Diane Watson

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for her bill, H. Con. Res. 234, to require the President to immediately present a plan to eradicate poverty by 2010. Her resolution is indeed timely. Hurricane Katrina has rubbed away the scar tissue from a festering national wound which is poverty and the growing economic divide that continues to afflict our great Nation. Mr. Speaker, only a few weeks ago, the U.S. Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty income and health insurance coverage. The report documents that poverty rose by 1.1 million people from 2003 to 2004. The number of Americans without health insurance also rose from 45 million in 2003 to 45.8 million in 2004. Shame. The facts presented by the Census Bureau report are incontrovertible. Poverty is on the rise throughout the United States of America, and let me briefly cite a few other startling facts taken from the latest Census report. In 2004, 37 million Americans lived in poverty, up by 5.4 million from the previous year. More than one in six American children now lives in poverty. The poverty rate for African Americans was 24.7 percent in 2004. The poverty rate for Hispanics stood at 21.9 percent for the same year. The real income of American households declined in 2000 among all income groups. In my home State of California, 13.2 percent of its residents, or 4.4 million people, currently live in poverty; and 18.5 percent of Californians, or 6.7 million people, do not have insurance coverage. The U.S. Census report is not the only recent document that details the growth of poverty in the United States. Today, President Bush addressed the opening of the United Nations World Summit on Poverty and Reform. Earlier this month, the U.N. released a shocking report on global inequality that is critical of American policies towards poverty abroad as well as here at home. Among its many startling conclusions, the U.N. report reveals that infant mortality has been rising in the United States for the past 5 years and now is the same as Malaysia. America's African American children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday. The U.N. report also notes that although the U.S. leads the world in health care spending, this high level goes disproportionately to the care of wealthier Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate health disparities based on race, wealth and the State of residence. Countries that spend substantially less than the United States have, on average, a healthier population. For a century in the U.S. there has been a sustained decline in the number of children who died before their first birthday. But since 2000 this trend has sadly been reversed. The U.S. is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Shame on us. The United States, along with Mexico, has the dubious distinction of seeing its child poverty rate increase to more than 20 percent. The U.S. ranked 17 out of the 18 OECD countries in the highest level of human and income poverty. The only OECD country the U.S. is ranked ahead is the country of Italy. Even Ireland ranks higher. Poverty is a systemic issue, and we need to move on it now.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, we got word today that there will be a bipartisan, bicameral investigation into what went wrong in the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina. This is welcome news. A full investigation will help us understand, in detail, how we can improve our disaster response capabilities to prevent this sort of mishandling from ever happening again. The problem is that an investigation will take months. Meanwhile, it is clear that the Federal Government still does not have its act together on this crisis; and in the meantime, people are dying. Here are just a few of the recent foul-ups: In the Gulf of Mexico, the USS Bataan, a Navy hospital ship, has been sitting in the Gulf of Mexico since Hurricane Katrina hit. Yet the Bataan's hundreds of hospital beds are still going empty. FEMA has requested hundreds of firefighters from around the country to rescue Katrina victims, but for 4 days they have been sitting idle in a hotel at the Atlanta airport and playing cards while studying FEMA history. Said one Pennsylvania firefighter, ``On the news every night you hear hurricane victims say, How come everybody forgot us? We didn't forget. We're stuck in Atlanta drinking beer.'' On Tuesday, FEMA asked the South Carolina Department of Public Health to scramble on only a half hour of notice to receive 180 injured evacuees from New Orleans. The South Carolina doctors then waited for hours for the evacuees to arrive in Charleston. It turns out that FEMA had sent the evacuees to the wrong Charleston: Charleston, West Virginia, instead of Charleston, South Carolina, where the doctors were waiting. Now we hear that the director of FEMA, Michael Brown, waited hours after Katrina hit before submitting a plan to send FEMA personnel into action. This despite the fact that the President of the United States had declared a Federal emergency 2 days before Katrina hit. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are eager to accuse anyone who questions the Federal Government's response of ``playing politics.'' But this is not about politics. This is about getting answers as to why our Federal Government cannot protect its citizens. We cannot sit still waiting for hearings when it is clear that Americans are suffering and dying while their government officials learn on the job. Mr. Speaker, the Director of FEMA, Michael Brown, needs to go and to go now. This is not a political act; it is a humanitarian act. Who knows how many Americans might still be alive if someone other than Mr. Brown was in charge of FEMA. Mr. Brown should get out of the way so someone with experience can come in and fix this whole thing; and if Mr. Brown does not come to his senses and step aside, the President should remove him immediately. Some say that we cannot switch leaders in the midst of this relief effort because it would disrupt the efforts already under way. Mr. Speaker, I do not see how our worst enemies could disrupt our efforts much further. It seems the effort will be far more organized if someone other than Mr. Brown were in charge. One more disturbing trend I have noticed is the effort of administration officials to shift the blame to State and local officials for this scale of disaster. This is unconscionable, and I do not think the American people will really swallow it. The President declared Katrina to be a Federal emergency 2 days before it hit. He claimed responsibility for the emergency response for the Federal Government. Now it is time for him to take responsibility for the Federal Government's colossal failure.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, yes, New Orleans is worth saving and rebuilding. It is one of the most American cities, for it represents how diversity comes together in harmony and blends into our music, our foods, our culture, and our Americanism. Response to this disaster was a miserable failure. Americans died, Americans went hungry, Americans were living for days without water and without health services. You can live without food for 7 days, but you cannot live without water. Our health services were dysfunctional. We must admit, we failed at protecting our American citizens in our own homeland. We as Congress must rise to the occasion. We have American citizens suffering and cannot get immediate help to them. Medics always take our wounded off the battlefields. Our social contract says trust us and we will deliver in your time of need. This is America's Gulf War. One-half million people have been uprooted. Millions of people in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, have been affected. 150,000 of the displaced live below the poverty line, and 50,000 of them are post-retirement age. So what are we doing about it? What am I doing about it? I have called my State government, I have called my board of education, I have called my local representatives to ask them to do a displacement absorption plan; invite them to California, invite them to Los Angeles. Share your housing with a family. Share your schools, your colleges and your universities with those post-secondary students. Both public and private colleges must kick in. We have started the New Orleans Hurricane Relief Fund. I am collecting money, along with several other organizations in the L.A. area and with one of our major radio stations, and we are having that money hand-carried into these disaster areas to the leadership that has been chosen to be responsible. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that we can do and we must do, and we must do them now. I do not want to watch television another evening and see people begging for food and water, begging for medicine, begging to be taken out of areas that are soaked with water that will be causing diseases, with an environment that is polluted from the smoke coming up from the buildings that are on fire. Where are we when the world is watching? I am embarrassed for the U.N. to say we are going to help you, but I am overjoyed that other nations are addressing our needs when we are in need, as we have addressed theirs when they are in need. So let us rise to the occasion. Let us save Americans. They are not refugees; they are citizens of the United States.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, President Bush told the American people, if there were a leak out of my administration, I would want to know who it is. That was 2 years ago. It clearly was not a top priority, because if the President really wanted an answer to that question, he would have it by now. When someone in the White House leaked Plame's identity, they compromised hundreds of intelligence investigations that are now taking place around the world; this at a time when our intelligence-gathering plays a critical component to our national security. The outing of a CIA agent should be a concern to us all. The President's own father realized the serious implications of outing covert agents. He went as far as to call them almost actions that are treasonous. Now his son refuses to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name. President Bush can continue to state that he wants to wait for the grand jury to finish its investigation; but if this was indeed a top priority for the President, he would have an answer by now.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. I am extremely happy that after years of work, we are finally bringing this important bill to the floor for a vote. In my congressional district alone, there are 66 postal facilities accounting for over 1,600 postal workers and $79 million in wages. The men and women of the United States Postal Service bind our Nation together, offering prompt and reliable services at uniform prices. Many people do not realize the economic power this industry has. The postal industry accounts for over 8 percent of the gross national product, and it is the backbone of a $900 billion mailing industry that drives the U.S. economy. To maintain the current level of high-quality service, we must reform our postal system for the new information age. The United States Postal Service is the world's most efficient postal system. While America is adding almost 2 million addresses per year, the number of postal employees have held steady, meaning that the same number of letter carriers are walking further, while delivering more mail. This bill must be passed because it addresses many pressing issues, such as rate changes, the Postal Service Retirement System, escrow accounts, and military pension issues. This is the only Federal agency where funds in the civil retirement system have to be used to fulfill military obligations within the Department. The bill also addresses the issue of the United States Postal Service overpayment of over $78 billion in civil service retirement benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the escrow requirements will cost the United States Postal Service nearly $3 billion in 2006 and over $36 billion over the next 8 years. If the postal system is not fixed, our constituents will bear the cost. This Nation is very fortunate to have a Postal Service system that handles such a large volume of mail while operating at affordable costs to our citizens.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, today, a grand jury continues to investigate into the leaking of an undercover agent's identity. Thank goodness a grand jury is taking this case seriously, since it does not appear that either the White House or House Republicans are interested in finding out who is responsible for leaking Valerie Plame's identity. Back in the 1990s, House Republicans loved ``Roving'' around in the White House's business. House Republicans took 140 hours of testimony to investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card database. They also once asked President Clinton to explain how the White House responded to letters sent to the President's cat, Socks. But now that we have an issue that is clearly begging for congressional oversight, House Republicans have been silent. They have not sent a single letter to the White House demanding answers. They have not held congressional hearings to investigate the impact such a leak could have on our ability to gather intelligence. The leaking of a CIA agent's identity is a serious breach of our national security, and something must be done about it.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, today Karl Rove continues to walk around the White House with the highest of security clearances. What does that say to our covert CIA agents risking their lives around the world? When Karl Rove became a top level White House employee, he took an oath to abide by the guidelines included in a briefing book called the Standard Form 3112. This form says, and I am quoting, ``Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of SF 312 must confirm, through an authorized official, that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.'' Rove signed this form promising to abide by the rules. Clearly, he broke these rules when he told Reporter Matthew Cooper that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Furthermore, he also broke the rule when he confirmed this same information for reporter Robert Novak. It is outrageous that Rove continues to have access to top secret information.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment, which I am offering with the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), would confirm that it is the policy of the United States to bring Charles Taylor to justice. Charles Taylor is one of the most notorious criminal thugs loose in the world today. He bears great personal responsibility for the series of wars that have wracked West Africa over the last 2 decades. The Liberian civil war was noted for its barbarism, and Taylor was the most barbaric of the bunch. He was celebrated for his widespread use of child soldiers, which he organized into the so-called ``Small Boys Units.'' Taylor's efforts extended beyond the borders of Liberia. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has indicted Taylor on 17 counts of war crimes. According to the court, Taylor provided ``guidance and direction'' to a ``joint criminal enterprise which was to take any actions necessary to gain and exercise political power and control over the territory of Sierra Leone . . . '' The court's indictment says Taylor and his cronies were responsible for ``unlawful killings, abductions, forced labor, physical and sexual violence, use of child soldiers, looting and burning of civilian structures.'' Taylor ``participated in this joint criminal enterprise as part of his continuing efforts to gain access to the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone and to destabilize the government of Sierra Leone.''. Mr. Chairman, I include the full text of the court's indictment of Taylor in the Record: The Special Court for Sierra Leone, Case No. SCSL-03-I, The Prosecutor Against Charles Ghankay Taylor Also Known as Charles Ghankay MacArthur Dapkpana Taylor indictment The Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, under Article 15 of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (the Statute) charges: CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR also known as (aka) CHARLES GHANKAY MACARTHUR DAPKPANA TAYLOR with

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment, which I am offering with the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), would authorize $5 million for the State Department to work to improve intellectual property law and enforcement in developing countries. Specifically, the Watson-Issa amendment would direct the funding to activities in countries that are not members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development under the auspices of the State Department's Economic Bureau. These funds could be used for a wide range of activities, including posting IP experts abroad to help train foreign officials and improve enforcement of intellectual property laws. According to the recent figures from the International Intellectual Property Association, worldwide motion picture piracy losses for 2003 are estimated to be between $3 billion and $4 billion. More than 52 million illegal optical discs of MPAA member companies were seized worldwide during the same year, a result of 31,000 raids and more than 65,000 investigations. These numbers do not include the illegal file- sharing on the Internet. Our government continues to work to secure legal protections for American-produced intellectual property. We work with numerous countries to improve their legal codes and law enforcement training, to enforce intellectual property protections, but we also found that if the political will in foreign capitals to enforce these protections is lacking, all the training in the world will fail to reduce piracy and counterfeiting. For that reason, we must make sure that our State Department has adequate funding and tools to engage foreign governments and convince them of the need to enforce these laws. I want to note that this sensible, bipartisan amendment has been adopted twice in the full House within the past 2 years. Unfortunately, the Senate never passed this authorization. So I look forward to having this amendment adopted once again as part of the foreign relations authorization bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that a deputy chief of staff in the White House to even mention the name of Ambassador Wilson, not naming his wife would not know, because she is the one that sent him over there to Niger. So how did Robert Novak get the information to print her name in the press? So I do not buy the excuses. I do not think the American people, knowing the truth, will buy the excuses. What we have all lost is the faith and the trust in this administration to deal straightforwardly with the American people, and as the gentleman has so brilliantly enumerated all the other misinformation activities involving this administration. We must stop it and we must stop it now because the reputation of the United States has sunk to its lowest point.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly take this to another level. And it is about truth and trust. I, as a former ambassador representing the United States of America, was trained in the State Department as to confidentialities and secret missions that were taking place around this globe. The audacity of someone in the Executive Branch even making reference to a covert agent violates that confidentiality and puts us all at risk. It is not something you play with. It is not something you use for retaliation. When you out an agent, you are outing all of us. Our intelligence functions on us having operatives in places where people are plotting against our Nation. Our defense will be in the fact that they bring that information to us and we prepare our defenses. If these people are exposed, they no longer can gather the information that can save lives and property. So I think this is the most heinous act. I am not even going to get into the debate whether it is prosecutable or not. But, any leader in the executive branch ought to understand that you cannot have people there who will leak this information. The safety of all of our citizens depends on the confidentiality.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, Karl Rove needs to stop hiding behind his attorney and be straightforward with the American people about his involvement in the Valerie Plame scandal. Whether or not Karl Rove is the only administration official who leaked information to reporters remains to be seen. What is clear today is that Karl Rove has not been up-front with the American people. He has consistently denied any involvement in the case despite the revelation on Monday through his attorney that he did indeed tell a Time magazine reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. This is a serious breach of trust on Karl Rove's part. Truth and trust are devalued when this happens. Larry Johnson, a former CIA operative who worked with Plame, explained how serious Rove's actions were, and I am quoting: ``The fact that she's been undercover for 3 decades and has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised.'' He needs to step down.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, when Karl Rove's attorney finally admitted to the Washington Post yesterday that Rove told a reporter Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, he was indeed identifying her. It does not take too much investigative reporting beyond that to actually come up with a name. Now, Rove's attorney is trying to explain away Rove's actions by stating that he was merely ``discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true.'' Convenient explanation, but are we supposed to believe this from an attorney who previously stated that Rove did not reveal any confidential information? Clearly, Rove did reveal confidential information when he told Time reporter Matt Cooper that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Karl Rove himself should come forward and level with the American people about his involvement in the Valerie Plame leak. Failing this, President Bush should ask for his resignation.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, Washington Republicans cannot have it both ways on Social Security. Since the beginning of this year, President Bush and House Republicans have been telling everyone who will listen that Social Security is going broke. President Bush went so far as to take a field trip to West Virginia to show the American people that there really is not a trust fund where all the surplus Social Security funds are kept. Of course, the President was being dishonest. The vault is filled with Treasury bonds that must be paid back to Social Security in the years to come. Regardless, he went to West Virginia and told the American people that the Social Security trust fund did not exist. So now Congressional Republicans have come up with a brilliant idea: Create private accounts with the money that exists in the trust fund. Who are Congressional Republicans trying to fool? It is clear that the Congressional Republicans are determined to privatize Social Security, despite very little support for the idea.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I would join with my colleagues about today's unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster, for it represents a great triumph for American creativity and innovation. File-sharing companies that actively coax consumers into violating copyright laws can no longer escape legal consequences under the guise of fair use. They will no longer be able to rip off from the talent and the hard work of our Nation's creators. In ruling for our Nation's creative artists, the Supreme Court today struck a proper balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the need to expand our technologies. As a representative of Hollywood, my district contains many movie and recording studios, which serve as the driving force behind our local economy and provide tens of thousands of jobs to many of my constituents. As Chair of the Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus, one of my key concerns has been the continuing erosion of our Nation's copyright laws. Let me share some shocking statistics. According to recent FBI data, U.S. producers of movies, music, computer games, and software lost $23 billion in 2003 to illegal copying. In Operation Digital Gridlock, the first Federal law enforcement action against a peer-to-peer network, regulators seized the equivalent of 60,000 illegally distributed movies last August. It is clear to me that piracy of our creative products has reached an epidemic level, both domestically and internationally, creating a huge drain on our economy, job creation, and technological innovation. We are forced to resort to legal actions to help stem this tide of intellectual property theft. That is why today's Supreme Court ruling was so important. In the unanimous opinion, the Justices held that ``one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.'' It is this unequivocal guidance from our Nation's highest court that I believe will help enhance the effective enforcement of our Nation's copyright laws and strengthen the public's respect for the value of intellectual property rights. Of course, efforts to address privacy should not inhibit the continuing growth and development of our digital economy. New technologies should benefit not just the content distributors but the creative forces as well. But as the entertainment and technology sectors work together to utilize file-sharing networks to create new innovative and legal forms of content distribution, I hope today's decision will send a message to all pirates that winking and nodding at digital theft will not be tolerated any more than theft itself. I am confident that the lower courts will carefully apply this well-reasoned opinion in finding Grokster and other similar companies liable for activities that will induce their customers into illegal use of creative products.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that Mr. Tomlinson needs to go, because yesterday Patricia Harrison, who was the former cochairman of the National Republican Committee, was selected as the next president. He has secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate guiding principles for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Our first amendment rights are being eroded away and we can see through that. There needs to be transparency. Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and both politically motivated. Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives who share his ideological views. Yesterday, Patricia Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, was elected as CPB's next president. Mr. Tomlinson also secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Tomlinson suppressed a public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans judge PBS to be ``fair and balanced'', compared to network and cable television. Tomlinson, also diverted taxpayers' money to hire a partisan researcher for a stealth study to track so called ``anti-Bush'' and ``anti-Tom DeLay'' comments (by the guests) of ``NOW with Bill Moyers''--a move that currently is being investigated by the Inspector General. Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting. The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between Washington DC politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back in. Our amendment will prohibit the CPB President from exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it has even come to arguing for safeguards we used to take for granted, but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I had two amendments that I was going to offer on the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, and they have to do with restricting funding for opening a new office that would monitor dissenting and ideological statements. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that will help end the partisan attacks on public broadcasting by prohibiting the funding of the new Office of Ombudsmen at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The creation of such office is partisan, unnecessary, and contrary to the spirit of the law that created CPB, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Corporation of Public Broadcasting, CPB, Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has inserted politics into our public media and has taken the public out. Recently we learned that Mr. Tomlinson secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Furthermore, the ombudsmen were appointed by Tomlinson based on their purported political ideology--``one for the left and one for the right.'' These actions are in violation of the original mandate established by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. This historic act forbids ``political or other tests'' from being used in employee actions and prohibits interference by Federal officials over public media content. Congress intended that the CPB serve as a firewall against outside political pressures, and the creation of the ombudsmen office at the CPB clearly contradicts that spirit. Secondly, hiring outside ombudsmen at CPB is completely unnecessary. NPR already has an in-house ombudsman. In response to the unfounded accusations of liberal bias, the PBS board recently selected an independent ombudsman that is in line with the original bill's language, which states that the ``production and acquisition of programs'' is supposed to be ``evaluated on the basis of comparative merit by panels or outside experts, representing diverse interests and perspectives appointed by the corporations.'' There is clearly no need to spend additional taxpayer's money for the monitoring of public broadcasting programming, especially through the lens of political ideology. The amendment I am offering today simply restores what was already in place by legal precedent by prohibiting the funding of the Office of Ombudsmen at CPB. This amendment is in the spirit of the 1967 act, which forbade ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.'' The American people, in poll after poll, have judged PBS to be ``fair and balanced'' compared to network and cable television. We do not need outside operatives to intervene. Furthermore, in these times of fiscal crisis for PBS, the last thing we need is to spend taxpayers' money on partisan media police. My amendment will help return balance and objectivity to our public media, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, once again our public broadcasting system is under attack by reactionary forces inside the beltway. This time, it is suffering a two-pronged assault; one on content, one on funding, and both politically motivated. Congressman Hinchey and I are offering an amendment to reinforce existing law and buffer PBS from the kind of political attacks that Corporation of Public Broadcasting, CPB Chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has brought upon Big Bird and Elmo. Mr. Tomlinson has revealed his personal crusade to discredit and destroy public broadcasting by unjustly accusing PBS and NPR of liberal bias, and working behind the scenes to stack the CPB's board and executive offices with operatives who share his ideological views. According to recent reports, Tomlinson is promoting Patricia Harrison, the former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, to be CPB's next president. Mr. Tomlinson also secretly coordinated with a White House official to formulate ``guiding principles'' for the appointment of two partisan ombudsmen to monitor and critique all public broadcasting content. Tomlinson suppressed a public poll showing that 80 percent of Americans judge PBS to be ``fair and balanced'' compared to network and cable television. Finally, Tomlinson diverted taxpayers' money to hire a partisan researcher for a stealth study to track ``anti-Bush'' and ``anti-Tom DeLay'' comments by the guests of NOW with Bill Moyers--a move that currently is being investigated by the Inspector General. Mr. Chairman, the law is clear on this. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 clearly forbids ``any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications programs and services.'' Congress established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to ``encourage the development of public radio and television broadcasting'' and to ``afford (public broadcasting) maximum protection from extraneous interference and control.'' Under the direction of Tomlinson, however, the CPB has engaged in a deliberate campaign to inject politics into public broadcasting. The taxpayer-funded CPB is supposed to serve as a firewall between Washington, DC, politics and public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, we must take the politics out of public broadcasting--and put the public back in. Our amendment will prohibit Mr. Tomlinson from exercising any direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public broadcasting. It would also reaffirm the long-standing policy that public broadcasting must be free from outside interference. This is about the future of a vital public trust, a resource that is owned and enjoyed by everyone, and not allowing it to be hijacked by the nefarious agenda of a few political operatives. It is a shame that it has even come to arguing for safeguards we used to take for granted, but the actions of Mr. Tomlinson demand it. I urge my colleagues to support our amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word. (Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, Whereas John C. ``Jay'' Magin was born March 20, 1937, in Port Jefferson, New York, who as a toddler traveled with his family as his father, a radio engineer for the Civil Aeronautics Administration, worked to establish landing control towers at airports during World War II.; Whereas the Magin family settled in Kansas City, Missouri in 1942, and moved to Lynbrook, New York in 1947; Whereas Jay Magin graduated in 1955 from Bishop Laughlin Memorial High School in Brooklyn, New York, where he had been active in the Army's JROTC program; Whereas Jay Magin attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, went to work for Grumman Corporation in the late 1950s, and spent a long career working in avionics support before retiring in 1989 and then moving to Hawaii; Whereas Jay Magin was a member of the Kailua Elks Lodge 2230, an instructor in Lessons in Firearms Education (L.I.F.E.), a member of the Hawaii Rifle Association, a member of the Battleship Missouri Amateur Radio Club, and a longtime active member of the MG Car Club of Long Island; Whereas Jay Magin was also active in the American Red Cross' Human Animal Bond program at Tripler Army Medical Center and a member of Calvary By the Sea Lutheran Church in Aina Haina; Whereas Jay Magin and his wife Judy, longtime residents of Huntington, New York, were married for 43 years and had two children: Janis, an editor with The Associated Press in Honolulu, and John, a Mac Genius with Apple Computer in New York City; Whereas Jay Magin is survived by his wife, Judy; daughter Janis of Honolulu, Hawaii; son John and daughter-in-law Marianne of Huntington Station, New York; a brother, James O. Magin of Freeport, New York; a sister, Mary Ann Potito of Selden, New York; several nieces and nephews; and his beloved pets Willem and Ekhai: Now therefore be it Resolved, in the U.S. House of Representatives, that Congresswoman Diane E. Watson, (1) Mourns the passing of Jay Magin; (2) Recognizes Jay Magin's legacy of charitable service, professional work ethic, bountiful kindness, and soft spoken manner; and (3) Fondly remembers Jay Magin's easy laughter, charm, and the fact that he never uttered a harsh word about others.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, last week the Iraqi Bureau Chief for Newsweek Magazine left Iraq after being there for 2 years and wrote one final report entitled ``Good Intentions Gone Bad.'' Rod Nordland said the turning point in the war was the Abu Ghraib scandal. Nordland wrote: ``The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib alienated a broad swath of the Iraqi public. There is no evidence that all the mistreatment and humiliation saved a single American life or led to the capture of any major terrorist.'' The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody has severely undermined our Nation's position in the world. And yet congressional Republicans are still unwilling to call for an independent investigation to determine what exactly is happening in these prisons. How can we possibly regain our credibility in the world until we actually investigate the possibilities of abuse? We still do not know why these abuses took place.

Ms. WATSON

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, we have spent over $200 billion so far on the war in Iraq. According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2010, our expenses might be as much as $600 billion. The two hundred billion dollars we have spent so far would be enough money to provide health care for the 45 million Americans without health insurance. That two hundred billion dollars would permit us to hire three and a half million elementary school teachers. That two hundred billion dollars for the war in Iraq is going on America's credit card and that goes right to the deficit--a debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren. All this might be worth it if we had something to show for it. I think two hundred billion dollars for peace and democracy is a bargain. But we haven't gotten peace and democracy. That two hundred billion has bought us: over seventeen hundred dead Americans; an unknowable number of Iraqi civilian deaths; a dysfunctional country that cannot move its political process forward; a new haven and proving ground for anti-American extremism; a wellspring of mistrust from longtime friends and allies around the world; and a devastating erosion of American leadership and credibility. So what are we still doing there? The President says we are pursuing our ``ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.'' But the President has dragged onto a path that, at best, muddles that message. We are building our nation's largest embassy in Iraq; even before it is complete, we have more than 1,000 embassy staff in Iraq. What is the average Iraqi on the streets of Fallujah--or average Jordanian on the streets of Amman--going to think when he sees that we are building the Largest American Embassy in the World in Baghdad? I am sure the average Iraqi does not mourn the savage brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime. The question is whether he equates our never- ending American presence in Iraq with a new form of tyranny, rather than the freedom the President says he seeks to spread. The underlying problem with our endless occupation of Iraq--a country that does not threaten the United States--is that it undermines our leadership on issues that DO threaten the United States. North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons, global terrorism, emerging deadly international diseases--all these issues are imminent threats that we must confront. Our ability to convince other nations to join us in boldly confronting these threats has been hobbled both by our deceptive entry into Iraq and our lingering departure from it. Mr. Speaker, our Iraq policy has become a festering wound that bleeds away more and more of America's wealth, America's security, America's leadership, and even America young men and women in uniform. I ask all my colleagues to join me in asking the President seek an exit from this venture at the earliest possible moment.