Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' misplaced budget priorities are actually shameful. They continue to be a reverse Robin Hood, slashing funds to safety net programs only to give more tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans. The budget reconciliation that we will talk about next week or the next week, whenever you guys can get your stuff together, proposes huge cuts in important programs that the poor and the working poor depend on day in and day out, such as $15 billion in cuts in Medicaid programs; $12.5 billion for student loans; and almost $1 billion in cuts for food stamps. All of this while, and you would allow the richer to get even richer at the expense of helping those who need it the most, doing nothing to offset Katrina expenses or to reduce our Nation's deficit. Using Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to extend tax cuts, while taking from the programs that the victims of the hurricane need most, is an embarrassment. I hope you will fix it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not see any purple fingers in this Chamber so far this week. We all remember how the Iraqi elections in January were hailed by the President's supporters as the turning point in Iraq. Well, now there has been another election, a referendum on the Constitution. And what we are hearing from the pro-war forces is that we are still in for a long and deadly occupation in Iraq. It was all going to be so simple, remember? We would march into Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. The grateful Iraqis would embrace the American presence, and a glorious democracy would spontaneously bloom. The Iraq situation was often compared to Germany and Japan after World War II where we were able to quickly fashion functioning democracy. The New York Times cites Richard Armitage, Bush's former deputy Secretary of State, who notes that those were homogeneous societies, whereas Iraq is a patchwork of rival ethnic groups. Armitage also points out that Germany and Japan, in 1945, were cowed populations, exhausted and deeply shocked by the war. Iraqis, however, were unshocked and unawed. They simply want their country back. So 2\1/2\ years and 2,000 body bags later, we are spinning our wheels and the President who drove us into this ditch in the first place has no plan for getting us out. Instead, according to a New York Times article on Monday, he seems to be preparing us for, and I quote, ``a struggle of Cold War proportions.'' Does that mean we can look forward to a half century of American boots on the ground in Iraq? One of the President's aids says in the article that this is a struggle of ideologies that is not going to end with one election or one constitution, or even a string of elections. Is this what the American people signed up for, a titanic ideological struggle with no end in sight? No, they were told Saddam Hussein had to be removed because he had deadly weapons pointed at American cities. As he has repeated over the last few years, the President is mixing apples and oranges. The President is saying that there is a threat of Islamic terrorism which is real and must be addressed, and that is true. Though I would argue we need to use more diplomatic and fewer military tools in that struggle. Then there is the war in Iraq, which is and was not a country of Islamic terrorists until we actually invaded that area and actually inflamed Muslim extremists and served as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda. In a twisted way it turns out that the Bush administration was right. You cannot separate Iraq from the war on terrorism. What they did not tell us is that invading Iraq has helped the wrong side of the war on terrorism. That same Times article quotes Kenneth Pollack, a scholar who initially supported the Iraq invasion. Pollack now says, and I quote him, ``The theory that democracy is the antidote to insurgency gets disproven on the ground every day.'' So if we cannot defeat the insurgents by continuing to hold elections, what can we do? There is only one answer. We can take away the one thing that animates the insurgency in the first place, that is, our perceived military occupation of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Iraq a few weeks ago to meet with our military and to learn more about their mission. I cannot tell you how impressed I was with their courage, their loyalty, their intelligence. From the officers down to the citizen soldiers of the National Guard, they are indeed the best America has to offer. Unfortunately, they have been let down by their civilian superiors who sent them to Iraq on false pretenses, on a poorly defined mission, without all of the tools they needed, and without a plan to get them out of there. Our soldiers deserve better. They deserve a clear strategy from their President. They deserve a one-way ticket back home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, appeared on ``Meet the Press'' yesterday morning and made this assertion, and I quote Dr. Rice: `` . . . when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into the buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done . . . ``Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power.'' Mr. Speaker, what happened to the weapons of mass destruction? In the run up to the war, no one said anything about a bolder approach. We were told about uranium purchases from Niger. We were told about the world's most dangerous weapons falling into the hands of the wrong people. We were told by Dr. Rice herself about the specter of mushroom clouds over American cities. We were treated to a campaign of fear and deception about weapons of mass destruction because the Bush administration knew that was the only way to convince the Nation and the Congress to commit to this war. They knew that this bolder approach, this ideological pipe dream, was an absolute nonstarter. So what are we supposed to tell Cindy Sheehan and the thousands of other mothers, fathers, spouses, siblings, and friends of dead soldiers and soldiers who were wounded? That their children died or were wounded not to protect America but for some ``bolder approach,'' because the Middle East is the personal chess board of a gang of neoconservatives who have not had to sacrifice a thing for this war? Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Iraq a few weeks ago to meet the troops to learn more about their mission. I cannot tell the Members how impressed I was with the courage, the loyalty, and intelligence of our soldiers from the officers down to the citizen soldiers of the National Guard. They are, indeed, the best America has to offer. My question is: Why can we not have political leaders with the same honor and integrity as the men and women who wear the uniform, who take the risks, who make the sacrifices? It is nothing short of tragic the way the Pentagon and the White House have let down and even exploited the men and women in their charge. They sent them to Iraq on false pretenses, on a poorly defined mission, without all the tools they needed and without a plan to bring them home. I have been calling for our troops to come home this entire year. I have called for hearings. I have introduced resolutions. I have forced a vote in this Chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not just speaking for myself. A majority of Americans clearly share this anxiety and skepticism about the war. I have tried to jumpstart the conversation about how to go about ending the occupation. At the hearing I convened last month, some very sound ideas were laid out about how to end this debacle and how the United States can play a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society. But the President will not engage on this level. He will not engage in this conversation. He offers nothing but platitudes and vague assertions. Terrorism is bad and freedom is good, he tells us. We need to stay the course, he tells us. We will be there as long as we need to be there, he tells us. This is not enough. The American people and our soldiers deserve better. They deserve a plan, an endgame, a clear strategy to return Iraq to the Iraqi people and the troops to their families back home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House out of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 8 months ago standing outside this dome, the President of the United States spoke these words as he was sworn in for a second term: ``We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation, the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom which is eternally right. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors.'' Beautiful words, honorable sentiments, if only the Bush administration were conducting this war in Iraq in a way that actually reflects those values. Last week, Human Rights Watch released a report that details once again how Iraqi war prisoners were subjected to acts of sadistic cruelty at the hands of their supposed liberators. This time it was at Forward Operating Base Mercury, where beatings and other forms of humiliation took place on a daily basis for several months. Often, this was not even about interrogation or securing some vital piece of national security. ``In a way, it was sport,'' said one sergeant in the 82nd Airborne, a way to ``work out your frustration.'' What is perhaps most tragic is that our soldiers who have committed these acts are themselves victims as well, victimized by their incompetent and amoral superiors who give a wink and a nod to torture and then blame it on a few bad apples. One officer in the 82nd Airborne, Captain Ian Fishback, was appalled by the prisoner abuse and tried in vain for a year and a half to get some clarification from his superiors about how prisoners should be treated, given that the administration had essentially tossed the Geneva Conventions in the trash can. He got no answers because the Pentagon seemed to want the abuse to continue but did not want to take any responsibility for it. That is how it works with this crowd: The powerless take the fall while the high-level decisionmakers who make bad decisions are left in place to make more bad decisions. So it is that Lynndie England faces jail time for her conduct at Abu Ghraib while Tommy Franks gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The prisoner abuse episode is consistent with everything else about the way this war has been handled. It indicates both a moral blind spot and a staggering incompetence that has cost nearly 2,000 Americans their lives. The Bush administration had no plan for how to conduct this war, they had no plan for securing the country once Saddam was deposed, and now they have no plan for ending the war. We need a compassionate and we need a viable exit strategy, one that ends the occupation but still gives us a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society. If the President will not do it, we will. If the President will not lead, we will. Two weeks ago, I held an informal bipartisan hearing to discuss plans to withdraw our troops and end the war. We heard from a panel of Middle East experts and military strategists, just the kind of people George Bush should have listened to along his march to war, all of whom testified about the need for a change in U.S. policy in Iraq. The hearing was not about endorsing one particular approach. My goal was to put ideas on the table, to start a conversation that the Nation wants and the Nation deserves. Two-thirds of the American people disapprove of the President's handling of Iraq, and yet it has been some sort of taboo around this place to discuss troop withdrawal. The American people are way ahead of Congress on this. It is about time we caught up, it is about time we realized

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a new low. Wasteful drilling in the Arctic and dismantling the Clean Air Act are bad enough, but now the Republican majority wants to weaken the Endangered Species Act, weaken it by handing out subsidies to oil and gas companies and land speculators for not killing endangered species, meaning taxpayers will be giving money to these land developers for simply following the law or for taking a risk by making a big investment in land so they can sell it at a higher price. What next? Will taxpayers be asked to foot the bill to pay companies to follow other laws of the land? Mr. Speaker, I know we can do better. Protecting our endangered species is never easy, but if we do not do it right, if we do not depend on sound science, if instead we yield to greed and politics, there is no second chance. I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill and protect the environment for our children and their children and vote for the bipartisan substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 years, Halliburton and subsidiaries such as Kellogg, Brown, and Root, have received billions of dollars in contracts to rebuild Iraq. Despite the handsome profits, Halliburton, which used to be run by the Vice President, Dick Cheney, has not had to offer competitive bids on the vast majority of these projects. Earlier this week a Halliburton subsidiary received yet another no-bid contract for reconstruction efforts. This should not come as a surprise to anyone, anyone who has monitored the greed, the selfishness, the sheer corruption with which the Bush administration has administered Iraq's reconstruction. Only this time, the contract was not for Iraq, it was for hurricane relief and reconstruction efforts here in the United States. Finally, the chickens have come to roost. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues might recall that Halliburton is the company that overcharged the United States Government for meals served to soldiers serving in Iraq. It is also the company that made the United States Government pay a ridiculous markup on gasoline purchased from nearby Kuwait. Unfortunately, the Bush administration did not seem to mind. Halliburton's corruption certainly did not stop the White House from turning to them yet again as its primary source for no-bid government contracts in the Gulf. But the sad truth is, these examples of corruption and incompetence are not just isolated to Halliburton. They are emblematic of the Bush administration itself. This is the administration that presided over $9 billion in missing funds that was supposed to pay for Iraq's reconstruction. This is the administration that, for over a year, neglected to provide the lifesaving protective body armor that our troops needed to survive. These examples are not isolated. No, they are indicative of how the Bush administration has approached both the war in Iraq and the recent hurricane devastation in the gulf coast. The sheer ineptitude surrounding the war in Iraq has been the most staggering of all. The Bush administration had no plan for how to conduct the war, they had no plan for securing the country once Saddam was deposed, and now they have no plan for ending the war. It is clear that the military situation in Iraq is not improving. In fact, it is the very presence of nearly 150,000 U.S. soldiers who appear as occupiers that so enrages Iraq's insurgency. By bringing our troops home, we can save both American and Iraqi lives, and we can reunite thousands of American families in the process. That is why I have called on the House Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on International Relations to hold hearings to address how best to achieve a military disengagement. Since they will not address this issue, we will. Two weeks ago, I held an informal bipartisan hearing to address how to end the war in Iraq. Not when, but how. We heard from an expert panel of witnesses who each testified that the need for a change in U.S. policy is absolute in Iraq. This is not about finding the one right approach. It is about getting the conversation started. It is about putting all the ideas on the table. Mr. Speaker, my hope is that last week's hearing will help begin a discussion that we desperately need, one that is long overdue, one that will help save lives, how to end the war in Iraq, and how to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Violence Against Women Act has made a great difference for countless women and their families when confronting violence, and VAWA has made a significant difference in the health and happiness of hundreds of thousands of women, children and families. With one in four women in this country experiencing domestic violence, clearly much more remains to be done. So we cannot abandon our commitment to them and to the women around the world. Women have every right to feel safe in their own homes. They also deserve to know that law enforcement and health officials are equipped to deal with their special needs in these tragic situations, and we must include teaching young people that bullying and violence must be avoided. We must teach them how to handle situations of conflict and anger in other ways besides bullying and violence. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of VAWA to ensure these protections and make sure that resources are available.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Violence Against Women Act has rescued countless women from the vicious cycle of family violence, and it remains the cornerstone of our country's efforts to put an end to domestic abuse and sexual assault. Now is not the time to abandon our commitment to women around the world. It is time to strengthen our resolve and to protect these women. We must also teach our youngest citizens, our children, that bullying, intimidation, and physical abuse are unacceptable behavior. That is why I fully support strengthening VAWA. The Sensenbrenner amendment, on the other hand, offered today would weaken the very core of this legislation. If racial and ethnic minority language is struck from the STOP grants, which specifically target women of color and immigrant women who have experienced domestic violence, these populations will continue to be underserved. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the reauthorization of VAWA in the Department of Justice bill and oppose the Sensenbrenner amendment so we can ensure these protections and resources remain available to all women.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested yesterday for simply exercising her constitutional right to freedom of speech outside the White House, has awoken a sleeping American public. She deserves a great deal of credit for her tireless campaign against the Bush administration's lies and abuses which have governed the war in Iraq from the very beginning. Her campaign awakened the American people to realize just how awful this war truly is. This weekend over 300,000 Americans, and I know it was more than 100,000 as reported by the press because I was there, over 300,000 Americans demonstrated the same resolve as Cindy Sheehan by showing up in force at a rally in Washington, D.C. It was one of the first times since the 1970s that so many people had descended on the Nation's capital to protest a war. If strength of numbers demonstrates the injustice of a particular policy, then the thousands who participated in Saturday's march depicted the wrongness of the Iraq war. Most Americans know that the war in Iraq is not increasing our national security, that by continuing to fight an unwinnable war the President is ensuring our national insecurity. Most Americans know that the Bush administration had no plan for how to conduct the war. They had no plan for securing the country once Saddam was deposed; and now they have no plan for ending the war. Most Americans know the terror and chaos that plague Iraq cannot be resolved simply by staying the course. I am sure the families of the 2,000 American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in this war would argue that the last 2-plus years of fighting have not brought much stability to Iraq or to their lives. Let us not forget about the thousands of American soldiers who were not killed in Iraq, but whose lives will nonetheless be changed forever as a result of injuries sustained during the war: arms and legs lost, shrapnel wounds cutting into every body part, emotional trauma. How will these wounds ever heal? The thousands of Americans who bravely serve in our Nation's military deserve better. In fact, all Americans deserve better. They deserve better than an endless war that is slowly draining our national coffers. They deserve better than $9 billion of congressionally appropriated funds being lost; $9 billion lost. That is really pretty hard to imagine. Lost under the Coalition Provisional Authority's watch, or the new $1 billion that has gone missing to the Iraqi Government, U.S. money intended for training of Iraqi security forces. While the Bush administration is failing the American people through its foreign policies, they are also neglecting priorities at home. Just take the recent hurricanes that have bombarded the southeastern United States over the past month. If anything, Katrina and Rita have demonstrated just how skewed our national priorities have become. The Federal Government failed to assist thousands of Americans, mostly poor, mostly underprivileged, mostly African American during their great time of need. What we need now is an independent commission to investigate how the hurricane response was botched so badly. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's response to the failures at home is just like his response given to its failures in Iraq: deflection and misdirection of any blame whatsoever. President Bush has announced that he will establish a partisan, congressionally appointed oversight committee; but that is not what the American people need. That is not what the American people deserve. We need an impartial, independent commission to get to the bottom of why the National Guard was in Iraq and not in the United States to protect its citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need a drastic change in policies, both at home and in Iraq. The American people know when they are being lied to, when they are being misled. It is time that Congress started doing what it was created to do: represent the will of the American people, rescue victims of natural disasters, and rescue our troops by bringing them home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill could result in an additional $36 million in aid this year for students and colleges impacted by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. It is a commonsense bill, and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3863; but we cannot stop here. Congress must do more to make college affordable for all students, including victims of the hurricanes. Unfortunately, the House probably will vote next month on H.R. 609, a Republican bill that would increase the cost to students of Federal aid by billions of dollars. Ironically, one of the provisions of the Republican H.R. 609 legislation would change the formula for distributing campus-based aid while not increasing the amount of that aid. Earlier this summer, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) offered an amendment in committee that would have ensured that changes in the formula were not tied to full increases but to real increases in aid; but the amendment was defeated by the Republicans in our committee. H.R. 609 simply would rob Peter to pay Paul, rather than address the real problem, which is the Republican refusal to significantly increase Pell grants and other grant aid to make colleges more affordable for low- and middle-income families. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support what Congress is doing today because it will help college students in the gulf region, but I encourage everyone to keep an eye on what Congress does next month because that will change what we do to help college students nationwide.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to first thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, supporting after-school programs is one of the most important things that we in Congress and the people around the country can do to improve our children's lives and ensure that they have bright futures. High-quality after-school programs provide children with safe, enriching activities, a place to be where they are welcome and where they are comfortable. Without these programs, the hours between the end of the school day, actually between the school bell and the dinner bell, become the time that children are most likely to get into trouble. So while these programs are important to all families, they are particularly important and invaluable to working families. Good after- school programs build stronger communities by involving parents, community leaders, business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of young people. That is why I am delighted to support ``Lights on Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after-school programs. On October 20, 2005, as many as 1 million people around the country will attend events to spread the word about the critical importance of high-quality, after-school programs. But we also have to remember that resolutions are not enough. As this resolution notes, there are more than 14 million children in the United States of America who do not have a place to go after school. Yet in recent years, this President and Congress have cut funding for after-school programs. So by all means, let us resolve today to support these programs, but when it comes time to put our money where our mouths are, let us support them financially also. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lowey), the sponsor of this resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), an original cosponsor of the resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this resolution fits directly into my legislation, the Balancing Act, legislation that is intended to help working families bridge their responsibilities of work and their responsibilities to their families. As this resolution notes, there are more than 14 million children in the United States who do not have a place to go after school. Yet in recent years, this President and this Congress have cut funding for after-school programs. So by all means, let us resolve today to support these programs, but when it comes time to put our money where our mouths are, let us support them financially as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 125th Anniversary of Ursuline High School. Ursuline High School, founded in 1880 in Santa Rosa by the Ursuline Sisters, is a private Catholic secondary school committed to excellence in educating young women. Ursuline High School, known in the early years as Ursuline Academy, first opened its doors at 10th and B Streets in the former Santa Rosa Christian College Building. By 1957, the school relocated to its current location in northern Santa Rosa on a portion of the Howarth Estate. The year 1965 saw the addition of Cardinal Newman High School, a private school for young men, on the adjacent property. Even as Ursuline High School has grown and spawned such acclaimed alumni as Olympic Swimming Champion Ann Curtis and Broadway actor Valerie Leonard, the school has remained focused on empowering young women to realize their full potential. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Ursuline High School for its 125 years of commitment to educating young women to be leaders.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this debate reminds me of the old saying, I have got good news and I have got bad news. The good news is that our committee worked in a bipartisan way to report out a bill by a vote of 48 to zero. And I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for making that possible, as well as all the members of the committee. This bill is a great step forward from where we were last Congress. First and foremost, the bill protects the high quality of Head Start programs by protecting local control of those programs. In other words, there is no State block granting. The bill also increases funding to migrant and seasonal and Indian Head Start programs, strengthens teacher qualification requirements, and limits uses of the administration's ill-conceived national testing system. But there is also bad news. First, even though fewer than half of eligible children receive Head Start services, and even though the number of children served has been going down under the Bush administration, this bill does nothing to increase the number of children who will receive these critical services. Second, this bill does not increase resources to help Head Start programs hire the better qualified teachers that the bill requires. It is unusual for me to be the one explaining to my Republican colleagues how market forces work, but in this case it is pretty clear they do not get it. More highly qualified teachers will cost more money, and we are demanding more qualified teachers without providing the necessary financial support. That is the good news and the bad news. Now, here is the worst news, which is actually a poison pill for this bill. The majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over what could have been a rare bipartisan achievement. That probably sounds hard to believe, but it is true. Under current law, religious organizations can and do receive Head Start funding. They also can only hire members of their faith when they use their own funds. So I ask you, what is the problem? Apparently, the problem is that religious organizations want to discriminate in hiring when they are using public funds, your tax dollars. Well, actually, religious organizations have never asked any of us to waive their discriminatory rights and privileges that they are asking for over on the other side of the aisle. Under the Boustany amendment, a prospective Head Start teacher could face a religious test before being hired. This amendment is unnecessary. It is wrong. I will not support a final bill that includes it. Head Start kids are enough at risk as it is, without their teachers being chosen because of their religion, rather than because they are actually the best qualified. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Kind, for offering this important amendment. It is one thing to assess children to understand how best to help them learn. But, this Administration rushed to test hundreds of thousands of children, and in so doing, used tests that are invalid and unreliable. Moreover, in its rush, the Administration also seems to have virtually no idea how to use this unreliable data. Had the data been reliable, it would still have been virtually useless. This amendment will bring a critically needed scientific perspective to bear on the Administration and keep them from implementing this program until they do it right. It is an important amendment and I support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.