Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Rep. Rahm Emanuel are leading a drive to pressure House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert to cancel Wednesday's address to Congress by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki because he condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon -- putting him at odds with U.S. policy.


Emanuel and Schakowsky, both Illinois Democrats with party leadership positions, were circulating a letter Monday among colleagues stating "with mounting evidence that the Iraqi leadership's goals are not in the best interests of the United States -- nor the Middle East -- Prime Minister Maliki's address is inappropriate.

"We are unaware of any prior instance where a world leader who actively worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor.''

The visit of al-Maliki comes as violence in Israel and Lebanon, triggered by Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in Israel, has overshadowed the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and made a complex situation even more complicated.

The Bush White House, in standing with Israel, is not calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah for two reasons: It would leave Hezbollah with missiles to launch another day and Hezbollah would continue to undermine the fragile government of Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora.

Schakowsky and Emanuel drafted their letter after the New York Times ran a story last week quoting al-Maliki stating that "we call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."

The protests of Schakowsky and Emanuel to Hastert, an Illinois Republican, come in a larger Mideast context -- growing concern about Iranian threats and the U.S. support of a fledgling Iraqi government, supported by the Bush White House, that is anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic.

Last week Schakowsky, along with Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, circulated among their colleagues a letter to Bush asking him to denounce Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani after he accused Jews of masterminding killings in Iraq carried out by Sunni or Shiite insurgents.

A July 13 Associated Press story quoted al-Mashhadani stating "These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew."

The remarks are false and contemptible.

President Bush meets with al-Maliki today in the Oval Office, followed by a news conference.

<Read More>

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.J.Res 88, the Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Same Sex Marriage. If this amendment were to pass, it would mark the first time in history that the Constitution has been amended to include discrimination.

I believe in marriage, as a stabilizing force in our society, as a nurturing environment for children, as a public expression of the most profound love and devotion, of a commitment between two people to take responsibility for one another in a legal and personal sense in sickness and in health. The vast majority of couples are, of course, one man and one woman.

But the same virtues of couplehood apply to any loving adults. Surely the 27 year relationship of my dear friends Michael and Roger do not threaten my marriage in any way. The loving family that Ann and Jackie expanded when they adopted David, giving him two adoring parents, is a good thing, regardless of what anyone may say to the contrary—and nothing in the Constitution should be established to discourage it.

There are so many pressing issues working to undermine families. Same sex couples embrace the positive value of families. Let’s spend our limited time here as law makers helping all families—and not discriminating against them

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Reauthorization Act. It was once said that “a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.” The amendments offered today by the Majority seek to do precisely that; oppress the voting rights of minorities all over America to fairly and freely vote in elections.

While I am pleased to see this important, critical, and bipartisan bill brought to the floor, I am disheartened to see amendments offered that would weaken the core of H.R. 9, and would take a step backward in the fight for equality.

Since the birth of our nation, no other right has been more important than having the ability to vote. Unfortunately, as history has shown, the denial of this right to minorities is a scar on our system of democracy. The passage of the groundbreaking Voting Rights Act of 1965 broke down barriers that stood in the way of African Americans and minorities to vote, and we must pass H.R. 9, without the gutting amendments, to ensure that these barriers of discrimination, intimidation, and inequality will never be built again. Just as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave voice to millions of African American and minority men and women, H.R. 9 will ensure that voice for millions more in generations to come.

H.R. 9 would renew provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that protect minority voters in states and districts that have a documented history of voter suppression. It would extend the provisions of this bill for an additional 25 years, require the U.S. Attorney General to send federal observers to monitor elections to make sure that eligible African American and other minority voters are permitted to vote, it would extend bilingual requirements, and it would prohibit the use of any kind of test or devices to deny an individual the right to vote.

Each and every member of the House has the unique opportunity today to continue the work of the great civil rights leaders of the past; Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hammer, and our own John Lewis, to overcome the ghosts of oppression and fight for a new day of equality and respect for every individual.

I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to vote for H.R. 9 and oppose all amendments.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) offers a few more lessons learned:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President said we continue to be wise about how we spend the people's money.

"Then why are we paying over $100,000 for a 'White House Director of Lessons Learned'?

"Maybe I can save the taxpayers $100,000 by running through a few of the lessons this White House should have learned by now.

"Lesson 1: When the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of State say you are going to war without enough troops, you're going to war without enough troops.

"Lesson 2: When 8.8 billion dollars of reconstruction funding disappears from Iraq, and 2 billion dollars disappears from Katrina relief, it's time to demand a little accountability.

"Lesson 3: When you've 'turned the corner' in Iraq more times than Danica Patrick at the Indy 500, it means you are going in circles.

"Lesson 4: When the national weather service tells you a category 5 hurricane is heading for New Orleans, a category 5 hurricane is heading to New Orleans.

"I would also ask the President why we're paying for two 'Ethics Advisors' and a 'Director of Fact Checking.'

"They must be the only people in Washington who get more vacation time than the President.

"Maybe the White House could consolidate these positions into a Director of Irony."

What a House Takeover Would Look Like: Commitee Chairs

Committee           Chair       Ranking Dem         Diff

Agriculture          Bob Goodlatte  Collin Peterson  +52.81

Goodlatte is a tad conservative even by GOP House standards (4.50) but Peterson (D-MN) is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House (57.31).

Appropriations      Jerry Lewis      David Obey      +77.91

The scandal-plagued Lewis, R-CA (9.92) may have a few moderate moments but he's pretty much one of the Kool-aid drinkers.  Obey of Wisconsin (87.83) is pretty much a mainstream Democrat.  This is a huge change.

Armed Services      Duncan Hunter     Ike Skelton    +54.06

Hunter is a "mainstream" (e.g. radical right) Republican.  Skelton is a very conservative Democrat.  Not the best replacement here.

Budget             Jim Nussle         John Spratt    +68.27

Nussle is kind of standard issue Republican ambitious (running for Governor of Iowa this year, 7.34) while Spratt (D-SC) is surprisingly moderate/liberal (75.61) for a white, southern Democrat presented as a top GOP target this year.  Spratt is similar, but a little more liberal, in his voting to Joe Lieberman.

Education         Buck McKeon        George Miller   +89.79

Both men are from California but there is a world of difference between McKeon (3.67) and Miller (89.79).  On a scoring basis, this is the largest change for the whole group.

Energy and Commerce  Joe Barton      John Dingell    +79.03

Barton is not only a willing captive of big oil; he also sold out to the telcos.  Dingell is a mainstream Democrat but is nobody's tool.  Michigan over Texas, here.

Financial Svcs    Mike Oxley      Barney Frank        +86.53

Oxley from Ohio is retiring but would his replacement score much different thasn Mike's 6.33?  Expect to hear more villification from the right about Frank both in the open and in the boardrooms of the banks and brokers.  Barney would regulate them, or at least try hard to do so.

Government Reform  Tom Davis      Henry Waxman        +77.82

Davis is almost moderate by GOP standards (13.98) but Waxman would be a tiger who would try to reform rather than privatize via sweet heart deals.  Maybe we'd find out where a lot of loose ends really connect.

Homeland Security  Peter King   Bennie Thompson       +74.55

Long Islander King may live in the NY suburbs but Mississippi's Thompson will do a better job of watching our security.  King meanwhile is a lapdog rather than the watchdog he claims to be, yapping loudly in public after the damage has been done.  Is Peter a New Yorker at heart or a Yorkie?  Get the little bow for his head.

House Administration  Vern Ehlers   Juanita Millender-McDonald
                                                      +68.92

Ehlers of Michigan has a 17.89 score, fairly moderate for this group.  Millender-McDonald is a mainstream Democrat (86.81) from Southern Cal.  Better services for all would result as House Republicans have been pretty partisan in allocating staff and services.

Part Two to follow tommorrow.

REPRESENTATIVE JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D-IL):  (Cheers, applause.)  Thank you. 
Thank you so much.  It's a pleasure to be back.
 
 I want to first thank Roger Hickey and Bob Borosage and everyone at the Campaign for
America's Future for putting this amazing conference together.  For a member of Congress like me,  it's downright therapeutic.  So I thank all of you.  
 
 And I can tell you, our future looks good.  Change is in the wind.  Can you feel it?  (Cheers, applause.)  All right!  
 
 I also want to thank Jacob Hacker for his great work.  His book, "Off Center," has a whole  section on how the Part D drug benefit came into being, and you should check it out at his book signing.
 
 It's important for -- well, before I start, I just want to say, the title of my section is called,
"The Drug Fix."  Now, I know if I were in a marginal district, you can just see the ad on television - "SCHAKOWSKY talks to progressives about the drug fix" -- you know?  (Laughter.)  But I'm going to take a risk anyway and go for it!
 
 It's important for all of us to understand Part D because it is the shape of what the Bush
administration, the Republican Congress, the pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance industry  have in store for all of us.  If you like the privatized Part D, you'll like their plans for health care.  And if you don't, we need to get busy.  

Since President Bush has proposed new nuclear development as a signature part of his energy policy, we must ensure that the NRC’s safety procedures are foolproof and that they deter future incidents. Since the Reactor Oversight Process was implemented in 2000, safety inspections found that plants or employees had failed to comply with safe operating procedures in over 4,000 instances. And while many of those incidents were classified as “green,” under this system, green doesn’t mean all clear - it means that a plant or an employee failed to meet the NRC’s safety standards.


In Illinois, which has 11 nuclear reactors, several incidents at Exelon plants have demonstrated that even after the implementation of the ROP, there have been a number of safety hazards and radioactive leaks that have threatened public health. This February, Exelon disclosed to the public that between 1996 - 2003, two Illinois plants spilled radioactive, cancer causing tritium on four occasions. Not only did this expose holes in oversight, it also highlighted the nuclear industry’s failure to disclose threats to the public health. One of the most immediate ways the Energy and Commerce Committee could promote nuclear safety would be to consider the Nuclear Release Notice Act, sponsored by Senator Obama and Congressman Weller, which would force the nuclear industry to notify the state, county, and public whenever there is an unplanned release of radioactive material in excess of legal limits. Illinois enacted legislation this year which requires nuclear plants to report leaks of radioactive material that contaminate groundwater, surface water, and the soil to state regulators within 24 hours.

In addition to these unannounced radioactive leaks, on February 20, there was a rare on-site emergency at Exelon’s LaSalle facility involving control rods that are used to shut reactors down. The NRC has subsequently released a report that states that the site area emergency declared at LaSalle overstated the problem, but the incident raised several questions. First, shouldn’t there be federal standards, regulated by the NRC, which outline what constitutes a nuclear emergency and mandates a particular federal response? In addition, under the ROP, individual plants are inspected more or less regularly based on their individual histories. The incidents at Davis-Besse and LaSalle beg the question why aren’t all of the nation’s 103 nuclear plants inspected and regulated with the highest possible frequency and standards?