[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 29674-29675]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            ``WHEN EVEN THE POWERFUL CAN'T SPEAK THE TRUTH''

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, November 5, 2007

  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise to insert into the Congressional 
Record this important article on our colleague Congressman Pete Stark.

[[Page 29675]]



                [From the Alameda Sun, October 26, 2007]

              When Even the Powerful Can't Speak the Truth

       Rep. Fortney ``Pete'' Stark, D-Fremont, the normally calm, 
     grandfatherly and moderate (for the Bay Area) congressman 
     found himself at the center of a rhetorical hornet's nest 
     last week after daring to tell his colleagues that paying for 
     children's health insurance should come before throwing money 
     at President Bush's bungling military adventurism.
       With the president's approval rating at 24 percent, about 
     as low as former President Nixon's was when he left office, 
     according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released last week, it was 
     only too predictable that Bush's few remaining supporters 
     would immediately leap from their foxholes to shoot the 
     messenger.
       The messenger, in this case was Stark. His words were crude 
     and offensive but his frank oration is admirable. Stark could 
     have chosen his words more carefully, a fact the Democratic 
     leadership made apparent when they dragged him behind the 
     woodshed. But love him or hate him, Stark had the guts to 
     speak in a way that most of his 434 colleagues won't.
       Stark cut through the vapid pablum that passes for 
     political debate in this country; the junk-food rhetoric 
     composed by spin-doctors, tested by focus groups, and 
     proofread by campaign consultants and lobbyists. Just listen 
     to what emanates from the mouths of the leading candidates of 
     both parties in the lead up to November 2008. Or watch the 
     drivel passed off as incisive political coverage on the 24-
     hour cable TV stations. Whether it's Hillary, Romney, 
     Guiliani, Edwards, or McCain, not one policy or word is 
     uttered without first being massaged and sanitized, 
     calculated not to enlighten or lead, but to win votes without 
     offending any demographic.
       Obama, who was catapulted into second place in the polls 
     because he appeared sincere in the spring, has receded after 
     picking up the playbook of ``serious candidate.''
       Stark got into hot water while speaking of the fundamental 
     choice of policy-makers: one framed as ``guns or butter.'' 
     Eventually societies must choose between military spending 
     and the needs of its citizenry.
       The statement was uttered during debate on the House floor 
     following Bush's veto of the popular State Children's Health 
     Care Program (SCHIP), an $11.2 billion annual program that 
     helps poor parents buy health insurance for their children.
       Compare that figure to this week's White House request for 
     $46 billion more to shovel into the quagmires in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. According to an estimate by the Center for 
     Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, if the above figure is 
     included, by the time the clock runs out on Bush's 
     administration, U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for $808 
     billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
     That's roughly 10 times what Bush's father spent to humble 
     Saddam Hussein in 1991.
       China won't keep lending us that money forever. Sooner or 
     later, the bill will come due.
       What Stark actually told his colleagues: ``The Republicans 
     are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 
     million children.''
       ``They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight 
     the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that 
     money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us 
     today? Is that how you're going to fund the war?
       ``You don't have money to fund the (Iraq) war or children. 
     But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people--if 
     we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to 
     Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's 
     amusement.''
       These incendiary words launched an explosive backlash from 
     pundits who immediately demanded Stark's head.
       Stark was next criticized by the Democratic Party 
     leadership, but survived a vote of official reprimand that 
     Democrats tabled. Stark then publicly apologized Tuesday 
     saying: ``I want to apologize to my colleagues, many of whom 
     I have offended, to the president, his family, (and) to the 
     troops. I apologize for this reason: I think we have serious 
     issues before us, the issue of providing medical care to 
     children, the issue about what we're going to do about a war 
     that we're divided about how to end.''
       If a U.S. congressman can be shouted down for speaking an 
     essential truth: that blood and treasure is being spilled in 
     a perverse quest by the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania 
     Ave. to outshine the legacy of his own father, these are 
     truly dire days for our republic.
       One wonders what reactions would spew forth from the mouths 
     of those who vilify Stark had they read the words of another 
     great American, a true Republican: Gen. Dwight David 
     Eisenhower:
       ``In the councils of government, we must guard against the 
     acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or 
     unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential 
     for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will 
     persist.
       ``We must never let the weight of this combination endanger 
     our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing 
     for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can 
     compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military 
     machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so 
     that security and liberty may prosper together.''
       Too bad his warning so quickly landed in the ashcan of 
     history.

                          ____________________