Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, usually, when I speak on the House floor each evening, I voice my concern about some of the Bush administration's woeful policies in Iraq. Trust me, there is no shortage of material to speak about. But tonight I want to boast a little bit. I want to share how very proud I am to represent the 250th Military Intelligence Battalion, an Army unit that returned home from Iraq today. They returned home to Marin County, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge in California's Sixth Congressional District. I had the great pleasure to meet and enjoy dinner with the members of the 250th battalion this past September during my visit to Iraq. Their vigilance and dedication to the welfare of the United States is admirable. Everything they do, they do to serve their country. And I could not be more proud to represent them as their voice in Congress. They are truly American heroes. Unfortunately, the members of the 250th Military Intelligence Battalion and other military units that have served or are currently serving in Iraq have not always gotten the treatment they deserve from their government. Far too often, the Bush administration has failed to live up to its promise to the troops, whether it is denying them full veterans' benefits, sending them on second, third, and now fourth deployments to Iraq and/or to Afghanistan, or failing to provide them with the lifesaving body armor or equipment that they need. One thing is clear: This administration has failed our troops time and again. Sadly, the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have been deployed to Iraq, and their families, were not the only ones affected by the war in Iraq. That is because just about every single American will suffer from the billions of dollars in budget cuts to important domestic programs since the U.S. invaded Iraq. These budget cuts are directly related to not only the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, but also to the ludicrous spending for the military misadventures around the world of the civilian leadership, with the White House, the Pentagon, and this Congress making decisions that cost our country billions, in fact, $1 billion a week, actually. Anyone who thinks that the more than $200 billion that Congress has allocated for the Iraq war so far has not affected important domestic programs is just kidding himself or herself. In the last example and the very latest example, tomorrow, the House will vote on a reconciliation bill that would give tax breaks to the wealthy of $70 billion to $100 billion in tax breaks, while slashing safety net programs for the poor, programs like Medicaid, student loans, child support enforcement, and veterans' health care. This is just wrong. If he wants to get things right, President Bush and his administration would actually send a clear message that it has let the American people down, and now it is time to start anew. First and foremost, that means leaving Iraq. After all, the President's notion that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we will not have to fight them here at home is pure nonsense. If that were true, how could the President explain the London subway bombings earlier this year? How could he explain the terrible bombs that went off at three hotels in Jordan earlier today, already killing over 50 people and wounding more than 100? Mr. Speaker, our troops and the American people have endured enough sacrifice. We need to end this war and bring our fine soldiers home. We need to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people through a range of economic, political, and humanitarian partnerships. The American people deserve better than a war that has destroyed the social safety net here at home, and the extraordinary men and women whom I met in Iraq certainly deserve better. In return for their unfailing loyalty, they deserve basic competence and integrity from their Federal Government. They deserve leaders as courageous as they are.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the Federal budget is about priorities. And with this budget, Republicans have their priorities all wrong. As an example, The Washington Post reports that young people from rural America are shouldering a disproportionate burden of the war in Iraq. Why? Rural Americans are increasingly willing to risk dying in this Iraqi quagmire to improve their chances of paying for college and getting a decent paying job. More than 44 percent of military recruits now come from rural areas. Only 14 percent come from American cities. Also, many military recruits are financially strapped. Nearly 50 percent of them come from lower- middle-class to poor households. In 2004, nearly two-thirds of Army recruits came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median. Why do I tell you this? Because the response of this Republican-led Congress is to impose $14.5 billion in deeper budget cuts in student aid. How does that add up?

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Yogi Berra once told us that ``When you arrive at a fork in the road, you should take it.'' Well, the United States has reached a fork in the road when it comes to torturing other human beings, and it is time we took it, once and for all. Senator John McCain has offered an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill clarifying that the United States Government, including the military and the CIA, does not condone the use of torture, putting the United States in a position to set an example for the rest of the world by clearly affirming our opposition to the use of torture as a military tactic. Yet if the Bush administration has its way, Congress will reject this amendment, reserving its right to employ the use of torture in certain situations. That is right: The Bush administration has come out against an amendment that states for the record that the United States opposes the use of torture. Do they really want people to think we support torture? For one thing, America's use of torture certainly has not helped us win any friends so far. It did not win us friends when it was revealed that the American military had abused prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It did not win us any friends when thousands of photographs were released showing U.S. servicemembers torturing, beating, humiliating, and generally violating Iraqi prisoners of war. And it certainly did not win us any friends last week when it was revealed that the United States might possess dozens of top-secret military prisons in Eastern Europe for the sole purpose of viciously interrogating enemy prisoners. Never mind the fact that torture as a tactic does not provide accurate results. Individuals who are placed in unbearable situations will say just about anything to end the pain that they are suffering. Yet, even if torture produced positive results, it violates every single principle that our country stands for. I am not the only one that understands this. Most Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are opposed to torture. This weekend, Senator Chuck Hagel, who is no stranger to conservative politics, did not pull any punches when he said, ``I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture.'' He said, ``making a terrible mistake.'' Yet, the President responds with the same tired talking points. Yesterday, he tried to justify his opposition to the McCain amendment by saying, our President, ``We will aggressively pursue the enemy, but we will do so under the law.'' Then he went on to say, ``We do not torture.'' Mr. Speaker, does the President think he can paper over this problem and expect it to go away? If the President is so adamant that the United States does not torture, why does he continue to oppose the McCain amendment banning the use of torture? Unfortunately, this is just business as usual for an administration that has time and again taken the wrong path when arriving at a fork in the road. Let us not forget that there were plenty of other options for the United States before the President made the decision to go to war in Iraq, a war that has subsequently cost the lives of nearly 2,100 American soldiers, uncounted tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and caused grave injuries to another 15,000 American soldiers. Now, the President and his administration have yet another choice. They ought to take the high road when it comes to permanently ending the use of torture, and they ought to take the high road in bringing our troops home from Iraq and returning Iraq to the Iraqi people. The Bush administration can never take back the many mistakes that have been made over the past several years: A failed war in Iraq, heinous acts of torture around the world, and a shamefully cynical foreign policy that has put Americans at greater risk than ever before. But we are at another crossroads, and it is not too late to take the right path. If we do not, we risk suffering another Yogi Berra prophecy: ``Deja vu all over again.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I am the cochair, along with Barbara Lee from Berkeley, California, of the 62-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. Our progressive promise includes a fair and balanced budget that represents all people in this country. So I am pleased to take this time in this special order this evening to talk about the cruel and shameful budget and the tax cuts the Republican majority wants to ram through this House on Wednesday or Thursday of this week. After hearing my Republican colleagues in the first hour special order tonight, I would hope that they are paying a great deal of attention to what is going on with this reconciliation budget. Otherwise, there is not going to be any money for all of those good ideas they have for health care. It was a pleasure to hear their good ideas, now that we are going to talk about where the money will be and where the money is going in our budget, and it is something we are going to be dealing with straight up Wednesday or Thursday of this week. It is also time for the people of this country to know what is going on. It is time to stop this railroad and help the American people learn just what the Republicans are up to. They keep acting as Robin Hood in reverse. It comes out in the various committees, and in bringing up this vote this week on the House Floor, a vote that will hurt hard- working Americans because of a package of bills in the billions of dollars, at least $50 billion, that will include hurtful budget cuts. But make no mistake about it. These budget priorities are outrageous. They, meaning the Republicans, want to provide $70 billion to $100 billion in new tax cuts for the powerful and the privileged in America who need them the least, while cutting programs for the rest of the country. And they are going to pay for these irresponsible tax cuts for the most well off by shredding the safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, those who live under or near the poverty line, and by breaking the social contract with hard-working, middle-class Americans as well. And, oh, yes, what the Republicans do not wring out of the blood, sweat, and tears of working and impoverished Americans through budget cuts will just be added to the debt of the next generation of Americans. Can you believe it? This is the first budget reconciliation package in the history of our country that actually increases Federal deficits at least another $25 billion, which will be added to the deficit this year without batting an eye. While pretending to be the guardians of our Treasury, Republicans in charge of this Congress just keep borrowing and spending, piling up debt that our grandchildren and their children will owe. Ten years ago, the Republicans took control of this House, trumpeting their Contract With America with great fanfare, if you will all remember it. But now, one decade later, it is plain for all of us to see that their slick marketing gambit has proven to be a ``Contract on America,'' particularly those struggling to face financial ends. The numbers and the budget trade-offs recommended in this budget package speak for themselves, but let me cite a few examples for my colleagues. To pay for a $70 billion to $100 billion tax cut, and these are new tax cuts, by the way, the Republicans in control of this House want to slash $844 million from the food stamp program, which would result in 300,000 families being kicked off of this antihunger program. It would leave 40,000 children ineligible for school lunches. Apparently, the Republicans do not realize the number of malnourished children and Americans grew by more than 2 million in the past year. The Republicans want to cut $14.5 billion from student aid programs at precisely the time when paying for college education has become more difficult than in any generation in the past. These short-sighted education cuts, including the largest cut in the history of the student loan program, are certain to increase the interest rates and the fees that many students will have to pay. The Republicans are going after single mothers. They are cutting $500 million in Federal support for child care assistance, leaving an additional 250,000 children without quality child care. Adding insult to injury, the Republicans are cutting almost $5 billion from child support enforcement programs that help to collect money from dead-beat dads. So much for compassionate conservatism when it comes time to give tax cuts to rich cronies of the Republican majority. The Republicans are cutting $9.5 billion from Medicaid, the Federal program that extends basic health care to the poorest and neediest of Americans. Home heating bills are expected to be 30 to 50 percent higher this coming winter, but that is not keeping the Republicans in control of this House from voting against full funding of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. And evidence is strong and persuasive that many of these programs while not perfect, we know that, have made progress towards goals shared by Americans across the political spectrum, such as preventing hunger, destitution and homelessness, protecting children's health, and rewarding low-paid work. When our constituents experience crises in their personal lives such as job loss or disabilities, these programs can cushion them against deep poverty. When people have low earnings or little or no health insurance, these programs can supplement their incomes and provide essential health care coverage. And when people reach retirement age, these programs provide some measure of retirement and health security. Research and data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and other experts around the country show that the United States system of income support benefits have helped make tens of millions of Americans healthier and more secure. Without properly funded programs like food stamps, Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Programs, unemployment insurance and the supplemental security program for the elderly and disabled poor, ours will be a harsher and less compassionate society with more extreme hardship, especially among children and people who are elderly and people who do have disabilities. The Happy Warrior, Senator Hubert Humphrey, used to remind us that the character of a society can best be judged by how it cares for those in the dawn and the twilight of life. By this measure, the Republicans, who are in charge of all branches of our government today and who are responsible for these budget and tax cuts, are failing the American people woefully. They are particularly failing our children and students and their education. As I said earlier, the Republican reconciliation budget will pay for between 70 and $100 billion in new tax cuts for the rich by cutting very critical social programs. This budget would break the backs of hard-working poor and middle- class families in order to break the bank to pay for tax cuts for wealthy families. Let us talk about how this budget actually affects family values. Let us talk about how we could use that 70 billion to $100 billion to keep some important promises to the average American family. For instance, the Head Start program offers low-income families the promise that their young children will not start school at a disadvantage, but we serve fewer than half of the eligible 3- and 4- year olds nationwide. Yet, instead of providing the $5 billion increase that it would take to ensure this opportunity for every eligible child this year, President Bush and the Republican Congress are cutting 70 to $100 billion in taxes at the very top level. Almost 4 years ago, President Bush and the Republican Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act and joined in a bipartisan promise to American families that we would provide schools with resources they need to educate all of our children. They said that they would use No Child Left Behind to diagnose where dollars were needed to turn poorer performing schools and school districts around so that actually no child would be left behind. Since then, the President and the Republican Congress have fallen more than $40 billion short of keeping that promise. And so No Child Left Behind has become punitive instead of helpful. We could do better by our children if we spent that $40 billion on those children and did not cut taxes for the wealthiest people in this country. In 1975, the Federal Government promised families that it would fully fund its share of IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. But 30 years later we are less than halfway there. Last year, President Bush and the Republican Congress made another bipartisan promise to increase funding for IDEA by $4 billion this year and to fully fund IDEA by the year 2011. It sounded good. A lot of us voted for it, and a lot of us did not. But within a few months of signing the new law, the President broke his promise by more than $3.5 billion, no, billion dollars. So we could use $3.5 billion of the tax cuts for the wealthy to keep this bipartisan promise to fund IDEA as was promised. Or even better, we could use $13.2 billion to fully fund IDEA up to the Federal responsibility. Another, Federal student aid for college offers low-and middle-income families the promise of an education to prepare them for jobs in the 21st century. $14.3 billion would enable us to offset the cuts that the Republican reconciliation budget would make to Federal student aid programs, the largest cuts, by the way, in history. These cuts would add $5,800 to the cost of the typical student's college loans, while students whose families can pay outright for the best colleges, and do not need loans, get another tax cut. Another $4.2 billion would enable us to keep another promise that President Bush has not come close to keeping. That would be to increase the annual Pell grant for low-income students to $5,100. Or we could reduce the tax cuts for the wealthy by $7 billion to keep the bipartisan promise made in 1998 to increase the Pell grant to $5,800. But at a time when the buying power of Pell grants is only about half of what it was at its peak, the President and the Republican Congress have virtually frozen Pell grants since the year 2002. My colleagues, how we choose to allocate Federal resources is a reflection of our values, our values as Members of Congress, our values as leaders of our country. And the choices we will make this year will be one of the most critical choices any of us will make during our time in Congress. We can pass the Republican reconciliation budget, which, I believe, makes a mockery of the term ``family values,'' unless of course, the only families you value are the nation's wealthiest families; or we can pass a budget that truly helps all of America's families. I hope that we will make the right choice. I hope that we will invest in our families and their children, which, by the way, is an investment in our Nation's ability to compete in the international marketplace.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the cruel and short- sighted leadership the Republican Party is giving us in planning to ram through this reconciliation next week. They want to provide an additional $70 billion to $100 billion in tax cuts for the privileged and the powerful and their Fortune 500 corporate benefactors. In order to pay for this, they plan to cut $4.9 billion from child support programs that help collect money from deadbeat dads; $14.5 billion from student aid programs, $9.5 billion in Medicaid, and they even want to cut tens of millions of dollars from low-income energy assistance. Mr. Speaker, you will hear more from the Progressive Caucus, more from the Democratic Party next week about just how unfair these cuts will be to real moderate-income people and the very poor people in this country and how much they will benefit the very, very wealthy people in this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share a letter that I will be sending to President Bush next week. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in signing this important letter, because it is time for Congress to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home. Here is the letter: Dear Mr. President. Despite 2\1/2\ years of warfare, including the deaths of over 2,000 soldiers and injuries to 15,000 others, Iraq remains as unstable as it was when you declared an end to major combat operations in May of 2003. We need to face the fact that the situation in Iraq is not improving, nor will it improve as long as our troops remain there. Because the presence of over 160,000 soldiers in Iraq and on Iraqi soil is the main catalyst fueling Iraq's insurgency. The time is long overdue for the U.S. to change course in Iraq and bring our troops home. To transition from war to peace, we recommend that your administration immediately make four pivotal policy changes in Iraq. First: engage in greater multilateral cooperation with our allies. Second: pursue diplomatic nonmilitary initiatives. Third: prepare for a robust post-conflict reconciliation process. And, fourth: withdraw the U.S. armed Forces. Multilateral cooperation. The United States must engage the international community, including the U.N. and NATO, to establish a multinational interim security force for Iraq. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations at the United Nations, for example, is well suited for this task. Diplomatic nonmilitary initiatives. The U.S. must pursue a diplomatic offensive, shifting its role from that of Iraq's military occupier to its reconstruction partner. This means giving Iraq back to the Iraqi people, working with them to rebuild their economic and physical infrastructure and creating Iraqi jobs. The U.S. must also engage the United Nations to oversee Iraq's economic and humanitarian needs, renounce any desire to control Iraqi oil, and ensure that the United States does not maintain lasting military bases in Iraq. Post-conflict reconciliation. Establish an international peace commission to oversee Iraq's post-war reconciliations. This group would include members of the global community who have experience in international peace-building and conflict resolution and would be tasked with coordinating peace talks between Iraq's various factions. Withdrawal of the U.S. Armed Forces. The cost of the war in Iraq, both human and financial, has been staggering. Tragically, the American and Iraqi lives lost and the billions of dollars spent have failed to actually make our country safer from the threat of international terrorism. To end the war in Iraq, save lives, and prevent the U.S. from spiraling even further into debt, the U.S. must withdraw its Armed Forces now. Mr. President, after Iraq holds it's December parliamentary elections, the country's leaders will be responsible for charting Iraq's course. The international community, including the United States, can then provide nonmilitaristic support to ensure the sufficiency of Iraq. We look forward to your response to our recommendations, and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you further. Mr. Speaker, I will send this letter to the President in the coming days. Not only is it long overdue from the Bush administration to end the war in Iraq; it is long overdue for this body, the Congress of America, to do our part in ending the war in Iraq. I urge all of my colleagues to lend their signatures to this timely, important letter.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, today the House passed H.R. 4128, a bill that makes states and local governments ineligible for Federal economic development funds for 2 years if they exercise eminent domain in the name of economic development. Protecting the rights of individual property owners is of the utmost importance. However, there are certain circumstances when the best interest of a town is served by the responsible use of eminent domain. As a former City Council Member, I know how effective this tool can be when it is used judiciously. In my State of California there are restrictions on local governments' use of eminent domain to ensure that situations like that of Kelo v. City of New London do not happen. We have to trust local authorities to use this power responsibly and respectfully and only when it truly benefits the community at large and when property owners are fairly compensated. By restricting the use of eminent domain, we take away our local governments' ability to serve and improve their jurisdictions. As the leaders of our neighborhoods and towns, we must trust they know best how to use the resources and assets that are available. Mr. Chairman, by restricting the use of eminent domain we have in fact impeded our local governments' ability to make necessary progress.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican's budget priorities are clear, and they are shameful. To provide $70 to $100 billion in new tax cuts for the powerful and the privileged, they are going after every single mother and their children in this country, every single mom and her kids. Instead of these new tax cuts, we could provide an estimated 11.5 million Head Start slots for eligible children who cannot get into a Head Start program and health care for more than 52 million American children and families who receive marginal health care or none at all. Another $500 million in Republican cuts will leave 250,000 children without quality child care. They are even slashing funding for child support enforcement. $4.9 billion in Republican cuts will let deadbeat dads off the hook to the tune of $7.9 billion over the next 5 years and $24 billion over the next 10 years. This is the Republican reconciliation. Watch out everybody but the rich.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Scooter Libby was arraigned this morning, and the Bush administration defenders continue to insist that the administration of the CIA leak was ``much ado about nothing.'' They say that the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice are mere technicalities, nothing to worry our heads over. Ha. Let us leave aside the obvious hypocrisy. We all know that there was quite a hue and cry over perjury in this town 7 years ago when the President's party was on the outside of the White House looking in. Dare I say, the underlying issue at that time was just a little more frivolous than the matters of life, death and war that are at the heart of the current episode. More importantly, of course, Scooter Libby's lies matter. Libby's lies are exactly what is keeping us from knowing the truth about the original crime, the outing of a covert CIA operative as part of a campaign to scare the Nation into a war based on the lie that Saddam Hussein was poised to use nuclear weapons on the United States. Columnist E.J. Dionne makes the important and distressing point: the Scooter Libby cover-up was successful. You see, 1 year and 1 day ago, the President was reelected by a narrow margin. Why does that matter? Because Libby is stonewalling. His tall tale about having learned about Valerie Plame's status from gossiping reporters was all about gumming up the investigation just long enough so that the clock would run out on the last campaign season. It was all about ensuring that Americans went to the polls last year with very limited knowledge of this scandal. As we analyze the legal maneuvers and intrigue, as we try to read between the lines of Scooter Libby's bizarre letters to Judy Miller, let us not lose sight of the big picture. Right now, there are some 140,000 loyal, patriotic, courageous Americans who have been separated from their families and are prepared to die, all because the neo-con's cabal had it in for Saddam Hussein. Over 2,000 of their fellow soldiers have already made the ultimate sacrifice, and I have no doubt that those men and women would be alive today if not for the trumped-up intelligence and the campaign of deceit. I had the privilege of talking with our soldiers when I was in Iraq a month ago, and you could not ask for a finer, more committed group of young people. I came away from those conversations full of pride but also profound sadness, because the men and women on the front lines have dutifully entrusted their lives to cynics and ideologues like Scooter Libby. They deserve so much better. They deserve civilian superiors who are at least as honorable as they are. Even as we never forget the lies that got us into this war, I am even more concerned about how we are going to get out. There are ways to do this while still keeping Iraq secure, while helping build its democratic institutions and its economic infrastructure. I held a hearing earlier this fall where we discussed such ideas in detail. We can appeal to the U.N. and to NATO to establish an interim security force in Iraq. We can launch a diplomatic offensive, helping establish an international peace commission that can coordinate peace talks between Iraq's various factions and oversee the post-war reconciliation process. But the President does not want to be part of this conversation. All he has to offer is the same old rhetoric about staying the course and completing the mission. But how do you win a war against an enemy that grows more resilient with each passing day because your occupation appears to be occupiers of their land? One military commander put it best: He said that ``for every insurgent I kill, I create three more.'' Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. The current Iraq policy is a bloody, destructive, dead end. We have paid way too high a price already. It is time to honor our troops. It is time to bring them home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order out of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The resignation of Scooter Libby as the Vice President's chief of staff after receiving a five-count indictment was appropriate and welcome. But Mr. Libby's replacement, David Addington, is another long-time Cheney confidante who is part of the same secretive cabal of neoconservative ideologues, those who have deceived, fabricated, and added innuendo to march this country off to a bloody, destructive, and disastrous war. Mr. Addington is mentioned in the Libby indictment, and there is convincing evidence that he was part of the campaign to discredit and damage anyone, including Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson, who questioned the administration's misuse of intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. So this is not exactly an administration house-cleaning. Instead of a badly needed culture change at the White House, what we are getting is business as usual. One Washington lawyer who knows Mr. Addington well described him this way in the New York Times: He said, ``There are some people in the government who are diplomats and others in government who are warriors, and Addington certainly falls on the warrior side of that line.'' Great. Just what we need right now. Another arrogant, sharp-elbowed political dark artist. Perhaps most disturbing of all, David Addington is pro-torture. David Addington is pro-torture. He makes the rest of the Bush administration look like an Amnesty International inspection team. More than a year ago, the Washington Post described Addington as ``a principal author of the White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects'' and ``a prime advocate of arguments supporting the holding of terrorism suspects without access to courts.'' What a breath of fresh air, especially on the same day that we learned, courtesy of the Washington Post, that the CIA has been running a secret network of prison camps home to some of the most depraved interrogation techniques, often on detainees who do not have any useful intelligence to offer us. It is no wonder the Vice President's office has been trying to water down an anti-torture amendment, which passed the Senate 90 to 9, to allow an exemption for the CIA to continue cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners. David Addington, a man privileged to occupy a position of authority in our government, has used his post to advocate ferociously for a war in which he is asked to sacrifice nothing. Compare him to a modest and ordinary citizen laid to rest earlier today, Rosa Parks, who took personal risks to correct an injustice and ensure that America lived up to her ideals. And compare Mr. Addington's cynicism to the fresh idealism I saw firsthand when I visited our soldiers in Iraq a month ago. These young Americans are selfless and heroic beyond belief. Some of them do have personal misgivings about our Iraq policy, but they know it is not their job to question the mission, just to execute it. And this they do, knowing they could lose life or limb. Men and women who wear the uniform are the very best America has to offer. It pains me to think that their fates actually rest in the hands of the likes of David Addington. Our troops deserve better. They deserve civilian leaders as principled and patriotic as they are. What they deserve most of all is a change in policy, one that ends this war and returns them home to their families as soon as possible.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), in bringing all of the voices together in the Congress, because we all have a lot to say. And we are all getting to the same conclusion, the conclusion that I reached a couple of years ago, actually. We do not need to be in Iraq. We are making a mistake. It is a faux war, and we need to bring our troops home now. Mr. Speaker, I want to share a quote: ``Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the President to explain to us what that exit strategy is.'' Those words were not spoken by a Member of Congress, not by a prominent opponent of the Iraq war. They were not even spoken by this President about this war. Those words were spoken in April 1999 about President Clinton's military campaign in Kosovo, and they were spoken by a Republican Governor named George W. Bush. But what a difference 6\1/2\ years makes. It is precisely an exit strategy that is missing from our Iraq policy. With over 2,000 of our citizens dead, $1 billion of tax dollars being spent in Iraq every week, the American people have a right to some answers to some important questions like, what exactly defines victory? What are the benchmarks of success? What is the long-term plan? What does the end game look like? These are the questions that my leader of the Iraq Caucus has been asking about tonight. We are paying for this war in blood and money. My home district lost a 23-year-old soldier less than a month ago. Why does the President insult us with empty platitudes about staying the course and staying in Iraq as long as it takes? Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of traveling to Iraq 1 month ago. I went with a few of my colleagues here in the House. The most rewarding, the most enlightening part of the trip was simply having dinner and talking with the enlisted men and women, particularly those from my district, California's 6th Congressional District. It is Marin and Sonoma counties just north of the Golden Gate Bridge across the bridge from San Francisco. These troops are online over there, believe me. They know I am against this war. They knew I was. They looked me up before I got there. And they immediately asked me, and they had every right to, Congresswoman, why are you here? You are against this war. My answer was straight. My answer was true. And my answer they believed. Yes, indeed, I told them, I am against this war. I have been against this war from the very beginning. But I want you to know that I support the troops. I have been working within this Congress to make sure that you have the equipment you need to make sure that you have the health care over there, the best you can have; and when you get home, that you will have the benefits that we have promised you. But in all of that, I remain against this war because I want you to come home and I want you to be home with your families. I want you to be alive. I want you to be mentally whole, and I also want you to be physically whole. Mr. Speaker, these young people are the very best America has to offer. They are brave. They are intelligent. They are loyal. They are loyal to their country, to their mission, and to each other. They are profoundly committed to this mission, even those who told me privately that they do not support the war or the policy that underlies it. They are genuine heroes whose courage and resolve is greater than our accolades can begin to convey. We truly have the most capable military the world has ever known. So what is the problem? The problem is that we do not have leaders in Washington worthy of these fine soldiers. Our troops have been failed, failed by their civilian superiors who sent them to Iraq on false pretenses, on a poorly defined mission without all of the tools they needed, and without a plan to get them out of there. If the President will not lead to bring our troops home, then we will. And that is what the Out of Iraq Caucus is all about. Last month we assembled a group of Middle East experts and military strategists to explore viable and compassionate exit strategies because the American people deserve better than the poor planning that has characterized every single phase of this war. The extraordinary men and women who I met in Iraq most certainly deserve better. They deserve leaders as courageous and honorable as they are in return for their unfailing loyalty. They deserve basic competence and integrity. I have some suggestions of what the President should be doing next in order to bring our troops home immediately. Part of what he must do is eat crow. He has to apologize to the rest of the international world for going into Iraq in the first place and trying to bring them into the war with him. He must become a diplomat instead of a warrior because the way he is doing it now is not working. He also must reach out to the global world. He must ask worldwide for assistance to help Iraq return their country to their people. He also must work internationally with the United Nations, with NATO, with the experts who have been through this before in South Africa and in Ireland. He must work with them, help them, give them the room to help the Iraqis in their reconstruction and reconciliation. We do not know how to do it, obviously. We only know how to cause a war. We need to work now on how to end that war and how not to totally leave the Iraqi people in a quagmire. But speaking of quagmires, that is what our President has us in. He has us in a corner. It is a lose-lose situation. Actually, if we stay in Iraq, our troops will continue to be killed and maimed and innocent Iraqi civilians will lose their homes and their lives and their families. If we leave, indeed we will leave Iraq in a bad way. It will be a bloody mess until they can figure out how to get their country back together. But we can help them put it back together, not militarily, but with a non-militaristic presence. Why we are not doing that is beyond me. That is how we should have been doing it in the first place. So what I would like to suggest is that our President, I do not want to suggest it, what I would like to demand is that the President of the United States put together a plan to bring our troops home and to bring them home immediately. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Congresswoman totally, and the American people know that you are right in what you said. This Congress, this Pentagon, this administration will eventually catch up to the American people who know that we should not be in Iraq in the first place and that our staying there will not solve any problems. We will lose more troops. They will come home maimed or dead, and we will injure more innocent Iraqis and destroy their communities and their neighborhoods and their lives; and when we leave, whatever is going to happen will happen anyway. In the meantime, our troops will be losing. What I would like to ask is, if the President really believes that we are ending terrorism by being in Iraq, why in the world has he not found Osama bin Laden? Iraq was not an Islamic terrorist country until we went in, and now they are. I asked the commanders directly, first, who is the enemy? The answer was more than once, as a matter of fact, the insurgents are fighting the very presence of the United States in Iraq because we do appear as occupiers. When I asked the question who are the insurgents, they are not coming from across the border. The great majority of the insurgents are indeed local. They want us gone because they see us as occupiers. We are helping build local insurgents by our presence. Our presence needs to be there over time, but not in a militaristic way. Our presence needs to be to help the Iraqi people rebuild their infrastructure, their economic infrastructure and their physical infrastructure that we have so destroyed. If we want the end of terrorism, go after the guy that blew up our buildings in New York, go after Osama bin Laden.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my last word is wake up, catch up with the American people. Bring our troops home if you support them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last year when it became clear that the United States was unprepared to fight an increasingly hostile and aggressive Iraqi insurgency, Secretary Rumsfeld told our troops: ``You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.'' Well, I am here tonight to tell Secretary Rumsfeld and the other members of the Bush administration that the war in Iraq was started by the government leaders we have, but not the government leaders we want. Let us take a look at the folks who are running things at the White House. Who is weighing in on this war every single day? First, we have got Scooter Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff. Scooter Libby was in charge of coordinating the intelligence and communications strategy for the war in Iraq until last week. Last week, Libby was indicted by a Federal prosecutor for his role in outing undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Libby's precise role in this scandal is not yet clear, but it is suspected that he shopped Ms. Plame's identity to multiple reporters in an effort to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who opposed the invasion of Iraq and cited proof that the administration's claims of yellow cake in Niger were actually false. This political assassination reveals the cold, calculated tactics used by the Bush administration in the buildup to the war. Obviously, the administration was so righteous in their cause that they would do anything to stop those who opposed them, including identifying an undercover CIA agent. Now a Federal investigation is getting to the heart of those callous prewar tactics. Unfortunately, if Scooter Libby is the sole administration official to be punished for the governmental failures that led to the war in Iraq, then he will become a scapegoat of historic proportions. Libby's boss, Vice President Cheney, was no less involved in the planning that led to the war. According to reports, Mr. Cheney badgered and bullied low-level CIA analysts into misinterpreting evidence regarding Saddam's supposed nuclear weapons program. Also, we cannot overlook that Vice President Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, the company that has benefited from billions and billions of dollars of contracts in Iraq. How many bids did Halliburton have to place to get these massive construction contracts? Surprisingly, not a single one. That brings us to former CIA Director George Tenet. As the CIA chief in the months leading up to the war in Iraq, George Tenet personally vetted much of the intelligence that was cited as evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ``program.'' Today, we are certain that evidence was completely false. Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have a program that could create weapons of mass destruction. So what did George Tenet receive for presiding over one of the monumental intelligence failures in modern history? Why, the Presidential Medal of Honor, of course. Mr. Speaker, it seems that many of the administration have benefited personally and professionally from the war in Iraq, while the rank and file, our soldiers, have suffered a disproportionate share of the burden. You go to war with the Army you have? Well, I have been to Iraq and I have got news for the American people: the Army we have is pretty darn impressive. We ought to be proud of their commitment to America's security, and we ought to be appalled that their civilian superiors have not demonstrated an equal commitment to them. It is our country's highest leaders that we ought to be worried about. The indictment of those involved in the prewar intelligence would be a start. After more than 2 years of war, over $200 billion spent, continued death and continued suffering, it is time to end this awful game of lies. It is time to end this corruption. Let us support our troops. Let us bring them home to their families where they belong.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq is like one of those bridges in Alaska. You can give it all the money in the world, but in the end it goes nowhere. People all around the country are waking up to the fact that this war is not making the United States safer, like the President promised. It is actually jeopardizing our national security. It is the very presence of nearly 150,000 American troops on Iraqi soil, appearing as occupiers, that galvanizes and unites the dissatisfied people in the Arab world. The American people get this, people like Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq. Cindy has been calling on the President to bring the troops home for months now. Her mission is a righteous one, that of a grieving mother who simply wants to know what noble cause her son was killed for. People in groups get it, like the members the northern California Ruth Group, who turned out in the hundreds to call for an end of the war last weekend. Over 500 people from my district joined me and fellow Members of Congress, Ms. Lee and Ms. Waters, and Cindy Sheehan at an important Ruth Group event to discuss ending the war. I have to tell you, discuss is a bit of an understatement. These folks are through discussing. They want our troops home. They want the war to be over. Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of individuals like Cindy Sheehan and the members of the Ruth Group around the country, all calling on their government to quickly end the war in Iraq and bring our servicemen and women home. They join with 66 percent of Americans who disapprove of the way President Bush has handled Iraq. The point is that the American people are speaking out. They are speaking loudly about the U.S. role in Iraq. They are sick and tired of reading reports of more young soldiers being killed, leaving behind grieving widows and children and parents and friends and communities. They, like me, believe that more than 2,000 American soldiers killed is 2,000 too many. They think 2,000 soldiers, just think about it, 2,000 soldiers is an entire Army division gone. They know that for every insurgent killed, three more rise up to take their place. They are tired of watching bombs go off in Iraqi cities, killing innocent civilians and American soldiers. They want to see the U.S. continue to support Iraq nonmilitaristically by assisting the Iraqi people build their war-torn economic and physical infrastructure. They want the United States to help in a nonmilitaristic role. Members of Congress are actually joining this debate, too. There are no fewer than five Members of this House who have policy proposals to end the war, and 127 Members joined me in voting for the amendment I offered in May to this year's defense authorization bill expressing the sense of Congress that we need to end this war. On the other side of the Capitol, Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold and others have offered their plans for Iraq as well. I held an informal hearing last month to address how the United States can achieve military disengagement. Thirty other Members of Congress joined me at this hearing, listening to military, academic and governmental experts discuss the best way to end this devastating war. Clearly the majority of the country has started the conversation about these issues. It is necessary that the President join in. Mr. Speaker, individuals around the country have given us their plans to end the war. It is time for the President to give us his plan, the goal of which needs to be bringing the troops home to their families.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. I. King Jordan upon his retirement as president of Gallaudet University on December 31, 2006. Dr. Jordan is an accomplished, respected leader and someone I consider a personal friend. Dr. Jordan became the Nation's first deaf university president when appointed in 1988 and the first deaf president to preside over Gallaudet University. During his tenure there he has proven to be an able, caring leader propelling the university forward as well as becoming a strong advocate for deaf students on the Federal level. Among his accomplishments, he led the university's first ever capital campaign, raising nearly $40 million, which supported the construction of the state-of-the-art Student Academic Center and contributed to the extraordinary increase in the university's endowment, which paved the way for an increase in scholarships and more academic programs. He also established a fellows program to provide support for deaf college graduates to complete their terminal degrees and become faculty members. Dr. Jordan was not only a strong advocate for the Gallaudet community, but for individuals with disabilities across this Nation. Another proud accomplishment of Dr. Jordan's is the work he did to assist with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, in 1990. He was a lead witness in support of the ADA during a joint session of Congress and delivered significant testimony in Congress and across the country during the deliberations of this bill. Before coming to Gallaudet Dr. Jordan's life was filled with many other accomplishments. A native of Glen Riddle, PA, a small town near Philadelphia, Dr. Jordan earned a B.A. in psychology from Gallaudet University and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology from the University of Tennessee. Upon receiving his doctorate, Dr. Jordan joined the faculty of Gallaudet's Department of Psychology. Before his appointment as President, Dr. Jordan served as Chair of Gallaudet's Psychology Department and as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He has been a research fellow at Donaldson's School for the Deaf in Edinburgh, Scotland, and an exchange scholar at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Jordan holds 11 honorary degrees and is the recipient of numerous awards, among them: the Presidential Citizen's Medal, presented by Bill Clinton in 2001; the Washingtonian of the Year Award; the James L. Fisher Award from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, CASE; the Larry Stewart Award from the American Psychological Association and the Distinguished Leadership Award from the National Association for Community Leadership. President George H.W. Bush appointed Dr. Jordan vice chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, PCEPD, in 1990, and President Clinton reappointed Dr. Jordan to that role in 1993. In the summer of 2005, Dr. Jordan was presented the George Bush Medal for the Empowerment of People with Disabilities from President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Speaker, I wish Dr. Jordan much happiness in his retirement as he looks forward to traveling with his wife Lynda and spending more time with his family. His compassion and service will be greatly missed. I am proud to have had a chance to work with him these past years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim my time out of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination to the United States Supreme Court. The stated reason had to do with executive privilege for legal advice she had given to the President that she did not want to reveal, but I do not think you need to be an expert tea leaf reader to see that public support for Ms. Miers' appointment, particularly among conservatives, was scarce, actually absent. As a result, Ms. Miers decided to step aside. Perhaps there is a lesson here that we can apply to another initiative, an initiative of the White House that is rapidly losing public confidence. Two-and-a-half years into the Iraq War, it could not be clearer that the President's policy is one with tragic consequences. It is time for the President to admit his mistake and change his course. Over 2,000 of our brave soldiers are dead. That is 2,000 too many. The threat of terrorism has not diminished at all. We have lost respect and credibility with allies around the world. The insurgency remains as strong as ever and is further animated with every day that the American occupation continues. We are pouring about $1 billion a week into this fiasco, and, by the way, the original rationale for fighting this war, weapons of mass destruction, turns out to be based on fabrications and deceptions. What is the President waiting for? How much worse does it need to get? How many more casualties must we endure? Look, you do not have to take my word for it. The White House would like you to believe that opposition to the war exists on the fringes only, but the fact is that 66 percent of our people, two out of every three Americans, has a negative opinion of the way the President has handled Iraq. Apparently included in that two out of every three are former members of the administration and Bush family loyalists. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the State Department, recently went public with his misgivings. He talks about a dysfunctional national security policymaking process, with decisions made secretively by a Cheney- Rumsfeld cabal that was given free rein by a President who, as Wilkerson put it, ``is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either.'' The latest issue of The New Yorker magazine features a profile of Brent Scowcroft, a close friend and adviser to the President's father and mentor to Condoleezza Rice. Scowcroft was considered the hawk of the first President Bush's national security team, but in this article he is frank about his disillusionment with the current Iraq policy. He notes that you cannot impose democracy by force, that the Iraq War is breeding terrorism, and that Saddam did not represent a threat to the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring the troops home, and I feel even more strongly on this point after traveling to Iraq a few weeks ago. There is no shortage of ideas for possible exit strategies. For example, there are at least four good proposals right here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and on the other side of the Capitol, Senator Kerry and Senator Feingold have offered specific plans. I held a hearing just last month where a broad range of experts discussed ways we could end the occupation while keeping Iraq secure and helping its people rebuild their country. There is an important conversation going on about these issues. It would be nice if the President joined in, but to immediately insist that we stay the course is at this point irresponsible, insulting and demeaning to the American people. I know this President does not like to admit his mistakes, but maybe it is time to eat a little crow. I think a little bruised pride is a small price to pay if it means more Americans will not have to die. Mr. Speaker, let us return Iraq to the Iraqi people and our soldiers home to their families.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, my district, the 6th District of California, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge is a ``donor'' district. We pay a lot more in taxes than we get back, in fact, the median home price is approaching $1 million. This is almost three times the national median home price, and my constituents want their taxes to work for them. They want middle-class families in their area to be able to secure a GSE loan. They want teachers, firefighters, and policemen who serve and live in areas of the country where the housing market is soaring, to be eligible for an GSE loan. Madam Chairman, we can do that. We must preserve the section of the underlying bill that allows for raising conforming loan limits in high cost areas. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Garrett amendment and allow fair home mortgage lending.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, his name is Staff Sergeant George T. Alexander of Clanton, Alabama. He died on Saturday, 5 days after a bomb exploded near his vehicle about 60 miles north of Baghdad. He was the 2,000th brave American to give his life in the Iraq war. My deepest sympathies go out to his family, who I hope finds some comfort in the knowledge that Sergeant George Alexander is remembered by all of us as a true national hero. We mourn the loss of Staff Sergeant Alexander just as we continue to mourn all 1,999 who came before him. In my recent visit to Iraq, nothing made a greater impression on me than the intelligence, decency, and loyalty I saw in our soldiers. They really are the best our country has to offer. It pains me to think that any one of them could become casualty number 2,001; 2,002; 2,050; or 2,060. And it pains me that we clearly do not have civilian leaders worthy of our troops. It pains me that these soldiers have been betrayed by their superiors who sent them to Iraq on false pretenses, on a poorly defined mission without all of the tools they needed and without a plan to bring them home. 2,000 deaths is 2,000 too many for this mission, a mission which was immorally conceived and has been incompetently managed. The devastating truth is that Americans are not safer because of this war. We are not defeating the insurgency; we are inspiring it. That is not the fault of the men and women wearing the uniform; it is just the nature of this conflict. Every day that we occupy Iraq breeds more resentment, more vicious and violent anti-Americanism. As one military commander put it, for every insurgent killed, three more are created. How do we win such a war? And let us not forget that the very first casualty in this war was the truth. The President waxes idealistic about spreading freedom. But we all know that if spreading freedom had been the stated rationale for war back in 2002, there is no way this body would have authorized the use of force. No, this was about the world's most dangerous weapons in the hands of most dangerous people. Remember, it was about yellow cake and aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds and nuclear winters. They engaged in a campaign of fear based on a lie. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a very expensive lie that has cost America 2,000 of its finest patriots. Their campaign of deceit was absolutely reprehensible. But I think we also have to look forward, as well back; to focus on not just how we got into Iraq, but how we are going to get out. I held a hearing last month to explore in detail that very question. But the President meanwhile can offer nothing but the emptiest of platitudes: it is hard work. Stay the course. We will be there as long as we need to be there. Terrorism bad, freedom good. That is all well and good, but what is the plan? He says he is confident of victory. But what exactly constitutes victory? What are the benckmarks of success? What is the plan? What does the end-game look like? If the President will not lead, then I guess the rest of us will have to do it for him. There are three measures that we can take immediately: first, multilateral corporation. The Iraq campaign never was a global coalition. But now we can prevent further loss of life by bringing the U.S. Armed Forces home while simultaneously encouraging the United Nations and the NATO Alliance to establish a multinational interim security force for Iraq. Second, diplomatic nonmilitary initiatives. The U.S. must lead a diplomatic offensive, making its presence in Iraq a humanitarian partnership, rather than a military occupation. Third, post-conflict reconciliation. The U.S. should work with the U.N. to designate an international peace commission to oversee Iraq's postwar reconciliation. It is time for the President to admit his mistakes, eat a little crow and shift course. It is time to return Iraq to the Iraqi people and the troops safely home to their families.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Saddam Hussein faced a panel of Iraqi judges where he will finally stand trial for the crimes against humanity that were committed under his regime. Saddam Hussein is an evil person. He ordered thousands of his own people to death, and it is time that he is brought to justice for these crimes. But anyone who suggests that Iraq is more stable or less of a threat to the United States now than it was before the war is fooling themselves. Iraq has never been less stable, and it has never posed a greater threat to the United States than it does today. The war in Iraq has not combated terrorism as President Bush and his administration have repeatedly claimed. It has actually encouraged terrorism by providing a unified target and rallying point for those angry with our Mideast policies. Since we invaded Iraq in March of 2003, hundreds of terrorist attacks have killed thousands of innocent people, both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Most people assume that suicide terrorism of the sort that plagues Iraq on a daily basis stems from opposition to democracy in general or hatred of the United States in particular. But Dr. Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor, reaches a different conclusion based on a comprehensive study on every act of suicide terrorism that has occurred over the last 10 years. Dr. Pape found that the common element linking all suicide attacks around the world is not religion. Rather, suicide terrorism is about pressuring another country to withdraw its military forces from the lands that the terrorists view as their homeland. This helps to explain the intensity of the Iraqi insurgency. The insurgents resent the continued United States occupation of their land and want control over it. If the folks in the Bush administration truly want to end the war, they must honestly convince the Iraqi people that the United States has no long-term objectives in Iraq. But to do that would require a sea change, because we currently maintain over 100 military bases in Iraq, with what certainly appears to be intentions to maintain some of them permanently. Mr. Speaker, we all know that President Bush loves those prime time speeches to our Nation. Maybe it is time for him to eat a little crow and ask the international community to help. He needs to face the fact that the so-called Bush doctrine of preemptive war and unilateral military action just is not working. He should tell the Iraqi people that the United States has no plans to maintain permanent bases in Iraq, nor do we have any designs on controlling Iraqi oil. You could call this speech the ``anti-Bush doctrine.'' Mr. Speaker, there were plenty of mistakes made in Iraq, mistakes that could easily have been avoided. But now, the best thing for the President to do is cut his losses, admit he made mistakes, and change his course. He needs to seek the cooperation of our allies around the world to help Iraq get back on its feet, because we cannot do it by ourselves in the United States. The President should do that by going back to those countries we have spurned in the past like France and Germany, as well as influential bodies like the United Nations and NATO, and ask them to assist. A true multilateral coalition could and would enable us to bring thousands of our troops hope. To borrow a phrase from the President, as our allies stand up, we will stand down.