Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today, without a doubt, we should congratulate the Iraqi people for what appears to be a successful, high-turnout election. For the third time this year, courageous Iraqi citizens have enthusiastically exercised their democratic rights. But successful elections do not, and cannot, obscure the devastating national tragedy that is the Iraq war. It doesn't change the fact that over 2,100 Americans have died for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. It doesn't change the fact that this war has turned Iraq into a hotbed of terrorist activity. It doesn't change the fact that our troops are sitting ducks for the insurgents, who have been emboldened--not deterred--by our military presence in Iraq. Here's the bottom line: a successful Iraqi election should, at the very least, reinforce the imperative of bringing our troops home. If Iraq is truly able to self-govern, then we have no business occupying their country and meddling in their affairs. I've argued all year long that it's time to restore Iraqi sovereignty and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. If the election is a watershed moment as the White House claims . . . then what is the continued justification for having our troops over there in harm's way? Now is the time to enlist the support of the international community to establish an interim security force for Iraq. But that's just the start. As I've written to the President in a letter signed by 61 other members of the House, the United States must also launch a ``diplomatic offensive,'' recasting our role in Iraq as reconstruction partner rather than military occupier. We must also lead the way in establishing an international peace commission to oversee the post-war reconciliation and coordinate peace talks between Iraq's various factions. The majority of the American people aren't behind it. Our global allies aren't behind it. The Iraqi people aren't behind it. Even Iraqi leaders--Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish alike, who agree on practically nothing--have united around a call for the United States military to leave. With the Iraqi people having voted once again, let's offer the ultimate vote of confidence in their democracy. Let's reward the self- sufficiency they've demonstrated--by giving them their country back and bringing American soldiers home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I congratulate the Iraqis for their successful election and request an open debate on Iraq on the House floor.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to those applauding the outstanding disaster response work of the U.S. Coast Guard. My district is fortunate to host one of the Nation's three Coast Guard highly trained oil spill and hazmat response teams, the Pacific Strike Team located at Hamilton Field in Novato. We are also proud of Coast Guard training center Petaluma, located in the rural Two Rock area. Men and Women from both bases had important roles in the aftermath of Katrina. For the Pacific Strike Team, quick response to emergencies is normal operating procedure. On the night of August 29, Commander Anthony Lloyd and a dozen or so members of the team flew out of California to join the two other units of the National Strike Force at the forward operating base in Alexandra. In the following weeks they participated in the largest oil cleanup spill since the Exxon Valdez, containing oil spills from 8 or 9 refineries on the Mississippi and the Gulf. With oil spill cleanup almost completed, the Pacific Strike Team has joined the Louisiana environmental officials and the U.S. EPA in an effort to remove hazmat materials scattered along Lousiana's broad coastal zone. To date this unified command, combing the wetlands and bayous, have collected about 1 million commercial 55 gallon drums. In an emergency, the Coast Guard also relies on its personnel stationed at bases and at sea . . . everyone lends a hand. Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma, commanded by Captain Brian Marvin, is no exception. Nine Two Rock coasties have recently returned from a 30 day rotation in the Gulf where they performed a variety of duties which exemplify the diverse mission of the Coast Guard. Two chaplains helped with spiritual support and stress management both for hurricane victims and responders; a doctor helped to mend bodies at a relief center in New Orleans; an officer was sent to be in charge of a relief boat command and control center; another officer was sent as a planner; two petty officers served in law enforcement, repairing aids to navigation and participating in search and rescue operations; and another petty officer conducted incident debriefings and helped develop support systems for personnel out in the field. All these activities were conducted with the highest professionalism, dedication, and compassion--Coast Guard hallmarks. They deserve the highest praise and ongoing support for their mission.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Scott Tucker, of Petaluma, California. On January 1, 2006, Scott will officially retire after 13 years as the San Francisco District Manager, and 38 years with the United States Postal Service. He is the longest serving postal service executive at any major metropolitan area in consecutive years. Mr. Tucker's career with the United States Postal Service began in 1968 in Hanford, California as a letter carrier. He held a succession of managerial positions in postal operations, until in September 1992, he was appointed to his current position as the San Francisco District Manager. As the District Manager, Scott is responsible on a daily basis for the delivery of approximately 10 million pieces of mail to 3 million customers throughout northwest California that ranges from Sunnyvale in the south to the Oregon Border in the north. He supervises a workforce of 10,400 mail carriers, mail handlers, mail clerks, postmasters, and operations managers. In the North Bay we have grown to approximately 3,000 employees spread throughout 205 postal facilities under Scott's leadership. The San Francisco postal district has for nine consecutive quarters, under Scott's leadership, received the ``Order of Yellow Jersey'' award for excellence in customer satisfaction and commitment to professionalism. The district has been repeatedly recognized by IBM's Business Consulting Services Unit, as one of the best on-time mail services for any metropolitan area in the Nation. In the past 13 years, Scott has helped increase awareness of multicultural groups within the district. Under his leadership, numerous diversity leadership advisory councils were established including the Women's Council, African American Council, Asian American/Pacific Island Council, and the Hispanic Council. The Bay Area Federal Executive Board recognized his efforts and presented him with a diversity leadership achievement award. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that we honor Scott Tucker today for the years he has dedicated to consistently improving upon how we all receive our mail. The San Francisco District of the United States Postal Service employees and customers will greatly miss him. He has left some very big shoes to fill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, American workers know that a defined pension plan is a promise from their employer, a promise that, when they retire, they will receive a benefit they can rely on. In fact, they have planned their retirement future on that promise. This bill allows companies to break that promise. It allows companies to switch midstream to cash balance plans, ignoring that promise to their workers. These workers have trusted that this benefit will be there. It will be there at the end of their service to a company. In fact, these workers have quite often given up pay raises or other benefits for their retirement security. These pension benefits have been earned. They have been promised. They must be honored. Actually, earlier this year, the Republican majority tried but failed to destroy the Social Security system by going back on their promise to every American that at a certain age they would receive a defined benefit, a benefit they could count on. Americans overwhelmingly stood up to the Republicans and said Social Security is ours, you promised it, we rely on it, you cannot have it. So the Republican majority could not take Social Security away from Americans with privatization. Now, they are trying to pull the rug out from under people who have dedicated their lives working hard for their companies. Madam Speaker, these workers were promised defined retirement benefits. They earned those benefits, and this Congress cannot allow companies to go back on their word. We must ensure that these hardworking Americans get the pension benefits they have been promised that they have earned. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2830. Protect American pensions.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, with the holidays upon us, some Members of this body have been working really hard to divert attention from much of the pressing issues that we should be working on in this Congress. They have been doing this by complaining about some kind of war on Christmas. You can always tell when their poll numbers are down. That is when they reach into their bag of culture war tricks and gin up a divisive controversy that has nothing to do with Americans' real challenges and Americans' real aspirations. It is really interesting, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very interested in preserving the symbols of Christmas. But the war they are supporting and the budgets they are passing, more Scrooge than Santa, demonstrate that they have forgotten the true meaning of Christmas, particularly the part about peace on Earth and goodwill towards all. Besides, how many casualties have there been in this so-called war on Christmas? Here is a hint. Several thousand less than the war on Iraq. Today, without a doubt, we should congratulate the Iraqi people for what appears to be a successful, high turnout election. For the third time this year, courageous Iraqi citizens have enthusiastically exercised their democratic rights. But successful elections do not, and cannot, obscure the devastating national tragedy that is the Iraq war. It does not change the fact that over 2,100 Americans have died for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. It does not change the fact that this war has turned Iraq into a hotbed of terrorist activity. It does not change the fact that our troops are sitting ducks for the insurgents who have been emboldened, not deterred, by our military presence in Iraq. Now that the elections are over, the question is, What now? What next in terms of U.S. policy towards Iraq? Aside from trying to spin it and take credit for it, what is the President's reaction to this Iraqi election? All indications are that even with a modest reduction in troops, he will insist that we must stay the course. That means continuing with this bloody occupation that has killed or maimed thousands of our people, has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and turned the entire world against us. Furthermore, he will not see the irony in celebrating Iraqi democracy while we use United States taxpayer money to manufacture propaganda and spread it in the Iraqi press. He will ignore the contradiction in praising Iraqi freedom while violating civil liberties at home by pushing for a more heavy-handed and invasive sequel to the PATRIOT Act. Here is the bottom line: a successful Iraqi election should, at the very least, reinforce the imperative of bringing our troops home. If Iraq is truly able to self-govern, then we have no business occupying their country and meddling in their affairs. I have argued all year long that it is time to restore Iraqi sovereignty and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. If the election is a watershed moment, as the White House claims, then what is the continued justification for having our troops over there in harm's way? Now is the time to enlist the support of the international community to establish an interim security force for Iraq. But that is just the first step. As I have written to the President in a letter signed by 61 other Members of the House, the United States must also launch a diplomatic offensive recasting our role in Iraq as a reconstruction partner, rather than a military occupier. We must also lead the way in establishing an international peace commission to oversee the post-war reconciliation and coordinate peace talks between Iraq's various factions. Madam Speaker, sometimes it seems like the only people who still support this war work in the big white building down Pennsylvania Avenue. There is barely any constituency left for our Iraq policy. The majority of the American people are not behind it; our global allies are not behind it. The Iraqi people are not behind it. Even Iraqi leaders, Sunnis, Shiite and Kurdish alike, who agree on practically nothing, have united around the call for the United States military to leave. With the Iraqi people having voted once again, let us offer the ultimate vote of confidence in their democracy. Let us reward the self-sufficiency they have demonstrated by giving them their country back and bringing our American soldiers home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations and thank yous to the many grandparents and other relatives in California and across the Nation who are providing loving homes to some of our most fragile citizens. Children who may have suffered from neglect or abuse through the death of a parent, military deployment, poverty or other causes can be raised in warm, stable homes through subsidized guardianship programs. Dedicated relatives who step forward to offer such care--sometimes at considerable personal sacrifice--guarantee these children the safe and nurturing upbringing that will enable them to be tomorrow's leaders. Today there are more than 6 million children living in relative-headed households, and I am proud to honor their service during National Caregiver Month and throughout the rest of the year.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the President and his administration continue its rhetoric that anyone calling for a withdrawal of troops or questioning the intelligence that led us into the Iraq war is unpatriotic, while, on the other hand, using this war as an excuse, a PATRIOT Act was passed that recklessly violates our civil liberties and attacks the very freedoms our troops in Iraq are told that they are fighting to protect. This administration and the leadership in this very House we are standing in has tried every trick in the book to spread the blame, pass the buck on this misguided war. They continue to filter the debate in our very own country and to discredit those who disagree with them. This bill they want us to pass today would continue to limit our constitutional freedoms in our very own country. Though they did not seem to care one bit about the facts before 9/11, they now believe the United States will benefit from hoarding insignificant and ill-gotten information on innocent Americans. They believe that this makes us a safer Nation. If you want to talk about dishonesty, look at this administration's policies that have led us to ignore facts in order to manipulate the very policies that fly in the face of our own honesty, and this is an administration that also pays for ``canned'' news overseas. The real patriots have been those who stand up and question the misleading intelligence and dishonest tactics that got us into this war, those who have challenged the PATRIOT Act and its impact on the civil rights and civil liberties of every American. Actually, it is patriotic to question how the PATRIOT Act affects the very rights that we live under in this country of ours. Vote ``no'' on this PATRIOT Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, it is time for a lot less talk and a lot more action. The other side of the aisle talks a good game on protecting our oceans, but they control the Resources Committee. They control the House floor schedule. They control this Congress. And what have they done? At any time, they can use the House Resources Committee to bring up legislation to protect the oceans, but they have yet to have hearings or move legislation on marine protected areas, regional governance or coastal management. Instead, they have continually tried to open up our coasts to offshore drilling. I have introduced H.R. 1712 to protect the coast of Sonoma County, California, as part of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, but there have been no hearings on this bill or any other bill to protect our oceans. Let us be clear with the American people: This task force that this bill creates will have no ability to truly affect policy. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that instead of talking a good game, that they start bringing up bills, such as H.R. 1712, that would truly protect our oceans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, nobody enjoys Christmas more than I. But today we have roughly 160,000 men and women in Iraq putting their lives on the line for an immoral, senseless war. Here at home many of our vulnerable citizens will face a cold, bitter winter because they do not have home energy assistance from the Federal Government. Many others will not get the health care or education they need because of harsh cuts in Medicaid and student loans. Naturally, the majority does not want to talk about this, and one can always tell when the right wing is in political trouble. They invariably cook up some divisive culture war that has nothing to do with our real challenges in this country. What American families really want is the ability to afford more gifts for their children this season regardless of whether there is a wreath in the local department store. Meanwhile, how many casualties have there been in the so-called ``war on Christmas''? Here is a hint: several thousand less than in the war on Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the White House is fast approaching a new low when it comes to smearing those of us who oppose the disastrous Iraq War. Before the Thanksgiving recess, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that suggesting the administration deceived the Nation to justify the Iraq invasion, and I quote him, ``is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.'' Well, first of all, being called ``dishonest'' by Dick Cheney is kind of like being told by Imelda Marcos that you have a shoe fetish. I thought it was ironic that the Vice President made these remarks at an event sponsored by a group called the Frontiers of Freedom. Asking hard questions and demanding answers from your government is one of the very foundations of freedom, but Dick Cheney seems to consider it borderline treason. Well, shame on him and shame on him for implying that criticism of this war amounts to criticism of the brave men and women in uniform who are on the front lines. The fact is there was exaggeration, manipulation, and down right deception in the run-up to the war. There is report after report of the Bush administration ignoring or downplaying serious misgivings in the intelligence community about the weapons of mass destruction case. It has been well confirmed that the Vice President himself visited CIA headquarters to lean on analysts and to make sure that they were reaching ``right'' conclusions. Then there are the Downing Street memos, which claim the intelligence was being fixed around the policy. The Vice President claims that it is a few opportunists who are raising questions about trumped-up intelligence. Well, guess what, Mr. Vice President, for more than half of the American people, there is a belief that the administration deliberately misled us into war. As the New Republic points out, that is not a few opportunists, more like a few million American citizens. Actually, more than 150 million who do not believe the President and his team told the truth. What you are seeing is a desperate White House losing its ability to shape public opinion and consequently twisting the truth beyond recognition. This push-back is a clear sign that the wheels are coming off. By roughly a 2 to 1 margin, Americans have lost confidence in the Bush Iraq policy. A majority thinks we need to reduce our troop levels. Before Thanksgiving, 79 Senators voted for an amendment that indicates an interest in moving forward towards full Iraqi sovereignty in the year 2006, and demands more accountability from the administration on the conduct of the war. And recently, my good friend and esteemed colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jack Murtha, a Marine Corps veteran with strong defense credentials, came out for bringing our troops out of Iraq. But instead of engaging in an honest dialogue with him, the first reaction from the other side of the aisle was to resort to fearmongering and character assassination. Representative Murtha was subjected to the most vile and devious accusations. He was compared to a prominent al Qaeda terrorist. He was said to be emboldening our enemies. It was implied that he was a coward. And then the majority resorted to a gimmick, a cheap stunt distorting Mr. Murtha's words in an attempt to gain political advantage. I wish that those on the other side of the aisle were half as honorable as they are clever. The American people deserve better. Our troops deserve better than this. They deserve a thorough, substantive, honest debate on the war, not a bill that could not be amended, not a bill brought to the House floor for no other reason than partisan gamesmanship. Mr. Speaker, a group of Democrats has written a discharge petition to bring the Iraq debate to the House floor, to bring it through legislation around a piece of legislation called Homeward Bound, H.J. Res. 55, to bring it to the House floor so that we can have the debate we need. This discharge petition will allow 17 hours of debate on the Nation's Iraq policy. And unlike the sham bill presented by the majority in response to Representative Murtha's call to the end of war, it would be brought up under an open rule, a rule that allows amendments to be introduced. I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition, allow for a real debate.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the good news, I suppose, is that nearly 3 years into the Iraq war, the Bush administration has seen fit to share with the American people their war plan. The bad news is that there is no ``there'' there. The ``national strategy for victory'' shared with the American people last week is barely worth the paper it is printed on. It is essentially the same old warmed-over rhetoric that we have become accustomed to and frustrated with: the enemy is bad; we are good; we will never back down; we will achieve total victory. To the extent that this strategy for victory contains specifics, they are completely divorced from reality. In last week's speech, the President mentioned that Haifa Street, formerly called Purple Heart Boulevard because of all of the U.S. attacks incurred there, is now safely under the control of Iraq's security forces, but taking control of Haifa Street in Baghdad does not make Iraqi forces self-sustaining. Taking the battle to the enemy, as the President likes to put it, has not thwarted terrorism but, instead, made Iraq a hotbed of terrorism. The President insists that fighting the terrorists ``over there'' means that we are not fighting them at home. I doubt the people who call London, Madrid, or Bali their home would agree with that assessment. Who is to say that next time it will not be Chicago, Las Vegas, or San Francisco? There is no evidence that we are any more secure at home because of the war in Iraq. Iraqi democracy is anything but a certainty. We are undermining our own stated goal of advancing freedom when we torture prisoners and when we spend millions of dollars to spread propaganda in the Iraqi press. When the White House's statements are not divorced from reality, they contradict everything they once said about the war. Like this one, from the supposed ``victory strategy'' document: ``It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than 3 years after Saddam was finally removed from power.'' Now they tell us. So much for ``Mission Accomplished.'' We have sure come a long way from the confident assertion that we would be greeted by grateful Iraqis throwing flowers at our feet, that we would be in and out in a flash, that all we had to do was depose Saddam and democracy would instantly take hold. The President's speech last week demonstrates his inability to recognize the intensity of people's anxiety about this war. Americans are not looking for the administration to do the same thing but just do it a little bit better and to put it in a glossy booklet. They want to see a fundamental shift in direction, like the plan outlined in a letter I wrote to the President, which was cosigned by 61 other House Members: one, engage in greater multilateral cooperation with our allies; two, pursue diplomatic, nonmilitary initiatives; three, prepare for a robust postconflict reconciliation process; and, four, and most importantly of all, bring our troops home. I wish this administration would step out of its bubble. They should break away from the yes men and listen to the American people who do not understand the cause for which more than 2,100 and countless thousands of Iraqis have died. It is not just the American people that the administration is ignoring. It is the Iraqis also. Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni leaders agree on practically nothing except that there needs to be a clear timetable for our troops to leave Iraq. The President wants to have it both ways on Iraq. He will not change his underlying approach, an open-ended military commitment that will last as long as he deems it appropriate, but he can read the polls. So he wants to be perceived as doing something new and something different in order to rescue his administration from political oblivion; but, Mr. Speaker, repackaging a Twinkie does not improve its nutritional value, and the same goes for the Bush Iraq policy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor Scott Tucker, of Petalum a, California. On January 1, 2006, Scott will officially retire after 13 years as the San Francisco District Manager, and 38 years with the United States Postal Service. He is the longest serving postal service executive at any major metropolitan area in consecutive years. Mr. Tucker's career with the U.S. Postal Service began in 1968 in Hanford, California as a letter carrier. He held a succession of managerial positions in postal operations, until in September 1992, he was appointed to his current position as the San Francisco District Manager. As the District Manager, Scott is responsible on a daily basis for the delivery of approximately 10 million pieces of mail to 3 million customers throughout northwest California that ranges from Sunnyvale in the south to the Oregon border in the north. He supervises a workforce of 10,400 mail carriers, mail handlers, mail clerks, postmasters, and operations managers. In the North Bay we have grown to approximately 3,000 employees spread throughout 205 postal facilities under Scott's leadership. The San Francisco postal district has for nine consecutive quarters, under Scott's leadership, received the ``Order of Yellow Jersey'' award for excellence in customer satisfaction and commitment to professionalism. The district has been repeatedly recognized by IBM's Business Consulting Services Unit, as one of the best on-time mail services for any metropolitan area in the Nation. In the past 13 years, Scott has helped increase awareness of multi- cultural groups within the district. Under his leadership, numerous diversity leadership advisory councils were established including the Women's Council, African American Council, Asian American/Pacific Island Council, and the Hispanic Council. The Bay Area Federal Executive Board recognized his efforts and presented him with a diversity leadership achievement award. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that we honor Scott Tucker today for the years he has dedicated to consistently improving upon how we all receive our mail. The San Francisco District of the U.S. Postal Service employees and customers will greatly miss him. He has left some very big shoes to fill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Luther C. Wallace of Marin County, California, a community leader who passed away from a brain tumor on November 10, 2005. Luther was a visionary whose approach to inclusivity and human rights taught us all a lesson. Born in Bakersfield in 1941, Luther grew up in Oxnard where, at a young age, he learned the importance of empowerment from his family. As a preteen, he stuffed envelopes for the NAACP, church functions, and local politicians. In 1968, after serving in Viet Nam, he worked as a community organizer with the Ventura County Community Action Agency while using his GI bill allotment to complete a degree in Psychology from California State University, Northridge. He later earned a Masters in Public Administration just prior to his first brain surgery. Luther went on to manage an energy conservation program for the State of California and service agencies in Ventura, Santa Cruz, Marin, and Santa Clara counties. Under his leadership, the Human Rights Resource Center, Inc. in San Rafael provided services--including training manuals, Cultural Awareness Training, and public policy recommendations--to every State as well as to 9 foreign countries. Luther's influence, often centered in the African American community, was also widespread through his commitment and involvement in the California Rainbow Coalition (co-founder), The California Democratic Party Executive Board, the Marin Black/Jewish Dialogue (co-founder), the Marin City Project, the Marin Council of Agencies, the Marin County Adult Criminal Justice Commission, the Center for Southeast Asian Refugee Resettlement, the African American Coalition of Marin, and many other groups. His special interests were people, music, reading, learning new things, all sports, and working with his family in his herb and vegetable garden. With a voice as smooth as silk, his love of music (his ``unforgiving mistress'') called to him no matter where he was. On international junkets with the UN and the Jewish Community Federation, the band somehow knew to invite him on stage to sing. Shortly before his death, Luther achieved his greatest dream with the publication of his book of short stories titled, ``Our Color Our Kind: A Male Bedside Reader.'' At the time of his death, he was at work on an original screenplay and new short stories. He is survived by his wife of 39 years, Mary Christine [Tina] (Mattice) Wallace; son James Matthew Wallace, Santa Cruz, CA; daughter Cassandra Jane Wallace-James, Thousand Oaks, CA; grandchildren Tanesha Cherie, Tony LaBarron, Jr., and Luther Demetrius, IV Wallace-James; his special ``sister'' Donella Dennis, Los Angeles, CA; and a host of cousins, nieces and nephews. Mr. Speaker, Luther Wallace inspired so many with his passion for human rights and justice. His dedication and leadership enriched and informed the African American community and all of us in Marin County who will benefit from his legacy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans have done today is nothing more than a cheap political trick . . . a clever but appallingly undemocratic way for the Republican majority to trash an honorable American--and decorated war veteran--simply because he disagrees with them on the war in Iraq. Yet, no one should be surprised. My 5-year old grandson could have written this tired script: whenever a Democrat criticizes a Republican policy, they attack your character and question your patriotism. And while we're on the subject, let's just ask: what is more patriotic than opposing an unjust war? What is more patriotic than trying to save the lives of America's soldiers? What is more patriotic than questioning the Bush Administration's failed Iraq policy? The American people deserve better than this. They deserve a thorough and substantive debate on the war and a debate on the Murtha resolution . . . not a bill that can't be amended and has been brought to the House floor for purely political reasons. Mr. Speaker, a group of Democrats has written a discharge petition to bring the Homeward Bound legislation, H. J. Res. 55, to the House floor. The discharge petition will allow 17 hours of debate on this vitally important issue. And, in sharp contrast to the bill the Republicans introduced today, it would be brought up under an open rule that allows amendments to be introduced to the bill. The fact that the other party refuses to have this debate--and the insults that have been hurled at Mr. Murtha over the last 24 hours--are an affront to our very democracy. I urge my colleagues on the other side to repudiate these appalling tactics and hold a real debate on this issue.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the budget and appropriation bills that we pass here in the House are reflective of our values as leaders in this country. H.R. 3010 reflects very poorly on this Congress. Four years ago, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we told schools that we wanted them to be accountable for results and that we would provide them with the resources necessary to achieve these results. Today, we know that the President and the Republican Congress have utterly failed to keep the bipartisan promise to students, to parents, to teachers, to provide schools with the resources called for by No Child Left Behind. If we pass this bill, we will have shortchanged our Nation's children by more than $40 billion over the past 4 years. This is only one of the many, many, many ways that this bill fails to invest in the American people and their children. And I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Mr. Speaker, this budget reconciliation is a Republican raid on student aid: over $14 billion in cuts to Federal student aid programs, cuts that add $5,800 to the costs of the average student's education, $5,800. That is a lot of money for any family, especially the poor and the working poor. Actually, cutting student aid is a very clever new military recruiting tool because by discouraging students from attending college for financial reasons, their only choice is often to join the military. Nearly 50 percent of military recruits come from lower-middle-class to poor households. Mr. Speaker, in the year 2004, nearly two-thirds of Army recruits came from areas where the median household income is below the U.S. average, where joining the military is the only way to learn a trade or pay for school. The raid on student aid becomes a military draft through the lack of opportunity.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt that the Bush administration has it Iraq's policy totally wrong, the actions taken yesterday in both Houses of Congress shattered that notion. In the Senate, 79 Senators voted in favor of an amendment designating the year 2006 as a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty. The amendment also requires the President to provide Congress with a quarterly report detailing United States policies and military operations in Iraq. And in the House, the Out of Iraq Caucus, led by Ms. Waters, introduced a discharge petition to force the House to openly debate the Homeward Bound legislation. Homeward Bound is the bill introduced by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). It is H.J. Res. 55, and it calls for bringing our troops home no later than October 1, 2006. The petition must be signed by 218 Members of Congress and then will force a debate on the floor. This debate would include 17 hours of open debate, allowing every Member of Congress a chance to offer an amendment or talk about the war in Iraq from their very own perspective. Regardless of where my colleagues stand on the war and regardless of their political affiliation, I urge them to sign onto this discharge petition because we are long overdue for a conversation here on the floor about Iraq. It is a conversation that we need to have because it has been a long time. Anyone watching at home may remember the last time Congress debated this matter. It was May 25 when I introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill, an amendment asking the President to put together his plans for bringing our troops home and to provide those plans to the appropriate committees in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, 128 Members of this House voted for that amendment, and if the vote were held today, I am sure we would have many more than 128 votes. Of those 128 votes, 5 were Republican, 122 were Democrat, and one was our Independent from Vermont. Unfortunately, we cannot have that vote again because the Republican leaders in Congress will not allow it. They will not bring important Iraq legislation like the bipartisan Homeward Bound legislation up for debate on the House floor. Think about it, the last time we debated this vitally important issue was nearly 6 months ago, and that was the first time and only time we have talked about it since the beginning of the war. Since Congress will not have this debate, we have had to resort to taking matters into our own hands. That is why we are working to bring Homeward Bound to the House floor, and that is why 61 of my colleagues joined me in sending a letter to the President last week urging him to make four key policy changes in his position on Iraq. First, we asked him to engage in greater multilateral cooperation with our allies. We simply cannot keep 160,000 American soldiers in Iraq and hope for the situation to just change for the better because it is our very military presence that is fueling Iraq's growing insurgency. Instead, the President should actually eat a little crow, admit his mistakes and ask our allies, the same ones we offended in the buildup of the war, to establish a multinational interim security force for Iraq, possibly run by the United Nations or NATO. The U.N.'s Department of Peacekeeping Operations would be particularly well suited to managing this task, as a matter of fact. Second, the U.S. must pursue diplomatic and nonmilitary initiatives. If we seriously want democracy to take hold in the Middle East, then we need to get serious about changing our role from that of Iraq's military occupier to its reconstruction partner. Instead of sending troops and military equipment to Iraq, let us send teachers, scientists, urban planners, and constitutional experts as a larger diplomatic offensive, one that will allow us to regain our lost national credibility while, at the same time, creating Iraqi jobs and bolstering Iraq's economy. Third, let us prepare for a robust, postconflict reconciliation process. There is no shortage of national healing that needs to occur in Iraq after nearly 3 years of death and 3 years of destruction. That is why we should encourage an international peace commission to oversee Iraq's postconflict reconciliation. This group would coordinate peace talks between the various factions in Iraq, providing all Iraqis with a sense of ownership and hope over their country's future. Finally, and most important of all, we must bring our troops home. The human cost of this war has been absolutely staggering. To save lives, end the war and prevent our Treasury from spiraling even further into debt, we need to end this war.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first, I need to say I did not know Congressman Edward Roybal; but if he did nothing more than bring his daughter, Lucille Roybal-Allard, into this world, he brought a gift to all of us. I honor him for that. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by something that I heard the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee say over the weekend. Now that it is all too clear that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was deeply flawed, he was brave enough to say, ``I think a lot of us would really stop and think a minute before we would ever vote for war or take military action.'' And then he added, ``We do not accept this intelligence at face value anymore.'' Great. I am glad that the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, is so cautious and skeptical now, after more than 2,000 soldiers have been killed, after we have poured $200 billion into this war, after we have squandered America's global credibility and goodwill. Back when this could have made a difference, the chairman and so many others in this body and the upper Chamber fell in line behind the President, rubberstamping his war with barely a peep of dissent. Where were the hard questions then? Where was the oversight and the scrutiny back when it could have saved lives and changed the course of history? The latest line of argument from the White House is essentially this: Sure, we were wrong about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, but we did the best we could with what we had. Leaving aside whether they were mistaken about the intelligence or they actively manipulated it, I would like to see the President look a widow or a grieving mother in the eye and use that line. The other thing they are saying is maybe we were wrong, but so were a lot of other people, including a lot of Democrats, so get off our backs. This attempt at spreading the blame is dishonest, and it is irresponsible. It was not the previous administration, nor was it the President's opponents in last year's election who launched a preemptive war and put American credibility on the line in selling it. It was not some other Vice President that leaned on analysts at Langley to reach certain conclusions. It was not some other White House that was fixing the intelligence and the facts around the policy, as the Downing Street Memo put it. There is only one Commander-in-Chief, and the buck must stop with him. Besides, there were plenty of us who were deeply skeptical about the case for war; and for raising our concerns, many of us had our patriotism called into question. Ambassador Joe Wilson was among those who raised the red flag, and look what they did to him and to his family. But of course, as the President is now implicitly admitting, we who questioned the intelligence were right. The very fact that they are trying to rewrite the history of the run-up to war is evidence that the war has been a disastrous mistake. If all were going well in Iraq, the President would not be in this defensive posture, casting about for scapegoats. There is a way to make it right. There is a way to fix the problem. By ending the war once and for all. It is time for the President not just to admit his mistakes but to correct them. It is time to return Iraq to the Iraqi people and return our troops home to the families that have gone too long without them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to join my Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Castle, and many other Republicans and Democrats, in introducing this resolution to commemorate the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 1975, when what we now call IDEA was passed as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, educating children with disabilities was an afterthought at best. IDEA marked a critical turning point in the lives of people with disabilities, by ensuring that all children, regardless of their disability, have available to them a free appropriate public education. IDEA currently serves 269,000 infants and toddlers, 679,000 preschoolers, and 6,000,000 children aged 6 to 21. It has assisted in a dramatic reduction in the number of children with developmental disabilities who must live in State institutions away from their families. Under IDEA, the number of students with disabilities who graduate from high school has grown significantly, and the number of students with disabilities who enroll in college has more than tripled. Unfortunately, as this resolution recognizes, the Federal Government has not met even half of its commitment to fund IDEA at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure. Today, 30 years later, we provide States and school districts with only 18.6 percent of that amount. Four years ago, during conference on the No Child Left Behind Act, we could have included a bipartisan provision that would have fully funded IDEA, but House Republican leaders refused to agree to that. Today, I believe that the best way for Congress and the President to commemorate IDEA's 30th anniversary would be to fund IDEA at the levels authorized in the 2004 reauthorization, which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Those levels would fully fund IDEA by 2011. Unfortunately, less than a year later, the Republican-controlled House has passed an appropriations bill that falls nearly $4 billion short of the funding promised for this fiscal year. At the rate of increase proposed by the Republican House for this fiscal year, we would never--never--reach full funding. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting both this resolution and full funding for IDEA, so that the Federal Government finally will keep its promise to all students, their parents, and their teachers.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the irony could not be thicker or, for that matter, sweeter. Today, the day before Veterans Day, the Republican leadership failed to gather the necessary votes to pass a shameful budget reconciliation bill that will, among other things, decrease funding for veterans. Somewhere Mr. DeLay should be left to wonder how the callously efficient arm-twisting regime that he installed in the House has crumbled so quickly. The sheer audacity of trying to pass a budget reconciliation bill that provides more tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of important social-net programs for the poor is unbelievable. The programs slated to be cut include health care for veterans, Medicaid, student loans, and child support enforcement. The idea that America's Republican leaders would slash funding for veterans the day before they should be honoring them would be even more appalling than it already is if it were not so commonplace. In fact, this pattern has repeated itself throughout President Bush's tenure in office. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 coincided with the sharp decrease in veterans health care and other benefits for those who have bravely served in our Nation's military. The backlog at veterans hospitals had never been greater than when the United States went to war in Iraq. Now, with more than half a million soldiers having served in Iraq, the burden on the VA will only increase. And while the U.S. has spent over $200 billion for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq over the past 2 years, during this same time period the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have repeatedly refused to provide veterans with the benefits they have earned and the benefits they deserve. Our Nation's so-called leaders have continually refused to fix the system called ``concurrent receipt,'' whereby veterans health benefits are deducted from their retirement benefits. This veterans tax is wrong, and it needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress are too busy trying to pass bills that would make the rich even richer, instead of fixing real inequities in our system. Mr. Speaker, veterans deserve our respect not only on November 11, Veterans Day, but all throughout the year. They deserve our respect, they deserve our support, and they deserve all of the benefits our government has promised them without scrimping, without exception, without escape clauses. They certainly did not offer any excuses when they enlisted in our military. Six weeks ago, I traveled to Iraq with a small congressional delegation to learn more about the mission and the heroic Americans carrying it out. Nothing I saw changed my mind about the wrongness of our Iraq policy. But one thing did move me: I came away from the trip absolutely awed by our soldiers. They were even more committed, more dedicated, and more courageous than I had ever imagined. Having met and talked with them, it pains me to the core that their fate rests in the hands of leaders who have failed them time and time again. The men and women who wear the uniform deserve so much more. They deserve civilian leaders who will put their safety before their own political interests. They deserve leaders who would not send them to Iraq on false pretenses on a poorly defined mission without all the tools they need and without a plan to get them out of there; and they deserve leaders who will give them adequate medical and financial support when they come home. For all the reasons I have mentioned today, it is time to bring our troops home from Iraq. We need to focus on healing the wounds incurred over the last 2\1/2\ years of war and administering to America's domestic priorities. If we want to truly honor our veterans on Veterans Day, the best thing we can do is prevent more veterans from being created. We could do this tomorrow, if we wanted to, by ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. That would be the best gift of all.