[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11111-11120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CONGRESS NEEDS TO FULFILL ITS RESPONSIBILITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the chronicling 
of crisis of Social Security by my colleague, and I would simply offer 
to say that I agree with him. This Congress

[[Page 11112]]

needs to be able to focus its attention on domestic issues as crucial 
as Social Security.
  I guess this evening I will pursue for my colleagues why we have not 
been successful in fulfilling our responsibilities in dealing with the 
domestic agenda, confronting some of the crises that we are now facing 
around the world, and particularly confronting the crises that we are 
facing in the Mideast, particularly in the region of Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I believe that the American people have a right to expect their 
government to work. It is a simple premise, Mr. Speaker. The Federal 
Government is the umbrella during the rainy day. It is the cushion. I 
might say some would say it is the wind beneath our wings. Frankly, it 
is the big brother and big sister in a positive way. We should be able 
to lean on the Federal Government.
  I am disappointed because I believe this Congress, and there is not 
an institution that I respect more in terms of government because of 
the great history of this body, has failed to fulfill its 
responsibilities. What are those responsibilities and what has it 
brought in terms of where we are today?
  We are faced with choices that have not been brought about by the 
right kinds of circumstances. We failed as a body to truly provide 
oversight in order for this government to work. I think it is so 
overwhelming to the American people, it requires a chronicling of where 
we are and why there should be such an outrage and an outcry to demand 
this government to work, particularly this Congress, because the 
Congress above the executive and the Judiciary, is to be the truth-
finder. It is to be the fixer-upper. It is the body that corrects the 
ills that have been created.
  Frankly, I think it is quite dismal that in the last 4 years, when 
this body was controlled predominantly by one party, we have not seen 
one legitimate investigation started, completed and resolved. When I 
say that, I mean started, completed and the problem resolved.
  We still have outstanding the exposure of a CIA operative. We still 
have outstanding the question of how the energy bill was designed. We 
have not yet completed a complete overhaul of our corporate structures 
so that we can prevent fraud and abuse. We certainly have not touched 
the surface of why we entered into a war with Iraq on the basis of 
weapons of mass destruction and whether or not this body, this Congress 
was misrepresented to.
  So tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am simply going to draw our attention to 
why it is so important to decipher what the policies are in this 
government and to simply ask the question why and to ask the question 
what if. What is wrong with the body, what is wrong with this Congress 
who fails to ask the questions why and what if, who takes its 
responsibility of oversight as a major part of its duties, its oath of 
office, so the American people can know the truth and so that we can 
find ways to fix the problems and that we can restore this Nation to 
its high moral grounds?
  Frankly, it is tragic to be able to suggest that seven low-ranking 
military personnel, privates and others, are the basis upon which this 
Nation's national and international standing has collapsed, and 
frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is fairly accurate. It does not take away 
from the very noble, valiant tasks that have been acted on by our 
military and our other government personnel who are on the front lines 
across the world.
  I had the pleasure of being just last week in Afghanistan at Baggram 
Air Force Base where a multitude of our forces were there from many, 
many different branches of the United States military, and Mr. Speaker, 
I come back to say that our military is able, dedicated and committed; 
that the work that is being done in Afghanistan, though trying and 
difficult, though forgotten in some sense, led by very fine military 
officers, is persistent and determined. They are determined to stay and 
provide the kind of leadership and security necessary for the 
government of President Karzai to succeed and for the elections to 
proceed. They are engaged. They are working with the provisional 
reconstruction team, one of the best elements of the Defense 
Department, and the American people should know about it. Our military 
are engaged, yes, in Nation building, more effective than our foreign 
policy has been, and in visiting with those on the air force base, they 
are actually building schools and clinics. They are actually helping to 
educate young people in Afghanistan. They are actually seeing thousands 
upon thousands of girls and boys going to school.
  We were very proud, as members of the Afghan Caucus, with the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), to be able to deliver 900 pounds of 
books that were collected by the Houston school children and the 
Houston Independent School District, that were stored by a small 
business by the name of A Rocket Storage and Moving Company, very proud 
of them as my constituents, and a very charitable Federal Express that 
helped get them here to Washington and then to the United States 
military that helped deliver them to those children. Yes, our books 
that taught about geography and science and how to read and stories and 
picture books and things that children in Afghanistan might have not 
have seen in years. That is a good thing and the good news to report.
  Then, of course, in meetings with the Central Command, in listening 
to some of the success stories that were going on there and meeting 
with the some 5,000 soldiers on the USS George Washington, soldiers who 
are providing the support for the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan 
and Iraq. These sailors are very proudly, many of them from Texas, 
working around the clock 24 hours.
  That is the good news that America should know, but at the same time 
that they know the good news, it is important for them to understand 
that this Congress has failed to provide the oversight that is 
necessary to get us back on track. In fact, I would be prepared tonight 
to say that the political inadequacies and the lack of consistency in 
our direction in Iraq is causing the system to collapse around the 
military efforts. The military efforts have been, as I said, persistent 
and determined, but they are collapsing because the political process 
is uneven, misdirected and, I believe, confused.
  This war has cost us, and might I just offer to those colleagues the 
timeline that brought us to where we are today.
  On January 9, 2002, President George Bush's State-of-the-Union 
address labels Iraq part of the ``Axis of Evil'' and vows that the U.S. 
will not permit the most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the most 
destructive weapons. That is the first pronouncement that Iraq has 
weapons of mass destruction. We do not know if there is any truth to 
that, but that is what led to this whole timeline that brings us to 
where we are today.
  We go on to a series of various pronouncements, and then finally 
Congress provides a resolution that says go to the United Nations. 
Those of us who oppose both the resolution and the doctrine of 
preemptive attack continue to insist that we needed to go in a 
multilateral approach. It was ignored. The U.N. Security Council 
provided a resolution imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq.

                              {time}  2300

  But of course that resolution asked for the arms inspection process 
to continue. Soon thereafter, on December 31, this administration 
approved the deployment of U.S. troops to the Gulf region, almost 
unilaterally; and of course this persistence turned into what became 
the war against Iraq.
  On May 1 of 2003, the U.S. declares an end to major combat 
operations, in essence a victory. On April 14, preceding that, major 
fighting in Iraq is declared over by the Pentagon after U.S. forces 
take control of Tikrit, which is Saddam Hussein's birthplace.
  May 30, in a separate speech, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell 
and British Prime Minister Tony Blair denied intelligence about Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction were distorted or exaggerated to justify an 
attack on Iraq. This was May 30, 2003.

[[Page 11113]]

  The reason for this time line is to suggest that when we make choices 
to go into war then we choose war and we ignore the domestic 
responsibilities of this Nation. So as I proceed to discuss where we 
are at in terms of the cost of war, I think it should be with the 
backdrop of the limitations that we have been able to engage.
  For example, we have not been able to focus on fixing Social Security 
or making sure that it is preserved. Frankly, I believe that any fix of 
Social Security should be to maintain it in its present state in order 
for it to be what it was intended under FDR and that is that it was 
intended to be a safety net. So any review of the Social Security 
System should be with the intent of its origins, a safety net. So 
private savings accounts and other such quick fixes are not to 
interfere with what most people have come to understand, that no matter 
what happens to them, no matter what happens to the economy at this 
point, they know if Social Security is in place they will have at least 
a minimal ability to provide and support themselves.
  But we have not had time to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, and the 
reason is because this war has been costly. We can see now with our 
very eyes the extent of the cost. Frankly, we know that it is going to 
continue to cost. We have already spent over $150 billion in 
supplemental budgets alone dealing with this war in Iraq. We have a 
very narrow coalition of allies helping with it. In fact, we have seen 
over the last couple of weeks and months allies leave with all due and 
deliberate speed because they believe the political process is 
collapsing down around us. The coalition of the willing is diminishing.
  Again, let me remind my colleagues that I am not discussing or 
indicating that the work of our military personnel is diminishing, but 
morale is a question, and we should not, we should not attempt to cover 
up with accolades and high praise and suggest that anyone who 
criticizes in order to shed light on the fallacies or the problems that 
are going on are wrong. Frankly, I think the American people need to 
track what is going on in Iraq and demand accountability of its 
government, and that is what we have not gotten.
  So we are in a war that eliminates the choices that should be made to 
assist in the needs of the American people. As I said, we have already 
spent over $150 billion in supplemental budgets. We have now a request 
of $25 billion. Our troops are known to be spread too thin. There is 
question as to whether or not we have enough troops. We have a 
volunteer army, a volunteer military of which we can be very proud of, 
but no one has taken time to discuss whether or not we actually need a 
draft in order to address this question.
  We know that our National Guard and Reserve forces are stretched 
thin. We know from conversations directly with our military that from 
the time they were first assigned some 6 months has been extended to 
their stay. Some are still there without knowing when they might return 
home. This is particularly hard on the Reservists and the National 
Guard because, in many instances, even though actively deployed and 
committed, they are leaving families and jobs and incurring expenses 
which they cannot meet. So the question of choices is being raised not 
only by this government but by the people we are impacting.
  During my trip to the region, as I indicated, I could hear personal 
stories asking the question of how long we would have to be engaged. 
Mr. Speaker, my assessment from listening to these personal stories, 
though committed, dedicated, and patriotic personnel that they were, is 
that the American people have not been told the actual truth. The 
administration has not laid out the time line which we will have to 
stay in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I have given a modest prediction of 10 years. Frankly, it may be 
more. But no one has even bothered to categorize how long they think we 
might stay in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the time we might spend there 
will be costly. The bills will continue to mount. And the question is: 
Do we have the political will or is there any political process in 
place to even provide some sort of commitment to the American people 
that we will be successful?
  It is a dilemma for those of us who have opposed vigorously this war. 
If you understand this process, you realize that, as you have opposed 
the war, it is also important to invest in some semblance of sanity and 
civility and stability in the region for our own good. Yet realizing 
that even though the war on terror, which began in Afghanistan and 
which was never completed, and in fact we are still in that process, 
and that was a unified effort with allies from around the world, you 
also know that you cannot leave either of these places. Yet we have not 
heard one administration official in this time line that I have read 
from that has indicated how long we will be in this region, how long we 
will be in Afghanistan or in Iraq.
  So what is missing is the direct information that will allow the 
American people to join in their governmental process and make choices. 
Because all that we have gotten is that we are engaged. And what we 
have seen over the last couple of weeks is the tragedy of the 
engagement, the large numbers of lives lost not only in Iraq but in 
Afghanistan, and the turmoil and conflict that is occurring in a number 
of cities and holy places around Iraq. We have seen the changed 
policies of falling back to security, as opposed to aggressively going 
after the insurgents, the conflict of determining whether insurgents 
are those who are just opposed to foreigners on their land or whether 
they can be classified as terrorists. Those are difficult questions and 
those are choices that are having to be made that are falling upon the 
shoulders of the American people.
  This past weekend we paid tribute to the Greatest Generation, and we 
acknowledged the generation of today, who are standing on the shores of 
other lands fighting for us. We have laid to rest so many young people 
and so many military personnel Reservists and National Guardsmen that 
have lost their lives in Iraq. Each life is precious. Each family that 
has lost one mourns one.
  This past weekend we also paid tribute to the Greatest Generation, 
those who lived and those who lost their lives in World War II. Those 
were liberators, but it was an enunciated, understandable need to go 
into World War II. In fact, many of us who reflect on history would 
have wanted us to go earlier.
  But that is not the case here. The war in Iraq is not a clear war. 
There is not clarity. There is not distinctiveness in the policy. There 
is not an understanding of the time frame and the time line that we 
will be required to stay.
  For those who want to challenge again the patriotism of many who 
question why we are in Iraq, we also understand that Saddam Hussein is 
and was a despot, that lives were lost. There is no doubt. But what is 
not told by this administration is whether or not Saddam Hussein was 
easily toppable, easily able to be disposed of by Iraqis and others in 
the region, whether or not he was weak enough to be taken without this 
all-out war, which has created this wall of opportunity for terrorists. 
A borderless Iraq is what we have now.

                              {time}  2310

  The question is whether or not we could have handled this in a 
different manner. As I indicated, because we have taken this route, a 
war first based upon weapons of mass destruction, a preemptive 
unilateral attack, a declaration of an end of war when it was not over, 
the lack of inclusiveness of our allies, the diminishing of the willing 
coalition, then we are making choices and we are suffering by those 
choices.
  Let me first start on what I have been speaking about, the military. 
Does anybody realize we have had to underfund the military by $12.2 
billion? This past weekend, we stood and paid tribute to the military 
present and past and to the future. We have thanked them for their 
service. We have mourned those who lost their lives. We stood next to 
families who cried and were crying because of those who gave the 
ultimate sacrifice. We said our patriotic remarks and sang

[[Page 11114]]

our patriotic songs, but what are we doing in this very Congress to 
support the United States military?
  Mr. Speaker, we are underfunding it by $12.2 billion. In fact, the 
budget of the executive is sorely diminishing some of the required 
priorities of this military, particularly in light of its engagement. 
Among the priorities left out of the President's budget are funding for 
arms equipment necessary in light of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Let me make it very clear, my interest is not in building up the 
defense budget. In fact, I am a supporter of the Department of Peace 
that I believe we should be looking at, legislation presented by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) where we begin to put fixtures in 
place to discuss world peace, not something to be taken likely and 
laughed at, but something to be seriously considered and engaged in.
  If we are engaged in war and conflicts, as this administration 
proceeds to do, and then underfunds the very necessary armed equipment 
that our military needs, then they are speaking with a dual voice and 
are in essence making choices that are hurting those on the front 
lines. We are underfunding the military such that we are not providing 
upgrade of Air Force planes with modern identification and electronics 
to protect them from being shot down by friendly fire. That is a 
challenge that we have had to confront in the war in Afghanistan and in 
Iraq. It is tragic enough to lose a loved one, a family member, a 
friend or neighbor, yet to be told that they were brought down by 
friendly fire.
  The administration did not give the Army $2 billion it asked for to 
protect the troops, including $900 million to add armor protection to 
Humvees and other vehicles. I have visited with personnel who 
specifically described Humvees that were not well armored. Of course in 
the last couple of months, we have provided some funds, but yet those 
funds were not sufficient. Go into the hospitals of the wounded, and 
ask them how they were wounded, and they will say they were in Humvees 
not armored.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the choices having to be made because of this 
ill-directed conflict and war in Iraq. The Navy lacks $23 million 
needed to move intelligence information faster and to get more 
linguists into countries where they are most needed. As someone who has 
not asked for the defense budget to consume the needs of America, but 
recognizes that we are now in a war that has not been fully explained 
to the American people in terms of the long-standing commitment and 
price that it will cost, and the fact that this Congress winds its way 
through the 108th session of this body, and we have failed to 
investigate why we are in Iraq, why the representations of the weapons 
of mass destruction, why unilateral preemptive attack, why there has 
been no discussion as to how long we will have to be in Iraq, why there 
has been no explanation as to why the political process seems to be 
failing as we watch it. Why, why, why. Why there has been no 
investigations by this Congress to determine why we are where we are 
today. Choices have been made that now find their way winding itself 
amongst our lives.
  Now I ask the question as well, why we have done little to explain to 
the American people about the Iraqi prison incident and the human 
rights violations in Abu Ghraib. It seems we simply want it to go away. 
I will argue it cannot go away. Frankly, the investigation by the 
military is to be appreciated, but it is not sufficient. So I have 
called for an independent civilian investigation bringing over large 
numbers of FBI agents and other civilian support, not contractors, Mr. 
Speaker, because this military has been too commercialized, and there 
are too many private contractors.
  In fact, I join in a recommendation that I have recently heard that 
all civilian contractors and civilian personnel, who I know have put 
themselves in harm's way, and my comments are not to reflect upon those 
civilians who have gone over to the war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan 
at the behest of their company who are simply doing their job and being 
paid, it is not to comment on their desire to serve their country as 
well; but it is to say we have commercialized and contracted out our 
defense and military personnel responsibilities. It has been dangerous. 
The prison is a prime example of what has generated out of that 
contracting out.
  So a recommendation that I heard just recently, I would adhere to and 
agree that anyone who is contracted by the Department of Defense and 
going into a war zone should adhere to the United States Military Code 
of Justice, and they should have a provision in their contract so they 
are under the Military Code of Justice.
  I am here to say that this tragedy at the prison cannot be swept 
under the rugs. We cannot be told there is an investigation. Why, if 
you just uncover what is going on, you will find out there needs to be 
more than a military investigation. There are human rights violations. 
They are finding out a number of deaths occurred not only in Iraq but 
in Afghanistan. They are finding out that one of the major Baathist 
commanders whom they were trying to get information from died at the 
hands of those in our prisons.
  They are finding out there are ghost detainees, that the CIA has 
ghost detainees, as the individuals were called by the 800th MP 
Brigade; and they were routinely held by the soldier guards at Abu 
Ghraib without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even 
the reason for their detention. These phantom captives were moved 
around within the facility to hide them from the Red Cross teams, a 
tactic which is deceptive and which is contrary to Army doctrine and in 
violation of international law. Are we aware of that? The world is 
aware of that. The Arab states are aware of that, and we have not 
clarified and done anything to provide a sunshine on this tragedy.
  Are we aware that more than 9,000 people are held by U.S. authorities 
overseas, and as well, some held in Guantanamo Bay where they are known 
as enemy combatants? But the crux of the problem is starting at the 
very top. It is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, that we would allow 
scapegoating at the military level and fail to have a full and thorough 
civilian review and investigation. Why do I say that? Because the White 
House counsel provided a letter and commentary that certain prisoners 
could be treated in a certain way, the highest level in the 
administration.

                              {time}  2320

  This is because there has to be some question as to whether or not 
the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the military 
intelligence unit, the CIA and military intelligence personnel, along 
with contracting intelligence personnel, were at the crux of what was 
going on.
  It does not make any sense, frankly, that we have investigations that 
no one knows about. That includes our own Congressional committees; 
briefings in secret, doors closed, the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence not presenting any information that we can decipher.
  I imagine that all committees believe that they are engaged. Frankly, 
Mr. Speaker, I believe this should be investigated by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee 
on Government Reform, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
if that is occurring at this time, and certainly the Committee on Armed 
Services. But, Mr. Speaker, we have heard not even a peep.
  We have held some hearings, but have heard of no resolution. We 
holding up to 8,000, I mentioned 9,000, the number changes as we speak, 
but no one has moved to investigate this and provide the kind of 
oversight that the Constitution requires of this constitutional body, 
the Congress of the United States.
  In fact, since one party has been in power, we have had only 
investigations, if you will, of the other party, and that is the 
Democrats. I recall very well during the Clinton administration, I 
think there was an investigation a day, or maybe every other day; from 
Whitewater to the impeachment to

[[Page 11115]]

Travelgate, any number of investigations that bore little fruit. But 
yet now with the series of, more than infractions, of outright blatant 
undermining of the governmental process, we have found no way, no will, 
no stomach to investigate. While the American people suffer and while 
the world suffers, tragedy occurs.
  If we do not find policies that will help stabilize the region, 
again, Mr. Speaker, we will make choices that most of us will not like. 
I share this chronicling of the events in Iraq because all of us wish 
the people of Iraq well. But as we have watched the political process, 
it is simply falling down around the ears and arms and legs and feet of 
the United States military, struggling every day to maintain security 
in Iraq.
  There is confrontation between the Provisional Council and the United 
States, the choice as to who will lead; the United Nations engaged, but 
not engaged, trying to provide leadership; the question of whether or 
not there will be civil war; whether or not this has been discussed 
with the American people in an announced, pronounced, clear roadmap of 
where we will go in Iraq; how long we will stay, as I indicated; and 
how we will stabilize the region.
  This weekend was a clear example of the political confusion that 
exists. This headline in the New York Daily News today, ``Saudis let 
thugs go, survivors say.'' ``Captives rescue staged,'' they say.
  These are the individuals who suffered the brutality of al Qaeda 
terrorists that took over a compound that was housing western offices 
and residential areas. Large numbers of individuals killed, murdered, 
brutalized; a British executive dragged through the streets; one 
American killed, all as a result of the tumultuous times in this 
region.
  It is questionable whether or not the commandos from the Saudi 
government were sent in soon enough. As far as I am concerned, this 
needs investigating as well. Why? Because this occurred over a day's 
time, 25 hours of rampage going on and commandos coming hours into the 
rampage, and the violence and the outrage and the brutality; survivors 
suggesting that dialogue occurred between terrorists who left and the 
Saudi commandos.
  Now, I am not suggesting that there were not maybe some good 
intentions, as is represented by the Saudi government. They suggested 
that they allowed them to go because more killing was going to occur. 
But my concern is, why did it take this long for commandos to arrive? 
Why were people shot, brutalized, dragged through the streets until 
commandos arrived?
  The region is in disarray, the terrorists are running rampant, and 
our efforts to coalesce around the war of terror is dismantling 
politically because we have made decisions in Iraq.
  From the Financial Times, ``OPEC tries to sooth fears over oil 
prices, all a result of the crisis in Saudi Arabia this weekend. 
Security worries following Saudi compound siege set to overshadow 
trading in New York and London today,'' June 1.
  That is why it is crucial for the American people to understand that 
we must ask the hard questions and demand of this Congress its 
responsibility of telling you what the costs of this war will actually 
be; demanding that this administration begin to chronicle its exit 
strategy and how long we will be in Iraq; how we will fight the war on 
terror in Afghanistan and how we will provide for the security for the 
elections, not only in Afghanistan, but in Iraq; how we will provide 
for a cohesive Afghanistan; how we will bring warlords in through the 
efforts of the present government of Afghanistan; and, likewise, how we 
will prevent civil war in Iraq when the government is transitioned.
  Choices. As I said, oversight. That is the responsibility of this 
Congress. Yet all we hear from this Congress is deadening silence; 
deadening silence.
  This weekend, as I said, we touted and celebrated those men and 
women, our neighbors and friends and family members who served in the 
United States military. We acknowledged those living, who joined us in 
the celebration, those who are still on the front lines, and we 
acknowledged those who lost their lives.
  At ceremonies in Houston, I recounted to those who gathered yesterday 
at the Veterans Cemetery that honor is due to all of those who lost 
their life; that there is no big or small war; there is no little or 
large conflict; that every life lost should be honored.
  I also said to them that we should not forget the veterans, the 
veterans we made a promise to, and therefore that promise should be 
kept.
  Those ceremonies yesterday were filled with veterans and their 
families, and I indicated that it is not our choice to deny them the 
promise that was given as they took the oath, because each military 
person who takes an oath is willing to accept the fact that they may 
have to make the ultimate sacrifice. Yet in the choices we are making, 
the amount of money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan causes us 
to make choices and to break those promises, and I will tell you how.
  It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to say to a veteran that we have 
no mental health services for you and your family. It is very 
difficult, Mr. Speaker, to say to veterans who have taken certain 
prescription drugs in order to be in the region and find that those 
prescription drugs have now proven to be debilitating, in one instance, 
one taken for malaria called Larium, and to have to tell a veteran, 
someone coming in from Iraq, that we have no means of providing for 
you.
  Now, I understand that the 150,000 or so Iraqi veterans that are 
coming home have been sent a letter indicating that they will be 
provided for. But, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the question: I do not know 
how they can be provided for in light of the fact that we are closing 
veterans hospitals; I do not know how they can be provided for in light 
of the fact that we have a means test for veterans to get care at the 
hospitals, and that is that they will not provide for veterans making 
$30,000 or more; and I do not know where $30,000 has gotten to be a lot 
of money.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are some concerns for veterans in 
terms of health care and education, and we continue to turn a blind eye 
to the idea that we have to provide and have to make choices and have 
to keep our promise.
  The Committee on Veterans' Affairs recommended that $2.5 billion more 
than the President's budget was needed to maintain vital health care 
programs for veterans.

                              {time}  2330

  Nevertheless, the House Republican budget provides only $1.3 billion 
less than what the committee recommended for 2005. Let me say that 
again. The House Republican budget provides $1.3 billion less than what 
the committee recommended for 2005. So frankly, I do not know how we 
can send a letter to the 150,000 Iraqi veterans or returning military 
personnel, some of whom will not be veterans, and suggest that we are 
going to be able to provide for them, because in actuality, we do not 
have enough money to provide for veterans. That is why we are closing 
hospitals. That is why we do not have mental health services. That is 
why we cannot serve those who are making $30,000.
  Over the next 5 years, the money allocated to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs will not even be able to maintain these health 
programs at the current levels. In 2007, the budget is $227 million 
less than what the Department of Veterans Affairs needs to keep pace 
with inflation. Over 5 years, the Republican budget cuts $1.6 billion 
from the total needed to maintain services at the 2004 levels. Any of 
my colleagues who have encountered veterans in their districts realize 
the severity of the problem.
  My remarks yesterday also included a challenge regarding our homeless 
veterans, many of them Vietnam veterans. In fact, as I came off the 
stage, one of the homeless veterans came up to me and thanked me. He 
made it out to that ceremony because he cared, because he was a 
veteran, because he had seen combat. But you could tell he was

[[Page 11116]]

in need. Programs that provide for substance abuse and provide for 
transitional living and give them an opportunity to pick up their 
lives, pick up the broken pieces, are being cut.
  So what are we saying to our returning soldiers from Afghanistan and 
Iraq? Again, it goes back to choices and the oversight of this 
Congress; and I am concerned that we are failing in the oversight, 
cutting millions of dollars, resulting in almost $2 billion in cuts 
from the veterans resources. And what are we saying to those almost 800 
troops who have lost their lives and their families, and the more than 
3,000 who have been wounded? Are we going to have the resources to be 
able to provide for those who are in need? Mr. Speaker, I think not. 
Again, it goes back to choices, and we are disappointing in the choices 
that we are making; and we are not providing the American people a 
sufficient answer in order to be able to have them understand what the 
real cost of war is all about.
  Again, I hope that this Congress will take up its responsibility and 
make the choices that are necessary, particularly as it relates to not 
working on our domestic responsibilities. Let me chronicle for my 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what we failed to do. I was pleased to hear my 
colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), speak of this day from another 
perspective. Again, it goes to my point of choices. Today, for example, 
was the day of introduction of the prescription drug card, June 1, 
2004. This is the result of the most undemocratic vote that I believe 
this House has had maybe in its history, and that was the vote on the 
Medicare bill in 2003, a bill that allowed the vote on the floor of the 
House to remain open for almost 6 hours; and the kind of chastising, 
cajoling, and threatening that went on to secure votes for this bill 
will go down in history as a day of infamy in this United States 
Congress. There is no way to describe it, other than to say it was a 
disgrace.
  But out of that came these prescription drug cards. Let me clarify, 
because I have worked with the pharmaceutical companies, and I believe 
that there is merit to this process of a pharmaceutical drug card 
parallel of costs to what we should have done, and that is to provide a 
guaranteed prescription drug benefit for all seniors in America. That 
is what should have been introduced today, on June 1, 2004. Because 
what our friends are finding out on the Republican side of the aisle is 
that it is a program that is seemingly, or obviously, not working. 
There is underenrollment, seniors have not enrolled, they are 
disinterested, and they have not chosen to participate. Why? Because it 
is complex, it is confusing, it is without order, if you will. In fact, 
it is disorderly, because in order to make the right decision, you need 
to have probably the encyclopedia and the whole Internet to be able to 
understand what is the best choice. That confusion provides inertia. 
And so if we look at the numbers of enrollment, we will see that it is 
less than I think; 400,000, or 40,000, I am not sure of the correct 
number, but it is a very small number of seniors in America.
  So we know that it is not working. Unfortunately, we also know that 
it will cost over $400 billion instead of the $300 billion that it was 
represented to cost, and that is the Medicare bill. And in that bill, 
of course, was this big surprise, the Medicare prescription drug cards. 
Interestingly enough, there are 73 different cards for seniors to 
choose from, and 39 of those are available to seniors in my own 
district. They have annual fees ranging from zero to $30. Each offers 
discounts on different drugs to different degrees.
  So the reason why the drug card is not effective is because if you 
are a senior and your physician prescribes a number of prescription 
drugs that come under different pharmaceutical companies, then does 
that mean that you have to get 10 different cards? Yes, it does. Do you 
realize that you have to keep the card for over a year, or a year 
minimum before you can change? Probably most do not. Do you realize 
that there is burdensome paperwork and fees? And the final insult to 
injury is that even though these cards are giving a 10 to 20 percent 
discount on prescription drugs, the question is what are they giving it 
on? Choices. If a senior gets a card next week that gives them 15 
percent off and prices go up 20 percent this summer, then what is the 
point of the card? Do you realize that the pharmaceuticals can raise 
their prices on those prescription drugs every single week or every 
single month; and when you come back with your card and you get the 15 
percent discount, guess what? You are getting it on an increased price.
  Mr. Speaker, this does not do well by seniors, and seniors are very 
knowledgeable. And although low-income seniors do get a $600 drug 
allotment per year through the card program, many of those seniors have 
been getting similar help for years from drug manufacturers through 
various patient assistance programs. I would hope that we are 
explaining to some of those seniors that they should sign up so they do 
not lose the benefit, but I do not know if they fully understand what 
they are getting into. It was unfortunate that AARP joined in this 
Medicare bill, rather than stand and hold out for a real prescription 
drug benefit, and they are getting ready to see that there is little 
support for this program.
  Now, I am reading a number here, and I am going to offer it and I am 
going to check it, but I want my colleagues to see how stark and 
shocking it is, because I said 40,000 and 400,000. I am reading a 
number, for example, that says that only 400 seniors out of 43 million 
seniors had signed up for it; 400 seniors out of 43 million seniors. 
Now, those of my colleagues, we can all check those numbers together, 
but 400, even if it is 1,000 seniors out of 43 million, it is an 
outrage. We can see that the program is not working.
  So many seniors are opting to skip these prescription drug cards 
after we had a 6-hour vote and we had press conferences and, by the 
way, I had my Senator and another Congressperson, the majority leader, 
come into my congressional district to have a press conference to talk 
about these prescription drug cards, talking to my inner-city seniors, 
many of them without the support that they need to be able to even have 
these prescription drug cards, because they might not even be able to 
pay for the fees. But I would just simply say to my friends who went 
into my congressional district to talk about a drug card, my Republican 
friends, that we would have all been able to stand there together if we 
were announcing a Medicare-guaranteed prescription drug benefit; we 
would have all been able to be there and stand together.

                              {time}  2340

  But, obviously, if you were selling something that clearly did not 
have much substance to it, you probably did not at the present time 
want a lot of company.
  I would simply say to my good friends who visited my district and 
tried to convince my seniors that this was a good program, you try to 
convince the seniors of America that this is a good program if only 400 
of them out of 43 million seniors have signed up. Basically, I am sure 
they are preferring to go to Canada to get drugs over the Internet 
where they are saving 50 percent.
  I asked both the majority leader and my good friend the Senator, I 
have asked them whether or not, if you will, they would work to get a 
guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit and whether or not they 
would work with me to cap the cost of these pharmaceutical drugs so, in 
fact, we would assure the seniors that when they got the 15 percent it 
would be a consistent 15 percent, that it would be a 15 percent that 
they could realize, that it would not be a 15 percent on inflated 
prices. And no one can convince me or prove that that is not the case.
  Choices, Mr. Speaker; and all because of how we are poised right now, 
the conflict and the war in Iraq and the war on terror in Afghanistan 
and emerging issues around the world, choices that we are disallowed in 
making because of the choices of the war in Iraq.

[[Page 11117]]

  Unemployment. There is such a lot of talk about how well we are doing 
with respect to the economy, and I would simply say that you need to 
point to the large numbers of unemployed who have been unemployed for 
such a long period of time that they are not in the system. I would 
just simply suggest that I am very glad that Senator Kerry has offered 
a real economic policy that addresses the question of middle-class 
Americans in a realistic tax structure that provides for investment in 
their growth and opportunity. We need that kind of leadership. Because, 
as I started out saying, there are choices.
  My colleague just discussed the Social Security crisis that he would 
like to solve and fix. I have indicated that we need to preserve Social 
Security. That is our stand as Democrats, but we cannot even discuss 
that, Mr. Speaker. We are not even giving the kind of airing to those 
issues because we are so consumed with the collapse of the political 
process in Iraq and the lack of support for our military that we cannot 
even get on to issues that we are dealing with here in the United 
States.
  The Housing and Urban Development Department has now slashed section 
8 vouchers. My community alone will be suffering. In Houston alone the 
cuts will lead to a $500 million shortfall in one of the most important 
and time-tested programs in our Federal Government. What do you do with 
homeless persons, Mr. Speaker? Simply leave them to their own devices 
and walk the streets of every highway and byway and rural hamlet and 
community?
  I think it is an outrage that in this economy, in times when homeless 
veterans numbers are going up, when the military will be coming home 
and maybe facing their own trials and tribulations, who knows what 
needs they may have, let us hope that they will not wind up homeless. 
We do know that some military personnel are on food stamps.
  But is not it ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, that we have a situation where 
we are cutting section 8 vouchers? Our City of Houston will be forced 
to either cut 700 families off from this critical support or reduce 
support to all families and individuals in the program. Remember, a 
family of four in section 8 housing already has a total income of less 
than $30,500 per year.
  So this housing voucher program, which is being cut across the 
country, is another victim of the billions of dollars we are spending 
in Iraq, a political process that is collapsing, a lack of 
investigations to even determine how long we will be in Iraq and what 
is going on in Iraq, so we are not prepared to deal with our domestic 
concerns. We need to do better, Mr. Speaker.
  In addition to our domestic concerns that we are not able to 
confront, we are not able to be as helpful as we should be in some of 
the other crises around the world.
  I have been on this floor before, Mr. Speaker, bringing to the 
attention of this body two hotbed places where tragedies are occurring. 
The crisis in Haiti, where we are seeking to stabilize it with 2,000 
military personnel, but we have still not answered the question of the 
removal of President Aristide, not so much for President Aristide, who 
we expect over the next coming months to be safe and his family safe, 
though for a while it was very questionable, we thank the country of 
Jamaica and the Caribbean nations for their leadership on this issue, 
but what we have failed to do as a Nation is to protect democracy.
  So not one committee in this Congress has taken up the legitimate 
issue of what happened with the removal of President Aristide in a 
legitimate and investigatory way. There lies a single body of 
government, a Republican Senate and Republican House and a Republican 
government, failing to provide the oversight that is necessary.
  And then with respect to Sudan and the terrible genocide, let me say 
that the support for remedy in finding relief for Sudan is bipartisan. 
We passed the resolution dealing with ending the genocide and asking 
the governments to come together, meaning the government and the 
rebels. In the last couple of days, an agreement has been signed, but 
the bloodshed continues.
  And this government, this administration, which can provide 
leadership in this instance, to intervene, to really provide 
humanitarian relief, we are so stretched with our military personnel 
that we are finding it a difficult way to respond. Certainly the United 
Nations, which is on the ground, should definitely do more.
  But the disappointment that I have, Mr. Speaker, as I began this 
Special Order this evening, is to challenge this Congress to answer the 
American people's cry why government does not work. Why, in fact, are 
there high gas prices at the fuel pump? Why we are facing the fright of 
OPEC trying to soothe fears over oil prices? Why, if the Saudis 
collapse and terror takes over the kingdom, we could not last for more 
than 3 or 4 months because most of our energy resources comes from that 
region. Why the region is so disrupted because of the political 
decisions that this administration made in a unilateral pre-emptive 
attack against Iraq and the complete collapse now of the political 
process with insurgents taking over cities while the military stands 
bravely fighting and following orders. Why? Because this Congress has 
failed its responsibility. And it leaves us, if you will, in a dilemma 
in housing, veterans benefits, and health care.
  And might I just add, Mr. Speaker, that we have done nothing about 
immigration reform. As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security we have watched the border deteriorate because of the 
representation by the President that he was going to do an amnesty 
program and yet we have any number of immigration reform bills, mine is 
the Immigration Reform Fairness Act of 2004, where we talk about 
reuniting families and providing access to legalization and providing 
temporary status and providing, if you will, relief to the American 
workers by providing training for them and the retention of jobs, and 
yet we cannot get a hearing.
  We had a hearing recently on thwarting the smuggling activities at 
the border, and we would hope that we would get a markup soon so that 
we could provide some order to the immigration process, but we have not 
had that leadership from this administration.
  Choices. Consumed with one issue, that is the issue of Iraq. As this 
process collapses, it is imperative that this administration and this 
government begins to ask for accountability. This Congress has to be 
accountable.
  And, if I might, Mr. Speaker, as I leave you with the idea of choices 
and the lack of decisions that are being made, I must add one other 
point, that there are numbers of thousands of men and women who are 
incarcerated in the Nation's prisons, who are non-violent offenders, 
who have yet because of mandatory sentencing been allowed to come out 
and support their families.

                              {time}  2350

  But when we are consumed by international policies like the issues in 
Iraq, we cannot dwell on trying to find relief here in America; and so 
I have authored the Good Time Relief Bill of 2004 to provide those 
nonviolent offenders in our Federal prisons, 45 and over, the 
opportunity to get one day of good time for every day served so they 
can be released, go back to their families, help build their families 
and help contribute to our society.
  I give this litany, this long list of ``what if's'' because we have 
not been able to function, because we have been consumed by the ills 
and the tragedy and travesties of Iraq, from prisons to insurgency.
  I would simply say that we have to get a grip on this government, and 
this Congress has to begin to function as it should function. It must 
provide oversight, and it must question the actions of the executive, 
and we must investigate this long line of issues. And as we do that, 
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we will be able to answer the American 
people with the question that I started out with, What is good 
government?
  Good government, Mr. Speaker, is the United States Congress doing its 
job. And I hope in the coming months we will be able to do our jobs so 
that lives can be saved and we can ultimately provide peace and 
security to

[[Page 11118]]

the region of Afghanistan and Iraq and bring our young men and women 
home.
  Mr. Speaker. It seems that on every important issue facing this 
nation, the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership in 
Congress are taking us on a dangerous path, in the wrong direction, 
wasting vast amounts of money in giveaways--to the rich, to HMOs, to 
the drug industry, to polluters, any of their big campaign 
contributors--leaving almost nothing for those who really need and 
deserve federal assistance--seniors, veterans, schools, and first 
responders to name a few. It seems that at every chance, the 
Administration puts politics before policy, and our most important 
programs are unraveling. Our troops are serving valiantly overseas, but 
have been sent on an ill-advised mission without proper training and 
equipment, and with no clear plan for success. It is no wonder we have 
seen breakdowns in discipline and security. We are seeing the same 
sorts of poor planning, misleading statements, obfuscation, and failure 
in many of our domestic programs as well.
  I have just returned from a trip to assess the situation in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. I was troubled by the discrepancies between what 
I saw and what the administration has been telling us. I have returned 
to a firestorm of calls and letters from angry seniors about the 
Medicare Prescription Drug Cards. I see nothing on the Congressional 
calendar that indicates that Congress is doing its duty of oversight, 
or proposing creative legislation to solve the numerous problems facing 
the American people and our allies in the world community. I want to 
take this opportunity during special orders to talk about some of the 
most glaring issues.


                    medicare prescription drug cards

  An obvious example came today on the first day of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug Card Program. This has been a sham since day one--and 
it is worse today. Now we know that the Medicare Drug plan, with its 
lousy benefit, will cost us over $400 billion, instead of the $300 
billion the Administration had us believe before the vote. But so far, 
all that money is buying for our seniors is confusion.
  So far there are 73 different cards for seniors to choose from. 39 of 
those are available to seniors in my district. They have annual fees 
ranging from zero to $30 per year. Each offers discounts on different 
drugs to different degrees. Although discounts can change monthly, 
seniors only have one chance per year to pick the one card they are 
allowed to sign up for. Many seniors are mystified by whether the new 
cards will offer anything beyond what they got from the discount cards 
that have been around for years.
  I am not optimistic that the Drug Card issued today will provide any 
meaningful relief to the millions of seniors and disabled Americans 
struggling with the outrageous costs of prescription drugs.
  However, I am keeping an open mind. We will all need to look closely 
at the plans that are coming out, to make sure that the cards serve a 
purpose and don't just add burdensome paperwork and fees with minimal 
benefit. I have several concerns:
  We are hearing that the cards will give discounts of 10-20 percent on 
prescription drugs--but 10-20 percent off of what? The prices of drugs 
are rising at an astronomical rate, much higher than the rate of 
inflation. If seniors get a card next week that gives them 15 percent 
off, and prices go up 20 percent in summer, what is the point of the 
card? It is just a waste of time--reading brochures, filling out 
paperwork, processing at the pharmacy, and a waste of the annual fee.
  Although low-income seniors do get a $600 drug allotment per year 
through the card program, many of those seniors have been getting 
similar help for years from drug manufacturers through various patient 
assistance programs. I am encouraging low-income seniors to sign up 
immediately for a card, so that they do not lose that benefit. However, 
for the vast majority of seniors--I am still unsure what to advise 
them. They seem uncertain as well. Besides the seniors that have been 
automatically enrolled through their HMOs, the number of seniors 
signing up has been spectacularly underwhelming. For example, AARP, one 
of the largest senior groups in the country has issued its own card, 
but as of yesterday--only 400 seniors out of 43 million seniors had 
signed up for it. The same seems to be the case for every card on the 
market.
  Seniors just don't know if they will save any money and be worth the 
fee, and the paperwork, and the hassle of carrying around yet another 
card every time they walk out the door.
  Seniors can skip the fees and the bureaucracy and buy drugs over the 
internet or jump on a bus to Canada, or fly anywhere else in the world, 
and get a 50 percent discount today.
  Our nation's seniors deserve a comprehensive health insurance plan 
that takes care of their needs and is easy to access. They worked for 
decades to make this country strong. They faithfully paid into the 
Social Security and Medicare systems, and our government made them a 
promise that we would take care of them in their senior years. Now, in 
return, we are making them jump through hoops, pay extra fees, join 
HMOs, spend hours and hours reading more confusing brochures--just to 
get prices that are still almost twice as high as those paid by other 
rich nations such as Britain, Japan, Switzerland, and Canada.
  And American taxpayers are paying 100s of billions of dollars for 
that lousy plan.
  Some people pitch this complex and cumbersome plan; saying that 
seniors like choices; they are Internet-savvy; accounting wizards that 
love crunching the numbers to find the best plans for them. There are 
many seniors out there that fit that bill. On the other hand, about 5 
million seniors are afflicted with Alzheimer's disease and the number 
is rising. Five percent of adults in the United States are totally 
illiterate--the number that cannot read at a high enough level to 
comprehend stacks of health administration literature is obviously much 
higher. You need a Master's in Public Health to understand health 
insurance plans these days.
  Medicare also covers the disabled, who may have other obstacles to 
studying Drug Card Plans. About 1 in 5 seniors is blind or visually 
impaired.
  It is absurd to make this population struggle individually to get a 
decent price on the health care they need and deserve. The Secretary of 
Health and Human Services should be allowed to negotiate on behalf of 
this nation's 40 million seniors on Medicare, to get them fair prices. 
It is tragic that the Republican sham bill specifically prohibits such 
negotiation, and uses hard-earned taxpayer dollars to give massive 
subsidies to HMOs and the Drug Industry, instead of using it to help 
seniors.
  I will keep fighting for a real Prescription Drug Benefit for seniors 
in the Medicare Plan they trust. Until we can make that happen, I will 
keep my mind open to every possible tool that might give some relief to 
our seniors. I hope that these new Drug Cards will give some benefits 
that aren't already available in the marketplace. Right now, all we see 
is confusion, and it might get worse in 2006 when the full Republican 
Medicare Prescription Drug plan kicks in. According to the New York 
Times, Brian Glassman, a senior executive at Prime Therapeutics, said 
the Medicare drug benefit could be even more confusing than the 
discount cards. He stated, ``You can take this market confusion,'' he 
said, ``and cube it.''


                                Veterans

  Our brave American veterans are another group who were outraged by 
the President's budget and will unfortunately be disappointed with the 
Republican House Budget passed recently. I hear so much in this body 
from the majority party about the greatness of our Armed Forces, and 
they are right, but again it is just empty rhetoric on their part. 
Those brave men and women fighting on the front lines in our War 
Against Terror will come back home and find that the Republican Party 
looks at them differently once they become veterans. Almost all 
veterans need some form of health care, some will need drastic care for 
the rest of their lives because of the sacrifice they made in war, but 
the Republican Party continues to turn a blind eye to their needs. On a 
bipartisan basis, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs recommended that 
$2.5 billion more than the President's budget was needed to maintain 
vital health care programs for veterans. Nevertheless, the House 
Republican budget provides $1.3 billion less than what the Committee 
recommended for 2005.
  The entire Department of Veterans' Affairs is going to suffer because 
of the Republican agenda. Over the next five years the money allocated 
to the Department of Veterans' Affairs will not even be able to 
maintain these programs at their current levels. In 2007, the budget is 
$227 million less than what the Department of Veterans' Affairs needs 
to keep pace with inflation. Over five years, the Republican budget 
cuts $1.6 billion from the total needed to maintain services at the 
2004 level.
  I've heard from veterans groups throughout my district in Houston and 
I'm sure each Member of this body has heard from groups in their own 
district because veterans are one group that come from all parts of 
this nation. These brave veterans have told me their stories of how 
they are suffering now with the current state of veterans affairs, I am 
going to have trouble telling them that not only will things continue 
to stay bad but if this budget passes this body, things will only 
continue to get worse. That is not what our returning soldiers from 
Iraq and Afghanistan should have to look forward to, a future where 
their needs are not only not provided for, but are in fact ignored.

[[Page 11119]]

  I know that every Member of this body had our nation's active duty 
soldiers and veterans in their hearts yesterday. The sacrifices they 
and their families have made over the years are staggering, and they 
continue. That is especially true for the families of the more than 800 
troops killed in Iraq, and the almost 3000 who have been wounded. It is 
time we stopped just giving speeches, and started taking care of our 
veterans and their families.


                            Cost of the War

  Every time we on this side of the aisle make the point that we need 
to make critical investments in education, or health care, or our 
veterans, or homeland security, or any other program, we get the same 
argument: budgets are tight and we can't afford it. But it is the 
Republicans themselves who opted to make the budget tight, when they 
squandered a multi-trillion dollar surplus on massive tax cuts for the 
rich and an expensive and violent brand of foreign policy.
  As they marched us into an unnecessary war in Iraq, experts--even 
those in the Bush Administration--were predicting that the war would 
cost 100s of billions of dollars and require 100s of thousands of 
troops, for years to come. People who made such claims were ridiculed 
and derided by the arrogant leaders of this Administration. But now it 
seems that even the highest estimates may have underestimated the cost 
of our actions in Iraq. We have already spent over $150 billion in 
supplemental budgets alone. On top of that, there is the huge amount 
that we have put in the Department of Defense through normal budgeting, 
and the billions more that we have spent in foreign aid coercing the 
``coalition of the willing'' to join the war and stay in.
  Our troops are spread too thin, and may thus in fact be incapable of 
successfully completing the tasks they have been given. Although we do 
not have a draft, our national guard and reserve forces have been 
forced to serve overseas for much longer than they had envisioned ever 
being required, for wages often lower than they usually make--and they 
are not given the option of refusing to re-enlist.
  The Administration must be honest with the Congress and with the 
American people if we are ever going to match the size of our military 
with the needs of our forces, and provide the budget required.
  During my trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last week, it became obvious 
that American troops have much work ahead if they are going to succeed 
in rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq as President Bush has promised the 
world, on behalf of the American people. I predict that American troops 
will be there for at least 10 years. We must come to grips with that 
reality, and start making the appropriate sacrifices, that is we should 
repeal some of the tax cuts given to the richest one percent, and start 
paying our bills.
  If we don't, our children and our children's children may be paying 
the price of our misguided foreign policy.


                        Unemployment/the Economy

  Those outrageous tax cuts were carried out in the name of making 
jobs, but now we have proof that such tax cuts are an almost 
ridiculously inefficient method of making jobs. We have run up a half-
trillion dollar deficit, and created very few jobs. It seems that 
President Bush was so eager to be anti-Clintonesque in every possible 
way. Now we have an anti-Clintonesque deficit, and millions of people 
more out of work today than were unemployed during the 90s.
  An excellent editorial in the New York Times today by Princeton 
economist Paul Krugman describes the Bush tax policy as reverse-Robin 
Hood, robbing the poor and giving to the rich. He explains how the 
257,000 richest Americans got more out of the Bush tax cuts than did 
the bottom 60 MILLION Americans combined. A recent survey revealed that 
most Americans don't feel they have gotten a tax cut at all. Many of 
those who did get a thousand dollars or so are now realizing that they 
are losing all of it, or even more, as they pay more for college 
tuition, or property taxes, or due to cuts in the other popular 
government programs
  We as a nation must learn from our mistakes, but should also learn 
from our successes. I am pleased to see that Senator John Kerry has 
learned the lessons of the Bush and Clinton Administrations. He is 
surrounding himself with top Clinton Administration economists and 
experts associated with the brilliant and effective former Treasury 
Secretary Robert Rubin. I would welcome them back.


                         HUD Section 8 Vouchers

  The deficits brought about the Republican leadership, and the budget 
cuts being made to compensate for them have been devastating to working 
poor families and lower-middle wage Americans. Just today there is yet 
another example in a Houston Chronicle article describing how to 
finance the Iraq war and the tax cuts for the rich, we have cut HUD 
Section 8 housing funding, now known as the Housing Choice Voucher 
Program.
  In my hometown of Houston alone, the cuts will lead to a $5 million 
shortfall in one of the most important and time-tested programs in our 
federal government. Already there is a huge backlog in applications for 
federal housing support. The list will get longer.
  The city will also be forced to either cut 700 families off from this 
critical support, or reduce benefits to all of the families and 
individuals in the program now. Remember that a family of four in 
Section 8 housing already has a total income of less than $30,500 per 
year. In the Houston market, that doesn't go far. As with all 
Republican voucher programs, it seems the Housing Choice Voucher 
Program leaves little choice for the people who really need it.


                    Abu Ghraib, Iraqi Prisoner Abuse

  Yet again we are seeing politics driving our policy in Iraq rather 
than logic, and compassion, and sense of duty. H. Res. 627, a 
resolution regarding prisoner abuse in Iraq, put before us two weeks 
ago, was political damage control. This Congress has a constitutionally 
mandated duty of oversight over the executive branch. We and the world 
have seen over the past days that some horrible deeds have occurred in 
Iraq--deeds that truly threaten to undermine everything that we have 
worked toward on the international-diplomatic front for the past 
century. We must be thoughtful in crafting our approach to diffusing 
this awful situation, bringing those responsible to justice, and 
protecting the honor of those members of our armed services who serve 
so valiantly and honorably around the world.
  This resolution contained several provisions, including (1) deploring 
and condemning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in U.S. custody; (2) 
reaffirming and reinforcing the American principle that any and all 
individuals under the custody and care of the U.S. armed forces shall 
be afforded proper and humane treatment; and (3) urging the Department 
of Defense to conduct an investigation into any and all allegations of 
mistreatment or abuse of Iraqi prisoners and bring to swift justice all 
members of the Armed Forces who have violated the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice.
  I agree with all of that; however, is that all the duty of this 
Congress is? All this resolution did was say, ``We read in the paper 
that mistakes were made. Somebody else, find out what happened. 
Somebody else, tell us what you find out. Somebody else, make this 
problem go away.'' That is a dereliction of our duty.
  Members in this body have extraordinary experience and expertise in 
these issues. We owe it to the people we represent to immediately 
launch full congressional investigations into Iraqi prisoner abuse. 
After the Defense Department report was buried and hidden from 
Congress, and maybe even the President, for months, it is absurd to now 
trust that same department to police itself and purge itself of bad 
actors. We are already seeing the methods by which they will approach 
this--blame the six-people in the pictures and maybe a couple of 
others, and assume that they were some sort of outliers.
  We all hope that that is indeed the case, but we must make sure. Last 
week, I wouldn't have believed that any American soldiers were capable 
of such grotesque abuses. We must be objective as we delve into whether 
this problem goes far deeper than just a few cells at Abu Ghraib. 
Further missteps in the U.S. response to these atrocities could bring 
about a monstrous backlash in Iraq, and across the Middle East.
  What message does it send to those struggling for democracy and 
freedom around the world, when this People's House, in the greatest 
democracy in the world--simply toes the majority party line?
  We need bipartisan congressional investigations to be conducted 
immediately into these allegations of abuse, including those by U.S. 
civilian contractor personnel or other U.S. civilians, and into chain 
of command and other systemic deficiencies that contributed to such 
abuse. We should not only point the finger of blame. We should also be 
introspective--to avoid hypocrisy--to recognize and address our own 
short-comings. We hear the President proclaim that the abuse of 
prisoners and the humiliation of people are un-American. I agree that 
the things we have seen violate the American principles that we hold 
dear. But, tragically, the hatred and disregard for decency are too 
common in our society. I don't think anyone would be surprised if they 
found out that similar abuses occur in our own U.S. prisons, jails, and 
police stations. Hate crimes against some races and religious groups, 
or against gays, lesbians, and the transgender, abound. Some of the 
vicious, although perhaps non-violent, acts seem reminiscent of

[[Page 11120]]

fraternity hazing rituals. If the United States is going to take the 
lead in promoting human rights in this world, we must lead by example 
and demand justice here, before we seek it overseas.
  We all know that the vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq are 
performing superbly. It is tragic that the behavior of a small number 
of American soldiers has besmirched the reputation of U.S. troops 
overall. The vast majority of U.S. troops in Iraq are courageously 
performing their duties and are living up to the highest standards of 
the U.S. military. They are serving our country with honor, distinction 
and dedication and deserve our country's deepest gratitude.
  However, the grotesque abuse of Iraqi prisoners is completely 
unacceptable--and is against everything our country hopes to stand for. 
The abuse of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison by U.S. soldiers 
that has been documented with photographs is abhorrent. On top of that, 
we now hear that there are at least 91 cases of possible misconduct by 
military personnel. Congressional investigations are critically needed 
in order to get to the bottom of this outrage. Among the questions that 
must be answered are: How widespread were these incidents of prisoner 
abuse? Were personnel trained adequately to do the jobs to which they 
were assigned? When did senior leadership of the Department of Defense 
learn of these allegations? Was their response timely and did it 
reflect the seriousness of this situation?
  We owe it to the American people, to those around the world who are 
watching intently, and especially to our troops whose reputations have 
been called into question by this situation. We must put this Congress 
to work purging our military of those who encourage such un-American 
behavior, and restore the honor of our brave soldiers serving in Iraq 
and around the world.
  Building a culture of peace for the children of the world while we 
face unfinished work to create stability and peace both in Iraq, and 
throughout the Middle East, the challenges we face there and the 
lessons we have learned there make it all the more compelling that we 
set upon the task of planting firmly the seeds of peace.
  In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``We must concentrate 
not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive 
affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter 
music, a cosmic melody that is far superior to the discords of war. 
Somehow, we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle . . 
. to a positive contest to harness humanity's creative genius for the 
purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all the nations of 
the world.''
  It is with this in mind that I am proud to introduce the exhibit 
``Building a Culture of Peace for the Children of the World'' which is 
being presented in cooperation with the Congressional Children's Caucus 
and will be on display in the foyer of the Rayburn House Office 
Building on Thursday-Friday, June 3-4, 2004.
  This exhibit beings together the creative ideas and examples of 
hundreds of people, organizations and movements and focuses on the 
potential of the individual to build peace and security in today's 
world. It seeks to promote a sense among viewers of empowerment as well 
as an awareness of the United Nations declaration of the years 2001-
2010 as the Decade of Building a culture of Peace and Non-violence for 
the Children of the World.
  I also want to recognize the role of Soka Gakkai International which 
has created this remarkable exhibit, and the work of its president, 
Daisaku Ikeda a widely recognized educator and peace activist, in 
persisting as a voice for peace during these challenging times.
  I urge each of my colleagues to not only view this exhibit; but be 
mindful of the example we set today for the generations of tomorrow. 
More important for our children than model of the brave warrior, is the 
example of the courageous and creative peace builder. For as the noted 
writer James Baldwin observed: ``Children have never been very good at 
listening to their elders, but they have never failed to imitate them. 
. . .''


                           U.S.-Afghan Caucus

  Another project I have been working on extensively is the U.S.-Afghan 
Caucus. I especially want to thank my co-chair, Congressman Bob Ney, 
for his leadership on this issue. We traveled on the first post 9/11 
Codel to Afghanistan together, and I know the issue of rebuilding 
democracy means a great deal to both of us.
  It is my goal that the U.S.-Afghan Caucus will become an arena where 
we can learn about the issues effecting Afghanistan, and see how 
Congress can help come up with a solution.
  Right now there is an 85 percent illiteracy rate in Afghanistan; 80 
percent of schools have been damaged by war. Of existing schools, 30 to 
50 percent have no water and 40 percent lack adequate sanitation. 
Although 3 million children returned to school last year, today only 38 
percent of all Afghan boys and 3 percent of girls attend school. Over 
the next ten years, it is estimated that an additional 4,350 teachers 
and 1,385 schools must be added each year to meet demand.
  While 6 out of 10 girls in Afghanistan attend school, only 1 out of 
100 girls in the southern frontier regions of the country have access 
to education. For more than five years of Taliban rule in Afghanistan, 
girls were banned from attending school in over 90 percent of the 
country. Right now it is imperative to invest in Human Capital, 
particularly in women. Women need to have a voice in the emerging 
Democracy, and the U.S.-Afghan Caucus can begin to take steps to ensure 
that women are involved in the process.
  Providing education to children who are traumatized by war and 
disaster is just one facet that the U.S.-Afghan Caucus will focus on. I 
have heard of so much interest in working together to establish a 
positive relationship that will continue to build a better country with 
democratic ideals in Afghanistan. We can already see evidence that 
something must be done to protect the children and raise them to be 
future leaders of a democracy, something they have never before seen in 
their lifetime.


                             Women in Iraq

  Our support of Iraq and its fledgling democracy has been vital, and 
we have been able to leave a positive impression on what values a 
democratic society should hold. Our influence needs to go one step 
further, and we must indicate that women play a vital role in politics 
and peacekeeping.
  I am a proud member of the Iraqi Women's Caucus and have been to Iraq 
to witness, firsthand, the brave and groundbreaking work to rebuild the 
country by the United States, our coalition partners and Iraqi 
civilians. The signing of the Transitional Administrative Law, TAL, by 
the Iraqi Governing Council on March 8, 2004 marks an important 
milestone, and an appropriate time to reiterate our support of issues 
facing Iraq's women and children.
  Many of us here have publicly advocated for equal representation of 
women throughout all of society, including at each level of the new 
government. The Iraqi Women's Caucus was recently formed to further 
engage all Members of Congress on these issues. The Caucus will focus 
on improving the lives of women in the new Iraq by working to ensure 
women's access to educational and professional opportunities, 
encouraging women's participation in a pluralistic political process, 
and developing partnerships between the United States and Iraq that 
will further enhance opportunities for women.
  I have seen positive things come from women working towards peace. I 
have had the honor to serve as Honorary Chair for the women's 
partnership for peace in the Middle East. Women leaders from 
government, business and religion met in Oslo, Norway to develop joint 
efforts to begin building trust in the Middle East region. Responding 
to a great sense of urgency surrounding the crisis in the Middle East, 
the participants have decided to mobilize women leaders around the 
world to join the initiative for peace.
  History has offered us many examples of democratic principles at work 
in nations once dismissed as unfit for democracy. As chair of the U.S.-
Afghan Caucus, I am proud to say that the Afghans have recently adopted 
a constitution that establishes equal rights for men and women. Only a 
few years ago, this country brutalized and shunned from public view.
  I believe that progress is attainable and I thank all of you who have 
come out today in support of this. As my colleague, Hillary Rodham 
Clinton said, when she was the First Lady, ``There cannot be true 
democracy unless women's voices are heard. There cannot be true 
democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility 
for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens 
are able to participate fully in the lives of their country.''

                          ____________________