Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there haven't been any front-page articles in the newspapers about it. Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report haven't covered it either. And the big news channels are pretty much silent. But the fact that a group of courageous Iraqi women came to the United States last week to tell their stories is nothing short of remarkable. To get here, they had to brave the treacherous 500-mile stretch from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan. Then they had to clear U.S. Customs, no easy undertaking, and fly from Amman to New York. The stories they shared when they visited the Halls of Congress were both strikingly sad and extremely valuable. But you wouldn't know it unless you had met with them personally, because the American media has hardly reported a single word they said. Too often in this Chamber we have heard that the media isn't doing a good enough job of covering the war in Iraq. Well, you know what? They are right. The media isn't doing a good enough job. The media isn't reporting about the destroyed hospitals, roads and schools, not to mention the shattered lives, shattered lives throughout Iraq. The media isn't talking about the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi civilians who have been killed over the last 3 years of war and occupation. And they are not telling us that some 50 percent of those killed have been women and children, or that thousands of Iraqis have been unnecessarily detained or have gone missing. But the women who flew from Amman to New York talked about what is really happening in Iraq, about some of the burdens they bear every day as a result of our politics there. One of these women was Faiza Al-Araji, a mother of three from Baghdad. Faiza's son, Khalid, was a student at Baghdad University. Last year he was arrested by officials from Iraq's Ministry of the Interior for no apparent reason. He was never charged with a crime and his family was not told about his whereabouts for 3 days. To secure her son's release after Khalid was finally allowed to call home, Faiza had to pay a ransom to the Ministry of the Interior. As if she hadn't already suffered enough, last year, gunmen put a rifle to Faiza's head and stole her car. When she told a group of American soldiers what had just happened, they told her, There is nothing we can do. When she told her story to the Iraqi police, they told her, I am sorry, my sister, but there is nothing we can do. Mr. Speaker, we have nearly 150,000 soldiers stationed throughout Iraq, many of them in Baghdad. If they can't keep the Iraqi people safe, and if the local police can't keep them safe, why are we there? After going through these ordeals, Faiza and her family moved to Amman, Jordan where it is safer. She has dedicated herself to telling the truths about Iraq, the truths that our media isn't telling us. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage anyone watching tonight to visit Faiza's blog, www.afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com. Sadly, what Faiza and the rest of the Iraqi women's delegation have revealed is what many of us have suspected for months, that an Iraqi civil war isn't imminent; it is going on right now, right before our very eyes. Shiite and Sunni militias have been fighting each other and targeting innocent civilians for months. Well more than 2,000 people have been killed since the bombing of the famed gold-domed Shiite shrine in Samarra last month. And the situation will not get better until we bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, how many more innocent Iraqis, mothers, fathers and their children need to be killed before we realize that our policies in Iraq are not working? How many more of our troops have to be killed before we bring them home? Faiza and the rest of the Iraqi delegation know that it is time for our troops to leave. Nearly two-thirds of the American people share this belief. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Bilingual Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. for establishing KBBF 89.1. This station has served my constituents in Sonoma County for 35 years. KBBF is an example of how local broadcasters can serve and benefit their communities. In an era where media outlets are owned by fewer and fewer corporations, KBBF's voice rings brightly throughout the North Bay. KBBF was the dream of a few Sonoma State University students who had a vision of establishing a community owned and operated, non- commercial, bilingual, bi-cultural, educational FM radio station that would be committed to social change and advocacy for the poor and would be devoted to meeting the educational, informational, and cultural needs of the Spanish speaking community. Its founding Board of Directors was far from the Fortune 500. It was made up of people like you and me; a farm worker, a lawyer, a housewife, a local professor and a college student. No wonder KBBF connects so well to the community it serves. The first test broadcast of KBBF-FM on March 31, 1973 made radio history by being the first public bi-lingual radio station in the United States. Regular broadcasts began two months later on May 31, 1973. By 1976 the Bilingual Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. Board of Directors developed a statement of goals consistent with the philosophy of the original founders. In addition to social change and advocacy, the Board charged KBBF with programming goals to coordinate and facilitate efforts to advance the political, social, educational and economic conditions of the Chicano, and Spanish-speaking community and to provide an avenue to develop leadership and creative potential for the youth. The Board of Directors and KBBF have received national recognition from the John F. Kennedy Foundation and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for achieving these goals. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate KBBF 89.1 on its 35th Anniversary for serving my constituents and the nation by being the first bilingual educational FM radio station in the United States.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to honor my friend Ethel Seiderman who is receiving the Beryl H. Buck Award for Achievement on March 9, 2006, for her embodiment of ``community giving in action.'' This award affirms what the Marin community already knows about her . . . Ethel Seiderman has given tirelessly her entire life. Ethel's life and work reflect her passion for children and families. She has created innovative programs which have become national models for meeting a broad range of needs. From her early efforts in low- income communities in Boston and New York in the 1950s to the nationwide reach of the Parent Services Project she currently directs, Ethel has demonstrated that caring for vulnerable populations with respect and compassion reflects how we are as a people. In 1973 Ethel founded the Fairfax-San Anselmo Children's Center (FSACC) and was the director until 1999. FSACC provides childcare for 150 low- to moderate-income families each year with ground-breaking programs such as the Get Well Room for mildly ill children, extended hours, extensive family support, mainstreaming, and transportation for school-age children. With the efforts of her late husband and partner Stan, the family support program increased fathers' involvement through the Men's Group and its various projects. The Parent Services Project (PSP) was founded in 1980 as Ethel realized that, in order to promote the well-being of children, we must promote and incorporate their families. Working in partnership, parents and staff develop support groups, respite and family fun events, workshops and trainings, and other activities requested by the families. With Ethel leading dissemination and advocacy efforts, the PSP approach has now been integrated into over 800 programs across the country. These services vary widely, as they are developed by the needs of the particular parent group; organic development at each site is the norm rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. As a consultant to many of these programs and a stirring and sought- after conference speaker, Ethel continues to travel the Nation promoting the family support principles that guide PSP. She has also published numerous articles and received awards including Marin Citizen of the Year, Marin Women's Hall of Fame, and Woman of the Year from the California legislature. Throughout these endeavors, Ethel's husband Stan, who passed away last year, and her two children and four grandchildren, have provided her a loving support network. And Ethel's extended family--the many people whose lives she has touched--have also returned her warmth over the years. In the words of one director of a children's program that she helped, ``Ethel opened our eyes to a whole new approach in life as well as work, a mode that united families and staff to support each other and to promote the success of our children.'' Mr. Speaker, Ethel Seiderman understands that through honoring and sustaining each other we can truly build a better future. And I honor her on the occasion of her well- deserved receipt of the Beryl H. Buck Award. I know that she will continue to embody community giving while inspiring others to do the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, at a time of declining morale, when we are barely able to maintain a volunteer force, the sign on the Army recruiter's door might as well say: ``Openly gay Americans need not apply.'' Here is the military, struggling to meet its recruitment goals and in some instances even lowering its standards as a result, but still they are turning away and actively weeding out an entire group of people for no other reason than raw prejudice. How dumb is that. But yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that universities receiving Federal funding could not ban military recruiters from their campuses in protest over the military's discrimination against gay Americans. I am not going to relitigate that case here on the House floor, but I do think and I sincerely hope that this case can shine a national spotlight on the absolute folly of the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. Because of their sexual orientation and their unwillingness to conceal it, selfless patriotic Americans are forbidden from serving their country. They cannot serve even though their skills are desperately needed, even though there are available slots, even though they are volunteering for duty that most of their peers have opted against. How does the Army expect its people to be all they can be when it will not allow them to be who they are. What can be more un-American? Yet another example of a Nation preaching the rhetoric of freedom and self-determination around the world while undermining those very values here at home. It is a civil rights outrage to be sure. But on a purely practical note, it is just plain bad national security policy. Is this any way to defend a Nation, by purging the military of talented and dedicated soldiers because they are unashamed of their love for members of the same sex? It is arbitrary, irrational, and dangerous. A GAO report, released about a year ago, concluded that 10,000 Americans have received military discharges under a policy of ``don't ask, don't tell'' at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $191 million. In recent years, since the launch of wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the military has purged several Farsi and Arabic translation specialists because they were discovered to be gay. This shocking and incomprehensible personnel decision has prompted my friend and colleague, Barney Frank, to relabel the Pentagon policy: ``Don't ask, don't tell, don't translate.'' How is that for a forward-looking national defense strategy? At just the moment when we need to understand Mideastern culture and win over hearts and minds of its people, the military dismisses the people who speak their language. The 9/11 Commission cited a shortage of Arabic speakers, and, thus, an inability to translate key intelligence as a handicap in our ability to predict the September 11 attacks. Mr. Speaker, I have been outspoken in my opposition of the Iraq war and my belief that now is the time to bring our troops home. But I am antiwar, not antisoldier, not antimilitary. I want us to have the strongest possible national defense, a goal that is in no way incompatible with rooting out intolerance and protecting equal rights. There is no trade-off, no balance of competing interests in this case. If ``don't ask, don't tell'' fails the social justice test and detracts from national security, what possible use could it have? I would have thought that a 3-year $250 billion war that is stretching the military to its breaking point would compel the Congress and the Pentagon to reexamine this block-headed policy. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Peace Corps Week, which runs from February 27th through March 5th. Forty-five years ago, John F. Kennedy challenged the people of the United States to serve their country: to travel to places they never dreamed they'd visit, to help people they never thought they'd meet, and to do this from the bottom of their hearts. The men and women of the Peace Corps answered and have continued to answer that call, volunteering two years out of their lives to the lives of others. With 7,810 current volunteers, the Peace Corps has enlisted more than 182,000 men and woman and served in 138 countries to improve the lives of the less fortunate. They've been teachers and mentors to countless children. They've helped farmers grow crops, worked with small businesses to market products, and helped teach new health care practices. They've helped schools develop computer skills, and educated entire communities about the threat of HIV/AIDS. The United States was founded on the principle that human beings, regardless of race, creed, or sex possess certain inalienable rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Peace Corps volunteers are the ambassadors of these rights. In the past half-century world events have brought many challenges to Peace Corps volunteers. Yet they have always been able to adapt, responding to those in need regardless of the situation. Volunteers meet all challenges head on with innovation, determination, and compassion. For their altruism, Peace Corps volunteers deserve to be recognized for their work toward peace. To date, the 6th District has produced over 350 Peace Corps volunteers, including the following 27 current volunteers: Troy A. Agron, who is working in Azerbaijan; Sarah W. Bartfeld, Albania; Carol A. Batz, Tonga; Zachary Burt, Morocco; Lilian Chan, Eastern Caribbean; Rustin P. Crandall, Guyana; Catherine A. Cvengros, Armenia; Ashley E. Fine, Benin; Amil A. Gehrke, Georgia; Levi Hanzel-Sello, Moldova; Sharon Kaiser, Eastern Caribbean; Connor J. Kamada, Senegal; Jenna Kay, Uganda; Paul H. Kingsbury, Panama; Anna F. Kuhn, Tanzania; Ana Alecia Lyman, Mozambique; Julia C. Miller, Burkina Faso; Priya N. Mishra, Moldova; Jonathan G. Morris, Ukraine; Lanthy Nguyen, Macedonia; Nickolette D. Patrick, Ukraine; Alyson L. Peel, Swaziland; Shaydra A. Pflaum-Scott, Macedonia; Uriah S. Reisman, Panama; Christopher Shutt, Bulgaria; Elicia F. Smith, Kenya; and Eric J. Tawney, Vanuatu. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating National Peace Corps Week and honoring the brave and selfless volunteers who have sacrificed years of their lives to make our world a better place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as if we haven't done enough damage to the cause of global peace and security in Iraq, today the President has continued to make the world a more dangerous place with his misguided agreement on nuclear energy with India. If this deal is ratified by the Congress, and, believe me, I will do everything in my power to see that it is not, we will be sharing sensitive nuclear technology with a nation that was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998. We will be rewarding India for its refusal to sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty which has helped keep the world safe in this nuclear age for nearly four decades. What message does the India pact send to Iran and North Korea? What leverage do we now have with these countries to give up their nuclear ambitions? Especially when, even though they are dangerous regimes, they have done nothing to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While Great Britain, France and Germany are going back to the negotiating table to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, the United States is giving away nuclear technology to a nation that has rejected the NPT. How can we call ourselves a responsible global superpower when we thumb our noses at established international law? Is it any wonder that America is losing credibility and respect around the globe? How will we now deal with India's neighbor and rival, Pakistan, which will likely demand the same nuclear concessions from the United States, and which has a dishonorable history of sharing nuclear technologies with other rogue states? The India-Pakistan border, which has been called the world's most dangerous nuclear flash point, will now be more dangerous, thanks to this agreement. The President claims that this deal is about easing the pressure on the global energy supply given India's enormous population and soaring energy demands. First of all, where does the confidence come from that there can be an airtight firewall between India `s civilian and military nuclear programs? Technology used for one can inevitably benefit the other. Furthermore, it is laughable to hear concern about fossil fuel consumption from a President who never saw an ocean floor or wildlife refuge he didn't want to drill holes in. But I don't support nuclear power plants, because I believe it is not the answer to global energy and our energy challenge. So if the President is serious about this issue, he will aggressively promote conservation and renewable energy right here in our very own United States of America, the world's hungriest energy consumer; and he will do it with real programs and investments, not a few lines of rhetoric in the State of the Union. But I am not holding my breath. This acquiescence to India underscores more than ever that we need a new approach to our national security. To that end, I have offered a new strategy called SMART Security, SMART standing for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. I have been working on this idea with groups like Physicians For Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee For National Legislation, and Women's Action For New Directions. SMART has five major components: first, prevent future acts of terrorism, not with military force, but better intelligence and multilateral cooperation; second, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, vigorous inspection and a commitment to nonproliferation; third, address terrorism's root causes with a humanitarian effort to invest in poor nations and conquer the depravation and despair that fosters terrorism in the very first place; fourth, rethink our budget priorities, in other words, less spending on Cold War weapons systems and more spending on efforts like energy independence that are relevant to the security threats we face today; and, fifth, pursue alternatives to war, exhausting every conceivable diplomatic channel before resorting to armed conflict. Finally, let me note the ironies of the President's deal with India. On the one hand, here we are feeding the nuclear appetite of a nation that has failed to show the responsibility expected of a nuclear state. On the other hand, we have sacrifice 2,300 Americans and $250 billion on a war that was launched because of nuclear weapons that never existed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frank Egger of Fairfax, CA, who recently completed 10 terms--40 years--on the Fairfax City Council, including seven stints as mayor. The longest continuously serving city council member in the State, Frank's tenure was marked by his environmental activism and his passion for his town. A San Francisco native, Frank lived in Santa Rosa for several years where he met his wife, Ronita Sundin, while modeling at a fashion show at the Flamingo Hotel. The couple moved to Fairfax in 1959 to raise their daughter Lori, who now has two children of her own. Frank left college to support his family and spent 44 years driving a bread truck for Sara Lee. He became active in North Bay labor issues, fighting for the rights of blue-collar workers, and eventually served as president of Teamsters Local No. 484. In the 1960s Frank began his life's calling as an activist in both State and local issues when he perceived the environmental threats facing California and when a graceful Victorian bank in his hometown was replaced by a modern building. Frank cofounded Friends of the Eel River, preventing the building of the Dos Rios Dam and is still fighting water diversions that could harm that stream's fisheries. He has had long working relationships with environmental pioneers including David Brower, Todd Steiner, Marty Griffin, and the late Peter Behr--with whom he developed the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, signed into law by Governor Reagan. He also served as one of the State's first coastal commissioners, spearheaded a State antinuclear initiative, and is a member of the statewide Environmental Health Legislative Working Group Pesticide Committee. Locally, Frank was active in many key groups including the Ross Valley Paramedic Authority, GGNRA Board of Control, Marin County Congestion Management Agency, Marin Telecommunications Agency, and many others over his 40-year tenure. He has also been a fixture at meetings dealing with water issues in both Marin and Sonoma counties. However, he will be most remembered for his leadership in preserving Fairfax's small-town character through his role in slowing its development and safeguarding its environment and the wages of its workforce. He was instrumental in the creation of the 500-acre Elliot Nature Preserve, enactment of strict antipesticide ordinances and a high living-wage law, and protection of the historic 23-acre Marin Town and Country Club from large-scale development. In the cauldron of local politics, all would agree that Frank acted out of conviction for his town, for the environment, and for the well being of workers. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have worked with Frank Egger, a brave and caring activist, whose years of service are an inspiration to all of us who believe in fighting for our values and speaking out for progressive causes. I know he will continue this fight, and I intend to be by his side.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor my friend Alice Gray who died on February 10, 2006, at the age of 88. Surrounded by family and friends, she passed away peacefully in her Santa Rosa home. Known throughout Sonoma County for her leadership in the civil rights movement, Alice's strength, motherly warmth, and common sense were a hallmark of her style. Originally from Longview, Texas, Alice moved to California during World War II to join her husband Gilbert who was working in the shipyards in Marin City. In 1950 the family moved to Santa Rosa where there were few other black people, and Alice and Gilbert soon became community activists. In 1954 they co-founded the Sonoma Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and led pickets to integrate local businesses. Alice also helped establish the National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women's Club in Sonoma, the Marin Rod and Gun Club, and the Community Baptist Church which has been led by the Reverend James Coffee for 45 years. In 1992 Alice and Gilbert launched the Gray Foundation, with an initial contribution of $150,000, to provide funds to students with the desire to further their education and serve their community. The Grays declared, ``The Gray Foundation is our effort to reverse unemployability, declining social values and violent self-fear. We seek to put our resources behind our words (put up or shut up) . . . As a people, we have to put our growing resources to use in support of our heroes/sheroes, our heritage, as well as persons and places of learning. We must listen and learn from each the traditions of self- help and self-reliance that once gave our people strength.'' The Foundation's programs embody that philosophy, from its scholarships for high school graduates to In Partnership, a unique enrichment program at Brook Hill Elementary School which focuses on the development of tools that young children will need for school success. Its theme is ``Students Taking an Active Role'' (the children are known as ``STARS'') and includes the South Park Grandmothers'' Club whose members, including Alice, went regularly to the school to be there for at-risk kids. Alice's husband Gilbert passed away in 1997 after 62 years of marriage. She remained active, including a drive to Los Angeles with her grandson Curtis last fall to attend the 18th annual California NAACP Convention. Always a high-spirited driver (called ``wheeling'' by the family), she drove for 100 miles on the trip, her first time behind the wheel since her husband's death. At the Convention, she met with the new president, Bruce Gordon, and many old friends from all over the state such as Willie Brown and Mervyn Dymally. She and Curtis attended seminars, including one on same sex marriage. Both of them were overwhelmed at the concluding banquet where Curtis was given the honor of doing an invocation and all 450 attendees sang Happy Birthday to Alice. Alice is survived by 7 great, great grandchildren, 28 great grandchildren, 32 grandchildren, 5 siblings, numerous nieces and nephews, eight of her nine children--Ann Gray Byrd, William Gray, Dorothy Woodward, Ida Johnson, James Gray, Charles Gray, Aubrey Gray, Robert Gray--and many close friends and admirers. Mr. Speaker, it was the Alice's and Gilbert's desire that ``the Gray Foundation serve as an example to others so that they, too, will put up, because we cannot afford to shut-up and still survive.'' Alice Gray herself was a shining example of someone who ``put up'', inspiring so many with her actions and her heart. I will miss my friend but know that her message of hope and compassion will continue to spread throughout the community and beyond.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times from this podium, over 130 times actually, about the moral imperative of bringing our troops home from Iraq. With sectarian strife reaching a bloody, violent high in Iraq last week, it is clear that our military presence is doing more harm than good. But for many of our Iraq veterans, even an immediate end to the occupation would be too late to spare them a possible lifetime of physical and psychological damage. Much is made, and with good reason, of the physical wounds suffered in combat, but even those who return home physically unharmed often face terrifying demons. Even the toughest, bravest and best trained soldiers are not immune to devastating trauma, the result of daily exposure to danger and unspeakable carnage. These demons must be addressed, and they must be addressed medically in order for many soldiers to return to normal, productive lives. But the Washington Post reports today that not enough veterans are getting the mental health care they need. One-third of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seeking mental health services, and the great majority of those who are diagnosed with psychiatric problems are going untreated. It is a budget problem and it is a diagnostic problem. Given the nature of the war in Iraq, we must adjust the official standards for what constitutes trauma and, thus, what qualifies veterans for subsidized treatment. Because the combat danger in Iraq is anywhere and everywhere, many, many of our troops are exposed to conditions that lead to mental distress. As one psychiatrist at Walter Reed explained, ``There is no front line in Iraq, and everyone in a convoy is a target.'' Steve Robinson, head of the National Gulf War Research Center, told the Post that there are few sanctuaries in Iraq. ``Every place,'' he said, ``is a war zone.'' Meanwhile, it seems the Department of Veterans Affairs is poorly equipped to deal with this situation. Today's Washington Post article cites budget constraints and worries that the Department won't be able to handle the huge influx of returning soldiers in need of mental health treatment. But who caused those budget constraints? Certainly it wasn't our troops in Iraq who foolishly promised that we could fight a quarter-of- a-trillion-dollar war and dole out billions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. It wasn't our troops who twisted arms to pass this Medicare Part D boondoggle, which is subsidizing the drug companies and the insurance interests while leaving seniors to wrestle with a bewildering bureaucracy. Is there any reason why we couldn't have anticipated an enormous demand for Iraq-related mental health services? Of course there wasn't. Couldn't we have included enough money into the war supplemental bills this body has passed? Couldn't we have sacrificed other budgetary handouts and goodies, the ones that benefit people who haven't offered a fraction of the sacrifice for their country that our Iraq veterans have? I guess if you assumed that our troops would be greeted in Iraq as liberators and if you assumed that we would be in and out of Iraq in a flash, you never got the got to the point where you worried about the mental health of returning veterans. Once again we see the disastrous, tragic consequences of failed planning and poor execution of this war. We must do everything we can to help our Iraq veterans cope with their traumas. It is the least our government can do after sending them to war on false pretenses, with insufficient equipment and without an exit strategy. But as an even more urgent matter, we can ensure that no more soldiers suffer from terrifying nightmares and setbacks and flashbacks by ending this occupation and bringing them home at once. I have actually presented my four-point plan for a radical shift in our Iraq policy to the President of the United States. This policy includes four major areas: One, greater multilateral cooperation with our allies in enlisting their help in establishing an interim security force in Iraq; Two, a diplomatic offensive that recasts our role in Iraq as construction partner, rather than military occupier; this means no permanent bases in Iraq, no American claims on Iraqi oil; Three, a robust post-conflict reconciliation process with a peace commission established to coordinate talks between the Iraqi factions; and Four, and most importantly, withdrawal of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, one cannot doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. Those are not my words. They were written last week by William F. Buckley, the godfather of modern American conservatism. In a column entitled, It Did Not Work, Mr. Buckley urges an acknowledgment of defeat in Iraq. If President Bush has lost William F. Buckley, then his Iraq policy is in a heap of trouble. By the way, I am eager to see if Mr. Buckley is labeled a treasonous coward, as my friend and colleague Mr. Murtha was when he made similar points a few months ago. Who could blame Mr. Buckley, or anyone else with a pulse, for that matter, at arriving at this conclusion? While we were away for our district work period, the bombing of a Shiite shrine ignited the most gruesome carnage that Iraq has ever seen since the war began nearly 3 years ago. The Washington Post reported on its front page this morning that a staggering 1,300 people died in last week's sectarian violence. ``Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday,'' The Post reported, ``blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound.'' Is this what ``freedom on the march'' looks like, Mr. Speaker? But we should not be surprised. It is not as if no one saw this coming. Those of us who opposed the Iraq war before it even started warned that an invasion would open up a Pandora's Box of ethnic strife that we would be unable to tame, that could lead to full-blown civil war. The administration's Iraq policy is a tragic blunder of historic proportions. I can hardly believe that we have sacrificed 2,300 Americans and spent a quarter of a trillion dollars all so Iraq could slip into chaos and lawlessness, with the political process now hanging by the flimsiest of threads. My heart weeps for our soldiers who have been put in this impossible situation. Various news reports describe some of our troops as hanging back during last week's violence. Why? Because rather than being able to calm the uprisings, they know that their very presence is actually one of the main catalysts for the violence in the first place. No wonder a new poll shows that our servicemen and -women in Iraq believe we should leave and we should leave soon, with less than a quarter agreeing with President Bush that we should stay as long as it takes. Here you see a complete folly that is our policy. Our preemptive occupation lit the original match that grew into this uncontainable inferno. We do not have a hose to put it out. In fact, we pour gasoline on the fire every single day, a fire that is destroying Iraq, killing our soldiers, sending them home wounded almost beyond repair. And for what reason? If we are doing more harm than good, if we are a force for resentment and divisiveness, rather than peace and stability, what are we doing there? Mr. Speaker, it has never been clearer that it is time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 12 and 13. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 12 and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 13.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed Rollcall votes #10 and #11. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Rollcall vote #10 and ``yea'' on Rollcall vote #11.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed Roll Call votes No. 8 and No. 9. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 8 and ``aye'' on Roll Call vote No. 9.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and therefore unable to vote on rollcall votes 5, 6, and 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 5, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 6 and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 7.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today on the occasion of the death of my friend and constituent, Roger Grossman of Mill Valley, California, who died January 26, 2006, after an extended battle with prostate cancer. Roger was relatively new to Marin County, arriving 5 years ago as the new publisher for the Marin Independent Journal, the IJ, the daily paper for thousands of residents. He quickly established himself as a forceful, astute leader and a caring contributor to the community, both as an individual and in his role as newspaper publisher. Originally from Seattle where he got his start with the Seattle Post- Intelligencer, Roger also worked at several radio stations, held publishing posts in San Diego and Michigan, and wrote, ``Eleven Steps to Advertising Success.'' In 1989 he joined MediaNews Group, the parent company of the Marin IJ. One of Roger's best-known activities was his crusade to bring attention to the issue of workforce housing. Realizing that the high cost of housing in Marin County was hurting the economy by driving workers farther and farther away, he ran a hard-hitting series highlighting the issue and championed the creation of the Marin Workforce Housing Trust by the County's large employers. He also spoke out on Marin's high rates of both breast cancer and prostate cancer, important public health issues. A frequent presence at so many events that an IJ editorial opined that he ``seemed to be everywhere,'' Roger's visibility was enhanced by his imposing physical stature, vibrant energy, and warmth of spirit. As an advocate for the many nonprofits that are the fabric of the community, he supported causes ranging from the arts to health care to youth services. He served on many boards including Dominican University of California, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Marin Ballet, the Novato Chamber of Commerce, United Way, the California Film Institute, and the School to Career Partnership and won several awards including Heart of Marin. He is survived by his wife Cheryl and children Erik, Stephanie, Trent, and Elliott. Mr. Speaker, Roger Grossman's passing will leave a hole in the fabric of Marin County. His compassion, resolve, and buoyant energy leave a legacy for us in how one person can make a difference to his community, his colleagues, his family, and his many friends.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor James E. Pfeiffer of Sausalito, California, who died January 14, 2006, while hiking on the Marin County trails that he loved. Jim will be remembered for his contributions to his community and the youth of California as well as for the leadership he provided to the Foundation of the State Bar of California. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1945, Jim earned a B.A. from Wesleyan College in Iowa and an M.A. from George Washington University in Washington, DC. He worked for the YMCA in New York and Connecticut before relocating to California in 1976 as Program Director of the Sonoma County YMCA. Jim also served stints at the YMCA in Los Gatos, the Diocese of San Jose, the Japanese American Community Center, and the Charles Armstrong School, before becoming the first Director of the Foundation of the State Bar of California upon its establishment in 1990. He later became its first employee as well as continuing to manage a volunteer board of directors. Founded to fund law-related education and public service and to provide scholarships to law students, the organization under Jim's leadership raised corporate sponsorships of several hundred thousand dollars per year. Due to his guidance, it now supports the development and promotion of peer courts for first-time youthful offenders who commit a misdemeanor; awards 40 grants annually to causes such as ``Kids in the Law'' and ``When You're Over 18'' publications; and offers scholarships and internships to applicants from all over the State. Jim also spearheaded the creation of the Legal Heritage Institute which sends a high school student to Sacramento for a week to experience the courts and legal issues in the Capitol and for several years served as executive director of the California Supreme Court Historical Society where he focused on the recovery and promotion of the State's judicial history. He retired from the foundation in 2003 due to advancing Parkinson's disease. Jim's community service includes volunteering as lay eucharistic minister for the San Quentin Prison Ministry, developing and guiding historical walking tours of San Rafael for the Marin Historical Society, and working with youth as recreation director for St. Andrew Church in Marin City's Vacation Bible School. He also walked precincts for political candidates Faye d'Opal, Sharon Jackson, and John Kerry. And Jim was a great supporter of mine. Mr. Speaker, James Pfeiffer will be sorely missed by his many friends and colleagues and especially by his devoted wife, Bonnie Hough. His courage, spirit, and warmth were an inspiration to all of us who knew him and are a continual reminder not only of what we have lost, but also of what we can achieve.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a community friend, Gene Benedetti, of Petaluma, CA, who died on January 13, 2006. Gene's larger than life personality, his generosity, civic pride, and business leadership will be greatly missed. Gene was born in a small Sonoma County farmhouse in 1919. He was the youngest child of Italian immigrants, whose family labored in the ranching traditions of rural Northern California. A gifted student and talented athlete, Gene excelled in every subject while attending Petaluma High School, Santa Rosa Junior College, and the University of San Francisco. He was a legend on the football field throughout his college career, and later helped establish and coach the Petaluma Leghorns, a powerhouse semipro football team that dominated the Bay Area leagues that existed in the 1940s and 50s. A true patriot of ``the Greatest Generation,'' Gene was a World War II hero who landed on Omaha Beach during the D-Day invasion and was awarded the Silver Star for his bravery. His love for his country was persistently expressed, as he proudly led the singing of ``God Bless America'' at any social event he attended. After returning from the war, Gene and his wife Evelyn, who passed away in March of 2004, raised their six children in a community they would later help to build. The young war veteran was first offered a job as assistant manager of the California Cooperative Creamery in Petaluma, and then quickly rose to the ranks of manager. Later in his career, he and his business partners would purchase the Clover and Stornetta dairies and establish Clover-Stornetta Farms in 1977. Gene's legacy, however, will be marked by his abiding commitment to the community he was such a part of. As a lifelong resident of Sonoma County, Gene devoted his time serving on numerous boards and commissions. As president of Clover-Stornetta Farms, he lent his company's resources to endorse countless organizations and sponsor many local events. His legacy will also survive in the generations of Sonoma County children who will grow up drinking Clover brand milk and savoring Clover ice cream. And of course, who can forget Gene's alter persona, cartoon character, television and billboard star, the beloved Clover Dairy mascot, Clo the Cow. Through Clo, Gene's lively spirit will live on, as he will be remembered as a real ``moooover and shaker.'' Gene was a loving husband, caring father and grandfather, and a patriarch of Sonoma County. Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time to recognize the life of a wonderful man. The memory of Gene Benedetti will live forever in the heart of a community he helped to build.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to honor my friend, Marijke Byck-Hoenselaars, who died in a tragic accident on January 5, 2006. Marijke's death leaves a void in the Sonoma County community that will be a reminder of her compassion, grace, and generosity for years to come. Born in Holland in 1933, Marijke met her husband Walter Byck in the cafeteria of the New York hospital where both worked, she as a nurse and he as a radiologist. Long-time lovers of the arts, the two decided to marry in 1961 while visiting the Kroller-Muller Museum in the Netherlands. The couple moved to Santa Rosa in 1965 and purchased the Paradise Ranch in 1978. After raising grapes for many years, they opened Paradise Ridge Winery in 1994. Their five children were raised mostly on the 156-acre property and several worked in important positions at the winery where Marijke was chief executive. Taking advantage of the beautiful site in the hills on the edge of Santa Rosa, Marijke and her family created a unique facility as well as producing outstanding wines. The grounds feature a sculpture garden which exhibits the work of local artists, and the large central building with its stunning views has been home to many unique events over the years. But Marijke's legacy will be especially marked by her tireless efforts, frequently performed anonymously, on behalf of the less fortunate in Sonoma County. From delivering in old sweat pants food packages and holiday gifts for children to low-income families to serving as a Board Member, benefactor, and leader with local nonprofit groups, her helping hand and personal involvement were the hallmark of her style. Marijke's compassion led to her participation in the Sonoma Task Force for the Homeless, the National Women's History Project, Catholic Charities, The Children's Village of Sonoma County, and other causes for which her winery served as the site for benefits and fundraisers. She also cared deeply about global peace issues, and her activism reflected these broader concerns as well. According to one friend, her service went beyond compassion. She was hungry as a child in Holland during the war years and felt a deep empathy that was integrated seamlessly into her life. Whenever she went out to dinner, she boxed her leftovers and did not go home till she found a hungry person to give them to. Commitment to her family played a key role in this seamless life. She is survived by her husband Walter, her five children, and many grandchildren whose presence gladdened her heart and enhanced her joy in life. Their loss will be deeply felt and shared by their many friends. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine life in Sonoma County without Marijke Byck-Hoensellars' warm smile, her friendship, and her humanitarianism. I am confident that her spirit will live on in those of us she has inspired during her 40 years in the community.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last night, Cindy Sheehan was evicted from this Chamber and arrested. Her crime? Wearing a T-shirt that highlighted the number of dead soldiers in Iraq and asking, ``How many more?'' Since when is free speech conditional on whether or not you agree with the President of the United States? In fact, isn't the whole point of the first amendment to our Constitution to protect dissenters? And how ironic is it, Mr. Speaker, that this outrageous suppression of peaceful protest should take place on the very same day that America lost one of the pioneers of civil disobedience, Coretta Scott King. I will say about this episode what I said about the torture of prisoners, the PATRIOT Act, and the administration's illegal domestic surveillance program: How can we claim to be fighting on behalf of freedom around the world, making the world safe for freedom, when we are smothering freedom here at home? Let us not forget also that Cindy Sheehan has given her child for this country and this war. She deserves the sympathy and gratitude of every American. No one who sat in this Chamber last night has the moral authority she does to express an opinion on the Bush Iraq policy. But I might argue that it is actually a little misleading to classify Ms. Sheehan's views as ``dissent'' or ``protest,'' because a majority of Americans agree with her that the invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake and a majority agrees with her that the President misled us about weapons of mass destruction intelligence in order to justify this war. The President, meanwhile, represents a minority view, and he tried once again to sell that minority view to skeptical Americans last night. And once again he did so by employing a spin, misleading rhetoric, and outright deception. Of course, he conveniently conflated the 9/11 attacks on America with the conflict in Iraq, exploiting a national tragedy for the umpteenth time. He talked about the importance of Iraqi reconstruction, but did not mention that the official in charge of reconstruction says there is not enough funding to complete key projects. He said that military commanders on the ground would make decisions for troop levels, but in 2003 he dismissed the general who correctly warned that keeping the peace in post-war Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops. The President set up this misleading either/or proposition choice last night: you either support his militarism, or you believe in ``retreating within our borders and the false comfort of isolation.'' This is a false charge. We should absolutely be engaging the nations of the world, especially ones that are poor, underdeveloped, and vulnerable to terrorism; but we should be engaging the world with humanitarian support, not with bombs and missiles. Yes, by all means, let us meet the challenges of the world, where too many suffer under economic and political repression. But instead of sending troops, let us send small business loans, let us send agricultural experts, let us send doctors, teachers, scientists and constitutional scholars. Let us engage, not invade. This has been the core philosophy of my SMART Security Plan that I have discussed here many, many times: less brawn, more brains; less belligerence, more benevolence. It is interesting that a President who has disparaged allies, rejected multilateralism, and ignored global commitments now talks about the dangers of isolation. The only way to promote peace and security to combat terrorism, to stop the spread of deadly weapons is to embrace a vision of global partnership, cooperation and diplomacy; and that is exactly what the President has failed to do. He could start by abandoning his vision of conquest and bring our troops home. Only then can we begin the hard work of defeating tyranny and ensuring freedom and ensuring peace around the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't need to remind anyone in this Chamber of the saying that all politics are local. This budget has real effects on the local level, especially in my home State of California. As a former welfare recipient, I am concerned with the increased work requirements to TANF. The Legislative Analyst's Office (California's version of the Congressional Budget Office) has said that the State will not be able to meet these new requirements, costing them $400 million in the first year alone. These requirements undermine the bipartisan work that has been done on the State level to help people get the education they need to obtain a decent paying job. Work requirements without the support of education and child care fail to address the real needs of the working poor. Mr. Speaker, this issue is too important to be buried in a budget conference report. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and give the reauthorization of TANF the careful consideration it deserves.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in a difficult week, well, weeks, following September 11th, Congress passed the U.S. PATRIOT Act in an effort to comfort and protect a shocked and grieving Nation. Yet even in the face of all that, Congress found 16 of the PATRIOT Act's provisions to be so egregious and far-reaching that they were not made permanent, and were slated to expire within 4 years. Yet somehow, here we are, in the midst of having learned that our President has authorized the NSA to spy on Americans without a warrant, still debating if it is a good idea to further compromise our privacy, and make permanent some of the PATRIOT Act's worse provisions, such as roving wiretaps and expanded access to personal information like medical, library, financial records. Threats to our civil liberties and freedoms are mounting, an open- ended war, a President copping a ``I can because I say I can'' attitude, and a dangerous view of what executive powers are bestowed on our President in the U.S. Constitution. We cannot continue on this slippery slope. As the elected leaders this country, we must vote to protect Americans from dangerous infringements of civil rights and liberties. That is why I encourage my colleagues to oppose extending the PATRIOT Act today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, merely hours after the Bush administration was celebrating the Iraqi election as a triumph for human freedom, what did we discover courtesy of the New York Times? That our own government, through the National Security Agency, is secretly spying on the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant or a court order. And they have been doing so for nearly 4 years at the explicit direction of the President of the United States of America himself. This is even more egregious than any of the other suspensions of civil liberties that we have seen in the last 4 years. It makes the PATRIOT Act look like it was written by the ACLU. Has anyone in the White House read the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment about the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures? It is a part of the same Constitution that the President has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Mr. Speaker, I am not exaggerating when I say that sometimes I do not recognize my own country. Secret gulags in Eastern Europe, the Vice President personally lobbying Senators to give the CIA the right to torture detainees, and now this. What do I tell my grandchildren about what America stands for? Does this White House believe in any transparency or oversight for anything they do, or do they think that getting 51 percent, or 51 out of every 100 votes gives them a mandate to operate behind a veil shielded from the day-in and day-out accountability that sustains a functioning democracy? Remember, this is coming from the folks who preach about limited government. It turns out that they only want limited government as long as it would protect the wealthy and the powerful from high taxes and burdensome regulations. When it comes to privacy rights and ordinary Americans, they are in favor of the most intrusive and invasive big government imaginable. The whole thing is Orwellian, Mr. Speaker. To defeat totalitarian extremism, we are adopting extremist totalitarian tactics of our own. In defense of freedom, we are undermining freedom. The whole thing is morally incoherent. Let us remember that the war on terrorism is partly an ideological struggle. It is about winning over hearts and minds. But when we violate the very principles of freedom that we are preaching in the Middle East, what happens to our moral authority? What happens to our global credibility? Why should anyone take us seriously? Those around the world who are skeptical of American values are surely noticing that we do not honor those values ourselves. And those who hate us will hate us even more when our government's hypocrisy is exposed. And even if you do not believe this surveillance authority holds the key to victory on the war on terrorism, let us think for a minute about whom we have empowered to exercise it. The very same intelligence apparatus that has proven itself dysfunctional time and time again over recent years. After all, the President himself just got through telling us this week that the U.S. intelligence community got it wrong on the most monumental and consequential issue it has faced in decades: whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If they blew it on something as fundamental as that, why should we have confidence that they are conducting this domestic spying operation competently, without any abuses or overreach. Mr. Speaker, is that what more than 2,100 Americans have given their lives for in Iraq, the right for a government to snoop and eavesdrop on its own people without probable cause? If we, the supposed liberators, endorse and adopt these kinds of oppressive tactics, then what was the point of toppling Saddam Hussein, especially given that he did not even have weapons of mass destruction? This disgraceful episode makes me believe more strongly than ever that we must reevaluate our entire approach to providing national security, and it should start with bringing our troops home from Iraq. Not one more American should have to die for values that our government is willing to sacrifice here at home.