Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to discuss the war in Iraq and how to end the terrible suffering that it is causing our troops, their families and the Iraqi people. First and foremost, I honor, 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 count the invisible mental wounds they are bringing home, which afflict as many as 25,000 more of our soldiers. The war in Iraq has also cost our country about $200 billion in slightly more than 2 years. With this much money on the line, do the American people not deserve to know what the President's plan is for Iraq? How long he expects U.S. troops to remain there? How much this war will cost all told and how he plans to pay for it? I credit the many brave individuals in Iraq who risked their lives to give back to the Iraqi people by voting in their January election, but after the election, our continued presence in Iraq has caused America to be seen by the Iraqi people as an occupying power, not as a liberating force. Our continued military presence in Iraq works against efforts for democracy. It provides a rallying point for angry insurgents and ultimately makes the United States less safe. That is why earlier today I offered an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2006. My amendment expressed 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 committee in our 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 the international humanitarian efforts. This humanitarian approach is reflected in the SMART Security legislation, H. Con. Res. 158, that I have introduced with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART security is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism for the 21st century. The SMART approach would 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. This is the very essence of SMART security. SMART security will prevent terrorism by addressing the very conditions which give rise to terrorism in the first place: poverty, despair, and resource scarcity. SMART will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging in the Muslim world. 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. There is a demonstrated link between debt relief and lack of support for terrorism. That is why SMART security encourages the world's wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries. SMART security encourages democracy-building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities, particularly for women and girls, and strengthening civil society programs in the developing world. Mr. Speaker, our future efforts in Iraq must take the SMART approach: humanitarian assistance to rebuild Iraq's war-torn physical and economic infrastructure. Congress must commit to this type of support for Iraq, not a continuation of a military approach. It is time to support our troops and begin the difficult recovery process from a long and destructive war. The best way to do this is to bring our troops home. Mr. Speaker, our troops deserve nothing less.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in the first Presidential debate of the 2004 Presidential election, moderator Jim Lehrer asked the candidates what they believe is the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States. Without delay, Senator Kerry responded ``nuclear proliferation.'' When President Bush had the opportunity to respond, he agreed that nuclear nonproliferation is the biggest threat we face as a Nation. If the President agrees that nuclear nonproliferation is such a grave and immediate threat, why does he and why does his administration continue to seek the creation of new nuclear weapons? Why does the President continue to seek funds to study the creation of the robust nuclear Earth penetrator, otherwise known as the ``bunker buster'' bomb? Why does this year's defense authorization bill continue this ridiculous trend by recommending a Department of Defense study about the possibility of creating the bunker buster? Mr. Speaker, the stated purpose of the bunker buster is to destroy caves and difficult-to-reach terrorist hideouts, but the bunker buster is completely unnecessary. The United States military already is capable of bombing these remote locations, and they do not need to use nuclear weapons. The bunker buster is also extremely dangerous. A detonation of this deadly weapon would create an enormous, uncontrollable explosion, spreading toxic, radioactive materials over a large area; and an explosion could cause the death of thousands of innocent civilians and devastate large tracts of lands. How many times must we consider the merits or lack thereof of the bunker buster bomb? How many times must sensible nonproliferation priorities compete with a dangerous nuclear arms race? To address the true security threats we face, I have introduced the SMART Security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158, with the support of 49 of my House colleagues. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. It encourages renewed nonproliferation efforts over continued nuclear buildup. SMART urges sufficient funding and support for nonproliferation efforts in countries that possess nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is through CTR, the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program successfully works with Russia to dismantle and safeguard excess nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union. Under this program, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly tasked with creating nuclear weapons, are now working to dismantle them. That is why SMART Security includes robust support for the current CTR model, including expanding the program to other nations such as Libya and Pakistan, nations that possess excess nuclear weapons and excess nuclear materials. To promote these efforts, earlier today I introduced an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to expand CTR. My amendment would bring this important program to Libya and Pakistan, two countries that are known to possess nuclear materials. We need to utilize our diplomatic relationships to encourage these two countries to give up their dangerous nuclear materials, and the best way to do so is through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. CTR is but one of the broad array of national security programs in SMART security and an effective one at that. But any attempt to rid the world of nuclear weapons must include nonproliferation efforts at home, in the United States. We must set an example for the rest of the world by fulfilling our international pledge to end our nuclear program and dismantle our existing weapons. Mr. Speaker, continued efforts to study the feasibility of the bunker buster bomb are the very antithesis of these international commitments. When the United States engages in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we lower the threshold and actually encourage other countries to proliferate with the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons. Instead, let us get smart. Let us be smart about this issue and work both here at home and abroad to end the proliferation of any and all nuclear bombs. We owe this to our children and we owe this to their children.

Mr. WOOLSEY

Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and all of the promise that comes with funding embryonic stem cell research. This bill represents an important step forward for the scientific and medical communities in our country, offering hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from diseases that stem cell therapies may be able to cure. Unfortunately, President Bush has threatened to veto this bill when it arrives on his desk. I am appalled that a President who talks so much about embracing a ``culture of life'' would deny funding for a possible cure that could save a child from suffering from juvenile diabetes; repair a damaged spinal cord to allow a person to walk again; save a grandparent from the onset of Alzheimer's disease; or put a halt to the ravages of Parkinson's disease. The potential benefits from embryonic stem cell research are almost boundless and would certainly touch the life of a friend or family member of everyone in America. Mr. Bush's ban on providing Federal funds for stem cell research has seriously damaged our Nation's efforts to be a leading voice in the development of this new technology. Allowing Federal funding for research on stem cells is vital to making real progress as quickly as possible to find real cures. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill that will certainly have long-lasting effects in improving the health and well being of millions of Americans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 606, out of order. I was working patiently at my desk. I flew in on the red eye so that I could talk about Angel Island and how wonderful it is. And I want to thank the ranking members of this committee for making this possible for me, and allowing the consideration of a piece of legislation that is very important to my district, the San Francisco Bay area, and to Asian Americans throughout the United States. As you know, I have worked for the past 3 years with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation and the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) in an effort to preserve the historic Angel Island Immigration Station. It is located just east of Sausalito in the San Francisco Bay. Sausalito is in my district, California's 6th Congressional District. This landmark is a particular high priority because of what it means to Asian Americans nationwide. Many of you are familiar, all of us are familiar with the symbolism of Ellis Island to European Americans. The same feelings of legacy and pride can be equated to the Americans of Asian heritage on the west coast. In fact, Angel Island was the first American soil most Asian immigrants stepped on. With over one million people having been processed through the sites, millions of Asians and Asian descendents nationwide are eager to see their roots in this country honored in the same way that we honor Ellis Island. In addition, Angel Island Immigration Station also houses a unique literary display of Asian American culture. The walls of the main building hold layers of poetry reflecting the record of hardship endured and the indignity suffered by the early Chinese as they were being processed into America. If these walls crumble, we will lose this one-of-a-kind documentation forever. And thank you for voting not to let that happen. Because of its rich history, the site is currently used as a teaching tool for students and a museum for visitors. Hundreds of school children and researchers have made the trip by ferry out to the site each year to learn about its rich history. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the foundation to find additional sources of funding for the restoration project to ensure future generations can learn from the site. The current estimate to complete the preservation is over $30 million, $16 million already raised through Federal grants, State funding, and private donations; $15 million still remains to finish the project. With no more grants available and the State of California contributing close to half of the funding, it is important that the Federal Government become a part of this preservation effort, and that is what we are doing today. And I thank you for making that happen in the House. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall and the House Leadership for allowing us to consider this piece of legislation that is important to my district and the San Francisco Bay Area. As you may know, I have worked for the past 3 years with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation and Leader Pelosi and Congressman Mark Souder in an effort to preserve the historic Angel Island Immigration Station, located just east of Sausalito in the San Francisco Bay. This landmark is a particularly high priority because of what it means to Asian Americans nationwide. Many of you are familiar with the symbolism of Ellis Island to European Americans. The same feelings of legacy and pride can be equated to the Americans of Asian heritage on the west coast. In fact, Angel Island was the first American soil most Asian immigrants stepped on. With over one million people having been processed through this site, millions of Asian descendants nationwide are eager to see their roots in this country honored in the same way we honor Ellis Island. In addition, Angel Island Immigration Station also houses a unique literary display of Asian American culture. The walls of the main building hold layers of poetry reflecting the record of hardship endured and the indignity suffered by the early Chinese as they were being processed into America. If these walls crumble, we will lose this ``one-of-a-kind'' documentation forever. Because of its rich history, the site is currently used as a teaching tool for students and a museum for visitors. Hundreds of school children and researchers make the trip by ferry out to the site each year to learn about its rich history. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Foundation to find additional sources of funding for the restoration project to ensure future generations can learn from this site. The current estimate to complete the preservation is over $30 million. With $16 million already raised through Federal grants, State funding and private donations, $15 million is still needed. With no grants available, and the State of California contributing close to half of the funding, it is important that the Federal Government become a part of this preservation effort. That is what we are doing today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, those who support this amendment should really look at solving the current energy crisis. If they wanted to, they would invest in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation. For example, providing tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings and manufacturing energy efficient heating and water heating equipment could save 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 50 years. This is more than 12 times the Department of Interior's mean estimate of economically recoverable gas outside the central and western Gulf of Mexico. So why are we here today discussing offshore oil drilling instead of promoting efficient and renewable energy sources? It could be that we are pandering to big oil companies. We not only have to worry about oil spills from offshore oil rigs, we also have to worry about the damaging way that they drill for oil and natural gas. An average of 180,000 gallons per well of drilling muds that are used to lubricate drill bits and maintain downhole pressure are dumped untreated back into the surrounding waters. Water brought up from a well along with oil and gas typically contains a variety of toxic pollutants. I will vote against this amendment. I consider it dangerous and it is absolutely no solution to our gas and energy shortage.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to abuse this body with their blatant disregard for the rules. They are clearly manufacturing a crisis about the judicial nomination process, saying it is in trouble. They would have us believe that none of Bush's nominees were being confirmed. But that just is not true. Let us remember that 95 percent of the Bush nominees have been approved, in contrast to 35 percent of the Clinton nominations. So instead of following history, they figure altering the Senate rules in their favor is the ultimate solution so that they can force ten nominees through the system. Republican leaders in Washington are absolutely out of control. They are so afraid of our democracy failing their interests that they must continue to bully in order to get their way. The American people do not want a Congress controlled by bullies. Bullies who are willing to sacrifice a 200-year-old democratic process that has withstood such debates as the 24-hour filibusters of the Civil Rights Act in 1960s. This abuse of power must end.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if we want to reduce the threat of terrorism against the United States, we must rust reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Nothing threatens our country and our security more than our reliance on oil from repressive Middle East regimes like Saudi Arabia and Libya. Of the 21 million barrels of oil consumed by the U.S. each day, 14 million are imported from other countries. Most are imported from the Middle East, where as we know democracy is not pervasive. This lack of democracy allow the authoritarian leaders of many Middle East countries to pocket billions of dollars each year from American oil purchases. So while the leaders of these countries are becoming increasingly wealthy, the rest of their people fail to benefit from the oil proceeds. Sadly, this economic disparity allows the powerful elite to tighten their hold over their people. This repressive power structure allows the conditions which give rise to terrorism, resource scarcity, extreme poverty, and lack of education to run rampant. It is quite clear that we need to decrease our dependance on foreign oil in order to keep America safe from the threat of terrorism. But there is a right way, and there is a wrong way to accomplish this goal. Many Members of Congress have suggested, today in fact, that we can simply drill for gas and oil off the coasts of our shores, or in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to solve our energy crisis. Unfortunately this suggestion is just plain wrong. In fact, drilling for oil in the United States would do little to immediately reduce our dependance on foreign oil, because it would take at least a decade to get a drilling operation up and running in ANWR or off our coasts, and even then there is no telling whether there is usable oil. That does not sound like a comprehensive energy strategy to me. No. Drilling for oil just is not the answer. We need to accept the fact that fossil fuel is a thing of the past. To solve the current energy crisis and to prepare for a secure and successful future, we need to invest in conservation and renewable and efficient sources of energy. For example, providing tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings and manufacturing energy efficient heating and water heating equipment could save 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over 50 years. By failing to take advantage of renewable energy technologies, we are continuing to promote our national insecurity by providing billions of dollars each year to repressive regimes. That is why I have reintroduced the smart security resolution, H. Con. Res. 158. SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. SMART will help secure America for the future by preventing the threat of terrorism, by reducing nuclear stockpiles, eliminating the possible use of nuclear weapons through diplomatic means, and establishing a new Apollo project to secure America's energy independence. Many Members of Congress understand the importance of reducing our dependance on foreign oil to ensure our national security, and that is why 49 of my colleagues signed on as original cosponsors to the SMART security resolution. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's energy and foreign policies are interconnected. One cannot address one without addressing the other. That is why SMART security promotes a new Apollo project that will ensure our Nation's energy security within the next 10 to 15 years. If we fail to address this problem, we will only ensure the continuation of deep disparities of wealth in the Middle East. These misguided policies will encourage future acts of terrorism, which will encourage future warfare. And speaking of warfare, do we know for sure that our reason for attacking Iraq was not to take control of Iraqi's oil? Until we are independent of our need for foreign oil, we will always be suspect. It is time to get serious about our reliance on foreign oil, which will lead directly to a smarter security strategy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alice Yarish of Marin County, California, who died at the age of 96 on May 9, 2005. Alice was a fixture of the Marin community for many years, known as much for her outspoken and occasionally flamboyant personal style as for her crusading journalism. Born in Nevada and raised in Redondo Beach, CA, Alice's first foray into journalism was a stint as the high school correspondent for the city's South Bay Breeze. She graduated from the University of Southern California during the depression and, unable to find a job, enrolled in law school, continuing a family tradition. She could not afford to complete the program and supported herself as a social worker for the next five years. In 1942 Alice married Peter Yarish who was in the Air Force. A few years later the couple moved to Hamilton Air Force Base in Marin where Alice lived the life of a military wife for several years while raising four children. In 1952, when her children were school-age, she was able to return to journalism at the age of 43. First a reporter for the San Rafael Independent Journal, she later worked for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and the Novato Advance before establishing the Marin News Bureau for the San Francisco Examiner. In 1970 she became the assistant editor of the Pacific Sun where she gained a reputation for dry wit, investigative coverage of local government, social commentary on the hippie scene, and a strong passion for social justice. Prison reform became one of Alice's special crusades after she met well-known inmate George Jackson who was later killed in an attempted outbreak. ``Jackson opened my eyes and filled me with information which I had not known before,'' she wrote. ``I was shocked by what I learned . . . prisons tend to be breeding grounds of crime, generators of bitterness, destructive of men's souls. They are a failure.'' A 1972 series on abuses in the Marin County Drug Abuse Bureau led to its abolition and replacement with an agency which operates under review by elected officials and city managers. This series led to an Award for ``Best Story in a Bay Area Paper'' from the San Francisco Press Club. Alice's enjoyment of her work and zest for life were contagious, whether leading her home-town parade in her newly purchased red convertible at the age of 77 or serving actively with community agencies such as the Adult Criminal Justice Commission, the Marin Association for Mental Health, and others. Alice is survived by her four sons, Peter, Tom, Anthony, and Robin Ell, and by seven grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, as a self-described ``outspoken broad,'' Alice championed those who couldn't speak out for themselves and inspired others to do likewise. We will miss her fearless voice, her compassion, and most of all her undaunted spirit.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, actually, it sounds like the author of this amendment does not quite understand the need to preserve our beautiful coastline. The coast of Marin and Sonoma counties, my district, is one of the most biologically productive regions in the world. While it comprises only 1 percent of the ocean, it is home to 20 percent of the world's fish. The coastal estuaries are important passages for endangered salmon, steelhead, essential haulouts for seals and sea lions, and prolific nurseries for hundreds of aquatic species. The coastal communities in my district rely on tourism and the fishing industry that could be severely hurt if offshore oil drilling and gas drilling were permitted off our coasts. The people who live in my district do not and will not support offshore drilling. They realize that we need an energy policy that focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, not oil rigs, not an endless depletion of our natural resources. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. For some reason, the Majority Party feels that if we just keep drilling for more gas then our emergency crisis will be over. Unfortunately, they aren't looking for a solution to our energy crisis and rising gas prices, instead, they are looking to line the pockets of big oil companies by supporting offshore oil drillings. Let's not forget the irrevocable damage to our environment that offshore drilling causes. This devastation can be seen in the Gulf of Mexico where OCS pipelines crossing coastal wetlands are estimated to have destroyed more coastal sale marsh than can be found in the stretch of coastal land running from New Jersey through Maine. It sounds like the author of this amendment doesn't understand the need to preserve our beautiful coastlines. But, the people that I am so fortunate to represent in Marin and Sonoma counties do understand. They get it. The coast of Marin and Sonoma County in my district is one of the most biologically productive regions in the world. While it compromises only one percent of the ocean, it is home to 20 percent of the world's fish. The coastal estuaries are important passages for endangered salmon and steelhead, essential haulouts for seals and sea lions, and prolific nurseries for hundreds of aquatic species. The coastal communities in my District rely on tourism and fishing-- industries that could be severely hurt if offshore drilling was permitted off of our coast. If you were to visit this beautiful stretch of coast, you would understand why the people who live in my district don't and won't support offshore drilling. They realize that we need an energy policy that focuses on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy source, not oilrigs and the endless depletion of our natural resources. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Peterson amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much farther are we going to have to roll back the clock before we realize the harm that we are doing to our environment? Do we have to get to the point of rivers catching on fire again? The EPA, the agency that is supposed to be protecting our environment, is attempting to turn back the clock by releasing a new policy that will increase waterborne diseases and deaths. This latest EPA policy to allow sewage treatment plants to routinely divert untreated sewage into our rivers and oceans, where we get our water and where we swim is not something that appeals to me. Instead of turning back the clock and allowing sewage to flow freely in our rivers, we must increase our investment in upgrading wastewater treatment plants. Ironically, this bill actually decreases the amount of federal funding for upgrading wastewater treatment plants. It is time that we started moving forward and not backward on protecting our rivers and our oceans. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was recently playing a card game with my 5-year-old grandson, Teddy. And he knows it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of the game just to win. But the Republicans do not seem to play by any rules. If they sense vulnerability, they will rewrite historical laws to suit their needs. That is exactly what they did in the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and that is exactly what they are trying to do by eliminating the filibuster in the judicial nomination process. Americans do not want this Nation to be run by leaders willing to change the rules, to forgo the laws of the land, to cater to their special interests. They do not want judicial nominees that are bullied through Congress. They want qualified candidates that receive bipartisan approval like the other 200-plus Bush nominees approved by the Senate. Changing the rules of the game to make an exception for 10 judges is not democratic. It is a blatant abuse of power. Mr. Speaker, this is something even a 5-year-old can understand.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for a new national security strategy because our current path will only lead to future acts of terrorism and an increasingly insecure United States of America. Most Americans understand that the best way to protect our country is through smarter policies right here at home, not through aggressive military combat abroad. In fact, a poll released today indicates that support for the war in Iraq is at its lowest level yet. Maybe that is because most Americans know that Iraq never possessed weapons of mass destruction, never had a connection to al Qaeda, and never played a role in the terrorist attacks of September 11. Yet the Bush administration claimed each of these examples as fact in order to justify going to a war in Iraq and just over 2 years ago the U.S. invaded Iraq. Since then, more than 1,600 American soldiers, at least 24,000 noninsurgents Iraqi civilians, have paid for this false war with their lives, and over 12,000 American soldiers have been wounded forever. Clearly the Presidential national security platform is not just immoral, it is incompetent. There has to be a better way, a better way than this. Fortunately, there is. Earlier tonight I reintroduced the SMART Security resolution for the 21st century. SMART security clearly has increasing support among Members of Congress because at the end of the 108th Congress we had 50 cosponsors to the SMART security bill. This year alone, SMART already has 49 original cosponsors, and myself, and it was just introduced today. SMART, which is Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism, has five major components. First, we must prevent future acts of terrorism by strengthening international institutions and the rule of law. For the past 4 years, the Bush administration has worked to discourage international cooperation. Most recently, his example of hostility toward diplomacy is the nomination of the hard-line unilateralist John Bolton to represent our country to the United Nations. Unilaterialism is not the answer because terrorism is not just America's problem. We can reinvigorate our international relationships by encouraging our United Nations and NATO partners to help us root out terrorist networks and put a stop to financing international terrorist groups. Second, we must stop the proliferation and spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the past, President Bush has indicated this is the greatest threat America faces. Yet he has both aggressively pursued new nuclear weapons like the bunker buster bomb, and he does not support international treaties that seek to end the spread of chemical and biological weapons. Not only does SMART security promote compliance with America's commitments to existing treaties, it also calls for the United States to set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the development and testing of new nuclear weapons. Third, we must address the root causes of terrorism. The first front line in the war on terror has to be confronting the despair and deprivation that foster it. There is a demonstrated link between an educated citizenry and a decrease in support for terrorism which is why SMART security wholly encourages democracy-building; human rights education; sustainable development; and education, particularly for women and girls in these nations. These are the programs we need to pursue in Iraq, not continued military operations. Fourth, we must shift America's budget priorities to more effectively meet our security needs. We need stronger investments in peacekeeping, in reconstruction, and humanitarian and developmental aid. We simply cannot afford to spend billions each year on outdated or unproven weapons systems like the missile defense shield which has yet to be proven successful. Fifth, the U.S. must pursue to the fullest extent alternatives to war. War needs to be the very last resort, to be considered only after every single possible diplomatic solution has been exhausted. Mr. Speaker, the security of the American people is perhaps the most important issue we must address in the post-September 11 world, but we must address it in a smart way. As the world's largest democracy, we have a responsibility to utilize all diplomatic possibilities before resorting to force.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, minutes ago the House approved the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriation bill to the tune of, underwhelmingly, $37 billion. In a vacuum, $37 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but when you consider that Congress has appropriated over $100 billion on the security of Iraq this year alone, and more than $200 billion overall, $37 billion sounds much less significant. In fact, the $37 billion spending bill that was approved today represents less than 5 percent of the U.S. annual discretionary budget. Yet the Iraq war this year, this year alone, represents well over 10 percent of our annual discretionary budget. Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Spending on homeland security, while inadequate in its amount, focuses on the right things to protect America: First responders, border and port security, and cargo inspections. On the other hand, funding for the war in Iraq continues to focus on poorly planned military operations and irresponsible no-bid contracts to war profiteers like Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root. At the same time, the Iraq supplemental spending bill of over $200 billion has neglected to provide adequate funds for body armor for the troops. This is a particularly egregious mistake in light of the 2004 study indicating as many as a quarter of all troop deaths could have been prevented if the most advanced body armor had been provided to every single soldier in Iraq. It is important to note the irony in our funding priorities. The Homeland Security budget, which is vitally important towards ensuring the safety of the American people, is drastically underfunded. On the other hand, the Iraq war, which was a war of choice, not a war of necessity, is so overfunded that last year $9 billion in reconstruction funds went missing. Nine billion dollars. That is more than a quarter of this year's homeland security budget. And let us not forget another more recent report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq's reconstruction. This report states that another $100 million for reconstruction projects in southern Iraq is also missing and cannot be accounted for. Mr. Speaker, we need to focus our spending on programs and policies that will help ensure the safety of the American people. The war in Iraq will not make Americans safer, because this conflict is causing the United States to be perceived by the Muslim world as a colonial occupier, not as a liberating force. This perception, combined with our continued military presence in Iraq, has assisted radical Muslim terrorist groups like al Qaeda in their recruiting efforts. The result is that 3\1/2\ years after September 11 Americans are less safe. Fortunately, there is a way to achieve sensible spending while also keeping America secure. Over the last 2 years, I have developed the SMART Security Strategy for the 21st Century. SMART is a sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. SMART Security urges a shifting of America's budget priorities to more effectively meet our national security needs. That means spending more money on port security, cargo inspections and airline security, and less money on warfare, outdated weapon systems, and new nuclear weapons. Instead of funding continued military operations in Iraq, the SMART platform would encourage other nations to work with the United States and spend more money on peacekeeping, on reconstruction and developmental aid to ensure long-term peace and stability in the Middle East. In fact, it has been proven when debt relief increases, terrorism and the conditions that give rise to terrorism tend to decrease. That is why the SMART platform encourages wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries. After more than 2 years of fighting, it is clear that the war in Iraq cannot be won through military means. We need to be smarter. We need to be smarter than the terrorists, not just bigger and stronger. The fight to secure our country must be fought on more than the battlefield. We must be smart in the way we prioritize our national spending by focusing on true security needs instead of superficial security needs. Homeland security is a true security need. Let us remember the next time President Bush asks for money for Iraq, which I understand will be sometime this summer, we need to know which is secure and which is not.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, much like its elder cousin NAFTA, CAFTA has promised to raise the standard of living in its poorest member countries. But thanks to NAFTA, we already know how this story ends. A typical Central American earns only a small fraction of an average American worker's wage. More than 40 percent of workers in the region labor for less than $2 a day, placing them below the global poverty level. Mexico now ranks as one of the world's 10 largest economies. Its overall wealth has increased since passing NAFTA, and, unfortunately, so has its poverty. It is said, ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' This is not the case for the poor in Mexico and will not be the case for the impoverished people in the Western hemisphere's poorest nations. For this and other reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing CAFTA.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, how disappointing that instead of using the first months of this new Congress to address the important issues facing our Nation, we have spent most of our time on issues that cater to special interests. Instead of helping retirees by strengthening our pension system, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to dismantle Social Security. They want to take away the safety net, a safety net that seniors depend on, in favor of giving even more money to Wall Street. Instead of developing a meaningful energy policy to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we spend time on the House floor passing an energy bill that will do nothing to relieve rising gas prices, but instead give tax incentives to big oil and gas companies. The Republican leadership must stop abusing this body and the people we represent. They are doing it for their own self-interests, and it is time the people take this House back. It is the people's House.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has done a woefully inadequate job of reaching out to the Muslim world. To quote an oft- used phrase, ``They never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.'' I believe that fundamentally they fail to understand that most Muslims do not want to blow up Western sites and buildings; they want to live in a free society, one which allows them to worship the God of their choosing and raise their children in safety, much like every American. Unfortunately, the Bush administration because of this lack of understanding has twisted the September 11 attacks in order to achieve a veritable clash of societies. The President uses phrases like ``us versus them'' and ``you are either with us or against us.'' Quotes like these cause many nonviolent Muslims to oppose the United States as they see a U.S. engaged in a war not against terrorism but against Muslims. They see the United States as a colonial occupier, not as a liberating government. This has encouraged radical Muslim groups to step up their recruiting and their tactics. The net result is 3\1/2\ years after September 11, Americans are much less safe, not safer than they were. Instead of responding by reaching out to the Muslim world to address the root causes of terrorism, deprivation, resource scarcity and lack of educational opportunities, this administration invaded Iraq, a country that was not previously a haven for terrorists and had no relationship whatsoever to the events of September 11. Regardless, in April 2003, the United States invaded Iraq with the support of a weak coalition of nations. Most countries, even those that fought in the first Gulf War in 1991, chose not to enter the second war in Iraq. They could not legitimize a war based on such faulty and wavering premises as the ones we heard in late 2002 and early 2003. The war has been a disaster from nearly the beginning. Since April 2003, more than 1,600 American soldiers and at least 24,000 Iraqi civilians have paid for this arrogant foreign policy with their lives. At least another 12,000 Americans soldiers have been seriously wounded and of course the U.S. has incurred a tremendous financial burden, so far a $200 billion IOU. Instead of addressing the threat of future terrorism by engaging the Muslim world through smart national security policies, the Bush administration took the fight to a country that became a terrorist enclave only after the U.S. invaded. It is quite clear that the war in Iraq was the worst possible response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead of stopping terrorism, the war has actually hindered our efforts, including any effort to capture Osama bin Laden. But fortunately, there is another way. Over the last 2 years, I have developed and refined a national security platform called SMART Security. SMART is Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism for the 21st Century. Unlike our current policies, it will achieve real results. SMART Security will ensure America's security by reaching out and engaging the Muslim world. 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. There is a demonstrated link between debt relief and lack of support for terrorism, which is why the SMART platform will encourage wealthy nations to provide debt relief and developmental aid for the world's poorest countries. 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. SMART Security also encourages democracy building, human rights education, conflict resolution through nonmilitary means, educational opportunities for women and girls, and strengthening civil society programs in the developing world. Programs like these are the best way to encourage democracy in countries like Iraq, not through wars that cause thousands of deaths, cost billions of dollars. The SMART approach is a way to reach out to the Muslim world. It is time we stop putting all of our eggs in the military basket and start getting smart about our national security.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the ink has hardly dried on the latest supplemental spending bill for military operations in Iraq, but that has not stopped top officials in the Pentagon from starting preparations for the next supplemental bill. It was reported yesterday that the Pentagon has begun laying the groundwork for the next supplemental requests which may come as early as this August. The Pentagon will likely request more than $25 billion more, but some in Congress have indicated that they will ask for as much as $50 billion more. The Pentagon which receives over $400 billion annually from the United States Treasury acts like 25 or 50 billion is a mere drop in the bucket. Likewise, when supplemental requests are doled out in these smaller, ha-ha smaller, $50 billion increments, many Members of Congress and much of the Nation have absolutely no concept of the true cost of the war in Iraq, which at the moment adds up to over $200 billion. But when you think about the financial strain being felt at home like the fact that we are not fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act or that we are not paying for adequate health care for our returning veterans, it does not take long to realize that $50 billion more for Iraq takes a toll on the American people here at home. Mr. Speaker, why are we funding a war, especially one that was entered into on false pretenses, through repeated supplemental spending bills? This method of funding underscores both a fundamental lack of planning for the war in Iraq, as well as a hostile contempt for the financial strain on the citizens of the United States. If the President and his administration had a strategy to peacefully resolve this war in Iraq, they would submit to Congress a plan, a plan detailing the further U.S. military operations there. This plan would indicate how long they expect troops to remain in Iraq and at what levels and in what capacity, how much the war will cost, and exactly how they plan to finance this burdensome cost. This plan would define when and how we are planning to bring our troops home. Anything less than a comprehensive strategy is a slap in the face to all the hard-working American people in this country whose tax dollars are financing this misguided mission. Sadly, I think the real reason the administration has failed to provide such a strategy is because they apparently have no plan to end the war in Iraq. Americans have a right to know where their money is being spent. For instance, why did the Army recently award Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, with $72 million in bonuses for ``the company's excellent performance''? Perhaps the definition of excellence has changed since I attended school, because in my day excellence meant working hard and achieving positive results, not conning the American people out of millions, even billions, of dollars while failing to secure Iraq. And why have $9 billion in supplemental funds gone unaccounted for? How does $9 billion just vanish? Given the administration's poor track record for spending American taxpayers' money, why does our Congress continually fail to demand accountability for how the supplemental funds are being spent? Mr. Speaker, there must be a better way than this, because the current system is broken. That is why I have developed a SMART Security platform for the 21st century. SMART is a Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART will help reinvigorate America's foreign policy by focusing our spending priorities on conflict prevention, international diplomacy, and multi-lateralism. Instead of Congress's current open check book policy we have for Iraq, SMART Security wisely invests U.S. dollars in development funding. It invests in peacekeeping and reconstruction, adequately funding these important programs because then that will go a long way towards ensuring long-term peace and stability in troubled countries and troubled regions. If we had invested in SMART Security in the first place, we would not have become embroiled in a war that has cost the lives of more than 1,600 American soldiers and at least 24,000 Iraqi civilians. This shameful war has also permanently injured over 25,000 American soldiers whose lives will be changed forever. We must focus America's efforts on a smarter strategy for our national security instead of continuing our shameful policy of preemptive military combat.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it boggles my mind that Republicans continue to criticize Democrats for blocking judicial nominations. Their facts are deceiving. Their facts are inaccurate, and their actions to force through extremist judges are just one example of their abuse of power in the Congressional Chamber. The fact is that 208 judges have been confirmed and 10 have been turned down because of extremist positions. That represents a 95 percent approval rating. These same Members, by the way, blocked 65 of President Bill Clinton's nominees. These same Senators would like you to believe that the only way to get the judicial process moving is to eliminate the 200-year-old filibuster rule that grants Senators the ability to speak their minds if they feel an action is not right for the country. The Republican greed for power is eroding our political system. They should remember that a democracy is not a one-sided body of government. It is time for my Republican colleagues to respect that basic notion and end their abuse and their bullying in the Congress.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the level of abuse in this House by the Republican Party has become an embarrassment. Instead of working on the pressing problems of this Nation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to push an agenda controlled and influenced by special interests. According to a report released by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the Committee on Rules' ranking Democrat, all of the major bills passed by the Republican Party in the 108th Congress were written with big business or special interests in mind. These interest groups do not look at what is best for the American people. They look at what is best for their bottom line. If the Republican Party is as compassionate as they profess to be, they would be writing legislation that protects workers from harm and even death, not dismantling OSHA in order to save big business money. They would be helping families get paid sick leave and family leave rather than focusing on rolling back family and medical leave protections to save businesses money on the backs of working people.