Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of making the TANF law better, instead of giving welfare recipients the tools needed to move from welfare to self-sufficiency, we are once again extending a bill that has continuously moved people from welfare into permanent poverty.

Why are we not making education or training count as a work activity for welfare recipients so that individuals can receive the skills they need for jobs that actually pay a livable wage, jobs that pay above the poverty level?

Why are we not providing quality available child care that includes care for infants and for weekend and evening workers to help welfare parents keep their jobs and become self-sufficient, because if parents do not have a safe convenient place to leave their children, they cannot go to work? And if they do, they can really concentrate on their job. Believe me, I know because, over 35 years ago, I was a single mother with three small children. My children were 1, 3 and 5 years old, and their father financially abandoned us. Even though I was working full-time, I needed welfare to keep our lives together. But it was not until my mother moved to our town and I could have her take care of the children during the day that I could pay 100 percent attention to the work that I was doing. As soon as she moved into town, I was promoted to management in my company because I did not have one ear and eye home and one at the job. And then when I got home, I was 100 percent there for my children. But when I was at work, I was 100 percent at work.

So I was promoted to management, and later, I worked my way off welfare and off poverty. Eventually, I started my own business, and now I am a seven-term Member of the House of Representatives. Let me tell you, I am not sure any of that could have happened without the help and the leg up that I received from the welfare system. And believe me, I have paid back into the system many, many times over, and so have most of the women who have been given a chance for a higher education, who have been given the support of a good child care system to help them stay in the work force so that they can achieve.

So why are we wasting our time extending something that has moved welfare recipients, yes, out of welfare, but yes, into poverty with an idea they may never be able to move out of poverty because they have not gotten the assistance that they need? They will pay back to the system many times over, I promise you.

Mr. Speaker, the headline in this morning's Washington Post reads: ``Bush says War is Worth Sacrifice.'' Well, easy for him to say, because he has not sacrificed a thing, unless you count his sagging poll numbers.

This President needs to look into the eyes of more than 1,700 widows or grieving mothers and fathers and tell them his preemptive war is worth the sacrifice.

He needs to tell it to my friend Cindy Sheehan, who came to Washington two weeks ago and spoke movingly about what it was like to see her son Casey, lying in a coffin with the same lack of muscle tone he had as a newborn infant 25 years before.

Casey Sheehan and his family were told there were weapons of mass destruction. They were told Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks on America nearly 4 years ago. And long after that myth had been debunked, President Bush still had the audacity to go before the American people last night and raise the ``bloody flag of 9/11,'' as a New York Times editorial put it.

I have been to Fayetteville, North Carolina, where the President spoke last night. In fact, 3 months ago I spoke there at a peace rally organized by a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. Fayetteville is actually home to a vibrant anti-war community. Not despite the fact that it is home to Fort Bragg, but because it is a military stronghold. With a majority of Americans turning against this war, it only makes sense that those who have sacrificed the most for this war are also opposed to it.

The President insisted last night that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, and it is true that terrorists are now flocking to Iraq, like moths to a flame. But how did that happen? Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground because of President Bush's premeditated, preemptive invasion of Iraq.

Every day that our soldiers are in Iraq is another day that the insurgents are emboldened by their hatred for America. It is the occupation itself that gives rise to the insurgency and inflames it, putting our troops in more danger than ever.

Perhaps what is most galling about the President saying Iraq is worth the sacrifice is that he and his administration do not truly honor that sacrifice.

With their rhetoric, they do, perhaps, but what about their actions? If they honored the sacrifice, surely they would have found a way to get our soldiers the protective armor they need. And if they honored the sacrifice, why are they coming up $1 billion short of what is needed to deliver health care for our veterans?

We heard nothing new last night, no new information, no new plan, no new explanation or justification for 1,700 plus dead, thousands wounded, and over $200 billion squandered. It is time we showed our support for the troops by removing them from harm's way, by ending this disastrous war, by bringing them home to their families as soon as possible.

But that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. We need an entirely new approach to defending America. Where is it written that a strong national security policy must involve violence and bloodshed?

I have proposed a new plan called SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. Its guiding principle is that war should be the absolute last resort. It would protect America through stronger global alliances, a commitment to diplomacy, and vigorous weapons inspections. SMART would also address the root causes of terrorism by confronting the poverty, despair, and hopelessness that foster terrorism in the first place. And it includes an ambitious international development agenda: democracy- building, education, infrastructure projects, support for environmental stewardship, and more, for the troubled, underdeveloped nations of the world.

SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART Security begins, in fact, and nothing would be smarter, with a plan to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness and in frustration over the news that the Nation finds itself $1 billion short of the funding that is needed to cover health care for our Nation's veterans this year.

It is bad enough that next year's VA budget will almost surely be inadequate; now we are having trouble paying for this year's needs. Just as the architects of our Iraq policy did not have a plan for winning the peace, it appears that the budget experts in the executive branch did not plan for increased veteran costs associated with the deadly foreign war, a preemptive war that has killed over 1,700 troops and injured more than 13,000, a war that will certainly result in an increased burden on the Veterans Administration.

This shortfall comes on the heels of efforts by the Bush administration to increase veterans prescription drug co-payments and to add an enrollment fee to enter the veterans health care system in the first place. There is even talk of classifying veterans in ways that entitle some veterans to benefits and leaves others on the outside looking in.

How is this possible, Mr. Speaker, all the talk of supporting the troops, is this just rhetoric? Is it just bumper sticker boiler plate, or are we really serious about honoring the sacrifices of war and showing our gratitude to those who have risked life and limb on our behalf?

What is even worse is that some people saw this budget problem coming and were ignored or rebuffed. Minority Members in the other Chamber, the Senate, proposed adding money to the VA budget in anticipation of this shortfall, but they were told by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs this spring that no emergency supplemental funds were needed.

Well, guess what? Emergency supplemental funds are needed. And now we either have to get an advance on next year's limited VA appropriations; borrow from other parts of the VA budget; or pass a supplemental bill to fill the gap. One of the key committee Chairs has said that it would be best to avoid a supplemental package. But were they saying that, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating an over-$200 billion supplemental bill to fund the war effort in the first place? It does not make sense to me.

We have no problem approving billions upon billions of dollars and taking on massive debt to send our brave soldiers to Iraq in the first place. And while they are there, we are denying them of the protective body armor and vehicles that would prevent these severe wounds in the first place, and they are returning home more injured than ever. And when they come home, then we start pinching pennies, pinching pennies on their care. Are these the priorities of a great Nation?

Now, it is tempting to see this VA situation as simply an actuarial miscalculation, but it is indicative of something far more serious that we have been seeing over and over again from this administration, a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul mentality; a tendency to ignore problems until they become crises; a habit of embracing war without accounting for its costs, human or financial.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of the way our Iraq policy has been bungled. Not only do we need to bring our troops out of Iraq as soon as realistically possible, a position that the majority of the American people agree with; we need an overhaul of our approach to national security in general.

I have proposed a new plan called SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism For the 21st Century. The guiding principle behind SMART is that war should be the absolute last resort. Prevention of war, not preemptive war, which we know from the Downing Street memo was not the thinking on Iraq.

So SMART includes an ambitious international development agenda, democracy building, human rights education, business loans, agricultural assistance and more for the troubled, underdeveloped nations of the world.

SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment.

Mr. Chairman, employees and retirees at United Airlines played by the rules and deserve what they expected--a solid pension payment to support their retirement years. But instead of the promised income they were counting on to help cover their kid's college tuition; their own health care; or, the mortgage payments on their houses, they were left with a court ruling dumping their dreams into the pension guaranty benefit corporation (PBGC), which is significantly less than what they were counting on. And, guess who fools the bill?--the tax payers!

Over 2,000 email statements from United Workers were recently submitted into an e-hearing conducted by Representatives George Miller and Jan Schakowsky.

One of my constituents, Ms. Elenor Barcsak wrote: ``I worked for United Airlines as a flight attendant for 37 years . . . when I turned 60 years old I was told that it would be totally safe to retire as my pension, that I had paid into as a union member for all those years, was TOTALLY protected.

She continued--I am a homeowner in Marin County since 1972 but I still have mortgage payments. I am assisting my family financially as my mother is in a nursing home [in Canada] and my younger sister has been on welfare. The impact of my pension check being reduced by as much as half will be devastating.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment to prevent United Airlines from dumping its pension into the PBGC and reducing the benefits promised to these loyal workers.

Mr. Chairman, I respect those who choose to serve our country in the military. I also understand that successful recruiting is critical to the military's ability to protect our country.

But we also must protect the privacy of our children.

On top of Mr. Honda's discussion, Mr. Chairman, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is now developing a comprehensive invasive recruiting database on high-school and college students who are age 16 or older.

The database will include personal information about these young women and men, including their birth dates, social security numbers, e- mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects they are studying.

And, apparently, the Pentagon will be able, without notifying citizens, to share this data for non-military purposes, including with law enforcement agencies and state tax authorities.

More than ever, this highlights the Administration's gall in believing they have the right to personal information about student rights above parents.

If their war was justified, if the American people were not fed up with it, young people would volunteer--but they aren't, and, they won't, and, that is the very reason this invasive program has come up.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting parents and children and their privacy. Vote for the Honda amendment.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, the common theme to the war in Iraq has been the Bush administration's ability and willingness to mislead the American people. First, they misled about the weapons of mass destruction. Then, nearly 2 years ago, they falsely declared the end of major combat operations. Now, they are openly declaring the success of the mission, and President Bush regularly speaks of an increasingly democratic Iraq.

This assessment suggests the degree to which the President fails to comprehend the disastrous lack of security that has plagued Iraq over the last 2 years. Personally, I am frightened that our own President has such a failed understanding about the reality of the war that he started.

Just as disturbing were recent comments by Vice President Dick Cheney. In an interview, he said that the Iraqi insurgency was in its ``last throes.'' I am not sure which press reports the Vice President has been reading but, somehow, I do not think his optimistic assessment of Iraq's insurgency is grounded in real fact.

Unfortunately, misleading assessments of the war like these do not magically secure Iraq from the true threats that it faces. And the true threats are an increasingly strengthened Iraq insurgency, bolstered by the continued United States military occupation of Iraq.

On the ground, a violent wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis in the month of May alone. Vice President Cheney calls this the ``last throes''? And by mid-June, almost one-third more troops were killed than during all of the month of May.

At some point, the Bush administration needs to admit what the rest of the American people know, that its current strategy for Iraq is failing.

Recent polls show that 63 percent of Americans want our troops to come home. Now it is time for the President to start listening to the American people, the people he works for.

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle understand that our Iraq policy is a disaster. When the House recently debated the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, 122 Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent voted in favor of my amendment simply expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should establish a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and bring his plan to the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are less secure, not more secure, as a result of the war in Iraq. This war has created a whole new generation of terrorists whose common bond is their hatred for the United States and our aggressive militarism. We have asked the President to address Iraq's lack of security. We have asked him to come up with a plan for ending the war. He has not, so we will. And when we put our plan in place and when the troops come home, we can begin to plan for the future.

Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future. That plan is the SMART Security resolution which I recently reintroduced with the support of 50 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible Multilateral American Response To Terrorism for the 21st Century, and it will help us address the threats we face as a Nation.

SMART will prevent acts of terrorism in countries lick Iraq by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunities. Instead of rushing off to war under false pretenses, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues. That way we will be able to deal with global crises diplomatically instead of resorting to armed conflict.

Instead of maintaining a long-term military occupation of Iraq, our future efforts to help the Iraqi people must follow the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international allies, to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration needs to take a long, hard, and honest look at the effects of our policies in Iraq. Once they do, they will understand that the United States is less safe than we were before we got ourselves into this preemptive war and that we must end this long and destructive war.

Mr. Speaker, 33 years ago, Title IX, written by our dear friend, Patsy Mink, became law. Title IX recognizes that only when all Americans have opportunity to reach their potential can our country reach its potential.

Recently, the Bush administration said that if a school's women students do not respond to an e-mail from the school asking if they are interested in sports, then the school would be in compliance with Title

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is that there isn't enough money to fund any of these important programs like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, education, or health research.

But, let's be honest. The real reason that we do not have the money to put towards these programs is because of the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy that the White House and the majority party have insisted on passing.

Yesterday, I met with some of my young constituents representing the Migrant Education Program. I would like to read their requests to you.

We the constituents of the Migrant Education Program

regions II and XXIII of California are here today to address

constant issues that challenge the quality of our lives. In

order to achieve this we propose the following.

education

We propose to the Congress to allocate funds to use in the

implementations of programs that will benefit learning

through buying proper equipment that will permit students to

succeed. Proper equipment includes: textbooks, sports,

uniforms, and computers.

immigration

We propose that Congress pass the Dream Act and Student

Adjustment Act, which could allow undocumented students to

pursue higher education. We propose better working conditions

for agricultural workers. Better working conditions such as

health care, breaks and better pay.

social security

In order to secure our Social Security benefits we propose

to reject President Bush's Social Security Reforms and accept

to continue the current Social Security Program without the

government tapping into our resources. In order to reimburse

the lost money the Government must repay the deficit that was

caused by the Governor's decisions.

health care

We propose to the Congress that in order to have healthier

citizens a universal program should be established with an

equal

payment for insurance coverage regardless of their status in

California.

The result of this will be a healthier public thus reducing

the burden on taxpayers.

A small tax increase, which will be offset by the thousands

or even million of dollars saved in the urgent care

facilities.

All families will be able to live their lives knowing that

their tax payments are in return to their health care leaving

them with a satisfaction that their insurance bill will not

increase. We ask that the Government intervene to help

maintain a set price.

labor

Minimum wages: The average person lives below the poverty

line and in order to improve the quality of life a higher

minimum wage needs to be issued.

Pesticides: Pesticides present a hazard towards the health

of workers and their families.

Benefits: Equal health benefits should be issued to all

employees as a result of hazardous working conditions.

field worker permit

Permits should be issued for workers of foreign countries

to work in the United States under fair conditions.

same sex

Acknowledging the couple: Same sex couples deserve equal

unalienable rights as heterosexual couples.

Support Adoption: Same sex couples deserve the opportunity

to give a loving home to a child in need.

Separating state and religion: An individual deserves the

right to do as one pleases without the intervention of

theocracy, while respecting civil rights.

violence in the media

We propose to the Congress that violence in TV should be

controlled to a substantial level of awareness; such level

could include showing violence media in the after hours and

avoid presentation of inappropriate material. We the

delegates of California propose to the Congress that there

will be more funds for community activities for the youth, so

that they get involved and occupy their time in something

useful other than gangs, such as, sports, music, dancing

groups, karate, etc.

Children and adolescents are the most affected audience

through the contents of violence. We strongly recommend that

such material be diminished; such contents include music,

alcohol, sex, drugs, gun control, and homicide. We propose to

the Congress that programs should be developed in local

communities in order to educate parents about violence and

how to keep it away from today's youth.

These are some of the requests that we could have fulfilled had it not been for these reckless tax cuts. We should not forget about the needs of our children and the elderly. It is time to turn back some of these reckless tax cuts and put the money into education, health care, and all of the services that the most vulnerable in our society need to survive.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that does not value America's children and families.

The average American wants Congress to do more to ensure that our children receive the help they need to succeed in school and in life.

Instead, this bill implements a budget that values tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans more than it values education for the least wealthy Americans.

In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We and the President agreed, or at least I thought we did, that Federal education policy must include both reforms and resources.

I strongly support NCLB's goals, although as we move forward, I want us to look closely at what needs to be done to make it work best.

But, I can tell you right now that one thing that needs to be done is to keep the promise that Congress and the President made to the American people to fully fund NCLB.

Yet, not only would this bill provide $13 billion less than was promised for NCLB for this year, it would actually cut funding for NCLB compared to last year.

Over 4 years, this Congress has underfunded NCLB by more than $40 billion.

This bill would increase funding for Title I by less than 1 percent, at a time when we need to do more than ever to close the achievement gap not only within our country, but between our country and many of our economic competitors around the world.

It would freeze funding for teacher training, even as we face a looming teacher shortage--and we know that the most important factor in child's education is a good teacher.

It would freeze funding for after-school centers, even though last year we were only able to fund 38 percent of applications.

And this bill would cut funding for education technology by 40 percent, even as technology becomes more and more important to learning.

Another area in which this bill would do less is special education.

I think every member knows that in 1975, Congress and the President promised to fund 40 percent of schools' special education costs. Last year, 30 years after we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we funded only 19 percent of those costs. Under this bill, that percentage would go down to 18 percent. That's what this bill does--or more accurately, doesn't do--for elementary and secondary education.

For younger children, even though we're only serving about half of the children who are eligible for Head Start, this bill would increase funding by less than 1 percent.

And for college students, it would provide only a $50 increase for Pell grants, even though tuition at the average public college has gone up by $2,300 since 2001.

Finally, this bill would make drastic cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which does so much to promote a diverse and freethinking society.

Public broadcasting provides forums for many voices that otherwise would not be heard.

It provides our children with the best educational programs on television, such as Sesame Street, and is a valuable source for reliable news programs for millions of Americans.

By cutting funding for CPB, we are weakening our strongest source of unbiased, diverse, educational and cultural programming.

In short, this bill is a step backward--a step we can't afford.

In his new book, ``The World is Flat,'' the New York Times' Thomas Friedman explains that America's historical economic advantages have disappeared now that ``the world is flat, and anyone with smarts, access to Google and a cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation fray.''

Mr. Friedman's and others' remedy is to ``attract more young women and men to science and engineering.''

But, it will be impossible for our country to continue to lead the world in innovation as long as Congress and the President choose tax cuts for millionaires over investment in education.

Mr. Chairman, that choice does not reflect the values of the people in my district, nor do I think it reflects the values of most Americans.

And so, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, now we've heard it all. The Majority in the House has attacked the poor and the sick with their cuts to Medicaid; they have given away billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations and the rich, and now they want to string up Big Bird.

The Drastic cuts that this bill will inflict on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are dangerous to our freethinking and diverse society. Public Broadcasting provides a forum for groups who otherwise would not be heard and provides underserved areas with quality programming.

It helps to teach our children with the best educational programs on television like Sesame Street and Arthur. These shows not only help our children learn, but also motivate them to turn off the TV and pick up a book to read about their favorite characters featured on these shows.

Publc broadcasting is a favorite source for reliable information for Americans. Shows like Now and The Newshour are trusted by Americans to give them the straight story about current events in our world. By cutting funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting we are attacking our strongest source of unbiased, diverse, and cultured programming available.

These proposed cuts are just another step in the Bush Administration's agenda to dismantle Public Broadcasting and silence one of the last objective voices in American media. The President's recent attempts to politicize PBS by bringing in a partisan activist to be President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are shameful.

I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment to restore the funding it needs and protect the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a powerful voice of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 415.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and I missed Roll Call vote 259. Had I been present I would have voted nay.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to take a good hard look at the role the United States is playing in Iraq and whether it is in our national interests to maintain a military presence there.

We need to acknowledge the fact that Iraq's insurgency is growing in strength, not diminishing. It is the very presence of our 150,000-or-so American troops in Iraq that unites the growing collection of insurgent forces.

Since our military presence encourages further fighting, this war will continue as long as the United States troops remain in Iraq, appearing to be occupiers of their country. That is why Congress must accept that we cannot possibly be successful through military means alone.

During consideration of the defense authorization bill on May 25 for fiscal year 2006, I offered an amendment urging the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Surprisingly, this is the first time the House formally debated the possibility of withdrawal from Iraq, and that was over a 2-year period. While my amendment was defeated, it is clear that Congress is starting to get serious about the need to end the war in Iraq. 128 Members, including five Republicans, voted for this important amendment, but there is much more work to be done.

The Iraq war has now raged on for more than 2 years, and we are no closer

to winning this conflict than we were when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations under an arrogant banner declaring ``Mission Accomplished.''

Despite this lack of progress, the war has exacted a deeply troubling human and financial toll. In just over 2 years of war, almost 1,800 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 innocent Iraqi bystanders have been killed. The Pentagon lists the number of Americans wounded as over 12,000; but that does not take into consideration the invisible wounds many of our soldiers have brought home, the painful mental trauma they have contracted from months and years of fighting, watching their friends being killed or wounded by the insurgents, and killing and wounding others themselves, a lot to live with when they finally come home.

When accounting for these psychological injuries, the number of wounded jumps to more than 40,000 soldiers. Given what is at stake here, do the American people not deserve a plan? Do our brave men and women who are selflessly sacrificing their time and energy, not to mention their arms, legs and lives for this war, not deserve a plan? And it would be helpful for their families to know what the plan is in Iraq.

We have asked the President to address Iraq's lack of security. We have asked him to come up with a plan for ending the war. He has not; so we will.

After we bring the troops home, we do have a plan. There is a plan. It is a plan that would secure America for the future, the SMART Security resolution, which I recently reintroduced with the support of 50 of my House colleagues. SMART is Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century, and it will help address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging the Iraqi people.

Instead of rushing off to war for the wrong reasons, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global problems. Because not every international problem has a military answer, SMART Security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions that give rise to terrorism in the very first place: poverty, despair, resource scarcity and lack of proper education, as an example.

SMART Security also encourages democracy building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities, and strengthening civil programs in the developing world. These are the best ways to encourage democracy in countries like Iraq, not through wars that cost thousands of unnecessary deaths and cost billions of dollars. The SMART approach is the best way to reach out to Iraq. It is time we stopped putting all of our eggs in the military basket and started getting smart about our national security.

69. Sergeant Michael Francis Pedersen

70. Specialist Donald Samuel Oaks Jr.

71. Sergeant First Class Randall Scott Rehn

72. Sergeant Todd James Robbins

73. Staff Sergeant Nino Dugue Livaudais

74. Specialist Ryan Patrick Long

75. Captain Russell Brian Rippetoe

76. Private First Class Chad Eric Bales

77. Corporal Mark Asher Evnin

78. Corporal Erik Hernandez Silva

79. Staff Sergeant Wilbert Davis

80. Captain Edward Jason Korn

81. Captain Benjamin Wilson Sammis

82. Captain Tristan Neil Aitken

83. Private First Class Wilfred Davyrussell Bellard

84. Specialist Daniel Francis Cunningham Jr.

85. Private Devon Demilo Jones

86. Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith

87. Captain Travis Allen Ford

88. Corporal Bernard George Gooden

89. First Lieutenant Brian Michael McPhillips

90. Sergeant Duane Roy Rios

91. Specialist Larry Kenyatta Brown

92. Staff Sergeant Stevon Alexander Booker

93. First Sergeant Edward Smith

94. Private First Class Gregory Paul Huxley Jr.

95. Private Kelley Stephen Prewitt

96. Staff Sergeant Lincoln Daniel Hollinsaid

97. Lance Corporal Andrew Julian Aviles

98. Corporal Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin

99. Second Lieutenant Jeffrey Joseph Kaylor

100. Private First Class Anthony Scott Miller

101. Specialist George Arthur Mitchell Jr.

102. Corporal Henry Levon Brown

103. Private First Class Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr.

104. Private First Class Jason Michael Meyer

105. Staff Sergeant Robert Anthony Stever

106. Staff Sergeant Scott Douglas Sather

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the first lessons we are taught as children, how and when to apologize for doing something wrong.

Our capacity for saying I am sorry is part of what makes us a functioning and civilized society. My parents always said I should apologize for hurting someone. But they never insisted that I apologize simply for pointing out when someone else was doing something bad or wrong.

Yet, here in Washington all of the sudden every time a Democrat uses strong rhetoric to condemn the policies of the Bush administration, there is a relentless pressure from the Republicans for an apology.

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I just do not recall any apologies when opponents of the Iraq war had their patriotism questioned. Now with a new poll showing that 63 percent of the American people want the troops to come home in the next year, maybe the right wing message machine owes an apology to nearly two out of three Americans. The fact is their apology demands on Democratic dissenters is just a convenient way to change the subject, to avoid any kind of question about the merits of the Iraq war and the way it has been managed.

And why do they want to avoid that discussion? Because the American people have completely lost confidence in the administration's Iraq policy. Instead of apologizing for words, it is time we started demanding apologies for deeds. Where, for example, is the apology for the deaths of more than 1,700 Americans? Not only is there no apology; Secretary Rumsfeld could not be bothered to personally sign condolence letters to their families.

Where is the apology for sending young men and women to war without the proper protective armor on their bodies and their vehicles? Where is the

apology for pinching pennies on veterans health benefits when these brave soldiers return home? Where is the apology for the immoral doctrine of this preemptive war? And where is the apology for the gross deceptions used to justify it, for the missing weapons of mass destruction, for the cooked intelligence, for the phony al Qaeda-Saddam link?

Where is the apology for wasting more than $200 billion of taxpayer money on this mistake? Where is the apology for the poor leadership that led to torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Where is the apology for committing our troops and our Nation to this mission without a post-war plan to secure the peace? And where is the apology for the arrogance that squandered international good will toward America and damaged our relationships with our closest allies?

There is something wrong with our moral compass if we have to apologize for speaking bluntly. But our leaders can commit the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam and get away without apology or accountability.

Actually, an apology would not be enough for everything they have done. An apology, after all, is just more words. It is time for action. It is time for accountability. It is time for a tangible admission that the Iraq war was immorally conceived and has been incompetently managed. It is clearly time to end this war and bring our troops home.

Chuck Hagel, the senior Senator from Nebraska, a decorated Vietnam hero and a member of the President's party, recently had this to say about the war, ``Things aren't getting better. They are getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we are losing Iraq.''

I ask you, are they going to ask Chuck Hagel for an apology? After all, he has done the worst possible thing in the eyes of the administration: he has told the truth.

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