Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very sad that we are debating this amendment. I think it is sad because we are squandering a rare opportunity for a real bipartisan achievement with the Head Start bill today. It is sad because we are debating whether to amend a program that came out of our country's struggle for civil rights by restricting those very civil rights. And it is sad because we are debating whether to make religious discrimination a higher priority than finding the best qualified Head Start teacher for at-risk children. We are discussing supporting religious discrimination paid for with Federal dollars. Under current law, religious organizations can and do participate in Head Start, and they always have from the very beginning. They do a very good job. Under current law, religious organizations can hire members of their own faith using only their own funds, and they have always been able to do that. And under current law, job applicants have the right to apply for a federally funded Head Start position without submitting to a religious test. We are not talking about forcing Catholic churches to hire Jewish priests. We are talking about whether if a religious organization chooses to accept Federal funds for Head Start, it should be allowed to discriminate using those funds, which, by the way, is exactly what President Bush called on Congress to do earlier this year. The President said, ``We ought to judge faith-based groups by results, not by their religion.'' But, sadly, the Boustany amendment is asking us to allow some Head Start programs to judge job applicants by their religion, not by their results. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose final passage if the bill includes this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to read two paragraphs from a letter from Barbara Pickney, who is head of the St. Landry Parish Head Start program and is State president of the Louisiana Head Start Association. Paragraph number 1: ``I have become aware that an amendment has been offered by Representative Boustany, a Republican from Louisiana, to the Head Start bill on the House floor today that would give faith-based organizations providing Head Start services the right to discriminate with Federal funds against employees who are of different faiths. As the State President of the Louisiana Head Start Association, I strongly oppose such an amendment.'' Then she goes on to say, ``I am greatly concerned that the provision to remove civil rights protections for employees could have a negative impact on the children and families who participate in these programs. Tens of thousands of at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children currently in Head Start could lose their teachers, who often are the most important adults to whom they have bonded, other than their parents; not because those teachers are doing a bad job, but because they are the wrong religion.'' That was Barbara Pickney, St. Landry Parish Head Start program, State president of the Louisiana Head Start Association. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an amendment that allows Federal funding to support discrimination. It is paid for by Federal tax dollars. It will strip civil rights protections by allowing religious organizations to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion for Head Start positions, and I repeat, using Federal taxpayers' money. Under the amendment, a religious organization could tell a potential Head Start teacher, of all of the applicants we have seen, you would be the best one to teach our kids, but we are not going to hire you, because you are not the right religion. As I said earlier, Head Start kids are at risk as it is, without their teachers being chosen because of their religion instead of whether they are the best qualified. Mr. Chairman, I ask the members of this body, think before you vote yes on this. Think before you set a precedent that has Federal funding paying for discrimination based on religion.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Mary Ruthsdotter, of Sebastopol, California. Mary will be 61 years old on October 14, an appropriate occasion to reflect on her profound influence on the recognition of the historical importance of women in this country. In 1980, with Molly Murphy MacGregor, Maria Cuevas, Paula Hammett and Bette Morgan, Mary founded the National Women's History Project (NWHP) in Santa Rosa, California. It was both the fulfillment of a dream to organize a national clearinghouse and curriculum development center and the beginning of a sustained effort to celebrate the diverse and historic accomplishments of women. Mary's passion for women's issues began shortly after she moved to Sonoma County from southern California with her husband David Crawford and her daughter Alice. Although not previously involved in the burgeoning women's movement, she became interested after receiving a letter from the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Woman and volunteered to work for the group (she later became Chair). She soon realized the Commission could not provide all the needed services for women and was instrumental in organizing the nonprofit Women's Support Network to fill these gaps and operate as an umbrella agency for other groups. The NWHP, with the assistance of other supporters, spearheaded the movement for National Women's History Week leading to the designation of March as National Women's History Month in 1987. This designation raised the group's national profile; however, Mary's work with them involved much more. In the days when the Internet was not available for widespread communication, Mary established a nation-wide network and newsletter and was instrumental in providing resource materials and lists to schools. She co-produced a video series, Women in American Life, as well as the first video documenting the role of Latino women, Adelante, Mujeres. Publishers all over the country sent thousands of books as Mary coordinated book reviews on the subject of women in history. She later indexed all the selections and donated them to Sonoma State University. In fact, she still reads women's biographies for fun. Mary's can-do attitude, high energy, organization, and up-beat optimism are hallmarks of all aspects of her life. Several years ago she and her husband were leaders in organizing an ``intentional community,'' a co-housing project in Sebastopol, CA, where people of different ages and backgrounds could share in and enrich each other's lives. They have recently returned from visiting their daughter, son- in-law, and grandson in Australia. Recently, Mary worked as a field representative for State Assemblymember Patricia Wiggins who described how creatively ``Mary never gave up when she was providing service and refused to let the bureaucracy interfere in her progress.'' When a local hospital encountered long delays from the State in securing certification for a newly hired physician, Mary got busy on the phone. When she asked where his application was in the stack, her contact replied, ``On the bottom.'' So, Mary said, ``Well, why don't you just put it on the top?'' The worker did, and the hospital received certification immediately. She was the heroine in many, many similar situations. Mr. Speaker, as Mary wrote in her article Women and Equal Rights, ``Today, America is living the legacy of the great progress women have made, while their earnest quest for full and true equality continues.'' Mary Ruthsdotter exemplifies the passion and spirit behind this quest. She is a role model for young women and an inspiration for all of us. Thank you, Mary, for all you are and what you mean to so many.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. I. King Jordan upon his retirement as President of Gallaudet University on December 31, 2005. Dr. Jordan is an accomplished, respected leader and someone I consider a personal friend. Dr. Jordan became the Nation's first deaf university President when appointed in 1988 and the first deaf President to preside over Gallaudet University. During his tenure there he has proven to be an able, caring leader propelling the University forward as well as becoming a strong advocate for deaf students on the federal level. Among his accomplishments, he led the University's first ever capital campaign, raising nearly $40 million, which supported the construction of the state-of-the-art Student Academic Center and contributed to the extraordinary increase in the University's endowment, which paved the way for an increase in scholarships and more academic programs. He also established a fellows program to provide support for deaf college graduates to complete their terminal degrees and become faculty members. Dr. Jordan was not only a strong advocate for the Gallaudet community, but for individuals with disabilities across this Nation. Another proud accomplishment of Dr. Jordan's is the work he did to assist with the passage of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. He was a lead witness in support of the ADA during a joint session of Congress and delivered significant testimony in Congress and across the country during the deliberations of this bill. Before coming to Gallaudet Dr. Jordan's life was filled with many other accomplishments. A native of Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, a small town near Philadelphia, Dr. Jordan earned a B.A. in psychology from Gallaudet University and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology from the University of Tennessee. Upon receiving his doctorate, Dr. Jordan joined the faculty of Gallaudet's Department of Psychology. Before his appointment as President, Dr. Jordan served as chair of Gallaudet's Psychology Department and as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He has been a research fellow at Donaldson's School for the Deaf in Edinburgh Scotland and an exchange scholar at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Jordan holds eleven honorary degrees and is the recipient of numerous awards, among them: The Presidential Citizen's Medal, presented by Bill Clinton in 2001; the Washingtonian of the Year Award; the James L. Fisher Award from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE); the Larry Stewart Award from the American Psychological Association and the Distinguished Leadership Award from the National Association for Community Leadership. President George H.W. Bush appointed Dr. Jordan Vice Chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (PCEPD) in 1990, and President Clinton reappointed Dr. Jordan to that role in 1993. In the summer of 2005, Dr. Jordan was presented the George Bush Medal for the Empowerment of People with Disabilities from President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Speaker, I wish Dr. Jordan much happiness in his retirement as he looks forward to traveling with his wife Lynda and spending more time with his family. His compassion and service will be greatly missed. I am proud to have had a chance to work with him these past years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, September 15, we held an informal congressional hearing to discuss and explore a military withdrawal from Iraq. It was called ``The Bipartisan Congressional Forum on How to Bring the Troops Home.'' It was the first of its kind and it was about time. I had hoped that the House Committee on Armed Services or the House Committee on International Relations would have taken up the matter, but repeated calls for such hearings have fallen on deaf ears. So, with the help of my colleagues and with many others and also my wonderful staff, we went about putting together this very needed hearing. In so doing, we knew absolutely that opposition to the war is a stance that is firmly in the political mainstream. Less than 40 percent of Americans, according to the recent polls, approve of the President's handling of Iraq, and roughly half want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. With this being an American sentiment comes responsibility to be more than a protest movement. We also knew that we needed to offer sound, thorough policy proposals that could turn our deeply held convictions into operational reality, and that is what Thursday's hearing was all about. This was not an opportunity for placard waving, though there is certainly a time and a place for that. We were more interested in how to bring our troops home, rather than why. We heard from a broad range of experts, from scholars and military strategists. We heard from Senator Max Cleland from Georgia. We started with an overview of the situation on the ground, including a perspective on the lives of Iraqis under U.S. occupation. Later, we heard about specific ways that we can pivot away from the current policies, ending our military presence in Iraq and bringing our troops home. From there, we transitioned into a discussion of what next. I have always insisted that ending the war does not and cannot mean abandoning Iraq and its people. Believing in the principle underlying Colin Powell's ``Pottery Barn Rule,'' and that even if it was the Bush administration policy that broke it, at the very least we must play a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq. Most of all, Thursday's hearing was designed to inspire a long overdue national conversation about alternatives to the current Iraq policy. Our goal was to fill the policy vacuum and break the silence on Capitol Hill where, frankly, Members of Congress have been slow to embrace the fresh thinking and new approaches to Iraq that their constituents are eager to discuss and are eager to hear. For too long, for a number of reasons, this debate has been ceded to the Bush administration, even as they have produced a bloody and ruinous debacle. Thursday's hearing demonstrated that we want to do more than just say no to the war in Iraq. We want to say yes to a new, intelligent, progressive, peaceful Iraq policy that will both protect the American people and fulfill our obligations to the Iraqi people. Chief among these obligations is to ensure that the United States does not maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq. That means no permanent bases and no control over Iraqi oil. From our witnesses, it was clear: We need to engage in an open and robust dialogue, both at home and in Iraq. They agreed that multiparty peace talks are the best way to convince all factions of Iraqis that we are serious about allowing them to dictate their country and rebuild it, and, most important of all, the need for a commitment to bring the U.S. troops home. The truth is that our military presence in Iraq is contributing to the chaos there, not alleviating it. By bringing our troops home, we can save both American and Iraqi lives and we can reunite thousands of American families in the process. Mr. Speaker, my hope is that last week's hearing will serve as a catalyst for elected officials, for think-tanks and others around the country to join in a dialogue about military disengagement from Iraq, that the hearing will start a discussion that has been long, long overdue. The time for action in Iraq is now. So let us start taking action.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call vote 471 and 472 on Thursday of last week. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on roll call 471, and nay on roll call 472.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine has sent me a short and moving poem; and I want to share it tonight. She writes, ``I weep for my country. We seem to have completely lost our way. I want the government to be as generous as private people are. I want my government to do as well as WalMart is doing. I weep for my country. I want black faces to count as much as mine. I need hope, not statistics, platitudes and phony, staged play-acting. I weep for my country. We need a Marshall Plan. We need a New Deal. We need leaders in Congress to start talking about conservation, pulling together, car pooling, not opening the Alaskan oil fields. Oh, God, how I weep for my country.'' I was moved by my friend's words, and I am committed to turning her words into action. Tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock I will be convening a hearing to discuss concrete strategies for ending the war in Iraq. We will hear from Middle East experts, military leaders, and others as they offer their ideas for how we can bring our troops home and move toward a peaceful but constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi society. This morning brought news of a deadly series of bombings in Iraq, killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, more than 150 people in all, making it one of the deadliest days of this horrific war. Is this what the march of freedom looks like? Is this what Vice President Cheney meant when he said the insurgency was in its last throes? It is more clear than ever that the American military presence is inspiring terrorist insurgents rather than defeating them. Al Qaeda has taken credit for this wave of violence and al Qaeda was not even a factor in Iraq before the U.S.-led occupation began. The American people understand this. Nearly two-thirds of them give the President poor marks on his handling of Iraq. They are desperate to hear alternatives to the administration's disastrous policy. That is why I have organized this hearing tomorrow, to give voice to a widely held conviction, to spark a national debate, to demonstrate that many of us do not want to just speak out against the war. We want to discuss pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts solutions, in fact, a road map to our very disengagement. That discussion should eventually go beyond Iraq to include a complete reassessment of our national security priorities. It is time to end the reflexive impulse of using military force to solve our international conflict. It has, by the way, the appearance of strength, but, as Iraq has shown us, it often undermines our national security, rather than enhancing it. I have proposed a new approach. It is called SMART Security. It stands for Sensible, Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances. But that does not mean SMART is not serious and smart about protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but it does so with stronger multi-lateral alliance, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection regimes, and aggressive diplomacy. SMART would shuffle our national security budget. No more billions thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead be invested in energy independence and other efforts that truly are relevant to the modern security threats that we face. SMART also includes an ambitious international development agenda to help address the root causes of terrorism, democracy building, education for women and girls, addressing resources scarcity. These are key ingredients to building stable societies in Iraq and elsewhere. It is my hope and belief that the grievous mistakes we made in Iraq will lead us to this new, smarter national security policy. SMART Security protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, and our compassion for the people of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elizabeth Terwilliger on the occasion of her 96th birthday. Known as Mrs. T, her philosophy is to teach children to love nature because people take care of what they love. Fifty years ago, Mrs. T settled in Marin County, California and sought to teach her own children to love nature. Her inquisitive and thoughtful approach to teaching with a new understanding of seeing nature soon led to more children joining their excursions. Anyone who has been on one of her excursions will remember her contagious joy and enthusiasm for all the plants and animals of Marin. The Elizabeth Terwilliger Nature Foundation was founded in 1975, and is now part of the nonprofit environmental education organization WildCare. WildCare and Terwilliger Nature Guides continue Mrs. T's work and reach over 40,000 children and adults annually. Mrs. T did not stop at teaching others to love nature, she actively engaged in protecting it as well. She helped to save the Richardson Bay Preserve, develop bicycle paths, and build a footbridge at Muir Beach. Inducted into the Marin Women's Hall of Fame, designated a ``Rara Avis'' by the San Francisco Enquirer and Chronicle, starring in several films and her own newspaper column is just a sampling of her numerous achievements. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Elizabeth Terwilliger, whose love of nature and desire to teach others to share that love leaves a legacy that is part of the fabric of our community. Mrs. T's commitment has touched so many lives in her 96 years, and those lives will continue to educate future generations about nature and protection of the environment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Sunday marked 4 years since the painful terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 Americans at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in rural Pennsylvania. Sunday was a day for solemn reflection and remembrance, but our Government, specifically the Department of Defense, threw a propaganda party instead. Sunday's so-called Americans Support Your Freedom Walk included a pro-war speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a concert on the National Mall by Clint Black, whose lyrics implicitly accuse war protesters of standing with Saddam. Sunday was supposedly about honoring our troops. The problems is, Mr. Speaker, most of our currently deployed troops are on a mission that has nothing to do with 9/11. It has long been established that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the murderous plot executed by al-Qaeda 4 years ago. Ironically, Sunday's march, which was supposedly about celebrating freedom, took place in the most tightly controlled circumstances imaginable. March participants were required to pre-register. Tall fencing encased the marchers throughout. The media was kept at bay. Helicopters flew overhead. The Park Police issued a public threat that they would arrest anyone who joined without the proper credentials. And what were those credentials? Enrolling 2 days in advance to be checked out to ensure that participants were what? Pro Bush? Pro war? Pro propaganda? Pro continuing the lies of 9/11 linking to Saddam Hussein? And, for good measure, a Pentagon spokeswoman declared that protesting the march would be the equivalent of protesting our veterans. Mr. Speaker, this was nothing more than mere propaganda, a transparent attempt to shore up the President's dwindling poll numbers, especially his poor marks on Iraq. For the umpteenth time, they are trying to use the national unity inspired by 9/11 to justify a divisive, controversial and immoral war in Iraq, a war that has cost us nearly 2,000 American lives, thousands of severely wounded veterans, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed. If we want to support the troops, the best thing we can do, the only thing we can do, is to bring them home, out of Iraq, where their very presence is animating the insurgency and giving rise to more intense anti-Americanism than ever. For some time now, I have been calling for hearings on Iraq. But having received no satisfactory response, I am convening my very own hearing scheduled for this Thursday, September the 15th, from 10 to 1 p.m. in Room 122 of the Cannon Office Building. We will hear from respected Middle East experts and military leaders about how we might achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq. We hope to break the silence on Capitol Hill, help fill the policy vacuum and spark a broader public debate about our policy options in Iraq. Bringing the troops home, Mr. Speaker, and ending this occupation should be the beginning, not the end of a complete reassessment of our national security priority. National security means more than the use of military force which, as we have seen in Iraq, can have the appearance of strength but can undermine our national security rather than enhance it. To that end, I propose a new approach. It is called SMART security, which stands for a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances. But that does not mean that SMART is not serious and smart about protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, but it does so with stronger multilateral alliances, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection regimes and aggressive diplomacy. SMART would reshuffle our national security budget. No more billions thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead be invested in energy independence and other efforts that are truly relevant to the modern security threats that we face. SMART Security protects America by relying on the very best of American values, our capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, and our compassion for the people of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight on the heels of Hurricane Katrina, I cannot help but ask how the victims would have been helped had our National Guard and our military and our Corps of Engineers equipment been made available here at home, not across the world, making trouble instead of fixing troubles here as we responded to Katrina. Tonight I will discuss what is happening in Iraq since we were last in session 5 weeks ago. For the last 4 years, the Bush administration has often justified the war in Iraq by boasting of the new-found freedoms Iraqi women would supposedly enjoy thanks to our military intervention. Many of us remember that staple of the President's stump speech, that the first voter in the Iraqi elections was a 19-year-old woman. In this very Chamber, an Iraqi woman sat with the First Lady during the State of the Union address and flashed the victory sign in celebration of the election that had just taken place. Well, that was then, Mr. Speaker. That same woman, now Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, is one of several Iraqis now publicly criticizing their nation's draft constitution and its treatment of women's rights. ``When we came back from exile,'' she said, ``we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened. We have lost all of the gains that we made over the last 30 years. It is a big disappointment.'' In fact, the very second article of the Iraqi Constitution declares that Islam is ``the official religion of the state,'' and that ``no law may be enacted that contradicts its established provisions.'' You do not have to be a theologian, Mr. Speaker, to know that adherence to strict Islamic tradition is incompatible with equal rights and dignity for women. Most depressing of all, perhaps, is that this constitution may actually represent a weakening of women's rights from the previous regime. That is right. Women may have fewer legal protections in this new so-called democracy than they had under the rule of that famous feminist and egalitarian Saddam Hussein. Is this what nearly 1,900 American soldiers have died for, so that Iraq could slip into repressive theocracy? Perhaps this is the noble cause, the cause we have been hearing so much about: second-class citizenship for Iraqi women. The weapons of mass destruction claim was discredited long ago. The Iraq-al Qaeda link is nonexistent. Now it even appears that the spreading-freedom-and-democracy rationale for this war is also a fraud. Mr. Speaker, this is just one more reason that we must end this occupation and bring our troops home as soon as possible. One week from Thursday, I will be holding a hearing here on Capitol Hill where we will hear from experts about how we might achieve military disengagement while still playing a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq. Bringing the troops home should be the beginning; it should not be the end of a reassessment of our national security policy. It is time to end the reflex impulse of using military force to solve world conflicts and erroneously planned actions based on citizens' fears. This has the appearance of strength; but as Iraq has shown, it often undermines our national security rather than enhancing it. I have proposed a new approach. It is called SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that war should be an absolute last resort, to be undertaken only under the most extreme circumstances. But that does not mean that SMART is not serious and smart about protecting America. It is vigilant about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But it does so with strong multilateral alliances, improved intelligence capabilities, vigorous inspection regimes, and aggressive diplomacy. SMART would reshuffle our national security budget. No more billions thrown at outdated Cold War weapons programs. That money would instead be invested in energy independence and other efforts that truly are relevant to the modern security threats we face. SMART also includes an ambitious international development agenda, to help address the root causes of terrorism: Democracy-building that includes women as equals; education for women and girls; addressing resource scarcity--these are key ingredients to building stable societies in Iraq and elsewhere. It is my hope and belief that the grievous mistakes we've made in Iraq will lead us to this new, smarter national security policy. SMART Security protects America by relying on the very best of American values--our capacity for global leadership, our dedication to peace and freedom, and our compassion for the people of the world, all people, women and men alike.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sorrow for the tragedy that has struck the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; but I also want to express my sorrow that we are not learning from this tragedy. Have we not seen firsthand this week just how much help is needed for the most vulnerable people in our Nation? We are seeing it as they are victims of Katrina: the elderly, the disabled, the poor, particularly children. Of course, we must do everything we can to help overcome the challenges in the short term. But we must also address the long-term needs of the most vulnerable in this Nation. This bill is short term. I will support it, but it leaves so very much undone. Of course, we need to give States immediate access to funds, funds that they otherwise would not have received until October 1. We need to provide emergency funds for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama; and we need to reimburse other States for emergency cash assistance that they are providing for evacuees. This bill does those things. But there are many things it does not do. For example, it does not address the pressing needs of children in foster care, the unemployed and parents who need child care, and it does not address child care needs that are even more critical than ever for parents of young children, parents who are trying to find jobs. As I said, I will support this bill, but I am concerned that we are responding to Katrina with this bill, and others, both literally and figuratively, by helping the victims bail out the water, but not fixing the holes in the infrastructure that lets the water in. We need to do both, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Katrina, the Category 4 hurricane that hit the gulf coast last week, leveled nearly everything in its path. It tore apart homes and destroyed entire coastal cities. It has taken the lives of countless hundreds, if not thousands. It will cost an estimated $150 billion to rebuild and repair the affected region. Sadly, the Federal Government's response to Katrina was lackluster at best and shamefully negligent at worst. Despite the public's forewarning that there was a knowledge of Katrina's severity, the Bush administration failed to provide adequate Federal aid and hands-on support for the thousands of citizens stuck in the storm's aftermath. A large part of this failure stems directly from the lack of qualified first responders, the thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists who are currently stuck fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is during wholesale natural disasters like these that Americans should be able to rely on our Nation's capable National Guard and Reserve forces. Unfortunately, it has not worked out that way because the Bush administration has more than 50,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists stationed in Iraq. That amounts to just over 40 percent of the total U.S. military forces there. The Army's Guard and Reserve units are supposed to be our Nation's emergency force, America's defenders of last resort. Yet the Army's Web site actually defines the Army reserve as being ``like a part-time job that enables soldiers to keep their civilian careers while they continue to train near home.'' But the President has 50,000 of them fighting in a war very, very far from home, shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden in Iraq. He has them suffering for a war that was supposedly about weapons of mass destruction and then about Saddam's link to al Qaeda and then about bringing democracy to Iraq. But no matter how we slice it, the war in Iraq was never a war of last resort. The emergency units should have remained here at home in case of a real emergency. In fact, all 3,700 of Louisiana's National Guardsmen are currently stationed in Iraq and will not return home to help their devastated State or their own families, for that matter, for another week. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before the deployment of thousands of Guardsmen and Reservists to Iraq ended up hurting Americans right here at home. The city of New Orleans and the rest of the gulf coast has learned that lesson in a painful way, losing family members, loved ones, friends, and pets that could have been saved if their government had provided more human support and a smarter approach to dealing with Katrina's aftermath. It is my hope that our national overreliance on military solutions during the past 4 years, made painfully clear by the Katrina hurricane, will lead us to a smarter national security strategy in the future. That is why I have introduced SMART Security: a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART is based on the belief that we should pursue the military solution only in the most extreme circumstances and after every diplomatic solution has been exhausted. SMART would divert resources for military spending and foreign wars to homeland security and energy independence, from outdated weapons systems to an ambitious development plan for the troubled regions both in the United States and around the world. Democracy-building, international aid, human rights education, small business development, these are the cures to poverty, to oppression, to hopelessness that plague both the people of Iraq and the survivors in the gulf, particularly in New Orleans. SMART projects protect America by relying on the very best of America, not violence and conquest, but our capacity for global leadership, our belief in freedom, and our compassion for the vulnerable people here at home and around the world. Mr. Speaker, Katrina's aftermath has given us a firsthand look at what happens when a nation's forces are stretched thin. That is why it is time for us to start bringing our troops home. The Iraqi people need the United States, they need the U.S. National Guard out of Iraq, and no less important, the American people need them here at home where they belong.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Petaluma Argus Courier, my hometown newspaper, on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary. The first edition of the Petaluma Journal and Sonoma County Advertiser, the forerunner of today's Argus-Courier, was published on August 18, 1855. That's 3 years before the City of Petaluma was incorporated. It is a compliment to the Argus-Courier and its staff that the newspaper has kept in step with the vast changes that have taken place in Petaluma over this 150-year period. As the 10th oldest newspaper in the State of California and one of Petaluma's oldest business institutions, the Argus Courier is an eyewitness to Petaluma history. The Argus-Courier has always fulfilled its obligation to its community by providing sound information and vigorous leadership on all matters affecting its citizens since 1855--from the Civil War to the Iraq wars, from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake to Loma Prieta, and from Petaluma's fame as the ``egg basket to the world'' to its status as telecom valley. The fact that the Argus-Courier has been published continuously for 150 years is evidence of its devotion to the public interest and its contribution to the growth and development of the community it serves. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Petaluma Argus Courier on its sesquicentennial and know that it will continue to inform, entertain, and be a valued messenger of news and information to my constituents and me for many more years to come. And, I know that the Argus-Courier derives much satisfaction from the knowledge that it has had a part in the growth and in the furtherance of the free press that has helped to make this Nation great.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the energy bill conference report before us today is horrible for the consumer, horrible for the environment, and makes America neither energy independent nor more secure as a nation. This conference report does too little to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. By promoting the interests of corporations over consumers, and pollution over conservation, this bill makes the United States much less secure. America's continued reliance on Middle East oil for the majority of our energy needs is the single largest factor that contributes to our lack of national security. This conference report fails to adequately address our reliance on foreign oil. Worst of all, the conference report includes a huge provision, inserted in the middle of the night after the conference finished its work, to give $1.5 billion to big oil companies from Texas. It would be wrong for anyone who cares about our nation's well-being, or the fight against extremism in the Middle East, to vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that, ``You can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.'' While I am happy that the FY06 Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes $1.5 billion to make up for the funding shortfall for the Veterans' Administration, VA, it does not mask the horrible choices that were made in the rest of this bill. It's still a pig. This legislation includes cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, decreases in the number of STAG grants, and completely eliminates many conservation grants. Ensuring that the VA has the funding it needs is one of my highest priorities, which is why I am so disappointed that this money was included in a bill that undermines our environment. It is sad that veterans' have been shortchanged by President Bush who was all to eager to send troops off to war, but failed to account for the cost of their care after they had dutifully served their country. The underestimation by the White House of $1.5 billion for this year is only the tip of the iceberg with the shortfall for next year already projected to be $2.6 billion. Unfortunately, the shortsightedness of the Republican majority failed to include this spending where it should be, in the Military Quality of Life Appropriations bill. However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the shortcomings for the environment, I will vote for this bill to support our troops.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, America must build relationships with our neighbors, relationships that benefit both our future and theirs. But CAFTA is one more example of the White House agenda that does neither. It benefits multinational corporations while it devalues workers and communities, putting corporations on equal footing with democratically elected governments. What is this about? Trade agreements should reflect our national values and our character. CAFTA fails on both measures. Labor and environmental standards must be an integral part of any trade and negotiation, and CAFTA fails. By failing to protect minimum labor rights, including protection for female workers against discrimination, and failing to enforce environmental standards, CAFTA not only benefits the multinational corporations against our communities, our families, and our environment, but it also works against our trading partners. We know that this is wrong. We must get CAFTA back on track. We must scrap this version, and we must start over. Trade agreements that promise jobs in the U.S. as well as advancing the economies of our neighbors, that is how we must go. Vote against this dog today.