Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6, which the House passed earlier today, is called the Energy Policy Act of 2005. But the only real policies to be found in this immoral legislation are tax breaks for polluters, swollen gasoline prices, and continued reliance on fossil fuels of the past. This legislation fails to even mention climate change or global warming which scientists of all stripes acknowledge is caused at least in part by high levels of carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. It fails to correct the matter of MTBE, a gasoline additive that has leaked into the Earth and tarnished our drinking water, except, however, to waive liabilities for MTBE providers. Most significant of all, Mr. Speaker, this legislation fails to truly address America's reliance on Middle East oil. Of the 21 million barrels consumed by the United States each day, 14 million barrels are imported, making Middle East oil the United States' main source of energy. Much of this oil is imported from countries that do not share America's commitment to democracy and our commitment to human rights, countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Venezuela. It is obvious in this energy bill that those who claim that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will cure our Nation's energy policy do not know much about how oil is produced. Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take a full decade to process what little oil may be there in the first place. That does not sound like a comprehensive energy strategy to me. By continuing to purchase Middle East oil by the boatload, we are failing to take advantage of life-changing renewable energy technologies while continuing to promote our national insecurity by providing billions of dollars each year to repressive regimes. The oil dollars that go to oppressive Middle East regimes do not, of course, help the poor people in these countries. Instead, they line the already thick pockets of the fat-cat ruling elite. In this way, U.S. policies actually discourage democracy in the Middle East because we continue to help maintain the economic gap between the rich and the poor. In truth, this failure to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil along with President Bush's supremely misguided invasion of Iraq have combined to make Americans less secure, not more secure. The Bush administration has falsely labeled the war in Iraq, much like the latest energy bill, as the essence of protecting our national security, when in fact both contribute to our lack of security. Already more than 1,500 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war, not to mention the more than 12,000 troops who have been gravely wounded. Hardly the stuff of a national security. Let us never forget that the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice against a country that never posed a threat to the United States and never possessed relationships with international terrorist groups like al Qaeda. President Bush claims that things are going well in Iraq, demonstrated by the fact that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers ``have been adequately trained.'' But if 150,000 Iraqi soldiers have been trained, then why do 150,000 American soldiers remain in the country? Why do our troops continue to die for a war that was a mistake from the very beginning? If President Bush continues to support a misguided war that is draining our national resources, and if the Republicans will not work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, how can they possibly claim to be securing America against the threat of terrorism? Clearly, much more needs to be done to make America secure. Mr. Speaker, I will soon reintroduce the SMART Security resolution, legislation to secure America for the future by preventing the threat of terrorism; reducing nuclear stock piles; eliminating the possible use of nuclear weapons through diplomatic means; and establishing a new Apollo Project to secure America's energy independence. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort to truly secure America for the future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder how many Americans have bought a car and wondered why their gas mileage was not what had been advertised. Well, it is because the fuel economy numbers advertised by automobile manufacturers are based on 30-year-old fuel economy tests, tests that have not been adjusted for today's realities, and that leads Americans to be regularly misled by inaccurate labels. The automobile industry has changed significantly over the last 3 decades, but the EPA standards are stuck in the past, overestimating fuel economy data. I support this amendment. It will require the EPA to update its testing standards so that consumers will have accurate fuel economy information in the future. parliamentary inquiry

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Science knows what is right. The energy bill before us today is bad for the consumer, bad for the environment, and it does not make us energy independent. In fact, it is the ultimate reason we are insecure as a Nation. In fact, by promoting the interests of corporations over consumers and pollution over conservation, this bill makes the United States much less secure. H.R. 6 will harm more than just our environment, however. America's continued reliance on Middle East oil for the majority of our energy needs is the single largest factor that contributes to our lack of national security. It is time we stopped all efforts to drill in ANWR because this is only a stop-gap measure. Instead, we need real energy independence, and that will only come when we start focusing our efforts as a Nation on clean, renewable sources of energy, conservation, and efficiency. It would be hypocritical for anyone who cares about our Nation's well-being to vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues, join me, vote against it.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I want to commend my colleagues for offering this sensible amendment. We should not even be having this discussion because drilling in ANWR will not make us energy independent and it will not end our Nation's reliance on Middle East oil. Drilling in ANWR will do little to reduce our current dependence on foreign oil because it will take more than 10 years, yes, more than 10 years to process what little oil may be there. In fact, if we spent half the time promoting legislation that encourages the use of renewable energy that we have discussing drilling in ANWR, we would be close to developing a sensible energy policy that would ensure real energy independence. We would invest in alternative renewable clean energy, conservation, and efficiency. That is why I will support this sensible amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, later this week the House will vote on energy legislation that concerns every man and woman in America. This energy bill presents a terrific opportunity to reduce our Nation's continued dependence on petroleum by promoting clean and renewable energy sources. But instead of encouraging the use of renewable energy, this Neanderthal legislation promotes the interest of corporations through tax breaks that encourage air pollution, water contamination, and the general destruction of our environment. This energy legislation will harm more than our environment. American's continued reliance on fossil fuels is the single largest factor that contributes to our national insecurity. That is because we obtain most of our fossil fuels from the Middle East, a region where democracy is about as common as desert oases. By spending billions of dollars annually on foreign fuels, the United States supports autocratic regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Venezuela. The citizens of oil-rich countries run by despots rarely, if ever, receive even a dime from these oil sales. More often than not, these riches line the pockets of fat-cat leaders and their cronies, instead of paying for projects that would help improve the lives of all the people in the country. This drastic gap in wealth between the upper and lower classes, in turn breeds hostility and despair among the local populace. This hostility, combined with the militant form of Islam that is encouraged by the fat-cat leaders, creates the conditions in which terrorism runs rampant. If the United States were to become fully energy independent, we would essentially pull the plug on the supply of money that flows to the Middle East much like oil through a pipeline. Therefore, the most effective measure we can take to address global terrorism is to curb our dependence on foreign fuel. Unfortunately, this sham of an energy bill that we will vote on this week would do the very opposite, making Americans more beholden than ever to the whims and desires of big oil companies. Sadly, 150,000 United States troops are currently embroiled in a war in Iraq that certainly is intended to ensure that the U.S. has access to Middle East oil. President Bush and the Republican leaders in Congress claim they want democracy to take hold in Iraq. But if a democratic Iraq really is wanted, then we need to do two things right here at home. First, we must craft a viable national energy policy that encourages the development and use of renewable sources of energy. Second, we must remove our troops from harm's way by withdrawing United States military forces from Iraq, giving Iraqis and Iraqi oil back to the people of Iraq. I have introduced legislation to accomplish this: H.R. 737, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Act of 2005. It establishes a comprehensive energy strategy that will stimulate demand for more efficient energy processes and unlock the vast potential of renewable energy sources. I have also introduced H. Con. Res. 35 with the support of 31 of my House colleagues. This legislation calls on President Bush to begin immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If Iraq is as stable and secure as the Bush administration claims, then why does a third of our standing military remain there still fighting the Iraqi insurgency? Why do the men and women in our military continue to face gunfire and car bombs halfway around the world? For what cause have more than 1,500 American solders and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, with another 12,000-plus American soldiers gravely wounded physically and mentally? Mr. Speaker, our Nation's energy and foreign policies are interconnected. You cannot address one without addressing the other. That is why the energy legislation that will come before the House this week is so terribly wrong for America. In promoting this misguided energy bill, the Republicans in Congress ensure the continuation of the deep disparities of wealth in the Middle East. These misguided policies will encourage future acts of terrorism which will encourage future warfare. Instead of relying on foreign oil for our energy needs, let us address the source of the problem by employing our Nation's innovative expertise by promoting the advancement of clean, renewable sources of energy. This will keep our air and water pure; but just as important, it will help purify our Nation's foreign policy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill does not protect disabled veterans from creditors.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, over the last 18 months the House leadership has passed bills that are windfalls for the pharmaceutical industry, big oil, and they have given massive tax breaks to corporations while the deficit in this country continues to grow by records. Now lining up for their share and licking their lips is the credit card industry who stands to make billions of dollars at the expense of American consumers. With the hope of helping to protect veterans from these regulations, I offered an amendment to this bill to simply waive any fee charged for credit counseling for any servicemember returning from a combat area for a period of 2 years. Do my colleagues think that was allowed to come down here on the House floor for a vote? Absolutely not. Many of these men and women have been away from their families, from their homes, their jobs for long periods of time because of unethical procedures that keep them overseas. Many of these individuals have lost their businesses, they have lost their homes and they have bills and are going to suffer. Our veterans, they will suffer because of this bankruptcy bill. Mr. Speaker, over the last eighteen months, the House leadership has passed bills that are windfalls to the pharmaceutical industry and big oil and, have given massive tax breaks to corporations, while the deficit continues to break records. Now lining up for their share and licking their lips is the credit card industry, that stand to make billions of dollars at the expense of the American consumer. With the hope of helping to protect Veterans from these new regulations, I offered an Amendment to this bill to simply waive any fee charged for credit counseling for any service member returning from a combat area, for a period of two years. Unfortunately, the majority didn't allow any. Many of these men and women have been away from their families, homes and jobs for long periods of time because of unethical procedures that keep them overseas. This is resulting in severe economic hardships, business closures, homes foreclosures and bills unpaid. We must not penalize our troops for serving our country. It is appalling that any Veteran would face bankruptcy because of their sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill to protect American families and maintain a core American value to allow people a fresh start.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Petaluma Branch of the American Association of University Women for 50 years of community service. AAUW Petaluma has tirelessly advocated for equity for women and girls, lifelong education, and positive societal change. With over 200 members, AAUW Petaluma has developed a variety of successful methods to promote their agenda. In recent years, the AAUW Petaluma has been awarded the Silver, Gold and Platinum awards for excellence in recruitment, program content, success of their projects, and their overall positive energy by AAUW National. Many of the programs sponsored by AAUW Petaluma are integral in bringing our community together. For example, mentoring and tutoring programs in the high schools involving adults and peers have helped build intergenerational relationships, and the All-Petaluma Schools Community Art Show and Art Train Docents have helped keep art programs alive in the community. AAUW Petaluma's community involvement does not stop there. The group has organized community forums on health and planning issues. They exemplify an organization truly giving back to the community. In fact, I recently had the privilege of attending a developing relationships and connections event. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor the American Association of University Women, Petaluma Branch as an organization that has for the past half-century contributed to the women, girls and community of Petaluma.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rabbi Michael Robinson of Sonoma County who has dedicated his life to the cause of social justice at home and around the world. From the American civil rights movement to the Nicaraguan Contra war to the Israel-Palestinian conflict Rabbi Robinson has been on the front lines promoting peace and the improvement of humanity. On April 14 he is being presented with the Jack Green Civil Liberties Award by the ACLU of Sonoma County for his lifetime of achievements in this arena. Nobody deserves this honor more than Michael Robinson. Born in North Carolina, Robinson received his B.A. from the University of Cincinnati and attended North Carolina State College before enlisting in the Navy during World War II. He served in the Pacific and became a pacifist immediately after this experience. In 1952, after completing a course of study at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Robinson became the first North Carolina native to be ordained as a rabbi. He later earned his doctoral degree from the New York Theological Seminary and served in temples in Seattle and Pomona as well as 29 years as an activist leader at Temple Israel in Westchester, New York. During the civil rights movement, the synagogue raised money to help rebuild the black churches that had been burned in the South and finance the van used by the Freedom Riders to tour the South. Rabbi Robinson marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, and expressed his convictions with these words: ``When I was 10 years old I began sitting on the back seat of the bus with `colored people.' I never returned to the front seat.'' After moving to Sonoma County with his wife Ruth, Rabbi Robinson served Shomrei Torah and is credited with growing the congregation from 30 families to now the largest Jewish congregation in Santa Rosa. Retired since 1996, Rabbi Robinson holds the title of Rabbi Emeritus at both Temple Israel and Shomrei Torah. In addition to promoting affirmative action, same sex marriage, affordable housing, and other equality issues, Robinson has worked against nuclear war, apartheid, and all forms of injustice. He is known locally for his involvement in the Sonoma County Task Force on Homelessness, Children's Village, the Living Wage Coalition, Habitat for Humanity, the Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center, and the Sonoma Land Trust. A founding member of Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action in 1996, Rabbi Robinson's words still resonate: ``I hope that my anger will not dissipate until justice is done and every man, woman and child has equal access to all the privileges of a democratic society and receives equal respect.'' Mr. Speaker, I share that passion and also Rabbi Robinson's hope that we as a Nation can become better people and create a just society. Michael Robinson is a model for all of us--from the ACLU of Sonoma County to those in distant lands who strive for basic rights. His words as well as his deeds are an inspiration that none who have come into contact with him will ever forget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week Victor Yushchenko, the new president of Ukraine, spoke to a joint session of Congress. We were lucky to have received such a distinguished speaker, one who has done so much to encourage democracy over the last year, even overcoming a vicious poison attack by those who opposed his calls for democratic reform in the Ukraine. Mr. Yushchenko led the people of Ukraine through what is called the Orange Revolution. Ukrainian protestors bravely rejected an illegal and predetermined presidential election and demanded a new one. Since he took office after winning the second election, Ukrainians have been getting serious about fighting corruption, promoting fair competition and demanding transparent government business relations. Peaceful creation of democracy is possible. As I listened to President Yushchenko, I could not help but note the irony that a man who has encouraged democracy through such peaceful and nonviolent means had been invited to speak to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, which is still working with the White House to create a democracy in Iraq through the barrel of a gun. The irony is that Ukraine, an Eastern European holdover from the Soviet Union's Communist bloc, understands the inner workings of democracy better than the President and Congress of the United States. I believe that the war in Iraq flies in the very face of democratic governance. Instead of upholding the tenets of democracy, the war in Iraq has violated democracy's core principles to a degree unimaginable when the U.S. declared war in March 2003. In January 2005, the Iraqi people held their first election in over 50 years, and I congratulate them for their bravery in accomplishing this feat. But the ends do not justify the means. From the very beginning, the President's case for invading Iraq was based on false premises and manipulations of the truth, hardly the stuff democracies are made of. We know now, and many of us knew back in 2003, that Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States. He never possessed ties to al Qaeda's terrorist network, and no weapons of mass destruction have ever turned up in Iraq. In fact, earlier this year, President Bush officially called off the search for the missing weapons of mass destruction. These are shameful and truthless grounds for fighting a war that has, so far, cost the lives of more than 1,500 American troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention more than 12,000 American soldiers who have been severely and permanently wounded in the war. The cost to our Nation's treasury has been just as staggering. After Congress puts the finishing touches on the latest supplemental appropriations bill, this war's total cost will amount to more than $200 billion in just over 2 years. Mr. Speaker, $200 billion in 2 years. Just think about that amount. Adjusted to inflation, the combined costs of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the first Gulf War are easily eclipsed by the war in Iraq. Sadly, a vicious insurgency still plagues the Iraqi people and America's brave soldiers on a daily basis. Yet President Bush seems to think that everything in the Middle East is going just fine. Yesterday, the President stated, and I quote him, ``More than 150,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped and, for the first time, the Iraqi Army, police, and security forces now outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq.'' Well, then, here is the question: Why do our young men and women continue to remain in Iraq if the Iraqi people are prepared to handle their own security? Why do our young men and women continue to die in staggering numbers if the Iraqi Army, police, and security forces are trained and equipped? The flip side of the President's boasts is that the American military presence is not helping matters. That is why, with the support of 30 of my House colleagues, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, legislation that calls for the U.S. to withdraw its military forces from Iraq. Let me be clear: the U.S. should not abandon the country it voluntarily invaded; but instead of maintaining a military presence in Iraq, we must invest in humanitarian and developmental aid that is so crucial in the peaceful advancement of a young democracy. Mr. Speaker, it is time to change direction in Iraq. We must begin to bring our troops home. It is time to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. If we need some guidance, I recommend taking a page out of the Ukrainian playbook on building a democracy. Because when it comes to advancing democracy, Ukraine seems to understand what many Members of the U.S. House of Representatives do not.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last year the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations bravely stood up to the White House by rejecting the administration's request for new nuclear weapons funding. The White House had requested over $70 million for research on the robust nuclear earth penetrator, also known as the ``bunker buster'' and other nuclear weapons initiatives. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations zeroed out the President's nuclear weapons initiative; and, just as importantly, they have boldly rejected all funding for the supremely misguided bunker buster nuclear bomb, labelling it provocative and unnecessary. I credit the subcommittee's chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). He courageously stood up to the White House on this issue. But President Bush did not let that stop him from once again requesting funding for the bunker buster bomb in this year's 2006 budget proposal. This year the President has requested $4 million to study the feasibility of constructing the bunker buster and another $4.5 billion for bunker buster testing in the Air Force budget. The President's budget also notes that he may request another $14 million for the bunker buster in fiscal year 2007. What could the Bush administration possibly be thinking? The United States already possesses the most sophisticated and modern military ever created, yet sometimes it seems like President Bush and his allies still think we are fighting the Cold War. Fortunately, there are still many, many in Congress who live with the rest of us in the 21st century. The bunker buster's proponents claim that it is an important device needed in the post-9/11 world to enable our military to attack cave and hideouts with supreme precision, but we do not need a nuclear weapon to accomplish this. The U.S. already possesses the capability to target terrorists wherever they are hiding. The Bush administration's repeated attempts to develop new nuclear weapons like the bunker buster epitomizes the hypocrisy that underscores President Bush's foreign policy. At the same time that he seeks to prevent countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, the White House has demonstrated its own nuclear weapons ambitions with a vigorous intensity. We must remember that the creation of the bunker buster would violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which the United States ratified in 1972. That is why later this week I will introduce a resolution calling on the United States to uphold its binding commitment to this vital international treaty. But these nuclear ambitions should not come as a surprise. In fact, it is just the latest in a long line of instances that demonstrate the Bush administration's petulant double standard when it comes to interacting with the rest of the world. Before the bunker buster came along, they rejected the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, claiming that it would hurt the United States economy. Before that, it was the rejection of the International Criminal Court which President Bush opposed because it would allow Americans who violated international laws to be tried for war crimes just like war criminals from other countries. The policy of rejecting international treaties is bad for the United States. Instead of thumbing our nose in the face of international law, America, the world's largest democracy, needs to serve as the gold standard for global consensus and agreement. That is why I have worked to develop a SMART Security platform for the 21st century. SMART Security is a Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism. Instead of creating new nuclear weapons, SMART Security would work to control the spread of such weapons through aggressive diplomacy, global weapons inspections, and comprehensive non- proliferation efforts. We need to lead the world's nations to end the era of nuclear weapons. We need to demonstrate that nuclear weapons will not protect the people of the world because if these weapons are actually used there will be nothing left to protect. Think about the price we have paid to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, weapons that actually do not exist. Over 1,500 American lives lost, more than 12,000 severely wounded American soldiers, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, and more than $200 billion spent. Should we not invest our resources in addressing genuine nuclear threats? Mr. Speaker, if we do not start working with the other nations in the world, there may come a time when other nations no longer want to work with us.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mary Rita Tamayo for her service to troubled young people in Sonoma County. Ms. Tamayo passed away in July of 2003 at the age of 85. On April 17, 2005, Social Advocates for Youth in Sonoma County will announce the new transitional housing facility in Santa Rosa--the Tamayo House--to commemorate Mary and Jose Tamayo's contributions to the community. The Tamayo House will provide 24 young men and women, who are aging out of the foster care system, with a place to live. Born in 1918 in Kansas to Mexican immigrant parents, Mary was raised a devout Catholic. She moved with her husband, Jose, from Nebraska to California in 1977 to open a family owned Mexican restaurant. Husband and wife co-founded the restaurant La Tortilla Factory Mexicantessan. Not only did Mary provide employment opportunities and support youth organizations, but she also encouraged teenagers to complete their education. Her biggest regret in life was never finishing high school, but she made sure her five sons graduated from college. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Mary Tamayo, whose kindness and generosity exemplify the best that a person has to offer. Her commitment to Sonoma County's youth population is an inspiration to immigrant families and to all of us who care about our community. She is already missed, but the opening of Tamayo House will keep her memory alive for generations to come.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lynn McIntyre, who is retiring as vice president for university affairs at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California. Rohnert Park is located 40 miles north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge in Sonoma County. In her position as vice president, Lynn has demonstrated great skill and diplomacy in overseeing public media and government relations, university publications and university policies, and several special projects of interest to the university. She is a valued member of the university president's cabinet, advising him on management decisions. Lynn has had a diverse and varied career in education and banking. She has worked in Somalia. She has served in the Peace Corps in India. She has been a secondary schoolteacher in California and an administrator at Boston University, as well as vice president at both Security Pacific Bank and First Interstate Bank in Los Angeles. In this capacity she provided financial services to Fortune 500 and other companies in California and throughout the South and the West. Raised on family farms in the central valley of California, Lynn received BA and MA degrees from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MBA degree from Simmons College in Boston. She also studied in Vienna, Austria. As a board member of Goodwill Industries of the Redwood Empire, and a member of the Sonoma County Business Education Roundtable, Lynn stays active in community affairs. She and her husband Jerry own a vineyard in Sonoma County, selling pinot noir and merlot grapes to prominent wineries. As a hobby, they also make their own wine under the private label of Starr Creek Vineyard. I have tasted it. It is delicious. As President Ruben Arminana of Sonoma State so aptly noted when commenting on Lynn's skills in diplomacy and administration, he said, ``She makes possible the impossible. She is loved and admired by faculty, staff, administrators and members of the community.'' Mr. Speaker, I have greatly enjoyed working with Lynn McIntyre at Sonoma State University. Although her outstanding efforts will be missed, I know that she will stay involved in university affairs and in important education issues in our community. I wish her luck in retirement and look forward to seeing her in other capacities.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II has passed away. I talk about him tonight because we can learn a lesson from the way he lived his life. I did not agree with a lot of what the Pope believed in, but I agree with the way he fought against that which he believed was worth fighting. When Pope John Paul II came into office, the Soviet Union was a dominant world power and communism was a dominant ideology. John Paul II, who grew up in Poland, knew firsthand the atrocities that were often committed in the name of communism. He fought against the evils of communism by speaking out and putting international pressures on countries like the Soviet Union, Hungary, and Poland. These countries understood the threat that they faced in this Pope, one strong-willed man, who knew firsthand the perils of the communist system. In 1989, the Soviet Union fell, partially as a result of the Pope's actions. Then, as now, the world faced a major conflict of ideologies. Instead of communism, the major threat to our generation is Islamic extremism perpetrated by radical groups like al Qaeda. And then, as now, the Pope believed that the proper response was to apply international pressure to alleviate a bad situation. But instead of applying international pressure and utilizing multilateral diplomacy to fight terrorism, the response by the Bush administration was to send 150,000 troops into Iraq to ``liberate'' the country. Liberate the country from what, exactly? One bad leader named Saddam Hussein? Make no mistake: the invasion of a country that never posed a threat to the United States, never harbored weapons of mass destruction, and never maintained links to groups like al Qaeda is the greatest misstep to occur during George W. Bush's Presidency. One of the saddest parts about the war in Iraq is the drastic toll it has taken on the people of the United States. This war has cost the lives of more than 1,500 American soldiers. It has caused nearly 12,000 to be gravely wounded. The war has also killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. And the financial cost of the war has been no less burdensome. When the Senate approves the latest $81.4 billion supplemental spending bill, Congress will have appropriated over $200 billion for the war in Iraq in just over 2 years. With no end in sight, President Bush has even claimed that the thousands of troops will remain in the country for years to come, the total cost of the war could be as much as $800 billion by the time we finish blundering in the Middle East. How many will be dead or wounded by the time this war is done? Despite the President's solemn promise to fight terrorism, the Bush administration has overwhelmingly concentrated America's resources on developing bigger and more expensive weapons at the expense of other more suitable security tools which will truly keep Americans safe. If our country has any hope of defeating terrorist groups like al Qaeda, we need to utilize the most important weapons in our arsenal, not bigger and more dangerous guns and bombs, but international diplomacy, nonmilitary security, and nonproliferation efforts. That is why I have developed a SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century. SMART security is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism, and it is just what we need to secure America for the future. SMART security emphasizes the nonmilitary approach over the military approach, considering war as an option only when all other alternatives have been totally exhausted. If we went to war every time we had a problem with another country's leader, there would be nothing left of the United States. Imagine if we had bombed the Soviet Union in the 1970s during the Cold War. It would have been the start of World War III. It is time we left Iraq. This needs to be done sooner, not later; and it is time we started relying on the smarter approach. This is the only way to resolve the complex while, at the same time, keeping our men and women in the military safe. Let us support a smarter approach to the 21st century, an approach that I call SMART security.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there is no more difficult decision for a family than to remove a loved one from life support. My heart goes out to the Schiavo family in this very personal and difficult time. However, I believe this to be a private family matter to be decided based on their own faith and values, without the government's intervention. The Schiavo case has been a long and difficult one for Ms. Schiavo's family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I trust that the multiple court decisions and the multiple court reviews were properly evaluated. Each time the evidence pointed to the same unbiased conclusion: Terri Schiavo's wishes were clear and convincing. Doctors who have examined Ms. Schiavo have consistently said that she is in a persistent vegetative state. The only ones who disagree are those who are deciding based on videotapes. In fact, the Florida State legislature has not overridden the decisions of their State courts. There is no doubt that this is a family tragedy. But, there is no room for the Federal Government in this case or in any similar case. It is unfair that this family during their time of grief has become a political pawn in an ideological war the conservative leadership is inappropriately propelling. Mr. Speaker, Congress intervening in this matter sets a bad precedent for our entire legal system. The Republican leadership has repeatedly made a point of calling for the removal of Federal court jurisdiction over issues, such as gay marriage or displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings, when the Federal courts render a decision that does not meet with their political ideology. In fact, they have gone so far as to introduce several legislative initiatives to strip controversial religious and social issues from the jurisdiction of Federal courts. Now, ironically, when a State has rendered a final decision that the Republican leadership disagrees with, they support reinstating the power of ``activist judges'' on the Federal level. The Republican leadership cannot have it both ways and should not interfere with the judicial process that has worked for over 200 years. Instead we should be fighting to cover the 45 million Americans who are currently without health insurance and unable to get the services they need to live. We should be increasing scientific research funding to improve our medical procedures and help more people overcome the impossible. Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to judge what is right or wrong in Ms. Schiavo's particular case. Only her loved ones can truly know in their hearts what is right for her, even if they cannot agree. But, what I do know is that whether someone has the right to live or die is not a decision that the Federal Government, and Members of Congress should not make.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, had I not been detained by official travel, I would have voted against S. 686.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, between the $81 billion supplemental appropriations bill passed by the House yesterday and the outrageous budget resolution that came on the floor today, the Bush administration's funding priorities are dangerous, dishonorable, and downright hazardous to the safety of our Nation. The $81 billion supplemental and the fiscal year 2006 budget will do little more than continue the President's arrogant foreign policies, particularly his shameful misadventures in Iraq which have made Americans much less safe over the past 2 years by creating a new generation of terrorists whose common tie is their hatred of the United States. The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the House yesterday underscores the lack of planning and arrogance that have characterized this war. $200 billion will have been appropriated for Iraq after this latest bill clears through the Senate. That is about $675 for every man, woman, and child. The most disturbing thing about the President's request for more Iraq funding is the lack of accountability. Why did Congress approve another check for a mission that has been so badly botched? Who is being held accountable for the misuse of the $150 billion we appropriated over the last 2 years? By once again funding the war in Iraq through a supplemental spending bill, the Bush administration is continuing to pull a fast one on the American people. Instead of spending billions to build permanent bases in Iraq, our funds should go towards the National Guard and Reserve forces who have left their families and their homes to serve their country and who have been abandoned as sitting ducks in Iraq. Despite the President's solemn promise to fight terrorism, the Bush administration has overwhelmingly concentrated the country's resources on developing bigger and more expensive weapons at the expense of other more suitable security tools which will truly keep Americans safe. Even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated that there is $22 billion of waste in the Pentagon's budget every year. The fiscal year 2006 budget that passed the House today is just the latest example of questionable Republican spending priorities. This budget wastes billions of dollars in outdated Cold War-era weapons systems that fail to address America's true security needs. We do not need millions of dollars for the outdated F-22 fighter jet which the military no longer relies on during combat. We do not need millions of dollars for a new generation of nuclear weapons, the so-called ``bunker buster bomb,'' and we certainly do not need another $8 billion for a missile defense system that has never been proven to work. The proper response to the supposed threat of a missile attack from North Korea is not to build a multibillion-dollar missile defense system. We should be addressing this situation through aggressive diplomacy and country-to-country talks. Certainly the nonmilitary approach will not cost the United States taxpayers $8 billion a year, and ultimately the non-$8 billion approach will keep America safer. In fact, if the Bush administration spent even 1 percent of the time on diplomacy that it does on trying to develop a missile defense shield, we would probably be on good terms with Iran and North Korea by now. We need a new approach to security that places a greater emphasis on nonmilitary security. Only by shifting our spending priorities accordingly will we be able to address today's true security challenges. That is why I have developed a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART is a Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security will ensure that our spending priorities match the security threats that we face. Madam Speaker, this Congress needs to stop signing blank checks to a fiscally reckless administration. If we are going to spend billions and billions of dollars, let us at least spend it on the people who deserve it, the brave troops in the field who have sacrificed so much for their country. Let us spend it on our Nation's veterans, like 24-year-old Tim Goodrich who came to my office yesterday and shared stories about his service in Afghanistan. One of Tim's friends was supposed to come with him, but he was so troubled by his experience in Iraq that he was not able to make it to our meeting because he has trouble sleeping at night. Let us spend it on the 32-year-old naval officer who was in my office who had no prior experience in rebuilding war-torn regions before he was put in charge of the reconstruction of an entire city in Iraq. This officer told me he couldn't in good conscience recruit Iraqis to work on his projects, because he knew their lives would be in danger if they worked with the American military. It's time we honor the commitment of young veterans like Tim and others by providing them the resources they need and deserve, and by promising not to send our military in harm's way unless the very security of our nation depends on it. It's time to refocus our fiscal priorities on the true security needs of the American people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the National Women's History Project, NWHP, and its President and co-founder, Molly Murphy MacGregor of Sonoma County, California, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the organization. The mission of the NWHP is to recognize and celebrate the diverse and historic accomplishments of women by providing information and educational materials and programs. In 1978 in Sonoma County, Molly originated the plan for the first Women's History Week, which became an annual event. In 1980, she co- founded the NWHP in Santa Rosa, California with Mary Ruthsdotter, Maria Cuevas, Paula Hammett, and Bette Morgan. NWHP, with the assistance of Sunny Bristol and other supporters, spearheaded the movement for National Women's History Week leading to the designation of March as National Women's History Month in 1987. Today, the group is known nationally as the only clearinghouse for information and training in multicultural women's history for educators, community organizations, and individuals wanting to expand their understanding of women's contributions to our Nation. The NWHP is in the forefront of national campaigns that call attention to women's achievements and has been recognized by a wide-range of organizations and commissions. Molly's passion for women's history was first stoked in 1972 when she proposed teaching a semester class on the topic at a high school. A colleague commented that the whole class should take about an hour ``because what have women ever done, anyway?'' Molly did teach the well-received semester class then enrolled in the history graduate program at Sonoma State University where she created a multimedia slide show, ``We, the Women,'' which was shown throughout California to enthusiastic reception by women and men. As president of NWHP, Molly has worked with national women's organizations to build coalitions, develop programs, and encourage them to celebrate their own histories. She and her colleagues Mary Ruthsdotter, Maria Cuevas, Bonnie Eisenberg and Susanne Otteman have also worked with specialists around the country to integrate a women's perspective into the school curriculum. The NWHP has received funding for this outreach from the U.S. Department of Education and been recognized by the National Education Association, the National Association for Multicultural Education, and the Center for Women Policy Studies. Molly has been honored by numerous groups including the California Commission on the Status of Women, the Sonoma County NAACP, and the Giraffe foundation (for ``sticking her neck out). In 1999 she was chosen as one of three appointments from the White House to the Women's Progress Commission. Mr. Speaker, as a long-time resident of Sonoma County, it has been my pleasure to work with Molly Murphy MacGregor and the National Women's History Project to promote understanding and appreciation of the role of women in our culture. Their vision has helped create a legacy that everyone in this country can honor and appreciate.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Maloney Amendment because we must break the deadly political impasse that endangers the health of women around the world. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has the ability to provide health services and promote maternal health globally. Yet we deny them funding, choosing to focus on narrow ideological disagreements and not the lifesaving potential of their work. We simply cannot afford more delay. We must seek common ground and that is what the Maloney Amendment will do. Disasters put pregnant women at greater than normal risk because of the sudden loss of medical support, compounded in many cases by trauma, malnutrition, disease or exposure to violence. We all know that the tsunami took away valuable medical care for women across the affected areas in southeast asia. Without UNFPA we wouldn't have been able to calculate that 150,000 women are currently pregnant in this region. Without UNFPA these women would not have the guarantee of safe, clean environments to deliver their babies. They would not have access to the medical support and medicines they need to ensure a healthy birth. Safe and healthy childbirth should not be a political issue. While disagreements about UNFPA will certainly remain, continuing to ensure this program is there to rely on has never been more important. In such a polarized political environment, we must not sacrifice this opportunity to move forward and renew our commitment to promote the health of women around the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Maloney Amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, this week Congress is debating the President's request for more than 81 billion additional dollars to finance his misadventure in Iraq. I will oppose this bill because I support the troops and have deep admiration for their courage. I will vote against the supplemental because I believe our brave soldiers are being used as pawns by their civilian superiors, whose wastefulness and incompetence is betraying their duty to keep us safe. This supplemental will bring the overall Iraq price tag to more than $200 billion. What are the American people getting for their $200 billion? What kind of return on their investment? We have created a hotbed of terrorism in Iraq. We have earned the wrath of the entire Muslim world. Meanwhile, we have a Swiss cheese homeland security system, and we have lost 1,500 of our troops, not to mention the more than 11,000 wounded and the many who will suffer mental trauma for the rest of their lives. The Center For American Progress did a study of what $200 billion could really buy in terms of our security here in the United States of America. Five billion dollars would give our ports and waterways the protection they need from attacks. It would cost only $1 billion to screen all air passenger cargo. Just $2.6 billion would allow our rail and public transit systems to meet important security requirements. Just think of what we could do at home for $200 billion: universal preschool education, comprehensive health coverage for every American, a safe child care system that will give peace of mind to all working families. There would still be plenty left over to implement a SMART security agenda that would be about preventing war, not preemptive war; that would eliminate wasteful programs like missile defense and the many Cold War relics that are doing nothing to keep us safe. SMART security would mean robust multilateral alliances to stop the spread of terrorism, vigorous inspection regimes to stop weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and an ambitious humanitarian development program that tackles the poverty and despair that foster terrorism in the first place. $200 billion, that is about $675 for every American man, woman and child, which is not to say that the sacrifices of this war have been spread evenly throughout the population. The well-connected and the wealthy have not been asked to sacrifice, even though rolling back the Bush tax cuts would go a long way toward paying this enormous bill. No, the ones who have sacrificed are coming home in flag-draped coffins because they were sent to depose a regime that represented no imminent threat to our security. Their families did not get a tax cut. The only thing they got from the government was a devastating letter that Donald Rumsfeld did not even bother to sign personally. The most disturbing thing about the President's request for more Iraq funding is the lack of accountability. Why are we writing another check for a mission that has been so badly botched? Who is being held responsible for the misuse of the money we have already approved? If Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon could not manage to get body armor to our troops with the first $100 billion we gave them, why would we trust them with even more hard-earned American tax dollars? Where is this money going? How much of it is enriching war profiteers? Why did the Army waive its usual procedures and make full payment to Halliburton, despite legitimate questions about overbilling and financial mismanagement? Why can we not get a congressional investigation into the $9 billion that mysteriously disappeared from the books at the Coalition Provisional Authority? If the President wants more money for this war, he can take it out of something he cares about instead of taking it out of the hides of the American people. No more blank checks. I will vote against this supplemental, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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