Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among women and the leading cause of cancer death among women under the age of 40. Early detection and education are key to winning this battle. It is imperative that we reauthorize the National Breast & Cervical Cancer Early Detection Act, H.R. 1132, so that all women are given access to free and low-cost breast and cervical screenings. No woman should be denied these lifesaving screenings simply because she cannot afford them. Further, all women should be made aware of the benefits of each screening and the risks of these cancers through public education programs.

This issue is very important within my District of Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, and especially so in Marin County because it has the highest rate of breast cancer

in the country. Among white women, aged 45 to 64, the breast cancer rate in Marin has increased 72 percent in the last decade. Marin County's rates are approximately 40 percent higher than the national average and about 30 percent higher than the rest of the Bay Area. This is why early detection and education in women of all ages is so important.

In addition to this important legislation, we need to do more to prevent breast cancer deaths in women under the age of 40. Approximately 11,000 women under the age of 40 will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, of which nearly 1,300 will die. That's why I introduced the Annie Fox Act, H.R. 715, named after a young woman in my district who was diagnosed with breast cancer and died at the age of 35. This bill will authorize research into the causes of breast cancer in younger woman and educate them about the risks of breast cancer.

It is important that we not only continue to fund preventative screenings, education and research for women over the ages of 45, but that we also do so for our younger women so that they may live long, healthy lives.

I applaud the passage of this important legislation and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass H.R. 715, the Annie Fox Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a man whose life has touched many people in San Rafael, California. Man Minh Phan, known as Mr. Man, is receiving the 2007 Citizen of the Year award from the city for his outstanding community activism in the Canal neighborhood. This area has a large immigrant population, including 500 Vietnamese- Americans, endeavoring to assimilate into our country's culture.

Now 73-years-old, Mr. Man is a former South Vietnamese army officer who immigrated with his wife to the United States in 1990 after 6 years of imprisonment in a communist re-education camp and another 8 years waiting for relocation. They joined his son, a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, who had arrived in San Rafael a year earlier after escaping Vietnam by boat. Mr. Man also has two daughters who live in Vietnam.

During his 16 years in the Canal area, Mr. Man has been active in organizing and teaching classes in citizenship as well as Vietnamese (for the children) and English as a Second Language (to help adults). He founded the Vietnamese-American Friendship Group, serves on the Advisory Board of the local Pickleweed Park Community Center, leads the Canal Beautification Project, served on the Marin County Sheriff Advisory Board, and helps organize the annual Tet New Year festival.

But these descriptors do not do justice to the man who is the very heart of his neighborhood, a man who works tirelessly and enthusiastically for his community. Often referred to as the ``Angel of the Canal,'' Mr. Man is everywhere, offering a helping hand to anyone who needs it. His neighbors in the Canal understand that his classes are a place to bring people together, not just to learn languages. He is not paid for his teaching and lives simply, relishing the opportunity to give back for the freedom he enjoys here.

Mr. Man also gives to his homeland. He is known for his habit of picking up recycling on the streets, with the proceeds sent to the needy in Vietnam, from wartime amputees to orphans--``whoever wrote me a letter,'' he says. Others have been inspired to join him in the collection to add to the amounts he can provide.

Madam Speaker, Man Minh Phan's activism and spirit inspire all of us. His own words sum up what our country is about: ``I was asked what we need, and I said the most important need is freedom. Freedom is the top of my life.''

Mr. Speaker, today the House began debate on the budget for the next year. This is the time when each party shows its true priorities. The Democrats have promised to ensure our homeland security while providing for the needs of America's working families: health care, education, safe communities.

This is another chance to tell the people to tell the administration that we are not going to fund this misguided occupation of Iraq. We are quickly approaching one-half trillion dollars for the occupation of Iraq, including billions that have been lost, misallocated, or squandered, while drastically cutting important domestic programs in the United States of America.

Let me say that one more time: one-half trillion dollars. What comes after a trillion? A zillion? This might not mean much to some of the folks in Washington, but to the people scraping to get by this means everything.

We are in the fifth year of this occupation, and if we follow the leadership of the administration we will be there for years to come. In fact, they even say that the exit strategy for Iraq will be decided by future presidents. Presidents. Not one, but many. This is really unacceptable.

The Progressive Caucus budget, the Peace and Security budget, takes a stand against the ridiculous budget request and puts the money where it will do the most good. By ending our military presence in Iraq, we can save at least $202 billion over the next 2 years. Doing that, we can focus on the real needs of Americans.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget will fully fund No Child Left Behind and IDEA and improve the Teacher Corps and job training. It will provide affordable, accessible, quality health care for Americans, starting with fully funding the SCHIP program to ensure that every American child is covered for basic health insurance. It will rebuild America's communities by increasing funding for Community Development Block Grants, Hurricane Katrina relief, and reconstruction and community policing. It also guarantees veterans health care and ensures that the Federal funding that is needed will be available to provide health care, including mental health care, for every single American veteran, including but not limited to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This Peace and Security budget gives a fair shake for working families by increasing funding to protect fundamental worker rights, enforcing credit and lending practices, and promoting liveable wages and safe work places. It also will renew the social contract and 21st century safety net by substantially increasing funding for decent, affordable housing, for anti-hunger programs, and more quality child care for low-income and impoverished Americans, including Hurricane Katrina victims.

Does this mean that we will abandon our obligation throughout the world? Absolutely not. We will support the Smart Security Plan by increasing nonmilitary spending to enhance homeland security and to fight the root causes of terrorism, a real 21st century diplomacy plan that meets basic human needs such as fighting HIV and AIDS and providing for universal basic education.

If we had spent the last 4 years focusing on the real needs of America's working families and not fighting this endless, misguided occupation of Iraq, America would be safer, more prosperous and a leader in peace and security worldwide.

It is time to bring common sense and reason back to our foreign policy. I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting the Progressive Caucus budget, the Peace and Security budget, and to join me in the call to bring our troops home now.

Madam Speaker, on the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, several new polls looking at the opinions of the Iraqi people were released. It is important that we heed this call and that we listen to their choices, because it has been 4 years.

Some frightening stories were illuminated by the new polls. For example, one in four Iraqi adults have had a family relative murdered in the last 3 years, while 23 percent of those living in Baghdad have had a family relative kidnapped in the last 3 years.

More than half of Iraqis have a close friend or relative who has been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six say someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt, two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress. The number of Iraqis who describe their lives as good has dropped from 71 percent 3 years ago to under 40 percent today.

This is shameful, Madam Speaker. Every day the evidence against President Bush's so-called war plan mounts. It makes one wonder if there is even a plan at all. How much of the Bush Iraq policy has been forced on the Iraqi people? How much real involvement have the Iraqi people had in deciding the future of their own country. How are the Bush policies affecting Iraqi families?

I voted against the authorization to go to war. And Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, whether they voted ``yes'' or ``no,'' now is the time to make a change in direction. Let us empower the Iraqi people; let us restore their sovereignty.

Last week, I had the opportunity to testify before the Foreign Affairs Committee about my legislation, H.R. 508, the Bring the Troops Home and Restoration of Iraq Sovereignty bill. This bill is a comprehensive proposal. It has 49 cosponsors, and it will end the occupation of Iraq within 6 months of enactment. It will accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi military and security forces, preparing the Iraqis to take over their own security after U.S. troops and contractors leave at the end of the 6 months. It will fully fund the health care commitment to our returning veterans. It will make veterans health care an entitlement, something they deserve because, for heavens sakes, they have done so much for us.

Additionally, the legislation revokes the President's Iraq war powers, it prevents establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, and it returns the oil rights to the Iraqi people. Actually, it gives Iraq back to the Iraqis.

Madam Speaker, our most solemn obligation is to the brave and capable men and women who have been placed in harm's way. This legislation, as I said, guarantees physical and mental health care for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts. It is the least we can do. It is the very least we can do to show the gratitude of a grateful Nation.

H.R. 508 will fulfill our commitment to our Nation's brave troops and to the Iraqi people. The polls here and the polls in Iraq are clear: it is time to bring our troops home.

To those who are watching and wondering about the future of our Iraq policy, I say I will not stop, I will not rest, and I will not back down in my fight until every single last soldier and marine is home safe with his or her family.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very solemn day for our Nation. The House just voted to pass a bill that will continue to fund the ongoing occupation of Iraq. I know all too well how my colleagues anguished over their decision, but we must be clear what this vote means.

The supplemental, the largest in the history of our country, will pay for the President's escalation, an escalation that he calls a surge that we voted against just a few weeks ago.

It will include benchmarks and requirements that the administration can waive with the bat of an eye; and, most importantly, it could keep our troops on the ground for another year and a half at least.

Let's remember that the public did not elect Democrats to bring our troops home in 2008. They elected us to bring them home now.

I am truly and sincerely sad to say that as we debate the future of our troops, our troops are being targeted by terrorists, are being wounded by IEDs, and the most tragic and heart-breaking part of all, they are dying, and they are killing.

The American public knows the simple truth, Mr. Speaker: You can't be against the occupation and vote for this supplemental of at least $100 billion. The Democrats were elected in November because the American people want us, are expecting us, and are demanding of us that we bring our troops home as soon as possible. They do not trust the administration to do the right thing. They want us to hold the administration accountable.

We must stand up to an administration that has lied to get us into this war and will keep lying to keep us in it. It is sad when a Nation cannot trust its Commander in Chief to put the lives of the troops above his political legacy. But in that position, a Congress must take real and enforceable steps to bring an end to the occupation.

I have come to this spot over 195 times to speak about the unmitigated disaster that is Iraq. This is my moral obligation and that of our country.

To those who are watching and wondering about the future of our Iraq policy, I say: I will not stop, I will not rest, and I will not back down in my fight until every single last soldier and marine is home safe with his or her family.

This fight is far from over. Over the next several months, we will revisit this issue many, many times. I will work with my colleagues to make each measure stronger and each measure more effective and to bring our troops home to their families earlier rather than later. It is with their families that they belong. Today will be marked in history. I know that the future of our standing in the world and the future of Iraq depends on us being bold and brave and taking the actions that will bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Obey for yielding me this time. I want to thank Mr. Murtha for his leadership. And I assure them that I agree with them in principle. I just disagree in process.

The American public knows a simple truth: you cannot be against this war and vote for $100 billion to continue it.

The Democrats were elected in November because, as recent polls consistently show, the American people want us, are actually expecting us and are demanding of us that we, the Congress, bring our troops home as soon as possible. They do not trust the President to do the right thing. They want us to hold him accountable. The public didn't elect Democrats to bring our troops home in 2008. They elected us to be bold, to bring our troops home now.

Let me make myself very clear. I will not stop, I will not rest and I will not back down in my fight until every last American soldier is home safely with their families.

Madam Speaker, together with my colleague, Mr. Thompson from California, I rise today to honor the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District located in Northern California. On March 3, the agency received the prestigious County Leadership in Conservation Award from the National Association of Counties (NACo) and Trust for Public Land (TPL).

This award is given annually to counties that showcase the best practices in innovative conservation work. As one of the first public agencies in the nation funded by a sales tax to protect agriculture, the Open Space District has continued to distinguish itself nationally. It has protected almost 70,000 acres, including farms, greenbelts, natural open spaces, and recreational areas.

The District was formed as a result of public concern over urbanization in Sonoma County as subdivisions, malls and parking lots threatened to overwhelm land the famed botanist Luther Burbank once called ``God's chosen spot.'' Responding to the very real threat of sprawl, farmers, environmentalists and community leaders joined together in 1990 to pass a sales tax to fund preservation and open space acquisition. So successful is the District that the tax was renewed with a 75 percent approval vote in 2006. Today the tax provides approximately $13 million a year for the District's land conservation and acquisition programs.

The County Open Space Authority is responsible for levying and distributing the funding, while the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors acts as the Board of Directors. The Supervisors appoint a 17-member Open Space Advisory Committee, representing various stakeholders and interest groups, to recommend acquisitions. Manager Andrea Mackenzie works with all of these groups and other local organizations in identifying and purchasing suitable properties (or conservation easements) and determining the best use for them, from agriculture to resource conservation to public access or recreation.

Madam Speaker, Sonoma County has a beautiful and diverse environment ranging from oak savannah to bay wetlands to coastal redwood forests. Its farmlands are among the richest on the planet and grow grapes for world-class wines, crispy Gravenstein apples and luscious Crane melons and many specialty crops. Its pastures and rangelands support both dairy and meat production. The District with its immense support from the public ensures that our children's children will always have woodland and hillside trails to hike and homegrown food to enjoy.

These open spaces keep Sonoma County's agricultural economy healthy, provide recreation for visitors and residents, and preserve the very character of the county. Mr. Thompson and I congratulate the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District upon the receipt of the well-deserved County Leadership in Conservation Award and look forward to continuing to work with the District to preserve Sonoma County's natural beauty and agricultural bounty.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we will all be judged by how we treat the least among us. Nowhere is that more true than in Iraq.

Two international headlines tell us of the devastation that is now Iraq. The first: ``Silent Victims: What Will Become of Iraq's Children?''

And the second: ``World Ignoring Iraqi Refugees.''

These headlines from CNN and the BBC, respectively, tell of the Iraqi victims of the occupation. While our brave men and women in uniform have done so much to try to improve the lives of average Iraqi families, the policies of the Bush administration have failed them and failed the Iraqi families in this regard.

A recently released report from the U.N. found that nearly two million people have been displaced by the occupation of Iraq. Many of these refugees are seeking homes within Jordan and Syria. The report estimates that a quarter of these refugees are children, children who lack education opportunities and a normal, safe childhood.

It seems like the so-called mission is far from being accomplished. Iraqis are begging to leave Iraq's violence and instability. Thousands upon thousands of applications for residency in the United States have been denied, even for those who served alongside our troops as translators and as guides.

Four years ago the President promised an Iraq flourishing under a stable democracy. When children are afraid to go to school and parents are fearful of even taking a trip to the local market, President Bush's promise adds up to a total failure.

One child, a fourth grader, who was profiled in the CNN piece said: ``They killed me father and uncle in front of my eyes.'' He was unable to continue because he broke down and he sobbed. This is the legacy that we are leaving for Iraq's future generation.

It is clear that our presence in Iraq is bringing more violence and more instability. Our presence may have given rise to a strong and deadly terrorist movement within the Iraqi civil war. Let's be honest. It is well past time to bring our troops home and let the Iraqi people regain their sovereignty.

Let me be clear: we must not withdraw our support of the Iraqi people. We should be investing in the political, fiscal, and social infrastructure of Iraq. We must help to provide for the most basic needs, including education, electricity, drinkable water, sanitation, and security. In the now famous words: ``Mr. President, you broke it, you buy it.''

My colleagues, it is time to bring our troops home. It is time to restore hope for the Iraqi people. It is the very least that we can do.

Mr. Speaker, last week the New York Times reported that Iraq is falling well short of the political progress they were supposed to have made by now. Still no constitutional reform. Still no local elections. Still no final action on a law governing distribution of oil revenues. Still no reversal of the de-Baathification laws.

The Bush administration is now saying that their military escalation needs time to work and that these political goals will not be met until the end of the year.

I think it is clear what is going on here. What we have is another tactic by the White House in an attempt to run out the clock until January of 2009 when they can hand over the reins and make Iraq look like someone else's problem.

The President has said that the military commitment to Iraq is not open-ended; yet all evidence is to the contrary.

The supporters of this war, a group whose numbers are dwindling by the day, tell us the next 6 months are critical. This really is the last chance for success. Time and time again, deadlines are established and not met, but there are no consequences, nor is there accountability. I am of the belief that the Iraqi Government won't get its act together until it is forced to govern on its own, until it is no longer propped up by the presence of more than 150,000 American soldiers.

As it is now, as long as we continue with this military occupation, Iraqis have absolutely no incentive to push for democratic reform. As the Times article indicated, the President has waved off these concerns, accusing those of us who want to apply deadlines, pressure of being part of a culture of instant results.

Instant results? I am sorry, the President has had 4 years and more than $400 billion to make this work. Besides, it is this administration that assured us we would be greeted as liberators, that democratizing Iraq would be a cinch, that there would be hardly any sacrifice at all. Now that they have turned out to be monumentally wrong, they are wanting to know why we are demanding answers 4 years later.

I, for one, am tired of being told to be patient, especially when this body is asked to write another enormous check for this war, especially when my country is becoming a global pariah, especially when we learn that our Iraq policy has increased the threat of terrorism, especially when Americans are dying by the thousands, and those lucky enough to make it home alive

face a mountain of red tape, substandard care, rodent-infested living quarters at Walter Reed.

I believe we must move toward a fully funded military withdrawal now, not in August of 2008, not at some future date to be determined by the President. End the occupation and start bringing the troops home so that every last one of them can be out of Iraq and with their families in time for the holidays.

First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for this Special Order and for including me and allowing me to speak once again on this House floor about this war and this occupation of Iraq.

On the evening of March 19, 2003, speaking from the Oval Office, the President of the United States started his address to the Nation with these very words, and I quote him.

``My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.'' Here we are, 4 years later, and it's fair to ask, indeed, it's incumbent upon us to ask, have we disarmed Iraq?

Well, first off, as we all know, there are no weapons of mass destruction to disarm, so that whole entire premise was flawed.

The question we have to ask is have we made Iraq safer? We may have deposed Saddam Hussein, but with insurgents, militias and vigilantes terrorizing Iraqi neighborhoods, some of them with the tacit support of the Iraqi Government, it's impossible to say we have disarmed Iraq or made its people and communities more secure.

Have we freed Iraq's people? Well, I can think of at least 60,000 Iraqis for starters who haven't been freed. That's the most conservative estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths over the last 4 years, at least 60,000 killed for the cause of their so-called liberation.

Many of those who have escaped death live in fear of it, afraid to go to the market or send their children to school, if there is still a school for them to attend. Too many Iraqis live in communities without electricity, without sewage or basic services. Have we freed them?

What about those who are so flush with freedom that they have chosen to flee their own country? I am talking about the 1.5 million-plus Iraqi refugees. Why don't we ask them if they feel free?

Have we defended the world from grave danger? Indeed not. One study by the Center for Security Studies at New York University Law School concludes that the rate of fatal Muslim terror attacks worldwide has increased by a factor of seven since the Iraq war began. I repeat, that is seven times as much terrorism since we started this occupation, more people call it a war, but it is really an occupation, because this occupation that they keep telling us is the central front in the war on terror is not getting rid of terror.

It's clear our Iraq policy has had a major impact in the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, it appears to be helping the wrong side.

So to go back to the President's statement of exactly 4 years ago, it would appear he has accomplished none of these three tasks, tasks he claimed to have begun that night 4 years ago. Iraq is not disarmed, its people are not free, and the world is more dangerous. It was never supposed to get to this point. You remember this was going to be quick, it was going to be painless. We are going to finish these guys off without breaking a sweat, remember.

On the very same day that President Bush spoke in front of the Mission Accomplished banner, prominent neoconservative Richard Perle actually published an op ed in a major national newspaper entitled ``Relax, Celebrate Victory.'' The cost? Don't worry, they told us, Iraq oil revenues will cover the entire thing.

They fired the top White House economic adviser for daring to suggest that the war had cost as much as $200 billion. What would they have done to him if they had known he was underestimating it by a few hundred billion dollars?

We have to ask our colleagues who authorized the President to launch the preemptive strike on Iraq, is this what you voted for, to invade a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, no link to 9/11; to occupy that country for 4 years, helping foster a vicious insurgency and fan the flames of civil war?

If you had known these things, and if you had known that it would cost us over 3,200 lives to date, and upwards of $400 billion, uncounted civilian deaths, and between 35,000, as the Pentagon tells us, or over 200,000, as reported by the Veterans Administration, wounded, we have to ask, can you look the American people in the eye and say you would have done the same thing all over again knowing what you know now?

If your answer is no, if you believe the war has been a mistake, then it makes absolutely no sense to let it continue any longer, and it makes even less sense to hand the President an additional $100 billion with which to pursue the same disastrous policy.

Our troops have done their job. They and their families have sacrificed more than enough. They have been forced to dig for scrap metal in order to armor their vehicles. They have endured substandard care, bureaucratic delays and squalid conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. They have been betrayed by the grievous mistakes of their civilian supervisors and superiors.

Support our troops. Bring them home.

I have four grandchildren who weren't born 4 years ago. They have never lived in a world unclouded by this shameful, destructive and unnecessary occupation. I fear that if this Congress doesn't act, they will be living with these consequences well into their adult lives. It is for them, for the America they will inherit, that I want this war to end.

It's time to act boldly. Americans are crying out for leadership, for their elected representatives to hear their frustrations about Iraq and to move decisively in response.

This is a gut-check moment. Do you want it said about the 110th Congress that it failed the test of history, that it continued to send young Americans to kill and be killed on a mission that did nothing to enhance our national security or promote U.S. foreign interests? Do you want it said that we made a tragic mistake; even worse, that we blindly rubber-stamped a failed policy that has ignited a civil war and inspired a new generation of terrorists?

The Iraq policy of the last 4 years has proven ruinous and misguided at every turn by any objective measure. As a matter of humanitarian obligation and political accountability, it's time to change course.

In the name of national security, fiscal responsibility and basic human decency, we must get our troops out of Iraq and bring them home by the end of this year. Bring them home for the holidays.

I thank you again, Mr. Hinchey.

Mr. Speaker, last week brought news of the conviction on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to Federal investigators of the Vice President's former Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby.

It is easy to forget exactly what this case was about and its precise bearing on the ongoing bloody chaos in Iraq, so I think it is important to refresh our memories.

What did Mr. Libby lie about? He lied about his alleged role in blowing the cover of a CIA agent named Valerie Plame Wilson. And why would Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House even consider doing such a thing? Political retribution, of course. Valerie Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had been a public critic of the Bush administration's march to war. He had traveled to Africa at the behest of the CIA and concluded that there was nothing to the President's claim, made in the State of the Union no less, that uranium from Niger was helping Saddam Hussein build a nuclear weapon.

Ambassador Wilson dared to question the White House on a critical matter of policy, indeed a matter of war and peace. He dared to suggest that they had taken the Nation to war under false pretenses. So they destroyed his wife's career, and in so doing may have imperiled our national security.

Remember, this is the administration that guards information so closely that it considers its secrets sacrosanct, that has lectured others for leaking classified information, but they had no qualms about divulging sensitive information about someone else, someone who uses her undercover status to help protect the Nation. Why did they out her? Because she is married to someone who leveled a legitimate and accurate criticism at the White House.

It just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, they were willing to stop at absolutely nothing to discredit anyone who undermined their case for war, a case that was based on exaggeration at best, and outright lies at worst.

After the Libby verdict was rendered, a former national chairman of the Republican Party tried to pooh-pooh the matter by telling the USA Today, and I quote him, ``When you get down to it, it was one case involving one guy.''

Similarly, the Washington Post concluded its editorial by saying that the Wilson-Plame case and Mr. Libby's conviction tells us nothing about the war in Iraq. I couldn't possibly disagree more. Mr. Libby wasn't lying about whether he revealed Valerie Wilson's favorite color. Mr. Libby's conduct was part of a campaign of deceit intended to shut down any and all objections to the war. And why did they need a campaign of deceit? Because there was no legitimate reasonable cause for war without the specter of weapons of mass destruction, without the disgraceful scare tactic of warning that we don't want, and they said this, the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

It is the responsibility of Congress now to delve even deeper into the manipulation of pre-war intelligence. I am eager to hear Mrs. Wilson's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Friday, and I hope this is just one of many such inquiries.

Even as we are currently immersed in a debate right here in the House about how to end our occupation of Iraq, it is critical that we hold people to account for the mistakes and the misdeeds that launched this disastrous war and cost 3,200 Americans their lives.

Justice was done in the case of Mr. Libby, but I hope when it comes to Iraq we can bring about justice in a broader sense, by restoring Iraq's sovereignty and letting its people determine their own future, by becoming a reconstruction partner and not a military occupier in Iraq, by promoting stability in the region instead of being a catalyst for violence, a catalyst for terror, by completing a fully funded withdrawal from Iraq and bringing our troops home at last.

Madam Speaker, one of the truest statements about the occupation of Iraq was uttered by one of our own generals.

The commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said that there is no military solution in Iraq. In his own words, and I quote him, ``There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq.''

I ask all of us, Is this another case of the President not listening to his top brass? When is he going to learn that, despite the brave and courageous efforts of our men and women in uniform, we cannot bomb, we cannot shoot our way to peace in Iraq?

General Petraeus even said that we should be refocusing our diplomatic efforts in and around Iraq, saying that talks should include, and I quote him again, ``some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them.''

I applaud him for his candor. He sees what is going on on the ground. He knows that the current approach is just not working.

The men and women under his command have given so much for this misguided occupation. They went in without armor they needed for their Humvees and even for their own bodily protection. They went in looking for weapons of mass destruction that did not work out too well. They went in to accomplish a mission that was not clearly defined, and there was no exit plan. How can we ask our troops to continue down this road?

The Bush administration, as we have seen in the reports about Walter Reed, has even failed our troops when they come home. Shame on the President. Shame on Veterans Affairs Secretary Nicholson. This is not the way to care for those who have given so very much.

The American people know what to do, even if lawmakers are slow to act. Overwhelming numbers in poll after poll say that we need to bring our troops home and end this disastrous foray into foreign policy. And we just don't need the polls to tell us that. Look at the calls, look at the letters, look at the e-mails that come into our offices. People are demanding that the White House wake up to reality and put an end to this mission, a mission that was not accomplished.

The best way to honor the legacy of those who have given their lives in this occupation is to bring our troops home and work with the international community to strengthen and promote security in Iraq. It is the mandate from the American people, and it is the Congress's moral obligation.

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the House is joining the global community in celebrating International Women's Day.

As a woman, a mother, and a grandmother, I see the amazing accomplishments women have made in my lifetime--including the first woman Speaker of the House.

However, we still have a lot of challenges ahead of us--women still face discrimination in the workplace, lack affordable healthcare, earn less than their male counterparts and struggle to pay for childcare.

I look forward to working with the new Democratic Congress to bring real change to the women and girls of this country and provide them a future of hope and optimism.

Mr. Speaker, all too often the painful stories of those who have served in Iraq go unheard by Representatives in Washington; however, their experiences are a window into the truth about the real effect of this war on real people, both in service and after they come home from service.

One of these stories belongs to Corporal Cloy Richards, who bravely served with the United States Marine Corps for two tours in Iraq and may soon be called back again even though he has been diagnosed with

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor United Against Sexual Assault--UASA--of Sonoma County on the occasion of its 33rd anniversary. Founded in 1974 as Women Against Rape, the agency consisted of a phone number to call for emotional support. Today that crisis line operates 24 hours a day, and the organization has an official board, paid staff, and volunteers who last year donated over 10,000 hours.

Over the past 33 years, UASA has greatly expanded the services offered to the people of Sonoma County. It provides extensive training on helping victims, including not only women and girls, but also men, children, and the families of victims. Staff and volunteers also accompany victims and their families for police reporting, court appearances, medical exams, or other personal situations.

Prevention programs include outreach to elementary through high school youths, reaching approximately 6,000 young people every year, as well as parents and school personnel. Other efforts include bilingual outreach to Hispanic teens, teen peer education training, anti-

racism curriculum which deals with violence against the lesbian/gay/ bisexual/transgender community, and a unique men's program featuring men educating men. All services are offered at no cost.

UASA also plays a key role in the county's pioneering SART--sexual assault response team--which unites law enforcement, mental health, legal, and advocacy programs to support victims and families. This collaborative project makes services easily accessible and minimizes the stress felt by victims. The agency is also working with the District Attorney's office to establish a county-wide Family Justice Center.

Executive Director Gloria Young has provided visionary leadership in shepherding the agency through many of these transitions. In 2004, Gloria received the Outstanding Executive Director Award from the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault. She has post poned her scheduled retirement this year in order to remain at the helm during a time when some services are threatened by the closing of a major hospital.

Madam Speaker, UASA's long-term mission is to eliminate all forms of sexual assault. I know that with its inspired leadership, dedicated staff, and committed volunteers United Against Sexual Assault of Sonoma County has brought our community a long way towards achieving this goal and will not be satisfied until they have reached it. I salute UASA on their anniversary and look forward to the day when their services are no longer needed.