Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it is about time Congress took up this important postal reform bill. this legislation is long overdue and I am happy a bipartisan compromise was reached that meets the needs of postal professionals and the Postal Service. For years I have been hearing from letter carriers, postmasters, mail handlers and other postal employees about the obstacles that prevent them and the postal service from serving our taxpayers in their fullest capacity. I have also heard about their struggles to retain their benefits and receive a livable wage. That's why I am happy to support H.R. 22 today. This postal reform legislation takes a positive step for the future of the United States Postal Service. Now it will be able to remain competitive while protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs held by dedicated workers. Universal service will continue to expand and meet the demands of our modem mail system. Delivery will improve, rates will become more affordable and communities will have better access to mail services. Mr. Chairman, again I am pleased that this compromise has advanced, and I look forward to an even greater postal system for our Nation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the preemption of State law that is allowed under H.R. 525 makes no sense. For example, 49 States guarantee that health insurance plans include mammograms, and for good reason. We know that if a woman has health insurance, the likelihood she will receive a mammogram is promising. We know that early detection increases a woman's chance of surviving breast cancer. No one knows this better than my constituents in Marin County, California, who suffer from the highest rates of breast cancer in the country. They deserve more protections from this deadly disease, not a rollback in coverage of the most basic screening tool we have, mammograms. They are looking to Congress to help more women get the services they need to catch this disease before it becomes fatal. Instead, today we are telling them that insurance companies are allowed to trump State law and decide what is best for their health. I am sure that all of the men and women here today want their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters to have annual screenings as recommended by physicians. It is common sense. I urge each of my colleagues, support the women in your lives. Support the motion to recommit.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there currently are 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance and are looking for real solutions for their lack of health care coverage. Unfortunately, H.R. 525, the so- called Small Business Health Fairness Act, is not their answer. In fact, this bill allows insurance companies to preempt State law, making possible a race to the bottom by associated health plans as companies, because of this bill, can offer the cheapest insurance with the least coverage. The idea that we would allow insurance companies to trump State law is really outrageous. Laws to protect those with diabetes, those with cancer, and a host of other ailments are at risk under this plan. That is why I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), that would protect mammograms and cervical cancer screenings from being preempted by association health plans. Unfortunately, the Republican majority does not see the value in protecting women from breast and/or cervical cancer, because they would not allow our amendment to come to the floor to be debated before we voted on this bill. Mr. Speaker, in my district, the Sixth Congressional District of California, the women of Marin County are plagued by an unusually high rate of breast cancer, and particularly young woman have the high incidence of breast cancers. But, fortunately, in California we require insurance companies to cover mammograms. So while the women of Marin County still have to worry about their community's high rate of breast cancer, at least they know their insurance companies cannot deny them access to the best available screening tools. I cannot accept the idea of even one woman in this Nation foregoing an annual mammogram or a pap smear only to be diagnosed later with advanced breast or cervical cancer because an association health plan does not provide coverage. This is a risk we cannot afford, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 525.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my continued sadness and frustration with the Nation's Iraq policy. As much of Washington now focuses on a Supreme Court nomination, and as many Americans prepare for August vacations, I hope none of us forget the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and the disastrous decisions that put them in harm's way in the very first place. We are fast approaching 1,800 deaths in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, and for what? Are we any safer from terrorism? The recent attacks in London would seem to indicate that we are not. If the Iraq war has done so much to enhance American Security, why did we have to expand the PATRIOT Act last week and clamp down even further on our civil liberties? The truth is our military presence in Iraq is contributing to the chaos there, not alleviating it. The occupation has sparked more intense feelings of anti-Americanism and breathed new life into the insurgency. A recent government report even voices concerns that terrorists and insurgents are succeeding at infiltrating the Iraqi police force. Like all of my friends in Congress, I believe nothing is more important than supporting our troops, but I believe the best way to support them is to bring them home to their families as soon as possible. Ending the war should be the first step in a complete overhaul in our approach to a national security policy. We must redirect our priorities and our resources so that peace and diplomacy, not aggression and chest-beating, become the guiding lights of our foreign policy. I have come up with a plan that I have labeled SMART Security, with SMART standing for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. There are five components to SMART. First, stop future acts of terrorism, not by arbitrarily invading sovereign nations, but by collaborating with NATO and the U.N., by strengthening our intelligence capabilities, and by enhancing efforts to cut off financing of terrorist organizations. Second, stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, not by deposing regimes that do not have them, but with diplomacy, enhanced inspection regimes, and regional security arrangements. The United States should also work more closely with the states of the Soviet Union to secure loose nuclear material, and we should set an example for the world by living up to our own international nonproliferation commitments. Third, address root causes of terrorism, like instability, despair and hopelessness. So SMART includes an ambitious international development program, debt relief, democracy building, sustainable development education, especially for women and for girls, and more for poor nations. Fourth, shift U.S. budget priorities. Does it make any sense at all, Mr. Speaker, that we continue to invest billions of dollars in a missile defense shield? The Cold War is over, and our defense priorities should reflect the new threats of a new era. Among other things, we ought to be investing in renewable energy sources that will help wean the Nation from Middle Eastern oil. It is unbelievable to me that the Congress may soon pass an energy bill that costs us billions of dollars, but barely addresses the problem of dependence on oil imports. Fifth, pursue alternatives to war. At its core, SMART is about choosing peace over war and resorting to force only in the most extreme circumstances. So it includes an emphasis on effective conflict assessment, early warning systems, multilateral response mechanisms, and other tools that will help avoid military action. Mr. Speaker, our current national security posture is not only morally questionable, it is functionally flawed. My objection is not just a philosophical one, but a practical one. What we are doing now is not making America safer. It is time to get smart about national security. It is time for a new strategy that protects America by relying on the very best of American values, our love of peace, our capacity for global leadership, our belief in freedom and opportunity, and our compassionate fellowship with the people of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on April 20 of last year, I spoke in this Chamber in opposition to the war in Iraq and my belief that we needed a new SMART Security plan to protect America. Since then nearly every day that this body has been in session, I have again taken to the floor to express my outrage about our Nation's disastrous Iraq policy and the urgency for a different approach. Today I rise for the 100th time on this gravely important topic. Since I first spoke out last spring, look at what has happened: The Abu Ghraib story broke soon thereafter. We learned that the Pentagon sent our troops into battle without basic safety equipment. The Downing Street memo revealed that the decision to invade Iraq had been made as early as July 2002 with the intelligence and facts being fixed around the policy. And they were so committed to the lies peddled to sell this war that the President's top aide was willing to blow the cover of a CIA agent to smear a White House critic. And most importantly, since last April more than 1,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, with thousands more wounded, and let us not forget the countless innocent Iraqi civilians who have died simply because they had the misfortune of living in a nation we wished to occupy. And what have we paid for the right to kill and be killed? More than $80 billion in supplemental appropriations for Iraq since last April alone. Since then America and Americans have gradually begun losing confidence in the administration's handling of Iraq. Fifteen months ago when I began, few people dared discuss an end to this war; but by this May, 128 Members of the House voted for my amendment to the defense authorization bill which called on the President to develop and implement a plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Bush administration remains tone-deaf on this life- and-death issue. This White House, so famous for refusing to admit mistakes, continues to keep its head down and recite the talking points. Their stubbornness is costing us an average of about 17 American servicemen and women a week and over $1 billion every third day. Over this period I have become even more convinced that we must end this war and bring our brave men and women home to their families as quickly as we can. But that is not enough. The end to the war must mean the start of a whole new way of thinking about national security, like my SMART Security plan, with SMART standing for sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism. At the core of SMART is the belief that the use of military force must be an absolute last resort to be pursued only in the most extreme circumstances. SMART recognizes that America faces threats that cannot be ignored, like terrorism and the spread of deadly weapons; but it would address these threats by strengthening our global alliances, improving our intelligence capabilities, and upgrading weapons inspections regimes. SMART would also redirect the money we are currently spending on outdated Cold War weapons systems towards homeland security and an energy independence plan. And SMART is based on the belief that the only way to truly address terrorism is to do something about the poverty and despair that gives rise to terrorism in the first place. So SMART also includes an ambitious international development component, helping underdeveloped nations with democracy building, human rights education, conflict resolution, sustainable development of natural resources and more. SMART protects America by relying on the very best of America, not violence and conquests, but our capacity for global leadership, our belief in freedom, and our compassion for vulnerable people around the world. This first step is to return Iraq to the Iraqi people and return our troops to their families. Until that happens, I will continue to speak out in this Chamber as I have done 100 times. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that I will not have to speak 100 times more, but if I must, I will.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to and utter disgust with this bill. Just as a bad movie is often followed by an even worse sequel, so it is with the PATRIOT Act. PATRIOT II does nothing to correct the major flaws in the original legislation. Basic civil liberties continues to be in jeopardy. The bill expands police powers, it continues to authorize invasive violations of our medical records, our library borrowing habits and other private affairs. PATRIOT II restricts freedom, instead of expanding it. The irony is cruel, Mr. Speaker. In defense of freedom, we are undermining freedom. I believe many of my colleagues voted for the original PATRIOT Act because of the sunset provisions, because they were assured this was a temporary measure for extraordinary times. Now, all but two of the sunsets have been stripped from the bill, and those two come only after 10 years. So now we know the truth: the PATRIOT Act was never intended as an emergency, post-9/11 action; as a matter of fact, it is not limited to terrorism. It appears now that its authors were always interested in a permanent clampdown on civil liberties. This bill is constitutional graffiti, Mr. Speaker. Patriotism means affirming and celebrating the values that have made America strong for more than 2 centuries. Legislation that violates several constitutional amendments has no business calling itself the PATRIOT Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the overall bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Commitments Act. It calls on the Bush administration to keep America's word, to live up to the agreements we have made to reduce our arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Cold War has been over for about 15 years. I can accept, although I disagree, with the argument that an aggressive nuclear arms race might have been the right approach in a bipolar standoff between rival superpowers, but at a time when our greatest threat comes from stateless terrorists there are smarter ways to protect America. Mr. Speaker, 33 years after the United States signed onto the Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, our government is actively seeking to undermine it. Last year, for example, the Bush administration sought $70 million for a new and completely unnecessary nuclear weapon, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, commonly known as the ``bunker buster.'' Mr. Speaker, the United States of America already possesses 10,000 nuclear weapons. We already spend $6 billion annually on nuclear weapon activities, activities which represent a substantial increase over Cold War era expenditures. Do we really need to spend more money on weapons that will make the world more dangerous while ignoring other national security priorities, thumbing our nose at international law, and losing global credibility in the process? Why is it that this administration is enthusiastic about leading a global military coalition to occupy and invade a sovereign nation, but reluctant to show global leadership on important initiatives for peace? The potential nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea are legitimate threats and we ought to be engaged diplomatically to keep these nations from developing a nuclear program, but what moral authority do we have to apply that kind of pressure if we will not agree to even a modest drawdown of our own nuclear weapons? Now the administration has reached an agreement that will allow India greater access to nuclear technologies. This is a terrible policy. While India is not Iran or North Korea in terms of its threat to American security, we are talking about a nation that never signed the NPT, has a history of nuclear detonation, and whose border with Pakistan represents the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint. There has to be a smarter way, Madam Speaker, and there is. I have proposed a new approach to national security. I call it SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART calls on the United States to lead by example, to honor its treaties and meet its nonproliferation obligations. SMART would enhance and expand the cooperative threat reduction program which has led to the dismantling of nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union. SMART has also held that military forces should be the last possible resort preventing war, not preemptive war. It calls on us to fight terrorism and weapons of proliferation with strong global alliances, improved intelligence capabilities and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART includes an ambitious international development program to combat the poverty and hopelessness that give rise to terrorism in the first place, and it diverts resources from Cold War weapons systems to priorities like homeland security and energy independence, which are more relevant to current national security threats. There is some irony in the administration's nonproliferation policy. Think about it. We have sacrificed nearly 2,000 American lives, thousands of our troops have been seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars to end an Iraqi nuclear threat that did not even exist. And as part of a misleading campaign to convince the Nation that there actually was an Iraqi nuclear threat, it appears government officials were even willing to compromise national security by blowing the cover of a CIA agent. Meanwhile, genuine nuclear threats are going dangerously unaddressed, and our own government continues to pursue a large and expensive nuclear arsenal. We need a SMART approach. We need a complete reassessment of our nonproliferation strategy and our national security priorities, something that will not happen overnight. In the meantime, however, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Commitment Act. At the very least, we can set an example by keeping the promises we have already made.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Ros- Lehtinen amendment. This amendment declares that Congress must not ``withdraw prematurely the U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq.'' Prematurely? How many more Americans have to die or be wounded before we recognize that bringing home our troops is not premature, but is actually long overdue? Although I opposed this war from the very beginning, I also thought that because of the chaos that we had caused that once we were there, we needed to stay until Iraq was secure and the Iraqis' lives were back together. But I have come to realize that there can be no stability in Iraq while our troops are still there. It is our very presence appearing as occupiers and the resentment it is breeding that is responsible for the chaos and emboldened insurgency. The Ros-Lehtinen amendment only serves to advance the Bush administration's current failed policies by keeping the United States military in Iraq indefinitely. This amendment would continue the unsuccessful military occupation. It would lay the groundwork for a constant and unending war. Only by ending the occupation can we hope to quell the violence and give Iraq back to the Iraqis. We can secure Iraq by helping the Iraqi people, not through our military, but through international humanitarian efforts to rebuild their war torn economic and physical infrastructure. It is time for a new direction and fresh thinking on this subject, not a continuation of the failed policies of the past 2 years. Instead of the same stagnant ideas repackaged, we need to end the military occupation of Iraq. We need to support our troops by bringing them home. I will oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this restrictive rule because it ignores, actually blocks, the important issues and amendments that we should be talking about here and now, including my amendment ensuring that the United States lives up to its international commitment to reduce and eventually disarm its nuclear weapons stockpiles and my amendment expressing the need for a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism, otherwise known as SMART security. But most important of all, this bill fails to include any Democratic amendments that address the war in Iraq. This critical issue should not be neglected by a bill of this magnitude, a bill that addresses and authorizes our Nation's international programs over the next two fiscal years. This authorization will not discuss an amendment that I would have offered calling on the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq and to bring that plan to the Congress. It also covers our responsibility to assist Iraq, not through our military, but through international humanitarian efforts, to rebuild their war torn economic and physical infrastructure. Would the Republican leadership believe that we can wait two more years to debate our role in Iraq, to debate when we will bring our troops home? We need to declare for the record that we plan to leave Iraq. Unfortunately, the rule before us today prevents us from having this very important debate. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair and restrictive rule and to support every effort to plan to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow, we are debating the foreign relations authorization bill, a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with matters that are important, even if they are not headline grabbers: passports, scholarships for international students, death benefits for American foreign service officers, just to name a few. I intend to vote for this bill on final passage, Mr. Speaker, but not without some reservation and not without a great deal of disappointment. Here we are essentially affirming American foreign policy for the next 2 years. And what does the bill have to say about Iraq, the greatest foreign policy challenge of our time? Virtually nothing. Three hundred-plus pages of legislative language and not a word about Iraq until the very end of the bill where it calls on the President to transmit a plan to provide for a stable and secure government of Iraq and an Iraqi military and police force that will allow the United States military presence in Iraq to be diminished. That is it. This is like writing an essay about the significance of December 25 and saying at the end, oh, by the way, it is Christmas too. Some amendments have been offered that address aspects of the Iraq war. These amendments only serve to advance the current failed policy. Instead of giving us the new direction and the fresh thinking that we so badly need, this policy, these amendments continue what already exists. I oppose, for example, one amendment mandating that we must turn over Iraq's security to the Iraqis only when they are ready for that responsibility and that we must not, and I quote, withdraw prematurely the U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq, unquote. Prematurely. Mr. Speaker, do more than 2,000 Americans have to die, or 2,000 more Americans have to die before we recognize that bringing our troops home is not premature, but a fact that is long overdue? This amendment also states that troop withdrawal cannot happen until we are close to realizing a free and stable Iraq that is at peace and not a threat to its neighbors. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that such a policy would make this an endless war because the amendment has it exactly backwards. There can be no stability in Iraq while our troops are still there. It is our very military presence and the resentment that it is breeding that is emboldening the insurgency. It is only by ending the occupation that we can hope to quell the violence and give the Iraqi people some hope for peace and security. As I said, I will vote for H.R. 2601 because I believe there is plenty that is good and important in this bill. The architects of the legislation should be commended for authorizing billions in foreign aid that will go a long way toward improving lives around the globe. But once again, and I repeat, this bill represents a missed opportunity to completely reexamine Iraq and foreign policy more generally. With this bill we could have charted a new course, launched a new and more peaceful strategy for helping Iraq stand on its own two feet. But all we have done on Iraq is declared it U.S. policy to extend our military presence indefinitely. In Iraq, and around the world, I believe we need to adopt what I call a SMART security plan. SMART stands for sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. It would make military action not a reflex, but a very last resort. SMART would fight terrorism with brains, not brawn, with stronger multilateral alliances, improved intelligence capabilities and vigorous weapons inspections. It would forbid the sale and transfer of weapons to regions of conflict. The agreement reached yesterday with India most certainly would not meet the standards of SMART. SMART also calls on the United States to set an example for the world by living up to its own nuclear nonproliferation commitments, something H.R. 2601 clearly does not mandate. SMART would divert resources from Cold War weapons systems, reinvesting them in Homeland Security and energy independence. And SMART would attack terrorism at its roots with an ambitious international development plan for the troubled regions around the world. Democracy building support, human rights education, education programs, small business development, these are the cures to the poverty, oppression and hopelessness that breed terrorism in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for H.R. 2601. But I lament its failure to substantially or realistically address the most pressing foreign policy challenge in our generation, the supremely misguided war in Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, when the doctrine of preemptive war was first introduced, I suggested that it was unconscionable. Then the original case for war, weapons of mass destruction and a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, turned out to be erroneous at best and a pack of lies at the very worst. So the war was immorally conceived. That is strike one. And deceptively marketed, that is strike two. Strike three is the incompetence, the bungling, the repeated misjudgments in the execution of the war plan. From the dismantling of the Iraqi army to the lack of protective armor, to the failure to safeguard munitions and on and on. The most recent proof of mismanagement appeared in a story in this weekend's Washington Post. Americans shooting at Americans in Iraq in the President's war that has become so mismanaged that I believe we are fighting ourselves. Have we become our own prisoners of war? Now, finally, someone has begun to own up to the mistakes. Outgoing Pentagon official Douglas Feith in an interview with the Washington Post conceded that, among other things, we may have gone to Iraq with too light a force. The amazing part of that insiders' information and others like Mr. Feith's is that they have been cooking up the Iraq invasion since the early 1990s, more than a decade in the making. And they still could not get it right. It is inconceivable to me that we would send our troops into battle not only under-equipped but also undermanned. One way the military has tried to keep troop levels down is by outsourcing many functions to private contractors. By some estimates, there are as many as 100,000 contractors roaming around Iraq. Many of them armed, apparently accountable to no one, acting independently of the military chain of command without any oversight, unbound by an official code of conduct. Let us leave aside the issue of how contractors are paid much more than our troops or whose pockets are getting lined here. It has been documented that companies with close ties to the administration have been rewarded with these lucrative contracts, and the government has been, shall we say, very forgiving when their buddies overcharge and bilk American taxpayers. But think about what it means to our troops on the ground to have well-healed contractors co-existing with underpaid active duty soldiers who are cogs in a rigid hierarchy, who are doing the unglamorous work, who are lucky if full health care benefits are awaiting them when they get home. The result is resentment, low morale, and a weakened military. The only real solution is to bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as possible. I have been calling for an end to the occupation for many months now, and nothing has happened in Iraq that would force me to reconsider. Ending the war would be the beginning of a complete reassessment of U.S. national security policy. I have offered what I call SMART Security. That stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. At the heart of SMART is the belief that military action should be an absolute last resort, to be reluctantly pursued only after every channel has been exhausted. SMART Security means fighting terrorism with strong diplomacy, robust multilateral alliances, and improved intelligence capabilities. It means being vigilant about nuclear proliferation and the spread of other weapons of mass destruction. It means more investment in homeland security and energy independence, and less in obsolete, Cold War weapons systems. And SMART Security is about attacking terrorism at its very roots with an ambitious, international development agenda that brings education, debt relief, democracy-building, and economic development to the impoverished nations of the world. SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for global leadership. Mr. Speaker, there was nothing smart about a war plan that tried to cut corners by sending in too few soldiers. In fact, there is nothing smart at all about this war. Nearly 2,000 Americans dead, a recharged insurgency, political and economic chaos in Iraq, and no end in sight; an immoral war, a dishonest war and, now, even a senior Pentagon official, Douglas Feith, admits, a mismanaged war. That is strike three, they are out.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, back in my district this past weekend, I had an extraordinary meeting with a group of veterans, many of them from Alpha Company 579th Engineering Battalion who have recently returned from a tour in Iraq. During their deployment, this National Guard unit of 88 mostly California soldiers lost 3 comrades; 23 were wounded in action. And they also received 26 Purple Hearts, eight Bronze Stars and one Meritorious Service Medal. Saturday's town meeting was not about my position on the war or anybody else's. We were there to provide information about the services and benefits available to returning soldiers. We had the VA regional director as well as a local vice chairman from a group called Employment Support for the Guard and Reserve. One of our speakers was the National Managing Director of Helmet to Hardhats, an organization that helps place veterans in construction jobs. The administrator from the largest veterans home in the country in Yountville, California, was there. And we heard from a man who started a nonprofit called Welcome Home Heroes devoted simply to treating an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran to a night out with his or her family at a nice restaurant. For so many soldiers, the return from the battlefield is just the beginning of their ordeal. There are those who have been wounded or mentally traumatized or both and must learn to cope with a life- altering condition. But even if you come home unscathed, the transition back to civilian life can be rough going. There are jobs to find, educations to complete and loans to pay off. There are cases in which service to the Nation has cost veterans their homes or their small businesses. Some may need family counseling to readjust to domestic life. We cannot let them down. I was profoundly disappointed a few weeks ago when we learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs found itself a billion dollars short of what was necessary to cover veterans health expenses for the year 2005. But this body did the right thing by quickly passing a supplemental to help fill the gap before we left for the Fourth of July holiday, although the appropriations I believe could have been more generous. How could we go home to celebrate the birth of American freedom if we were not doing our part to support our troops in the field today? Every Member of the House who voted that day voted aye, voted for the bill which just goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that there is and there should be little partisanship when it comes to support for our veterans. I do not know anyone on either side of the aisle in this Chamber who does not feel the utmost pride in the brave men and women who are on the front line in Iraq. I do not know anyone who is not filled with gratitude for their sacrifice. Where I part with many of my colleagues is in my belief that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home as soon as possible, a position shared by a majority of the American people, by the way. Helping war veterans is a top priority for me. But ironically, one that in an ideal world would hardly be necessary if the United States adopted what I call a SMART Security plan. War would be an absolute last resort, something we turn to reluctantly, only after every diplomatic channel has been pursued. The smart in SMART Security stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. As the tragedy in London demonstrates, our belligerence has not made America or the world safer; and it is time, I believe, that we had a new approach, one that relies on multilateral alliances and improved intelligence to track and detain terrorists, one that renews our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, one that invests aggressively in international development to attack the poverty and hopelessness that breed terrorism in the first place. SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for global leadership. Criticism of our Iraq policy must never be misinterpreted as criticism of those on the ground carrying it out. We must stand with our veterans, the fearless Americans literally wearing the scars of a war that they did not choose. Just because a policy may be flawed, and I believe it is, does not detract from the remarkable job they do. We must show the same selflessness toward them that they have showed toward our Nation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 38 years ago, I was a single working mother with three small children. They were 1, 3 and 5 years old. I was receiving no child support, earning minimum wage. Even though I was employed, I was earning so little I needed welfare to provide my children with the child care, the health care, and the food that was necessary to keep us going. Even though I was educated, I had good job skills, I still was not earning enough to fully support my family. My story bears repeating because too many families today are in the absolute same predicament I was 38 years ago. If this Congress is truly serious about reducing dependence on welfare, let us increase the minimum wage, let us pay working parents enough to support their families and take care of themselves. Otherwise, taxpayers who pay for welfare are subsidizing employers who do not pay a livable wage. The minimum wage has not kept up with the increase in the cost of living. Workers these days can put in a full day, 40 hours a week at minimum wage and still live below the poverty level. The majority leadership in this Congress want to kick single moms and their families off welfare, and they want to cut $10 billion out of Medicaid to reduce health benefits for low-income families. A minimum wage increase is also a matter of basic fairness for millions of working Americans. It is not as if businesses are not doing well. Private business productivity has and is increasing. Profits are up, but wages are stagnant. What is wrong with this picture? Is it not time to let American workers share in the fruits of their labor? President Bush and his allies say they support traditional American family values. Well, let us return to the traditional family value of paying an honest wage for an honest day's work by raising the minimum wage. If they, the Republicans, believe their own rhetoric, they would have allowed this discussion as part of this bill. Vote ``no'' so we can discuss minimum wage and an opportunity for everybody in the House to say their piece. Vote ``no'' for the four bills included under this rule.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 739 because it appears to be just another way for this administration to distract from the real priorities of our Nation's workers: fair wages, open labor negotiations, secure pensions, U.S. jobs over the outsourcing of our jobs and, of course, a safe working environment that protects workers from harm and allows their families peace of mind. Yet with this legislation, we put the company's bottom line above the safety of American workers. With the narrowing definition of willful violations, we make it easier for employers to avoid responsibility after disregarding a safety standard requirement. This bill would allow a company to receive a filing extension no matter why the paperwork was lost, whether they lost track of it in the first place or if they even put it aside because of their very own negligence. Why should any worker be forced to suffer in unhealthy or unsafe working conditions or, worse, lose their life or be maimed for their life because of inefficiencies within a company's system? That is why I support real workforce reform that strengthens worker protections and insists that employers face real consequences when their poor safety standards cause a wrongful death, no excuses, no added waivers, no way to help an employer miss their deadlines and then get away with it. You cannot put a price tag on life, Madam Speaker, and you cannot put a price tag on serious injury. We can all agree that every worker's life is more precious than a profit. That is why I encourage my colleagues to join me and join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) in opposing H.R. 739.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 740 because workers deserve to know that their interests will be heard without biased judgment by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Grieving families across America depend on OSHA to stand up for them and for their deceased and injured loved ones. But this legislation will threaten one of the only hopes that families have for justice when a loved one is harmed at work. By increasing the membership of the commission from three to five, the administration could actually play politics with the commission, filling it with antiworker safety appointees, making it more difficult to reach a quorum than now. The very idea that it is simpler to get a three-member quorum than a two-member quorum makes no sense. If you cannot fill a quorum when you only have three, how are you going to fill it when you have five? Since President Bush took office, it has been really clear that he intends to use OSHA to protect employers rather than employees when addressing worker safety. Why then would we believe that he would appoint members to the commission that would steer the commission toward helping the employee rather than the employer? Employees need to know that business interests are not the primary basis of the OSHA Review Commission. The size of the OSHA Review Commission has no meaning in the face of employee health and safety, in the face of death and injury. What does it matter to the worker the size of the business or how many members sit on a commission? Death is death. Injury is injury. That is what we should be talking about, protecting our workers. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not what workers need or want. Their grievances must be taken more seriously than these little fixes here and there in the OSHA review. If you cannot sit three members, why could you sit five? Think about it. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 740.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 741. Instead of working to strengthen OSHA standards, my Republican colleagues have presented yet another piece of legislation aimed to weaken it by undermining the clout of the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor should be the final authority on how OSHA law is interpreted, and this bill undermines the Secretary's authority . . . giving the Commission too much latitude. The Secretary of Labor needs an unbiased group of peers during the appeals process. If the Commission's authority on the interpretation of OSHA law trumps the Secretary of Labor, what legal basis would the Secretary have to appeal a decision with which he/she disagrees? The Commission's role is to fact-find and review while the Secretary of Labor is the enforcer. If the Commission becomes both the fact- finder and the enforcer, the employee cannot be ensured protection from bias. This legislation undermines the entire appeals process. It is unnecessary and not in the best interests of the employer or the employee. If the administration was really interested in helping workers, it wouldn't be focusing on these unnecessary semantics in the law. But instead, it would be granting workers something they really need, like increased minimum wage or stricter penalties for employers that ignore safety regulations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting real worker reforms, not legislation promoting the erosion of worker protections. Mr. Speaker, the administration's priorities are wrong, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 741.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 742 because workers deserve to know their interests will be represented fairly by OSHA, not weighed by how much money it will cost to bring the claim forward. We all have small businesses in our districts, and we all know that it saves money to provide for a safe workplace in the first place and preventing accidents. Workers and their families suffer due to poor safety at some workplaces. They have enough angst because they can't count on their employers to provide protection. Experiencing further betrayal by their Government when they seek justice is the last thing they need. But, this bill threatens the lives of thousands of workers employed by small businesses because it forces OSHA to consider the costs of attorneys' fees when deciding to take action. Putting this unique burden on OSHA may take away the only recourse employees have to stand up for their safety. Since Bush took office, it has been clear that he intends to use OSHA to protect big business rather than worker safety. First, he signed legislation overturning workplace safety rules to prevent ergonomic standards. Then he advocated budget cuts for job safety agencies, such as OSHA and NIOSH. He went even further by suspending twenty-three important job safety regulations. The list goes on and on. This legislation is one more way to weaken OSHA. If this passes it will be that much easier for businesses to avoid OSHA regulations. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really wanted to help workers, they would increase penalties for employers that ignore safety regulations. They would protect companys from dumping their pensions on to the taxpayers and raise minimum wage. These actions would let our workers know that someone is worrying about the costs in their lives as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 742, which is an unnecessary attack on worker protections.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, so much for President Bush's claim that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we do not have to fight them at home. The recent tragic terrorist attacks in London disproved that flawed theory. On its very face, the notion that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to fight them at home is absolutely absurd. For one thing, anyone who thinks the threat of terrorism is not a multipronged threat is kidding himself or herself. That is why it is called global terrorism in the first place. Because the terrorists have the capacity and the will to strike anywhere any time. As we strive to prevent terrorism in the Western world, we must not forget the terrorism that takes the lives of innocent Iraqis on a daily basis. And we must not forget the terrorism in Iraq is, for the most part, of our very own creation. Despite claims from the White House, there is simply no evidence to support the idea that the Iraq insurgency had ties to international terrorist organizations like al Qaeda before the United States invaded. Sure, al Qaeda is doing its best to align the Iraq insurgents now, but would that have happened if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq in 2003? It is clear that the President's notion of taking the fight to the terrorists instead of letting them take the fight to the U.S. is yet another example of the Bush administration twisting public perception to portray the war in Iraq as linked to 9/11. The truth is that no such link exists. Logic such as this damages our credibility with other nations and hampers our ability to address the truth with facts in the first place. It is clear that the war in Iraq hurts our efforts to combat terrorism in several ways: First, by draining personnel and resources and next by engaging in policies that give the Iraqi people a reason, a legitimate reason for anger aimed at the United States. With the United States appearing as an occupier and with our troops blamed for destroying Iraqi communities and harming innocent people, the Iraqi people are becoming our enemy and many are joining the insurgency. We have already spent over $200 billion on this war. And with $9 billion of this lost by the Coalition Provisional Authority, and worse, nearly 2,000 American soldiers have been killed, and dozens more are being killed by insurgent attacks every single week, while another 15,000 soldiers have been gravely injured and thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis are gone. What do we have to show for these devastating losses? What has been accomplished? Very little, I am sad to say. Despite the thousands of deaths and injuries, and the billions of dollars spent, the United States has failed to make Iraq secure. We have failed to stabilize the Middle East. And as the London bombings demonstrated, we have failed to prevent the terrorists from striking Western cities. The London attacks could have just as easily been New York or Washington, D.C. or San Francisco; so it is not just that we failed in Iraq. This failure has corresponded with failures to secure the U.S. right here at home. It is time for the United States to begin the process to bring our brave men and women home from Iraq. By beginning this process, we will not only give the Iraqi people the opportunity to move forward; we will also save the lives of countless American soldiers, and we will free up our resources for protecting Americans right here at home, which is in line with the SMART Security approach. SMART is a security platform that I have introduced in Congress to provide a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART emphasizes homeland security, and instead of aggressively throwing our military weight around the globe, SMART depends on diplomacy and good international relations. It is clear that the war in Iraq has not made the United States safer, but actually less safe. Ending the war and giving Iraq back to the Iraqi people, who went to the polls to take control of their own country, will be a great first step in preventing future terrorism. Ending the war will help protect our Nation. We are already 2 years behind time in making this happen, 2 years too late. Let U.S. start catching up. Let the U.S. start now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elissa Giambastiani who is retiring after 18 years as President and CEO of the San Rafael, California, Chamber of Commerce. Under Elissa's dynamic leadership, the Chamber has successfully promoted not only the immediate needs of local businesses but also the long-term economic interests of the community. As an advocate for workforce housing and transportation infrastructure improvements, Elissa has been in the forefront of efforts to establish a housing trust and to pass a transportation sales tax. Her expertise is widely recognized, and she was recently invited to speak at a National Workforce Housing summit in Arlington, Virginia, on ``Fostering Community Acceptance of Affordable and Workforce Housing.'' Born and raised in Minnesota, Elissa worked there as a teacher before taking a job with the Army teaching in Europe. After her return, she moved to San Francisco where she worked in an architect's office and met her husband Ron Giambastiani who worked in the same office and lived in San Rafael. She also worked as public relations consultant before joining the Chamber in 1987. As President, Elissa developed and implemented the overall program for an organization with over 950 members. She also took the lead in tracking and advocating the business viewpoint on legislation, including an instrumental role in the formation of the Alliance of North Bay Chambers to increase clout. This function lead to the San Rafael Chamber earning an Advocacy Chamber of the Year Award, one of the first winners in this category which was created by the California Chamber of Commerce in 2003. Elissa has also won an award from Western Association of Chamber Executives for management excellence and an Accredited Chamber Executive designation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Locally, she is a member of the League of Women Voters, the Ecumenical Association for Housing, and the San Rafael Rotary. Mr. Speaker, ``tenacious'' and ``tireless'' are appropriate words frequently used to describe Elissa Giambastiani. I would add ``clear- sighted, passionate, and caring,'' all adjectives which do justice to her effectiveness as a leader in of the San Rafael community. I wish her luck in her new pursuits of piano playing, Japanese flower arranging, Italian study, public relations consulting as well as grandmothering.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of making the TANF law better, instead of giving welfare recipients the tools needed to move from welfare to self-sufficiency, we are once again extending a bill that has continuously moved people from welfare into permanent poverty. Why are we not making education or training count as a work activity for welfare recipients so that individuals can receive the skills they need for jobs that actually pay a livable wage, jobs that pay above the poverty level? Why are we not providing quality available child care that includes care for infants and for weekend and evening workers to help welfare parents keep their jobs and become self-sufficient, because if parents do not have a safe convenient place to leave their children, they cannot go to work? And if they do, they can really concentrate on their job. Believe me, I know because, over 35 years ago, I was a single mother with three small children. My children were 1, 3 and 5 years old, and their father financially abandoned us. Even though I was working full-time, I needed welfare to keep our lives together. But it was not until my mother moved to our town and I could have her take care of the children during the day that I could pay 100 percent attention to the work that I was doing. As soon as she moved into town, I was promoted to management in my company because I did not have one ear and eye home and one at the job. And then when I got home, I was 100 percent there for my children. But when I was at work, I was 100 percent at work. So I was promoted to management, and later, I worked my way off welfare and off poverty. Eventually, I started my own business, and now I am a seven-term Member of the House of Representatives. Let me tell you, I am not sure any of that could have happened without the help and the leg up that I received from the welfare system. And believe me, I have paid back into the system many, many times over, and so have most of the women who have been given a chance for a higher education, who have been given the support of a good child care system to help them stay in the work force so that they can achieve. So why are we wasting our time extending something that has moved welfare recipients, yes, out of welfare, but yes, into poverty with an idea they may never be able to move out of poverty because they have not gotten the assistance that they need? They will pay back to the system many times over, I promise you.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the President last night, I questioned just how much longer he will milk the tragedy of 9/11 to defend his actions in Iraq. Maybe he does not know yet that the Iraq situation had nothing to do with 9/11, but the people of this Nation absolutely do know; and what we would want from the President and what we wanted last night was a promise to the troops, to their families, and to this country that he is putting together a plan to bring them home. But, no. He continues to use 9/11 for his excuse for a preemptive war, a war that has made the United States less secure, not more secure.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the headline in this morning's Washington Post reads: ``Bush says War is Worth Sacrifice.'' Well, easy for him to say, because he has not sacrificed a thing, unless you count his sagging poll numbers. This President needs to look into the eyes of more than 1,700 widows or grieving mothers and fathers and tell them his preemptive war is worth the sacrifice. He needs to tell it to my friend Cindy Sheehan, who came to Washington two weeks ago and spoke movingly about what it was like to see her son Casey, lying in a coffin with the same lack of muscle tone he had as a newborn infant 25 years before. Casey Sheehan and his family were told there were weapons of mass destruction. They were told Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks on America nearly 4 years ago. And long after that myth had been debunked, President Bush still had the audacity to go before the American people last night and raise the ``bloody flag of 9/11,'' as a New York Times editorial put it. I have been to Fayetteville, North Carolina, where the President spoke last night. In fact, 3 months ago I spoke there at a peace rally organized by a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. Fayetteville is actually home to a vibrant anti-war community. Not despite the fact that it is home to Fort Bragg, but because it is a military stronghold. With a majority of Americans turning against this war, it only makes sense that those who have sacrificed the most for this war are also opposed to it. The President insisted last night that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, and it is true that terrorists are now flocking to Iraq, like moths to a flame. But how did that happen? Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground because of President Bush's premeditated, preemptive invasion of Iraq. Every day that our soldiers are in Iraq is another day that the insurgents are emboldened by their hatred for America. It is the occupation itself that gives rise to the insurgency and inflames it, putting our troops in more danger than ever. Perhaps what is most galling about the President saying Iraq is worth the sacrifice is that he and his administration do not truly honor that sacrifice. With their rhetoric, they do, perhaps, but what about their actions? If they honored the sacrifice, surely they would have found a way to get our soldiers the protective armor they need. And if they honored the sacrifice, why are they coming up $1 billion short of what is needed to deliver health care for our veterans? We heard nothing new last night, no new information, no new plan, no new explanation or justification for 1,700 plus dead, thousands wounded, and over $200 billion squandered. It is time we showed our support for the troops by removing them from harm's way, by ending this disastrous war, by bringing them home to their families as soon as possible. But that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. We need an entirely new approach to defending America. Where is it written that a strong national security policy must involve violence and bloodshed? I have proposed a new plan called SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. Its guiding principle is that war should be the absolute last resort. It would protect America through stronger global alliances, a commitment to diplomacy, and vigorous weapons inspections. SMART would also address the root causes of terrorism by confronting the poverty, despair, and hopelessness that foster terrorism in the first place. And it includes an ambitious international development agenda: democracy- building, education, infrastructure projects, support for environmental stewardship, and more, for the troubled, underdeveloped nations of the world. SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART Security begins, in fact, and nothing would be smarter, with a plan to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness and in frustration over the news that the Nation finds itself $1 billion short of the funding that is needed to cover health care for our Nation's veterans this year. It is bad enough that next year's VA budget will almost surely be inadequate; now we are having trouble paying for this year's needs. Just as the architects of our Iraq policy did not have a plan for winning the peace, it appears that the budget experts in the executive branch did not plan for increased veteran costs associated with the deadly foreign war, a preemptive war that has killed over 1,700 troops and injured more than 13,000, a war that will certainly result in an increased burden on the Veterans Administration. This shortfall comes on the heels of efforts by the Bush administration to increase veterans prescription drug co-payments and to add an enrollment fee to enter the veterans health care system in the first place. There is even talk of classifying veterans in ways that entitle some veterans to benefits and leaves others on the outside looking in. How is this possible, Mr. Speaker, all the talk of supporting the troops, is this just rhetoric? Is it just bumper sticker boiler plate, or are we really serious about honoring the sacrifices of war and showing our gratitude to those who have risked life and limb on our behalf? What is even worse is that some people saw this budget problem coming and were ignored or rebuffed. Minority Members in the other Chamber, the Senate, proposed adding money to the VA budget in anticipation of this shortfall, but they were told by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs this spring that no emergency supplemental funds were needed. Well, guess what? Emergency supplemental funds are needed. And now we either have to get an advance on next year's limited VA appropriations; borrow from other parts of the VA budget; or pass a supplemental bill to fill the gap. One of the key committee Chairs has said that it would be best to avoid a supplemental package. But were they saying that, Mr. Speaker, when we were debating an over-$200 billion supplemental bill to fund the war effort in the first place? It does not make sense to me. We have no problem approving billions upon billions of dollars and taking on massive debt to send our brave soldiers to Iraq in the first place. And while they are there, we are denying them of the protective body armor and vehicles that would prevent these severe wounds in the first place, and they are returning home more injured than ever. And when they come home, then we start pinching pennies, pinching pennies on their care. Are these the priorities of a great Nation? Now, it is tempting to see this VA situation as simply an actuarial miscalculation, but it is indicative of something far more serious that we have been seeing over and over again from this administration, a rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul mentality; a tendency to ignore problems until they become crises; a habit of embracing war without accounting for its costs, human or financial. Mr. Speaker, this is just one example of the way our Iraq policy has been bungled. Not only do we need to bring our troops out of Iraq as soon as realistically possible, a position that the majority of the American people agree with; we need an overhaul of our approach to national security in general. I have proposed a new plan called SMART Security. SMART stands for Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism For the 21st Century. The guiding principle behind SMART is that war should be the absolute last resort. Prevention of war, not preemptive war, which we know from the Downing Street memo was not the thinking on Iraq. So SMART includes an ambitious international development agenda, democracy building, human rights education, business loans, agricultural assistance and more for the troubled, underdeveloped nations of the world. SMART is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. It protects America by relying on the very best of American values: our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership.