Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 95, the resolution now under consideration.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Con. Res. 95 honors a pioneer in the world of computing, Dr. Frances Allen, the first woman awarded the A.M. Turing Award by the Association for Computing Machinery, ACM. The Turing Award is widely considered to be the Nobel Prize of computing. By being the first female recipient, Dr. Allen has set the bar as a role model for women everywhere who aspire to a career in math and science. As a scientist at IBM since the early 1960s, Dr. Allen pioneered new technologies which serve as the basis for complex theories which are widely used today throughout the computer industry. She is regarded as a pioneer in the field of optimizing compilers and has developed several programming languages that have advanced the field of computer science. Dr. Allen also helped create one of the first automatic debugging systems, and developed the advanced code-breaking language known as Alpha, which revolutionized how computers talk to each other and make computer programmers more efficient. As computer science was ramping up in the early 1980s, Dr. Allen founded the Parallel Translation Group, the PTRAN, to study compiling for parallel machines. Subsequently, this group was recognized as one of the top research groups in the world dealing with this issue, and as a result, Dr. Allen was the first woman to be recognized as an IBM fellow in 1989. In addition to her outstanding scientific achievement, Dr. Allen has also been an inspirational mentor to younger researchers and a leader within the computing community. With the Nation's information technology workforce suffering from a lack of qualified candidates, it is all the more important, Madam Speaker, that Dr. Allen be recognized as the first female recipient of the A.M. Turing Award to show what women can accomplish. It is certainly telling that women who earn more than half of all undergraduate degrees in this country and make up more than half of the professional workforce represent only 25 percent of all high-tech workers. In fact, the percentage of women graduating with degrees in computer science has fallen from 37 percent of total graduates in 1985 to just 15 percent in 2005. With grim statistics like these, it is clear that we are going to close the gap and ensure that information technology sectors have enough workers only if we get young women into this workplace. And Dr. Allen has done just that. As a member of the Advisory Council of the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, her goal has been to increase the participation of women in all aspects of technology. With her accomplishments in computing, it is clear that Dr. Allen lives up to the goals she sets for others and is a role model for women in science and technology. Madam Speaker, Dr. Frances Allen has succeeded at the highest levels of math and science. It is clear that she deserves recognition for all of the tireless work she has done to promote women's roles in computing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, not only in congratulating Dr. Allen on her success, but to show that this Congress supports an increased presence of women in science and technology. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I am proud to have brought H. Con. Res. 95 to the floor today. Dr. Allen has contributed much to the world of science and technology. She is most deserving of this honor, and we are extending to her today our congratulations. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank Chairman Payne and Congressman Barbara Lee for bringing this important issue before us today. Madam Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor and in support of H. Res. 272, which celebrates the end of what was one of the most horrific and immoral human rights abuses in history, slavery. The slave trade must be remembered. It has to be remembered for its brutality, for its inhumane cruelty, and for the injustices that it caused millions of families. I say families, because for every one of the more than 12 million Africans forced from his or her homeland, subjected to the Middle Passage, that terrifying journey on slave ships, overwhelmed by disease and left in famine, every one of those folks left a family behind in grief or they were separated by slave traders. These human beings taken from their homeland and stripped of their freedom suffered more than a loss of their humanity and of their families, however; many times they lost their very culture, their language, their religion and their true homeland. It is important to remember that many of those captured in the slave trade did not survive the journey. Indeed, for every 100 slaves who reached the new world, another 40 died in Africa or during the Middle Passage. This resolution, H.R. 272, is important because it recognizes the injustices of the transatlantic slave trade and the historical significance of its abolition. In order to come to terms with slavery and the impression of black Americans in our past, it is also important that we acknowledge not only the historical events of the slave trade and of slavery, but also its legacy, its lasting effects on the lives of every single American. We see even today the long-term consequences of slavery in the persistent inqualities between black and white Americans, the economic disparities, poverty rates, and the discrimination that still lives in our country today. Educating and teaching future generations about the historical wrongs of the slave trade can help because it could help prevent such crimes against humanity in the future, but it will also identify many forms of slavery that still exist, forms that we pretend aren't there. So I urge my colleagues, support H.R. 272.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to thank my colleague from California (Ms. Solis) for introducing this bill. I would like to thank Chairman Lantos for working to bring it to the floor as quickly as he did. Madam Speaker, one of the top priorities of this 110th Congress has been to protect women's rights and to prevent violence against them. That is why I am particularly proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, H. Res. 100, a resolution that brings the same kind of commitment to the women and girls of Guatemala. The supporters of H. Res. 100 are speaking loudly against the systematic abuse and sexual violence that the women and girls of Guatemala face. Since the year 2001, 2,000 women and girls have been murdered. We are saying that it's beyond time for the Guatemalan government to stand up against these inexcusable and inhumane acts. They are acts of violence, and they must punish the offenders. We want them to put the resources necessary toward providing for investigations and for DNA testing. Today, with this resolution, this Congress stands up and offers more than our condolences. We offer our support. We stand with the women and the girls of Guatemala, and we pledge to bring safety and justice to them. We want their government to work with us to that end.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to commemorate an important event in the ongoing occupation of Iraq. On May 1, 2003, 4 years ago today, President Bush, the Commander in Chief, strode across the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared that the United States mission in Iraq was accomplished. Mission accomplished. Mission accomplished? I don't think so. Let's review what has and what has not happened in Iraq since May 1, 2003. American troops were not met in the streets with flowers as welcoming liberators. Instead, they've met with sniper attacks and IEDs. 3,351 American servicemen and women have given their lives, and nearly 25,000, probably more, have returned home seriously wounded. This administration has hidden the caskets of those who have perished, and forced the wounded to rehabilitate in mold-infested, rotting facilities. Are those actions of a grateful Nation? Does this mean mission accomplished? What about the weapons of mass destruction? Where are they? Nobody knows. Even former head of the CIA, George Tenet, is now backing away from his ``slam dunk'' comment. Yellow cake? Aluminum tubes? Al Qaeda ties to Saddam? An ousted CIA agent and a jail term for a senior administration official? It is as if this administration has been living in Alice's world of Wonderland. The mission is yet to be accomplished. An accomplished mission would have brought peace and democracy to the Iraqi people. Neighborhoods would be free, not walled off, and a bomb would not have been set in the Iraqi Parliament building. Estimates range upward from 50,000 Iraqis killed and tens of thousands of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries like Syria. This is not how to promote peace and democracy. Let's see. Thousands, tens of thousands of refugees, and the United States allowed 7 or 8 Iraqi refugees into our country last month. We've made all those refugees happen, and we are doing nothing to help them. It takes a small protection force to go to the market in Baghdad, and the Secretaries of State and Defense must make surprise visits to Iraq because their security might not be insured otherwise. So I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, what mission was accomplished? The destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure? The mass exodus of the educated and wealthy from Iraq? The mission of alienating the United States on the global stage? The rise of hatred in countries who might have been our ally? This is unacceptable, and the American people know it. They sent that message loud. They sent it clear last November, and it echoes unheard in the White House. What is clear, Mr. Speaker, is that this mission is not accomplished. The ultimate mission to be accomplished is to bring our troops home. Then we can say, ``Mission Accomplished.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (OSHA), passed in 1970, promised America's workers safe and healthy workplaces. However, OSHA has gaps in coverage and approximately 8.6 million State, county and municipal employees are not covered by the law. Public employees have the same health and safety problems as do private-sector workers but have no protection in more than 20 States and the District of Columbia. In addition, millions of airline and railroad employees, as well as Department of Energy contractors, are inadequately covered. Another sad reality is that many employees already covered by OSHA are afraid to report health and safety violations for fear of retribution. When an investigation does occur, however, workers and families are often left in the dark about the progress of the investigation, and too often, even when an employer commits multiple violations, penalties are weak and ineffective. The Protecting America's Workers Act improves upon OSHA in a number of ways: It raises civil penalties on employees and makes felony charges available against employers who commit willful violations. It also expands coverage to include public employees and millions of other workers who are inadequately covered by other laws. In addition, the Act improves upon current whistleblower protections, specifically giving workers the right to refuse to do hazardous work and protecting against employer retribution. Finally, it requires OSHA to investigate all cases of death and serious injuries and gives workers and families the right to meet with investigators. Since the passage of OSHA in 1970, much progress has been made. It has been reported that over 349,000 lives have been saved. Nonetheless, too many workers are still dying--5,764 in 2005--and millions of others are injured or become ill by working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. The provisions of the Protecting America's Workers Act strengthen OSHA so that it can meet its promise to ensure safe and healthy workplaces for all Americans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Smith for his work to bring this reauthorization and this important issue to the House floor, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee, Chairman Lantos, for moving the bill so quickly, and our wonderful chairman of the subcommittee for running the floor today in such a good manner. The United States has long been a haven for those who have been persecuted and those who have been victimized. One of our national symbols, actually the Statue of Liberty, opens her arms to welcome the most needy. This bill reaffirms our commitment, the United States commitment, to victims of torture. It will provide for essential services for these victims such as treatment of the physical and psychological effects of torture. It will provide for social and legal services. It will provide for research and training of health care providers to deal with the trauma of these victims. Madam Speaker, in a world that sometimes seems to be overrun with violence, a world that sees so much brutality, this bill actually provides hope for a group of people, those who have so little and need so much. I thank the authors of this bill for bringing it forward, and I certainly hope that every single Member of this body will vote in favor of it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to oppose this Conference Report. Our ultimate goal should be to bring our troops home in the fastest and safest way possible. Unfortunately, this Conference Report does not achieve that goal. I will continue to work with my colleagues to provide for a fully-funded withdrawal and to bring our troops home for the holidays. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, innovation in math, science, and technology is the way America will stay strong and competitive in this century. Unfortunately, we are seeing our children's test scores slip behind the rest of the industrialized world. In a recent exam to test the real-world application ability of mathematical concepts, U.S. high- school students ranked 24th out of 40 countries that were tested. As a mother and grandmother, I want all of our Nation's children to have the best possible education to empower them to be whatever they choose to be when they grow up. I can't help but be concerned with the idea that the America they will inherit will not be able to compete on the highest levels of the global marketplace. We must stem the tide of dropping test scores and fewer and fewer qualified teachers of science and math. That's why I rise in support of H.R. 362, the 10,000 minds, 10 million Science and Math Scholarship Act. It's not enough that we have the scientists to drive the innovation to keep us competitive. We also need to be producing the educators to mentor and impart wisdom to our youth so that they can expand their fields of knowledge, innovate new technologies, discover new medicines, and answer questions we once thought unanswerable. In a global economy, competition is going to keep increasing, and unless we take definitive action to increase our science and math capabilities, we are going to be left behind. H.R. 362, under the leadership of Chairman Gordon, is part of the definitive action we must take to get more qualified teachers in place to ensure that our kids have the knowledge and skills at hand to continue to lead the world. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 362 and to help put America on track to remain strong, competitive, and well-educated in math and science.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues, I have received thousands of e-mails, letters, faxes and phone calls about the ongoing occupation of Iraq. So many of them are touching, and they are impassioned. They urge me, they call on me, and they even beg me to get the administration to bring our troops home, and to allow the Iraqis to restore the security of their Nation. Last week I received a set of letters that stood out among all of them, from Ms. Rene King's students at Sheppard School in Santa Rosa, California. Most of the children are 9 through 13 years old, yet their thoughts are mature and beyond their age. In fact, their words speak so much truth, a truth which we can absolutely not ignore. From Marcos, 10 years old, ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? Because the people in Iraq aren't safe. Their villages and houses are destroyed. I do not like fighting.'' From Arturo, 11 years old. ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? There is a lot of killing, a lot of people have died. People want to get out of fighting. I feel sad when people die.'' From Freddy, 11 years old. ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? I do not like fighting and killing people. Some people are dead. Don't send my people, please. We don't like to fight all the people. The people are sad. We need to save money for poor people here in America. Ms. King (my teacher) is sad. Stop sending people into the war.'' From Tony, 11 years old. ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? There are a lot of sad and crying families. I feel sad in our country. I don't like when people are mad at our country. I do not feel safe and other people do not feel safe.'' From Genaro, age 13, ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? There is a lot of killing. More than 3,000 Americans have died. Stop sending people to the war. We need to save the money for poor people here in America.'' From Yovany, age 12, ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? There is a lot of killing. We need to save money for the poor people. More than 600,000 Iraqis have died. Please stop sending people to the war.'' From Jose, 10 years old. ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? The people of Iraq aren't safe in their villages, and houses are destroyed. More than 3,000 Americans have died. Please stop sending people to war.'' From Tomas, age 9, ``Can you please stop the war in Iraq? There is a lot of killing. A lot of people have died. More than 3,000 Americans have died. Families are being broken apart.'' From Steven, age 12. ``Can you stop the war, please? A lot of people have died. Please, I don't like wars. No one feels safe. If you keep sending soldiers, more people will be sad.'' One student, Angelina, wrote directly to the President, and here is what she wrote. ``I think you are making a big mistake. I like you, but your choices make me mad. You need to ask your people about war. I know these people said they will serve the Army. They never said they wanted to die there. If you were ever able to run again, Mr. President, I would not vote for you. I wish I could say you are helping, but you are not. There is another way to handle things other than guns and bombs. I think you should be more like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. President. He thought there was another way to handle things than war. I think the United States needs a different President.'' These words are honest, these words are true. If only more people listen to the children, the future of this Nation may be different. What a better world we could be living in.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Juanita Millender-McDonald. We already miss you, your beautiful face, your elegance and grace, your tenacity and spirit. Your absence will leave a void that will never, ever be filled. And that is what we know about you here without question in the House of Representatives, so we can only guess how much you are going to be missed by your beloved family. They, in their grief, however, can always take solace in their pride and in their love and their appreciation of such an amazing woman. Beloved wife, mother of five, grandmother of five, Member of the California Assembly, Member of the United States House of Representatives, and in the end, the very first African American woman to become chairwoman of a full committee. Because of this position, this elegant persuasive woman's portrait will hang in the Halls of Congress for the rest of time. And over the years she will watch over the activities of her House Administration Committee. And believe me, she will be expecting excellence. So while Juanita rests, she expects each and every one of us to keep on going until we can go no more; and because of her example, we will do our very best. We already miss you, Juanita, and we will remember you always.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, several months ago the administration announced the so-called ``surge,'' or escalation of troops into Baghdad and the surrounding area. It was claimed by the administration that the escalation of over 2,800 more troops in Iraq was needed to get control of Baghdad and increase the security of the Iraqi people. Just what has been the result of that claim? The exact opposite. Instead of control, we are seeing a surge in violence. We are seeing a surge in bombings and attacks. On one day alone, Wednesday of this past week, 171 Iraqis were killed in a wave of bombings. These were people going about their lives, going to the market, going to work, riding the bus; 171 people. They are not just a number, they are mothers, they are fathers, sisters, brothers, friends, neighbors and, yes, children. The violence and brutality should not be ignored or swept under the rug or become just another statistic. These are people whose lives have been cut short. You have to wonder if anyone in Iraq is safe anymore, especially when a bomber can enter the green zone and the parliament building to bomb the cafeteria. How can we expect Iraqi parents to send their children to school? How could we imagine how much courage it takes just to go to the market around the corner from your home for food? Not to mention the bravery it must take to volunteer to serve as part of the Iraqi security force. Our brave men and women in uniform are doing all they can do to provide security to the Iraqi people. It is not their fault that this security seems to be out of their reach. The fault lies entirely at the desk of one person, the Commander in Chief. He is sending troops back for third and fourth tours of duty, and he has extended those tours by months. How many of those troops were provided sufficient training or body armor? How many are given access to mental health care? And once they make it home, how many were left in the squalor of Walter Reed hospital? This is unacceptable and against everything our country stands for. Poll after poll has found that the Iraqis and the American public want an end to this occupation. Even this Congress has gone on record several times calling for an end to this occupation. The administration seems to be the only one who wants to stay the course, but it is time to face the facts. The mission is not accomplished. We are not winning. More people are dying every single minute and every single hour and every single day we stay in Iraq. I say enough is enough. Bring our troops home. I will not stop, I will not rest and I will not back down in my fight until every last soldier, Marine, airmen and sailor is home safe with his or her family.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the World Water Day resolution, H.R. 196, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of Congressman Blumenauer's resolution. The district I represent includes Marin and Sonoma Counties just north of San Francisco. My district is very ecologically diverse. In fact, we are putting new life into our wetlands, we are expanding our wetlands. We have wastewater treatment plants that make it possible for us to send our wastewater and use our wastewater to water our grapes, and we have one of the best grape growing counties in the country. In fact, in my very own backyard, my drip system that waters my yard is controlled by satellite because my town of Petaluma is experimenting. They picked 100 houses and asked us, would we let them use our drip systems as an experimental project; and it will indeed save me money and save water, I am sure. Along with that, many of our commercial and recreation activities in my district are focused around water. So even with programs like this throughout our country, throughout the world, we are squandering. We still squander this precious resource called water. World Water Day raises the profile of the issue. It means that we must keep on working, we must keep on paying attention to safe and sustainable water supplies, and we must make safe and sustainable water available without regard to any economic or any political boundaries. Recently, there has been an entirely renewed attention to global warming, and with that, we are paying more attention to our water resources and what we need to do to keep a safe and liveable world, not just for Americans, not just for Petalumans, but for everyone.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 200th time to express my disgust and dismay with our Nation's policy in Iraq. And I want to thank Bart Ackeocella, who has helped me with my many, many words calling on the President of the United States to bring our troops home. Forty-nine months after this failed Iraq policy was launched, we are still being told, Be patient. Progress is just around the corner. All of our sacrifices will somehow be worth it. But all that amounts to nothing more than desperate spin. And the American people aren't buying it; neither, apparently, are some top military brass. The administration can't find someone to take the job of war czar, a job that would coordinate the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the recruits for the job, retired Marine General Jack Sheehan, told The Washington Post last week that he would rather spare himself the ulcer, saying of the Bush administration, ``The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the hell they're going.'' How can the administration possibly say that Iraq is on the road to freedom and stability when a bomb goes off inside the Green Zone and kills members of the elected Parliament? If it's not safe inside the fortress of the Green Zone, just imagine what it is like in the streets of Baghdad. How can the administration say progress is being made when the Associated Press reports that dozens of Iraqi police officers were demonstrating outside their Baghdad station chanting, ``No, no to America. Get out, occupiers.'' And now American soldiers can look forward to a few more months of trying valiantly, but in vain, to carry out this misguided mission, as the Pentagon has announced that soldiers' 1-year tours will be extended to 15 months. I ask my colleagues who gave the President the authority to invade Iraq 4\1/2\ years ago if they weren't surprised that they voted for an occupation with no apparent end in sight. They absolutely didn't intend for our troops to be caught in the middle of a civil war that our very presence as occupiers has inspired. Four and a half years later, over 3,300 Americans who will never make it home to their families, and all at the cost of more than $375 billion to stop Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction that he didn't have. This week, Americans sent their 2006 tax returns to the IRS, trusting that our government will send that money back to us in the form of services, benefits, stability and security. So what do we tell them? What do we tell the American people about the staggering costs they are being asked to assume for the occupation of Iraq? Can anyone possibly argue that we have somehow gotten a return on this reckless investment? The National Priorities Project has broken down the Iraq financial burden, assuming a total of $456 billion once the latest supplemental is signed by the President. Here is what it boils down to: $4,100 for every American household; $1,500 for every man, woman and child; $275 million a day; $11 million every hour. Look what we could do with that kind of money: $928 million, 3 days in Iraq is enough to build 100 schools or 5,400 affordable housing units, or provide health care for 144,000 children for the length of the Iraq war. And if national security is what you want to redirect the money toward, we could have used Iraq appropriations for more secure posts, for energy independence initiatives, for nuclear nonproliferation programs, for debt relief in the underprivileged areas of the world. We could have invested in real national security. Mr. Speaker, we have sacrificed more than enough in lives, in treasure, in national stature and credibility for a mistaken ideological pipe dream. It is time for our leaders to hear the frustration of the American people, frustration with this shameful, wasteful, futile policy. It is time to end this occupation. It is time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. 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 and 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 life-saving screenings simply because they 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is really important that Americans hear every side of the budget argument. That is why I am proud to rise today to bring before the House the Congressional Progressive peace and security budget alternative. The peace and security budget balances by the year 2010, which is 2 years ahead of the Democratic budget, 2 years ahead of the Republican substitute, and light years ahead of the administration's budget, a budget that doesn't balance anywhere in a 10-year horizon. This chart, Madam Chairman, shows the Progressive budget, it shows the Congressional House budget, and it shows the President's budget. Very clear, indeed. This is about domestic spending, and we will get to that later. Now, let's look at exactly what happens when we meet our deficit and when we go into balance. This is the Progressive budget. This is the President's budget. Here we are. Here he is. We are light years ahead of the President's budget, and 2 years ahead of the Democratic budget. The peace and security budget cuts defense spending by $108 billion below the President's budget, all the while keeping America safe. Actually, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget spends $395 billion on defense. That is a lot of money. At the same time, the CPC alternative increases domestic discretionary spending to $483 billion, and this is this chart. Our spending is $89 billion over the President, $58 billion over the Democrats, and if you can believe this, it is $33 billion more than the social justice groups have been asking for. So here you are. We have the President's budget spending on domestic funding, we have the Democrats, and we have the Progressive Caucus. How do we get there? It's not as hard as you may think. You can vest in domestic programs if you aren't spending precious tax dollars on a misguided occupation of another nation. Because of this, we assume an end to the occupation of Iraq by the end of 2007. This will save us hundreds of billions of dollars in the next year alone. We also roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of income earners. That's people who make over $1 million a year. And we target waste, fraud and abuse at the Department of Defense, including savings of $60 billion a year by eliminating and reducing Cold War era relics that are still being produced in this country. With these savings, we are able to put money where it is most needed. The peace and security budget keeps its promise to a strong public education by fully funding No Child Left Behind, title I, which would expand services about $30 billion a year, and it also fully funds our commitment to special education, to IDEA. Our substitute moves us closer to the promise of a universal health care system by putting $75 billion over 5 years into SCHIP to cover all eligible children. We support a leaner, smarter and more effective national security program by investing in emphasizing greater diplomacy and less combat. Our budget makes the veterans health care an entitlement, including mental health services. The progressive budget invests $30 billion a year over 10 years to completely transform our energy policy to ensure that our children and our grandchildren will have clean and renewable energy sources. And, finally, we increase spending for domestic priorities like HIV/ AIDS, section 8 housing, and Community Development Block Grants. Madam Chairman, it is time we stand up and challenge what is possible in a Federal budget. The alternative prepared and brought here today by the Congressional Progressive Caucus does that and does it boldly. It puts money where we need it, it cuts programs that have for so long been sacred cows, and it says to our country, we want to take your tax dollars and invest them in the people of this Nation. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Barbara Lee, the co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the Chair of the Veterans' Committee, Bob Filner.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to bring to the gentleman from Florida's attention that his budget actually cuts Medicare and Medicaid by $250 billion, taking almost $98 billion out of Energy and Commerce and $154 billion out of Ways and Means. And then when he speaks about veterans and what our budget does or does not do in supporting veterans, I would like to remind him that the Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care, including mental health, an entitlement. It no longer throws veterans out there to be debated every year, whether they deserve what we know we have promised them and they more than deserve. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Hilda Solis, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Environmental and Hazmat Subcommittee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, who is a valued progressive voice in this Congress and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Global Warming Select Committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I would like first to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Rush from Illinois, a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, how much time do we have on both sides?