Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, addressing gang violence across this Nation is absolutely an important step so that people can feel safe in their communities and so that our youth will grow up to be productive, happy, satisfied adults. While I commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for addressing this important issue, I am deeply disappointed in their legislation. Gang violence affects most communities across the United States. In fact, I represented the Sixth District of California, which is north of the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. In my district, there is no exception. We too have gang violence. The largest city in my district, Santa Rosa, is increasingly faced with gang violence. Drive-by shootings are becoming so common that the newspapers no longer report the incidents on the front page. Local communities must address this problem, no question; and Santa Rosa is working hard to do so. With the help of new State of California funding through Measure Zero, a sales tax that passed in the last go- around, the city is providing diversion programs that appeal to youth, such as after-school programs and increased recreational activities. Community leaders are finding more job opportunities for young people, and adults are mentoring them and exposing them to situations that are positive alternatives to gang life. Even the conservative think tank, Mr. Speaker, the Heritage Foundation, agrees that these are the best ways to curb gang violence. This bill does not provide significant funding to States and local communities to build on their successful local programs. Rather, H.R. 1279 creates new death penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, and measures to prosecute children in adult court, in other words, applying adult punishment to young people. This is the wrong approach, and I cannot support it. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1279 and insisting that we go back and prepare legislation with real workable solutions and alternatives to gang violence.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, the trial of low-level military officers involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq reached a climactic turning point. Colonel James Pohl, the military judge trying PFC Private First Class Lyndie England declared a mistrial in the case. Now this case will have to be tried again from the very beginning. England's case was thrown out after Private Charles Graner claimed that the photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison were taken for training purposes. This claim contradicts England's guilty plea in which she accepted responsibility for her actions and admitted that she had acted outside the scope of military orders. There is no shortage of evidence that England is guilty of having participated in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners which included subjecting the prisoners to forced nudity, savage beatings, electric shock and harassment by dogs. Some prisoners, as a matter of fact, died as a result of the abuse. Nor is there a question that the abuse of prisoners violates our American ethical and moral code. Red, the color of blood, is the color that resulted from the beating in Abu Ghraib Prison last year. But now yellow is the color of the high-ranking military and administration officials who are cowering behind junior soldiers, hoping to duck responsibility for setting up a culture supporting the use of torture in American-run prisons in Iraq. The question is, who is responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison? Charles Graner's testimony suggests that the prison abuse scandal extends much higher than we have previously been told. Yet, only low-ranking soldiers have been held accountable for these abuses. Why have prosecutors investigated from the bottom-up instead of going straight to the source to find out who condoned these abuses? Why is there such a denial of culpability at the highest levels of the government? Mr. Speaker, we must get to the bottom of this scandal because not only were the events at Abu Ghraib brutally inhuman and contrary to the democratic ideals of our open government, they also have endangered the American people. At a time when the United States is courting the support of the Arab world, the last thing we need to do is engage in the same atrocious violence as the thugs and terrorists that we are opposing. The images of American soldiers violating Iraqi prisoners is no doubt a rallying call for all those who want an excuse to hate and attack the United States. Fortunately, there is a better way than this. I have developed a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism, and it will help reinvigorate America's foreign policy by focusing on conflict prevention, on international diplomacy and on multilateralism. SMART security recognizes security threats and addresses them, but instead of conducting our policies behind closed doors and through the barrels of a gun, SMART pursues open diplomacy and regional security arrangements to achieve our democratic goals. Indiscriminate violence will not address the threats we face, because most of the post-September 11 security threats require a softer touch. That is why SMART security calls for dramatic increases in development aid and debt relief for the world's poorest countries to reduce the destitute conditions that give rise to terrorism. And they will simultaneously increase educational opportunities for the world's poorest people. These programs will also help counter the image problem that America has cultivated around the world and particularly in the Middle East. Instead of encouraging militaristic policies that give rise to events such as those at Abu Ghraib, SMART security encourages security through diplomacy. Perhaps, if the Bush administration had not been so keen on going into a misguided and illegal war, we could have utilized international diplomacy to encourage democracy in Iraq, instead of fighting a war that has thus far cost the lives of more than 1,600 American soldiers, at least 24,000 Iraqi civilians, and of course, there are also more than 12,000 American soldiers who have been gravely wounded as a result of war. Let us utilize the SMART approach to address the threats we face. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important legislation which I am reintroducing next week.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we recently passed the conference report on yet another supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Iraq, bringing the total amount of taxpayer money being spent on this ill- conceived, built-on-lies war to over $300 billion. The longer we keep funding this irresponsible effort, the more harm we are doing, not just to the people of Iraq but also to our very own troops. The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that as 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, this number has been steadily rising, and we can only guess how many soldiers do not come forward to get help because of the stigma that is associated with mental illnesses. Post-traumatic stress disorder, also known as PTSD, is the most common disorder seen in returning soldiers and has been diagnosed in 10 percent of returning soldiers at VA hospitals. Other mental disorders that are being seen are drug or alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety disorders. Also phobias and panic are part of the whole diagnosis. These are the hidden scars that young men and women who serve in combat are left with when they return home. While mental and emotional problems cannot be seen as easily as a physical wound, they are just as debilitating. Large numbers of veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are coming home, and they are showing up in our homeless population in numbers that have not been seen since the end of the Vietnam War. This is a shameful epidemic, and we must work to confront it before it is too late. Serving in a combat zone not only affects soldiers but also their families. When service members come home, they face a real challenge in learning how to readjust to civilian life, often taking a toll on relationships with family members and sometimes leading to even more mental and emotional problems. Every time we send our young men and women into combat, we are asking them to make a huge sacrifice for the rest of us. Their lives and their health are the real follow-up costs to any war. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, asking for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Thirty-three other Members of Congress have signed my resolution with me, because we know that the longer we keep our troops in harm's way, fighting a war of occupation, the higher the costs in human lives. Coupled with that bill, I am also reintroducing legislation to support a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation, and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations, with an emphasis on women's health and women's education. We must take a smarter approach to our foreign policy and homeland security measures. The sacrifices made by our soldiers are so great. We should be asking them to make sacrifices only after careful and thoughtful deliberation, not rushing to war on unreliable intelligence and on personal grudges. We must take careful and measured steps when putting lives on the line, something that the Bush administration has not done. As we work to protect those who protect us, instead of throwing our money into an ill-advised war, we must commit first to keeping our troops well equipped with safety gear and modern equipment, and we must provide them with real and comprehensive health care, including mental health support services, when they come home. Mr. Speaker, war has long-lasting effects on those who serve. Let us work to ensure that we limit those effects by using our troops only when we must and treating them with the dignity they deserve when they return.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, why is Congress approving yet another multibillion dollar spending bill when the previous 3 multibillion dollar spending bills have been misused, improperly managed, and, in some cases, downright stolen? A report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq's reconstruction has stated that nearly $100 million for reconstruction projects in southern Iraq is missing and cannot be accounted for. These funds must be accounted for before allotting one more dollar for the war in Iraq. And where is the congressional investigation into the $9 billion that mysteriously disappeared from the books at the Coalition Provisional Authority? Why are we voting on writing another check for a mission that has been so badly botched? Who is being held responsible for the misinformation that led us into the war in the first place? Who is being held responsible for the troops not being equipped and armed with the billions of dollars that we have allocated to Iraq? Where is our exit strategy? This bill is nothing short of highway robbery, and the victims are the troops and the American people. No more blank checks, Mr. Speaker. No more wars without reason. I will vote against the supplemental.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday was the second anniversary of President Bush's now infamous ``Mission Accomplished'' speech in which he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq under an arrogant banner declaring that the mission had been ``accomplished.'' I do not know the President's definition of the word ``accomplished,'' but I think just about anyone who is asked would say that the mission is very far from being accomplished in Iraq. Let us consider the facts. To date, nearly 1,600 American soldiers have been killed in this war. Estimates of Iraqi sources suggest that between 21,000 and 25,000, at least, Iraqi civilians have been killed as well, with hundreds more injured and dying weekly. And nearly 12,000 American troops have suffered severe injuries as a result of the continuing major combat operations. The vast majority of all these casualties occurred and continue to occur after the President delivered his ``Mission Accomplished'' speech. We need to consider what is happening every single day on the ground in Iraq. The newspapers provide news daily of the latest disaster caused by vicious Iraqi militants. Every day dozens of innocent people are being killed. To my colleagues who claim that the newspapers are biased and do not present the positive news stories out of Iraq, I would say that it is pretty hard to be positive when they are surrounded by violence. Iraq is currently embroiled in a dangerous cycle of daily car bombings, roadside hijackings, and murders of innocents. Just yesterday, for instance, 45 Iraqis were killed in a bomb attack in the northern city of Irbil. This latest attack brings the death toll in the past week alone to a staggering 190 innocent Iraqi civilians. What an utter shame. How could anyone possibly refer to what is happening in Iraq as ``mission accomplished''? The only thing that is accomplished is the utter collapse of order in Iraqi society. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way than our current dangerous pattern of invading countries and leaving them in chaos. That is why I will reintroduce the SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century next week. SMART stands for a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. And it represents a better, smarter approach to diplomacy than our current failed foreign policies. The SMART approach provides a more effective national strategy, a strategy focused on nonproliferation, conflict prevention, international diplomacy, and international involvement. Instead of advocating preemptive war, SMART utilizes military action only, and only, after all diplomatic alternatives have been attempted and exhausted and only when it is absolutely necessary. SMART pursues diplomacy over hostile rhetoric; enhanced weapons inspections over half-cocked, misleading allegations; and support for nonproliferation initiatives here at home rather than the buildup of new nuclear weapons like the bunker-buster bomb. SMART security means creating a robust civil society to ensure that Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure become fully viable. We need to consider the impact of the war in Iraq on the Iraqi people, the terrible death and destruction that it is causing every single day. And we need to think about the war in terms of how it hinders America's security for our future. Each day this war encourages a new generation of terrorists who are getting stronger and stronger. Their common bond is their hatred of the United States. Mr. Speaker, of course the security of the American people is of the utmost importance, especially in the post-September 11 world. But as the world's largest democracy, we have a responsibility to interact with other nations in a smarter way, by utilizing all diplomatic possibilities before resorting to force. While it may be frustrating and time consuming to negotiate with other countries over disagreements, cooperating with the international community will make the world more peaceful and Americans far safer than aggressive unilateralism.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the full committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our full committee ranking member and my leader on education and many other issues.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for offering this very important amendment. We hear a lot of talk, especially with every increasing gas prices of the need for alternative automotive fuel technologies. And we need to do more, because we are not developing the technologies nor the talent to develop the technologies. In fact, several Congresses ago, then Secretary Reich encouraged us to take more interest in high-tech automotive job training, noting then of the severe shortage of workers for the industry, and because cars and trucks are not simply machines, simply machines at that, we have to have a workforce of technicians who understand what is needed, or else we will all be in really big trouble, not just personally, but economically as a country. This amendment would ensure that regardless of changes in fuel technology, we will have the workforce we need; and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to say one more time how much I appreciate the bipartisan work that we accomplished on the subcommittee and on the full committee, and I thank both the full Chair, the subcommittee Chair, and my ranking member for making all that possible. In closing, I want to reiterate my main concerns with the bill, which I hope will be addressed in conference. First, the bill rightly strengthens accountability for State and local programs, but at the same time, it cuts 60 percent of the funds that the States can use for that very purpose. I support these accountability measures, but if we do not enable the States to administer them, we will be providing empty promises. I offered an amendment in the committee to restore this cut. I am also concerned that this bill merges the tech prep program with the basic State grant, and I appreciate that our Republican colleagues on the committee have maintained funding for tech prep activities. But as we all know, not sending tech prep funding separately to the States means that eventually States will lose their focus on those activities. Another area that I am concerned about and I want to reiterate is the issue that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has just discussed, which is his amendment offered to end abuses like the Department of Education's contract with Armstrong Williams. His amendment simply said that the government cannot hire journalists to create government propaganda and required that if the Department of Education continues to produce prepackaged news pieces, it has to fully disclose that fact in the piece. I am sorry that that language, which is really about government being honest with the people, is not in this bill. Finally, we must ask ourselves, despite bipartisan support and despite the support of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), where will the appropriators find the funds to support this and other critical education programs that the President wants to eliminate or underfund? For example, this year alone, the President wants to provide our schoolchildren $12 billion less than he promised under the No Child Left Behind Act. Mr. Chairman, one last comment: this is a good, bipartisan bill, and we must fix the little pieces that are missing in conference. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to clearly not oppose this amendment, and I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would echo what the gentleman on the other side of the aisle have said about our good and wonderful staffs. I do not know what we would do without them, and I thank them very much, our wonderful staff and the Republican staff. I want to thank, again, the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for letting me work with him in a bipartisan way on this bill and for offering this amendment. As I noted in my opening statement, I do not think that merging Tech-Prep programs into the basic State grant is good policy, and I would prefer that this amendment allow proportional increases for Tech-Prep funding as overall funding increases, because as things get more expensive, it is pretty hard to flat fund. But I hope we will address this as the bill moves forward. I need to say, though, that I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) to hold Tech-Prep funding harmless at the fiscal year 2005 level, and I do agree with his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and our full ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and always my partner, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for working together in a bipartisan way the last Congress and this one to bring this bill to the floor. As I have said, I have my concerns about this bill, even though it is the result of a bipartisan process. I am especially pleased that the majority has brought this bill forward, in light of the President's proposal to eliminate career and technical education. I hope that we will send a strong bipartisan signal today that we in the House believe that career and technical education is critical to our students and to our country's economic future. But, Mr. Chairman, I do, as I said, have concerns regarding this bill. First, the bill rightly strengthens accountability for State and local programs, but at the same time it cuts by 60 percent the funds that States can use for that very purpose. I support these accountability measures, but if we do not enable the States to administer them, they will be an empty promise. I also am concerned this bill merges the Tech-Prep program with the basic State grant. I appreciate that our Republican colleagues in the committee have maintained funding for Tech-Prep activities; but as we all know, not sending Tech-Prep funding separately to the States means that eventually States will lose their focus on those very activities we consider so crucial. Finally, I am disappointed we are not being allowed to debate most of the amendments that my colleagues and I submitted to the Committee on Rules. I support the amendments that we are debating, but there are many critical issues that we are leaving undiscussed. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) all offered important amendments on government paying journalists to create propaganda, on dropout prevention, on school construction, and helping out-of-work manufacturing workers. But we are not debating any of those issues today, and I do not understand why. Finally, we are not debating an issue that has long been important to me and I consider critical to our country's future, that is, the lack of women and girls in science, math, engineering, and technology. My amendment would have helped school districts increase girls' interest in studying in these careers and in these areas. A recent GAO study, Mr. Chairman, found that men still outnumber women in nearly every field in the sciences. In his recent article, ``It's a Flat World, After All,'' and new book, ``The World is Flat,'' The New York Times writer Thomas Friedman explained 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,'' no matter what continent they are living on. 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 more than half our population, women, are steered away, intentionally or not, from studying and working in the fields from where that innovation would come. Consider this, from Dr. Susan Hockfield, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who recently said that squandered talent, and I quote her, ``is one of the key issues of women in science and engineering.'' All of our children, not just girls, would have benefited if we had been able to debate this issue today, and I am sorry that we are not. But, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill, and I look forward to improving it even more in conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), who is a valued member of the subcommittee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), superintendent of schools for 8 years in North Carolina.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the subcommittee. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a valued member of the full committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the passing of Cindy Marano. Ms. Marano was a founder of the National Displaced Homemakers Network, now known as Women Work! For 12 years, Cindy was executive director of Wider Opportunities for Women, which we call WOW. Her work to improve opportunities for women, including displaced homemakers, who are specifically helped by this bill, was invaluable, and we will miss her. We will miss her vision and we will miss her leadership greatly.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill which I hoped would be addressed in the full House today and during conference with the Senate, because this bill is the result of a bipartisan process in our subcommittee and the committee as a whole. I believe, however, that to continue that bipartisan process, the full House should have been able to consider this bill under an open rule. At the very minimum, I think the rule should have included all eight of the Democratic amendments that came before the Committee on Rules last evening. The Miller amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is our full committee ranking member, was submitted as an important amendment that is designated to halt the abuses that we saw in the Armstrong Williams contract with the Department of Education. It simply says you cannot hire journalists and media commentators to do agency propaganda. And it requires that any prepackaged news pieces prepared with Department of Education funds fully disclose that fact in their piece. His amendment was not allowed. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) submitted amendments to address drop-out rates and school construction, respectively. They were not allowed. The Holt amendment to improve the skills of manufacturing workers was not allowed. These are very important amendments, and once again the rule we are going to vote on today did not include them. The amendment that I submitted would have authorized grants to school districts to help them increase girls' interest in studying for careers in science, math, engineering, and technology. Mr. Speaker, girls and women continue to be underrepresented in these fields both in high school where my amendment is targeted and in college. A recent GAO study found that men still outnumber women in nearly every field in the sciences. Women make up only 37 percent of scientists, 33 percent of mathematicians, and 14 percent of engineers. More important, this underrepresentation is tied to barriers that female students continue to face in school. For example, in 2002 in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, the National Women's Law Center cited a study that found that 70 percent of male teachers thought that boys were more interested in computers than girls. Not that they are more interested in computers than they are interested in girls. More interested in computers than girls are interested in computers. That may be one reason why from 1984 to 2000 the percentage of women awarded bachelor's degrees in computer science dropped from 37 percent to 28 percent. Another study showed that ineffective high school career counseling reduced women's entry into university science and engineering programs. My amendment would directly address that issue. A 2001 investigation showed that none of New York City's vocational high schools that were predominantly female offered advanced placement courses in calculus, statistics, or computer science. And instead of focusing on high-tech careers, these schools tended to focus on careers like cosmetology and clerical support, not careers that pay a competitive wage with the technology careers. My amendment would specifically address situations like that as well. If we as a country do not address this issue, we will participate in the global 21st century economy with literally one hand tied behind our backs. It will be impossible for our country to have a highly qualified workforce as long as more than half of our population is steered away, intentionally or not, from studying and working in some of the most critical fields. This will have implications not only for our economic security as a Nation but for our national security as well because both depend on scientific innovation. So, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in this rule and I would ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, over the last few months, the Iraqi people have been making strides toward democracy by holding elections, nominating ministers and working on a draft constitution. I congratulate the people of Iraq for their very brave efforts, efforts that I am certain were intended to take Iraq back for the people of Iraq. Though admirable, none of Iraq's recent advances validate the false pretenses that caused the United States to fight a war in a country that never threatened us, never attacked us and never posed a threat to our way of life. But, sadly, despite the false pretenses under which this war was fought, President Bush and his administration have continued to insist that Iraq is close to becoming a stable and viable democracy. The President claims that the war in Iraq is going well and that our military is succeeding. Madam Speaker, I do not know about you, but I do not consider the deaths of over 1,500 American soldiers and countless tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and no end in sight as a military success. Yet, declaring success in the very face of chaos is nothing new for this President. May 2 is the second anniversary of his speech declaring ``an end to major combat operations'' under a banner declaring ``mission accomplished.'' Mission accomplished. One year later, many experts have different opinions. In fact, earlier today I participated in an event with Daniel Ellsberg, the author of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed that President Richard Nixon was deceiving the American people about the role America played in the Vietnam War. From his past experience, Mr. Ellsberg believes that Iraq will not be safe for years to come and that the Bush administration seems eager to maintain high troop levels in the country for the foreseeable future. To what end, he and I both ask? I question that if there are 150,000 fully-trained Iraqi soldiers, as the President claims, then why are America's 150,000 troops still in Iraq? Why do they remain there as sitting ducks for drive-by shootings and car bombings? Unfortunately, I believe that the reason is the Bush administration is gearing up for a sustained military occupation of Iraq, with access to oil having more to do with that occupation than our government admits. Evidence certainly points to an occupation that will not end any time soon. The Bush administration has specifically sought funds for 14 military bases in Iraq, claiming they are not permanent. The very idea of funding American military bases in Iraq more than suggests that President Bush is not serious about turning Iraq over to the Iraqis any time soon. In fact, Daniel Ellsberg believes that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last longer than the U.S. occupation of Vietnam in the 1970s, which persisted for a total of 16 years. This should scare everyone who values peace, who values democracy and fiscal sanity. The possibility that the United States could maintain a military presence in Iraq for years to come is dangerous; dangerous to our foreign policy and inconsistent with the values that most Americans hold dear. Fortunately, however, the continued occupation of Iraq has the American people talking seriously about a withdrawal. That is why I introduced H. Con. Res. 35 in January of this year, legislation calling for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. By removing American troops, we will remove the main focus of the insurgents' rage. Bringing our troops home is the only way to keep them safe and out of harm's way. Everyone likes to talk about supporting the troops. Well, it is time to truly support our troops, by bringing them home, and we should begin that effort today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, those watching C-SPAN right now probably are wondering what they are watching. They probably think it is a circus. But they are pretty familiar with the 5-minute speeches that Members of Congress deliver each day after the House of Representatives wraps up its legislative session. Some critics and political opponents may claim that these nightly speeches serve little purpose, and sometimes they do serve little purpose. It is hard to accomplish much in 5-minute increments, they say. But because half of the American people are not being represented by the Bush administration's shameful and threatening foreign policy, and half the American people are not receiving the representation they deserve from the Republicans in Congress, those who cower to the President's every demand when it comes to funding the illegal, ill advised and dangerous war in Iraq, I come here nightly so that I can discuss that very issue, the issue of the war in Iraq. That issue says to me that we need to change the way we think about foreign policy if we hope our country will survive the threat of global terrorism from fanatical groups like al Qaeda. That is why next week I will reintroduce the SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century, legislation that provides a positive alternative to the Bush doctrine of unilateralism and preemptive war. SMART Security addresses the threat of terrorism and nuclear security by augmenting and encouraging diplomatic efforts with other nations. We need to address the threats we face through international cooperation, not war, because the military option does not solve our problems. Only by promoting an effective national security strategy that is based on conflict prevention, diplomacy, multilateralism, and nonproliferation can we truly secure America for the future, while at the same time holding on to the liberties and values that make this country so very great. Many of my House colleagues have stood with me in urging a new and smarter American foreign policy. Fifty Members of Congress cosponsored the SMART Security resolution during the 108th Congress, and my staff and I will work to ensure that this number increases in the 109th Congress. But Members of Congress are not alone in this effort. Many of my constituents get it too. I am incredibly privileged to serve as the voice in Congress for the people of Marin and Sonoma counties, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, which comprises California's 6th Congressional District. My constituents get democracy as well as anyone else in the country. In last November's election, for example, a record 89\1/2\ percent of registered voters turned out to vote in California's 6th district; 91.1 percent turned out in my hometown of Petaluma, California. That is why I quote them, and I want to quote Marge Piaggio, who lives in Fairfax, California. She called my office earlier this month to say that what the world needs is, and I am quoting her pretty liberally here, but she said what the world needs is a ``peace tsunami.'' The tsunami analogy might sound like an odd idea at first, but I think Marge is on to something. It is about time, she said, and I agree with her, that we washed over the war machine and cleaned up our political system. Of course Congress will need the help and the support of citizens of the United States in this effort. And another one of my constituents, Jean Walz of Santa Rosa, wrote because she realizes that there is an important role that she and others like herself can play in helping to end the war in Iraq. In reference to my nightly 5-minute speeches, Jean wrote the following in an e-mail, and I quote her: ``If you can do this each night, so can I. I will send an evening missive each and every night to my local elected representatives to please stop this war in Iraq.'' Everyone in this country, Mr. Speaker, who opposes the Bush administration's dangerous current path can emulate Jean Walz's heroic efforts to influence her local representatives. Then we will have peace in the United States between ourselves and other countries.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, teens would talk to their parents if they found themselves pregnant. I guess some would even go so far as to say, in an ideal world, our teens would not be having sex at all; but let us face it, that is not the world we live in. Many teenagers would do anything not to tell their parents about an unintended pregnancy, even if it means putting their own life in jeopardy. Make no mistake, I strongly support measures that will help foster healthy relationships between parents and their children; but those out there who believe this is a good, family-friendly bill are out of touch with reality. This bill is not going to encourage teens to talk to their parents. It is not going to curb abortion. Rather, this bill will only encourage young girls to seek unsafe, illegal abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment; vote against H.R. 748. I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding time to me.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my constituents continue to contact me about the charges mounting over the actions of some Republicans in the House. In fact, one constituent referred to an ``embarrassing and growing mess.'' Over the past year, I have received letters revealing disgust, anger at the Republicans and their disregard for House rules. Just this past week, a constituent wrote me from Mill Valley, California, saying, ``I am tired of all the useless finger pointing. I am particularly tired of hearing one Republican in particular go on about the `politics of personal destruction,' which he seems to practice daily even as he blames it on his enemies.'' My constituents share the views of many citizens across the Nation. They want an unbiased investigation into these ethics matters. They want to know that politicians are listening to their hearts, not the lobbyists that are paying for their meals. It is time for the Republicans to own up to abuses of the House rules. The American people deserve no less.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when Senator John Danforth stepped down as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations earlier this year, President Bush had an option. He could nominate a new Ambassador who would work with the nations of the world to address the growing threat of terrorism and resource scarcity, or he could nominate one of the usual suspects, someone who would maintain the administration's unilateral thinking. By nominating John Bolton, President Bush chose the latter. As Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, John Bolton demonstrated his poor leadership skills by bullying his colleagues. He demonstrated disdain for international diplomacy by refusing to meet with certain foreign leaders, and he openly criticized the very institution, the United Nations, to which he now has been nominated to represent the United States. This behavior is not going to win the United States many friends on the international stage. Without a reelection campaign to worry about, President Bush could have utilized the U.N. ambassadorship as a means of helping America regain its lost credibility as the most important democratic Nation in the world. He could have helped America begin its recovery from the mistakes he made in the run-up to the Iraq war and the international alliances that were shattered as a result. But when it comes to addressing America's lost credibility around the world, it remains business as usual for the White House. It seems that the Bush administration has more important matters to take care of, like the shameful way it is working to end the decades-old tradition of the filibuster in the Senate. The nomination of John Bolton epitomizes the Bush administration's not-so-subtle pattern of disregard for multilateral institutions. Whenever possible, President Bush and his administration continue to sway from the international consensus, not towards it. But the fight against international terrorism does not belong to a single country, particularly in this era of globalization. When the Internet connects people thousands of miles apart at the mere click of a button, we need to recognize that we are all in it together, because acts of terrorism, abusive regimes, and resource scarcity affect everyone, everyone on the globe. That is why it is more important than ever to work with other nations and the multilateral institutions that guide them, like the United Nations and the international criminal court. Mr. Speaker, next week, I will reintroduce the SMART Security resolution legislation that does take into consideration the need for international cooperation in the post-September 11 world. In order to effectively address the threat of terrorism, SMART Security works to strengthen international institutions and respect for the rule of law. We cannot possibly strengthen the United Nations if our own U.N. Ambassador has contempt for the institution he is trying to serve. Instead of continuing to emphasize our differences with other nations, the United States needs to break its current cycle of shameful unilateralism. We need to court the institutions that used to celebrate America's participation, and our efforts must not stop there. If the U.S. expects other countries to relinquish pursuit of nuclear weapons, then we had better honor our international commitments to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to the Biological Weapons Convention, to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United States is at its strongest when we lead the rest of the world towards peaceful resolution of conflicts by working with the rest of the world. This is the way we need to address the growing crisis in Iran and North Korea and the way to ensure that members of international terrorist groups like al Qaeda are caught and brought to justice. The ambassadors that serve the United States abroad reflect our values here at home. The nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is not consistent with America's best values, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. It is time the Bush administration started working with the nations of the world. That world needs to begin here at home.