Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to our Nation's spending priorities, President Bush and his administration do not know which way is up. Already the President has given Congress a 2006 budget that is all but certain to explode in the year 2009; a ticking time bomb set to detonate after President Bush leaves office. In a move that should surprise no one, this budget conspicuously omits funding for any and all military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, leaving the funding to a supplemental spending bill that does not count against the President's deficit estimates. These funds are not insignificant. To date Congress has funded a $154 billion military operations and reconstruction budget in Iraq, and the Democratic staff on the House Committee on the Budget has estimated that the war in Iraq could cost the United States as much as $650 billion by the year 2015. Adjusted for inflation, this amount rivals the combined costs of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the first Gulf War; the combined costs. Let me be clear that my opposition to the President's reckless fiscal policies is not a condemnation of the service men and women who so bravely serve our country. I want everyone to know that I oppose the war, not the warriors. Hundred of thousands of selfless troops were uprooted from their families and their everyday lives to answer the call of duty for their country, and we owe them our absolute gratitude. Sadly, so far, 1,500 of these brave men and women will not return home alive. Another 11,000 will return home forever wounded as a result of injuries sustained in battle. These are the casualties of this ill- conceived war. A lot of people talk about supporting our troops, but the call to support our troops is yet another reason to oppose President Bush's latest supplemental spending request. If the Bush administration really cared about our troops, they would take all measures to get them out of harm's way and bring them home as soon as possible. But the latest supplemental assumes that 150,000 American soldiers will stay in Iraq as sitting ducks for years to come. And this bill does not bring them home. It is wholly irresponsible for the Bush administration to fund an unending military operation without devising an exit strategy and without even considering the possibility that the military option is not working. The supplemental spending bill that President Bush sent to Congress also fails to include any type of reporting mechanism, which means that these funds can be spent by military commanders without any accounting of how or where that money was spent. This is a woefully irresponsible way to spend American taxpayers' money. This, on top of $9 billion in reconstruction funds that cannot be accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American governing body that was in charge of overseeing Iraq until 2004. This, on top of $3 billion in reconstruction funds that had to be reprogrammed for military operations because the Bush administration failed to account for an angry Iraqi insurgency. What did the President think would happen when he invaded a country that never posed a threat to the United States and never wanted us there in the first place? Instead of continuing down our current path, I believe we must pursue a national security strategy that I call SMART security, which is a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism for the 21st century. I have also introduced legislation, H. Con. Res. 35, that would help us pursue a smarter strategy for rebuilding Iraq. Twenty- seven of my House colleagues have joined me in offering this important legislation. Instead of financing billions of more dollars to continue a failed military occupation, under my plan, the United States would help secure Iraq by rebuilding schools so that children can learn, constructing new water processing plants so that this desert country does not face water shortages, and building new roads so that citizens can travel from one city to another. Our assistance should not end there. If we want to be truly smart about how we rebuild Iraq, we also need to bring NGOs and humanitarian agencies into the country to help create a robust civil society and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable. It is time for us to support the Iraqi people by giving them the resources they need, and it is time to support our own troops by bringing them home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, our discussion of the media's responsibility is incomplete without consideration of fairness and without consideration of the fairness doctrine. The public's airwaves are not just a forum for entertainment that might step beyond the bounds of decency but also a home to the marketplace of ideas on which our democracy depends. In other words, it is not good enough to hold broadcasters accountable for inappropriate wardrobe malfunctions. They must live up to the public good if they want to continue to use the public's airwaves. Our constituents depend on broadcasters for essential information about issues that affect their families, their lives. Too often, they are unknowingly relying on incomplete, inaccurate, or biased reports. This happens because we do not hold broadcasters accountable to the public. Under the current rules, corporate conglomerates are free to set the news agenda based on what they think sells or entertains, not what the public needs to know. Undercover government spokespersons are free to speak their opinions as trustworthy pundits, and media monopolies are free to use their power to provide only one part of the story. Broadcasters are failing the public when the airwaves are used this way. Mr. Speaker, there is another challenge and threat to our most cherished free speech values: the consolidation of media ownership. There is a movement that is reshaping the marketplace of ideas and eliminating the diversity of opinion critical to a vibrant democracy. No newspaper, radio station or TV network is perfect, but allowing single corporations to monopolize the information that average Americans receive gives media corporations and individuals like Rupert Murdoch too much power. In America ideas are not just another commodity like butter, steel, or cloth. Ideas are the lifeblood of our Nation. The FCC should be defending the free exchange of ideas, not giving a few corporations and their executives power to shut off the flow of ideas to American citizens. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we do not vote for this rule until we have everything in it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to lose count of the number of reasons why we went to war in Iraq. First it was because Saddam Hussein was closely linked to al Qaeda, the terrorist group that conducted the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11. After that theory was disproved, the reason for going to war became the imminent and immediate threat that Saddam posed to the United States. According to the White House, Saddam possessed stockpiles of nuclear and biological weapons. When we learned that Saddam's nuclear weapons program had actually been dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War, which was a full 12 years ago when the U.S. began its first invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration changed its rationale yet again. This time the reason for going to war was for the very cause of democracy itself, to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Some have said that Iraq's recent elections are the very embodiment of Iraq's quick embrace of democracy. It is important right now to commend the brave 58 percent of registered Iraqis who voted in these elections, voted to select the legislators who will write the Iraqi constitution. In fact, Iraq's voter turnout was higher than the turnout in most American elections. Believe me, the people who live in my congressional district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, know how important elections are to keeping a viable and vital democracy in a country. In last November's election, we voted with a record 89.5 percent of registered voters turning out. Sadly, despite Iraq's elections, the Middle East is as unstable as it has ever been. The war in Iraq has made Iraq a more violent and unstable place, making America less secure from the threat of terrorism by creating a terrorist breeding ground in a country that had never been a haven for terrorist groups like al Qaeda in the first place. Some members of the Bush administration have expressed their disappointment with the high Shiite turnout of Iraq's elections, fearing that significant participation by religious Muslims may lead to the creation of an overly religious Iraqi constitution, but that is the danger, the danger risked by invading a country when you will not admit the real reason you are there in the first place. Are we there to stabilize Iraq so we can control their oil resources? Are we there to force our notions of democracy onto the Iraqi people? Or are we there to honor the Iraqi voters, voters who went to the polls because they want to control their own destiny? The most important thing to recognize is that Iraq will not resemble the United States, and Iraq's constitution will not be an updated version of our own. Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that we cannot keep our troops stationed halfway around the world with the hope that Iraq will become a Middle Eastern version of the United States. But the elections do demonstrate that the Iraqi people are prepared to manage their own affairs. That is why, now that Iraq's elections are completed, the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as the country transitions towards democracy. We can do this by supporting the Iraqi people, not through our military, but through international cooperation to help rebuild Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure. We owe this to the people of Iraq, who are being killed by the thousands. We owe it to our troops who are sitting ducks for the terrorists, and we owe it to the nearly 1,500 American troops who have died in this ill-conceived misadventure, as well as the 11,000 who have been severely wounded. To help the situation in Iraq, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, which is legislation that will help Iraq secure its own future and ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. So far, 27 of my House colleagues have signed on as cosponsors of this important legislation. My plan for Iraq is part of a larger strategy that I call SMART security, which is a Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter politics. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear; we should not abandon Iraq. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants, and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable. Instead of troops, we need to send scientists, educators, urban planners and constitutional experts to help rebuild Iraq's flagging economic and physical infrastructure.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has recently indicated that he will ask Congress to approve another supplemental appropriations bill to fund the ongoing military operations in Iraq. The number is rumored to be somewhere in the $80 billion range; $80 billion. If this request for emergency funds is anything like the last three passed in the Congress, we can expect two things: one, the President will once again refuse to explain precisely where this money will be spent; and, two, congressional Republicans will meekly accede to the President's demands without asking for even the slightest degree of accountability from the White House in return. We in Congress must do more than just rubber stamp the President's every last wish. We hold the power of the purse; and, accordingly, we must exercise our constitutional authority to hold the executive branch accountable. Up to now, the Congress has failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for the many mishaps and mistakes in Iraq; and, as a result, the Members of Congress, all 535 of us, are responsible for the nearly 1,500 American troops who have been needlessly killed in Iraq, not to mention the 11,000 Americans who have been forever wounded and the untold thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in this war. Before appropriating a single dollar for the Iraq war, more than we have already appropriated, Congress must demand that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld tell Congress exactly what they plan to do to address the growing crisis in Iraq. Demanding accountability from the Bush administration crosses over political lines because it is about more than just politics. It is about taking care of our men and women who are serving in Iraq, and it is about advancing policies that will secure America for the future. Together, with 27 of my House colleagues, I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 35, an Iraq withdrawal plan, that has four components. President Bush needs to address, at the very least, each of these important components before Congress provides him any further funds for Iraq. First, the President needs to begin the process of bringing our troops home. How can we possibly ask these brave men and women, who have selflessly answered the call of duty for their country, to continue to die for an unjust, unfair, and poorly planned military failure halfway across the world? These are the troops the administration assured us would be embraced as liberators, but who continue to be the focal point of anti-American extremism, leaving them like sitting ducks. In fact, I believe the insurgency in Iraq is fueled primarily by our military presence. Ceasing the military operations will not be sufficient to defeat the insurgency, no way, but staying will continue to intensify it, and that is for certain. Second, President Bush needs to develop and implement a plan for Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, but that responsibility needs to be fulfilled not by our military but by humanitarian groups and companies that will help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure; and all future investments must be made with the needs of Iraqis being paramount, not the United States Government contractors and other war profiteers. Third, the President must convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, and the United Nations to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and national guard forces to ensure Iraq's security. With Iraq's security problems the most serious cause for concern in the country at the moment, an international peacekeeping force in place of the U.S. military would better serve Iraq's needs. An international peacekeeping force, supported by Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations, would provide real legitimacy to a conflict that has flown in the face of international law from the very beginning. Finally, the President must take all steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to control their internal affairs. The Iraqi people cannot truly control their own affairs until the U.S. military has ceded back authority to the Iraqi people. That is why it is essential for Iraq's police and national guard forces to manage Iraq's security, not the American military.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when we shut our doors to the world we shut the door of democracy. President Bush wants the United States to be a leader in promoting freedom around the world, but we fail at home when we deny freedoms to those who desire the American dream. H.R. 418 fails to reform our system. Instead, it weakens our democracy. If you vote for this bill you are saying we don't care if you have been persecuted because of your religion or beaten because of your gender. Stay in your own country. You are not entitled to our freedoms. If you vote for this legislation you are saying that the United States doesn't care about federal or state laws as long as it means being able to close our border. Who cares if building a wall on our border endangers our environment? Out of 2,000 plus miles along our border with Mexico, you are saying that finishing 3 miles of that fenced area in Southern California is so important that we should throw out the principles of our democracy and let one man have the power to waive any laws that he wants without any oversight. Are you sure that this is a democratic country? Mr. Chairman, shutting out people around the world from our democracy and throwing away the ideals of freedom that we hold so dear is no to way to be an example for the world. We need immigration reform but this legislation is not the right answer. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today I voted against H. Con. Res. 6, because I am disappointed with the Boy Scouts of America's exclusionary policies that prevent gay boys and teens from participating in scouting. While the Boy Scouts' positive work within our Nation's communities is notable, the message that the organization sends to gay youth by shutting them out diminishes its greater goals of teaching respect, personal honor, and service. It is important to encourage and support all of our children and by excluding gay youth the Boy Scouts of America is preventing some young men from experiencing the positive benefits Scouting can offer.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, people around the world were greatly moved by the courage of millions of Iraqis who braved death to cast a ballot on January 30, Iraq's first democratic elections in over 50 years. The Iraqi elections, however, did not justify this destructive war, neither the lies used to sell it nor the incompetence with which it has been managed. The elections will not bring back the 1,500 American soldiers who have been killed or heal the over-10,000 American troops who have been wounded, and they certainly cannot bring back the untold thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives. These elections will not reimburse the American taxpayers nearly $200 billion spent over the last 3 years, and the elections will not stop the vicious insurgency that is terrorizing Iraqi communities. But the elections do demonstrate that Iraqis are prepared to manage their own affairs. That is why I believe that now is the time to develop and implement a plan to bring our soldiers home and end the U.S. military presence in Iraq absolutely as soon as possible. Together with 27 cosponsors, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, calling for a plan to end this military mishap. Earlier today I wrote to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, asking them to hold hearings on this matter. The Bush administration spared no superlative in talking about the significance of the Iraqi elections. Such a momentous watershed event, however, would seem to demand a shift in our thinking about Iraq. But not for President Bush. He actually has become more emboldened by the election. He sees this as a mandate to keep our soldiers in Iraq as long as he wants. He and his surrogates are even engaging in provocative saber-rattling in the direction of Iran. The Iraq elections did not vindicate the doctrine of preemptive war, and they do not undo all the death and destruction that has occurred as a result. They demonstrated that the Iraqis can and should take control of their own destinies. Leaving will not be sufficient to defeat the insurgency, but staying absolutely will intensify it. What is fueling the insurgency and what gave rise to it in the first place is our continued military presence in Iraq. Our troops, whom the administration assured us would be embraced as liberators, are the focal point of anti-American extremism, making them sitting ducks. Let me be clear: I am not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. It would be irresponsible for the United States to abandon the Iraqi people. What we must do is play a role in facilitating their transition to stable democracy. We ought to work with Iraq's elected officials, the United Nations and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force that will keep Iraq secure. Much of the money we are spending on this military campaign should be diverted to infrastructure projects that will improve Iraqis' lives, such as road construction, new schools, water processing plants and more. Up to this point, Iraq's economic development has been scandalously mismanaged by the Bush administration, as billions of dollars appropriated by Congress have not actually been put to work on the ground. All future investments must be made with the needs of Iraqis being paramount, not the United States Government contractors and not other war profiteers. Mr. Speaker, I believe a focus on developmental and humanitarian aid in Iraq would be a model for a radically new approach to national security. We need what I call SMART security, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. Instead of resorting to the military option and spending needlessly on weapons systems, the SMART security plan that I propose calls for building multilateral partnerships, partnerships that enable us to foil terrorists and stop weapons of mass destruction proliferation. A SMART security plan would address the conditions that led to terrorism in the first place: poverty, hopelessness, despair. Instead of troops, we should send scientists, educators, urban planners and constitutional experts to the troubled regions of the world. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the United States to play the role of Iraq's ally and partner, not its occupier. It is time to give Iraq back to its own people. It is time to truly support our troops by beginning to bring them home. The first step is for the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations to hold hearings on this matter now. The Iraqi elections, however, will never justify the destructive war, and it will never stand up to the lies that we heard to sell it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the courageous Iraqi people who participated in last Sunday's election to nominate legislators to write Iraq's Constitution. My congressional district gets it when it comes to the importance of elections to our democracy. In November's Presidential election, a record 89.5 percent of registered voters in Marin and Sonoma Counties turned out to vote. The problem is that irresponsible behavior has been a guiding principle of the administration's behavior in leading the Nation to war in Iraq. This has been a dishonest war from the word go. The President said he had heard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet to date no weapons of mass destruction have been found. President Bush himself has officially called off the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq invasion has made the Middle East a more violent and unstable place, and it has made America less secure at home by creating a terrorist breeding ground in a country that was not a haven for terrorist organizations like al Qaeda before we invaded it. The sad irony is that after our Nation was attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda, the Bush administration's response was to bomb and kill civilians in one of the few countries in the Middle East that was inhospitable to al Qaeda. Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in an operation based purely on ideological reasons, reasons that caused the deaths of more than 1,400 Americans and untold thousands of Iraqis, not to mention well more than 10,000 American troops injured and very, very severely wounded. So now that Iraq's elections are completed, we in the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as Iraq transitions toward democracy. In fact, Sunday's election in Iraq gives the United States yet another opportunity to get back on track in Iraq. We can do this by supporting the Iraqi people, not through our military but through international cooperation to help rebuild Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure. We owe this to the people of Iraq, people who are being killed by the thousands, and to our troops who are sitting ducks for terrorists. Last week, I introduced H. Con. Res. 35 with 24 original cosponsors, legislation that will help secure Iraq for the future and ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. My plan for Iraq is part of a larger, smarter security strategy, which is a sensible multilateral, American response to terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies. The withdrawal plan I have proposed includes four major components. First, develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The soldiers who have died in Iraq leave behind grieving loved ones whose lives will never be the same because of the war in Iraq. The best way to support our troops is to remove them from harm's way. Second, develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. The United States has a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, but that responsibility needs to be fulfilled not by our military but by humanitarian groups and companies that will help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and not through no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. Third, convene an emergency meeting of leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security. Iraq's security problems are still the most serious cause for concern in the country, and Iraq requires an international peacekeeping force to address this problem, not the United States military. A peacekeeping force supported by Iraq's neighbors and the global community will provide real legitimacy to a conflict that has flown in the face of international law from its very beginning. Fourth, take all steps to provide the Iraqi people with opportunity to control their internal affairs. The Iraqi people cannot truly control their own affairs until the United States military has ceded back authority to the Iraqi people. That is why it is essential for Iraq's police and National Guard forces to manage Iraq's security, not the United States military. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We should not abandon Iraq. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable. In the end, this is the smarter option and we must begin always taking the smarter path if we are to succeed in Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday Iraq held democratic elections to nominate legislators to write Iraq's constitution, and I want to congratulate the courageous Iraqi people who voted in the election. My congressional district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, had an 89\1/2\ percent voter turnout in the United States the last election, 89\1/2\. Believe me, we know the importance that elections play in our democracy. And now with Iraq's elections completed, we in the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as Iraq transitions towards democracy. In fact, Sunday's election gives the United States yet another opportunity to get back on course in Iraq. We can do this by supporting the Iraqi people, not through our military but through international cooperation to help rebuild Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure. There are four components to my plan on how to do this. H. Con. Res. 35, which is co-sponsored by over two dozen other Members of the House, this plan secures Iraq for the future. It ensures that America's role in Iraq gives Iraq back to the Iraqis and actually makes America safer. First, we need to develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, we must develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. Third, we need to convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership and the international community to replace U.S. military forces in Iraq with an international peacekeeping force and Iraqi police and national guard forces. Finally, we need to take all steps to provide that the Iraqi people receive the opportunity they deserve to control their own internal affairs. In conclusion, I wholeheartedly salute the Iraqi people for their courage in participating in last Sunday's elections. But if we are to succeed in Iraq, we must utilize this moment as a means to bring our troops home and a means to return power to the Iraqi people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for yielding me this time to speak, time to speak in opposition to H. Con. Res. 36. Mr. Speaker, last November a Federal court said the Federal Government cannot take away a university's funding simply because the school refuses to exempt the U.S. military from its policy, meaning the university's policy, and that on-campus recruiters not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Today we are debating a resolution in support of the Solomon amendment. If this House of Representatives votes to support that resolution, we will be putting the Congress on record as supporting absolute senseless discrimination. The resolution says it is about equal access for military recruiters at institutions of higher education. But, in reality, it is about allowing the military to avoid the consequences of discrimination, the same consequences that any other employer would have to face if it discriminated. Many say, and you heard it today, that our national security requires the military to engage in this discrimination, but the facts just do not support it. The court said that the Government failed to produce, and I quote, ``a shred of evidence'' that the Solomon amendment helps military recruiting, and even suggested that the hostility that the amendment causes may hurt recruiting. It was reported in last month that since 1998, the military has discharged 20 fluent Arabic speakers and six fluent Farsi speakers under its ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy. These are students that the military claims to be desperate to recruit. No, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about military recruiting or national security. Plain and simple, it is about punishing universities for exercising their first amendment right to oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians; and I encourage my colleagues, stand up for the Constitution, oppose this resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kathleen Doyle of Petaluma, California, who is retiring from a long and illustrious career as a small business owner and community advocate. Kathleen and Maggie, her 13-year-old pet schnauzer, will soon be moving to a new home in Arlington, South Dakota to live closer to her immediate family. A professional CPA, Kathleen leaves behind the accounting firm she established as well as many friends and associates who will miss her expertise, civic experience, and companionship. She has just completed a decade on the Santa Rosa Junior College Board of Trustees where she was relied upon for tracking the budget for other Board members. An active participant in the fabric of Petaluma's civic life, Kathleen was a founding member of the Petaluma Woman's Club II and served on the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce Board (as President), the Sonoma County Civil Service Commission, the Petaluma Planning Commission, The Petaluma chapter of the Business and Professional Women's Club (as President), and the Petaluma Valley Hospital Foundation. She was also treasurer for the Woolsey For Congress campaign. Kathleen's new home in a town of 900 will be near her two sisters and their families. She also plans to spend time traveling, perhaps to escape the below-zero temperatures of the Arlington winters. Mr. Speaker, Kathleen Doyle has been an inspiration to many in the Petaluma community. It is hard to imagine the city without her. However, we know that Petaluma's loss will be Arlington's gain. Good luck to Kathleen in her new life.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for organizing this Special Order. Mr. Speaker, soon President Bush will unveil the details of his program to cut Social Security. We already know, however, that the President aims to dismantle a program that has been historically successful in our country and incredibly important to the well-being and financial security of women. Women make up the majority of Social Security beneficiaries and are less likely than men to receive pensions or have retirement savings. Women are more apt to live on just Social Security. More than 24 million women receive Social Security benefits, and if these benefits were to be taken away, the result would be nearly 60 percent of senior women would be living in poverty. I shudder to think of the possible consequences of breaking apart the strongest social safety net that we have. Social Security helps to ensure equal footing for women in retirement by using a progressive benefit formula that proportionately pays a greater benefit to those who earn less. Women earn only 77 percent on the dollar compared to their male counterparts and spend less time in the workforce, putting them at an immediate disadvantage for saving. Women who work hard providing for their families, who leave the workforce to raise children should not be penalized in later years for time outside of the workforce when they were not able to add to their private accounts. In fact, if men could have babies, I wonder what they would be doing about their shorter work lives. Recently, some of my Republican colleagues have proposed that women, because they live longer, should receive smaller benefits than men. Imagine such an idea, that women would receive less money than men because they live longer. If anything, the longer average life span of a woman is an argument against private accounts which do not guarantee paid benefits throughout a person's life. Social Security benefits cannot be outlived and are inflation-proof. Women need to know that they can rely on this safety net to ensure that every American can live out their life with financial security. Mr. Speaker, although this issue is important to seniors, we need to recognize that the issue affects every American. Today's workers are tomorrow's retirees. As a mother and as a grandmother, I want to make sure that a system that Americans have relied on for so many years will still be there when my children and grandchildren retire. Social Security is a safety net that must remain in place so that we ensure the welfare of our seniors. We need, however, to encourage Americans to save for their retirement outside and above Social Security to guarantee that they will live comfortably after they are out of the workforce, especially low-wage earners, especially women. The President's proposal to needlessly and recklessly dismantle the greatest social program in our country's history will have long-lasting and far-reaching effects. I am deeply troubled by a proposal that would take money away from a guaranteed benefit and subject it to the roller-coaster fluctuations of the stock market. Our goal must be to ensure that Social Security is fiscally sound so that the system our families rely on is not recklessly undermined. We must keep the Social Security safety net in place without subjecting it to the whims of Wall Street. Recently, we have seen too many pension plans that people counted on for their retirements be swallowed up by corporate greed and an unstable stock market. We cannot allow the same thing to happen to our Social Security program. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the proposals that undermine the strength of our retirement system and the original intent of Social Security. This program has become a cornerstone for American workers' financial stability in their later lives, and it must not be dismantled. If our President wants to improve the lives of retirees, he will put in place a savings plan on top of Social Security savings, acknowledging that Social Security alone is not enough to live on. We need to provide incentives so that workers at every level will save and have a savings account, an investment account above Social Security which is only a safety net.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the courageous Iraqi people who voted in Sunday's Iraq election. My congressional district, Marin and Sonoma Counties just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, had an 89.5 percent voter turnout in the last election. Believe me, we know how important elections are to a democracy. Sunday's election in Iraq was an important step for the people there, and it is also an important milestone for America's role in Iraq. With the elections completed, we in the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as Iraq transitions toward democracy. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bush and his team have not gotten much right when it comes to Iraq, and Sunday's election provides them with yet another opportunity to get back on course. Let us hope they take the smarter path this time, one that supports the Iraqi people with international cooperation to rebuild their economic and physical infrastructure. President Bush loves to talk about democracy. While elections are absolutely necessary to establish a democracy, they are not sufficient to establish a democratic government. Democracy cannot take root in Iraq when an occupying power remains in the country. Right now, the presence of 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq is an obstacle to the prospect of an Iraqi democracy because it is a rallying point for dissatisfied Iraqis and others in the Arab world. Plus, our first responsibility is to America and our American forces, which means we must not leave them in Iraq as sitting ducks. Last week I introduced legislation to secure Iraq for the future and ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. My plan for Iraq is part of a larger SMART security strategy, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies. The withdrawal plan that I, with the support of over two dozen other Members, have proposed includes four components. First, develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. More than 1,400 American troops have died in the line of fire in Iraq. More than 10,000 other soldiers have been injured. These soldiers leave behind grieving parents and grandparents, spouses and children, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors all around the country whose lives will never be the same because of the war in Iraq. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home. Second, develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. The United States has a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made in Iraq. But that responsibility needs to be fulfilled not by our military but by humanitarian groups and companies that will help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. That does not include no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. It does ensure that the Iraqi people will benefit in the rebuilding process of their country. Third, convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and national guard forces to ensure Iraq's security. Iraq's security problems are still the most serious cause for concern in the country, and Iraq requires an international peacekeeping force to address this problem, not the United States military. An international peacekeeping force, supported by other Arab countries, Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations will provide real legitimacy to a conflict that has flown in the face of international law from the very beginning. Fourth, take all steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to control their internal affairs. The Iraqi people cannot truly control their own affairs until the United States military has ceded back authority to those very people. That is why it is essential for Iraq's police and national guard forces to manage Iraq's security, not the United States military. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We should not abandon Iraq. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable. In the end, this is the smarter option. And we must begin always taking the smarter path if we are to succeed in Iraq.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq violate America's core values of honesty, responsibility, security, justice and freedom. This has been a dishonest war from the word go. The President said he had hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It turns out he did not. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. The President himself has officially called off the hunt. Irresponsible behavior has been a guiding principle of the administration's behavior in leading the Nation to war in Iraq. Specifically, what has been the response of our leaders when they have been exposed for misleading the country, or for sending American men and women to their deaths without imminent threat to American security, or what has been the response for keeping our National Guard troops in Iraq for many months longer than they had agreed, or for signing off on orders that led to torture in American prisons? Our leaders do not take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they change the subject, make excuses, or worst of all, blame an underling. Not a single administration official has resigned as a result of the mistakes that led us into this misguided and dangerous war. George Tenet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice are up for promotion, and Donald Rumsfeld is still the Secretary of Defense, although if he traveled to Germany, he could possibly be arrested as a war criminal. The Iraq invasion has made the Middle East a more violent and unstable place, and it has made America less secure at home by creating a terrorist breeding ground in a country that was not a haven for Islamic fundamentalists before we invaded it. It seems too ironic to be true, but after our Nation was attacked on 9/11 by Islamic fundamentalists, the Bush administration's response was to bomb and kill civilians in one of the few countries in the Middle East that was actually inhospitable to Islamic fundamentalists. Speaking of justice, there is no justice in an operation that has caused the deaths of over 1,400 Americans and untold thousands of Iraqis for the purely ideological reason that our leader did not like their leader. Nor do we serve the cause of freedom by killing innocent people in a country that did not ask for our help, by destroying a nation's roads, schools and hospitals; and in the process we have created a playground for Islamic fundamentalists. Freedom is very important to Americans, and I believe that the President's recent inaugural address made a mockery of the word ``freedom.'' He should ask the people of Iraq, many of whom have suffered because they lost a loved one or had a friend maimed by foreign bullets, just how free do they feel today. Some say that we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq to keep our troops there, that we not abandon them. This belief misses the point. Our very presence in Iraq is the cause of much of the violence. We have a moral responsibility to leave in order to stem the violence. We owe this to the people of Iraq, who have been killed by the thousands and thousands. We owe it to our troops who are sitting ducks for terrorists. That is why later today I will introduce legislation calling for a withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. In the 108th Congress I also introduced a SMART Security Resolution For the 21st Century, which calls for a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism. Adopting a smart approach to foreign policy will help us avoid the many mistakes that have characterized the war in Iraq. By supporting my call to bring the troops home, we will send a message to the President, one, asking that he develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq; two, develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure; three, convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and national guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and, finally, take all necessary steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to completely control their own internal affairs. Mr. Speaker, it is time we pursued a SMART security strategy for America, and we must do this by withdrawing our troops from Iraq. It is not too late to make the smart choice, the right choice, the choice to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lynn Victor of Santa Rosa, California, who retires after a remarkable 30-year career of creative and innovative work to improve the lives of low-income Americans. Beginning at the Community Action Council of San Joaquin County in the 1970s, Lynn created innovative solutions to the needs of low-income communities. As energy costs rose, she helped to develop and then administered the nation's first home weatherization programs funded by state regulated utility companies. Based on its great success, regulated utility companies in 22 states now provide weatherization services to millions of their low-income customers around the Nation. These programs not only help disadvantaged families reduce their energy costs, they also conserve energy for America, helping toward energy self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Lynn then went on to design the Nation's first education program to help low-income and non-English speaking communities understand the deregulation of the telephone industry, enabling them to obtain and keep vital telephone service at the lowest possible cost. She designed a program to help millions of low-income people understand the privacy and security implications of new telephone technology. In this effort, she created education materials in 32 languages and Braille so that, for the first time, major telephone companies were able to reach California's huge immigrant populations through community action agencies, domestic violence shelters and other community based organizations. Once again, this program became a model for utility companies throughout the nation to understand and address the needs of their hard-to-reach customers and bring them important consumer protection information. Lynn's work has always featured collaborations with Community Action Agencies (CAAs) our Nation's network of over 1,000 anti-poverty agencies that serve millions of low-income Americans. CAA's operate Head Start, Energy Assistance Programs, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and other services that reach millions of disadvantaged Americans. For the past 4 years, Lynn has worked as Executive Director of the California/Nevada Community Action Partnership, helping this two state association of CAAs address the causes and symptoms of poverty in their communities. An immigrant born in England, Lynn grew up in New Zealand, arriving in America in 1963. As a single parent of Michael, Lizabeth and Kristina Victor, Lynn had many hardships to face with no family to turn to. However, she found her new family in her community. Mr. Speaker, as innovator, organizer and inspiration, this remarkable woman exemplifies the spirit of American immigrants who contribute so much to the vibrancy of our Nation. She is leaving her post having set a new standard for all who will follow after her, and she has put into place programs that will serve the neediest of us well in the future. Thank you, Lynn.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Janie Walsh, who is retiring as the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission after 30 years of dedicated service to her community. In high school, Ms. Walsh lived in Vietnam, where her interest in community service took root. She has returned periodically to implement programs sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of California such as helping to build a school, and providing eyeglasses to those in need. Ms. Walsh began her career in Pennsylvania as a teacher and Head Start director. Her move to California saw a change of direction in her career as she began the important work of community development. As the Redevelopment Project Manager in the City of Petaluma she began the City's housing rehabilitation program. She moved on to the Sonoma County Housing Authority as Community Development Specialist and was quickly promoted to Community Development Manager. In 1985 the Board of Supervisors appointed her as Executive Director of the Community Development Commission where she has done an outstanding job supervising Sonoma County's Housing Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and a wide range of community development and affordable housing programs. Ms. Walsh has also served as Senior Vice President and President of the Pacific Southwest Regional Council of the National Association of Housing Officials (NAHRO), where she worked closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on major changes in legislation and regulations that affect housing and community development agencies. Upon retirement, Ms. Walsh and her husband, John Humphrey, are planning to move to the country and raise grapes and honeybees. She plans to spend time with her two adult sons, Philip and John, and her young grandsons. Ms. Walsh is looking forward to some international travel, particularly a trip to visit her roots in Ireland. Mr. Speaker, Janie Walsh is a woman who has made a positive impact on those around her. She has led the Community Development Commission with an attitude of compassion and respect for clients and community that permeates the entire agency. I am proud to honor her and wish her well in this new chapter of her life.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the United States military to leave Iraq. Even though I was not a supporter of our role in Iraq in the first place, this is not a statement that I make lightly, nor is it a decision that I arrived at easily. But now, more than ever, I am convinced that it is the right decision. Not all Members of Congress supported the war in Iraq, but we all have to live with its consequences. The global havoc wreaked by this war will affect the world in ways that we can only imagine. And as I said, as someone who did not support the invasion of Iraq from the outset, I still believed at first, once we had invaded them, that the United States had a moral responsibility to assist the Iraqi people as they struggled to rebuild their war-torn country. But it has become all too clear now that the presence of the nearly 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, rather than helping to bring about stability and political independence, is actually stifling the country's ability to develop into a flourishing democracy. That is why tomorrow I will introduce legislation calling for a withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq. I believe that it is the presence in Iraq of our military that has engendered so much hatred of the United States throughout the Muslim world. We talk of holding free elections in Iraq, but we cannot hold free elections when the very country yearning to be free is under the thumb of more than 150,000 foreign troops. Democracy cannot be forced from the barrel of a gun. Instead of issuing an arbitrary date for holding elections, why not let the Iraqi people themselves determine when they are ready to knock on democracy's door? That way, at least we would adhere to the very democratic principles we are trying to export to the Middle East. There are some that say we need to remain in Iraq until we are sure we have destroyed every last remnant of Iraqi's growing insurgency. The United States has faced this kind of elusive enemy before, in places like Vietnam in the 1970s and the Philippines in the early 1900s. We learned then and we should know now that this is a battle that we cannot win, because it is a battle that is not fought on a traditional battlefield. Bullets will not win this war, because for every insurgent killed, three more sign up to fill his shoes. The suicide bombers of tomorrow are born from the bombed-out homes of Iraq's war zones of today. We have to be smarter than the insurgents if we wish to see a free and democratic Iraq. In the end, withdrawing our forces is the smarter option. This is not a suggestion that our troops have failed. It is an acknowledgment that the military option itself has failed us. It is a recognition that we need to address the root causes of the Iraq insurgency instead of watching America become further bogged down in an unwinnable war. In the 108th Congress I introduced a SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century which called for a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. Adopting this type of foreign policy will help us avoid the many mistakes that have been characterized in the war in Iraq. SMART security calls for the United States to address the root causes of terrorism by engaging our international partners and the humanitarian community in international reconstruction and political transition processes. SMART security calls for increased developmental aid programs, integrated with peace-building and conflict-resolution measures. By withdrawing U.S. military forces from Iraq, we can spend some of the billions of dollars which formerly paid for military operations on humanitarian projects for the Iraqi people, such as new schools for Iraq's children, water desalination plants and improved economic and civil infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the United States must stop engaging in a reckless national security strategy, because our current path only encourages further terrorist activities. It costs Americans in our taxes, in our loss of our loved ones. It costs our international reputation, and it makes our troops sitting ducks. It is time we pursue the SMART security strategy for America. That is the best way to secure Iraq, and it is the best way to keep America safe and secure for the future. If we do not, all we will be left with is the consequences of our current failed policies.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is the second Presidential election in a row in which serious, well-documented concerns have been raised about disenfranchisement and voting rights violations without any congressional investigation. This is the second time, and this time, it must be different. The United States is supposed to be a beacon of freedom, the greatest democracy in the world. Yet we cannot seem to guarantee that the votes of our citizens are counted. This past election there was everything from votes outnumbering voters in some precincts to blatant voter intimidation in other precincts. It is time that we investigate these serious violations because they are violations to our democracy. There is an irony here, a very tragic irony. Yes, indeed, we are sacrificing American lives and billions of dollars to try to establish democracy in Iraq. Yet we cannot seem to get our own democracy in order right here at home. This is not about which candidate won, which candidate lost on November 2. It is not about politics at all. It is about citizens and their most fundamental rights. The recommendations put together by the minority Members of this House must be followed, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that our efforts to ensure every vote counts come together before the next election. And if we do not, why would any American bother to vote? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when I opened my holiday cards this season, one in particular stood out. It was bigger than the others. It was more colorful. It had several pictures instead of just one. It was from the Matsui family, and just about every picture included young Anna Matsui, Bob's only grandchild. The love that this man had for his family, and this little girl in particular, practically jumped off the page. It saddens me deeply that Anna won't grow up knowing more of her grandpa, but I am certain that her parents and her grandmother will not let her forget him. She will grow up strengthened by his leadership, his integrity, and his kindness. I couldn't look at Anna's pictures without thinking that, when Bob was her age, he was living in an internment camp with other Japanese- Americans who had been rounded up and incarcerated after the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was, of course, one of the great stains on our Nation's history, and Bob spent his public life trying to somehow correct that ugly injustice. I imagine that Bob's connection to Anna was stronger because his own early years were so unsettled, because he wanted his granddaughter to have a childhood full of innocence and happy memories. Bob Matsui stood out in this Chamber--for his policy intellect; for his sense of compassion and justice; for the esteem he earned on both sides of the aisle; but most of all for his fundamental decency. That decency was apparent in his work, whether he was securing flood protection for Sacramento or fighting for Social Security. And there's no question that we'll miss Bob Matsui's expertise as we debate the future of Social Security this year. There was no separation between Bob Matsui's private virtues and public virtues. They were one and the same. He treated everyone with respect; he didn't raise his voice a lot; he was a lot more steak than sizzle. To be honest, these are qualities that are not in abundance around here these days. I hope that our memories of Bob Matsui will lead us to conduct ourselves with greater civility in this new Congress. Very few of us knew that Bob was sick, which is why the news of his death came as such a shock. But that modesty was consistent with the way Bob lived. Rather than go public with his illness, he preferred simply to be surrounded by the love of his family. Of course, even the most unassuming among us have another side to them. As I was reading the obituary in the Sacramento Bee, I was taken aback by one friend's remembrance--of a shirtless Bob Matsui in the stands at a Cal football game rabidly rooting for his team and challenging the other team's fans. Now, if you asked the Members of this body to rank their colleagues in order of most likely to remove their shirt off at a football game . . . Bob would've finished close to 435th of 435. And remember that includes more than 70 women. Our thoughts and prayers are with Bob's wife, Doris Matsui, whom all of us know as an impressive advocate and public servant in her own right. And with Brian, Amy and Anna Matsui and everyone who loved this dear man. Bob Matsui--rest in peace.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, not all Members of Congress supported the war in Iraq, but we all have to live with its consequences. The global havoc wreaked by this war will affect the world in ways that we can only imagine today. Let us not forget that more than 1,200 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Over 9,000 have been wounded, and an estimated 16,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of this war. In fact, 16,000 is probably a very low estimate. The growing Iraqi insurgency, like the global War on Terror, cannot be won by being stronger than the insurgents. We cannot win this war with guns and bombs, because for every insurgent we kill, three more sign up. We have to be smarter than the insurgents. We are going to win this battle of conflicting ideologies only if we use our good senses and our good hearts. We know that the anger at the heart of the Iraqi insurgency stems from, at least in part, a deep resentment over the American presence in their country. After years of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime, the Iraqi people see the United States as just another occupying force. We have to make a choice in Iraq. Do we want to address the root causes of the insurgency or do we want to continue down our current path, shooting and bombing everything in sight and perpetually fighting a losing battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? We must reopen the debate about the situation in Iraq to determine why our current policies are not working. We must figure out why the insurgency continues to grow despite our military efforts. Only through a robust, public dialogue can we begin to get to the bottom of these questions. To address the root cause of terrorism around the world, such as the current insurgency in Iraq, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. SMART security calls for the United States to address the root causes of terrorism by engaging our United Nations partners, by engaging also the world humanitarian community and all of our United States allies in the international and civilian-led reconstruction and political transition processes that we are involved in. Can my colleagues imagine what Iraq might look like if, instead of rushing to invade the country, we had waited just a few months and continued to engage the rest of the world community in the weapons inspection process? We would have learned that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. We would have prevented the deaths of thousands of American troops and innocent Iraqi civilians. Imagine if, after the invasion, we had allowed other Nations and the U.N. to partner with the United States in engaging the Iraqis in the reconstruction program. We would not be faced with billions of dollars of debt because the finances of cleanup would have been offset by dozens of other donor Nations. SMART security calls for increased developmental aid for programs that are integrated with peace building and conflict prevention measures. Unfortunately, we are struggling to provide funds for Iraqi's development because we are too busy paying for military operations, and the insurgents are busy working against our every effort in that regard. Already, the White House has asked Congress to pilfer $3 billion from Iraq's reconstruction funds in order to pay for military operations. That request represents a complete failure to adequately plan and prepare for this war. Mr. Speaker, the United States must stop engaging in this reckless national security strategy, a strategy whose current path only encourages future terrorist activities. It is time we pursued a SMART security strategy for America, a strategy that will secure Iraq, a strategy that will keep America safe and secure for the future, because, if we do not, all we will be left with are the consequences of our current failed policies.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are removing language that allows Appropriations Committee members and their staff to look at citizen's tax returns. This language was in a 3,500 page spending bill, which Members only had hours to review before voting. Privacy was at stake here and it is right to correct this wrong. But another provision in this bill also threatens privacy. The privacy of women and their conversations with their doctors. The Federal Refusal Clause language inserted in this bill robs women of their right to access comprehensive health care. No matter how you look at it, this provision goes one step further by making it impossible for women to exercise their reproductive choices and once again subjects them to the wrath of the anti-choice movement. This was a misguided measure that has dangerous implications for women's reproductive health and for our health care system as a whole. If we were truly correcting the bad policy inserted in this bill we would be removing this language as well. Mr. Speaker, our constituents want us to get it right the first time around. Let's not make a mistake now that we have a second chance. I urge my colleagues to support the removal of this anti-choice, anti- privacy language.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I voted against H. Res. 853, because I am disappointed with the Boy Scouts of America's exclusionary policies that prevent gay boys and teens from participating in scouting. While the Boy Scouts' positive work within our nation's communities is notable, the message that the organization sends to gay children and teens by shutting them out diminishes its greater goals of teaching respect, personal honor, and service. It is important to encourage and support all of our children and by excluding gay youth the Boy Scouts of America is preventing every young man from experiencing the positive benefits Scouting can offer.