Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, with nearly 300 fires continuing to burn in California, it is clear we cannot afford to wait to deal with the enduring threat forest fires pose to our communities. That's why I rise in strong support of H.R. 5541, the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) Act. Over the last decade, we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of devastating forest fires. Those fires have long lasting effects on our ecosystem, increasing the deadliness of mudslides, which destroy our homes, displace once vegetated areas with bare terrain, and disburse large quantities of pollutants across broad regions. Nine million acres burned across the United States last year, and there is no indication that 2008 will be any different. Climate change and drought are creating longer and more intense fire seasons, while a century of fire containment has made the forests denser and more vulnerable to burning. The increase in forest fires has led to skyrocketing costs for federal fire suppression efforts, which prevents the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service Agency from adequately funding essential programs that will lessen the intensity of fires, reduce their frequency, and better protect the public. The FLAME Act would prevent future forest fires from devastating communities across the country and crippling federal land management agency budgets by creating an emergency national fund devoted solely to fighting such destructive fires. This fund will be separate from traditional funding for fire mitigation and prevention. It's our responsibility to empower our nation's firefighters with the tools they need to effectively fight forest fires. I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to better ensure that our citizens, environment, and ecosystem are safe from the dangers of forest fires.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 486. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 486--``yes''--Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the North Pole by the USS Nautilus (SSN 571).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to serve as Co-Chair of the 74-Member Congressional Progressive Caucus in this Congress. In that capacity, I am saddened by the recent death of one of the great progressive leaders and philanthropists of my generation--Stewart R. Mott. Many of us have attended functions and meals at the renowned Mott House across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court. Hosting so many of us so often for progressive causes was just one of the countless ways in which this remarkable man gave of himself and his personal wealth to defend the Bill of Rights and preserve our liberty. It is not very often that the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal pay homage to liberals. But that is just what they did a few weeks ago in the following editorial about Stewart Mott under the heading: A Liberal Freedom Fighter. A Liberal Freedom Fighter Some people walk to the beat of their own brass band, and so it was for Stewart Mott, the eccentric liberal philanthropist and General Motors heir who died last week at 70 years old. Beloved by Democrats for his decades of charity to progressive causes, he was also a notable champion of free political speech. In 1968, he was one of a handful of millionaires who bankrolled the primary campaign of Eugene McCarthy, at the time a little-known Minnesota Senator challenging a sitting President. With the help of Mott's $210,000, that effort became a groundswell that drove Lyndon Johnson out of the race and changed Democratic foreign policy. In our view that change wasn't for the better, but without Mott and other ``fat cat'' donors, Clean Gene might never have had an impact. Mott went on to finance the candidacy of George McGovern in 1972. Four years later, he went to court to protect his right to make such contributions, joining Republican Senator James Buckley's challenge to a 1974 campaign finance law in Buckley v. Valeo. Mott and the First Amendment lost that fight, but he would live to see his views vindicated by the political shambles that Congress and the High Court have made trying to limit money in campaigns. Today, the campaign finance laws have strengthened the incumbents whom Mott loved to challenge, while making political donations less transparent than ever. And today, unlike Mott, George Soros and other wealthy liberal patrons support campaign-finance rules that enhance their own power by limiting others. Stewart Mott was admirably truer to his liberal principles.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1090 honoring Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela as he celebrates 90 years of life. Mr. Mandela was born on July 18, 1918, in Transkei, South Africa, where he was given the name Rolihlahla, meaning ``troublemaker,'' which would later seem so fitting. Throughout his early adulthood, he developed his own ideas about the oppression he had experienced which led him to join the African National Congress. His work with the ANC led him to be tried for treason. He was acquitted of the charges, but his strong opposition to South African apartheid continued. His fight against racial segregation came to sudden halt when he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly plotting to overthrow the South African government. However, 27 years in prison could not diminish the spirit of a great leader. Once released from prison, Mr. Mandela wasted no time in becoming involved with the ANC once again. It was no surprise that this revolutionary man would become the next President of the ANC in 1990, continuing to devote himself to a multi-racial democracy for his country. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mandela embodies the dignity, strength, and leadership that all of us should strive for. Our country was founded on the values of freedom and liberty for all, personified undoubtedly by Mr. Mandela. He grasped these ideals and fought to make them a reality for South Africa through commitment unsurpassed by others. The dedication Mr. Mandela displayed, despite the many challenges he encountered, is deserving of our highest respect. Mr. Mandela has undisputedly contributed to tremendous change with his efforts to peacefully resolve conflicts throughout the world. It is with great pleasure that I commend Mr. Mandela for his lifetime commitment to promoting the vision of freedom and equality for the people of South Africa.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, just 10 days ago we celebrated the 4th of July because on that day in 1776, we first declared our Nation's independence and sovereignty. The American people have cherished and fought for that sovereignty for 232 years, so it is only right that we respect the sovereignty of other nations. Last week, Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki said that the withdrawal of American troops out of Iraq or a timetable for withdrawal should be part of the current status-of-forces negotiations between his government and the United States. He insisted that the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this House should affirm Iraq's right to full sovereignty. In fact, my colleague, Representative Lee of California, and I have sent a letter to every Member of the House inviting all Members to cosign a letter to Prime Minister al-Maliki supporting his government's sovereign rights. The letter reads in part as follows: ``We, the undersigned, Members of the United States House of Representatives, write to acknowledge and support the sovereign right of the government of Iraq to insist that any security agreement between the United States and Iraq include a timetable for the complete redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces and military contractors out of Iraq. The letter goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``As elected members of the legislative branch of the world's longest continuing democracy, we recognize that it is the national legislature that is responsible for expressing and exercising the sovereign rights and powers that the people have entrusted in their government. ``It is for the free people of Iraq, acting through their elected representatives in the Iraq parliament, to decide for themselves the terms and conditions under which they will agree to the continuing presence of the U.S. Armed Forces and military contractors in their country. And it is for the Congress of the United States to approve the terms and conditions of any security agreement that commits the United States to the defense of Iraq.'' Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister al-Maliki's statement for support for withdrawal timetable could very well be the light at the end of the tunnel that the American people have long been waiting for. Ending the occupation of Iraq, which was never an imminent security threat to the United States in the first place, would allow us to refocus on Afghanistan where the real threat lies. It would end the U.S. military occupation in the Middle East that has done so much to strengthen Iran's hand in the region. And it would allow us to redirect tens of billions of dollars back home for desperately needed investments in our economy, our health care, energy independence, education, child care and so much more. The President has often said that as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. Prime Minister al-Maliki's statement shows that the Iraqis believe they are ready to stand up. Now the ball is in our court. It is time for the President to prove he meant what he said because if the administration doesn't work with the prime minister in a serious way to withdrawal our troops and military contractors, it will prove what so many of us have feared all along, that the administration has no intention of leaving Iraq ever. Representative Lee and I urge all Members of the House to sign this important letter to Prime Minister al-Maliki. This is a critical moment and a crucial opportunity to end the long, bloody, disastrous occupation of Iraq. We must seize it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Warren Christopher and James Baker released a groundbreaking report on the powers of the Congress and the White House about declaring war. The Constitution is clear that only Congress has the right to declare war. Not only that, but Congress is granted the power of the purse. We in the Congress decide when it's appropriate to enter into armed conflict and then fulfill our commitment by fully funding and protecting our troops. The publication may sound like dry stuff, another commission with another report. But that's not the case. The fact that this report even needed to be written is noteworthy, however. It's noteworthy on its very own. Who would have thought that Members of Congress would need to be reminded of our constitutional duties? But the Baker-Christopher report is absolutely necessary, particularly now, as the administration's drumbeat for war with Iran builds. We have seen over the past years how some have exploited the so- called war on terror to mean war with anyone who does not agree with America. We have heard it before: ``If you're not with us, you're against us.'' Some even question the patriotism of those of us who have spoken up in opposition to some of the misguided policies of the White House, policies over the Iraq occupation, the loss of civil rights and liberties in the name of security, just as an example. Recently, the New Yorker Magazine revealed that the administration sought up to $400 million to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, described in a presidential finding--my colleague was just talking about those--signed by President Bush and designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership. Mr. Speaker, you don't need a secret decoder ring to know what that means. How often does a country spend hundreds of millions of dollars to declare peace with another nation? Congress must assert itself. We can't just be waiting around to be ``consulted.'' Consulting, not an open hearing or floor debate, is exactly what got us where we are today. I just don't think that we can sit back and wait for the executive branch to come down here to us and ask our permission. This Congress, and the American people, will not stand for another war. We must strengthen our diplomatic efforts and work at it 24 hours a day. This is not something we can wait until the next administration takes over or until the current one forces our hand. Negotiating with Iran's leaders may not be the ideal situation for some, but for others and most of us know it is the best opportunity that we have. Wouldn't it be nice if we could only talk to our friends? Well, that's not the way it is. We don't need to talk to our friends. We have to talk to those with whom we have differences. We have to talk to our enemies. That's the only way we are going to bring about any kind of disarmament and any kind of nonproliferation because talking to friends won't bring about human rights. It certainly won't bring about regional stability. We must have dialogue with Iran and we must do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery is a very special place. It holds the graves of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Section 60 also is the place where a group of remarkable women come together on a regular basis. They are the Section 60 mothers, the mothers of the soldiers buried in that hallowed ground. The Section 60 mothers come to mourn their heroic children, and to honor their sacrifice. They also come to give each other support in their time of grief. They look to each other for comfort because the only person who can really understand a mother who has lost a child in war is another mother who has suffered the same loss. Recently, National Public Radio broadcast two stories about the Section 60 mothers. In those stories, the Section 60 mothers talked about their children. They also described how they found each other and created a circle of support to help each other, to help each other make it through another day. Their words are heartbreaking, yet also inspiring, because these mothers are American heroes, just like their children. I'd like to share some of their words with you today. One mother placed flowers, balloons, and cards on her son's tombstone because it was his birthday. She said, ``These are our babies. When they have a birthday, this is what you do for them, and this is what we still do for them.'' Another Section 60 mother, whose son died 2 years ago, said, ``This is my son, and I just cannot believe that he's gone. I don't want him to ever be forgotten. It's just in the last couple of months in fact that I have been able to say, `My son's death,' and even that sends a chill through me.'' Another mother described the impact of her son's death on her family. She said, ``I look at my surviving children, and it's such heartache for me because they're in so much pain, and I can't do anything about it except just love them. I can't take their pain away. It's excruciating.'' This mother's son was killed on May 8, 2005. It was Mother's Day. Another grieving mother said, ``Our job is to protect our kids, and we would do anything to do that. I feel like I should have just jumped across the ocean and known that he was in trouble. It's irrational, but it's a mom.'' A mother whose marine son was killed in Iraq in 2005 talked about how the mothers are supporting each other. She said, ``We talk and we cry about the heartache. Our friendship has just been so incredible and different than any other friendship that I have ever known because our sons are side by side in that same soil.'' Another mother whose son was killed in Iraq in 2005 said, ``When we go to Arlington, sometimes we are holding the crying mother. And sometimes we are the crying mother. You never cry alone at Arlington. It's a refuge for me. You cannot be strong all the time.'' Another mother described the first time she saw another mother in Section 60. She said, ``She was just crying and saying, `Our beautiful boys.' We just started walking toward each other and we were crying so hard.'' A cousin of one of the soldiers told this story about her fallen hero. ``He always wore a St. Christopher's medal around his neck. When he died, they couldn't find it. But on the day of the funeral, the colonel came up to my aunt and said that they had found the St. Christopher's medal. When his body was thrown back by the blast, the St. Christopher's and his dog tags were in the hole that the bomb was in.'' Finally, one of the new mothers asked another mother if the pain of losing a child in war ever goes away. This mother had to say, ``No.'' Madam Speaker, we owe the Section 60 mothers our deepest respect and gratitude. They remind us that the war isn't something that takes place thousands of miles away. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are happening to our mothers and families right here in our own communities in America every single day. So let us resolve to go to war only as a very last resort. Every possible alternative to war should always be completely exhausted before we send our great men and women into battle. That is the least we can do for them and the mothers they leave behind.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act will delay cuts in physician payments under Medicare until next year. I hope that this is the last temporary delay and next year we will implement a permanent fix to this problem. It's important to Medicare patients and physicians that there is a continuity of payments so physicians can continue to treat Medicare patients and Medicare patients do not lose access to the physician most familiar with their medical needs. When we implement a permanent fix to the Medicare physician payment cuts, I hope to address the issue of the Medicare physician geographic payment discrepancy that is faced by many areas in California and across the country. One of these areas is Sonoma County, in my District. This inconsistency has led to doctor's reimbursements being based upon geographic location and not the true cost of providing services. Because of this discrepancy, doctors in Sonoma County receive a lower payment for the same services than doctors in next door Marin County and this discrepancy is causing doctors to leave Sonoma County. Congress must act to fix this discrepancy and ensure that physicians with Medicare patients can continue to afford to see Medicare patients regardless of where a practice is located. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act and look forward to working together to provide a permanent solution to the Medicare physician payment issues so that our Nation's seniors receive the best possible care from the physician who knows the patient the best.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 365, a resolution celebrating the accomplished life and enduring legacy of Robert Mondavi, whose vision helped propel California winemakers as leaders in the international wine market. Robert Mondavi was born to a family of Italian immigrants on June 18, 1913. In 1923, his father moved the family to Lodi, California, to pursue an interest in the grape business. Following in his father's footsteps, a young Robert Mondavi began working at Sunny St. Helena Winery in the 1930s, and then later at Charles Krug Winery after his father had purchased the business. Less than three decades later, Mr. Mondavi had founded the Robert Mondavi Winery to fulfill his vision of developing world-class Napa Valley wines. He later went on to establish the first French-American wine venture, one of many international collaborations. These efforts helped to drive the Mondavi name to be synonymous with premier California wines. However, Mr. Mondavi's accomplishments were not limited to the wine industry. His philanthropic and charitable contributions to the community, including founding the Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science at the University of California at Davis, the Robert and Magrit Mondavi Center for Performing Arts at UC Davis, the Napa Valley Wine Auction, which has raised millions of dollars for local charities, and his tireless efforts for the conservation of American farmlands all have left an indelible impact on our country. Mr. Mondavi's bold innovations laid the foundations for many of the wine growers in my Congressional District. His efforts contributed to the success of these wineries now enjoy as one of the world's pre- eminent wine making regions. Mr. Speaker, Robert Mondavi's life and leadership should be applauded, and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Robert Mondavi by passing this important resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica for this piece of legislation because, Madam Chairman, it's going to take a big change in how we do business if our country is going to meet our energy demands for the future. While the Republicans in Congress and President Bush chant ``drill, drill, drill'' to appease, it appears, their big oil buddies, the truth is we can't drill our way out of this problem. What we need is a commonsense solution, solutions like the bill before us today. H.R. 6052 won't solve all of our problems, but it does start the process of getting people to change their habits and get out of their cars by providing them options of transportation that allow them to get to where they're going without driving solo in their cars. It's steps like this that can make a big difference because public transportation is going to play a huge role in solving our energy problems. It will also make a difference in what is going on in our environment. It will help communities not have to build more and more roads, and it will get people where they're going in a very efficient way. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support the expansion of public transportation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, there is an old saying: Everybody complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it. That is pretty much what we are doing in Iraq. In testimony before Congress and from press conference to press conference, administration officials have said that the most important item on our agenda for Iraq, right after security, is reconciliation. In fact, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said before the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee that reconciliation is perhaps the most critical challenge that Iraq faces right now. Even the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of recognized leaders in foreign policy and governing, wrote that: National reconciliation is essential to reduce further violence and maintain the unity of Iraq. And its report recommended that diplomats work to energize countries to support national political reconciliation in Iraq. But this is not just the goal of the United States, Madam Speaker. The Iraqis themselves are calling for reconciliation. Before a meeting of the United Nations, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, and I quote him, he said, ``Reconciliation lays the foundation for political, social, economic progress, and the security that we strive for.'' This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, Madam Speaker. It isn't a Sunni or a Shia or Kurd issue. It isn't an American or Iraqi issue. Reconciliation is an issue that has something to do with all of us. It is the pathway for stability and peace in Iraq, and it is the pathway throughout the region. One news agency has dedicated itself to providing real resources, training, and assistance for reconciliation in Iraq. Since the year 2004, the United States Institute of Peace, the USIP, has been working in Iraq at the national and local level building peace community by community and neighborhood by neighborhood. USIP has focused on preventing sectarian violence at the local level, developing leaders in schools, universities, government, and civil society, promoting the rule of law, engaging women in public life, and increasing regional stability. All this with a tiny staff, only three USIP staff members and eight Iraqi staffers. Despite the scarcity of resources, 120 Iraqis have been trained to be reconciliation facilitators. They will go into communities to help to work towards real solutions, making neighborhoods safer, promoting transparency and accountability, and so much more. The work they do is amazing and it is awe inspiring. Sadly, the resources available are meager in comparison to what we are spending to wage war. That is why it is time to bring our troops and private contractors home, to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. And that is why I, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Christopher Shays, introduced H.R. 5925, International Partnership for Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2008. This legislation will ensure that USIP will have the funding and support it needs to continue and to expand. I urge all of my colleagues to do something: Cosponsor the bill, H.R. 5925, so that we can work with the Iraqi people, so we can work within the international community, and we can reconcile that area. I urge you to cosponsor H.R. 5925. Enough talking about the problem. It is time to do something.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on June 24, 2008, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 442. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 442--``no''--On Motion to Adjourn.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today Congress is yet again faced with the choice of approving the Bush administration's unconstitutional expansion of executive branch authority in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, or defending the Constitution and protecting the civil liberties of Americans. The choice could not be more clear and consequences more grave. Passing this legislation today will be the enduring legacy of the Bush administration. It will provide the Congressional seal of approval for years of the White House's stonewalling on Congressional oversight, eroding Congress's authority, and violating the Constitution. A vote in favor of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, is a vote for the Bush administration's expansive interpretation of executive power and against the Constitution. That's why I must oppose this legislation. H.R. 6304 permits mass, untargeted surveillance of all phone and email conversations entering or leaving the U.S. without basic, let alone adequate, protections for Americans' civil liberties. Communications of millions of Americans will be swept up because of reduced reverse targeting protections and minimized court oversight. This bill enables the Government to walk through an enormous loophole by suspending prior court review of intelligence surveillance applications at their discretion. Additionally, there are no safeguards to protect Americans whose information is unintentionally obtained. H.R. 6304 dispenses with real oversight by the court, a requirement fundamental to upholding the Constitution. Furthermore, this legislation provides nothing less than de facto immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law. District courts will be forced to dismiss pending cases if they receive a certification from the Attorney General that telecommunication companies were asked to turn over their customers' records. There is no determination if the request was legal. No due process. No penalty. No accountability. Exactly what the Bush administration wanted all along. We should never sacrifice commitment to the rule of law and our system of checks and balances for broad, unbridled power to suspend Americans' civil liberties at will. Unfortunately, this new FISA bill does just that. Elected officials have a solemn responsibility to defend our country, and, like my colleagues, I support a modernization of our intelligence laws. But being asked to support either our intelligence community or protecting civil liberties is a false and dangerous dichotomy. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that, ``those who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.'' With this bill, I believe we have proven him right.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, ensuring that local law enforcement officials are provided with the resources they need to effectively protect our communities requires nothing less than our sustained commitment and dedication. That's why I am proud to support of H.R. 3546, the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, Reauthorization Act. The Byrne-JAG program provides State and local governments with the tools necessary to prevent and control crime while strengthening our criminal justice system. These grants help fund law enforcement programs targeting school violence, hate crimes, and victims of violent crimes. Additionally, Byrne-JAG grants enable state, regional, and local agencies to confront and overcome the threats posed by drug trafficking through providing essential funding to improve drug enforcement and treatment programs. By using these grants to develop multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, law enforcement officials from around the country have been able to foster institutional collaboration built on their shared expertise and training. Last year, the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County in my Congressional District were fortunate enough to receive Byrne-JAG grants, which went to support programs designed to assist in the prevention of drug use, treat non-violent offenders, and improve the effectiveness of our criminal justice system. That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 3546, which would reauthorize the Byrne-JAG program until 2012. Despite the Bush Administration's efforts to eliminate funding for this important program, I commend the Democratic Leadership for demonstrating their commitment to full funding for Byrne-JAG by bringing this legislation to the Floor. Local law enforcement officials depend on Byrne-JAG grants to invest in strategies that combat crime and drugs. Without these resources, State and local law enforcement cannot take the steps they need to protect our families and our country's most precious resources, our children and young adults, from violence and drug abuse. Madam Speaker, it's our responsibility to make certain these brave men and women have the support necessary to perform their jobs. It's the least we can do.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to thank the chairman for the time and for this legislation that is bipartisan. When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act nearly two decades ago, we did so to ensure that persons with disabilities can learn, work, and live their lives just like everyone else. People with disabilities just want the same opportunities as everyone else. And if their disabilities can be reasonably accommodated, we must make it possible and make sure that they are given the chance to do so. By saying that people with disabilities who use medication or prosthetics to manage their disabilities are no longer considered disabled under the ADA Act, the courts have prevented many with disabilities from receiving the protections Congress intended for them. H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act, would ensure that the ADA protects all people with disabilities from workplace discrimination by clarifying the definition of discrimination. This bill further clarifies that individuals who are able to manage their disabilities enough to participate in major life activities, like holding a job, should still be entitled to protections from discrimination. The ADA was passed to ensure that all people with disabilities have equal access and opportunities, and it's time that we bring back its original intent. Today we can do that. It's a matter of doing what is right. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the importance of homeownership can't be underestimated. That's why I support H. Res. 1271, a bill to recognize National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. For most Americans, homeownership represents security for themselves and their families. Unfortunately in recent months, homeownership (a cornerstone of the American Dream) has been tarnished by an unscrupulous mortgage industry that has trapped far too many families into paying for homes they can't afford. In my district, all over California, and across the country, we are seeing family after family fall into foreclosure, as their dreams turn to dust, and they hand over their prize possession to the bank. So, as we consider this bill in support of homeownership, I think it's important that we also don't forget the homeowner . . . those past, present and future, who need the assistance of this Congress to ensure they get a fair deal. Mr. Speaker, it's my hope that those who vote in favor of this bill, H. Res. 1271, will also join in passing real housing reform to bring about systemic changes to help more Americans be able to achieve the goal of owning their own home, on fair terms, at affordable prices.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, nothing has stained the honor of the United States in recent years like the use of torture against detainees, detainees in Iraq and detainees elsewhere. Torture goes against our Nation's most basic values, and it undermines the American people's reputation as a compassionate and committed people to human rights. Torture is not only immoral; it has a practical damaging effect on our foreign policy. When America is involved in torture, we lose the moral authority that is our most powerful weapon in the fight against terrorism. How can we lead the world against terrorism when the world believes that we don't respect the rule of law ourselves? That is why I want to call attention to a new report on torture that was issued last week by the group Physicians for Human Rights. This group assembled a team of doctors and psychologists to evaluate former detainees held in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The team found that the detainees were tortured, even though no charges were ever brought against them or any explanation ever given for their imprisonment. The torture consisted of beatings, electric shocks, involuntary medication, shackling, and sexual humiliation. Other techniques were used, but they are far too awful for me to mention here. One Iraqi detainee who was held for a time in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison said he was subjected to psychological abuse as well as physical torture. He said that his captors threatened to rape his mother and his sisters. Former Major General Anthony Taguba, who conducted the Army's investigation of the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004, wrote a preface to the report. He said, ``In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The U.N. Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored . . . '' He continued: ``Through the experiences,'' he said, ``of these men . . . we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted, both on American institutions and our founding values.'' Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there will be some people who will try to discredit this report by charging that it was prepared by a group determined to embarrass the administration. But if they don't believe this report, perhaps they will believe the reporting of the McClatchy newspapers, which conducted an 8-month investigation of the U.S. detention system created after 9/11. The McClatchy investigation found ``that the United States imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights, and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay into a school for jihad.'' This House did the honorable thing a few months ago when it voted to stop the use of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation techniques. Forty-three retired generals and admirals supported that bill. Eighteen national security experts, including former Secretaries of State and national security advisers, supported it as well. But the President vetoed this bill, sending the world a message that America condones torture. Torture doesn't work. It doesn't produce good information. It exposes our own troops to torture if they are captured. It creates enemies. In short, torture doesn't make us stronger; it makes us weaker. Congress must recognize these facts and move to restore our Nation's good name. The best way to begin to do that is by redeploying our troops out of Iraq and then help the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives and their country. I know that this won't happen soon given last week's vote on funding for the occupation of Iraq. But sooner or later, Congress must act. Redeploying out of Iraq will help to heal the wounds of torture and right the wrongs. Mr. Speaker, it's time for America to be America again: peace loving, compassionate, and a true champion of human rights, and restore our dignity.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for over 5 years, the administration has had a single-minded obsession with the occupation of Iraq. It has poured our troops and our treasure into a misguided foreign adventure, while ignoring our Nation's real security needs, both at home and abroad. I want to mention just a few of the ways that Iraq tunnel vision has blinded us to what we really need to be focusing on. First, the occupation of Iraq has weakened our efforts in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Gates has acknowledged that many Europeans do not support the NATO mission in Afghanistan because they oppose the American occupation of Iraq. He has said, and I quote ``Many (Europeans) have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan.'' Second, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves have said that the use of the Guard and Reserves in Iraq has seriously weakened their ability to protect us from threats to the homeland. These threats could include terrorist attacks using chemicals, biological and nuclear weapons. Third, just as our Guard and Reserves have been stretched too thin, our entire military has been stretched to the breaking point. Many of our most senior military leaders have been warning us for quite some time now that the occupation of Iraq has compromised our ability to respond to genuine threats elsewhere in the world. Fourth, our occupation of Iraq has strengthened the hand of the pro- nuclear regime in Iran. The occupation has destabilized the region, giving Iran the chance to gain influence among its neighbors. We must stand with our international partners, and we must work with international organizations to put strong diplomatic pressures on Iran to behave responsibly. We must begin direct negotiations with Iran. We cannot allow the occupation of Iraq to spread to a war with Iran. That would be another catastrophic mistake. Iran would retaliate against our troops in Iraq and against our allies and interests throughout the region. Oil would spike, further threatening our economy right here at home. Fifth, the occupation of Iraq has seriously undermined America's standing in the world. My colleague on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Delahunt of the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, issued a report on this subject just last week, a report that I hope every Member of the House will read. The report describes the alarming decline in how the people of the world view the United States. There has been a 45-percent drop in America's favorability rating in Indonesia, a 41 percent drop in Morocco and a 40 percent drop in Turkey. The United States is now viewed unfavorably by 82 percent of the people in Arab countries, and there has been a 26-point increase in Europe for the view that U.S. leadership in world affairs is undesirable. The report finds that two of major causes for this unprecedented and widespread decline are the occupation of Iraq and the torture and abuse of prisoners. In addition, the people of the world believe that America's decisions are made unilaterally without regard to international law or standards, making our rhetoric about democracy quite hypocritical. The administration has told us that the occupation of Iraq is all about spreading democracy in the Middle East. Yet, here we have clear evidence that their policy is failing, because you cannot bomb and blast your way to democracy. There can be no doubt that the occupation of Iraq has weakened America's defenses in many, many ways. The only solution is to responsibly redeploy our troops and military contractors out of Iraq. That way we can get back to the business of conducting an effective foreign policy, safeguarding our Nation's security, and working with the international community to bring peace to the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. First I want to thank Congressman Davis and Congresswoman Maloney for this excellent, excellent bill. Thank you, and I know that it has been 10 years in the working, and I also know it is time that it passed. Mr. Speaker, investing in our working families is the very best way we can strengthen our workforce, our economy, and our country. I am the chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and, as the leader of that committee, and with the hearings we have held, we have learned that the most generous leave policies don't help families who cannot afford to take leave without pay. It's as simple as that. As a Nation, we must support working families, and we can do that by providing them with the help they need to balance their work and their family. No parent should ever be forced to choose between the needs of their family and the needs of their job or the possible loss of that job. I look forward to the day that my own legislation, the Balancing Act, will be passed. The Balancing Act provides working families the help they need to balance work and family, paid leave, increased child care, voluntary universal preschool, school breakfast, afterschool programs, and incentives for flexible work schedules. If children are lucky enough to have two parents, both parents are probably in the workforce. They are working long hours, they are commuting long distances, and these very same parents are working to put food on the table. They put food on the table, but they are quite often not able to be there to eat that food with their families. H.R. 5781 is a perfect example of what we must do as a Nation. It is a step in the right direction. It will prove how important it is to provide leave with pay.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not to the rule but to this bill. Mr. Speaker, today will go down in history as a failed opportunity. For $165 billion we could begin funding a safe and responsible redeployment of our troops and military contractors from Iraq. Instead, we are giving the President a blank check . . . actually, more than he asked for. Our Nation--whether through blood or treasure--cannot afford to continue this endless occupation of Iraq. This bill will appropriate $165.4 billion for the Department of Defense. That could be a down payment on real change for Iraq--for reconciliation, reconstruction, and refugee resettlement. We have spent half a trillion dollars . . . and we have lost 4,101 troops and over 30,000 have been injured or maimed. Four million Iraqis have been displaced and unknown thousands have been killed. The cost is unsustainable and we must put an immediate stop to this madness. We must not cave to the demands of the White House. I urge my colleagues to vote against funding for the occupation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, an informed citizenry is one of the cornerstones of our American democracy. In order to make the right decisions about our country's policies, Americans must know the facts. That is why every member of the administration and every Member of Congress has the duty to be honest and open with all of us. This is especially true when it comes to decisions about war and about peace, because the lives of our soldiers are actually on the line. But recent events have reminded us that when it comes to Iraq, we have not always had the information that we need. Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report on Iraq that actually proved this. It showed that before the invasion began, the American people were told that there was a strong connection between Iraq and terrorist groups like al Qaeda. But the committee found that there was no conclusive intelligence to support such a claim. Also, the American people have recently had the chance to read the book by a former White House press secretary who acknowledges that propaganda was used to sell the American people on supporting the invasion of Iraq. And this House, this House of Representatives, is pretty familiar with the Pentagon's spin operation to get retired military officers to give us a rose-colored view about the situation in Iraq. The House has voted to stop the Pentagon from continuing such a program, and the Pentagon is expected to respect that ban. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They need to have a true and accurate picture about what is currently happening in Iraq. That's why every Member of this House should be demanding that the administration give Congress the facts about its current status-of- forces negotiations with the Iraqi Government. I have repeatedly demanded that the administration share this information with Congress, including the establishment of permanent bases, because there was an alarming report in the press that the United States may actually be planning nearly 60 permanent bases in Iraq, this happening after the House has voted multiple times to prohibit permanent bases in Iraq. Over the weekend, senior Iraqi leaders called for a complete exit of all U.S. troops, and they called for this at the expiration of the current U.N. mandate which comes this fall. Imagine their opinion of the United States' permanent bases in their country. Sixty permanent bases are absolutely unacceptable. One permanent base is unacceptable. This House has voted many times, as I said, against the establishment of permanent bases, and the administration should not try to get around that by making fine, legalistic points about what constitutes a ``permanent base.'' In fact, we must apply the duck test. If it looks like a permanent base, if it walks like a permanent base, it is a permanent base. Because the economy has replaced Iraq as the top news story of the day, some may be lured into thinking that nothing very important is happening in Iraq these days. Well, one important statistic is, if it has not happened today, we are about to report 5,000 of our troops dead, but nothing could be further from the truth about not being important. While we aren't paying attention, the administration is negotiating status-of-forces negotiations that could make our country a foreign occupying power in the Middle East for years or for even decades to come. What a grave mistake that would be keeping our troops in harm's way and continuing the best recruiting tool that the terrorists could ask for. Instead of planning for a permanent occupation, the United States needs to follow a very different path. We should redeploy our troops and military contracts. We should give the Iraqi people back their sovereignty. We should help them rebuild their shattered country. We should work with the international community to bring peace and stability to the region. Mr. Speaker, Congress must demand to know what is being negotiated in the name of the American people. What deals are being cut? What is going on behind closed doors? What exactly is the administration demanding and why? It is time for the American people to have the facts, and it is time to safely and responsibly bring our troops and independent contractors home and to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the ordering of the yeas and nays be vacated on House Resolution 1247 and House Concurrent Resolution 350 to the end that the Chair put the questions de novo.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to recognize the passing of a valued colleague, Santa Rosa Mayor Bob Blanchard. Mayor Blanchard died June 14, 2008, at the age of 70, leaving a hole in the heart of his community and his family. He will be long remembered for his good humor, enthusiasm, and commitment to the city he loved. Twenty-seven years ago, Bob and his family moved to Santa Rosa from southern California. He and his wife Angelyn raised their two children, daughter Cameron and son Matt, in the city, where they appreciated the quality of life it offers to families. It was his dedication to ensuring this quality for future generations that led Bob into public service. After serving a stint in the Army, Bob had worked as a deputy sheriff in Riverside County as well as teaching at Riverside Community College. In 1978, he earned a doctorate in government, and his career shifted toward administration and teaching in the field of criminal justice and political science. This direction led to his move to Santa Rosa to serve as the director of Santa Rosa Junior College, SRJC, Police and Fire Academy. He eventually became a dean and a political science instructor at SRJC where he enjoyed working with young people. Although he had retired as a member of the regular faculty, Bob had stayed involved as an adjunct instructor. Bob was also a founder of Tomorrow's Leader Today, a program that prepares high school juniors to be community leaders. He is remembered for his warmth and humor in inspiring the teenagers to be their best. In 1994, Bob was appointed to the Santa Rosa Planning Commission, serving until his election to the City Council in 2002. He was re- elected in 2006 and then selected by his council colleagues to serve as mayor. Bob and I have not always agreed on issues, but his ability to work with all sides to address concerns facing the city of Santa Rosa made him a leader for all and a spokesman on important issues such as transportation, outreach to diverse communities, public safety, and boosting the city whenever and wherever he could. He always endeavored to forge an appropriate compromise with the same humor and good spirit that characterized all his relationships. ``Work'' is the operative word for Bob. Despite his off-and-on battle with cancer, he maintained a heavy work load, representing the community to the best of his ability and never losing his enthusiasm. During this time he traveled to Santa Rosa Sister Cities in Korea and Mexico and was instrumental in helping the city earn a designation as All America City. In addition to Angelyn, his wife of 41 years, and his two children, Bob is survived by two grandchildren. Madam Speaker, I know Bob's colleagues would agree that he respected all people on all sides of an issue and dedicated himself to finding solutions. Whether serving on regional commissions, presiding over council meetings, or representing the city at civic events and in the halls of Congress, Bob did it with the grace, intelligence, and compassion that will be his lasting legacy. I will miss working with him, and I will especially miss his friendship.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, for over 5 years, the American people have seen the administration break one promise after another when it comes to Iraq. Now, another promise is being broken. This time, it has to do with the stop-loss policy, a policy that forces soldiers to stay in the military when their unit deploys to Iraq within 90 days of the end of the soldiers' enlistment period. Stop-loss means that troops must continue to serve even when their enlistment period has expired. In January 2007, Secretary of Defense Gates ordered the military services to limit the number of stop-loss troops. For a while, in fact, the order seemed to be working. The number of troops affected by the policy dropped to about 8,500. However, now the number is back up to 11,000, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said just last week that the number of stop-loss troops would continue to rise over the next couple of years. Stop-loss soldiers are forced to serve an average of over 6 months more than they signed up for. This creates enormous stress, Madam Speaker, and it also creates great strain on the soldiers and on their families. The multiple deployments that many of our troops face make the hardship even worse. The stop-loss policy is actually a backdoor draft, but it is even worse than that. It is a breach of trust with the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country. They deserve a lot better treatment and a lot more respect than that. The stop-loss policy is causing a great deal of suffering, but our troops and veterans are suffering in many other ways as well. It is easy for some of us to convince ourselves that everything is just hunky-dory with our troops now because Iraq has disappeared from our television screens. But while the conflict may have disappeared from television, it has not disappeared from the lives of our troops and from the lives of their families. Over 300,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have major depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the Rand Corporation. That is one in five who have served, and an additional 320,000 have sustained head injuries. The great majority of these injuries were sustained in Iraq. Only half of those suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress have sought treatment actually because many fear that it will harm their military careers. And half of those who have received treatment have gotten only ``minimally adequate'' treatment. That, too, is according to Rand. And there was also a very disturbing report in the press today that the Veterans Administration has tested drugs on veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress without telling them about the possible mental side effects. Congress must conduct a full investigation of that report. Most tragically, suicides among members of the Army have been rising steadily during the occupation. In 2007, 150 soldiers committed suicide, Mr. Speaker, compared with 67 in 2004. About a quarter of the deaths occurred in Iraq. And an average of five U.S. soldiers attempted suicide every day in the year 2007. Before the occupation, the number was one per day. However, not everyone is being hurt by the occupation. Some people are doing quite well, thank you, and they've got the money to prove it. Chairman Waxman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has asked the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to investigate ``potentially thousands of criminal cases involving fraudulent contracts in Iraq.'' Hundreds of millions of dollars could be involved. And the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has already reported that millions of dollars in contracts have been wasted. Mr. Speaker, we must hold the administration accountable for every dollar spent in Iraq. We must do everything we can to give our veterans the best possible care. We cannot allow war profiteering to go on while our injured veterans lack the care that they need.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, I join U.S. and international labor organizations in their strong concern about this bill. As introduced, the bill goes a long way to improve upon the President's request. The human rights protections have been strengthened, but must be further improved. We must ensure that before any agreement is authorized and funded, the most basic human and labor rights have been guaranteed. I have strong concerns about abuses committed by Mexican and some of the Central American law enforcement agencies. Labor activists and community leaders have been harassed, arrested, and physically assaulted. Many live in fear for themselves and for their families. I am concerned that these same law enforcement officials will be receiving military-style training, transportation, and weapons. Do we want to be putting military helicopters and weaponry in their hands? We must proceed with extreme caution on this proposal. I will have to oppose the legislation in its current form. I hope that we will be able to address the concerns of human and labor rights leaders here at home and in the Merida nations when the bill is in conference with the Senate version.