Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the common theme to the war in Iraq has been the Bush administration's ability and willingness to mislead the American people. First, they misled about the weapons of mass destruction. Then, nearly 2 years ago, they falsely declared the end of major combat operations. Now, they are openly declaring the success of the mission, and President Bush regularly speaks of an increasingly democratic Iraq. This assessment suggests the degree to which the President fails to comprehend the disastrous lack of security that has plagued Iraq over the last 2 years. Personally, I am frightened that our own President has such a failed understanding about the reality of the war that he started. Just as disturbing were recent comments by Vice President Dick Cheney. In an interview, he said that the Iraqi insurgency was in its ``last throes.'' I am not sure which press reports the Vice President has been reading but, somehow, I do not think his optimistic assessment of Iraq's insurgency is grounded in real fact. Unfortunately, misleading assessments of the war like these do not magically secure Iraq from the true threats that it faces. And the true threats are an increasingly strengthened Iraq insurgency, bolstered by the continued United States military occupation of Iraq. On the ground, a violent wave of car bombings and other attacks killed 80 U.S. soldiers and more than 700 Iraqis in the month of May alone. Vice President Cheney calls this the ``last throes''? And by mid-June, almost one-third more troops were killed than during all of the month of May. At some point, the Bush administration needs to admit what the rest of the American people know, that its current strategy for Iraq is failing. Recent polls show that 63 percent of Americans want our troops to come home. Now it is time for the President to start listening to the American people, the people he works for. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle understand that our Iraq policy is a disaster. When the House recently debated the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, 122 Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent voted in favor of my amendment simply expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should establish a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and bring his plan to the Congress. Mr. Speaker, Americans are less secure, not more secure, as a result of the war in Iraq. This war has created a whole new generation of terrorists whose common bond is their hatred for the United States and our aggressive militarism. We have asked the President to address Iraq's lack of security. We have asked him to come up with a plan for ending the war. He has not, so we will. And when we put our plan in place and when the troops come home, we can begin to plan for the future. Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future. That plan is the SMART Security resolution which I recently reintroduced with the support of 50 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible Multilateral American Response To Terrorism for the 21st Century, and it will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART will prevent acts of terrorism in countries lick Iraq by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunities. Instead of rushing off to war under false pretenses, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues. That way we will be able to deal with global crises diplomatically instead of resorting to armed conflict. Instead of maintaining a long-term military occupation of Iraq, our future efforts to help the Iraqi people must follow the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international allies, to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration needs to take a long, hard, and honest look at the effects of our policies in Iraq. Once they do, they will understand that the United States is less safe than we were before we got ourselves into this preemptive war and that we must end this long and destructive war.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment. Mr. Chairman, employees and retirees at United Airlines played by the rules and deserve what they expected--a solid pension payment to support their retirement years. But instead of the promised income they were counting on to help cover their kid's college tuition; their own health care; or, the mortgage payments on their houses, they were left with a court ruling dumping their dreams into the pension guaranty benefit corporation (PBGC), which is significantly less than what they were counting on. And, guess who fools the bill?--the tax payers! Over 2,000 email statements from United Workers were recently submitted into an e-hearing conducted by Representatives George Miller and Jan Schakowsky. One of my constituents, Ms. Elenor Barcsak wrote: ``I worked for United Airlines as a flight attendant for 37 years . . . when I turned 60 years old I was told that it would be totally safe to retire as my pension, that I had paid into as a union member for all those years, was TOTALLY protected. She continued--I am a homeowner in Marin County since 1972 but I still have mortgage payments. I am assisting my family financially as my mother is in a nursing home [in Canada] and my younger sister has been on welfare. The impact of my pension check being reduced by as much as half will be devastating.'' Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment to prevent United Airlines from dumping its pension into the PBGC and reducing the benefits promised to these loyal workers.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect those who choose to serve our country in the military. I also understand that successful recruiting is critical to the military's ability to protect our country. But we also must protect the privacy of our children. On top of Mr. Honda's discussion, Mr. Chairman, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is now developing a comprehensive invasive recruiting database on high-school and college students who are age 16 or older. The database will include personal information about these young women and men, including their birth dates, social security numbers, e- mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects they are studying. And, apparently, the Pentagon will be able, without notifying citizens, to share this data for non-military purposes, including with law enforcement agencies and state tax authorities. More than ever, this highlights the Administration's gall in believing they have the right to personal information about student rights above parents. If their war was justified, if the American people were not fed up with it, young people would volunteer--but they aren't, and, they won't, and, that is the very reason this invasive program has come up. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting parents and children and their privacy. Vote for the Honda amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing today is that there isn't enough money to fund any of these important programs like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, education, or health research. But, let's be honest. The real reason that we do not have the money to put towards these programs is because of the reckless tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy that the White House and the majority party have insisted on passing. Yesterday, I met with some of my young constituents representing the Migrant Education Program. I would like to read their requests to you. We the constituents of the Migrant Education Program regions II and XXIII of California are here today to address constant issues that challenge the quality of our lives. In order to achieve this we propose the following. education We propose to the Congress to allocate funds to use in the implementations of programs that will benefit learning through buying proper equipment that will permit students to succeed. Proper equipment includes: textbooks, sports, uniforms, and computers. immigration We propose that Congress pass the Dream Act and Student Adjustment Act, which could allow undocumented students to pursue higher education. We propose better working conditions for agricultural workers. Better working conditions such as health care, breaks and better pay. social security In order to secure our Social Security benefits we propose to reject President Bush's Social Security Reforms and accept to continue the current Social Security Program without the government tapping into our resources. In order to reimburse the lost money the Government must repay the deficit that was caused by the Governor's decisions. health care We propose to the Congress that in order to have healthier citizens a universal program should be established with an equal payment for insurance coverage regardless of their status in California. The result of this will be a healthier public thus reducing the burden on taxpayers. A small tax increase, which will be offset by the thousands or even million of dollars saved in the urgent care facilities. All families will be able to live their lives knowing that their tax payments are in return to their health care leaving them with a satisfaction that their insurance bill will not increase. We ask that the Government intervene to help maintain a set price. labor Minimum wages: The average person lives below the poverty line and in order to improve the quality of life a higher minimum wage needs to be issued. Pesticides: Pesticides present a hazard towards the health of workers and their families. Benefits: Equal health benefits should be issued to all employees as a result of hazardous working conditions. field worker permit Permits should be issued for workers of foreign countries to work in the United States under fair conditions. same sex Acknowledging the couple: Same sex couples deserve equal unalienable rights as heterosexual couples. Support Adoption: Same sex couples deserve the opportunity to give a loving home to a child in need. Separating state and religion: An individual deserves the right to do as one pleases without the intervention of theocracy, while respecting civil rights. violence in the media We propose to the Congress that violence in TV should be controlled to a substantial level of awareness; such level could include showing violence media in the after hours and avoid presentation of inappropriate material. We the delegates of California propose to the Congress that there will be more funds for community activities for the youth, so that they get involved and occupy their time in something useful other than gangs, such as, sports, music, dancing groups, karate, etc. Children and adolescents are the most affected audience through the contents of violence. We strongly recommend that such material be diminished; such contents include music, alcohol, sex, drugs, gun control, and homicide. We propose to the Congress that programs should be developed in local communities in order to educate parents about violence and how to keep it away from today's youth. These are some of the requests that we could have fulfilled had it not been for these reckless tax cuts. We should not forget about the needs of our children and the elderly. It is time to turn back some of these reckless tax cuts and put the money into education, health care, and all of the services that the most vulnerable in our society need to survive.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 33 years ago, Title IX, written by our dear friend, Patsy Mink, became law. Title IX recognizes that only when all Americans have opportunity to reach their potential can our country reach its potential. Recently, the Bush administration said that if a school's women students do not respond to an e-mail from the school asking if they are interested in sports, then the school would be in compliance with Title IX. That is ridiculous. There are acceptable standards to measure compliance that are accurate and must be used. The lesson of Title IX is that interest flows from opportunity. That is why women's participation in sports has increased 800 percent in high school and 400 percent in college since 1972. Moreover, if we are going to make policy based on how many people ignore one of the dozens of e-mails in their in-box, we will be in huge trouble with Title IX. I hope that the President will heed the letter from the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi), the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Miller), and myself and 140 other Members, and rescind this clarification.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and I missed Roll Call vote 259. Had I been present I would have voted nay.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to take a good hard look at the role the United States is playing in Iraq and whether it is in our national interests to maintain a military presence there. We need to acknowledge the fact that Iraq's insurgency is growing in strength, not diminishing. It is the very presence of our 150,000-or-so American troops in Iraq that unites the growing collection of insurgent forces. Since our military presence encourages further fighting, this war will continue as long as the United States troops remain in Iraq, appearing to be occupiers of their country. That is why Congress must accept that we cannot possibly be successful through military means alone. During consideration of the defense authorization bill on May 25 for fiscal year 2006, I offered an amendment urging the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Surprisingly, this is the first time the House formally debated the possibility of withdrawal from Iraq, and that was over a 2-year period. While my amendment was defeated, it is clear that Congress is starting to get serious about the need to end the war in Iraq. 128 Members, including five Republicans, voted for this important amendment, but there is much more work to be done. The Iraq war has now raged on for more than 2 years, and we are no closer to winning this conflict than we were when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations under an arrogant banner declaring ``Mission Accomplished.'' Despite this lack of progress, the war has exacted a deeply troubling human and financial toll. In just over 2 years of war, almost 1,800 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 innocent Iraqi bystanders have been killed. The Pentagon lists the number of Americans wounded as over 12,000; but that does not take into consideration the invisible wounds many of our soldiers have brought home, the painful mental trauma they have contracted from months and years of fighting, watching their friends being killed or wounded by the insurgents, and killing and wounding others themselves, a lot to live with when they finally come home. When accounting for these psychological injuries, the number of wounded jumps to more than 40,000 soldiers. Given what is at stake here, do the American people not deserve a plan? Do our brave men and women who are selflessly sacrificing their time and energy, not to mention their arms, legs and lives for this war, not deserve a plan? And it would be helpful for their families to know what the plan is in Iraq. We have asked the President to address Iraq's lack of security. We have asked him to come up with a plan for ending the war. He has not; so we will. After we bring the troops home, we do have a plan. There is a plan. It is a plan that would secure America for the future, the SMART Security resolution, which I recently reintroduced with the support of 50 of my House colleagues. SMART is Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century, and it will help address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging the Iraqi people. Instead of rushing off to war for the wrong reasons, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global problems. Because not every international problem has a military answer, SMART Security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions that give rise to terrorism in the very first place: poverty, despair, resource scarcity and lack of proper education, as an example. SMART Security also encourages democracy building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities, and strengthening civil programs in the developing world. These are the best ways to encourage democracy in countries like Iraq, not through wars that cost thousands of unnecessary deaths and cost billions of dollars. The SMART approach is the best way to reach out to Iraq. It is time we stopped putting all of our eggs in the military basket and started getting smart about our national security.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that does not value America's children and families. The average American wants Congress to do more to ensure that our children receive the help they need to succeed in school and in life. Instead, this bill implements a budget that values tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans more than it values education for the least wealthy Americans. In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We and the President agreed, or at least I thought we did, that Federal education policy must include both reforms and resources. I strongly support NCLB's goals, although as we move forward, I want us to look closely at what needs to be done to make it work best. But, I can tell you right now that one thing that needs to be done is to keep the promise that Congress and the President made to the American people to fully fund NCLB. Yet, not only would this bill provide $13 billion less than was promised for NCLB for this year, it would actually cut funding for NCLB compared to last year. Over 4 years, this Congress has underfunded NCLB by more than $40 billion. This bill would increase funding for Title I by less than 1 percent, at a time when we need to do more than ever to close the achievement gap not only within our country, but between our country and many of our economic competitors around the world. It would freeze funding for teacher training, even as we face a looming teacher shortage--and we know that the most important factor in child's education is a good teacher. It would freeze funding for after-school centers, even though last year we were only able to fund 38 percent of applications. And this bill would cut funding for education technology by 40 percent, even as technology becomes more and more important to learning. Another area in which this bill would do less is special education. I think every member knows that in 1975, Congress and the President promised to fund 40 percent of schools' special education costs. Last year, 30 years after we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we funded only 19 percent of those costs. Under this bill, that percentage would go down to 18 percent. That's what this bill does--or more accurately, doesn't do--for elementary and secondary education. For younger children, even though we're only serving about half of the children who are eligible for Head Start, this bill would increase funding by less than 1 percent. And for college students, it would provide only a $50 increase for Pell grants, even though tuition at the average public college has gone up by $2,300 since 2001. Finally, this bill would make drastic cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which does so much to promote a diverse and freethinking society. Public broadcasting provides forums for many voices that otherwise would not be heard. It provides our children with the best educational programs on television, such as Sesame Street, and is a valuable source for reliable news programs for millions of Americans. By cutting funding for CPB, we are weakening our strongest source of unbiased, diverse, educational and cultural programming. In short, this bill is a step backward--a step we can't afford. In his new book, ``The World is Flat,'' the New York Times' Thomas Friedman explains that America's historical economic advantages have disappeared now that ``the world is flat, and anyone with smarts, access to Google and a cheap wireless laptop can join the innovation fray.'' Mr. Friedman's and others' remedy is to ``attract more young women and men to science and engineering.'' But, it will be impossible for our country to continue to lead the world in innovation as long as Congress and the President choose tax cuts for millionaires over investment in education. Mr. Chairman, that choice does not reflect the values of the people in my district, nor do I think it reflects the values of most Americans. And so, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, now we've heard it all. The Majority in the House has attacked the poor and the sick with their cuts to Medicaid; they have given away billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations and the rich, and now they want to string up Big Bird. The Drastic cuts that this bill will inflict on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are dangerous to our freethinking and diverse society. Public Broadcasting provides a forum for groups who otherwise would not be heard and provides underserved areas with quality programming. It helps to teach our children with the best educational programs on television like Sesame Street and Arthur. These shows not only help our children learn, but also motivate them to turn off the TV and pick up a book to read about their favorite characters featured on these shows. Publc broadcasting is a favorite source for reliable information for Americans. Shows like Now and The Newshour are trusted by Americans to give them the straight story about current events in our world. By cutting funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting we are attacking our strongest source of unbiased, diverse, and cultured programming available. These proposed cuts are just another step in the Bush Administration's agenda to dismantle Public Broadcasting and silence one of the last objective voices in American media. The President's recent attempts to politicize PBS by bringing in a partisan activist to be President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are shameful. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment to restore the funding it needs and protect the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as a powerful voice of the people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 415.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. 69. Sergeant Michael Francis Pedersen 70. Specialist Donald Samuel Oaks Jr. 71. Sergeant First Class Randall Scott Rehn 72. Sergeant Todd James Robbins 73. Staff Sergeant Nino Dugue Livaudais 74. Specialist Ryan Patrick Long 75. Captain Russell Brian Rippetoe 76. Private First Class Chad Eric Bales 77. Corporal Mark Asher Evnin 78. Corporal Erik Hernandez Silva 79. Staff Sergeant Wilbert Davis 80. Captain Edward Jason Korn 81. Captain Benjamin Wilson Sammis 82. Captain Tristan Neil Aitken 83. Private First Class Wilfred Davyrussell Bellard 84. Specialist Daniel Francis Cunningham Jr. 85. Private Devon Demilo Jones 86. Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith 87. Captain Travis Allen Ford 88. Corporal Bernard George Gooden 89. First Lieutenant Brian Michael McPhillips 90. Sergeant Duane Roy Rios 91. Specialist Larry Kenyatta Brown 92. Staff Sergeant Stevon Alexander Booker 93. First Sergeant Edward Smith 94. Private First Class Gregory Paul Huxley Jr. 95. Private Kelley Stephen Prewitt 96. Staff Sergeant Lincoln Daniel Hollinsaid 97. Lance Corporal Andrew Julian Aviles 98. Corporal Jesus Martin Antonio Medellin 99. Second Lieutenant Jeffrey Joseph Kaylor 100. Private First Class Anthony Scott Miller 101. Specialist George Arthur Mitchell Jr. 102. Corporal Henry Levon Brown 103. Private First Class Juan Guadalupe Garza Jr. 104. Private First Class Jason Michael Meyer 105. Staff Sergeant Robert Anthony Stever 106. Staff Sergeant Scott Douglas Sather

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the first lessons we are taught as children, how and when to apologize for doing something wrong. Our capacity for saying I am sorry is part of what makes us a functioning and civilized society. My parents always said I should apologize for hurting someone. But they never insisted that I apologize simply for pointing out when someone else was doing something bad or wrong. Yet, here in Washington all of the sudden every time a Democrat uses strong rhetoric to condemn the policies of the Bush administration, there is a relentless pressure from the Republicans for an apology. Maybe my memory is failing me, but I just do not recall any apologies when opponents of the Iraq war had their patriotism questioned. Now with a new poll showing that 63 percent of the American people want the troops to come home in the next year, maybe the right wing message machine owes an apology to nearly two out of three Americans. The fact is their apology demands on Democratic dissenters is just a convenient way to change the subject, to avoid any kind of question about the merits of the Iraq war and the way it has been managed. And why do they want to avoid that discussion? Because the American people have completely lost confidence in the administration's Iraq policy. Instead of apologizing for words, it is time we started demanding apologies for deeds. Where, for example, is the apology for the deaths of more than 1,700 Americans? Not only is there no apology; Secretary Rumsfeld could not be bothered to personally sign condolence letters to their families. Where is the apology for sending young men and women to war without the proper protective armor on their bodies and their vehicles? Where is the apology for pinching pennies on veterans health benefits when these brave soldiers return home? Where is the apology for the immoral doctrine of this preemptive war? And where is the apology for the gross deceptions used to justify it, for the missing weapons of mass destruction, for the cooked intelligence, for the phony al Qaeda-Saddam link? Where is the apology for wasting more than $200 billion of taxpayer money on this mistake? Where is the apology for the poor leadership that led to torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Where is the apology for committing our troops and our Nation to this mission without a post-war plan to secure the peace? And where is the apology for the arrogance that squandered international good will toward America and damaged our relationships with our closest allies? There is something wrong with our moral compass if we have to apologize for speaking bluntly. But our leaders can commit the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam and get away without apology or accountability. Actually, an apology would not be enough for everything they have done. An apology, after all, is just more words. It is time for action. It is time for accountability. It is time for a tangible admission that the Iraq war was immorally conceived and has been incompetently managed. It is clearly time to end this war and bring our troops home. Chuck Hagel, the senior Senator from Nebraska, a decorated Vietnam hero and a member of the President's party, recently had this to say about the war, ``Things aren't getting better. They are getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we are losing Iraq.'' I ask you, are they going to ask Chuck Hagel for an apology? After all, he has done the worst possible thing in the eyes of the administration: he has told the truth.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution states that Members of Congress must be chosen by the people of the United States and Congress must represent the people of the United States. That means that we, as Members of Congress, need to listen and act when the people speak. Well, the American people have spoken. The latest Gallup poll released last week indicates that the American people are ready for our military forces in Iraq to begin coming home. Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that the United States should bring home some or all of our troops from Iraq. Just as revealing, the Gallup poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans support maintaining our current troop levels in Iraq. This is the lowest level of support for the war since it began in March 2003. The American people have stated loud and clear where they stand, and their numbers are increasing. They know that the only way to keep our sons and daughters from being killed in Iraq and the only way to end the death and destruction that occur there every single day is to start the process of bringing our troops home. Clearly, the American people are way ahead of Congress on this issue. Unfortunately, the President of the United States is way behind on the issue of Iraq. We have asked the President to come up with a plan for ending the war. He has not; so we will. Our efforts to come up with a plan began in January when I introduced legislation calling for the President to begin bringing our troops home. Thirty-five Members of Congress support this legislation. We continued our effort on May 25 when I introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill calling for the President to create a plan for Iraq; 128 Members of Congress, including five Republicans and one Independent, voted in favor of this sensible amendment. It is clear that the United States must develop a smarter agenda, an agenda for Iraq, an agenda that will go beyond when we bring our troops home from Iraq. It is more important that we have a plan for the future than a continued military occupation, because this 2-year war has left us disturbingly weakened, weakened against the true security threats we face here at home. Let us not forget that Osama bin Laden is still at large, and al Qaeda continues to recruit new members in Iraq and elsewhere. Once we have a plan in place to end the war in Iraq, we can start the long process of securing the United States and Iraq for the future. We can accomplish this through SMART Security. SMART Security, which has the support of 50 Members of Congress, is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century, and it will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will prevent acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq by addressing the root conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunities. SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues. SMART addresses global emergencies diplomatically, instead of by resorting to armed conflict. Instead of maintaining a long-term military occupation of Iraq, our future efforts to help the Iraqi people must follow the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international allies to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. That is what I mean when I talk about SMART Security. We can defend America by relying on the very best of American values, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. Mr. Speaker, we must follow a smarter approach, and we must do this as we work to help the Iraqi people. That means implementing a plan to end the war in Iraq. I invite the President, all Americans, and all Members of Congress to join me in this effort.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for starting tonight's dialogue. It is true. I have been on the House floor, I think, 79 times, maybe 80 in the last year for 5 minutes after the end of our workday, of our congressional day. And my message has been we need to figure out how to bring our troops home. Never in that message have I said it is the troops' fault that we are there and that they are to be criticized. We are not going to pick on the warriors. We are not going to blame them because their leadership, their administration, sent them there to do a job that was not necessary. The death of over 1,700 of our troops does not say to me that to honor those deaths we need to send more troops, we need to have more death. I do not think that honors those who have died. I think that, in fact, it is a shame that we would even think of sending another young person, male, female, another older person, our National Guard, our Reservists, into an area that we did not need to be in in the first place. There is no excuse for the United States to have started a war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, our Constitution states that Members of Congress must be chosen by the people of the United States and that Congress must represent the people of the United States. That means that we as Members, Members of Congress, need to act and listen to the people when they speak. Well, I have been speaking for 80 days, every time we are in session, for 5 minutes, but now the American people are speaking. They have spoken. The latest Gallup poll released last week indicates that the American people are ready for our military in Iraq to start coming home. They are saying, bring our troops home. They say this, and some actually supported the war at the beginning, but now, like the three of us up here, they want to honor our troops, they want to honor the families of our troops, they want to bring them home safe and whole. When I say whole, I know what I am talking about. Two years ago, I had major, major back surgery at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. And when I was able to walk, I walked the halls and visited the troops that had come home then. It was August 2 years ago, so they were just beginning to come home from Iraq. I want to tell my colleagues, we are not talking about people that are hardly wounded at all, we are talking about young people who have virtually been destroyed physically. Their minds are there, though. They know what happened. But we are doing such a disservice to them if we send more young people, more troops in an area where they too are going to get injured or killed. Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that the United States should bring home some or all of our troops from Iraq, and the Gallup poll tells us that only 36 percent of Americans support maintaining our current troop level in Iraq. Only 36 percent. This is the lowest level of support for the war since it began in March 2003, and nobody is saying we do not support our troops. They know these statistics are all about bringing them home because we do support them, and we know that when they come home they will be safe. It is absolute in these numbers that Americans are not criticizing the troops, the warriors; they are criticizing the war, how we got into it, how badly it has been managed, and why there is absolutely no plan on how to bring our troops home. The American people have stated loud and clear, and their numbers are increasing also; the more they see what is happening to their neighbor, a friend of their son or their daughter, they are realizing that, oh, my, it can happen to any single one of these young people that we send overseas for a war that was not necessary in the first place. The only way to end this death and destruction that occurs every single day is to start the process of bringing our troops home. Clearly, the American people are way ahead of Congress on this issue. Unfortunately, the President of the United States is way behind on the issue of Iraq. We have asked the President to come up with a plan for ending the war. He has not. He has no plan for victory, except to leave our troops in harm's way as targets for a furious insurgency who look at our sons and daughters as occupiers. What, then, should Members of Congress do? Well, I have been working hard on this, as the gentlewoman from California told us. For one thing, I came up with a plan in January when I introduced legislation that is H. Con. Res. 35, calling for the President to begin bringing our troops home. Thirty-five Members of Congress support this legislation. And then we continued this effort on May 25 by introducing an amendment to the defense authorization bill calling on the President to do this simple thing: Create a plan for Iraq and bring his plan to the appropriate House committee. Mr. Speaker, 128 Members of Congress, including five Republicans and one Independent, voted in favor of this sensible amendment. It is clear that the United States must develop a plan to bring our troops home. That is the only fair thing to do for the people of this country but, most importantly, for the troops. They deserve to know when they get to come home, and their families deserve it equally. I have loved being up here with my colleagues. I am proud to be a member of the Out of Iraq Task Force in the House of Representatives. It is not that we want to run away from anything; we certainly believe that when the United States pulls our troops home, that we do have a responsibility and we must be working with the Iraqis to help them with their failing economic and physical infrastructure. We know that we can help them with that, but we know we cannot do it while we are in the midst of destroying their cities at the same time we are trying to put them back together. First, we bring our troops home, then we work with the Iraqi government and we help them put their country back together. We are also proud of the Iraqi citizens who went to the polls and voted, but we are also very clear that what they were voting for was the fact that they wanted their country back in control by the Iraqis, not by the United States military. As soon as we do this, we can start working with them, and we can work with the international world, get them all involved, so we can be doing the right thing for Iraq and the Iraqi people who are also being destroyed by this war. So I thank the gentlewoman for letting me be a part of this. My colleagues will hear more from us. We have a lot of ideas, but our major idea is two words, ``troops home,'' in honor of those young men and young women and the Reservists and the National Guard who are doing something that they were told they must do; and they are serving their country the best that they can, but they are getting very poor guidance from the leaders of this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I do not want to be a cynic but is not Donald Rumsfeld the same individual who was stamping his names on letters to families when he was sending his condolences to them when their family member had died in Iraq? He needs a lot of training on how to be compassionate. I think it is a very good idea that we send that letter, but I do not think we should be surprised that that is the reaction that Cindy Sheehan has gotten from Condoleeza Rice and from Donald Rumsfeld. There seems to be something missing in the picture, and that is compassion and really understanding what this means to those who are fighting the war and the families of those who have lost their loved ones and who are getting loved ones back who are totally, totally wounded, both physically and mentally. So yes, we should do that.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on April 12 at Fort Hood, Texas, President Bush told an audience of thousands of servicemembers that, for the first time, Iraqi soldiers outnumbered U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Specifically, he put the number of trained Iraqi forces at 150,000. This rosy assessment of the situation in Iraq is shocking, not only for its arrogance, but also for its ignorance. Is the President totally oblivious of Iraq's true security failures, or is he misleading the American people into thinking that peace has taken hold? Either way, the President's assessment misleads the American people about the true situation in Iraq. Take, for example, his claim that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained. Iraqi military leaders actually reveal that the number of trained soldiers is closer to 75,000, about half of the President's estimate. But the actual number of trained security personnel committed to a secure and democratic Iraq is even less than that, because many soldiers use their posts to assassinate political opponents. Others simply have no desire to help secure Iraq. The chief of police in Basra, General Hassan al-Sade, stated that at least half of his 14,000-member militia are openly opposed to a secure Iraq, and another quarter are politically neutral and do not follow his military orders. General al-Sade recently told the Guardian newspaper, ``I trust 25 percent of my force, no more.'' After giving his Fort Hood speech, the President never again mentioned that 150,000 Iraqi security personnel have been trained. Perhaps that is because he realized that his assessment was entirely inaccurate. But the President never admitted to the American people that he was wrong in this assessment, and he still has not told the American people how he plans to help secure Iraq or how and when he plans to bring the troops home. Mr. Speaker, the best way to help secure Iraq and protect our troops is to remove U.S. troops from the country. Nothing enrages and unites Iraq's insurgency more than the presence of nearly 140,000 American soldiers on Iraqi soil. One option is to bring one American soldier home for every trustworthy Iraqi soldier that has been trained. If 75,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained, half the President's April 12 assessment, then why can we not remove the same number of our own soldiers? This is just one plan to exit from Iraq. We have asked the President to come up with his own plan for securing Iraq. I am not against supporting the President's plan if it is a good one; but right now, he does not even have a plan. So we will develop a plan of our own. Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future once we have cleaned up the mess we made in Iraq: SMART Security. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century, and it will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will prevent acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, lack of education, and economic opportunities. SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues. SMART Security addresses global crises diplomatically instead of by resorting to armed conflict. Efforts to help the Iraqi people must follow the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance coordinated with our international allies to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 2 years since the United States started the war in Iraq. Do the American people, especially the soldiers who are bravely serving our country halfway across the world, not deserve a plan for ending the war? It is time for the President to create a plan to end the war in Iraq to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment to the defense appropriations bill. This amendment, as he told us, will take $84 million from the missile defense program, the single largest defense program in our Nation's history, and add it to an area that we have neglected for far too long: nonproliferation. The missile defense program has never been proven successful, but the nonproliferation programs have proven extremely successful. In particular, we need to ramp up funds for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, CTR. This successful nonproliferation program has succeeded at reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the states of the former Soviet Union. In November 1991, to address the massive quantity of nuclear material left over in the former Soviet Union as a result of ending the Cold War, Congress initiated Cooperative Threat Reduction, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, which gives the Department of Defense the task of dismantling nuclear warheads, reducing nuclear stockpiles, and securing nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union. In 1991, an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons existed throughout the former Soviet Union. These conditions raised the serious concern that nuclear materials could be smuggled beyond the borders of the former USSR. Fortunately, CTR was created to help secure these nuclear weapons. Under CTR, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly tasked to create nuclear weapons, now work to dismantle them. Since 1991, CTR has dismantled nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads, not to mention nearly 500 ballistic missiles, over 300 submarine-launched missiles, and nearly 500 missile silos. This program clearly works, and that is what we need to support it through the annual appropriations process. Unfortunately, CTR has been funded at the same level since its creation in 1991, about $400 million per year. The total amount we have spent on CTR equals around 1 year of spending on missile defense. Unfortunately, this year's defense appropriations bill provides $27.6 million less for CTR than it did before September 11. So while the threat of nuclear terrorism has increased, our efforts to prevent it have diminished. The smart response to this threat is to fund the peaceful Cooperative Threat Reduction, Nunn-Lugar, all the programs to reduce the world's supply of nuclear weapons, and not promote the aggressive and expensive missile defense programs which have never tested successfully. That is why I urge Members of this House to vote for the Spratt amendment which will take money out of the missile defense system and put it into the nonproliferation programs. In the long run, Americans will be far safer if Congress promotes and properly funds good nonproliferation initiatives like CTR. I urge all of my colleagues to keep Americans and the world safe. Vote for the Spratt amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill. This important amendment prohibits defense funds from being used for torture, or to transfer prisoners-of-war to countries that employ the use of torture. That should be a simple decision, a ``no brainer'' vote for Markey--stop funding torture. Vote against Markey--agree to funding torture. This decision is important because the way we treat our enemies speaks volumes about our character as a Nation, as Americans. I am embarrassed to say that America's treatment of prisoners over the last several years does not speak highly of our national integrity, of the people we really are. Over the last 2 years, news of prisoners being mistreated, beaten, sexually assaulted, and even killed while in U.S. custody has become all too commonplace and I fear we have yet to hear the whole story. Prisoners have been tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Considering the widespread use of torture, no one can claim that these are isolated incidents, that it's merely the work of ``a few bad apples.'' The fact that torture occurred in separate places, and under the command of different interrogators, leads me to believe that a more systemic failure took place, a system that starts from the very top, not from a few misguided enlisted personnel. You could say that the turning point--the day torture became a routine tactic employed by the United States--was August 1, 2002. The day the Justice Department sent a memo to the White House, stating that torturing terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.'' It's not just that physical abuse has taken place under our watch. That's bad enough, but what is just as appalling is that legal abuses have taken place here at home. We have kept people in prison for more than 3 years without charging them with a crime, and the administration has affirmed this practice through legal memos. This approval of torture--by the White House, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department--is not only shameful, it also endangers the United States. At a time when the U.S. is courting the support of the international world--particularly the Arab world--the torture of foreign prisoners, along with our invasion of Iraq, gives the world's extremists what they believe to be a legitimate reason to hate the United States. There has been no better recruiting tool for al Qaeda than preemptively attacking Iraq and the events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, we must end this shameful chapter in our Nation's history by pledging that the United States will not engage in the act of torture. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Markey amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the way we treat our enemies speaks volumes about our character as a Nation, and I am embarrassed to say that America's treatment of prisoners over the last several years does not speak highly of our national integrity. Since 9/11 and especially over the last 2 years, news of prisoners being mistreated, beaten, sexually assaulted, and even killed while in U.S. custody has become all too commonplace. Prisoners have been tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Considering the widespread use of torture, no one can claim that these are isolated incidents, that it is merely the work of a few bad apples. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I fear there will be more appalling news about American abuses of Iraqi people coming. The fact that torture occurred in separate places and under the command of different interrogators leads me to believe that a more systemic failure took place. One could say that the turning point, the day torture became a routine tactic employed by the United States, was August 1, 2002. That is the day the Justice Department sent a memo to the White House stating that torturing terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.'' It is just not that physical abuse has taken place under our watch. That is bad enough. What is just as appalling is that legal abuses have taken place here at home. We have kept people in prison for more than 3 years without charging them with a crime, and the administration has affirmed this practice through legal memos. This approval of torture by the White House, the Pentagon, and the Justice Department is not only shameful; it also endangers the United States. At a time when the United States is courting the support of the international world, particularly the Arab world, the torture of foreign prisoners along with our invasion of Iraq gives the world's extremists what they believe to be a legitimate reason to hate the United States. There has been no better recruiting tool for al Qaeda than the events at Abu Ghraib and in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, there must be a better way to conduct foreign policy than by beating, torturing, and sexually assaulting our enemies. The United States has other options than to engage in the sadistic practices of torture. We in the United States are better people than that. That is why I have reintroduced the SMART Security legislation with the support of 50 of my colleagues. SMART Security is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century; and it will help secure the United States for the future. SMART Security will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging the Iraqi people. Instead of rushing off to war for the wrong reasons and then engaging in torture once we are there, SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues. Not every international problem has a military answer, and that is why SMART Security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of proper education. The situation in the Middle East requires the best America has to offer. SMART Security relies on the very best of America: our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. This is the best way to encourage democracy in countries like Iraq. Not through wars that cost thousands of unnecessary deaths, not by throwing billions of dollars at our problems, and certainly not by torturing our enemies. We have a responsibility to set a positive example for the rest of the world. We can end this shameful chapter in our Nation's history by pledging that the United States does not condone acts of torture. To show the world that we mean business, we need to create a plan to begin bringing home the soldiers serving in Iraq. By ending the military occupation of Iraq, we will demonstrate that America is committed to peace in the Middle East and the rest of the world. It is time to start this process. We need to start it today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, America's treatment of prisoners over the last several years speaks poorly, and that is an understatement, to our national integrity. Since 9/11, prisoners have been tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and considering the widespread use of torture, no one can claim that these are isolated incidents, that it is merely the work of a few bad apples. At a time when the United States is courting the support of the international world, particularly the Arab world, the torture of foreign prisoners gives the world's extremists and Iraqi insurgents what they believe to be a reason to hate the United States. There has been no better recruiting tool for al Qaeda than our attacking Iraq in the first place and the events at Abu Ghraib in the second place. Mr. Chairman, there is a better way to conduct foreign policy. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Markey amendment and to end the use of torture by the United States.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we recently experienced the Southeast Asia tsunami that destroyed valuable medical services for women across the affected area. But, with the help of the UNFPA, we were able to calculate that 150,000 women were pregnant in the region at the time of the trauma, putting them at greater risk than normal because of sudden loss of medical support. Without UNFPA, these women would not have had the guarantee of safe, clean environments to deliver their babies. They would not have had the access to the medical support and medicines they need to ensure a healthy birth. Safe and healthy childbirth should not be a political issue. While disagreements about UNFPA will certainly remain, continuing to ensure this program has never been more important than it is now. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Maloney-Shays amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about the gentleman from Illinois, also. There are probably no two people that are more opposite than the two of us. I want the gentleman to know, I am going to miss him when he really does leave the floor. Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 2745 is enacted, it will be a huge step backward for women around the world, because it would end U.S. funding for CEDAW. CEDAW is the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which is the U.N. treaty on the rights of women around the world. CEDAW is a United Nations treaty that supports international standards to discourage sex-based discrimination and encourages equality in education, health care, employment and all other arenas of public life for all women around the world. This treaty serves as a powerful tool for women worldwide as they fight against discrimination. It also leads to substantial improvements for women's lives across the world. The impact of CEDAW can be seen in countries like Australia where the government cited its treaty obligations in passing national legislation against sexual harassment in the workplace based on CEDAW, or in Pakistan where education for young women was introduced in primary schools after treaty ratification in Pakistan, causing sharp increases in female enrollment in their schools. To date, 170 countries have ratified CEDAW. Sadly, the United States continues to be the only industrialized nation that has not ratified, leaving us in the company of Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. It is time to abandon this unfavorable distinction. It is time to be a world leader and a champion of human and women's rights. We must ratify CEDAW, and we must do it now. That is why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my resolution on CEDAW, H. Res. 67, to support the Lantos amendment, and to vote against this base bill unless we do something drastically to improve it.