bring our troops home. The rally that is going to be held here in Washington, D.C., will attract millions, and we will send a clear message to President Bush and his administration that we have had enough. It is time to bring our troops home, and it is time to use diplomacy to stabilize Iraq and the Middle East region. Mr. Speaker, and Members, we have Members of Congress who voted to support the Commander in Chief. They voted to go into this war. But many of them are saying to us today, if they had known then what they know now, they never would have taken that vote to send our troops into that war. Of course, we don't have to say it, but we must remind people over and over again, there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no reason for us to go into Iraq. We have destabilized Iraq. We are destabilizing the entire Middle East, and we cannot win with this strategy that the President has employed. And I would simply say to my colleagues, please do everything you can to help get us out.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, tonight the President of the United States will address a joint session of Congress to offer his assessment of the state of the Union. He is expected to spend a lot of time talking about domestic issues and will reportedly spend some time on the war on terror. However, very little, if any, of his State of the Union address will discuss the war in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States has bungled the management of this war, and he certainly needs to explain further why he feels that escalation will suddenly turn the situation in Iraq around. The reality is that escalation will not bring us success. The President pushed forward against the advice of many Members of Congress, the joint chiefs of staff, and many experts in and outside of government. Even the Iraqi Prime Minister did not want more U.S. troops sent to his country. Since Friday, January 19, 2007, 27 members of our armed services have died in Iraq. These deaths bring the total number of U.S. servicemembers that have died in Iraq since the war in Iraq began to 3,029. More than 22,000 others have been seriously injured. The insurgent attacks against the United States military have become more and more brazen. In one of the attacks over the past weekend, insurgents wore uniforms that looked like official U.S. uniforms and used vehicles that the U.S. and Iraqi officials use. According to press accounts, Iraqi guards at a government compound allowed several vehicles traveling in a caravan through checkpoints because they were wearing what appeared to be legitimate U.S. military uniforms and driving cars commonly used by foreigners. Once the insurgents were inside the compound, they attacked and killed five of our troops. Witnesses say that the attackers targeted only U.S. servicemembers and not the Iraqis who were in the room. Elsewhere in Iraq, 12 Americans were killed when their Blackhawk helicopter was attacked, and 10 others were killed in fire fights with insurgents. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is in a civil war. The level of violence is growing each day, and increasingly our troops are caught in the middle of it. By adding more troops, as the President plans to do, we will only increase the risk of more U.S. deaths and injuries. Nearly everyone agrees that the war will not be won through military means. Instead, there is general agreement that stability in Iraq and the Middle East will only come about through intense diplomatic efforts. The President's Iraq policy has failed. Sending more troops to Iraq will only make the situation worse. As the saying goes: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Mr. President, I would urge you to stop digging and bring our troops home. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what bothers me about what is happening in Iraq. Our military, our troops don't know a Sunni from a Shiite from a Kurd. They are with Iraqi soldiers who don't like them oftentimes, who desert us when there is a confrontation, and who undermine us. There are those who believe that the way that the insurgents got into the compound was they were allowed in there by Iraqi soldiers. How can we win in the middle of a civil war? We can't win. It is time for the President of the United States to come up with a reasonable exit plan. We have not asked, and nobody is saying, Quick withdrawal. Withdrawal in 24 hours. Some would make you believe we are saying that, but we are not. We are talking about a well thought through reasonable plan for getting out of Iraq. Some people would like to say, Oh, if you don't continue to support the President's request for additional funds, that you are deserting the soldiers. Not so. And the Members of this Congress have got to have the courage to stand up and explain the difference between the sound bites and what those on the opposite side of this issue would describe as our efforts of getting the soldiers out and the truth. The truth of the matter is we all know there is enough money in the pipeline to credibly come out of Iraq in a timely way.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for that very clear statement as one who supported the war in Iraq who has withdrawn that support and is sharing with others his feelings about why he supported it and why he no longer supports it. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California, one of my colleagues on the financial services committee, Representative Brad Sherman.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California for all the work she is doing. We heard earlier from Members who had voted for the resolution to go to war, who have since changed their minds. Fifteen Members signed up for tonight, but some had to leave. They waited as long as they could. And so we will continue to bring to the floor those Members who have changed their minds. Tonight not only do we have Ms. Lee, who just joined us, but we have Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota, one of our newer Members who has been consistent on getting out of Iraq. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for that very clear statement. And now, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oakland, California (Ms. Lee), who has given so much leadership on this issue. She has been with us constantly, urging us to get out and coming up with the prescription for how to do it.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for all of the time and effort he is putting into helping us get out of Iraq. Madam Speaker, I yield to Mr. Bill Jefferson from Louisiana.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from California. And I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Steve Rothman, who serves on the Appropriations Committee, he is on the Subcommittee on Defense, and on the Subcommittee For Foreign Operations. This is not the first evening he has been on the floor; he has made it clear, but he even goes further tonight in helping to clarify and make it known where he stands on this war.

Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentleman for that very clear statement as one who voted to support. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California, not only for the statement that she has made this evening, but I believe that you are an example of one of our highly respected Members of Congress who trusted the President, who believed what he was saying when he offered all of the reasons why we should be going into the war, and to have lost your support, I think, is the kind of significance that everyone should have an appreciation for. We have come to that point in time where supporters who believed in the President are now withdrawing their support and urging him to abandon the failed policies that took us into that war. Next, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). He is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, another one of our respected Members in this House who supported the Commander-in- Chief when he brought to us all of the flawed evidence, that we did not know was flawed at that time, and he has taken a lot of criticism for it, but he certainly has clarified his understanding now and he has a statement that he would like to bring forward this evening. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much. We appreciate your service, we appreciate your work, and we appreciate the fact that you sit here every day trying to manage this most important problem and crisis that we have and the fact that you have your son who is put at great risk. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, who is the chair of the New Democrats, one of the hardest working members of the California delegation who will present.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much.

Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman, and before the gentleman leaves the microphone, would you please confirm for me that did you not have a son that served or is serving in Iraq?

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the President began talking about going to war with Iraq. In the fall of 2002, with the midterm elections heating up, the President increasingly talked about the threat Iraq poses to the United States and its allies. On October 10, 2002, the House voted on H.J. Res. 114, the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution. It passed the House by a vote of 296-133: 215 Republicans voted for the resolution, 6 voted against it. 81 Democrats voted for it, and 126 voted against it. Madam Speaker, in light of what many of our Members know today, they perhaps would not have voted for that resolution. As a matter of fact, day in and day out as I talk with my colleagues, they recount all of that which was told to us by the President of the United States and others on the opposite side of the aisle, for the most part, about why it was so important to go to war with Iraq. They told us there were weapons of mass destruction. They told us that the troop levels that they were sending were necessary. They told us about the cost of the war. They told us that oil revenues would be paying for the reconstruction. They told us we would be greeted as liberators. They told us we would be able to contain sectarian violence. Well, Madam Speaker, I have colleagues that are here this evening who will recount perhaps some of what they were being told and the way they trusted the Commander in Chief, they trusted our President. They were concerned about the safety and the security of our Nation. So we have with us tonight some of the brightest, most hardworking, most respected Members of the Congress of the United States. They are going to remind us of what we were being told and how they came to their decision and what they are thinking now. Leading that discussion will be my dear friend from Missouri, that is my hometown, my birthplace, who I have gotten to know very well. He is the Chair of one of the most important committees of this House, the Armed Services Committee, a highly respected gentleman, Representative Ike Skelton. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, today Representative Woolsey, Representative Lee and I introduced a bill that would conclude our involvement in Iraq and bring our troops home. The bill, H.R. 508, is entitled, Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007. The bill has 16 original cosponsors. Representative Woolsey was on the floor a moment ago, and she shared with you some of the provisions of that bill. I will reiterate, I will repeat, if enacted, the bill would repeal the use-of-force authorization passed by Congress in 2002 and requires a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors hired by the U.S. Government within 6 months of the enactment of this bill. The bill authorizes the President to support an international stabilization force in Iraq, if the Iraq government requests such a force, but U.S. troops would not be permitted to participate in the international force. It would turn security activities and military operations in Iraq over to the elected Iraqi government within 6 months of the date of enactment. It would prohibit the U.S. from establishing permanent bases in Iraq. It would cap the number of officers and employees of the United States assigned to the U.S. embassy in Iraq at 500. It would accelerate the training and equipping of Iraq military and security forces, and pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. It would provide assistance to the Iraqi government in recovering cultural and historical artifacts that have disappeared since the U.S. invaded in 2003. It will do a number of other things, but let me wrap this up by saying it would fully fund veterans' health care, including mental health care, for our returning veterans. Mr. Speaker, I am spending an inordinate amount of time on this issue, along with many of my other colleagues, and I have chosen to be a major cosponsor on this bill because I feel it is absolutely my responsibility to not only articulate what is wrong with this war, but to do everything that I can to encourage the President of the United States, the commander in chief, to bring our troops home. I think it is important to do this because we have lost over 3,000 American soldiers. As a matter of fact, I think it is about 3,034. I look at the continuing devastation in Iraq, and I see that just day before yesterday I believe over 100 Iraqis were killed and maybe twice as many was injured and we lost four more American soldiers. This has got to stop. We are in control. We can stop this. I am encouraging our Commander-in-Chief to bring our troops home, and to pursue diplomacy, save lives. Because I believe if they continue down the path that they are going, we are going to have a real blood bath in a short period of time. This surge, this expansion of the war that has been advocated and pursued and pushed by this President is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I know that he has been advised and he has accepted the advice that he is to go into Sadr City and he is to confront al-Sadr, who is the head of a tremendous militia. They have over 50,000 signed up in that militia and more coming each day. I don't want our American soldiers to confront that militia. I don't want our American soldiers in the middle of this civil war. I don't want these young boys who come from our cities and our towns and these young girls who come from our villages and our hamlets of America to be caught in between Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds. They don't know a Sunni from a Shiite. We don't speak the language. We haven't trained people. Even the soldiers that are supposed to be embedded doing the training can't speak the language. They are depending on interpreters. And let me tell you, even some of the soldiers that we are training in Iraq are turning their backs on us. They desert our soldiers in the middle of a conflict, in a confrontation. These are the ones that we are training, that we are depending on to take over the security of Iraq somehow. It is not going to happen. We have to leave, and we should not be deterred from the mission of leaving because someone is going to accuse us of cutting and running. We know how these sound bites take place. We know what people do when they want to promote their position. They will mischaracterize what is being done. We have got to have the courage to stand up and stand up for our American soldiers. I support and cosponsor this new bill. I would ask my colleagues to support it. Today, Representative Woolsey, Representative Lee and I introduced a bill today that would conclude our involvement in Iraq and bring our troops home. The bill, H.R. 508 is titled ``Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007.'' The bill has 16 original cosponsors. If enacted, the bill would: Repeals the use of force authorization passed by Congress in 2002. Requires the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors hired by the U.S. government within 6 months of the enactment of this bill. The bill authorizes the President to support an international stabilization force in Iraq, if the Iraqi government requests such a force, but U.S. troops would not be permitted to participate in the international force; Turn security activities and military operations in Iraq over to the elected Iraqi government within 6 months of the date of enactment. Prohibit the U.S. from establishing permanent bases in Iraq; Cap the number of officers and employees of the United States assigned to the U.S. embassy in Iraq at 500; Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi military and security forces; Pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy; Provide Iraqi government assistance in destroying/cleaning up land mines, unexploded ordnance and depleted uranium shells; Provide assistance to the Iraqi government in recovering cultural and historic artifacts that have disappeared since the U.S. invaded in 2003; Provide compensation for Iraqi noncombatant civilian casualties-- except for those individuals that participated in the armed insurgency after May 1, 2003; and Fully fund veterans healthcare, including mental health care, for our returning veterans. This bill stands in stark contrast to President Bush's proposal to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. The President proposes more of the same, while we provide a way to remove our troops from the sectarian civil war in Iraq, return our troops to their loved ones and begin the process of restoring our credibility throughout the world.