Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 222, which recognizes the 20th anniversary of the National Assessment Governing Board. The National Assessment Governing Board is a bipartisan, independent Federal board that sets policy for the National Assessment of Education Progress, or NAEP. NAEP assessments are often referred to as the Nation's report card because these tests are the principal source of data on student achievement nationwide. NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics. The governing board created by Congress in 1988 is made up of governors, State legislators, State and school officials, educators and researchers, all of whom oversee NAEP, identify subjects to be tested and govern reporting of test results. When Congress established the governing board, we instructed that it be bipartisan and that it be independent, and it has lived up to these expectations and the original vision. The NAEP assessment has been invaluable in providing information on the achievements of students at grades 4, 8, and 12 in reading, mathematics, writing, science, U.S. history, geography and other subjects. The NAEP State-by-State assessments, which are administered to students in grades 4 and 8 in reading, mathematics, writing and science, have also been helpful in charting what our students know and providing information for a path forward based on real results. This year, Mr. Speaker, the governing board commemorates 20 years of learning and assessment. To mark this anniversary, the governing board plans to examine the impact of NAEP over the past two decades and look ahead to see how the assessment can continue to play a vital role in measuring student achievement in the future. In order to highlight these priorities, the board will host a conference to discuss the achievement gap in college and work preparedness with education and policy experts. The governing board has served an important role in evaluating the condition and progress of American education for 20 years. I thank the governing board for its outstanding service to the Nation in improving elementary and secondary education. Mr. Speaker, once again I express my support for the National Assessment Governing Board, and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing their 20th anniversary. I also want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for bringing this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I reserve my time for closing remarks.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 222, recognizing the 20th anniversary of the National Assessment Governing Board, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I believe it with all my heart. That's why I have introduced every year for the last 5 years SMART Security, which has war as the very last option when countries aren't getting along, if we even need that option, and it cuts military spending and invests in soft power and in diplomacy and international relations. I want to read something out of an article that Barney Frank has in The Nation.

Ms. WOOLSEY. The March 2 edition of The Nation. And I would like to enter this article into the Record. It's a great article, and it supports his and our 25 percent cut in defense spending in our budget. And he says, in the middle of this article, ``Spending on military hardware does produce some jobs, but it is one of the most inefficient ways to deploy public funds to stimulate the economy.'' Then he went on to talk about when he was talking with Alan Greenspan. He said, ``When I asked'' Alan Greenspan ``what he thought about military spending as stimulus, to his credit, he said that from an economic standpoint military spending was like insurance: If necessary to meet its primary need, it had to be done, but it was not good for the economy, and to the extent that it could be reduced, the economy would benefit.'' There is no question. President Eisenhower, before he left office, said beware of the military industrial complex, Americans, because it's got us going in the wrong direction. And we have a chance now to turn it around. We have a new President who does believe in diplomacy. We have a majority in the House and the Senate and we have our President in the White House, and now it is time for us to stand up and put together plans that will meet Martin Luther King's promise to us, and that's that we would have a world of peace as the world we want to live in. [From the Nation, Mar. 2, 2009] Cut the Military Budget--II (By Barney Frank) I am a great believer in freedom of expression and am proud of those times when I have been one of a few members of Congress to oppose censorship. I still hold close to an absolutist position, but I have been tempted recently to make an exception, not by banning speech but by requiring it. I would be very happy if there was some way to make it a misdemeanor for people to talk about reducing the budget deficit without including a recommendation that we substantially cut military spending. Sadly, self-described centrist and even liberal organizations often talk about the need to curtail deficits by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that have a benign social purpose, but they fail to talk about one area where substantial budget reductions would have the doubly beneficial effect of cutting the deficit and diminishing expenditures that often do more harm than good. Obviously people should be concerned about the $700 billion Congress voted for this past fall to deal with the credit crisis. But even if none of that money were to be paid back-- and most of it will be--it would involve a smaller drain on taxpayer dollars than the Iraq War will have cost us by the time it is concluded, and it is roughly equivalent to the $651 billion we will spend on all defense in this fiscal year. When I am challenged by people--not all of them conservative--who tell me that they agree, for example, that we should enact comprehensive universal healthcare but wonder how to pay for it, my answer is that I do not know immediately where to get the funding but I know whom I should ask. I was in Congress on September 10, 2001, and I know there was no money in the budget at that time for a war in Iraq. So my answer is that I will go to the people who found the money for that war and ask them if they could find some for healthcare. It is particularly inexplicable that so many self-styled moderates ignore the extraordinary increase in military spending. After all, George W. Bush himself has acknowledged its importance. As the December 20 Wall Street Journal notes, ``The president remains adamant his budget troubles were the result of a ramp-up in defense spending.'' Bush then ends this rare burst of intellectual honesty by blaming all this ``ramp-up'' on the need to fight the war in Iraq. Current plans call for us not only to spend hundreds of billions more in Iraq but to continue to spend even more over the next few years producing new weapons that might have been useful against the Soviet Union. Many of these weapons are technological marvels, but they have a central flaw: no conceivable enemy. It ought to be a requirement in spending all this money for a weapon that there be some need for it. In some cases we are developing weapons--in part because of nothing more than momentum--that lack not only a current military need but even a plausible use in any foreseeable future. It is possible to debate how strong America should be militarily in relation to the rest of the world. But that is not a debate that needs to be entered into to reduce the military budget by a large amount. If, beginning one year from now, we were to cut military spending by 25 percent from its projected levels, we would still be immeasurably stronger than any combination of nations with whom we might be engaged. Implicitly, some advocates of continued largesse for the Pentagon concede that the case cannot be made fully in terms of our need to be safe from physical attack. Ironically--even hypocritically, since many of those who make the case are in other contexts anti-government spending conservatives--they argue for a kind of weaponized Keynesianism that says military spending is important because it provides jobs and boosts the economy. Spending on military hardware does produce some jobs, but it is one of the most inefficient ways to deploy public funds to stimulate the economy. When I asked him years ago what he thought about military spending as stimulus, Alan Greenspan, to his credit, noted that from an economic standpoint military spending was like insurance: if necessary to meet its primary need, it had to be done, but it was not good for the economy; and to the extent that it could be reduced, the economy would benefit. The math is compelling: if we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget starting fairly soon, it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity even with a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy. I am working with a variety of thoughtful analysts to show how we can make very substantial cuts in the military budget without in any way diminishing the security we need. I do not think it will be hard to make it clear to Americans that their well being is far more endangered by a proposal for substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security or other important domestic areas than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have no justification from any threat we are likely to face. So those organizations, editorial boards and individuals who talk about the need for fiscal responsibility should be challenged to begin with the area where our spending has been the most irresponsible and has produced the least good for the dollars expended--our military budget. Both parties have for too long indulged the implicit notion that military spending is somehow irrelevant to reducing the deficit and have resisted applying to military spending the standards of efficiency that are applied to other programs. If we do not reduce the military budget, either we accustom ourselves to unending and increasing budget deficits, or we do severe harm to our ability to improve the quality of our lives through sensible public policy.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it is my honor to be here again tonight with Congressman Ellison and other members of the Progressive Caucus who will come down to talk about the Federal budget and our progressive priorities. When we talk about the budget, it's easy for people to have their eyes just glaze over because they automatically think we're going to be talking about a bunch of numbers on a page. But, you know, this budget and every budget is so much more than that. While you will hear a bunch of numbers being thrown around here for the next hour, the important thing that must be remembered is that all of these figures represent what we believe. They represent what we, as a Nation, have as our priorities, what that says to every citizen of this country and every nation around the world. The funding decisions that are included in the budget are the choices that every Member of Congress must make on what our priorities as a country should be for the next--not 1 year, but 10 years. These are choices that affect the lives of every single American. It is choices like whether or not we ensure that everyone will receive adequate health care, or whether or not we build yet another weapons system that we don't need. And these choices speak as loudly as anything on who we are as a Nation. That's why it's so important to talk about this and to understand what the numbers in the budget mean for our constituents, and to let them know that all this isn't set in stone, but that there are real choices to be made. For the past 2 years, and again this year, the Progressive Caucus will be offering a full budget alternative, an alternative that will bring defense spending under control, that will balance our tax code to ensure that everyone is paying their fair share, and invests in renewable energy, in education, transportation, housing, veterans benefits, and health care for all. These are our priorities; they're priorities that we, as progressives, have laid out. And I look forward to discussing all this with my progressive colleague, Mr. Ellison, and others who are here tonight

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, the first thought that comes to my mind is, the Cold War is over, it's been over for a long time, and why are we still investing in weapons systems and equipment to fight the second generation of Russian weapons that aren't even being produced in Russia? Why are we doing that? What is it costing us? And what can we do with that money instead of wasting it?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Over 10 years.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Read it again. That would be beautiful.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I have some.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Probably because I am a peacenik, I just am, have been, I think I was born that way. But, you know, before we talk about the savings, I think we should, first of all, know that this is the third Progressive Caucus alternative budget in the last three budget cycles that we have introduced, and all of our budgets have been around what our President said in his speech, reforming our defense budget so that we are not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems that we don't use. You said that, I am going to emphasize that. Now we are working with Congressman Barney Frank. This budget is going to be wrapped around cutting 25 percent of the defense budget so that our colleagues will have an option. They will have an alternative. They will be able to vote their conscience if they want to cut the defense budget. I am not saying they won't vote for the base budget, but they will have a chance to vote for a budget that cuts defense and invests in our national priorities. But here is why we know we can do this. The United States doesn't just lead the world in defense spending, we almost outspend the rest of the entire world combined.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That's right, and a full 43 percent of the world defense spending comes from the United States alone. When we add NATO allies into it, it's over 50 percent. So our annual defense budget dwarfs that of all our biggest rivals, and we spend four times as much as China and eight times as much as Russia. Why? That's what I ask you, we don't need to do that. And if you want to put this in perspective, every single person spent, when we add up our Pentagon budget, that's 40 percent of the taxes that every single person pays, 40 percent of their taxes go to the Pentagon. Why, I ask you? It does not make it safer and, in the end, you are less safe. So what kinds of weapons are we cutting? You have got your chart up there, we are saving $15 billion a year by reducing the number of nuclear warheads that we have in our arsenal. We are going from 10,000 to a thousand. We don't think we need 10,000 warheads. We need 1,000 to keep us safe, even with the rest of the world. Over time, we should be working to have a nonnuclear world because it's nuclear weapons that can actually do all of humanity in, and shame on us for not knowing enough to stop that. So we also, in this budget, get rid of the F-22 Raptor. We save $4 billion because this fighter jet was designed to fight, as I said, the next generation of Soviet planes, which were never even built. It makes sense to build a plane that fights ghosts? I ask you, no, it doesn't. There is the Virginia Class Submarine that, like the F-22, was built to fight the Soviets. It's more expensive than the submarines we currently have, and it doesn't have any new capacity or capability. So there is so much about this that makes no sense. And the other thing that we have to know is an investment in defense spending on weapons does not nearly enough for our economy. If you want to invest in the economy, invest in jobs and infrastructure and education.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Right. Health care. Invest in what gives back to the people of this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And it kills somebody.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, first of all, there's a big fear of looking like you're not patriotic around here. The second thing is it's very embarrassing when you ask the question and nobody has the answer and you're talking about billions of dollars. And that's why Barbara Lee and I have been working with the GAO to have the DOD implement the over 2,000 recommendations that the GAO has made to the DOD to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. So they now know they have to do it, and we are counting on those cuts of those 2,000 wasteful expenditures in our Progressive Caucus budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I just want to say you also should put the cost of not doing those things, the cost of not having a healthy community, not having an educated constituency, not having people ready for jobs for the 21st century. Those costs, we never look at that when we are doing our budgeting. I have a question, if I may, to just throw out to the three of you. Sam, before you came down here we were talking about 150,000 contractors in Iraq and why our military, which is one-third of the cost, each one of our troops, why we just didn't have them doing it all. My question is, wouldn't we have to have a draft in order to have that many troops available? I don't think we have volunteers that would be able to double the size of the troops in the units over in Iraq and Afghanistan, because I don't think people are that excited about going over there for $50,000 a year, for one thing.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chair, the mortgage foreclosure crisis is the center of the financial crisis that our country is now facing. And, until we take on the foreclosure crisis, and find a way to help keep people in their homes, we are never going to get to the root causes of our economic downturn. That's why I support judicial modification of primary residences in bankruptcy proceedings. This important provision in H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, would allow judges who are presiding over bankruptcies to modify the terms of a mortgage, allowing homeowners who are trying to keep their heads above water and stay in their homes. The more people who are facing foreclosure, the worse this crisis is going to get. It's important that, as this bill makes its way through Congress, we work with our counterparts in the Senate to ensure this provision isn't used as a tool for those who would be tempted to commit fraud. It's equally important to ensure that those institutions who have acted in good faith are not unfairly punished by the good intentions of this bill. There are many lenders, like some of the credit unions in my district, who have not traded in the sub-prime market, and have bent over backwards to keep their members in their homes. It would be shameful if anything that we are doing with H.R. 1106 negatively impacted those who are actively trying to solve the foreclosure epidemic from the lending side of the ledger. Mr. Chair, I hope that this is only the first of many bills that come to the House Floor to address the housing crisis, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation has released a report. It's called ``Implementing the President's Plan: An Outline for Action in Iraq.'' This report, based on the Obama plan to redeploy U.S. troops and military contractors in 16 months, was written by retired military leaders Colonel Richard L. Klass, Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr., and Brigadier General John Johns. In a town full of reports, theirs is unique because it gives a clear outline of just how to execute the administration's original plan for a responsible and orderly redeployment from Iraq. Anyone who questioned the original proposal just needs to listen to those who know what it really means to carry out a military plan. About the 16-month timeline, retired Army Lieutenant General Robert Gard says, ``President Obama's plan to remove combat forces from Iraq is militarily workable and can be executed responsibly.'' Echoing what many of us in Congress have been saying for years, retired Air Force Colonel Richard Klass said, ``Redeployment of U.S. combat forces should be coupled with a diplomatic surge to help stabilize Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, instead of a residual force of up to 50,000 troops, this plan proposes a workable U.S. redeployment schedule that would result in, first, 100,000 total U.S. troops remaining in Iraq by the end of 2009 and 35,000 to 65,000 support troops remaining in Iraq up until 2010 when the President's 16-month timetable would end, if it is initiated by April 2009, and less than 1,000 troops remaining by December 2011 when the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement mandates that all U.S. forces be out of Iraq. Not only would this plan redeploy troops and military contractors, but it would ensure that the United States will not have any permanent bases in Iraq. Even though the report comes from former military brass, they readily acknowledge that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. The report calls for a strong diplomatic surge. It goes on to say, ``The United States needs to undertake an all-fronts diplomatic initiative to engage the nations of the region to help stabilize Iraq.'' The evidence keeps mounting up, Mr. Speaker, and the extended occupation of Iraq is not in the interest of the United States, of the international community or of the Iraqi people. I encourage our military and foreign policy leaders to look closely at this report and to heed the American people. We must redeploy all troops and military contractors from Iraq, and we must do it as soon as possible.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government is reopening the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. It has been renovated to include computers, recreational areas, a library and a barber shop for the prisoners. The Iraqis promise to treat prisoners humanely and in accordance with international standards. Some disagree with this decision to reopen Abu Ghraib. They say it should have been turned into a museum to document the crimes that took place there. Others say it should have been simply knocked down. But the Iraqi Government says it must keep the facility because it actually needs the space. The renovations are designed to remove any reminders of the terrible violations of human rights that took place at Abu Ghraib when it was under U.S. control. Those violations did a great deal of damage, Mr. Speaker, to America's reputation. Even worse, they sent a terrible signal to the world. The UN has reported that nondemocratic countries have used U.S. actions in places like Abu Ghraib to justify their own abuses. Mr. Speaker, the people of the world expect America to offer a better example than that. They expect us to work for peace and to treat people with dignity and compassion. The Obama administration has already taken important steps in that direction. The President has renounced torture. He has ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay. His administration has also released documents which show how the previous administration violated the constitutional rights of the American people right here at home. President Obama has also pledged to use diplomacy instead of war as the first tool of American foreign policy. He has signaled his willingness to talk to Iran and Syria, two nations that we must engage to create stability in the Middle East. He is trying, Mr. Speaker, to diffuse tensions with Russia, and Secretary of State Clinton has pledged a vigorous effort to kick-start the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. But there is still a lot more that we just have to do. We must remove all of our troops and military contractors out of Iraq by August 2010. Leaving 50,000 residual troops is unacceptable. The Iraqi people will view it as an enduring occupation force and it will delay the reconciliation and the unification the Iraqi people need. They need that to build stability and democracy in their country. We must also redeploy our troops out of Afghanistan and use humanitarian assistance instead of military force to achieve our goals there. Every expert on Afghanistan knows that foreign military intervention never succeeds in that part of the world. Helping the Afghan people to build schools and roads will work a lot better than sending in more troops. I've also called for a worldwide ceasefire or ``time-out'' to give diplomacy, to give humanitarian assistance and conflict resolution a chance to work. By intensifying our efforts in these areas, Mr. Speaker, our efforts of ``soft power'' or ``smart power'' and reducing the size of our military, we can move towards a conflict-free world. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has said, and I quote him, ``We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.'' The President is right. Instead of bombs, instead of bullets, let's give the people of the world dignity and opportunity. That's the way to defeat terrorism. That's the way to keep America safe, and that's the way to ensure peace around the globe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, last Friday President Obama declared that he has ``begun the work of ending'' our Nation's occupation of Iraq. The American people have waited a long, long time to hear those words. I welcome the President's announcement that he will keep his promise to bring our troops home. The President also pledged to pursue sustained diplomacy with all nations of the Middle East, including Iran and Syria, and he promised to help resettle the millions of Iraqis who have been displaced by the conflict. I welcome these important steps as well. But I am deeply troubled by other parts of the administration's withdrawal plan. It calls for an end to our combat mission in 19 months, but up to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq after that time until the end of 2011, 3 more years from now, in fact. The administration is calling these troops a ``transitional force.'' Well, you can call it what you want, but such a large number of troops can only be viewed by the Iraqi people as an enduring occupation force. Madam Speaker, leaving 50,000 residual troops is simply unacceptable. So long as the United States is viewed as an occupier, the Iraqi people will not be able to reclaim their full sovereignty and they will not be able to achieve the reconciliation and unification necessary for long- term stability and for democracy in their country. That's why I believe the best approach is to bring all troops out of Iraq by 2010 and coordinate the removal with investments in reconciliation and reconstruction efforts. The faster we promote unification of the Iraqi people and help them to rebuild their country, the sooner we will be able to bring all of our troops home. I'm also troubled with the administration's plan for several other reasons. First, although the residual force of 50,000 troops may not have a combat mission, they will still be in harm's way. Over 35,000 American troops, Madam Speaker, have already been killed or wounded in Iraq. We do not need to add to the casualty list. Second, the President said that there will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments during the withdrawal of combat troops. I worry that this means the withdrawal could be delayed. It might even mean that the administration might ultimately seek to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement and keep troops in Iraq beyond 2011. That would lead to the worst possible result, an endless occupation of Iraq. Third, the administration has abandoned its plan to withdraw a brigade a month, with only 10,000 troops withdrawn this year. The great majority of the troops will be withdrawn toward the end of the 19-month period. This means that the troop level will remain essentially the same for well over a year. Fourth, the administration has not called for the withdrawal of American military contractors in Iraq. They must be withdrawn as well because the Iraqi people see them as part of the occupying force. And, fifth, keeping a large force in Iraq will continue to drain our Treasury. We cannot continue to pour unnecessary billions of dollars into the occupation of Iraq when we need the money here at home to fight our recession. Madam Speaker, the President has taken an important step toward developing a plan to leave Iraq, but the American people have waited long enough for our troops and military contractors to come home to their families. I urge the administration to produce a new plan, a plan that will end the occupation once and for all. That means withdrawing our troops and military contractors in 19 months, or even sooner if that could happen, without residual forces and without private contractors left behind.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today during National Peace Corps week to honor the immeasurable contributions of the more than 195,000 Americans who have volunteered to serve in 139 countries in the cause of peace since 1961. Through mutual respect and understanding, these men and women have committed themselves to improving our country's relationships with the rest of the world, and I applaud their dedication to communities around the globe. When President John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps 48 years ago, he set out to provide ordinary men and women with an opportunity to strengthen developing countries devastated by the effects of poverty, disease, and war. Volunteers have come from all walks of life, some with years of experience and some just out of college. Peace Corps volunteers have mobilized to combat some of the world's most urgent humanitarian crises, including providing crucial assistance to communities in need of post-conflict relief and reconstruction as well as countries overwhelmed by natural disasters. These men and women have helped economically depressed communities develop new business plans, struggling farmers improve their crop production, and families devastated by HIV/AIDS receive the care they need. Currently, volunteers are serving in 76 countries, providing development assistance while fostering new bonds of friendship and seeking common ways to address global challenges. Over 400 men and women have volunteered from California's Sixth District, including the following current volunteers: Samantha Atkins, Gail Bachman, Tracey Bloch, Jamie Bowen, Catherine Carlton, John Cervetto, Rebecca Como, Jed D'Abravanel, Fionah Dominis, Jillian Geissler, Emilie Greenhalgh Stam, Daniel Grinnell, Alexis Guild, James Gurney, Amy Howland, Larissa Hsia- Wong, David Hughes, Frank Lester, Ryan Loughlin, Alissa Mayer, Reid Miller, Ryan Reichert, NurAliyya Shelley, Robin Smith, Jessica Souza, and Jessica Wright. Madam Speaker, the 48th anniversary of the establishment of the Peace Corps is an achievement that we should all commemorate. I celebrate the leadership and accomplishments of these compassionate Americans who have committed themselves to promoting global peace, diplomacy, and understanding.