Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the majority party believes that if we just keep drilling for more gas and oil then our energy crisis will be over. Unfortunately, they are not looking for a solution to our energy crisis and a solution to our rising gas prices. They are just looking short term for false security solutions that ultimately line the pockets of big oil companies. Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here today discussing offshore oil drilling instead of promoting efficient and renewable energy policies. The people that I am fortunate to represent in Marin and Sonoma Counties north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, do understand. They get it. The coast of my district is one of the most biologically productive regions in the entire world, and it would be threatened, threatened by oil and gas exploration if this bill passes as is. For this reason, I have introduced a bill to extend the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries along the entire coast of Sonoma to protect it from offshore drilling threats. The coastal communities in my district rely on tourism and fishing, industries that would be severely hurt if offshore drilling was permitted. If you were to visit this beautiful stretch of coast you would understand why, and you would know that we must protect it. Mr. Chairman, the people who live in my district strongly oppose offshore drilling. They understand that we need an energy policy that focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, not on oil rigs and the endless depletion of our natural resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Capps-Davis amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Marin Youth Symphony Orchestra (MYSO) on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Over the past half century, the orchestra has provided the opportunity for over 3,000 talented young musicians to learn and perform classic symphonic orchestral music. This was made possible by brilliant conductors such as founder Maestro Hugo Rinaldi who led the MSYO from its inception in the fall of 1954 until 1989 while the group enjoyed residence at Dominican College. Under his leadership the MSYO grew to become an integral part of the arts community in Marin County collaborating with the Marin Ballet, Marin Girl's Chorus, Marin Opera, Marin Theater Company, Marin Youth- In-Arts and numerous other organizations. He also toured the MSYO to Italy, Austria, and Australia, a unique experience for the young musicians. Upon Hugo Rinaldi's retirement, Leslie Stewart led the group for seven seasons, adding scholarships and a chamber program. Dr. Anthony Adessa developed the orchestra further until 2001, when current conductor George Thomson took over the baton. Thompson moved MSYO to its current home with the College of Marin. Under Maestro Thomson's leadership the orchestra has developed an extraordinary opportunity for soloists, and ensemble players to experiment with innovative repertoire. He continues to provide gifted young people with an opportunity to benefit from his professional coaching and intimate knowledge of classical literature, allowing for participation in performing rich and rewarding orchestral music. The MYSO has provided valuable training for a number of students who have continued their musical careers into the uppermost heights of musical accomplishment. Alumni include Joe Alessi, Principal Trombone of the New York Philharmonic; Mark Isham, Grammy, ASCAP, and Tony award winning film score composer; Tara Flandreau, Chair of the College of Marin Music Department; Dan Smiley, Second Violin; San Francisco Symphony; and numerous performers of the Marin Symphony Orchestra as well as music teachers who have continued to instruct successive generations. In the words of participant Lucy Williams (First Violin Section, 2004), ``When I went to hear Jeremy Constant (Marin Symphony concertmaster) perform on his Stradivarius at Davies Symphony Hall I asked him what inspired him. He said that as a youth symphony musician he got to play Scheherazade, by Rimsky-Korsakov, and I realized that he was my age when he was playing it and we had just finished performing that same piece! I felt a rush of excitement, like I was walking a path of history and it might lead me onto that stage some day. I thought about George telling us about the ``giant nerf rocks'' in the shipwreck passage and it made me feel like the luckiest person there.'' Mr. Speaker, the Marin Youth Symphony Orchestra will continue to develop musical talent and provide inspiration for young talented people in Marin County by making it possible for them to learn and share musical experiences of the highest possible level. The benefits of this cultural asset extend to the entire community, enriching our national musical heritage. I congratulate them on this 50th anniversary celebration.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend Marinell Eva, upon the occasion of her retirement as Executive Director of the Community Child Care Council of Sonoma County (4Cs). Thanks to Marinell, 4Cs is not only a successful agency but also one with a lot of heart. Her writings in the newsletter, reflective of her childhood and her children's, show her deep connection and empathy with families and children. During Marinell's 17 years with the agency, she was a leader in developing a variety of child care services, collaborations with other organizations, and advocacy for children and families. Also, 4Cs researched and published the study, The Economic Impact of Child Care in Sonoma County, under her direction and in partnership with the Child Care Planning Council. 4Cs continues to inform businesses and government of the link between child care and our local economy. Marinell moved to Sonoma County in 1978, and soon became the Program Director at the YWCA's A Special Place child care program where she served for many years. She volunteered with the Sonoma County Child Abuse Council and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Extended Child Care Coalition. She currently serves on the SRJC Child Development Advisory Committee, First Five Professional Community Advisory Committee, and is an advisory member of the Sonoma County Child Care Planning Council of Sonoma County. She has a B.A. in English Literature and Psychology, and an M.A. in Clinical Psychology. Her commitment and passion have been an invaluable asset to Sonoma County. Carl Wong, Superintendent of Schools, says, ``The teachers and principals of the Sonoma County K-12 public school system have benefited from the leadership and advocacy of Marinell Eva for over 16 years. Her professional dedication in support of children and families helps to promote a level playing field for the 5000+ Kindergarten students who begin their school experience each year.'' These thoughts are echoed by Joel Gordon, the Director of Early Childhood Education at Santa Rosa Junior College: ``Through the years Marinell has been one of my favorite people to work with. In a time when the word is overused, she has become a great leader in Sonoma. The combination of her vision, talent, commitment, compassion and sense of humor have changed for the better our community and ultimately the lives of many of its youngest citizens. She is one of a kind and will be greatly missed.'' Marinell and her husband, David Pittman, live on property in Sebastopol, where two their children and all four grandchildren live. She plans to continue as a member of the Board of Trustees at the Sonoma Academy, and in between gardening and reading she will spend time studying Spanish, literature, and music as well as keeping up with the grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have been inspired by working with Marinell Eva. She says it best in her own words: ``Working with people in the child care field has been my deep privilege. I have had the good fortune to work for what I believe in--meeting the needs of children. What better way to change the world?''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this Congress had a great opportunity today to pass a defense authorization bill that is good for the American people, a bill that reflects the very best of American values. Foremost among those values is our desire for peace, our capacity for global leadership, and our compassion for the people of the world. We could have reflected those values by utilizing the defense bill as a means of voicing our opposition to prolong the war in Iraq. The Rules Committee, however, prevented me from offering just such an amendment to the defense authorization bill. My amendment expressed the sense of the Congress regarding the war in Iraq in two parts. First, it instructs the President, the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, to develop a plan to bring the members of the U.S. Armed Forces home from Iraq and to bring the plan to the congressional defense committees. It is clear that we need to begin the process of bringing our troops home because, among many other reasons, the presence of nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq is an obvious rallying point for dissatisfied people in the Arab world, making the situation in Iraq worse and not making the U.S. any more secure. The second part of my amendment describes how the United States should support Iraq once our troops have come home. The amendment directs the United States to engage the international community, including the U.N. and NATO, to establish a multinational interim security force for Iraq. The U.N.'s Department of Peacekeeping Operations actually is particularly well suited to this task. Next we would have shifted our role from that of Iraq's military occupier to its reconstruction partner. By working with the Iraqi people to rebuild their economic and physical infrastructure, we can give Iraq back to the Iraqis and help to create Iraqi jobs and Iraqi security. Finally, my amendment urged the President to involve the United Nations in establishing an international peace commission comprised of members of the global community who have experience in international conflict resolution so that they would oversee Iraq's post-war reconciliation process, beginning Iraq's long road to recovery after years of sanctions and war. The House should have been able to debate the importance of ending the war while we helped to stabilize this war-torn nation. Unfortunately, this Congress had other priorities, priorities like authorizing another $50 billion to continue a devastating war in Iraq that has already taken the lives of more than 2,400 American soldiers, countless tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and forever shattered the lives of another 16,000 injured and wounded American troops. Priorities like authorizing another $10 billion, that is billion with a ``B,'' on a still unproven missile defense system that can't stop the greatest threat we face, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, and has never even been able to stop the missiles it is designed to destroy. It is beyond dispute that this administration, in tandem with the Republican Congress, has been, to put it mildly, less than fiscally responsible. Earlier this month I introduced new legislation called the Commonsense Budget Act of 2006 that finally put some sanity back into the Nation's fiscal policy. This bill already has the support of almost 40 cosponsors. The Commonsense Budget Act would trim $60 billion in waste from the Pentagon budget and put it to work on behalf of the people and programs that truly strengthen America. These programs include $10 billion for the modernization of every public school, $12 billion for health insurance for every child in America, $10 billion to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, $13 billion to feed the hungry, $5 billion to improve homeland security, and $5 billion to start the reduction of our deficit. We need to change the way we think about national security, Mr. Speaker. The return on the investments I have proposed as part of the Commonsense Budget Act will benefit the entire society, and they won't cost us a dime more than we currently spend on our bloated national defense. Any change in budget priorities, though, has to go hand in hand with change in policy on the ground. The very first of those needs to be an end to the war in Iraq. For the sake of our soldiers, their families and our national security, it is time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce on the occasion of its 100th anniversary celebration. The chamber has been serving my hometown of Petaluma, CA, since it was first launched on February 6, 1906, with 79 members. Many of these early members bore names still remembered in Petaluma today, including J.E. Olmstead, publisher of the newspaper, and Rodney Putnam who was related to future mayor and first female Sonoma County Supervisor Helen Putnam. One of the key characters in the chamber's early years was Bert Kerrigan who was hired in 1918 to promote the city. It is thanks to Kerrigan that I was able to participate in Petaluma's 25th Annual Butter and Eggs Day Parade this year. After evaluating the local business situation, Kerrigan decided the town needed to push its poultry industry; he traveled to Washington, DC, to establish National Egg Day and coined the slogan ``The World's Egg Basket.'' He then performed various publicity stunts--flying an airplane over San Francisco to drop flyers, parking a huge egg basket in front of the St. Francis Hotel with attractive women, the ``Slick Chicks,'' to be photographed, and forming the precursor to today's parade, ``Egg Day,'' which was held at night. Under the current leadership of CEO Onita Pellegrini, the chamber has been thriving and currently has over 900 members. In fact, I, too, was a member when I ran my business in Petaluma from 1980 to 1991. The chamber recently relocated to the historic Great Petaluma Mill Building in the heart of downtown. The group still actively promotes the city's businesses and advocates with city government for smart growth principles that maintain the community feeling that has been Petaluma's hallmark. Mr. Speaker, the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce continues to represent the diversity of the city from its agricultural roots to its small businesses to its new high tech companies. I cut my political teeth as a member of the Petaluma City Council, and I know the good work that they do. Congratulations to everyone in the chamber on this centennial milestone.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the so-called war on terrorism has been going on for more than 4\1/2\ years, and it looks like terrorism is winning. The U.S. Government released its annual survey of global terrorism two Fridays ago. Of course, they always save the bad news for Friday, when they hope everyone will have checked out for the weekend. The results? The number of terrorists attacks worldwide quadrupled from 2004 to 2005, climbing over 11,000. That is 30 strikes by terrorists every day, an average of more than one an hour. Of the 11,000, nearly one-third took place in Iraq, and those Iraqi attacks led to 8,300 deaths. Keep in mind, these are just civilian casualties. These numbers don't even include the number of American troops who have been killed at the hands of the insurgency. Thank goodness there have been no more attacks on American soil and nothing on the order of 9/11. Then again, if violent extremists want to kill Americans, they don't have to infiltrate our borders. They can make a much easier trip to Iraq, where 130,000 of our bravest men and women are deployed. The dirty little secret that you won't find in the report is that the Iraq war is responsible for the proliferation of terrorism in recent years. Our preemptive invasion strike on Iraq inspired vicious animosity towards the United States, the likes of which we have never seen and the likes of which we will be dealing with for years and years to come. The continued occupation is a rallying point for bin Laden and everyone who already dislikes America. The war has given jihadists the best possible propaganda tool, turning Iraq into a hotbed of terrorism. And the way we have conducted the war has only exacerbated the problem. The abuses at Abu Ghraib, the detention camps at Guantanamo, the secret gulags around the world, all of these have eroded U.S. moral authority and further radicalized the Muslim world. The President has sold the Iraq campaign as some kind of antidote to terrorism. The truth is just the opposite. Our presence in Iraq is pouring gasoline on the fire instead of putting it out. Peter Bergen, a terrorism expert at the New America Foundation, put it this way: he said, ``The President is right that Iraq is the main front in the war on terrorism, but this is a front we created.'' There was one part of the terrorism report that I just could not believe. The Washington Post cites the survey as indicating that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are frustrated by their lack of direct control over terrorist operations. Here is a man who is American public enemy number one, a sadistic killer who President Bush promised to hunt down and capture, dead or alive, and the best we can say 4\1/2\ years later is that we have got him frustrated? There is only one answer, Mr. Speaker: we must bring our troops home, and we must do it at once. Every day that we persist with this occupation is another day that the insurgency gathers strength and further justifies itself. Every day that we stay in Iraq is a day that we lose ground in the war on terror. It is time for a new counterterrorism strategy like the one I have outlined in my SMART Security proposal; one that is based on strong intelligence and cooperation with our allies and multilateral organizations; one that invests in homeland security and enhances efforts to cut off financing for terrorist organizations. Defeating terrorism will require more brains and less brawn. It demands, first and foremost, that we bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, exactly 3 years ago yesterday, President Bush gave his speech about the military operations in Iraq and said they had become ``Mission Accomplished.'' Why was this speech important? Because in a single stroke, it revealed more about the President and his administration than all of his other speeches combined. Paying attention to the news, you will recall how on that day President Bush, adorned in a fighter pilot suit, rode shotgun in a military jet that landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, and a massive banner declaring ``Mission Accomplished'' was brashly displayed in the background during his subsequent speech. It seemed like a bold act put on by a President who wanted to be perceived as taking bold steps against our Nation's enemies. But nothing had actually been accomplished to that point. The problem is that the ``mission'' in Iraq was not accomplished 3 years ago, and it certainly hasn't been accomplished today, which makes the military jet landing and ensuing speech 3 years ago far short of bold. It was a grandly staged political stunt, pure and simple. Let us talk about ``Mission Accomplished.'' For whom exactly is this mission accomplished? Is the mission accomplished for our troops, many of whom have returned home from Iraq forever changed as a result of the physical and mental trauma they endured during years of repeated deployment to Iraq? One such soldier is retired Naval Hospital Corpsman Charlie Anderson who last Thursday spoke at an Iraq forum that I organized. Charlie suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and now is a regional coordinator for Iraq Veterans Against the War. I quote him in saying, ``I was completely untrained and unprepared for what I experienced in Iraq.'' He also told us, ``In the 7 years preceding my deployment to the Middle East, I had not set foot in the desert or had any training on how to fight or survive there. I had fired my 9 millimeter service pistol exactly once.'' Is the mission accomplished for Faiza al-Araji, an Iraqi civil engineer who recently fled Baghdad, the only home she has ever known? Faiza and her family left Iraq after her son, a student, was detained for days by the Ministry of the Interior without charges being filed. After nearly a week of panicking, Faiza and her husband paid a ransom to have their son released. They were told he had been detained because he had a beard, and was therefore probably a terrorist. The fact is, 3 years after President Bush's ``mission accomplished'' pronouncement, Iraq is still mired in chaos. Our troops are still sitting ducks. They are halfway across the world, and the United States is still tangled up in a quagmire of epic proportions. Of the over 2,400 American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq, all but 139 were killed after the President's USS Abraham Lincoln speech. Attacks against Iraqis, U.S. and coalition troops, and critical infrastructure have increased by nearly 25 percent since then. According to the Brookings Institute, the Iraqi insurgency has tripled in strength since 2003. It is pretty clear by now that the ``Mission Accomplished'' speech was just another example in a long pattern of the Bush administration playing up the political theater while ignoring the facts on the ground. Whether they are talking about tax cuts for the richest 1 percent of Americans, prescription drug coverage that does not work for seniors, or the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, this administration's MO is to avoid revealing bad news at all cost, even if it means toying with the truth. It is like all of the bad stories are cut out of the newspaper before they are brought into the White House. Mr. Speaker, let us accomplish something that will help secure America and Iraq for the future and save thousands of innocent lives in the process. Let us accomplish an end to the pain and suffering felt by the hundreds of thousands, and let's end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago, I heard moving testimonials about the impact of the Iraq war on real people, real families and real communities, both American and Iraqi. I organized a forum precisely to get beyond the statistics, the strategy, and the abstractions, to understand the devastating human cost of this war. We heard from Charlie Anderson, a former marine who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and now is a regional coordinator for Iraq Veterans Against the War. He spoke of the Government of the United States having failed the men and women it sent to war. He said, ``I was completely untrained and unprepared for what I experienced in Iraq.'' He told us, ``In the 7 years preceding my deployment to the Middle East . . . I had not set foot in the desert or had any training on how to fight or survive there. I had fired my 9-millimeter service pistol exactly once.'' And this is the part that blew my mind, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Anderson added that after firing his weapon during one ambush, he said, ``I was told I would not be issued replacement ammunition because there was none to be had. My platoon sergeant told me `do not shoot unless your death is imminent . . .' '' Can you imagine that? The mighty United States military, the greatest fighting force in the world, essentially rationing bullets? Dahlia Wasfi, a doctor who is half Jewish and half Iraqi, offered a powerful historical analogy. She spoke of her mother's relatives being driven from their native Austria to avoid Nazi concentration camps. ``Never again'' is the refrain we use when talking about the Holocaust. She then spoke of her father's relatives who are ``not living, but dying, under the occupation of this administration's deadly foray in Iraq.'' She went on: ``From the lack of security to the lack of basic supplies to the lack of electricity to the lack of potable water to the lack of jobs to the lack of reconstruction to the lack of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, they are worse off now than before we invaded. `Never again' should apply to them, too.'' An Iraqi civil engineer named Faiza also spoke to us. She fled occupied Iraq last summer after her son, a student, was detained for several days by the Ministry of the Interior without any charges being filed. ``He has a beard; so he was a suspect terrorist,'' she said. Although they said he had committed no crimes, his family had to pay thousands of dollars to secure his release. How is that for the transformation of power to freedom? Now she and her family are living as exiles in Jordan, driven away from everything that was once familiar to them. But the only other choice was to live in a country whose infrastructure has been completely torn down and never rebuilt. Mr. Speaker, in the name of these three brave souls, for the sake of human decency if nothing else, it is time to end this war, bring our troops home, and give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the carnage and the bloodshed continue in Iraq. Things are getting worse, not better. April is indeed the cruelest month for 63 American soldiers who won't be making it home. In fact, it is the deadliest month so far in the year 2006. We are coming up on the 3-year anniversary of the President's infamous aircraft carrier flight suit stunt, and I am still looking for someone who can answer this question: How is it possible that we have lost more than 2,000 of our troops after this mission was supposedly accomplished? Today's big headline? The President has a new spokesman. As if the same talking points, the same platitudes, the same wretched ideas coming out of a different mouth is going to make a lick of difference. The White House doesn't have a PR problem, it has a policy problem. Do they actually think two out of every three Americans are unhappy with the President's performance because of his Press Secretary? Are they that dismissive of the intelligence of the people they are sworn to serve? It is as if the administration were our landlord in a house that was being condemned, with a foundation crumbling and every corner infested with vermin, and when we register our complaints, they go ahead and change the drapes. There will be a new talking head at the briefing room podium, but the administration's approach remains stubbornly resistant to change. The other big news of the day is that Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld dropped in on Iraq, and from this visit we learn that there may be a troop reduction by the end of the year. But that strikes me as a cosmetic, contrived move that is driven by the political calendar. It is clearly not enough. Remember, this President, who says he doesn't believe in timetables, made it perfectly clear that he intends to keep our troops in Iraq for at least as long as he is in office. And there is every reason to believe that the construction of permanent military bases has begun. This is exactly the open-ended, long-term occupation that fuels the rage of the insurgency. I, for one, am not willing to stay silent on the sidelines. I will do everything in my power to make the case that the troops should come home now. I will continue to explore alternatives to our current Iraq policy, and I will continue to shine a spotlight on conditions on the ground in Iraq. To that end I invite my colleagues to join me tomorrow morning as I convene a forum that will help put a human face on the Iraq conflict. We will hear from an impressive panel of witnesses, including: A Georgetown professor, who spent the bulk of his career with the CIA, where he was considered one of the Agency's preeminent counterterrorism experts. We will hear from a Shia Iraqi woman, a civil engineer married to a Sunni, who has lived through the invasion and the occupation and then fled to Jordan after her son was briefly detained as a political prisoner. A marine who served in the Iraq war and was discharged last year due to his post-traumatic stress disorder. A young American doctor, half Iraqi, half Jewish, who recently returned to Iraq, where she lived as a young child. She has put her medical practice on hold to raise awareness about the devastating impact the war is having on the people in Iraq. I will also be joined by several of my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and the gentlewomen from California, Ms. Lee and Ms. Waters, among other Members of the House of Representatives. We will engage in a dialogue with these panelists, and we will offer our own thoughts on Iraq. I had a similar forum last fall, which was focused more on shifting policy direction and brainstorming about how we might carry out a military exit strategy. That will be a component of tomorrow's discussion, but my intent tomorrow is to present firsthand accounts from people who have lived through this war and can speak authoritatively about its human cost. We hear virtually every day from the White House, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, and the military commanders. I think it is important that we give a platform to those who have stared this war directly in the eye, outside of the Green Zone, without a security detail or an armored limousine. I hope you can join me tomorrow.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the notion that the Iraq war is all about building freedom and democracy across the broader Middle East has been a staple of White House talking points for nearly as long as we have had our troops in harm's way. But a few weeks ago, courtesy of a front-page story in The Washington Post, we learned something interesting about the President's actual nuts and bolts commitment to democracy. He doesn't have one. That April 5 story by Peter Baker reveals that when it comes to promoting democracy, the bottom line reality doesn't match all the fancy rhetoric. The administration, in fact, is dramatically reducing funding for programs and organizations that do the nitty-gritty work of helping nations train their people to build and sustain a democratic infrastructure, political parties, unions, a free press and other institutions. The National Democratic Institute of International Affairs and the International Republican Institute will, according to The Post, be running out of USAID grant dollars in a matter of days. Only a special earmark is keeping them open for business. The U.S. Institute of Peace has seen funding for its democracy programs in Iraq slashed by nearly two-thirds. The National Endowment for Democracy recently received its last $3 million to spend in Iraq. As one vice-president at the U.S. Institute of Peace pointed out to The Post, the combined cost of all the programs dedicated to encouraging Iraqi democracy amounts to less than what we spend on the military occupation in Iraq in a single day. Of course, in addition to being expensive in treasure, this military campaign has carried a devastating human cost, namely, 2,390 American men and women killed, all in the name of democracy that is in danger of never taking hold. It is not surprising, I guess, that this administration would shortchange democracy promotion. After all, these are the folks who thought there was no hard work involved in creating a free society. They thought all you had to do was drop a few bombs, kick out a brutal dictator, and democracy would miraculously and spontaneously spring from the oil wells or something. That is one of the reasons their post-war planning was so tragically inadequate. But this war was never really about building democracy in any real sense. If that had been the justification presented to the American people in 2002, this body and our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol would never have authorized the President to use military force. No, it was only after the whole weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be a fraud that the administration started casting about for another rationale. And they came up with this fanciful notion that the war would give rise to democracy, not just in Iraq, but among its neighbors and across the region. Mr. Speaker, we can encourage democratic elements in Iraq without a military campaign that is killing Americans, killing Iraqis, and fomenting a civil war. It is time to bring our troops home and start investing in true democracy building efforts. I have offered a new approach to national security called SMART. This stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. And its core is the notion of investing in nations' democratic potential without resorting to military force. There are many elements to SMART. It calls for fighting terrorism and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction through stronger multilateral relationships and improved intelligence. It demands that the United States live up to its nuclear nonproliferation commitments. It would redirect money we are spending on obsolete Cold War weapons toward homeland security and energy independence. But perhaps most important of all, it is a humanitarian program designed to improve living conditions in troubled regions of the world, to address the oppression and the deprivation that often give rise to terrorism in the very first place. That means supporting programs that promote sustainable development; human rights education; peaceful conflict resolution, educational opportunities, particularly for women and girls; and democracy building. It is time for the United States to actually put its money where its mouth is on promoting democracy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jeffrey Kahane, a man who has filled the world with beautiful music and a beautiful philosophy, bringing them to young and old through both performance and education. His inspiration and motivation came as a result of one of history's most sombre times. At age 17, Jeffrey Kahane's mother and her brother were sent by their parents from Germany to the United States to escape the growing Holocaust. Her ship docked in New Orleans, but on the same day a second ship, the Saint Louis, was turned away from Miami. That was the cursed ``Ship of Fools,'' and all of its passengers were forced to return to Germany and were annihilated. As a new American, and as Lore Kahane grew older, she remained always sensitive to her good fortune, and she determined to raise her children to enrich America, its people and its culture. For son Jeffrey, music is the means by which he fulfills his mother's mission. Soon after graduation from the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, he made his debut as a classical concert pianist at Carnegie Hall in 1983. He has become one of the best in the nation, appearing as soloist with great American, English, Austrian, and Spanish orchestras. Yo Yo Ma, Hilary Hahn and many famed performers have recorded with Jeffrey, as have many orchestras. He made his conducting debut in 1988, and that has become a major joy to him and to his legions of admirers. A born educator, he brings to an audience not only magnificent music, but also fascinating and significant stories about the music and its composers. A particular goal for him is to educate and inspire youths who then become the audiences and the performers of tomorrow. He has been creative director of the Los Angeles Chamber Music Orchestra for many years. For the past 10 years, he also has conducted the Santa Rosa Symphony Orchestra. During that time, he has built the orchestra into one of the outstanding regional symphonies in the nation. He also is Artistic Director of the Green Farm Music Festival in Sonoma County. His outreach to this community has been unique. For example, he took his vision to the Fine Arts department of Santa Rosa High School and explained the meaning behind two great works--Benjamin Britten's War Requiem and Michael Tippett's Child of Our Time. Over many months, he worked with and inspired students and their teachers to create ballets, plays, art work, etc. that expressed the deep philosophies of these musical works. Then, on the nights when the two works were performed on stage, the students performed their creations and displayed their art work in the concert hall lobby. This is just one example of his using music for messages that address great wrongs to humanity: war, poverty and, yes, the Holocaust. It has been actions such as these that have led to Maestro Kahane's being so well-loved and well-respected by his community. Now he is leaving Santa Rosa to become Musical Director of the Colorado Symphony in Denver. He has promised to return frequently and play for Santa Rosans, many of whom he has educated to understand and love classical music. In the months and years to come, Denver will come to enjoy and respect this amazing performer and admirable human being. We salute Jeffrey Kahane for his continuing contribution not only to entertainment but to knowledge and caring for the wonders of music as an expression of the best of humanity by young and older Americans and citizens of many countries. And we bestow high gratitude to Lore Kahane, his mother, who brought light out of the darkness of the Holocaust by encouraging a son to make this world a better place with music.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we need to put sanity back into the Nation's fiscal policies, and this Republican budget just does not do that. In fact, we continue with their policies to fill the pockets of the defense contractors while leaving only pennies for nearly every other priority of this country. That is why I offered an amendment to the budget that would trim $60 billion in waste from the Pentagon budget, not a single penny, by the way, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and put these savings to work on behalf of the people and programs that truly strengthen America. By cutting outdated and unused weapon systems that were designed to fight the Cold War, relics that have no place in today's modern military, we could invest in our national priorities, like education. We could be rebuilding and modernizing our public schools, or we could be making up for the President and the Republican Congress's $55 billion of underfunding for No Child Left Behind. The savings would also be spread to homeland security, cutting the deficit, a skilled and educated workforce, healthy children, less dependence on fossil fuels, better fire departments, scientific progress, and less debt. That is what makes America strong and safe. Enough is enough, Mr. Chairman. It is time we invested in our kids and their education, not in Cold War relics. Vote against the Republican budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last month the House surprised us all by unanimously agreeing to an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill declaring that the United States has ``no intentions of maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq.'' Who knew this Republican-controlled Congress would make such a positive statement? The lead authors of the amendment were my colleagues and the Progressive Caucus co-Chair, Representative Barbara Lee from California and Representative Tom Allen from Maine, both of whom have been instrumental in demanding that the United States not maintain any permanent military bases in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, some people working inside the Bush administration are doing their very best to make sure that last month's efforts will be for naught. One of the senior spokespersons at the U.S.-led coalition headquarters actually in Iraq had this to say about our lasting presence there: ``The current plan is to reduce the coalition footprint into six coalition bases, four of which are operated by the United States.'' So there you have it. The administration is not even hiding the fact that we are planning on maintaining four permanent bases on Iraqi soil, something they bureaucratically call ``the coalition footprint.'' This appallingly casual reference to what the rest of us call an occupation is deeply insulting. Anyone who has heard the President tell the American people that we will leave as soon as Iraq is secure and we won't stay a single day longer should be equally offended, because the evidence on the ground suggests that this statement is deeply misleading. Mr. Speaker, last fall I traveled to Iraq as a part of an official congressional delegation. I visited the Green Zone and the Balad military base, and I had the privilege of meeting with our soldiers serving overseas. There were two powerful lessons that I took away from my visit. First, I saw that the troops stationed in Iraq are the very best that America has to offer. They are brave, they are intelligent, they are loyal, loyal to their country, to their mission and to each other. They are profoundly committed to this mission, even those who told me privately that they do not support the policy that underlies it. The second lesson I learned in Iraq is that the perception among the military generals on the ground is that we will be there for a very long time. The military bases that we are building are like little cities. They have their own restaurants, supermarkets, and even their own gyms, theaters and bus routes. The troops deserve no less during their stay in Iraq, but our stay there must be for the short term. Our troops need to come home to their communities and these bases must be given over to the Iraqis. The U.S. has already spent $280 million to construct the four biggest bases in Iraq, and the supplemental spending bill that the House passed in March provides nearly $200 million more to enlarge these bases. This is the real Iraq policy, not those phony platitudes and nicely worded sound bites about standing down when the Iraqis stand up, platitudes that President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld want the people to believe. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration's intention all along was to secure a lasting foothold in the Middle East. Forget all that stuff that you heard about going to war because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which we all know wasn't true. Forget about Saddam Hussein's supposed ties to al Qaeda. We know that wasn't true either. And forget about freeing the Iraqi people from the thumb of a brutal dictator. My guess is that right now most Iraqis feel brutalized after more than 3 years of a preemptive war that now the President charges was about democratization. The real rationale for going to war in Iraq is much more sinister and much more dangerous to our long-term foreign policy. It has become clear that the U.S. needs to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home. Our soldiers need this, their families and loved ones back home need this, and of course the Iraqi people need this. But in order to truly end the occupation, we need to leave no lasting American presence in our place. That means no coalition footprint, nothing even close. That means bringing our troops home and giving Iraq back to the Iraqis.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, when you have a budget like this Republican budget, a budget where those who have the least are being forced to live on even less, less help with student aid, less protection for children's health, less food assistance and less child care, less support of prescription drugs, less funding for home heating, less protection to ensure a place to live and a job that pays a livable wage, when you have a budget like this, women and children are the most impacted because women and their families are the poorest of the poor in this country of much. Stop this injustice. Vote ``no'' on this Republican budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, with this Congress blindly passing each and every one of the President's requests for more money for the war in Iraq, which is soon to exceed $300 billion in total costs, the time is long overdue for a little common sense about how we spend the American people's money. Earlier this month I introduced new legislation, the Common Sense Budget Act of 2006, legislation that puts some sanity back into the Nation's fiscal policy. This bill already has the support of more than 35 cosponsors. It is beyond dispute that this administration, in tandem with the Republican Congress, has been, to put it mildly, less than fiscally responsible. And are they spending on the neediest Americans, those who need a hand up quite often just to make it from one day to the next? No, of course not. Instead, they fattened up the Pentagon and lavished wealthy special interests with subsidies and tax breaks. Last fall's budget debate actually exposed the staggering hypocrisy of it all because the very same congressional majority that is responsible for the fiscal decadence of the last several years suddenly started lecturing about thrift and responsibility. They were shocked, shocked, that spending had been going on around here. Federal money for Katrina reconstruction, they decided, had to be offset by budget cuts. Deficit spending is okay, apparently, when it comes to upper-bracket tax cuts, but not for poor people whose homes are under water. Well, guess what they chose to cut. The social safety net: Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, students loans, and on and on. Just the kinds of programs that saved my life and my children's lives when I was a single mom on welfare 35 years ago. To help people on the gulf coast who lost everything, they took from the people who have virtually nothing. That is your Republican fiscal policy in a nutshell. Well, enough of that. It is time we invested more in our people and less in our defense contractors. My CommonSense Budget Act would trim $60 billion in waste from the Pentagon budget and put it to work on behalf of the people and the programs that truly strengthen America. The money would be distributed as follows: $5 billion a year for homeland security to make up for funding shortfalls in emergency preparedness, infrastructure upgrades, and grants for first responders; $10 billion each year for energy independence, to kick the imported oil habit that we have in this Nation by investing in efficient, renewable energy sources; $5 billion devoted to putting a dent in the $8.2 trillion national debt; and for children's health care, $10 billion annually to provide health care coverage for the millions of uninsured American children; $10 billion over 12 years to rebuild and modernize every public K-12 school in this country; $5 billion a year to retrain 250,000 Americans who have lost their jobs because of foreign trade; medical research, $2 billion a year to restore recent cuts to the National Institutes of Health budget; and $13 billion a year in humanitarian assistance that allows poor nations to feed 6 million children who are at risk of dying from starvation every year, to end global hunger. The money is there to make an extraordinary difference in people's lives. We just need to challenge the entrenched interests and take on the sacred cows. General Larry Korb worked with the Progressive Caucus and me to draft this model alternative, and Ben Cohen from Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and the organization Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities also helped make the introduction of this bill possible. There are models of good corporate citizenship, you see, businesses that understand that the return on these investments will benefit the entire society: a skilled workforce, healthy children, modern schools, fewer fossil fuels, better fire departments, scientific progress, less debt. These socially responsible businesses understand what makes America strong and safe, and it is not a bloated Pentagon budget that continues to invest in Cold War.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is mistitled the College Access and Opportunity Act. It ought to be called the Reducing College Access and Missed Opportunity Act. Last month, the Republican Congress passed and the President signed a $12 billion cut in student aid, the largest student aid cut in history. This raid on student aid made college more expensive for low- and middle-income students at the very time a college education is more critical than ever for young men and young women throughout our entire country. Today, Congress is finishing the raid on student aid. This bill is a missed opportunity to make college more affordable. Democrats have offered an alternative that would lower interest rates on student loans, increase Pell Grants, help colleges hit by the gulf coast hurricanes to rebuild and recover, and boost college participation rates for minority students. If history is any guide, however, the Republican House will reject this alternative, because like President Bush they value tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over assisting low- and middle-income Americans in their quest for a college education. Mr. Chairman, those are not the values of the American people, and I encourage my colleagues to reject the Republican raid on student aid and to support the Democratic alternative because we have to keep in mind that these students are the very future of the United States of America.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for a President whose party controls both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and, of course, the White House bully pulpit itself, George W. Bush has certainly had an awful lot of explaining to do lately. With all the power at his disposal, starting with a knee-jerk legislature all too ready to follow his lead, lock, stock and barrel, the President should not have to constantly redefine his mission and America's. That is exactly what he has done and what he is doing. Before the war, he offered only a strained rationale as to why we needed to attack Iraq. First, it was getting rid of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Then the rationale was deposing a dictator who provided refuge to al Qaeda, and finally, it became spreading liberty throughout the Middle East. Once things started to turn south, President Bush redefined what he meant when he declared ``an end to major combat operations'' only a year into the war. Now he is redefining what it means to be in a civil war. Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear. Iraq is not in danger of falling into a civil war. The country is in the very throes of a civil war conflict as we speak. Some people have this false notion that an Iraqi civil war would resemble two sides fighting and fighting it out with antiquated rifles in a field that looks kind of like Gettysburg. Unfortunately, the sectarian violence that currently plagues Iraq is pretty similar in appearance and scope to the Lebanese civil war fought in the 1970s and 1980s. Then, like now, religion was manipulated to encourage fighting among different sects. Alliances shift rapidly so that no one ever really knows who is on their side and who is not; and worst of all, innocents are killed on a nearly daily basis as a result of the infighting. As if the failure to acknowledge what is really happening in Iraq was not bad enough, only a week ago, the President attempted his most strained leap of logic yet. During a press conference, which, by the way, after 6 years in office he is finally conducting with regularity, the President stated that American military forces would remain in Iraq until 2009, at the earliest, that another President would have to end it. After initially implying that the war would not cost much and would not take long to fight, the President needs to explain to the American people why the decision to bring our troops home from Iraq will, as he says, ``be decided by future Presidents.'' Mr. Speaker, given the current instability in Iraq, which 150,000 brave U.S. troops who have not been able to quell after more than 3 years of war, why in the world would we plan on American forces remaining in Iraq until 2009? It seems like the President is trying, yet again, to redefine the mission to his satisfaction. Well, you cannot redefine the facts, Mr. Speaker. There is no way to paper over the hundreds of Iraqi civilians who are being brutally murdered in sectarian violence. There is no way to disguise the nearly 2,500 American troops who have lost their lives in this war or the over 15,000 who have been forever injured. Yet, none of these tragic losses have made either the United States or Iraq safer from the threat of terrorism. The tragic irony is that the war has actually made Iraq a haven for international terrorism. It is time for the President to stop trying to redefine reality. It is time to define something constructive for the American people. It is time we plan how we will bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, with today marking the 17th anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island, this seems like an appropriate opportunity to discuss the dangers posed by nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. As I have said from this floor many, many times before, I believe there is no greater national imperative than to bring our troops home from Iraq. But the end of the war must also be the beginning of some fresh and creative thinking about national security. We are in a desperate need, a need for new strategies for keeping America safe. Last summer, Madam Speaker, I introduced the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty Commitments Act. The concept behind the bill is very simple, and it is a really good starting point. America must keep its word and live up to the agreements it has made to reduce our nuclear arsenal. But we need to go even further. So along with the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends for Peace, and WAND, I have developed a plan called SMART Security. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism, which seeks peaceful and diplomatic solutions to international conflict. SMART addresses a range of issues including energy independence, democracy building, and global poverty. But at its core is a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. SMART calls on the United States to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to do it with strong diplomacy, with enhanced weapons regimes and regional security arrangements. Under SMART, we would set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing nuclear testing and development of new nuclear weapons. SMART would redouble our commitment to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which has been successful in reducing nuclear stockpiles and securing nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. SMART would stop the sale and transfer of weapons to regimes involved in human rights abuses, and it would ensure that highly enriched uranium is stored only in secure locations. Mr. Speaker, at just the moment that we need to be vigilant about nuclear proliferation, the Bush administration is asking Congress to give its approval to his dangerous and misguided nuclear energy deal with India. Here he is agreeing to share sensitive nuclear technologies with a nation that was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998. He would essentially reward India for its refusal to sign the nonproliferation treaty, feeding the nuclear appetite of a nation that has failed to show the responsibility expected of a nuclear state. What message does the India pact send to Iran and North Korea? What leverage do we have with these countries to give up their nuclear ambitions, especially since, despite the threats they represent, they have done actually nothing to violate their treaty obligations? If this India agreement were ratified, how would we deal with India's neighbor and rival Pakistan, which is likely to demand the same nuclear concessions from the United States and which has a dishonorable history of sharing nuclear technology with rogue actors? Mr. Speaker, there is a cruel irony to the U.S. nuclear policy. While we happily share nuclear technology with countries that have not always handled it responsibly, and while we continue to pursue a large and expensive nuclear arsenal of our own, we are fighting a bloody and expensive war over a nuclear weapon that never even existed. Remember, we are only in Iraq because our so-called leaders looked us in the eye and said there would be a mushroom cloud over American cities unless we sent our troops off to die. It is time for a 180-day degree turn in our thinking about these issues. It is time we stopped equating security with aggression. It is time we rejected the doctrine of preemption, instead of reaffirming it as the Bush administration did recently. It is time we got SMART about national security. It is time we protected America, not by invading other nations, but by relying on the very best of American values: our desire for peace, our capacity for global leadership, and our compassion for the people of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David Mitchell of Pt. Reyes Station, California, who recently retired after 30 years as the editor and publisher of the Point Reyes Light. The Light has covered community activities, misdeeds, and controversies in the rural small towns of West Marin since 1975. Dave earned a degree in journalism at Stanford University and worked at various small papers before buying the Light with his former wife Cathy. After the couple split up in 1981, Dave sold the paper and worked for the San Francisco Examiner for several years before getting the paper back due to payment default. Described as everything from ``intelligent, scrappy, and folksy'' to ``controversial, opinionated, and hard-headed,'' Dave always presented the news in a lively, personal manner and encouraged his readers to participate through letters and columns. He considered himself a muckraker and determinedly pursued deceit and corruption where he saw it. In 1979 he and Cathy won a Pulitzer Prize for their expose of the Synanon cult. West Marin has changed during Dave's tenure, and the Light chronicled issues such as politics, immigration (even sending reporters to the Azores, Italy, and Jalisco, Mexico, where many were from), relations between Point Reyes National Seashore and the community, and the struggles of ranchers to remain viable as the towns became more gentrified. The paper was always challenged financially as Dave used an inheritance to subsidize it, and he sometimes suffered from severe burn-out as he worked long hours to keep both the finances and the news activities in line. After achieving financial stability, he sold the paper in November, 2005, to Robert Plotkin who made a commitment to maintain its community focus. Mr. Speaker, David Mitchell has provided a vital service to West Marin as well as setting high standards for community newspapers. I know he will continue as a fixture on the local scene and maintain his passion for the issues he championed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution to honor Dr. I. King Jordan. Dr. Jordan is retiring as Gallaudet University's president at the end of this year, having become our Nation's first deaf university president where he has served since 1988, the first deaf individual to be the president of any higher education institution. Dr. Jordan is both an accomplished, respected educator and a personal friend. During his tenure at Gallaudet, he has been an able, caring leader, propelling the university forward and advocating for deaf students. Among his accomplishments are Gallaudet's first-ever capital campaign, a campaign that supported construction of the state-of-the- art Student Academic Center on campus. He also paved the way for an increase in scholarships and academic programs, and he established a fellows program to provide support for deaf college graduates to complete their terminal degrees and become faculty members. Dr. Jordan has been a strong advocate for individuals with disabilities all around the world. His testimony to Congress played a critical role in the passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. I am proud to have had a chance to work with Dr. Jordan these past years, most recently as one of the three Members of Congress who sit on Gallaudet's board: Congressman LaHood, Senator McCain, and myself. We have experienced a career of accomplishments for Gallaudet's students under Dr. Jordan's leadership. They are a testament to his inspirational words, words he spoke in 1988. He said: ``Deaf people can do anything, except hear.'' I wish Dr. Jordan much happiness in his retirement as he looks forward to traveling with his wife, Linda, spending more time with his family. But believe me, his compassion, his vision, and his service will be greatly missed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, this weekend will mark the third anniversary of the Iraq war, and I am still wondering, more importantly the majority of the American people are wondering, why we went there, and what we are still doing there. Remember, we were told this was going to be a walk in the park, in and out in a flash. A few thousand troops and a few million dollars, no sweat. Well, now it has been 3 years, and if we are not out by the end of this year, 2006, our troops will have been fighting in Iraq longer than their grandparents fought in World War II. More than 2,300 Americans dead; tens of thousands wounded; tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi civilians killed; over a quarter billion dollars spent, and for what? So we can lose all stature and credibility around the world? So we can give rise to an insurgency that shows no signs of abating? So we can inspire even greater hatred of the United States among violent jihadists in the Muslim world? Or so we can throw gasoline on the fire of sectarian strife in Iraq and further ignite a civil war? Yesterday's Washington Post reports at least 86 bodies found in Iraq, many of them in a mass grave, many of them having been strangled or tortured. And today the biggest air offensive since the beginning of this mistake. When is enough enough, Madam Speaker? How many more Presidential speeches? How many more half-baked platitudes about the march of freedom? Just two days ago at George Washington University, the President said: ``The work ahead in Iraq is hard.'' But it was his administration that assured us 3 years ago of just the opposite, that this was going to be easy. ``We will complete the mission,'' he said yesterday. But in May 2003, he was declaring ``mission accomplished,'' in fact, draping an aircraft carrier with those very words. The real tragedy is that our Nation will be living with this disastrous fallout from this war for generations. The money we have spent on this war is money we do not have and will not have for investments in our people, their health care, their education, their retirement, their job training, and, yes, their security. The unspeakable, despicable acts of torture that took place at Abu Ghraib have robbed us of our moral authority. The very foundations of freedom have been threatened by the PATRIOT Act and the President's defiance of the rule of law on domestic surveillance. The trumped-up weapons of mass destruction intelligence and the fabrication about an Iraqi link to 9/11 have damaged the trust between America and its leaders, trust that is critical to a thriving democracy. And on a very basic human level, what about men and women who come back from Iraq shattered by the experience? Even if they make it home with all of their limbs functioning and intact, what about the psychological demons that come home with them? These brave patriots need medical help if they are going to lead a productive civilian life, but according to a recent study by the military, they are not getting it. Although one-third of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seeking mental health services, the great majority of those who are diagnosed with psychiatric problems are going untreated. A lot of damage has been done, Madam Speaker, and there is a lot of work ahead: work to repair our troops, our principles, and our reputation. But there is one thing we could do right now to stem the tide, to contain the damage, to literally stop the bleeding. We could and we should bring our troops home now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Every single Member of Congress should be able to support this amendment, unless, of course, the goal is to have permanent presence in Iraq. We can demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we won't occupy their country indefinitely by voting ``yes'' today. In fact, the Iraqi insurgency is largely incited by the very fact that after 3 full years of war, we show no intention of leaving. Our military presence must end. We must bring our troops home. We must give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. And in so doing, no permanent bases and no control over their oil. Mr. Chairman, ending the war and helping the Iraqi people get back on their feet is absolutely possible, and it must start now. We can start this process by making a strong statement that the United States of America has no plan to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq. I urge all of my colleagues vote for the Lee-Allen amendment.