Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 43 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, November 14, 2005, at 6 p.m.

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?

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.

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

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.''

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.

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.