Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Duke Ellington has been called the ``quintessential American composer'' and is one of the greats of world music history. He brought a great deal of refinement and elegance to jazz. His first piano lessons began around the age of 7, but it took seeing a few great live performances to cement his commitment to music. The Duke found piano playing jobs at clubs and cafes throughout the Washington, D.C. area. In late 1917, he formed his first group. By the late 1920s, his band became the most sought after band in the United States. Duke Ellington and his band played everywhere from New York to New Delhi, Chicago to Cairo, Los Angeles to London. Duke Ellington and his band played with Miles Davis, Cab Calloway, Dizzy Gillespie, Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett, and Louis Armstrong, and entertained everyone from queens to Presidents. Thirty years ago, Washington, D.C. honored the Duke by renaming a high school the Duke Ellington School of Arts. I am pleased that today we will again honor the Duke by passing this resolution which came to us through the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who knows good music when she hears it. This resolution commemorates Duke Ellington's life and work, and supports the annual Duke Ellington Jazz Festival on the mall. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration loves to tout George W. Bush's willingness to stay the course as the source of his strength as a President. Day after day, the President and his surrogates use this ``resolve'' to demonstrate why he should be reelected. The sad truth is that President Bush's resolve amounts to little more than a campaign tool to disguise the fact that his administration's policies have increasingly made Americans far less safe in the world. The President's resolve is actually nothing more than his attempt to lead our Nation while wearing blinders. President Bush failed to demonstrate resolve in fighting terrorism in the days before the September 11 terrorist attack. In fact, he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for the entire month of August in the year 2001, neglecting to act on his daily intelligence briefings which specifically warned against terrorists crashing planes into large city buildings. Since September 11, President Bush has continued to fail in his resolve to fight international terrorism. Despite a promise to apprehend Osama bin Laden, dead or alive, President Bush actually pulled troops out of Afghanistan in the year 2002. This grave error allowed the al Qaeda leader to flee to the shadowy hinterlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Early in 2002, with bin Laden still on the loose, President Bush turned his attention to Iraq. Citing the threat of Iraq's nuclear weapons program and Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaeda, Bush marshaled a war resolution through Congress. Resolve, however, was not enough to win the support of the United Nations; so our President, determined to stop Iraq's supposed nuclear threat, went to Iraq with the support of only a loose and fragmented coalition of other countries. Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and no evidence has ever linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Still, the President's handlers point to his resolve as a source of strength. Strength for whom? The terrorists who have escaped from America's grasp as we shamefully turned our attention to Iraq? The leaders of Iran and North Korea who continue to develop the deadliest weapons known to man? Resolve, as thousands of insurgents savagely attack our soldiers and Iraqi civilians? Resolve, as more than 1,000 American soldiers and at least 13,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are killed in Iraq? And let us not forget about the more than 7,000 U.S. soldiers who have been gravely wounded. Where is the resolve to protect our troops? I, for one, am sick and tired of the White House calling it resolve when President Bush continues to focus on Iraq at the expense of other, more important issues. Today the House voted to reallocate $3.4 billion of last year's $18.4 billion supplemental, using it for military purposes instead of for Iraq's reconstruction. So now we are forced to pilfer money that is supposed to pay for infrastructure needs for the Iraqi people. This, after spending less than $2 billion of the $18.4 billion allocated for Iraq's reconstruction in the first place. I do not consider that resolve; I consider it malignant neglect of an entire country's needs. There has to be a better way to handle the quagmire in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships, and it controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. If we had pursued a SMART security strategy in the first place, America would not be embroiled in this violent situation in Iraq. Let us not forget that Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapons program and Iraq did not have ties to al Qaeda. Instead of blindly focusing our country's resources on a conflict that has nothing to do with American security, President Bush should take off his blinders and focus on the real threats to our country. How can we be secure if our public schools are failing our children and 40 million Americans lack health insurance? How can we be secure when our President's shameful tax cuts force our children to repay America's debt for the next several decades?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every day at least four hate crimes are reported in the United States, at least four. But even worse are the crimes that are not reported. They are not reported out of fear of retaliation or feeling that law enforcement just will not follow through. That is why we need tough Federal hate crime language to protect all Americans, and we need to include it in the Department of Defense authorization bill. If we do that, then the lack of response will change because no one in this country should live in fear, even for one day, because of his or her ethnic background, his or her religious affiliation, gender, disability, or sexual preference. Mr. Speaker, that is why it is so important to pass meaningful hate crimes legislation and pass it now, today; and today we can send a message to all Americans that hateful behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated any longer. It is clear that existing Federal law is inadequate to vigorously fight and prosecute hate crimes. Too often our law enforcement officials lack the resources and/or the education required to deal with these crimes. They do not have what they need within their own communities to step up to these criminal charges. In California, for example, a report called ``Reporting Hate Crimes,'' a study commissioned by Attorney General Bill Lockyear, reveals there is a general lack of understanding by California law enforcement agencies on how to deal with hate crimes in local communities. The study found that in some communities, and this is horrible, in some communities public officials and business leaders actually discourage law enforcement officers from reporting hate crimes for fear of adverse publicity. If law enforcement officers do not report hate crimes, what in the world happens to their credibility when they are supposed to be addressing the problem in the first place? Their credibility diminishes. What is even more alarming is that hate crimes based on gender and disability are generally not reported at all. It is obvious we need hate crimes language in the Department of Defense authorization bill. We need it now. We need not have one person ever faced with a hate crime based on who they are. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, all of us who have listened to the suspension debates just before the Special Orders have to acknowledge that there are not nearly enough post offices in this country to honor all of those who have fallen as heroes in Iraq. We have to do something about that. In fact, when it comes to Iraq, the White House does not seem to know which way is up. Instead of relying on facts and truth, the Bush administration has two-timed the American people by relying on doublespeak, innuendos and, worst of all, bald-faced lies. Last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that Iraq's elections will occur in January of 2005 regardless of what happens on the ground there. Even if half of Iraq's provinces are under the control of insurgents, preventing Iraqis from getting to the polls, elections will still take place. Secretary Rumsfeld validated this type of sham election by saying that, and I quote him, no election is perfect. Does that mean he would endorse an American Presidential election if only 25 of 50 States were able to participate? Then again, perhaps that is exactly what this administration would endorse. Subsequent to Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks, Secretary of State Colin Powell had to slow down the administration's gears regarding the election issue, stating that the country must be secure for elections to take place. On ABC's ``This Week'' program, Secretary Powell also stated that, ``Yes, it's getting worse in Iraq. We have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.'' Getting worse in Iraq? That is one of the biggest understatements yet from the administration that specializes in understatements. During the past 2 weeks, 29 United States soldiers and at least 250 Iraqis have been killed, not to even mention how many of our troops have been severely wounded. U.S. forces now face 70 attacks by insurgents daily. That is up from 40 to 50 hostile incidents that occurred each day before the U.S. transferred authority to Iraq's interim government. Contrast Secretary Powell's comments about Iraq with the unnecessarily rosy statements given by President Bush and his mouthpiece in Iraq, interim Iraqi President Ayad Allawi. Despite a disturbing wave of violence in the past several weeks, our President recently stated that Iraq is showing signs of steady progress. He has also made the outrageous claim that only a relative few of the 25 million Iraqis are trying to stop the march of freedom. In fact, there are thousands of insurgents fighting the American forces in Iraq and there are likely many, many more thousands who are sympathetic to the insurgency. Nobody should be surprised by the Bush administration's doublespeak on this issue, because the White House has actually gotten quite good at lying directly to the American people while somehow managing to keep a straight face. President Bush delivers only good news, like declaring the mission accomplished aboard a giant Navy ship. He paints an optimistic picture of Iraq, saying that the violence is decreasing in scope and intensity. Then the White House dispatches someone like Colin Powell to deliver the truth that Iraq is actually still mired in chaos and violence and that anti-Americanism is on the rise. It amounts to nothing less than an institutionalized method of a White House that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, telling lies to the American people. Lies instead of truth, in spite of the deaths of more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers, at least 13,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, and let us not forget about the more than 7,000 gravely wounded U.S. troops who have lost arms and legs and an inner peace they may never recover. I wonder if these individuals would agree with President Bush's assessment of steady progress in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way of handling the quagmire in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. If we had been following the SMART security, we would not be in Iraq in the first place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Rahall), the gentlewoman from Guam (Ranking Member Bordallo) and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Chairman Radanovich) and the House leadership for allowing us to consider this piece of legislation. This is legislation that is very important to my district and to the San Francisco Bay Area. As my colleagues may know, I have worked for the past 2 years with the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation and the gentlewoman from California (Leader Pelosi) in an effort to preserve the historic Angel Island Immigration Station located just east of Sausalito in the San Francisco Bay. This landmark is a high priority because of what it means to Asian Americans. Many of my colleagues are familiar with the symbolism of Ellis Island to European Americans. Well, the same feelings of history and pride can be equated to the Americans of Asian heritage on the west coast, because Angel Island was the first American soil most Asian immigrants stepped on. With over 1 million people being processed through the site, millions of Asian descendants nationwide are eager to see their roots in this country honored in the same way that we honor Ellis Island. In addition, Angel Island Immigration Station also houses a unique literary display of Asian American culture. The walls of the main building hold layers of poetry reflecting the record of hardship endured and the indignities suffered by the early Chinese as they were being processed into America. If these walls crumble, we would lose this one-of-a-kind documentation forever. Because of its rich history, the site is currently used as a teaching tool for students and a museum for visitors. Hundreds of schoolchildren and researchers make the trip out to the site each year by ferry, by the way, to learn about its rich history. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the Foundation to find additional sources of funding for the restoration project to ensure future generations can learn from this site. The current estimate to preserve it is over $30 million. With $16 million already raised through grants, State funding and private donations, $15 million is still needed. With no more grants to pursue and the State of California contributing close to half of the funding, it is important that we allow the Federal Government to become a part of this preservation effort, and that is what we are doing today, and I thank my colleagues for that. The Angel Island Immigration Station Restoration and Preservation Act, with over 45 bipartisan cosponsors, will simply allow the Angel Island Immigration Station to retain its status as a State-owned facility, while allowing the preservation project to receive Federal dollars. Passing this legislation will put us one step closer to protecting this site forever. Among the strongest supporters in this effort are the gentlewoman from California (Minority Leader Pelosi) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). Also, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of Katherine Toy and Irene Bueno on behalf of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation. All of their hard work on this bill has been critical to moving it forward. In addition, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for introducing identical legislation in the other body. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues again for allowing us to debate this important bill. The supporters are dedicated to this project and will continue to work passionately to help others learn and understand the story of the Angel Island Immigration Station. We urge our colleagues to join us and vote yes on H.R. 4469.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' Partnership for a New America is a lot about helping American families. There is no better way to help working American families than to support them as they struggle to balance work and family life, because workers need help addressing how to be both a good parent and a good employee, how to give their family the time they need without compromising their job or their career. The Partnership with America will improve the lives of working families by encouraging debate on legislation like the Balancing Act. This Balancing Act will provide paid family leave for new parents, improve the quality and availability of child care, in-school nutrition programs, after school assistance, fund voluntary universal preschool and assist employers in establishing a family-friendly workplace. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing the needs of all families, thus having a true partnership with Americans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in June of this year, the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water bravely stood up to the Bush White House by reducing, or flat out rejecting all of the administration's requests for nuclear weapons funding in its fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill. This subcommittee's move, under the sensible leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is one of the only bipartisan instances of Members of Congress standing up to the heavy-handed Bush administration since this President took office in January of 2001. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water wisely rejected White House requests of nearly $70 million for research and development of new nuclear weapons. Specifically, the White House requested $28 million for research on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, otherwise known as the Bunker Buster; $30 million for planning a modern pit facility to produce new plutonium triggers; and $9 million for a new nuclear weapons initiative. Moreover, the new energy and water appropriations bill in its current form would reduce the administration's request for the Cruise Missile warhead by $40 million and limit funds for all nuclear stockpile activities. In total, the subcommittee's changes would save American taxpayers over $150 million. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) said the Bush administration's requests, quoting the chairman here, ``were technically questionable and frankly unnecessarily provocative in the international arena.'' He went on to say, ``They also cost a bunch of money.'' ``Unnecessarily provocative'' are the key words here. Despite the unnecessarily provocative nature of these requests for new nuclear weapons, the Bush administration is trying to force the funding through anyway. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham outlined their concerns about the lack of funding for new nuclear weapons in a recent letter to the Republican House leadership in an attempt to dismiss entirely the tried and true appropriations process. Of course, they did not send this letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) or his counterpart, Senator Pete Domenici, unless the letters got lost in the mail. To me, it seems like the Bush administration is up to its usual tricks. Mr. Speaker, this White House has demonstrated nothing but callous disregard for the Congress and the congressional process. President Bush and his cohorts have given no pause when it comes to freezing out anyone who will not toe the line on their fiscally unsound, budget- busting spending plans. When it comes to nuclear weapons in particular, President Bush just does not get it. Instead of investing in programs that will truly secure America, like nonproliferation initiatives and vigorous inspection regimes whenever possible, President Bush has spent America's money on more and bigger weapons, in an attempt, I believe, to be tough and also to avoid working with other nations. Sometimes it seems like the Oval Office is run by a third grade bully. How many nuclear weapons can the United States possibly need? We already possess 9,000 strategic warheads. Do we really need to spend another $150 million to develop new weapons systems? Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, because investing in new nuclear weapons does not prevent America from being attacked. In fact, it encourages a nuclear attack, because such investments incite our enemies and encourage other nations, like Iran, to develop nuclear weapons of their own. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, a Smart Security Platform For America's future. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. Instead of a renewed buildup of nuclear weapons, SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements and inspection regimes. Being smart about national security requires the United States to set an example for young democracies so that they can follow. The U.S. must renounce first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. The Bush doctrine of arrogant nuclear proliferation has been tried and it has failed. Instead of engaging in a nuclear arms race for the 21st century, the United States must engage in a SMART security strategy for the 21st century.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve McNamara of Mill Valley, California, for his 39 years as editor and publisher of the award-winning and innovative weekly newspaper, the Pacific Sun. Steve purchased the paper in 1966, and developed it into a newsweekly known for its quality writing, environmental advocacy, commitment to journalistic integrity, and strong relationships with the communities it serves. The Pacific Sun, under Steve's leadership, set a national standard for how local newspapers can influence the fabric of a community. The paper told stories about local people and took positions on important social issues, fulfilling its mission ``to cover events of ongoing significance with clarity, intelligence, style, and wit.'' The Sun was an influential player in opposing unfortunate environmental projects such as building a nuclear power plant at Bodega Bay on the San Andreas Fault and filling in Richardson Bay for Los Angeles style marinas. Steve also promoted the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore, preserving the beautiful Marin county coast as a jewel of the national park system rather than home to thousands of commercial and residential sites. He successfully championed the building of a new civic center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, now the pride of Mann County, and was prophetic, though unsuccessful, in encouraging development of a solar village at Hamilton Air Force Base. Steve has always believed that the written word should be celebrated. More importantly, he has always stuck to the notion that ideas and activities should be reported on what he calls the ``human scale''-- focusing on small, tangible issues and activities to which people can relate. During his career at the Sun, he was passionate about reporting local events, local politics and social issues, and local people. Steve was able to bring these elements together, and by doing so, he helped make up the fabric of the community. Prior to purchasing the Sun in 1966, Steve was the Sunday editor of the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle. He had also been the executive sports editor of The Examiner, a writer covering Grand Prix auto racing in Europe for Car and Driver Magazine, and a reporter and editor at The Miami Herald and Winston-Salem Journal. Steve became the first president of the National Association of Alternative Newsweeklys (now AAN), which has nearly 130 member papers and was a founding president of the California Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (Cal-AAN), president of the California Society of Newspaper Editors and a member of the board of the California Newspapers Association. After 50 years in journalism, 39 of them at the Pacific Sun, Steve made his decision to sell the Pacific Sun and move on to other projects at the age of 70. Steve is proud to have been a resident of Mill Valley for so many years. His five children, and especially his wife Kay, all had an active role in the paper at some point in their lives. With his family's help, Steve made the Pacific Sun a success, its reputation as the conscience of Marin County often contrasting with the area's daily newspaper. Mr. Speaker, Steve McNamara's record social activism, ethical reporting, and community leadership embodies the idea of living and working on the human scale, and as a result, Steve has become an important part of so many lives in the North Bay. I have enjoyed working with Steve and wish him luck in his new endeavors.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sister M. Samuel Conlan, who died July 11, 2004, at the age of 77. Sister Samuel served Dominican University of California in San Rafael in many capacities, including president, for many years. Her association with the school dates back to 1944 when she enrolled as a freshman. Sister Samuel was born Patricia Conlan in 1927 and took the name of her father, Samuel Leo Conlan Jr., when she entered the religious life with the Dominican Sisters of San Rafael in 1949. She taught for five years while earning a master's degree in English literature from Catholic University of America, then joined the faculty as an English professor. In 1963, she earned her doctorate from Stanford University. From 1968 to 1980 she served Dominican University as dean of students, academic dean, and eventually president. She is remembered for admitting male undergraduates to the all-girls college during her tenure, but to all who knew her, her contributions were so much greater. She inspired by bringing out the best in people, teaching by her example of faith and service. Her community work, which earned her an induction into the Marin County Women's Hall of Fame in 1995, included championing the needs of children in special education. Retired from teaching in 1997, Sister Samuel continued to serve Dominican University in various capacities until her death, including fundraising for a new chapel to be built on the campus. Mr. Speaker, Sister Samuel was a mentor and role model to generations of students and friends. Her guiding light will be missed in our community even as we know her spirit lives on in so many around the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Oak Grove Union School District on the occasion of its 150th anniversary. Established in 1854, the school district is the second oldest continuing school district in the state of California. Wm. M. Rider, the first teacher FOR whom records are available, in 1857 had a daily attendance of 18 students. By 1858, attendance grew to 32 children. Currently, the district has over 650 students in grades K- 8 supported by the two schools in the district: Oak Grove Elementary and Willowside School. For one hundred and fifty years, the Oak Grove School District has educated numerous generations in Graton. This excellence would not have been possible without the support and efforts of the teachers, parents and community. The community supports and benefits from the environmental friendly program at the Oak Grove School. The school has reduced its landfill waste by nearly 90 percent. Students enjoy fresh vegetables and fruit grown from their own classroom gardens prepared by a volunteer teacher. The Oak Grove School District is integral to the community. The community shares in the learning experiences of the students as they test new ideas and understands that we must all work together to prepare our students to be our nation's future leaders. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Oak Grove School District for its commitment to extend education beyond the classroom and into the community for one hundred and fifty years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as thousands of our brave American soldiers continue to fight and die and receive serious wounds halfway around the world, I want to speak about two Iraqs that are presented to the American people. There is the Iraq that President Bush and his administration want people to see, the one that is supposedly one small step away from becoming a peaceful democracy. And then there is the real Iraq, the quagmire halfway around the world that the rest of us know. In President Bush's Iraq, the war was never a mistake, never a failure, and never something to question, much less regret. The same war, which as of today has caused the deaths of 1,027 American soldiers and seriously wounded at least seven times that many, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi civilians that have been killed, President Bush says he would have gone to war in Iraq even if had he known 2 years ago what he knows now. That means he would have gone to war knowing that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. He would have gone to war knowing that Saddam Hussein never harbored al Qaeda terrorists, and he would have gone to war knowing that thousands of our young soldiers would be killed. Somehow, and I do not know how, somehow President Bush fails to recognize the death, destruction, and deprivation that his war has caused. The rest of us see a different Iraq than President Bush. In the real Iraq, America preemptively waged a war that was never a war of necessity and never a war to protect our Nation. Instead, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress led this country into a war that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently called ``illegal.'' In the real Iraq, hundreds of soldiers have died because they were not given the battle armor that would have stopped bullets from entering their bodies, even after Congress made funds available for that very specific purpose. This was a drastic mistake made by the Pentagon. In the real Iraq, President Bush, as Commander in Chief, has failed to properly address the insurgency that is killing scores of troops and civilians every day. This is a failure that could have and should have been addressed during the planning stages of the war. In the past week, four Republican Senators have bucked their party line and acknowledged the sweeping problems that exist in the real Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said, ``I don't think we're winning . . . we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble.'' Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went further. When asked why only $1 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for Iraq's reconstruction has been spent, he said, ``Well, this is the incompetence of the administration.'' This did not have to be an unmitigated disaster. But Iraq is woefully unstable largely due to planning failures by the Bush administration: the failure to enlist most of our allies as partners in the war, the failure to anticipate the anger and intensity of the insurgency, and the failure to allocate the billions of dollars in reconstruction funds that could have helped secure that country. Fortunately, we have opportunities to fix this awful mess. Earlier this week Senator John Kerry offered a better, smarter solution to fixing the real problems in Iraq. John Kerry's plan includes soliciting and enlisting support from our allies, properly training Iraq's security forces, and carrying out a viable reconstruction plan that truly involves the Iraqi people, instead of giving companies like Halliburton the benefit of America's investment, while leaving Iraqi companies without contracts and the Iraqi people without jobs. We need to engage in smarter policies if we want to stop the bleeding in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, to create a smarter security resolution for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. With SMART security, we would not be in the mess that we are in today. SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships, and it controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year people from around the world saw photographs of the mistreatment, the torture, the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners that took place at Abu Ghraib. If anti- American sentiment was not strong enough after the United States invaded a country that never had weapons of mass destruction and never once threatened us, these callous images of American soldiers torturing prisoners sealed the deal. Still, Bush administration officials deny any responsibility for the actions of these soldiers. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shamefully called it the action of ``a few bad apples.'' This scandal continues to get worse. It has come to light in recent months that prisoners also have been abused in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and, moreover, evidence was uncovered earlier this week indicating American abuse of Iraqi prisoners in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. An American inquiry into the prisoner abuse uncovered the existence of ghost detainees, prisoners hidden from International Red Cross inspectors and kept off the inmate list of each prison, and military personnel have indicated that the number of ghost detainees may total in the hundreds. Even someone who does not closely follow the quagmire in Iraq would readily acknowledge the real possibility that the widespread prisoner abuse may not be the unfortunate actions of just a few bad apples. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly suggest that prison bias by U.S. forces has been coordinated by the Bush administration. The New Yorker Magazine recently detailed a high level Pentagon plan to encourage physical coercion, otherwise known as torture, of Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to produce intelligence about the post-war insurgency in Iraq. If abusing prisoners is not quite official U.S. policy, the widespread nature of these crimes indicate that they were at least deemed acceptable at the highest levels of command. Perhaps the few bad apples are located at the Pentagon and in the White House, not serving in Iraq. Sadly, it has become obvious that while a few soldiers are standing trial for the prison abuse, the Bush administration and the Republicans in this House have no plans whatsoever to hold any high ranking officials accountable for these terrible misdeeds. In fact, the House Republican leadership refuses to hold hearings on this subject. The House GOP leaders could learn something from the Senate, which has readily investigated this widespread scandal, and it does appear from their hearings to extend to the highest levels of our government. What has President Bush done about this situation? Absolutely nothing. The White House continues to deny, dodge and deflect any and all rumors that individuals in the administration may have been involved at any level in the prison abuse scandal. Mr. Speaker, there must be a better way, because the current method of hiding prisoners from humanitarian agencies and using vicious attack dogs to help conduct so-called prisoner interrogations is further hindering the war on terror and encouraging anti-American sentiment around the world. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 3792, a SMART security platform for the 21st century. My SMART plan will keep America safe. SMART stands for sensible multi-lateral American response to terrorism. SMART means interrogation, not torture. It encourages open government, not a secretive government that fails to investigate and covers its own back. SMART security encourages negotiations and leadership, not aggression and unilateralism. SMART invests in developmental and humanitarian aid for the most impoverished nations, not an expensive and unproven missile defense system and certainly not the inhumane treatment of prisoners. The situation in Iraq requires the best America has to offer. SMART security, accordingly, relies on the very best of America, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multi-lateral leadership. SMART security treats war as a last resort to be considered only after every diplomatic alternative has been exhausted, and it controls the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment of nonproliferation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor United Against Sexual Assault (UASA) of Sonoma County on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. Founded in 1974 as Women Against Rape, the agency consisted of a phone number to call for emotional support. Today that crisis line operates 24 hours a day, and the organization has 12 board members, 14 paid staff, and more than 40 volunteers who address the problems related to all forms of sexual assault. Over the past 30 years, UASA as greatly expanded the services offered to the people of Sonoma County. It provides extensive training on helping victims, including not only women and girls, but also men, children, and the families of victims. Staff and volunteers also accompany victims and their families for police reporting, court appearances, medical exams, or other personal situations. Prevention programs include outreach to elementary through high school youths, reaching approximately 6,000 young people every year, as well as parents and school personnel. Other efforts include bilingual outreach to Hispanic teens, teen peer education training, anti-racism curriculum which deals with violence against the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/ Transgender community, and a unique men's program featuring men educating men. All services are offered at no cost. UASA also plays a key role in the county's pioneering SART (sexual assault response team) which unites law enforcement, mental health, legal, and advocacy programs to support victims and families. This collaborative project makes services easily accessible and minimizes the stress felt by victims. The agency is also working with the District Attorney's office to establish a county-wide Family Justice Center by 2005. In May 2004, Executive Director Gloria Young was named ``Outstanding Director of the Year'' by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault for shepherding the agency through many of these transitions. Mr. Speaker, UASA's long-term mission is to eliminate all forms of sexual assault. I know that with its inspired leadership, dedicated staff, and committed volunteers United Against Sexual Assault of Sonoma County has brought our community a long way toward achieving this goal and will not be satisfied until they have reached it. I salute UASA on their 30th anniversary and look forward to the day when their services are no longer needed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act before us today I believe sets a very dangerous civil rights precedent. I take this personally, because I raised four, now grown, children, and each and every one of them was an athlete, from competitive skater to All American football player, and I cannot imagine what our family would have been like if they had not been able to use their energy in sports. I cannot imagine the learning experience they would have missed if they had been faced with some unfair practice or decision that I could not challenge if that would have kept them out of athletics. So I think what we are setting up here is the possibility of unfair practices and policies when I do not believe there is a need. This bill attempts to protect nonprofit athletic organizations from liability arising from claims of negligence, but I believe it could do more than that. What I believe it does is protect organizations from actual legitimate lawsuits. What position does this put a parent in, when and if their daughter is told she cannot play soccer because she is not a boy? What does a parent do when their handicapped child is told they cannot be on a golf team because they cannot walk the course, but they could certainly get around the course in a wheelchair? While my children are now grown, they join me in wanting to have their children have every opportunity to play any sport. They know the value of their experience and they want all children, every child in this country, to have the same experiences that they had. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will prevent athletes from fighting for their rights to play, and that is just plain wrong. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3369.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight, I will read an article that was written by Joan Ryan, a columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle, that was in the newspaper on September 9, 2004. Joan was talking before a TV show, and she wrote an article about the conversation she had with Dolores Kesterson, and these are Joan's words: ``Dolores Kesterson wanted to know if I had read about the father in Florida. Dolores's 29- year-old son, Erik, her only child, was killed almost 10 months ago when his Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Mosul during a firefight. He had been in Iraq just 8 days. ``She found out the ways parents always find out, a knock on their door. For her, it came around 8:25 the night of November 15 as she was washing her dinner dishes. A man and a woman from the Army stood in the doorway. They gently suggested she sit down. `This father in Florida,' she was telling me, `when the Marines came to the door to tell him his son had died, took a hammer to their van, poured gasoline into it, set it on fire and got in.' '' Her face remained expressionless, but her eyes lifted to meet mine as if to say, do you get it? That is what it feels like. Later, during the show, I saw a picture of Eric: good-looking, square-jawed, and smiling. But what I really saw on the screen was my own son, my own only child. That is why we do not look too closely, I think, on those occasions when the names and photos of the dead appear in print. We do not want to get too close to that pain. That is why neighbors have been giving Kesterson a wide berth. They do not know what to say, but they also do not want to think too hard about what she has lost: not a soldier, but a boy, who once slept in footie pajamas, who waved at her from the merry-go-round, who liked her cooking more than any on Earth. The only way to make this war at all tolerable is to allow it to be a televised blur of road-side bombings, insurgent militia and thick reports issued from Washington at regular enough intervals to keep the talking heads occupied on the Sunday morning shows. When embedded reporters covered the start of this war, the big picture issues, namely, the shaky rationale for the war, were buried beneath the stories of individual military units. This is why embedding reporters was such a brilliant stroke. The unwavering focus on the grit and courage of the American soldiers made it nearly impossible to criticize the war publicly. Now that those soldiers are dying, the lens has gone panoramic. The farther we stay from Erik Kesterson and Steven Bridges and Jimmy Arroyave and Arron Clark and Ken Ballard, the easier to imagine that this war is not a horrifying disaster. The Bush administration is so determined to keep us from thinking about dead soldiers that it even will not allow photographs of flag- draped coffins being transported back to the United States. ``Maybe if everyone could see them, they would realize that they are somebody's children,'' one parent at the town hall meeting said, which is exactly the point. This administration would rather we not listen too closely to Mark Crowley tell us that his 18-year-old son, just 10 months out of high school, was killed on patrol, or that his gunner, who weathered six hits to his machine gun, was killed when the seventh bullet went through his head. It would rather we not listen to Cindy Sheehan holding her son's childhood Teddy bear, say that she sleeps only when she takes a pill, and even then, just 3 or 4 hours. ``It gets worse every day,'' she said Tuesday night. Her son, Casey, died in April. All of our children have given their futures, and our futures, Kesterson satisfied, finally raising her hand to speak on camera toward the end of the show: ``There will be no grandchildren. These young men had so much more to give. They could have been great. They are not just wooden pieces pushed around a war table like a game.'' Somewhere, there is a mother hearing on the news that there have been casualties in Mosul or Fallujah or Baghdad. She prays, ``Please, don't let it be my child.'' Maybe this time it will not be, but it is always somebody's child. The number of dead Americans in the Iraqi war passed the 1,000 mark this Tuesday, before the show's taping, and kept going. More knocks on the door, more gentle suggestions to sit down. Mr. Speaker, there is a smarter, safer way for America to conduct itself in Iraq. The course the Bush administration currently has us on is not it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today, this Congress committed a shameful act of omission. When today's congressional session ended, so too ended the assault weapons ban that has helped to keep our streets safe for the past decade. In 1994, President Clinton bravely ushered the assault weapons ban through Congress. This act took its political toll on not only President Clinton but also the Democratic Party, but he stuck to his guns, so to speak, and strongly supported passage of this important legislation. As a result, the use of military-style automatic weapons in crimes dropped from 4 percent in 1995, before the ban had taken effect, to 1 percent in the year 2002. In fact, according to the Department of Justice, the proportion of banned assault weapons traced to crimes has dropped by 66 percent since 1995. The refusal by the House Republican leadership to bring up an extension of the assault weapons ban and the failure of President Bush to push for its renewal is about much more than gun control. This issue is about nothing less than the very security of our Nation. Today's failure to extend this important law will make Americans less safe. In fact, al Qaeda, in their training manuals that were recovered from Afghanistan, specifically cited the ease of obtaining automatic rifles and machine guns in the United States. To many terrorists around the world, America is known as the great gun bazaar. Let us break down the facts: First, al Qaeda, our worst enemy, has specifically instructed terrorists on how to exploit America's gun laws to obtain the weapons they intend to use to kill Americans. Next, the United States had a proven and effective law on the books that made it difficult to purchase these deadly weapons, and this law needed to be renewed. Finally, President Bush, who claims to be a huge homeland security supporter, stayed silent. Why did he remain silent? Why did the President not act? I believe the answer is really pretty simple. The National Rifle Association, the NRA, refused to support President Bush's reelection bid until after the renewal date for the assault weapons ban came and went, that was today, came and went untouched by the White House. This President has been cowed by the NRA. The sad irony is that last week Vice President Dick Cheney made the outrageous claim that it is absolutely essential on November 2 that Americans make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we will get hit again. I quote that from the Vice President's remarks. This misleading connection in addition to insulting the intelligence of the American people wrongly asserts that a vote for John Kerry and John Edwards is a vote for terrorism. Instead, al Qaeda will be poised to hit us again because in large part on September 13, 2004, today, the Republican leadership has allowed Islamic militants and others to once again purchase American machine guns, all for the reelection of the President. How very, very shameful that is. If we truly want to secure our homeland, we need to pursue policies that are smarter than those that would decriminalize deadly weapons to elect someone to office. By the way, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the United States of America supports extending the ban. That is why I have introduced a new SMART security platform for the 21st century. H. Con. Res. 392 is legislation to create a sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. SMART security is stronger on national security than President Bush claims to be. SMART security will stop the sale of weapons to oppressive regimes and regimes involved in human rights abuses. SMART security will pursue enhanced inspection regimes and regional security arrangements to ensure that state sponsors of terrorism do not get ahold of more light weaponry, or even deadlier chemical or biological weapons. Let us talk for a moment about presidential flip-flops. When it comes to keeping assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists, George Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Miller overtime amendment, and I support it because it blocks the administration from gutting the income of working men and women, some earning as little as $23,000 a year. My Republican colleagues continue to proclaim, and we have heard it already this morning, that they are friends to working America. However, they and this administration are, I believe, the working Americans' greatest enemy. They say one thing. They do another. They are changing overtime policies to cheat millions of workers out of overtime pay. What they ought to be doing is investing in our Nation's infrastructure, creating jobs that pay a livable wage, strengthening job opportunities here at home, stopping the incentives for outsourcing the high-paid jobs in the United States of America. But, no, they continue their attacks on American workers. That is why we are considering a bill today that has failed to address the $265 million backlog of the Job Corps. Their facility renovations are essential to placing disadvantaged young adults into jobs. That is why the bill before us today cuts the employment service program which is the foundation for the Nation's one-stop employment and training service delivery system. That is why there is no increase for adult training programs or the title V community service employment program to aid low-income older workers. One hundred million dollars is being cut for the H-1B technical skills training program, which specifically was designed to reduce the Nation's reliance on foreign workers. Millions of dollars have been cut for activities to promote international labor standards, enhanced worker rights and combat exploitive child labor. This President, the administration that is asking us to cut unemployment and overtime coverage for American workers, this President has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs since he took office. It is one thing to go to Pennsylvania and Ohio and talk about job training, but President Bush's budget, this initiative we are talking about today and this bill in particular does not support his talk. Americans need quality jobs. They need effective job training in order for us to remain competitive in the global economy. The Bush- Cheney antiworker pattern continues with policies such as the Family Flexibility Act, which would further strip worker overtime rights. Let us not kid ourselves. This policy proposal is not about flextime for workers. It is about more flexibility for employers. Bush also signed legislation overturning workplace safety rules to prevent ergonomic standards. The President has advocated budget cuts for job safety agencies such as OSHA and NIOSH. President Bush even went further, suspending 23 important job safety regulations. The list goes on and on. These are the people that are asking us to vote today to cut overtime pay for most of the neediest workers in this country. Mr. Chairman, it is clear this administration values corporate profit over workers' safety. It is time that we support our workers. Vote ``yes'' for the Obey-Miller substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, when Vice President Cheney was talking about terrorism, he told the audience something that I consider to be absolutely appalling. He said, ``It is absolutely essential on November 2nd that Americans make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again.'' The White House would like the American people to believe that President Bush is the only person capable of confronting terrorism, even though his record has proven otherwise. They employ fear as a campaign tactic, claiming that a vote for John Kerry and John Edwards is a vote for the terrorists. This misleading connection, besides insulting the intelligence of the American people, raises a very important question: If Presidents are singularly responsible for terrorist attacks that happen on their watch, was President Bush responsible for the attacks on September 11? While I believe that President Bush was not responsible for the events of 9/11, he is responsible for the failure to truly secure America after 9/11. Three years ago, after the worst attacks on American soil in our Nation's history, the United States had the support of nearly all other countries in our fight against terrorism. With the anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaching, now is a good time to consider whether we have made progress in the global war on terror over the last 3 years. Last week in Russia, Chechen terrorists shocked the world when they took 1,200 hostages at a school and killed over 300 of them, most of them children. I ask you, what is humanity becoming? We have to stop this. What a terrible tragedy. Surely there must be a better way. There must be a smarter way. In Sudan, thousands of Sudanese Africans have been subjected to a horrific campaign of rape, looting, and ethnic cleansing driven by a militia that has the tacit support of the Sudanese Government. More than 30,000 people have needlessly been killed as a result of this campaign of genocide terror. Much more needs to be done, and despite almost unanimous passage of a House resolution calling upon the Secretary of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.N. to immediately address this issue, it is still not being completed. There has to be a better way, a smarter way, a smarter course of action dictated not by what is politically pragmatic, but by what is good and by what is right. And there is such a course of action. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392 to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships than the Bush administration, and it does so without endangering our alliances around the world. It treats war as an absolute last resort. SMART security controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. It invests in the development of impoverished nations to prevent the kind of terrorism occurring in Sudan and Chechnya from ever taking root in the first place. President Bush thinks the best way to fight terrorism is to confront it head on by possessing bigger weapons and being stronger than the terrorists. But that only addresses the symptoms of the disease and certainly does not ensure a 100 percent success rate. In order to truly defeat terrorism, we need to confront its root causes: poverty, despair, and unfair allocation of resources in so many underdeveloped nations around the world. SMART security will protect America and the world by addressing not just acts of terrorism, but also the reasons why terrorism exists. In the end, SMART security is smart, and it will keep America safe.