Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. Thank you, Congressman Farr, for those nice words and for standing here with me this evening. Mr. Speaker, tonight I come to the floor again, for the 165th time, to discuss the costs of the occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately, we all know too well the human cost of the occupation. More than 2,550 of our brave fighting men and women have died. Nearly 100 Iraqi civilians are killed every day. One might be able to justify these losses if the cause were justified, if Americans were safer because of our action in Iraq. Instead, the architect of the September 11 attacks, Osama Bin Laden, is still at large. The Middle East is literally going up in flames. Terrorism is increasing throughout the world. And when we turn our eyes home to America, we see so many squandered opportunities as a result of the Iraq occupation. If we hadn't been spending nearly $.5 trillion in Iraq, just think of what we could have done to strengthen our economy and our very own people. Think of the investments we could have made in our future right here at home. Think about the unmet needs of our children. For the cost of 15 days of the Iraq occupation, we could immunize every child in the United States against serious childhood diseases with all recommended vaccines for the cost of $4 billion. For the cost of almost 2 months of the occupation in Iraq, we could hire 460,000 teachers across America to lower average class sizes to 18 students, at the cost of $15 billion. For the cost of just over 2 months of the occupation of Iraq, we could provide basic health insurance to every American child currently making due without coverage. That cost would be $17 billion. For the cost of little more than 2 months of the occupation of Iraq, we could pay 1 year of tuition and fees at a 4-year public university for the 3 million high school seniors who graduated this spring. For the cost of just over 5 months of the occupation of Iraq, this could provide a 20 percent pay raise to 3 million public school teachers. Mr. Speaker, when will we learn? Congress, over my objections and those of many of my colleagues, gave the President the authorization to go to war. We did not give him permission to occupy Iraq, nor did we give him permission to neglect American children and jeopardize their future. It is time to bring our troops home from Iraq. It is time to focus on the education and health care of our Nation's children. The Congress can do this by passing my legislation, H.R. 5875, a bill to repeal the President's Iraq war powers. Tonight, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation. And I urge the leadership to consider this bill before we head home for the August break, before one more penny is wasted on occupying Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be something missing from the debate today. It is like the elephant in the room, no one wants to talk about it. Whatever happens to the United States' own commitment to nonproliferation? Yesterday, I went before the Rules Committee, and I had an amendment that was quite simple. It stated that until the President has implemented and observed all of our NPT obligations and revised its own policies relating to them, no item may be transferred to India, including exports of nuclear and nuclear-related material, equipment or technology. Unfortunately, my amendment was not included in this restrictive rule. As many of my colleagues have stated, this objection is not about the deal or our alliance with India. This is about how the Bush administration has made a mockery of the NPT and encouraged other countries to go around the treaty. Basically, the bill says that if a country ignores the NPT, the United States will cut a deal down the road. If anything, the U.S. is contributing to global nuclear proliferation with this agreement. Vote against the rule because in a world that is becoming more, not less, violent by the day we must face the facts. Until the United States lives up to its nonproliferation obligations, how can we possibly ask others to do so? Today, I will vote against this misguided bill. I will vote against the rule. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this evening I saw a film called ``The Ground Truth.'' It was about Marines in the infantry who had been sent to Iraq. These Marines were from all over the United States of America. It began introducing individual Marines, individual soldiers. And these individuals knew why they had enlisted. They were trusting their decision. They were feeling comfortable that they knew with who their enemy was and our enemy was dangerous and the danger was to the United States of America. They also knew that joining was their way out. Out of their towns, out of their neighborhoods, out of current dead-end situations; or up for training and/or education that would not be available to them outside of the military. Their eyes were clear. Their voices were firm. Their resolve was intact. They went off to boot camp. Boot camp gave them the steel they needed in their backbones. It gave them the practice they needed so they would be able to kill, kill their enemy. And they knew that that enemy was dangerous to the United States of America. Their heads were shaved. Their voices were hard. Their anger was stirred. They knew their enemy and they were ready to fight. So off they went to war. They went to Iraq or they went to Afghanistan. They got there. They went into battle against people, Iraqi people, recruits like themselves whom they considered were clearly their enemy. But then they found themselves killing children, running over them with their vehicles, on command firing on children, burning children. And women, one Marine told the story of mistakenly shooting a woman just before she waved a white handkerchief to show that they she was not an enemy. And men, men who could have been, or not, part of the insurgency. Never clear if they were killing innocents or if they were fighting the enemy. Their eyes became confused. Their voices became uncertain. Their resolve questioning. And while they were moving through these emotions from certainty to uncertainty, they and their buddies were being physically and mentally wounded. Those who were not killed or injured were likely to become victims of PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder. But they did come home if they were not killed. They came home with sad, sad eyes. They came home feeling like outsiders in their homes, in their communities, because they could not share what they had been living with the last 9 months to 1\1/2\ years. They were confused and they were ashamed by what they had done. They were questioning their mission. They were embarrassed because their families thought they were heroes and they saw themselves as pretty bad people. These men and these women, Mr. Speaker, were victims. They did what they were trained and commanded to do. In fact, one infantryman in the film said that at the end of the day, those who had not killed that day were chided by the others in their unit. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you can be certain that these young people were in desperate need of help. Physical, which is obvious; and mental, which is harder to assess because their needs were labeled ``behavior disorders.'' So these individuals joined the military, did their jobs, no longer liked themselves when they came home, but came home in great need of help to find it was very difficult and sometimes absolutely impossible to get the help they needed. One soldier hung himself. Others drank or used drugs, acted out in anger, made life impossible for their loved ones until they began to patch themselves up and their lives back together again, or did not. Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples of what war does to those who are trained to kill, who do their job and are left feeling guilty. We must end all war. We do not want to put other individuals through this.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2002, despite the objections of 133 Members, myself included, this body, the House of Representatives, voted to give the President of the United States the authority to launch a preemptive strike against Iraq. If we had the information on that day that we have now, I wonder how many votes the war resolution would have garnered. If we had known that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction; if we had known that the President was hell bent on going to war no matter what, regardless of the intelligence, with or without the U.N.'s blessing; if we had known that we would have still been occupying Iraq nearly 4 years later; if we had known that our occupation would give rise to a violent insurgency, sectarian strife, and all-out civil war; if we had known that the cost of this war would approach $.5 trillion; if we had known that more than 2,550 brave Americans would never come home and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians would be killed for the sake of their so-called liberation; if we had known of the atrocities and constitutional desecrations that would be committed in the name of war, from Abu Ghraib to domestic spying to Guantanamo Bay. Along with many of my colleagues, I raised these concerns at the time. We were vocal critics of the war before we even knew what a debacle it would become. But our objections were ignored and our voices drowned out by a steady drumbeat of misinformation coming from the administration and its allies. They raised the specter of a mushroom cloud in the chilling and disingenuous words of Condoleezza Rice. They insisted that the Iraqi people would greet us as liberators. They claimed that the war would be a cakewalk, with minimal cost of lives and taxpayer dollars. They assured us that the Iraq invasion would spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East, an assertion that has been proven tragically wrong by the recent hostilities between Israel and Lebanon. Anyone who disagreed with this view of the Iraq occupation had his or her loyalty of America called into question. Today the American people know the truth, that those of us who seemed like lonely dissenters were right all along. The American people agree that it is time to find a way out of Iraq, to end this occupation, because they know you cannot win an occupation. Our troops have been put in an impossible position without the proper training or equipment. They are being asked to carry out an open-ended occupation of a country wracked with centuries-old religious conflict and few democratic conditions on which to fall back. Moreover, this occupation has no legitimacy whatsoever, having never been authorized or ratified by the United States Congress. So today I introduced the Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006. It would reverse the fateful decision of nearly 4 years ago and allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority on matters of war and peace. It would strip from the President the powers he has shamelessly abused. From there we can and we must end this occupation, while using diplomacy, humanitarian and peacekeeping tools to help Iraq achieve long-term security and stability. But we must return Iraq to the Iraqis and return our brave soldiers to their families here at home, who anxiously await their return.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my good friend Rabbi Michael Robinson who died July 20, 2006, surrounded by friends and family at his home in Sebastopol, California. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have risen to honor this unique man who has dedicated his life to the cause of social justice at home and around the world. On the last occasion, several years ago Rabbi Robinson received a civil liberties award from the ACLU of Sonoma County recognizing a lifetime of achievements and his passionate advocacy for civil rights. From the American civil rights movement to the Nicaraguan Contra war to the Israel-Palestinian conflict Michael Robinson has been on the front lines promoting peace and the improvement of humanity. Born in North Carolina, Michael received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and attended North Carolina State College before enlisting in the Navy during World War II. He served in the Pacific and became a pacifist immediately after this experience. In 1952, after completing a course of study at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Michael became the first North Carolina native to be ordained as a rabbi. He later earned his doctoral degree from the New York Theological Seminary and served in temples in Seattle and Pomona as well as 29 years as an activist leader at Temple Israel in Westchester, New York. During the civil rights movement, the synagogue raised money to help rebuild the black churches that had been burned in the South and finance the van used by the Freedom Riders to tour the South. Michael marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, and expressed his convictions with these words: ``When I was ten years old I began sitting on the back seat of the bus with `colored people.' I never returned to the front seat.'' After moving to Sonoma County with his wife Ruth, Michael served Shomrei Torah, and is credited with growing the congregation from 30 families to now the largest Jewish congregation (175) in Santa Rosa, CA. Retired since 1996, Rabbi Robinson holds the title of Rabbi Emeritus at both Temple Israel and Shomrei Torah. In addition to promoting affirmative action, same sex marriage, affordable housing, and other equality issues, Michael has worked against nuclear war, apartheid, and all forms of injustice. He is known locally for his involvement in the Sonoma County Task Force on Homelessness, Children's Village, the Living Wage Coalition, Habitat for Humanity, the Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center, and the Sonoma Land Trust. A founding Member of Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action in 1996, Michael's words still resonate: ``I hope that my anger will not dissipate until justice is done and every man, woman and child has equal access to all the privileges of a democratic society and receives equal respect.'' Michael is survived by his wife Ruth, his sister Leah Karpen, his daughters Jude and Sharon, and 3 grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I share Rabbi Michael Robinson's hope that we as a nation can become better people and create a just society. And I join with his family and friends in the belief that we can best honor his life by making the work of peace and social justice a priority in our own lives.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Tim Friedman for his 30 years of dedicated service to the House of Representatives. Tim began his career on July 19, 1976, working as a Doorkeeper to the House Chamber under the Hon. James T. Molloy. After 6 years of helping to oversee admission to the House floor and galleries, Tim went on to work as an assistant to the Hon. Jack Russ in the House Sergeant at Arms office and eventually as Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom. Since my freshman term in Congress, his has always been a friendly face and a trusted source of information about what is happening on the House floor. Tim has been an active and integral part of the last 16 sessions of Congress, and he deserves the highest respect and recognition. Outside of work, Tim spends most of his time with his lovely wife Colleen and out on the golf course. I can speak for the rest of my colleagues when I say that we all look forward to hearing about his first hole-in-one. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Tim Friedman on his retirement after a remarkable career. We truly appreciate your hard work and dedication to our country, and I am sad to lose such an outstanding public servant and close friend.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of turn.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today is the 162nd time that I have come to the floor during Special Orders to discuss the U.S. role in Iraq. Unfortunately, very little has changed on the ground in Iraq over the course of these last 3 years and 162 speeches. Unfortunately, also, official visits to the region by our administration and those who represent the United States of America must still be in secret because the area is so very, very violent. Our troops increasingly face snipers, roadside attacks, ambushes, and improvised explosive devices, IEDs. Bombings continue to kill and wound nearly 100 Iraq civilians daily, and the country has slid into a civil war. One thing that has changed is this, the United States is now playing the role of occupier. President Bush claimed that the U.S. would go into the Iraq conflict as a liberator. These days, the more accurate statement is that the United States is an occupier. Our brave men and women of the Armed Forces have not been trained or equipped for this very mission. They are doing the very best they can under the circumstances, but their civilian superiors have let them down. Right now, the best way to support our troops is to set forth a plan to bring them home. In light of all of this, tomorrow several of my colleagues and I will introduce a bill that will revoke the President's Iraqi war powers. This legislation, the Iraq War Power Repeal Act of 2006, will return the war powers for Iraq back to Congress, back where our Founding Fathers intended. According to the President, all major war combat was completed just 6 months after Congress authorized the use of force. In fact, he said this while standing aboard an aircraft carrier before a banner reading ``Mission Accomplished.'' Therefore, the United States has no longer been at war since that statement of his 6 months into the war, but rather carrying out an occupation with absolutely no end in sight. The American and the Iraqi people want the United States troops out of Iraq; they want them home where they belong. Over the objections of many House and Senate Members 3\1/2\ years ago, the House voted to support the war in Iraq. We did not vote to support an occupation in Iraq. That is why our goal tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, is to have the congressional leadership allow an up-or-down vote on the occupation. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006 to end this madness once and for all, to stand up for our troops, to bring them home

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Michael J. Parman, who had a long and distinguished career as editor and publisher of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, the newspaper of record in Sonoma County. Mike Parman died on July 1st after a long fight against pancreatic cancer. His rise to the top of the North Coast's publishing world was marked by grit, determination and independence. His tenure at the Press Democrat was marked by excellence and community involvement. And his final days marked by self-awareness, humor and grace. Orphaned at 14, Mike raised himself in Reno, Nevada under the guardianship of two far-apart relatives. He attended Reno High School where he played basketball and was on the wrestling team. Inspired by his journalism teacher, Rex Daniels, he became a sports writer, and the school paper's sports editor, and wrote a weekly column for Reno's daily paper. Mike went on to the University of Nevada at Reno, where, while earning bachelors and master's degrees, he wrestled and boxed and worked as editor and sports editor of the campus paper, and continued to write for the Nevada State Journal. In 1967, he married Michaele McCulloch, the daughter of journalist Frank McCulloch and Jackie McCulloch, a marriage that lasted until his death and produced two children, Chris and Leah, who are now parents themselves. After completing his master's degree in 1968, Parman was called to military duty. He served as an Army journalist and photographer in Vietnam, where he earned a Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal. In 1970 he was hired as a reporter by the Pioneer Press, a group of weekly newspapers on Chicago's North Shore. He quickly rose to managing editor and at the same time worked as a stringer for Money Magazine. In 1973 he headed west for California, and worked briefly as a copy editor of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat before being hired at the Sacramento Bee. Starting at the copy desk, he successively was promoted to executive sports editor, weekend editor, assistant managing editor, and finally managing editor. When the New York Times acquired the then privately-owned Press Democrat in 1985, Mike saw an opportunity play a major role in remaking the paper. At the Press Democrat, Mike Parman, first as editor, then as publisher, oversaw several major graphic redesigns of the paper, the construction of a regional printing facility, and the winning of dozens of awards, including a Pulitzer for Photography and a Polk Award for a series of articles. During his 20 years at the Press Democrat, Mike Parman not only improved the look of the paper and the quality of its journalism and expanded its circulation; he also became deeply involved in community affairs. Mike Parman served as the President of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, on the board of directors of the Sonoma County United Way and on the Advisory Board of the Green Music Center and the North Bay Council. When Mike Parman retired for health reasons in December 2005, he did not give up his public voice. Instead, he took to the new media, and began writing an Internet ``blog,'' which gave a very personal account of how he, his family and friends were dealing with his cancer. Mike's blog revealed a man facing mortality and the terrors of cancer with courage, compassion and good humor. Going on vacation, Mike wrote that his cancer was a thing that he chose to leave behind. While undergoing chemotherapy, he wrote that he anticipated speaking at a rally where ``I will mop my sweating brow, gray hair will explode from my head and little children will run home screaming.'' And if he used medical marijuana, the rather straight laced Parman feared he would be ``Thrown in jail and forced to wear paisley pajamas the rest of my life.'' Mike Parman's blog brought heartfelt responses from dozens of cancer patients and survivors, because he not only expressed his own feelings, but hit a universal chord. ``We make every moment count,'' Mike Parman wrote. ``We love deeper. We live deeper. We soar on hope and laughter. We appreciate everything and nothing is taken for granted.'' Mr. Speaker, if only we could all live that way every day of our lives.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today the House is considering H. Res. 921, a resolution condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel. The resolution focuses on the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel and expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of the recent violence. While the resolution is not perfect, it does call on the international community to cooperate to bring an end to the violence in the region. The two sides cannot resolve this by themselves, and it is clear that only a diplomatic track will help to address the wide-spread unrest in the Middle East. Believing that, I would prefer the resolution do more to solidify the U.S. as an honest broker in the conflict. It is unfortunate that while the violence has continued for more than a week now, Secretary of State Rice still has failed to travel to the region. Even further, she has declined to send a Special Envoy to focus exclusively on the crisis. This is yet one more example of the Bush Administration's failure on the foreign policy front. The Administration must become engaged with the international community in pursuing a peaceful and just resolution to this on-going crisis instead of standing by while innocent civilians are killed. President Bush's stubborn involvement in Iraq has made it difficult for the U.S. to focus on this and other conflicts in the region. Instead of bringing parties to the negotiating table, President Bush and Secretary Rice have ignored the region while it has literally gone up in flames. History has shown that the U.S. is most successful when it supports evenhanded, diplomacy-based foreign policy. This can be achieved by supporting and implementing the legislation I introduced earlier this year, SMART (H. Con. Res. 158). SMART steps include: 1. Preventing future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and respect for the rule of law; 2. Reducing the threat and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; 3. Addressing the root causes of terrorism; 4. Shifting U.S. budget priorities to more effectively meet our national security needs; and 5. Pursuing to the fullest extent alternatives to war. Until the Bush Administration adopts principles like these in the Middle East, and throughout the world, the cycle of unrest will continue. Unlike previous Congressional acts, SMART strives to achieve a balance of support for all parties and puts the U.S. in the role of a partner for peace in Middle East. With my constituents and colleagues, I call on the President to dedicate himself fully to the peace process and to guarantee the safety and well-being of all innocent civilians involved in the chaos in the Middle East.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today the House is considering H. Res. 921, a resolution condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel. The resolution focuses on the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel and expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of the recent violence. While the resolution is not perfect, it does call on the international community to cooperate to bring an end to the violence in the region. The two sides cannot resolve this by themselves, and it is clear that only a diplomatic track will help to address the widespread unrest in the Middle East. Believing that, I would prefer the resolution would do more to solidify the U.S. as an honest broker in the conflict. It is unfortunate that while the violence has continued for more than a week now, Secretary of State Rice still has failed to travel to the region. Even further, she has declined to send a special envoy to focus exclusively on the crisis. This is yet one more example of the Bush administration's failure on the foreign policy front. The administration must become engaged with the international community in pursuing a peaceful and just resolution to this on-going crisis instead of standing by while innocent civilians are killed. President Bush's stubborn involvement in Iraq has made it difficult for the U.S. to focus on this and other conflicts in the region. Instead of bringing parties to the negotiating table, President Bush and Secretary Rice have ignored the region while it has literally gone up in flames. History has shown that the U.S. is most successful when it supports even-handed, diplomacy-based foreign policy. This can be achieved by supporting and implementing the legislation I introduced earlier this year, SMART--H. Con. Res. 158. SMART steps include: 1. preventing future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and respect for the rule of law; 2. reducing the threat and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; 3. addressing the root causes of terrorism; 4. shifting U.S. budget priorities to more effectively meet our national security needs; and 5. pursuing to the fullest extent alternatives to war. Until the Bush administration adopts principles like these in the Middle East, and throughout the world, the cycle of unrest will continue. Unlike previous congressional acts, SMART strives to achieve a balance of support for all parties and puts the U.S. in the role of a partner for peace in Middle East. With my constituents and colleagues, I call on the President to dedicate himself fully to the peace process and to guarantee the safety and well-being of all innocent civilians involved in the chaos in the Middle East.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today is the 161st time that I have come to the floor to deliver a 5-minute Special Order about the United States occupation of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this effort would not have been possible, it would have been totally impossible, without the excellent words and guidance and general assistance of a member of my staff, Eric Powers. Mr. Speaker, Eric will be leaving my office tomorrow, after 3 years of service and 161 5-minute speeches, to attend Washington University in St. Louis, law school, where he will have the opportunity to further his work in the international law department. Mr. Speaker, believe me, Eric Powers will be missed and, believe me, Eric Powers is appreciated. Mr. Speaker, Iraq is burning. It is becoming hard even to read the news accounts. The last few days have been marked by two of the deadliest attacks on civilians in months. A new U.N. report concludes that roughly 6,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed just in the last 2 months. Random violence, fear, and lawlessness are ruling the day. People cannot leave their homes. Vicious thugs and vigilantes control the streets where people are pulled from cars, where they are tortured and executed. Do not bother calling the police. They have been infiltrated by militias and are brutally corrupt themselves. One Sunni sheikh laughed as he said this about the police to the New York Republic: ``The good ones just take bribes . . . the bad ones rip off your head.'' Monday's New York Times cited an Iraqi Army official who notes that in a recent attack some of the gunmen wore the uniform of the Iraqi Security Forces. As he put it, ``You cannot recognize your friend from your enemy.'' To those who insist that all hell will break loose if our troops leave, I say hell has already broken loose. How much worse can it possibly get, and how many American lives must we endanger for a civil war that we are virtually powerless to stop? I am not saying that democracy will be busting out all over once the last American soldier takes her last step on Iraqi soil. But we cannot begin the process of putting Iraq back together again until our troops come home. Every day that the occupation continues will make it that much harder for the United States to play a constructive nonmilitary role in Iraq as a construction partner rather than a military occupier. If you will recall, the architects of the earlier Iraqi war and the resulting occupation did not just promise us democracy in Iraq. According to their fairy tale, an invasion was going to have this glorious ripple effect, spreading peace and freedom across the Middle East. These were Vice President Cheney's words in 2002. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced. Of course, this week's open hostilities between Israel and Lebanon have proven that statement tragically wrong. The Iraq war hasn't spread freedom anywhere. It has made all of us, Iraq, its neighbors, the United States and the world, less safe. There is no question, we have reached a point of diminishing returns in Iraq. In fact, the bloodbath in Baghdad has only gotten worse in the month since we moved more troops into the capital as part of a security crackdown that we called Operation Forward Together. You know how the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Well, last week, General Casey said that we might need still more troops to contain the violence in Baghdad. This is madness, Mr. Speaker. Our soldiers were not trained for this. They are largely powerless to control hostility that is rooted in a religious conflict that dates back centuries. It is time to bring them home

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Miller for this motion to instruct the pension conferees because a defined pension plan is a promise. It is a promise that workers count on when they come to the end of their employment. It is a promise that they plan their future around. Many workers have been promised benefits at the end of their work service. In fact, many have accepted retirement benefits instead of pay increases. Now remember that. Many people choose to forgive a pay increase and get an increase in their pension instead. Now, unless we have reform that allows companies to convert to cash balance programs, programs that don't consider the older worker, a worker who has planned for years and years how they are going to live the rest of their lives in dignity, we have broken a great promise to these wonderful workers. Not protecting their retirement would result in many, many times reducing their benefits by at least half. Imagine trying to live, through no fault of your own, on half of what you had planned on. We would not expect people to live on half of the amount of food or half the amount of medicine they would need; how can we expect them to live on half of a pension? These pension benefits have been earned. They must be honored. Mr. Speaker, these workers were promised defined retirement benefits. They have earned those benefits. The Congress cannot allow companies to go back on their word. We, as a Congress, must support them. We must ensure these hardworking Americans that they will get the pension benefits they have been promised so they can plan, they don't have to look over their shoulders or go live with their kids or have half of their medications. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Miller motion to instruct.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I honor the long-term marriages of my colleagues, all, in this Congress, but this so-called Marriage Protection Amendment isn't about trying to reduce the divorce rate, or it is not about helping married couples work through their problems. This bill is about keeping two adults from making a life-long commitment to each other. With everything that is happening in this world, it seems like this should be the least of our worries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the majority party to quit intruding on our private lives and start working on the issues that really matter to the American people and to their families. The American public wants us to work together, to bring our soldiers home from Iraq, to address the rising cost of gas, to raise the minimum wage. Faced with such important issues, amending the Constitution to decide what we should do in our private lives is nothing more than a cheap stunt.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a celebration of bad policy. I voted against it when it was a Clinton proposal, and I voted against it because my fear was, based on having been a past welfare mom, my fear was that ultimately it would be the kids who suffered. And how right I was. So when the Congress reauthorized the welfare program recently, not a single Democrat voted for it, because Democrats know that what this bill does is fail to help families reach economic independence. Instead it pushes families off welfare, into the workforce without sufficient education, without adequate child care, and without a path to self- sufficiency. If the Republican leadership was truly interested in improving families' welfare, it would be debating and passing an increase in the minimum wage, and we would be doing that today, instead of talking about celebrating welfare. The sad fact is that this Congress is more interested that fewer people get help than whether fewer people need help. And that is a shame. I encourage my colleagues, please oppose this resolution, a resolution that is trying to celebrate bad policy. A policy that keeps children in poverty.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for months and months we have been hearing from the Bush administration that the training of Iraqi security forces is going as planned. America will stand down just as soon as Iraq stands up, they said. A milestone which we were assured was just around the corner. Well, now we know the truth. Not only can they not stand up; they can barely crawl. And when they do crawl, all too often they are fighting each other or U.S. troops. The Los Angeles Times published a shocking report over the weekend about the violence and corruption that is permeating the Iraqi police. According to the Times, we are talking about ``the rape of female prisoners, the release of terrorism suspects in exchange for bribes, assassinations of police officers, and participation in insurgent bombings . . . ``Officers have beaten prisoners to death. They have been involved in kidnapping rings, sold thousands of stolen and forged Iraqi passports, and passed along vital information to insurgents . . . '' In one Baghdad neighborhood known as a militia stronghold, police tortured detainees with electricity and beatings. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that the United States and its military have no moral authority to combat such gruesome tactics. Why? Because the right to torture prisoners of war, indeed, the exhortation to torture them, was the official policy of our government for several years. Of course, the minimum requirement of a functioning society in Iraq will be some kind of trustworthy law enforcement system. But with insurgents and militia groups having infiltrated the police, Iraqi citizens have absolutely no recourse, no legitimate authority committed to their safety and their security. Another recent article, this one from the Washington Post, tells of a Baghdad resident who dialed the Iraqi equivalent of 911 after a Shiite militia, called the Mahdi Army, firebombed a local mosque. The call went through to the ministry of interior, which is allied with the Shiia and its militias. The dispatcher told the man that he, the caller, was a terrorist, said the Mahdi Army was just doing its job, and hung up. How is that for freedom on the march? Mr. Speaker, rather than bringing stability and rule of law to Iraq, it has turned out that we have a chaotic killing field, a hot bed of terror over there. The only law that seems to apply is the law of the jungle. The streets are controlled by thugs and murderers. The Iraqi Government is impotent at best, complicit at worst. They are in a civil war. The least we can do is remove our soldiers from this inferno. Bringing the troops home will not be a panacea for Iraq, but it will get Americans out of harm's way while we help facilitate the long, arduous process of Iraqi reconstruction and reconciliation. Iraq cannot be put back together again as long as we persist with a military occupation. Every day that our soldiers are there makes it harder, not easier. Every day that the occupation continues, we move further away from, not closer to, the kind of democratic society President Bush says he wants in Iraq. Bring the troops home. It is the right thing to do for America, and it may be Iraq's only hope for peace and stability.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the more President Bush entangles this country of ours in the Iraq occupation, the less committed it seems he is to the real national security threat we face, global terrorism, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Over the holiday weekend, when few people were paying attention, it was reported that the CIA has closed down ``Alec Station,'' its special unit that was charged specifically with tracking down and capturing Bin Laden. We've sure come a long way since the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the President promised to get him, dead or alive. So much for Sheriff Bush. The tabloids are doing a better job of hunting down Tom Cruise's baby than this administration is at finding bin Laden. But this latest decision is of a piece with the Bush approach to bin Laden. In the fall of 2001, he had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, but the President let him get away by relying on local warlords rather than moving American troops in to finish the job. And a few months later, at a White House press conference, the President's cavalier approach to bin Laden was on full display. ``I don't know where he is,'' the President said. ``I just don't spend that much time on him. I truly am not concerned about him.'' Well, 300 million other Americans are concerned, and they want to know why we can spend hundreds of billions of dollars to occupy and foment civil war in Iraq, but we can't maintain a single intelligence operation office devoted to apprehending the man responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans. And this from a President who has never missed an opportunity to wave the flag of 9/11, to exploit that tragedy in order to score political points and justify the reckless use of American power in Iraq. The evidence is clear. This President is not serious about fighting terrorism. If he were, he wouldn't have diverted energy and resources away from the struggle in order to chase this white whale in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, as we know by now, was not an ally of bin Laden's and was not a threat to U.S. security. But by invading Iraq, President Bush has turned that devastated country into a jihadist breeding ground and made all of us less safe. The Iraq war has created terrorists rather than stopping them. There is only one answer. It is time to bring the troops home and end the occupation of Iraq. Then we can redirect our resources, military and otherwise, toward finding bin Laden and pursuing a true counterterrorism strategy, a counterterrorism strategy that instead of invading countries willy-nilly, makes use of multilateral partnerships and strong intelligence capabilities. That, in addition to toppling the Taliban, would be the proper way to respond to 9/11. That would be the right strategy to meet the national security challenge of our time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Representative Miller for offering this motion and for his continued leadership in fighting for America's workers. Thirty-eight years ago I was a single, working mother with three small children. In fact, my children were 1, 3 and 5 years old at the time. Receiving no child support, earning just above the minimum wage, even though I was working, I was earning so little that my family was forced to go on Aid for Dependent Children, welfare, to provide for the child care, the health care and the food that we needed to make ends meet. Even though I had a good education and I had good job skills, I still wasn't earning enough from my job to fully support my children. And believe me, I worked hard and I worked full time. My personal story bears repeating because too many families today are in the exact same predicament I was in 38 years ago. So this Congress, if it wants to, can do something to seriously address poverty in this country. And we can do it by increasing the minimum wage, paying working parents enough to support their families and enough to take care of their kids. But increasing the minimum wage is absolutely, absolutely necessary in getting that going. The Bush administration continues to repeat that profits are up. They may be up, but working Americans aren't experiencing this benefit. They don't see it in their daily lives because their wages are stagnant. In fact, the Federal minimum wage has not been increased since 1997. You know, a rising tide should lift all boats, not just the yachts. Mr. Speaker, it is time for American workers to share in the fruits of their labor, and it is time to raise the minimum wage.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2003, the United States stopped fighting a war in Iraq and became the occupants of Iraq. That was when the U.S. occupation began. March 1, 2003, is the day that President Bush, speaking under a huge banner with the words ``Mission Accomplished'' declared major combat operations in Iraq had ended. At that moment, the United States military should have left Iraq. Military commanders and policy experts advised the President, but he failed to grasp that deploying hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq and invading Baghdad would be like sticking your hand in a beehive and trying to remove it without getting stung. Even the President's father, President George H.W. Bush, agreed on this point. That is why during the first Gulf War during 1991, he stopped short of having the U.S. military actually enter Baghdad. If we had left after, according to the President, the ``mission'' had been ``accomplished,'' we could have prevented the deaths of over 2,400 American soldiers. More than 18,000 others wouldn't have returned home with life-changing injuries, and thousands of others wouldn't suffer from severe psychological trauma as a result of fighting a war halfway across the world. And countless thousands, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed might still be alive in Iraq. The last 3\1/2\ years since the President's ``mission accomplished'' speech have been unsuccessful in all ways in Iraq. This war has drained America's coffers of nearly $400 billion, money that could have been used for underfunded programs right here at home, like addressing key homeland security needs, providing health care to all Americans, giving all American children a first-class education. This war has diminished America's role as an international leader. Our role and our image have suffered great damage as a result of our involvement in Iraq. We are even less safe here at home, and Iraqis are less safe in Iraq than before the United States invaded Iraq. It is actually the very presence of 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq that has enraged and dissatisfied the people of the Arab world. Mr. Speaker, this is not a war; this is an occupation. The Pentagon and the White House have turned our troops into occupiers against their will, placing them in an absolutely impossible situation. This is not what they were trained for. Soldiers can win a war, but how do they win an occupation? An occupation is by its very nature unwinnable. There is no winning; all you can do is come home. The President does not seem to understand this truth which is made very clear in comments he makes like ``we will accept nothing short of total victory in Iraq''; or ``we will stay in Iraq until the job gets done.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that there is no such thing as ``getting the job done in Iraq'' because it is not a job, it is an occupation. What Congress needs to do is take back the powers it gave to the President more than 3 years ago. It is time to rescind the legislation that gave him the authority to use force in Iraq. And while we are at it, let's do the right thing for our soldiers, their families and the entire country: end the occupation. The least we can do for our troops is thank them for their service and bring them home to their families.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, some of the most frightening violence in months has erupted in Iraq over the past week. In fact, today was reported to be the worst day of death and violence since the United States started the war 3\1/2\ years ago. On Saturday, Sunni insurgents bombed and destroyed a Shiite mosque. In response, Shiite gunmen dragged random motorists out of their cars in a Sunni Baghdad neighborhood, killing them, killing them with impunity. The situation has become absolutely terrifying. And, sadly, the cycle of retaliation and revenge is getting worse, not better. Those who think Iraq has not already devolved into a civil war are just kidding themselves. They must think a civil war looks something like two pitched armies battling it out across from each other with muskets and cannons in a giant field. Unfortunately, today's version of a civil war is a lot more murky. It involves fighting on the streets, not a battlefield. It involves innocent civilians, men, women, it involves children, who are losing their lives, who are living in a great deal of pain and a great deal of uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, what we can be sure about is that our presence in Iraq is not helping the situation. In fact, the presence of nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq has become a rallying point for dissatisfied people in the Arab world. This latest surge of violence has coincided with an announcement by U.S. military officials that four more soldiers have been arrested in connection with the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and three members of her family. To be sure, the vast majority of all American soldiers currently stationed in Iraq are bravely and honorably serving their country, but the destructive actions of a few very bad apples have added fuel to the fire, and the Iraqi people want us to leave their country. The sad truth is that our troops have been failed by their civilian leaders in Washington. They have been misguided. They have gone on a mission that has been fraught with failure from the very, very beginning. The White House is more interested, it appears, in trying to make Iraq seem like a success than actually fixing the problem that plagues the country. If you go to the White House Web site and if you search for ``Iraq,'' you will find a section called ``Renewal in Iraq.'' This page contains such platitudes as, and I quote the Web site, ``Together, Iraqis and Americans are making progress''; and another one, ``The United States will settle for nothing less than complete victory in Iraq.'' The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that words like ``will settle for nothing less than complete victory'' or ``we'll stay in Iraq until the job is done'' are no more than tired old slogans. Most Americans and nearly all Iraqis understand that an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq doesn't serve anyone's interests. The very perception that we plan to stay in Iraq permanently is one of the greatest catalysts spurring the Iraqi insurgency. It is clear that the time is long overdue to bring our troops home. It is time to end the bloodshed and to send a clear message that the United States has no plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely, that we won't occupy permanent bases in Iraq and we won't control Iraqi oil, and that our troops will be coming home. They will be leaving Iraq. They will be coming home to their families. The American people know this and they want their elected leaders in Congress and the White House to catch up with them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Don Organ, my old friend and advisor, of Marin County, California, who died June 21, 2006, at the age of 77. Don advised me on my first congressional campaign in 1992 and continued to be a valued supporter through the ensuing years, Don's career in politics evolved after he retired from a 27-year career managing nonprofit organizations, mostly in the public health field. After my 1992 campaign, he went on to develop a political consulting business with his wife Doris that focused primarily on Democrats and women candidates. He ran Barbara Boxer's ``Be a Boxer'' campaign as well as efforts for local candidates such as Marin Assessor Joan Thayer, Judge Vernon Smith, Community College Trustees Eva Long and Greg Brockbank, and City Council Members Paul Cohen, Barbara Heller, and Carole Dillon-Knutson. Born in Minneapolis, Don was raised in Los Angeles and graduated from Pomona College. After serving in the Korean war, he studied education at UC Berkeley and taught high school for a short time before entering the nonprofit world. With his wife Doris and his two sons, he moved around the country to pursue this work, and the family lived in Wyoming, Chicago, Washington, DC, Birmingham, and Kansas City, before settling in Fairfax in Marin County in 1987. Don soon joined the Marin Democratic Central Committee, ran unsuccessfully for the Marin Community College Board, and rapidly became a political fixture in the county. He was an active member of the National Women's Political Caucus in Marin where his support was so valued that he was the only male included in their 2006 Movers and Doers Calendar. That first unsuccessful campaign for College Board is fondly recalled by Don's son Kris: He recruited my brother Larry and me to walk precincts with him, which I thought was pretty bold of him, as he and Mom had just moved to Marin County the year before. Larry and I were the established names in Contra Costa County. We handed out a piece of literature Dad had put together stating his goals for the College, giving his background and including a photograph. We walked a Novato precinct, and a voter said to him, ``Oh, I'm glad I met you in person. You look fat in this picture, but you're not fat. Fat people should never get elected, because they're lazy. But, I'll vote for you.'' Dad replied with his broad smile, ``Well, I'm glad we met too. All this precinct walking has been good for me.'' Then, he told his boys, ``That's how important a good picture is!'' He came in last for the College Board, but I think those lessons made a difference in handling other candidates whose pictures were always the best. Don is survived by Doris, his wife of almost 52 years, and two sons, Kris Organ, Executive Director of Service Employees International Union Local 949 and his daughter Serena; and Larry Organ, civil rights attorney, his wife Susan and 3 daughters, Robyn, Meg, and Jane, all of whom live in Marin County. Mr. Speaker, Dan Organ enriched Marin with his work and his support of many candidates, both men and women, who are leaders in the community. His family has asked that we ``keep his memory'' in our hearts. I will certainly do that as I mourn the loss of this friend and colleague whom I valued as an ally in my endeavors on behalf of California's Sixth District.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the majority party says that we need to find a better way to end our energy crisis and a way to bring gas prices down. Well, that sounds really good because that is exactly what we need to do. But the solution they are offering today is not a solution. There is a better way, and that is for certain. In fact, by providing tax incentives for the construction of energy- efficient buildings and heating equipment, by doing that alone, we could save more than 12 times the Interior Department's estimate of economically recoverable gas outside the central and western Gulf of Mexico. This plan they are offering for more offshore drilling for four States makes every other use of coastal waters subordinate to drilling for oil. Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't even be discussing it. Do they really think that the people of this country don't get it? Well, let me tell you, the people in my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties north of San Francisco, get it. They know that what makes this bill even worse than being a Band-Aid is that it is a destructive solution.