Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of one of our notable activists and a conscience for social justice, the artist Pepe deLappe. Pepe died of a stroke last month, at the age of 91, leaving an enduring legacy to the people of the San Francisco Bay Area, across North America, and throughout the world. Admired by artists, art students, collectors and museums; loved by her family and colleagues; and appreciated by the disenfranchised, the underdog, and political progressives, Pepe devoted her life to social justice. She used her considerable talents to champion the causes of the working class and the needs of society's cast-offs. ``She was always on the side of the downtrodden,'' said her daughter, Nina Sheldon. ``She spent her whole life dedicated to civil rights and to social movements.'' That her social activism melded with her artistic conscience into an exotic bohemian life had its genesis around 1931, when she was 14. She became friends with the artist Frida Kahlo and her husband, Diego Rivera, when he was commissioned to paint murals in San Francisco. Pepe became part of Kahlo's drawing circle, where, she once said, she was treated as a total equal, despite her young age. This experience, along with her father's permission to discontinue regular school, encouraged Pepe to travel to New York a year or so later to attend art school. She returned to San Francisco at age 18, a legal adult, and joined in the city's maritime strike, an event which had life-changing consequences to her, as well as to those involved. If the history of a war is written by the victor, then the history of a people is written--and portrayed--by its artists. Pepe did a series of paintings of the longshoremen who participated in the strike-- paintings which still hang in the San Francisco headquarters of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. From that time until only weeks before her death, she captured poignant, comic and disparate emotions and the conditions that gave rise to them. Depicting the lives of the ordinary and extraordinary people of the working class or on the fringes of society, Pepe expressed not only the history of the time, but the social mores of a culture. But paintings, cartoons and lithographs were not Pepe's only media of expression. She also worked with words and spent many years of her life as an editor and writer for local ``alternative'' newspapers, including People's World, published by the Communist party. Although she eventually parted ways with that dogmatic organization-- by mutual agreement, she once quipped--she never lost interest in current affairs and politics, mostly recently holding up a sign as she sat in a wheelchair at a rally to protest the U.S. occupation of Iraq. At age 74, Pepe fell in love with long-time friend and fellow painter Byron Randall. The two spent the rest of their lives in Petaluma, where Pepe remained involved in politics and the artistic life. In fact, when she died last month, some of Pepe's works--many of which are owned by major museums and institutions, including the Library of Congress and San Francisco's Palace of the Legion of Honor--were being showcased in an exhibition at the Huntington Museum in San Marino. Titled Pressed in Time, the exhibit features a taped interview with Pepe. Madam Speaker, it is impossible to contain the life of such a woman in two short pages. But for those of us who knew Pepe deLappe, these words are only shorthand to the memories of her long, successful and influential life as an artist, activist, and idealist who, in her own words, ``refused to take life lying down.'' The world needs more people like Pepe deLappe. She will be greatly missed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of one of our notable pioneers, Dr. Daniel Collins. Dr. Collins died this month at age 91, leaving an enduring legacy to the people of Marin County, where he lived, to those of the San Francisco Bay Area, where he worked and taught, and to generations of black Americans across the country. A practicing dentist, Dr. Collins was the first black man to teach at the University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry. ``It opened the doors for others,'' says his son, Chuck Collins. After his retirement from dentistry, he served on the board of directors of the San Francisco Dental Society, the trustees of the American Fund for Dental Education and as a member of the house of delegates of the California Dental Association. Moreover, such pioneering efforts extended beyond his professional life. Dr. Collins founded the first black-owned savings and loan in San Francisco, for example, as well as the San Francisco chapter of the Urban League, later known as the Bay Area Urban League. Elberta Eriksson worked with Dr. Collins in those early days of the Urban League and remembers helping him promote awareness of discrimination in employment. ``I would see something on the college bulletin board announcing a job on Market Street or something,'' she says. ``When I would walk in to apply, they would say I was too qualified. Then I would report back to the Urban League and they would follow up.'' She notes that Dr. Collins' intention was to help blacks to fair employment before there were fair employment laws. As a pioneer, Dr. Collins felt called to mentor young people, and he and his wife, DeReath, were activists in their community as members of various groups, such as the Marin African Coalition. Together they helped to found MARC--Malin Aid to Retarded Children--now known as Lifehouse, a residential and counseling center for people with developmental disabilities located in San Rafael. In 1960, former Gov. Pat Brown appointed Dr. Collins to the State Board of Education, which 6 years later approved a new history text that recognized the contributions of women and minorities. He was also named a Distinguished Alumnus by UCSF School of Dentistry, and a Local Hero by Bay Area television station KQED. His alma mater, Paine College, even named a library after him. ``But he had absolutely no ego whatsoever,'' says Regina Carey, a family friend and Dr. Collins' personal assistant for many years. ``He would do all kinds of things and get all kinds of accolades and it never went to his head.'' Among Dr. Collins' pioneering efforts, she notes, was his selection as the first black to head a national campaign for a presidential election, when he supported Adlai Stevenson. Collins also helped create the Sun-Reporter newspaper in San Francisco and the Church for the Fellowship of All People, one of the first nondenominational, interracial churches in the country. But perhaps Dr. Collins' greatest contribution will never be marked by an award or a plaque or a resolution. Perhaps it will be the one few people ever know about--which is this: In the early 1950s, when Dr. Collins and his wife tried to buy a home in Mill Valley, long a summer resort area for San Franciscans and an all-white town in an almost all- white county, a deed restriction prevented the homeowner from selling to a black man. Local real estate agents offered to buy the house to keep the black family out. That the doctor and his wife were successful in purchasing their home and moving into the town eventually changed the landscape for future generations of black families in Marin. But then, Dr. Collins did that in all areas of his life, in his own quiet way. That is why, Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and courage of Dr. Daniel Collins.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of H.R. 3685. Before I came to Congress, I was a human resources executive, and even then, during the 1970s, my company had a policy that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. It boggles my mind that it has taken Congress this long to even try to catch up. I acknowledge that today's bill is a good start, but it is just a beginning. Many of my constituents want this legislation to include provisions that were in the original version of the bill and in the amendment that Representative Baldwin will introduce later today. I share the concern that the legislation before us does not protect the transgendered people. Transgendered people are particularly subject to workplace discrimination, and nearly one-half of all transgendered people have reported employment discrimination at some point in their lives. My home State of California is one of a dozen States which already provide this basic liberty, freedom from discrimination based on gender identity. We have done so because we recognize that transgendered people, like all people, deserve protection. Today's bill is not perfect, but please know that today and every day I commit to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and to keep up the fight to expand protection for all peoples.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when the President invaded Iraq in 2003, the American people were warned that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a great threat to peace. We were told that launching a preemptive war would not make life harder for the Iraqi people nor compromise the security of the international community. And we were promised that the quick war to liberate Iraq would come at no cost to America's prestige abroad. Five years later, it is painfully clear how very wrong the administration was and how dearly we are still paying for its mistakes. The administration launched a war of choice based on half truths, broken promises, and delusions of a swift and easy victory, but the most shameful of the administration's claims was that we were fighting abroad to protect our freedoms at home. The President argued that sending our Nation's brave servicemen and - women into an unwinnable occupation was the only way we would safeguard our civil liberties. Since then, by repeatedly invoking the possibility of threats to our national security right here at home and abroad, the administration has justified its unprecedented attack on our constitutionally protected freedoms. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer allow these attacks to go unchallenged. After authorizing the National Security Agency to openly violate Federal laws by eavesdropping on Americans, the administration successfully worked to legalize warrantless spying on innocent Americans. After consistently disregarding laws designed to promote public access to information, the administration expanded laws that authorized the government to withhold information from Congress and the American people. After championing the virtues of democratic rule of law, the President has openly condoned torture, denied habeas corpus to prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, and fought every single attempt to hold members and friends of his administration accountable for their actions. This abuse of power at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the American people, often in the name of protecting these very same rights and freedoms, is a shocking betrayal of the will of the American people. Last month, after the House passed legislation ensuring that every contractor in Iraq would be accountable under American criminal law, the administration granted immunity to Blackwater Security employees who were involved in a Baghdad shooting that left 17 civilians dead. This administration will never take responsibility for their actions. It will never end the occupation of Iraq. Instead, the attack on our civil liberties will be the only mission they will have accomplished. Mr. Speaker, it is Congress' responsibility to stand up to this President. We must end the administration's war of choice. We must restore the checks and balances that have been eroded under this President. We must fight for peace and the protection of civil liberties. We must fully fund the safe and orderly withdrawal of all American troops and contractors. Mr. Speaker, we must give Iraq back to the Iraqi people and America back its integrity.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, employees who expose illegal practices benefit us all. But when they blow the whistle, they are often retaliated against. They are demoted, lose their jobs, and are blacklisted. Congress has established broad protections for Federal government employees and contractors who speak out. But when it comes to the private sector, there are large gaps in coverage. Last spring, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, which I chair, held a hearing on private sector whistleblowers. What we heard at the hearing made it clear that these brave employees who put their jobs and lives on the line by coming forward to report violations of the law need more protection. The Private Sector Whistleblower Streamlining Act of 2007 is designed to fill the gaps for private sector whistleblowers. First, it establishes whistleblower protections for workers who report violations of Federal law related to health and health care, environmental protection, food and drug safety, consumer protection, transportation safety, working conditions and benefits, energy, homeland and community security, building and construction-related requirements and financial transactions. Second, it provides for reinstatement, compensatory damages, and in egregious cases, punitive damages for workers who have been retaliated against. In addition, the bill requires that the same well-tested principles used in determining whether or not a complaint is valid for Federal employees and contractors (and some private sector employees) who blow the whistle is used for private sector workers. Third, the Act establishes a new office within the Department of Labor, which will be dedicated solely to administering whistleblower complaints. Following an investigation by this office, the Act provides an opportunity for hearings before a Department of Labor administrative law judge and final review by the Office of the Secretary. Complainants would also have the right to take their cases to court. Since the substantive whistleblower protections under OSHA and MSHA are well-established, the Act takes a different approach for those who blow the whistle on safety and health violations. Procedurally, the Miner Act functions at an acceptable level, but the procedures of the OSHA Act badly need an overhaul. So the Streamlining Act would provide complainants under the OSHA Act with the same hearing, final review, and court opportunities as for others. For practical reasons, it would leave the initial investigations to OSHA. Finally, the bill requires the National Academies to study why some persons or communities are reluctant to step forward and report illegal violations. We want to encourage workers to come forward and report violations of law. The Private Sector Whistleblower Streamlining Act of 2007 will make it easier for them to do so.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join you here today to honor Bill and Lucy Kortum for their outstanding contributions to Sonoma County, the State of California and the Nation. Having made significant changes to the environmental consciousness in California and beyond, among other good works, Bill and Lucy have changed the world permanently--for the better. Bill's priorities were clear from the time he was young, growing up in Sonoma County where he could hike or travel anywhere in the county. His father told him, ``Enjoy it now, because when you grow up, it will be gone.'' Determined that wouldn't happen, Bill has contributed in many ways to protect the valued lifestyle of the community. That work has had lasting effect around the world, and resulted in a long list of notable accomplishments. For example, as co-founder of COAAST (Californians Organized to Acquire Access to State Tidelands), Bill led the fight to ensure the public's right to use California's 1,300 miles of coastline. Out of that came the California Coastal Protection Initiative, a ground-breaking measure that created the Coastal Commission to regulate development along the State's coast. ``That's not only a gift to the people of California,'' says Professor John Kramer of Sonoma State University, ``but that bill was instrumental and served as a model for environmentalists around the globe of how you could value coast with the notion that it's a common value. And it has been re-affirmed by the Supreme Court over and over.'' Among Bill's other contributions were the idea of triple use for urban wastewater, the selection and securing of land for the campus of Sonoma State University, and the idea of a hiking trail along the length of California, now called the California Coastal Trail--which includes a part named after the Kortums. Because of his steadfast dedication, Bill is considered the dean of Sonoma County environmentalists. As such, he was the first to serve as a Sonoma County supervisor. He was also one of the founders of Sonoma County Conservation Action, an organization that has been instrumental in electing environmentally minded local officials, and is now a leader in transportation issues, as well. Bill's ideas were always backed by Lucy's actions, says Kramer. ``Bill would get an idea and Lucy would type it up on an old Underwood.'' While her husband led the charge and attended meetings, Lucy organized papers and photos, typed documents and maintained computer files. It has been said of the couple's partnership that ``he runs around and she organizes it.'' But Lucy has contributed more than administrative support. ``While Bill was preserving our environmental heritage, Lucy was preserving our architecture,'' Kramer notes. Her love of history motivated her to earn a master's degree at Sonoma State University in the subject. Her meticulous research about historic sites resulted in more than a dozen Petaluma buildings being named to the National Register of Historic Places. It was Lucy who was responsible for the research of every one of the 144 California Carnegie libraries, Kramer notes. The thesis she wrote from this research, entitled ``Carnegie Library Development in California and the Architecture it Produced, 1899-1921'' served as the multiple property nomination that resulted in 10 California Carnegie libraries being added to the National Register of Historic Places. In fact, the paper still sets the standards by which such libraries achieve the National Register designation. In recognition of her dedicated volunteer service and scholastic achievements in the field of historic preservation and research, the Sonoma County Historical Society awarded Lucy the Jeanne Thurlow Miller Individual Award in 2005. The next year, she was named Petaluma's ``Good Egg'' and chosen to lead the town's annual parade, an acknowledgment of her volunteer work for the Petaluma Historical Library and Museum. She still serves as a board member of the Petaluma Historical Society and Friends of the Petaluma Library. In addition to her own accomplishments, Lucy worked tirelessly alongside her husband to bring about the coastal trail, the coastal commission and the California League of Conservation Voters, among others. ``They've been such incredible individuals,'' Kramer notes. ``Beyond just living a good life [and raising a family of three], they've given to their community in extraordinarily wonderful ways.'' Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me in acknowledging two amazing people who have made a difference. Thank you, Bill and Lucy, for your contributions to the betterment of Sonoma County and the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 573 and to commend grassroots and advocacy groups across the country for their powerful voices and invaluable efforts to raise awareness about the deepening humanitarian crisis in Darfur. This resolution will honor these groups for their hard work and urge the government to use its influence to halt the killing of innocent people in Darfur. Local communities continue to insist that the international community honor its responsibility to end the ongoing genocide in Darfur. We must heed their message, because it is one we cannot afford to ignore. As a member of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, the Congressional, the Human Rights Caucus, and the Congressional Sudan Caucus, I share their immediate concern that our country must do everything it can to end the genocide in Darfur. More than 2.5 million Darfurians have been displaced from their homes and as many as 400,000 Darfurians have needlessly died over the last four years as a result of violence, hunger, and disease. The tragic events unfolding in Darfur have been felt intensely by local communities across the world. The strongest efforts to end the genocide will grow from the concerns of American citizens who can no longer sit quietly by while the atrocities in Sudan continue unabated. I am proud to represent the people of California's Sixth Congressional District, who are among the people most involved in stopping the genocide in Darfur since the crisis started. Dear Sudan, now an international movement, began in my hometown of Petaluma in 2004. Their goal was to raise enough money from citizens of Petaluma to feed the refugees from Darfur for one day. Dear Sudan, Love Petaluma was so successful that other communities began organizing first locally, then spread across the Nation, and recently founded chapters in other countries across the world. Dear Sudan, Love Marin has hosted educational forums and worked to develop a broad coalition of religious and community groups, encompassing the entire San Francisco Bay Area. Another group, Marin Interfaith, has been instrumental in spreading the message about the ongoing genocide to the religious community at large. Additionally, students throughout the Sixth District have organized under Save Darfur, other national organizations, or on their own to help raise awareness for the crisis in Darfur by planning educational forums, rallying, and washing cars to raise funds for refugees. Just this past weekend, a student group in Santa Rosa held a car wash at a local market, and this December, a group of students from Terra Linda High School are planning a half-day conference on the genocide. Groups like these demonstrate the best elements of our Nation, where people can come together to work for change in the world. It is with their energy and passion in mind that we must renew our commitment to end the genocide in Darfur.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the first national protest demonstration against the Vietnam War occurred 40 years ago this month. About 100,000 Americans came to Washington in October 1967 to protest that foreign policy disaster. Vietnam was a war of choice. We invaded a country that never attacked us. We sent our troops into the middle of a civil war that had nothing to do with us. We went to war in a country whose culture or history we did not understand. We had no exit strategy. We went to war after Congress authorized the President to do so. We found out later that the congressional resolution was based on false information supplied by the administration. The Vietnam War divided our people. It led to the deaths of thousands of American troops and countless innocent civilians. It undermined our moral leadership in the world. We went to war alone. We were isolated from our allies. It was a propaganda victory for our enemies. There is more, Mr. Speaker. We propped up an often corrupt government that couldn't figure out how to rule. We kept waiting for South Vietnamese troops to stand up so we could stand down. The Vietnam War squandered our Nation's treasure. It diverted us from solving our own domestic problems. We said the war was all about spreading freedom. But the people of the country we invaded saw it as a foreign occupation. The occupation went on year after year. It passed from one administration to another. Our leaders kept telling us victory was just around the corner if we put more troops in. It devastated the country we were trying to save. It was a political, economic and moral catastrophe for America. That was Vietnam. But it sounds exactly like Iraq. Today we are repeating the same terrible mistakes in Iraq that we made 40 years ago in Vietnam. Some of the Members of this House who support our occupation of Iraq lived through Vietnam. They have had 40 years to think about it. Yet they still miss the point. The doctrine of preemptive war is not suited to America because we are not warmongers. The American people do not believe in shooting first and asking questions later. There is one other mistake we made back then that I hope we won't repeat, but I am afraid we will. The war in Vietnam spread to another country when we bombed Cambodia. Today, there is growing evidence that the administration is getting ready to spread the war in Iraq to another country. That would be Iran. About a week ago, the administration warned that Iran would face serious consequences if it proceeded on its current course. We all wonder what that means. Does it mean another round of shock and awe? Another country for our reckless leaders to bomb? But the administration needs to consider the ``serious consequences'' that America will face if we attack yet another Middle Eastern country. Our occupation of Iraq has produced a fresh new crop of terrorists. Using military force instead of diplomacy to get Iran to act responsibly will certainly do the same. In 1999, Mr. Speaker, when America was involved in Kosovo, the then- Governor of Texas said, and I quote him, ``Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what that exit strategy is.'' That Governor of Texas is now in the White House. But he is not following his own advice. The administration has no exit strategy for Iraq. So it is up to Congress to provide one. We must use our power, the power of the purse, to defund the war. Then we must fully fund the safe, orderly and responsible redeployment of our troops' withdrawal and the withdrawal of all military contractors. Then we must launch a vigorous regional and international diplomatic effort to bring peace to Iraq and help it rebuild. A few years ago, the administration called for an initiative to improve Americans' understanding of history. Our leaders in the White House should start by learning the history of Vietnam.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the President is going to negotiate trade agreements based on the failed NAFTA model, this legislation is the very least that we can do for our workers who lose their jobs because of international trade and globalization. Mr. Speaker, America faces record high trade deficits and plant closings, and it's our laid-off workers who are the casualties. Strengthening trade adjustment assistance, TAA, isn't the magic pill. It is not the cure-all. It can only be a help by fixing the flawed trade policy. We will do what our workers need, but we owe displaced workers in the meantime, and we owe their communities around the country the chance they need to regain their economic footing with job training, with health care, and they need to know that it's available to them and how to take advantage of these programs. Mr. Speaker, while the bill will not prevent millions of workers from losing their jobs, it will give them the tools they need and the tools they deserve until they are once again able to compete in the global workforce.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, for the past 5 years, the administration has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act to the tune of more than $50 billion. This has robbed millions of children of the education they will need to succeed in the 21st century, and it is robbing America of the brain power we need to stay competitive in the global economy. Those of us who believe it's a bad idea to shortchange our kids and our Nation begged the administration to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, but our pleas were ignored. That is one of the reasons I was so outraged last week when the White House requested $46 billion in supplemental funding for its occupation of Iraq. That $46 billion, Madam Speaker, is almost identical to the amount that the administration has underfunded No Child Left Behind. In fact, the administration announced its request at a press conference. In that one short press conference, they asked for virtually the same amount for Iraq that it has been denying to our Nation's schools for nearly 6 years. And while the administration has demanded that every school in America show adequate yearly progress on its learning benchmarks or they will be punished, punished financially for the most part, it has allowed the Iraqi Government to show virtually no progress at all when it comes to meeting its benchmarks for peace. And education is not the only crying need that is being ignored. The opportunity costs of the occupation are actually incalculable. The occupation is soaking up dollars we need to meet so many of our domestic challenges. If we really want America to be secure, we must invest in child care, we must invest in health care, sustainable energy, the environment, law enforcement, community and economic development, medical research, real homeland security, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But the administration believes that policing a centuries-old civil war in Iraq trumps all other needs. The American people do not agree with this administration's priorities. They want action, they want real solutions to our domestic problems, and they want to fight a real war on terrorism, not the phony war on terrorism the administration is fighting in Iraq. When the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act, Madam Speaker, he said it was the most important piece of legislation most of us will ever work on. The education of our children is far more important to the future of our country than an endless and counterproductive occupation of another country. That is why Congress must finally stand up to the administration and say no, no to supplemental funding that would bring our total spending in Iraq this fiscal year alone to $160 billion. Madam Speaker, that's over $13 billion a month, or nearly $450 million per day. Almost exactly a year ago, the American people sent us to Congress to end the occupation of Iraq. It's time that we do it. We must use our power of the purse to fully fund the safe, orderly and responsible redeployment of all of our troops out of Iraq, and that includes the withdrawal of all of our military contractors as well. As if one occupation army weren't enough, these independent contractors comprise a second occupation army that is angering the Iraqi people and actually making life much harder for our very own troops. Madam Speaker, we can't afford to keep throwing money into the bottomless pit of Iraq. That appears to be what our leaders in the White House want us to do. But their policy is bankrupting all of us politically, economically, and morally. It is time that we come to our senses; it is time to end this madness.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, before the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on television by George Stephanopoulos. Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Secretary Rumsfeld what invading Iraq would cost. Rumsfeld answered, ``Under $50 billion.'' Mr. Stephanopoulos then replied that outside estimates say it would be up to $300 billion, to which Rumsfeld replied, ``Baloney.'' Well, it may have been baloney to Rumsfeld then, but he must eat his words now because the cost of the occupation has climbed to over $400 billion so far. And it's going to go up, up, and up because our leaders in the White House seem simply not to care how much this occupation costs. It's like that old joke: We could say they are spending like drunken sailors, but we wouldn't say that because that would be an insult to the sailors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated yesterday that the occupation of Iraq could cost the taxpayers $1.9 trillion by the year 2017. Of that amount with over $500 billion going to just pay off the interest on the debt we're piling up, it is going to cost $500 billion. That's $500 billion that would fly out of our treasury and land in Japan and in China and the other countries that are lending us the money for the occupation. That is far more than what the SCHIP bill would cost us. It is incredible to me and to most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that the administration would rather give our country's money to foreign governments and investors than invest it in the health care of America's poor children. And it is incredible to me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who lecture us daily about fiscal constraints, did not make a peep about this fiscal catastrophe. The next question is, what are we getting for this money? The answer is, we are getting a slap in the face from the Iraqi leadership. Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist who has won three Pulitzer Prizes, reported yesterday that the Iraqi leaders who are supposed to be working on the political reconciliation needed to end the conflict have been more asleep at the switch than ever. Mr. Friedman writes: ``Study the travel itineraries of Iraq's principal factional leaders. Did they all rush to Baghdad to try to work out their differences'' after General Petraeus testified before the Congress? ``No. Many of them took off for abroad. As one U.S. official in Baghdad pointed out to me,'' and this is Mr. Friedman speaking, ``at no point since the testimony by General Petraeus . . . have you had the four key Iraqi leaders in the same country at the same time. They saw the hearings as buying them more time, and so they took it.'' With American troops and innocent civilians continuing to die in Iraq, you would think our leaders in the White House would be on the phone ten times a day with the Iraqi leaders demanding that they get out of their La-Z-Boy recliners and get to work. But the White House shows no desire to knock heads together. What does the White House do instead? It sends us a request for another $46 billion for this occupation. We must tell the White House, ``Sorry, we've run out of blank checks.'' Then we must use our power of the purse to defund the occupation. Instead, we must fully fund the safe, orderly, and responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, and that includes the withdrawal of all military contractors, including those trigger- happy Blackwater boys who have given our country a black eye. Mr. Speaker, from now on every time the administration tells us it needs more money for its senseless occupation of Iraq, we have the perfect one-word answer, and that word is ``baloney.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the Marin Conservation Corps on its 25th anniversary of helping young people to a brighter future by providing jobs and learning opportunities, at the same time protecting and conserving our natural resources. Marin Conservation Corps began more than 25 years ago when founder Richard Hammond was out jogging along one of the many gorgeous trails of the Marin Headlands. The father of teenage sons at the time, he had been seeking something productive to keep them occupied during summer vacation and came up with the idea to combine trail maintenance with young people's need for work. But it wasn't until devastating floods hit Marin in 1982 that the corps took shape. The first local conservation corps in the country, MCC literally blazed the trail for others to follow. Workers have put in more than three million hours to maintain and conserve Marin County's 150,000 acres of public land. In association with AmeriCorps, MCC has partnered with the National Park Service to create a one-on-one mentoring program. MCC also provides young people with summer jobs through a combination of outdoor education, community service and recreational activities through its Project ReGeneration. Under the leadership of Marilee Eckert since 1992, the nonprofit has grown to provide year-round employment to 116 people, operating under a budget of more than $5 million and helping more than 3,000 young men and women gain job skills along with an education. Marilee also holds leadership roles in many local and national organizations. Her efforts have earned her recognition and awards from the county and the Sierra Club, as well as the gratitude of the many corps members who have benefited from her hard work. Many of those who have benefited come from under-served populations. One such corpsman is Matthew Rainey, a 21-year-old convicted felon. ``I didn't have an opportunity to work anywhere else,'' he says. ``Honestly, I was living in my car, didn't have anything going for myself, but every single day, I would come to work.'' Because of MCC, Rainey has earned his GED, saved enough to rent an apartment, and is considering following the trade he learned through his work at MCC. ``He has so totally blossomed,'' notes Deborah Schoenbaum, MCC's deputy director. ``He has won just about every award you can get in the corps. It's been a life-changing experience for him.'' Working at MCC has been a life-changing experience for many others, as well. An average of 300 young people go through the various MCC programs each year. In fact, some of MCC's sponsors and greatest supporters were previously in the corps program. Corpsmembers not only arrive at work at 7 a.m. for a full day of work each day, but must put in 10 hours of education each week, as well. Marvin was one such young man willing to work this hard for a better future. Marvin came to the corps speaking absolutely no English, Schoenbaum remembers. ``He now speaks English and has gotten a job with a top landscaping firm because he went through a landscaping program we have with College of Marin.'' Such success stories, Madam Speaker, is why the Marin Conservation Corps deserves to be congratulated for its past 25 years of service. May it have an equally successful future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on October 23, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my votes for rollcall No. 993 and No. 994. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 993--``yea'', rollcall No. 994--``no.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when General Petraeus testified before Congress last month, there was a lot of happy talk from the administration about how much improved things had gotten in Iraq. From the way they talked, you would have thought that Iraq had become a sort of paradise, a middle eastern Shangri-La. But now it's back to harsh reality, and yesterday the administration handed us yet another bill for their senseless occupation of Iraq. This time, the tab is $46 billion in supplemental funding. And this is for Iraq as well as Afghanistan. That's on top of the nearly half trillion dollars we have already spent in Iraq. And make no mistake, this isn't the last bill for Iraq that we will be getting. The administration has no exit strategy. Instead, it has a strategy to keep the occupation going for decades. So the bill will keep piling up until our credit cards are absolutely maxed out. To make matters worse, the administration had the gall to hand us this enormous bill just a few weeks after vetoing the SCHIP bill, which they said was too expensive. Let's examine the White House's logic. Our policy in Iraq is a failure while the SCHIP program is a big success. So you would think the administration would want to cut our losses in Iraq and increase our investment in SCHIP. But, no, it's the other way around. The White House has turned into Superman's bizarro world, where everything is the opposite of what it should be. Yesterday, when the administration announced its funding request, the President said, and I quote, ``I often hear that war critics oppose my decisions, but still support the troops. Well, I'll take them at their word, and this is the chance to show that they support the troops.'' Well, a few weeks ago, the administration had a chance to show that it supported the troops, and it blew it. The SCHIP bill that was vetoed included the bill that I sponsored, H.R. 3481, the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act. This bill amends the Family Medical Leave Act to allow family members of a soldier wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other conflict to take up to 6 months leave from work to care for that soldier. This change in the Family Medical Leave Act is desperately needed by the families of our brave troops. The Dole-Shalala Commission reported that 21 percent of active duty soldiers, 15 percent of reservists and 24 percent of retired or separated soldiers have had family members or friends give up their jobs to care for them while they recovered from their wounds. And 33 percent of active duty soldiers, 22 percent of reservists and 37 percent of retired or separated soldiers have had a family member or close friend relocate, relocate for extended periods of time to care for them while they were in the hospital. So extending the Family Medical Leave Act benefits would help many military families when they actually need the help the most. That's why my bill has been endorsed by the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the National Military Family Association, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. The administration's veto of SCHIP was a slap in the face, not only to the children that will not be covered, but to all of these fine organizations. Let's support our wounded troops and their families and let's support our courageous troops in the field in Iraq by rejecting this administration's request for supplemental funding, but, instead, fully funding the safe, orderly and timely redeployment of all of our troops and of all of our military contractors. That way we will be supporting the troops in Iraq. This is what Congress must do. This is what the American people want. And if we fail to do it, we will have failed the American people and our troops.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is past time to hold this administration accountable for its actions in Iraq and for its actions throughout the region. Our standing in the world and throughout the Middle East is at an all-time low. And our standing in popularity has just about disappeared. The administration's policies have only brought instability and conflict. The strategy of preemptive war has, and we have seen it, been met with disbelief. It has been met with criticism from all corners of the world. The administration keeps beating the drum of war with Iran, and its inaction in northern Iraq may lead to armed conflict with Turkey. A real leader, an effective Commander in Chief, knows that the use of force should be the very last possible option, not the first. The blame for this sits squarely in the Oval Office. And what about the people the administration was supposed to be liberating? Many live now without the basic services they had for generations: electricity, clean water, basic health care, education. And at least 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes. Many are displaced within their own country, and millions more have escaped to neighboring Iran and Syria. Despite what the administration has claimed, the fault does not lie on the Iraqi people or the international community. Once again the blame belongs one place and one place only: that's with our administration. Let's look at our international human rights record, Mr. Speaker. From Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, a scandal, to the mercenary Blackwater security forces, the face of American policy emerges as goons, thugs, and cowboys. Or what about torture? The administration says it doesn't promote torture. Yet day in and day out we read news media reports of an administration promoting rendition and ``enhanced interrogation methods.'' These methods allow for everything short of death. The responsibility lies at the feet of one man. Not a general. Not the Justice Department. Not the men and women of the intelligence community. And certainly not the brave men and women who are serving us in Iraq. One man. And it does not get much better here, right here at home, where the administration is pushing for more ways to spy on American citizens. They are attacking their political adversaries by questioning their patriotism. They even outed a covert CIA operative. The President at that time said that anyone caught for such an action would be removed from his staff. Now it turns out that Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby, and Ari Fleischer didn't count and the administration chose to put them above the law. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves who's really to blame. I can only think of one person. And, finally, most shameful of all, the legacy of this occupation of Iraq has left a generation of men and women with physical and mental wounds that may never heal. And how did the administration thank them for their bravery on behalf of our Nation? Walter Reed. Long waits for necessary medical treatment at local VA hospitals. And in some cases, extended deployments. What kind of Commander in Chief would do that? Remember the good old days when past Presidents said, and meant it, that ``the buck stops here,'' the buck stops with them? This administration seems to think the buck stops everywhere but 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to take the responsibility for his actions and turn the tide around, and he can do that by providing our men and women in uniform the equipment they need to come home safely; by funding the safe, responsible, and timely withdrawal of our troops; and by regaining, in turn, our place as a world leader promoting peace and stability. Mr. Speaker, hold this administration accountable. Bring our troops home. End this senseless occupation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as a sponsor of H.R. 1396, and because we inadvertently transposed some numbers, I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Nita Lowey, Richard Neal, and Artur Davis be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 1396.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it's disappointing that the Administration and many Republicans can't get their priorities in order and support an expansion of SCHIP. The Administration's veto of H.R. 976, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, shows just how far its priorities are from the rest of this country. The Administration said it's too expensive. Yet the Administration has had no trouble spending half-a-trillion dollars on the occupation of Iraq. The Administration's priorities are clear: Unlimited money for occupation, no money for kids. Currently, we're spending about $14 million dollars per hour on the occupation. That means we could provide medical, dental, and mental health care to more than 10,000 low-income children for the cost of just one single hour in Iraq. This bill was an opportunity for us to stand up and say that 10 million of our Nation's children deserve health coverage and access to dental and mental health services. In California, that would have provided 607,000 additional children with health insurance. By vetoing this bill, the Administration has turned its back on these children. Additionally, the Administration has abandoned its promise to our Nation's military service members and their families. This legislation amends the Family and Medical Leave Act, the landmark workplace protection legislation passed 14 years ago, to provide the spouse, child, parent, and next of kin of an injured service member with six months of unpaid, job protected leave to care for their wounded loved one. This language is identical to the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3481, the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, which Chairman George Miller and I have championed in the House and Senators Christopher Dodd and Hillary Rodham Clinton have fought for in the Senate. We have a moral obligation to honor our military families, who should never have to choose between keeping their jobs and support and meeting the needs of their loved ones. As the Chairwoman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, I believe we can no longer afford to deny these dedicated men and women the urgently needed protections included in this bill. Children are 25 percent of our population but 100 percent of our future. I look forward to working with my fellow Members to continue to protect the health and well-being of our Nation's most valuable resource: its children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, all too often we've seen this administration turn a blind eye toward the priorities of our very country. While the administration has consistently failed to demonstrate restraint when it comes to escalating the occupation of Iraq, it has cold-heartedly insisted on denying the children of struggling working families with health insurance in the name of fiscal discipline. Once again, the values of the administration are glaringly out of step with the values of the American people. The administration will not stand for accountability, transparency, or dissent when it comes to ending the occupation of Iraq. They will, however, support another blank check, resulting in more lives lost and more of our priorities left unfunded. Earlier today, the House voted on overriding the President's veto of the children's health insurance reauthorization, or SCHIP. When the President vetoed SCHIP, he argued that the appearance of fiscal responsibility was more important than the health of 10 million of our children in this Nation. But when we learned that insuring 10 million children in America for 1 year costs the same as 40 days in Iraq, it is clear that the administration does not have its priorities straight. Mr. Speaker, supporting our service men and women is certainly our absolute responsibility. Our Nation has an obligation to those who sacrifice and defend us during times of war. However, our servicemembers in Iraq were sent into combat without adequate training, without state-of-the-art body armor and equipment, and without assurances that their tours of duty will not be overextended. The glaring failures in Iraq show that not only is the Bush administration defunding our Nation's priorities to continue the occupation, but that it is allowing much of that money to be wasted. The Inspector General has reported that $8.8 billion appropriated for Iraq's reconstruction cannot be accounted for. Media sources have recently reported that the administration is constructing a $600 million American Embassy located in the Green Zone in Iraq. This embassy, which is the largest in the world, in fact, it is larger than the Vatican, this embassy will include grocery stores, a movie theater, tennis courts and a social club. It will require $1 billion a year to keep it up and to be maintained. Instead of our children's health care, the priorities of the Bush administration seem to be waste, fraud and abuse. Mr. Speaker, when the administration vetoes a bipartisan investment in health insurance for our Nation's children, it rejects the priorities of the American people. When the administration spends billions on constructing and maintaining an embassy in Iraq while Iraq's infrastructure collapses around them, it compromises the safety of our troops abroad. And when the administration refuses to end the occupation in Iraq, it assures that countless generations will suffer for their mistakes. Mr. Speaker, the priorities of the American people are clear. They want to provide health care for children. They want to promote peace and protect our troops. They want us to fully fund the efforts to bring our troops home. They want us to do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the Marin Conservation Corps, MCC, on its 25th anniversary of helping young people to a brighter future by providing jobs and learning opportunities, at the same time protecting and conserving our natural resources. MCC began more than 25 years ago when founder Richard Hammond was out jogging along one of the many gorgeous trails of the Marin Headlands. The father of teenage sons at the time, he had been seeking something productive to keep them occupied during summer vacation and came up with the idea to combine trail maintenance with young people's need for work. But it wasn't until devastating floods hit Marin in 1982 that the corps took shape. The first local conservation corps in the country, MCC literally blazed the trail for others to follow. Workers have put in more than 3 million hours to maintain and conserve Marin County's 150,000 acres of public land. In association with AmeriCorps, MCC has partnered with the National Park Service to create a one-on-one mentoring program. MCC also provides young people with summer jobs through a combination of outdoor education, community service and recreational activities through its Project ReGeneration. Under the leadership of Marilee Eckert since 1992, the nonprofit has grown to provide year-round employment to 116 people, operating under a budget of more than $5 million and helping more than 3,000 young men and women gain job skills along with an education. Marilee also holds leadership roles in many local and national organizations. Her efforts have earned her recognition and awards from the county and the Sierra Club, as well as the gratitude of the many corps members who have benefited from her hard work. Many of those who have benefited come from underserved populations. One such corpsman is Matthew Rainey, a 21-year-old convicted felon. ``I didn't have an opportunity to work anywhere else,'' he says. ``Honestly, I was living in my car, didn't have anything going for myself, but every single day, I would come to work.'' Because of MCC, Rainey has earned his GED, saved enough to rent an apartment, and is considering following the trade he learned through his work at MCC. ``He has so totally blossomed,'' notes Deborah Schoenbaum, MCC's deputy director. ``He has won just about every award you can get in the corps. It's been a life-changing experience for him.'' Working at MCC has been a life-changing experience for many others, as well. An average of 300 young people go through the various MCC programs each year. In fact, some of MCC's sponsors and greatest supporters were previously in the corps program. Corpsmembers not only arrive at work at 7 a.m. for a full day of work each day, but must put in 10 hours of education each week, as well. Marvin was one such young man willing to work this hard for a better future. Marvin came to the corps speaking absolutely no English, Schoenbaum remembers. ``He now speaks English and has gotten a job with a top landscaping firm because he went through a landscaping program we have with College of Marin.'' Such success stories, Madam Speaker, is why the Marin Conservation Corps deserves to be congratulated for its past 25 years of service. May it have an equally successful future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today marks a sad and tragic day in American history. Today is the fifth anniversary of the House joint resolution which authorized the use of American Armed Forces against Iraq. I was among the 133 Members of the House who voted ``no'' on that resolution. But our voices could not be heard over the deafening spin machine of fear and misinformation that came from the administration. We were told about mushroom clouds, yellow cake, and weapons of mass destruction. They all turned out to be fairytales. But they became the rationale of something America should never, never do: wage a war of choice. But now the American people know that our involvement in Iraq is folly, and in 2006 they sent us to Congress to end the occupation. Iraq is not the American people's war; it is the administration's war. And it goes on because the administration has turned a deaf ear to the will of the people. The administration looks to our involvement in South Korea as the model for Iraq. That means a permanent occupation that may last half a century or more. Who wants this? The American people don't want it. The Iraqi people don't want it. The people of the Middle East don't want it. Our allies don't want it. The world does not want it. Iraq is the symptom of a foreign policy that is fatally flawed. We have turned our backs on the structure of international cooperation and agreement that is the best way to stop terrorism, ensure our national security, and keep the peace. Our leaders have told us to wait for history to judge the wisdom of our involvement in Iraq, but we don't have to wait; 5 years is long enough to judge. And we already know what the occupation has done; it has shattered the lives of millions through death, injury, and displacement. It has wrecked our moral leadership, it has wrecked our standing in the world. It has distracted us from fighting the poverty and hopelessness that give rise to terrorism, and from working with other nations to dismantle terrorist networks. It has made us foreign occupiers in the eyes of the people of the Middle East, making it virtually impossible for us to be partners for peace in that very volatile region. The occupation broke faith with our brave troops. We told them they were going to fight America's enemies, and then we left them to police a civil war that has nothing to do with America. The occupation has undermined our commitment to civil liberties and human rights. America should be known as the great champion of democracy; instead, we are known for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, illegal wiretapping, and the PATRIOT Act. The occupation has squandered nearly half a trillion dollars from our Treasury, robbing money from domestic needs. And the occupation has not made our Nation safer. Our intelligence community has warned us that al Qaeda is using the occupation to recruit operatives for attacks on the United States. So how should we mark this fifth anniversary day? Let us use October 10, 2007 to correct the mistake this House made on October 10, 2002. Let us use this day to commit ourselves to a bold new course of action. Congress must rescind the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Congress must use its power of the purse to defund the occupation and, instead, fully fund the safe, orderly, and responsible redeployment of our troops and withdrawal of all military contractors now. And Congress must resist the new drumbeat of war, this time against Iran. The occupation of Iraq represents a failure of national policy. America's true strengths lie in our commitment to moral action, lies in our compassion for the people of the world, and a government based on the rule of law. Let us use this day to return to those values and ensure the safety of our country and our people. And let us be committed to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today simply says that the organizations receiving grant money from the trust fund may give consideration to first responders, public safety officers, teachers, other public employees whose incomes have kept them from living in the communities that they serve. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district where the median income is higher than some others and so is the price of housing. Sometimes public service employees actually require that workers live within a certain distance from their job, and it's simply unfair that when home prices put affordable housing out of reach for these workers, then they cannot participate in that career. The amendment would not only affect high-cost areas but would benefit every single county or city in our country where public service employees have trouble finding housing. If these employees meet the income requirements of the bill, grantees would be able to give consideration to them and to their contributions to our communities. Mr. Chairman, it is time we stand up for these employees. It is time we let them know that we welcome them in our communities. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, after the administration promised to bring liberation to the people of Iraq, they have, instead, brought insecurity and despair. Every day a new report emerges about the horrible living conditions in Iraq. One of the latest stories comes from Missan, a predominantly Shia province south of Baghdad. Human rights groups and media reports show that there is a shortage of safe drinking water, and that very shortage may pose a serious health risk. Eight agencies have found that there is a shortage of chemicals for water purification and that many people have been forced to take water directly from the polluted Tigris River. The provincial capital, Amarah, hasn't been able to treat its water supply since early September because they lack the treatment chemicals. This problem, Mr. Speaker, is further complicated by the large number of internally displaced people arriving each and every day. And according to media reports, thousands of refugees have arrived from the central and northern provinces since February 2006, which puts unmitigated pressure on the already strained water system. And according to a U.N. Refugee Agency report, the available water supply only met 60 percent of the needs 1 year ago. It also stated, ``Rural areas rely on drinking water directly from the marshes, water that is highly saline, untreated and often contaminated.'' Recent studies found that only 5 percent of the houses in the province have running water. 60 percent use water pumps, and the rest rely on river water. Is there any wonder why the number of cholera cases are on the rise? But the news reports only say so much. Listen to the local sanitation officials: ``Mains water has not been purified since early September as the chemicals aren't available, and the only truck carrying the material was stolen. ``Families fear cholera will spread to their cities and towns. In Amarah, cases of diarrhea have increased by 30 percent compared to 2 months ago. There hasn't been a proper sanitation system in Missan since before the invasion of 2003. Many districts have poor sanitation facilities, and one can smell the stench of open sewers kilometers away. In some areas of the province, supposedly drinkable water is being mixed with sewage effluent and families have no option but to drink unsafe water. Mr. Speaker, we are spending $2 billion a week in Iraq, and we cannot provide for the most basic needs like safe drinking water. This makes one wonder if the funds are being misdirected, and it makes us wonder if our administration just can't show any leadership on humanitarian projects. It is simply disgraceful. We should help the Iraqi people by giving them back their country, and then we should work with our international partners to help the Iraqis rebuild their physical and economic infrastructure. And we should ensure that the Iraqi people have all they need to survive: clean water, food, electricity, schools, jobs, and a secure future. These life and death problems are not going to be solved at the point of a gun. Putting our brave men and women in uniform on the front lines of a civil war isn't helping. I urge my colleagues to join together to support proposals that bring our troops and military contractors home and rededicate ourselves to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Iraq. It is past time for responsible foreign policy. It is time to bring our troops home now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every parent, every parent, whether living in the United States or in Iraq, wants only the best for their children. They want their kids to feel safe and to have the very best of everything. And every parent wants their child to get a quality education. Worldwide over 100 million children do not attend school. Unfortunately, the trends of school attendance in Iraq are very discouraging. According to recent UNICEF reports, high levels of street violence and lawlessness are keeping school attendance levels, particularly of girls, to low levels. Often because families can no longer afford to keep their children in school, girls are pulled out to assist their families with household work and to look after younger siblings while their brothers finish school. The large refugee crisis is another impediment to education. UNHCR estimates that 500,000 school-age Iraqi children now live in neighboring countries. This could put a severe strain on neighboring countries' schools and their school systems, that is, if children are even allowed to attend school while living as a refugee. Additionally, refugee families often do not have money for tuition, and refugee children may not speak the local language. This summer, the United Nations launched a global appeal for $129 million to get more Iraqi refugee children into schools. This is just a Band-Aid, Mr. Speaker, on the situation. Until Iraq is stabilized and families can return to their homes, we're going to have a generation of children who have lived their lives on the run, without feeling safe and without an education. In a nation with a rich legacy of education, a nation that has produced some of the world's leading doctors, architects and artists, parents are watching their children denied an education? This is not the future we want for American children, and it is not the future we want for Iraqi children. Iraqis of all ages deserve a safe and secure future and one that is enriched by education. We know how to provide that future, and it's by ending the occupation and returning sovereignty to Iraq. If this administration would only listen to the Congress, or even to the Iraqi people themselves, they would see that there is overwhelming support to bring our troops home. This does not mean that we would end our commitment to the Iraqi people. In fact, the American people have a long history of generosity and great humanitarian works. Our dedication to the children of Iraq would not end with our military presence. Iraq is only made less stable with an endless American occupation, and our very presence appears to be inspiring even more insurgents. Let's do what is in the best interests of the United States and of Iraq. Let's renew our humanitarian commitment to the Iraqi people. Let's end this misguided occupation. Let's bring our troops and military contractors home.