Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering debilitating diseases like cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, spastic disorders, and many more. We want the Federal Government to get out of our way because our State of California passed Proposition 215 in 1996, allowing for the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Members should know that my mother suffered from glaucoma and marijuana relieved her tremendously. In fact, her favorite Christmas present was a tin of marijuana. She is gone now, but I am certain that I speak for her today in asking that those who suffer from these debilitating diseases get help and can use marijuana if that help works. We want the Justice Department to stop punishing those who are abiding by their State laws. Join me in supporting this important amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act, as it stands, forces or could force users to self-censor their own reading choices, just on fear alone. Mr. Chairman, censorship is not what America is about. Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can go after your library or your book-purchasing records; and librarians or book sellers, under the penalty of law, cannot inform patrons of the library or the bookstore that it is under investigation or that a patron's records have been searched. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Freedom to Read amendment. America's right to read and purchase books without fear of government monitoring has been erased by the PATRIOT Act, and Congress must repeal this unconstitutional provision. In fact, the ultimate success for terrorists is to change our country by taking away our rights and our liberties.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Defense appropriations bill that will be on the House floor tomorrow contains $45 billion in emergency bridge funding to pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This money is called bridge funding because it will bridge the funding gap between the most recent $79 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq, which Congress passed in February, and the next one, sometime this fall. This bridge fund is like a bridge to nowhere. The latest $45 billion for the war in Iraq is just the Bush administration's latest grab into the big congressional money bag, the Defense appropriations bill, because it is virtually hidden in a huge $400 billion Defense appropriations bill. This is outrageous. An additional $45 billion for the war in Iraq is a staggering amount. This bridge fund comes on top of the emergency supplemental bill that was approved a mere 4-months ago, allocating another $79 billion for the war, bringing the costs of the war to over $200 billion before this new $45 billion expenditure. The bridge fund represents the fifth time Congress will fund the war in Iraq without hearings, without oversight and without accountability. $45 billion is not insignificant. It is several billion dollars more than the President requested for homeland security funding for fiscal year 2006. In fact, it is more than the President has requested for homeland security in any year since the Department of Homeland Security was established in the year 2001. It would be one thing if the President actually had a plan to bring our troops home, but after more than 2 years and over 1,700 American troops being killed, he still has not come to the table with a plan. Mr. Speaker, since the President will not come up with a plan for Iraq, we will have to. It will have to come from the Congress. This unpopular war is a lose-lose. It is America's very presence in Iraq that unites the strong insurgency, a whole new generation of terrorists, whose common bond is their hatred for the United States and its aggressive militarism. Once we have a plan in place to end the war, we can begin the long process of helping Iraq rebuild its failing physical and economic infrastructure, and we can accomplish this while we are at the same time preventing future wars 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 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 issues. Not every international problem has militaries, and that is why SMART security will prevent terrorism, by addressing the very conditions which give rise to terrorism: poverty, despair, resource scarcity and lack of education. This is the best way to encourage democracy in countries like Iraq, not through wars, not through the barrel of a gun, not through ways that cause thousands of unnecessary deaths and costs billions and billions of dollars. The Bush administration needs to get smart about Iraq, and take a long, hard look at the effects of our policies there. We can end the war, we can bring our troops home, and we can do it by creating a plan to bring them home. The U.S. soldiers who are serving in Iraq deserve nothing less. Bringing the troops home will help secure Iraq. It will save the lives of thousands of Americans, and it is time that we do not put any other excuses in front of us because we must start this process, and we must start it today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, many of the children with the greatest capacity to learn will not be finishing their school year because they did not have a school year. I am talking about children under 5 who are often left behind because too few States offer universal, voluntary, State-funded, pre-K programs. Democrats believe every parent who wants to send a young child to pre-K should have that opportunity, regardless of their income. Democrats are committed, as part of our ``Democrats' New Partnership for America's Future,'' to working with States to establish, expand, or improve high-quality, pre-K programs. The bottom line is: pre-K works. Children who participate are more likely to excel academically, go to college, and hold a secure job, and less likely to require special education, to have delinquency problems, or slip into welfare dependency. This is the educational equivalent of preventive health care. As childhood immunizations allow us to avoid debilitating illness, similarly, high-quality pre-K reduces the need for remedial efforts and produces more successful adults. Like all educational issues, this is fundamentally an economic issue. High-quality pre-K is a desperately needed investment in our children, their future, and our Nation's economic strength. Mr. Speaker, our global competitors do not wait until children turn 5 to begin their formal education. Why should we?

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

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 need to act when the people speak. Well, the American people have spoken. The last Gallup poll released earlier this week indicates that the American people are ready for our military forces in Iraq to start coming home. Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. 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 of 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 begin 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 on the President to create a plan for Iraq. 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 smarter agenda for Iraq than a continued military occupation, because the 2-year war has left us disturbingly weakened against the true security threats that we face here at home. Let us not forget, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and al Qaeda continues to recruit new members in Iraq and elsewhere every single day. So, we ask the President to create a plan and bring it to the Congress that will bring our troops home. Once they are home, we can secure the U.S. and Iraq for the future, and we can use a smarter resolution, which is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. It will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will prevent future acts of terrorism by addressing the root conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunities, to mention just a few. 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. 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 as we work to help the Iraqi people, which means implementing a plan to end the war in Iraq. I invite the President, I invite all Americans and all Members of Congress, to join in this effort.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Velazquez amendment amendment and thank the gentlewoman from New York on all her efforts to help small busineses. I am pleased that this amendment will reinstate funding for the 7(a) loan program and ensure that small businesses will once again be able to benefit from its lending power. As a former small business owner, I know the frustrations and worries small business owners have had as this program has been repeatedly targeted by the Bush administration. Small businesses are one of our Nation's leading employment opportunities but few businesses can afford to startup or expand without the help of loans. The president likes to talk about an ``ownership society,'' but his budget hurts middle class Americans by denying funding for this program. How can we have a strong middle class if we don't extend opportunities for people to start their own businesses? This just doesn't make sense. Renewing our commitment to the small business administration 7(a) loan program will not only bolster our Nation's workforce but also the economy as a whole. This program gives people a chance to start a business of their own and make a positive impact on their lives and their communities. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment and our small business owners.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, one would not travel to a foreign country without making a plan. And one would not buy a house without first making a plan, so why does the Bush administration insist on fighting a quarter trillion dollar war without a plan to end it? It is totally irresponsible for the White House to ask 150,000 United States troops to serve in a dangerous country halfway around the world without a plan to bring them home. With over 1,700 American soldiers killed in action thus far, representing more than 1 percent of our total force in Iraq, our government owes them the courtesy of planning on how we are going to bring them home. Unfortunately, the government has failed our troops in Iraq from the very beginning. First, we did not have a plan on going in and why we were going in. Next, the Pentagon neglected to provide life-saving body armor for each and every one of our troops. A study by the Pentagon released last year stated that nearly one-quarter of those killed during the first year of the war could have been saved with the proper body armor; but we did not plan to protect them well. Now with over 1,700 American soldiers dead, the government has continually neglected to plan for an end to this disastrous war. President Bush likes to talk about the importance of high troop morale, but he needs to talk to the Veterans Against the Iraq War. They will tell Members the best way to ensure high morale, and they will say the best way is for our soldiers to be assured they will actually be coming home, they will leave Iraq and there will be a plan to make it happen. The way to ensure that and to raise their morale is by starting to bring them home. Why then has President Bush not stated America's long- term intentions in Iraq? His comments on the subject have been limited to statements like, We will stay until the mission has succeeded and not one day longer. Mr. Speaker, how does he define the mission as succeeded when he will not even acknowledge that there is an actual end to the mission? Even if the President will not create a plan to end the war in Iraq, there are many in Congress and around the country who will. Earlier this month nearly one-third of the House voted for the amendment I offered to the defense authorization bill to urge the President to create a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This sensible amendment would not have whisked our troops out of Iraq prematurely, it simply asked the President to get busy and develop a plan for the end of this war. Believe me, if he does not, we will because the people of this country want to bring our troops home. Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future, SMART Security. SMART is Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. SMART will help us address the threats we face as a Nation and will make war the last option. SMART Security will prevent acts of terrorism in countries like Iraq by addressing the very conditions that allow terrorism to take root: Poverty, despair, resource scarcity and lack of educational opportunity. SMART Security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address the most pressing global issues. SMART 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, the American people clearly prefer the SMART approach to our current policies in Iraq. Nearly 60 percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq has been handled poorly and that the United States should immediately begin withdrawing some or all of our troops. Let us support our troops in Iraq and the will of 60 percent of the American people. We can do both by beginning to bring home our troops serving in Iraq. The time is now. The time is now to end the United States military occupation of Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, thank you for picking and selecting such a great group of young people. I am proud that I have gotten to know you a little bit. I am so motherly when I run into you on the elevators, I see so many of the faces I have asked where are you from, how are you liking this and asked question, question, question. And you have been so patient and polite with me, and thank you very much. Part of growing up is knowing you have to be polite to adults, and you hope when you are an adult people will be polite with you, particularly pages in the House of Representatives because you represent our entire Nation and our territories. You bring such a perfect, beautiful face to this. Every one of you, you look like the country. That is good for us, and it is good for you, and it is certainly good for the diversity of democracy that we uphold here. I have learned from you, and I think you have learned from us and are taking a lot back; but at the same time you have contributed so much. Do not think for a minute you are just here taking. You gave. We know that and appreciate that, and maybe we have not always let you know how much we appreciate you, but we do. Good luck, good future, and congratulations for being just exactly the people you are. Thank you.

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. That was April 12. Specifically, he put the number of trained and equipped 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. The President was either totally oblivious to Iraq's true security failures, or he was intentionally misleading the American people into thinking peace has taken hold. His statement was uninformed at best, deceitful at worst. Either way, the President's assessment misleads the American people in knowing the true situation in Iraq. Take, for example, his claim that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained. Iraq's military leaders reveal the number is closer to 75,000, half of the President's statement; and we are not sure what the quality of training is and how those trained individuals are measured. Also, the actual number of trained security personnel committed to a secure and democratic Iraq is probably less because, as the chief of police in Basra, General Hassan al-Sade stated, at least half of his 14,000-member militia is openly opposed to a secure Iraq, and another quarter are politically neutral but 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 last April, the President never again mentioned that 150,000 Iraqi security personnel have been trained. Perhaps that is because he realized his assessment was entirely inaccurate; but the President never admitted to the American people that he was wrong in his assessment, and he has still not told the American people when he will determine Iraq to be secure or how and when he plans to bring the troops home. Mr. Speaker, the best way to secure Iraq is to remove U.S. troops from the country. Nothing enrages and unites the Iraq insurgency more than the presence of nearly 150,000 American soldiers on Iraqi soil. One option is to bring one American soldier home for every Iraqi soldier that has been trained. If 75,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained, half of the President's April 12 assessment, why can we not remove the same number of our own soldiers and bring them home? This is just one idea for exiting Iraq. I encourage the President to come up with his own plan. 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. Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future, SMART security. SMART is Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism for the 21st century. SMART 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 and lack of educational opportunities. SMART security encourages the United States to work with other nations to address pressing global issues. SMART addresses global crises diplomatically rather than resorting to armed conflict. Efforts to help give Iraq back to the Iraqis 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 this war in Iraq; and now the American people, especially the soldiers who are bravely serving our country halfway around the world, need and deserve a plan for ending this war. It is time for the President to create a plan to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am more than disappointed by reports that last month's conference to review the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was not a success. At the treaty review conference, representatives from more than 150 nations met at the United Nations headquarters in New York for a month of meetings to address the most urgent global threat we face, the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This conference provided a great opportunity for the global community to improve its collective efforts to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons capabilities, deter terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons, and ensure that the current nuclear states work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Let us not forget that the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which the United States ratified in 1972, does not just declare that non-nuclear states cannot develop nuclear weapons. It also states that the countries currently in possession of nuclear weapons must work to reduce their stockpiles, with the ultimate goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons altogether. Clearly, the goals for the treaty review conference were challenging; but the United States could have, and should have, made headway by living up to our international commitments. Unfortunately, a major reason that the NPT conference was considered a failure was America's focus on the threats posed by Iran and North Korea, while at the same time failing to agree to reduce our own nuclear arsenal. The United States currently possesses more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. In fact, at the same time the NPT conference was taking place, the Bush administration and many Republicans in Congress were actually pushing ahead with plans to fund a new nuclear weapon, the so-called bunker buster bomb. The Bush administration's continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, while demanding that Iran and North Korea disarm, demonstrates a rare level of supreme arrogance and hypocrisy, even for this most arrogant of Presidential administrations. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that the threats posed by Iran and North Korea must be taken seriously. If we fail to take the proper diplomatic actions, both nations could soon possess a sizable and dangerous nuclear arsenal. But why would we expect other countries to dismantle their nuclear infrastructures unless we maintain our nonproliferation commitments? SMART security, H. Con. Res. 158, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism, is a positive approach to this very challenge. SMART security promotes efforts to reduce the buildup of nuclear weapons and materials, using the cooperative threat reduction program as an example of how to accomplish this important goal. Through CTR, the United States and Russia are working together to dismantle excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union. And because of CTR, 20,000 Russian scientists who formerly worked to create nuclear weapons are now working to destroy them. SMART security also urges an expansion of the successful CTR program to countries like Libya and Pakistan. Using our diplomatic relationships with these countries to encourage them to give up their dangerous nuclear materials is part of SMART security. But CTR is merely one of the broad array of national security initiatives in the SMART security platform. Any attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons must begin with nonproliferation efforts here at home, in the United States of America. We must fulfill our international pledge to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles and resist building new nuclear weapons. President Bush's continued efforts to study and fund the bunker buster bomb is the exact opposite of these efforts. The United States must set an example for the rest of the world by pursuing smart policies, policies that promote nuclear reduction, not nuclear proliferation; policies that support global initiatives to secure nuclear materials, not global nuclear buildup. It is time to end the era of nuclear weapons. This effort begins here in the United States Congress with SMART security.

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 weapons of mass destruction. Then, nearly 2 years ago, they falsely declared the end of major combat operations. Now they are openly declaring 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 the 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 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 Iraqi insurgency, encouraged by the continued U.S. military occupation. 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? At some point, the Bush Administration needs to admit what the rest of the American people know, that its current strategy in Iraq is failing. Recent pools show that 58 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the situation. Now it is time for the President to start listening to the American people. Members of Congress in both parties understand that our Iraq policy is a disaster. When the House recently debated the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006, 122 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 Independent, totaling 128 Members of Congress, voted in favor of my amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President should establish a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. 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. Unfortunately, we do not follow a smart plan, but fortunately there is a plan that would secure America for the future, the Smart Security Resolution, H.Con Res 158, which I recently re-introduced with the support of 49 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 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, and lack of educational opportunities, as starters. 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, dealing with global crises diplomatically instead of resorting to armed conflict. Instead of maintaining a long-term military occupation in Iraq, our future efforts to help the Iraqi people should follow the smart approach: humanitarian assistance, coordinated with our international allies, to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the President must create a plan to bring home the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, helping to secure Iraq by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis and saving the lives of thousands of American troops. We must end this long and destructive war.

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 or not it is in our national interest to maintain a military presence. We need to acknowledge the fact that Iraq's insurgency is growing in strength, not diminishing, and that the very presence of 150,000 American troops on Iraqi soil appears as though they see us as occupiers that actually unites the growing collection of insurgent forces. Since our military presence actually encourages further fighting, this war will continue as long as U.S. troops remain in Iraq. That is why Congress must accept the fact that we cannot possibly bring our involvement in Iraq to any kind of successful conclusion through military means. Yesterday, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, I offered an amendment urging the President to develop a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Surprisingly, this was the first time the House has formally debated the possibility of withdrawal from Iraq. We were allotted only 30 minutes for the debate: 15 minutes on my side, 15 minutes on the side opposing my amendment. But it is no surprise, of course, the amendment was defeated. But in spite of that, it is clear that the Congress is starting to get serious about a plan for leaving Iraq. 128 Members, including five Republicans, voted for this amendment. But there is much more work to do, Mr. Speaker. 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, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi innocents have been killed. The Pentagon lists the number of Americans wounded as just over 12,000. But that does not take into account even the invisible wounds many of our soldiers will be bringing home and have already brought home, the painful mental trauma they have contracted from months and years of fighting. When accounting for these psychological injuries, the number of wounded jumps to nearly 40,000. To date, Congress has appropriated more than $200 billion for military operations in Iraq, despite little to no oversight as to how these funds are going to be spent, which has allowed $9 billion in reconstruction funds to just vanish from the coffers of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was the American governing body that managed Iraq until the year 2004. 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 lives, not to mention their arms, legs, for a war that we should not be in in the first place, not deserve a plan? Let us not forget that the legislative branch is constitutionally mandated to oversee expenditures from our National Treasury. Instead of allowing fat-cat war profiteers like Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, to line their pockets as war profiteers, it is time Congress started fulfilling our responsibility. We must develop a smarter agenda. We must develop an agenda that will help Iraq, and we will then be able to reduce our military occupation. We must insist on planning by the Bush administration. This 2-year war has left us disturbingly weak against the true security threats we face. Let us not forget that Osama bin laden is still at large and al Qaeda continues to recruit new members in Iraq as well as the rest of the Middle East. Fortunately, there is a plan that would secure America for the future: the SMART Security concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, which I recently reintroduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. It will help us address the threats we face as a Nation. SMART Security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which allow terrorism to take root: poverty, despair, resource scarcity, and lack of educational opportunity. 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.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank the members of the Rules Committee that made this important amendment in order. It is about time that in the Congress we discuss what is going on in the war in Iraq. And it is only too bad that we had only 15 minutes for this, well, a half an hour, 15 minutes on both sides, for this very, very important issue that is facing everybody in the United States of America, our troops and their families and the Iraqi people. My amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the President must develop a plan to bring our troops home, that he must submit this plan to the appropriate committees in Congress so that we can truly support our troops and bring them home where they are safe. So in closing, Mr. Chairman, Congress must support our troops. We must begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. The President has to create a plan and tell us what he is going to do, and he must get these troops home before we lose any more lives. This is the best way to support our troops, and they deserve nothing less.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when a woman enlists in the military to serve her country honorably, she expects that the resources will be there to take care of her in the unfortunate tragedy of rape. But a recent report from the Miles Foundation revealed that three fourths of the female veterans who were raped did not report the incident to a ranking officer. One third didn't know how to; and one fifth believed that rape was to be expected in the military. Even if they had reported the incident, if the service woman who had been sexually assaulted seeks care at a military healthcare facility, she may not be granted a private examination or tests for pregnancy and STIS. This is an outrageous way to treat our female military volunteers. That's why I urge my colleagues to support the Slaughter amendment, which would assure that our service women have access to the medical care and evaluation that they need when this type of strategy strikes. We owe them no less.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-Harman amendment. Today, and over the last few years, we continually have voiced our support for our troops many, many times over, passing resolutions of support, providing our troops with adequate training and equipment, just the beginning. And I know of no better way to demonstrate our genuine support than by finally giving women in our Armed Forces and the wives and the daughters of the men in our military, the ability to exercise their constitutional right to choose, to choose their reproductive options while being stationed abroad. We routinely ask servicewomen to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our country's ideals. That is why we must not require them to put their lives on the line when seeking constitutionally protected reproductive services. Please join me in supporting our troops by supporting this much needed amendment. Lift the current ban on life-threatening procedures withheld from our women serving overseas.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro amendment because every time we send our young men and women into a combat situation, we are asking them to make a sacrifice for the rest of us. When they return we must honor them by giving them the services they need. The lives and health of our soldiers are the real cost of war. The new England Journal of Medicine recently reported that a many as one out of four veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq treated at VA Hospitals in the past 16 months were diagnosed with mental disorders. Alarmingly, veterans of these wars are already showing up in our homeless populations. We must take steps to protect those who protect us. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeLauro amendment to expand mental health services to our soldiers.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the members of the Committee on Rules for making this important amendment in order. It has been a long time coming for Congress to discuss this war in Iraq and how we will plan to end the terrible suffering it is causing our troops, their families, and the Iraqi people. First and foremost, I honor and I support the brave men and women who are serving our country in Iraq, and I believe that the best way to support them is to establish a plan to bring them home. In just over 2 years of war, more than 1,600 American soldiers and an estimated 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The number of American wounded, according to the Pentagon, is greater than 12,000, and that does not even count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, afflicting tens of thousands of our soldiers. And, of course, with more than $200 billion on the line, do the Members not think that the American people deserve to know what the President plans to do in Iraq? I also honor the many voters who risked their lives to ``give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.'' But our continued presence in Iraq after the election has caused America to be seen by the Iraqi people as an occupying power, not as a liberating force. Our continued presence in Iraq works against efforts for democracy, provides a rallying point for angry insurgents, and ultimately makes the United States less safe. My amendment expresses the Sense of the Congress that the President must develop a plan to bring our troops home and that he must submit this plan to the appropriate committees in Congress. We can truly support our troops by bringing them home. At the same time, withdrawing U.S. troops must not result in abandoning a country that has been devastated. We must assist Iraq, not through our military but through international humanitarian efforts to rebuild their war-torn economic and physical infrastructure. We need to 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. Chairman, Congress must support our troops, and we must begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. But first, the President must create a plan to bring our troops home. Our troops deserve nothing less. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).