Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, because we need to continue to give women the boost they must have yet to succeed in this global economy that we are living in. Our late colleague, Patsy Mink, authored the Women's Educational Equity Act, which we call WEEA. WEEA and other equity provisions have been doing a very, very good job. But, do you know what? That good job has made this program vulnerable, because it appears that their success could be an excuse to eliminate this good program. It is hard to believe that the Members of this Congress think that gender equity provisions can be eliminated today because more women are enrolled in college, are graduating from college, or because boys, of all things, have reading scores that are not as good as girls. That is a very shortsighted view. Women are still underrepresented in math and science and in engineering-related fields, fields that actually pay higher salaries and oftentimes require overseas hiring to fill the positions. Many girls and women shy away from any sort of science or technology activity, despite the importance of these areas in modern society. We need to fix that, because research has shown that interest in math and science begins to wane in early adolescence. We want to make sure that girls keep all their options open. They do not have to be scientists, they do not have to be mathematicians, they do not have to be engineers, but when they are ready to go to college, they have to have the option, just like the guys do. The National Bureau of Economic Research reports that students who do well in math outearn their nonmathematical counterparts even if they do not go on to college. Within 6 years of graduating high school in 1980, young men with strong basic math skills were earning 53 cents more per hour than those with average math skills. The difference between women with stronger math skills and men with average math skills was even more significant, with women earning 74 cents more per hour. It is clear that increased comprehension in math and science benefits women. The Women's Educational Equity Act program is critical to helping promote equal education opportunities for girls and women by providing funds and assistance to educational agencies. That is why our amendment would protect this successful program by leveling out funding for WEEA at $3 million. We would be taking funds from the Fund for the Improvement of Education, or FIE. These funds fund individual Member projects. I can tell you that every single Member in this body will better serve their constituents if they are serving the women in their school districts. If our schools do not continue to receive this support, females and minorities will continue to dominate the low-wage jobs, while America's high-wage, high-tech jobs go to foreign undergraduates and foreign graduates. Women will continue to have fewer economic opportunities than men and less access to the careers that will support them and their families. Without these opportunities, this country will be deprived of the highly-educated, highly-skilled workforce we need in the United States to compete in the global economy. Gender equity in education is not a women's thing. All Americans, men and women alike, have a stake in making sure that all students gain the skill and self-confidence they need in elementary and secondary school to become productive, self-supporting adults. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support our amendment, to protect this important program from becoming yet another unnecessary casualty of a very shortsighted budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, George Bush is running for reelection on a platform that our economy is in good shape. Well, this is a sham. Today, 8 million Americans are looking for work; 8 million Americans are looking for work. The unemployment rate is 30 percent higher than it was when he took office. So what is he doing about it? He continues to encourage and reward sending good jobs overseas, while creating low-paying jobs right here at home and, at the same time, changes overtime policies to cheat millions of workers out of overtime pay. What he ought to be doing is investing in our infrastructure, making sure that our Nation gets roads, highways, bridges, sewer systems, waste water treatment plants; our clean water systems are upgraded, are enlarged, are made better. Because, I say to my colleagues, those jobs pay a livable wage. Those jobs leave behind improvements for our communities and our country. That would increase the jobs in this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the 1,000th American soldier was killed in Iraq; 1,000 young men and women who will never again return to their homes and experience the warm embrace of their parents and others who love them. Young men and young women have died for a war the United States entered not of necessity, but out of choice. An attack against a country that never possessed the illegal weapons it was accused of possessing, a war in a country that never once threatened the United States. And this war is not over. Worst of all, of the 1,000 soldiers that have died in Iraq, over 850 of them were killed after President Bush declared the ``end of major combat operations.'' He made his now-infamous speech aboard a Navy vessel displaying a banner that read ``Mission Accomplished.'' That was 15 months ago yesterday. Obviously the Bush administration has failed, failed dramatically in its postwar custodianship of Iraq. The abuses at Abu Ghraib have emboldened our enemies and provided them with ammunition for the war of images waged on the front pages of newspapers worldwide. The moral support shared by countries around the world in the months after September 11, 2001, has long since evaporated. When it comes to supporting our troops abroad, we have not done much better. A recent Pentagon study acknowledged that about one-third of all American casualties in Iraq could have been prevented if the military had outfitted every soldier with state-of-the-art body armor. Thirty thousand troops, most of them members of the Army Reserve and National Guard, did not have vital equipment for several months after facing battle situations in Iraq. In addition to the 1,000 soldiers killed in the war in Iraq, this war has cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, which some estimate to be as high as 15,000. And it is estimated that 7,000 of our troops and our civilian forces have died, or 20,000 have been evacuated out of Iraq for medical reasons. This is a failure. This is a war that has failed. It has taken a huge economic toll in the form of a whopping $200 billion in congressional appropriations, money that should have been invested here at home and used to pay for the real war against terrorism, a war that never has included Iraq. The Bush administration's line is that the war in Iraq was essential in fighting the so-called war on terrorism. Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, commenting on the number of troops killed, claimed that ``the best way to honor all those who lost their lives in the war on terrorism is to continue to wage a broad war and spread freedom throughout a dangerous part of the world.'' What a shameful thing that was to say. It is clearly time for a new national security policy. 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 treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART security invests in the development of impoverished nations to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place. SMART security is about preventing war, as opposed to preemptive war. It emphasizes brains over brawn. It is tough, but diplomatic; aggressive, but peaceful; pragmatic, but idealistic. President Bush loves to think that those who support his efforts in Iraq are patriotic, and those that think there is a better way are unpatriotic, or, worse, un-American. But I can think of nothing more patriotic than pursuing a national security policy that protects America by relying on the noblest of American values: our capacity for global leadership, our compassion for the people of the world, our commitment to peace and freedom.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in November of 2000, America witnessed the breakdown of its electoral system. Four years later, as far as I can see, nothing that was broken has been fixed. Many Americans believe the same injustices to democracy that we witnessed 4 years ago could occur once again this November. The very security of our democracy is at stake. For all of the Bush administration's talk about securing our Nation from the threat of terrorism, no discussion of security would be complete if it did not address the need to secure our national election system. After the controversial election in 2000, one would think President Bush would do everything in his power to ensure the integrity of America's election system. I know that is what I would have done had I become President of this United States, particularly after having lost the national popular vote by more than half a million votes. But unfortunately, despite some Democratic efforts here in Congress, this administration has failed to win back the trust of our Nation's voters. The Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law in the year 2002, was designed to assist States in upgrading their fragile election systems. I supported this legislation because it took steps in the right direction to make our election system secure. While some improvements have been made because of this act, its most useful reforms, the reforms that would actually ensure security, will not be in place by the November election, and that is because this administration refused to release most of the Federal dollars promised by the Help America Vote Act until June of 2004, 2 years after it became public law, delaying what could have been a secure election this November. With 32 million voters in 19 States using punch-card ballots again this November, millions of voters will walk away from the polls not knowing for certain whether their votes were tallied correctly. The emergence of electronic voting systems, I believe, is a good thing, but not without verifiable technology. Sadly, Republicans have refused to allow for paper-verified voting trails to ensure that each vote is counted correctly. Without a paper trail, there will be no way to conduct a recount should an election be contested. Why have Congress and the Bush administration failed to produce vital changes since the drawn-out election of 4 short years ago? Some would say it is in the administration's best interests not to change the system. Mr. Speaker, there is an even greater threat lurking quietly below. That is, the possible disenfranchisement of voters due to inaccurate registration methods and the shady control of voting lists. A recent Caltech/MIT study concluded that 4 million to 6 million votes were lost nationwide in the 2000 election. Half of these were traced to registration problems. In the year 2000, thousands of Floridians were deprived of the right to vote because they shared the same name with someone who had been convicted of a felony. This type of disenfranchisement and the physical intimidation of some voters is no better than the practices used to prevent Southern blacks from voting in the 1950s and 1960s. It appears we have not come very far since then. We need to be smarter. We need to be smarter in order to secure our elections. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART Security Resolution, to address both foreign and domestic threats to our Nation. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security emphasizes the need for the United States to act as a leader and a model for other less sophisticated, less democratic nations. This means shoring up the credibility of our own election system, including the development of new, verifiable technology, to ensure that our Nation's poor and aged are not disenfranchised. It means avoiding a system where our own citizens are forced to cry out for international observers to ensure the fairness of our elections. SMART security means fully and quickly implementing the reforms stipulated in the Help America Vote Act. Mr. Speaker, how can this country ever hope to be a true democratic model for the rest of the world when its own elected leaders have failed to ensure that our election system is truly democratic? Let us be smarter about the way we elect our national leaders, because until we do, our election system will remain one accused of fraud and riddled with doubt, and we will not stand as an example of democracy in the rest of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating that the Pentagon will need an estimated $12.3 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The extraordinary amount of money needed to pay for our major military operations is not surprising. What greatly troubles me, once again, is the sheer unwillingness of the Bush administration to adequately plan and prepare for those military operations. The additional $12.3 billion is triple, triple the amount that General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, projected in April would be needed to make it through September. President Bush and the top brass at the Pentagon have, once again, underestimated the resources needed to sustain our military halfway across the world. The sad part is that many of us have actually come to expect President Bush to shortchange our troops. Military operations are costing more than the Pentagon estimated, in part because top officials expected that Iraq would be a peaceful democracy by now and we could start bringing our troops home. But it does not take a genius to realize that rebuilding a country from the ground up, an entire country that has been decimated by a brutal dictator, takes years, possibly decades. The costs of these failures are adding up, Mr. Speaker, both in human and in financial terms. Two days ago the United States reached another disheartening milestone when the 900th American soldier was killed in Iraq. Moreover, due to a shortage of qualified soldiers, the Pentagon has shamefully reenlisted the Ready Reserve, a group of retired soldiers who have moved on to civilian life. Congress has already appropriated nearly $200 billion in supplemental funds to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That number could easily reach $1 trillion before the end of this decade. We cannot possibly fund the war in Iraq at the rate we are going, especially if we want to truly address the threat of terrorism, that threat which, by the way, was never in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction have yet to be found. Instead of rooting out terrorist networks in Afghanistan, the Bush administration chose to focus on Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to al-Qaeda. In the process, we have not only failed to adequately address the growing terrorist threat; we have actually added to that threat by incurring the wrath of thousands of Muslims who think we are fighting a war against Islam. We need to be much smarter about how we address America's national security, Mr. Speaker. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received the help and support of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions. Without the counsel of these organizations, SMART security would not have happened as it did. SMART security is more vigilant than President Bush claims to be in fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, SMART focuses on multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists, and it does so while respecting human and civil rights. Terrorism is an international problem, and so it makes sense that the fight against terrorism should involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and with NATO to achieve our goals. Only by actively involving other nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism. It is time America got smart about its national security. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392, because SMART security is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 3313, is not about gay marriage, it is about taking away access to the Federal judiciary while manipulating our Constitution by using a wedge issue. It is about degrading the role that Federal courts have played in the enforcement of civil rights law. It is about preventing challenges by individuals and groups of Americans who are needy and deserving of their day in court. Most of all, this bill is about ignoring the Constitution. We must protect the system of checks and balances that our Founding Fathers created. We must refuse to create this dangerous precedent. This legislation would be precedence for removal of Federal court jurisdiction for other contentious constitutional civil rights issues such as gun rights, religious protections, civil rights. Mr. Speaker, this is just plain bad policy. Do not support this bill. Know what the proponents are after and do not let them bully you into eroding our judicial protections.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to renew the assault weapons ban that President Clinton signed into law in 1994. This is a courageous decision by a candidate who claimed he was not your typical conservative. Four years have passed and Candidate Bush's pledge has gone unfulfilled by President Bush. It is amazing what the politics of a reelection campaign will do to one's former pledges. The assault weapons ban will expire on September 13 unless President Bush renews the ban before that very point. First, Congress would need to approve this decision, however. With recess approaching, that leaves only 3 legislative days in September before military assault weapons designed to kill large numbers of people are once again available on America's streets. Of course, President Bush and the White House are well aware of this deadline. So why are they not acting? Actually, the answer is simple. The answer is the National Rifle Association has conditioned its support for George W. Bush on his strong opposition to gun control measures. The NRA has issued a not-so-subtle threat to withhold its vast resources from the President's reelection campaign unless he agrees not to renew the assault weapons ban. The problem, besides the fact that President Bush has once again failed to live up to one of his campaign promises, is that this is an issue of extreme importance to our national security. Al Qaeda training manuals recovered in Afghanistan specifically urge terrorists to exploit America's ``lax gun laws'' to acquire and train with assault weapons. For many terrorists around the world, America is known as the great gun bazaar. Mr. Speaker, I do not know about you, but I find this highly disturbing. If President Bush truly wanted to be smart about keeping America safe from terrorism, as he says he does, he would work to immediately renew the assault weapons ban. Renewing the ban is absolutely necessary to protect Americans from terrorism. Renewing the ban would keep deadly weaponry out of the hands of terrorists. These guns serve only one purpose, to take lives. In fact, the 2003 National Hunting Survey by Field and Stream Magazine confirmed that most gun owners do not consider assault weapons suitable guns for hunting in the first place. The ban clearly works. In 1995, the first year the assault weapons ban went into effect, the assault weapons represented nearly 4 percent of all guns recovered from crimes. By 2000, assault weapons represented a little more than 1 percent of weapons used in crimes. Mr. Speaker, clearly the time has come for a national security strategy that protects Americans from assault weapons, not one that protects the President's favorite campaign donor from losing revenue. That is why I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral, American response to terrorism. In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received the support of the wonderful organizations, Physicians For Social Responsibility, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions. Without these groups, the legislation would not have happened in the way it did. 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 a hold of more light weaponry or even deadlier chemical or biological weapons. It is time America got smart about its national security. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392 because SMART security is tough, is pragmatic, is patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, it appeared earlier this month that if DeForest Soaries, the chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, had gotten his wish, his agency would have the authority to postpone the November Presidential elections in the event of a terrorist threat or attack. I was personally appalled that Soaries made such a request and that it was even considered. The postponement of a Presidential election would present the greatest threat to date to our democratic process. It would be an admission of defeat to the terrorists, inviting them to disrupt the selection of our highest leader, and it would be unprecedented in our Nation's history. Such a proposal suggests that State officials responsible for elections in their region are incapable of deciding what steps to take in the event of a catastrophe. The legislative branch of the government has always held the authority to regulate elections, not the executive branch. So last week I wrote a letter to Secretary Ridge, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) stated, and I requested that he take no further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election. 190 Members of Congress signed this letter with me, and I credit the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for bringing this important resolution H. Res. 728, to the House floor immediately, showing support of our request and showing full appreciation for the election process. Madam Speaker, in early 1864, President Abraham Lincoln feared that he would lose his Presidency due to the widespread criticism of his handling of the Civil War. No President had won a second term in more than 30 years, and the Union had recently suffered a string of military disappointments, and his advisers told him that they thought he should postpone the election. Many of President Lincoln's closest advisers told him he would lose the election, in fact, if it were held. But President Lincoln never considered that possibility, nor will we. Wars, droughts, floods, and hurricanes have not stopped elections. And the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when Ronald Reagan was running for President in 1980, he asked voters the question, ``Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?'' Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election, becoming the 40th President of the United States. Now, in the year 2004, the disarray of world events and the failed economic policies of the Bush administration force us to ask of the American people once more, ``Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?'' Since he became President in 2001, George W. Bush has enacted the infamous policy of preemption. This doctrine asserts that the United States has the right to attack any country that the President thinks may seek to attack the United States without having any proof to back up that assumption. Claiming this policy makes America safer against the threat of terrorism ignores the truth, that the war in Iraq has struck a hornet's nest of hatred in the Arab world against the United States for what it sees as a war against Islam. In his annual budget request, President Bush has pushed hard for billions of dollars to fund an unproven missile defense system and research on new, illegal nuclear weapons. He claims these enormous weapons systems will make America safer against the threat of terrorism, but vast defense spending has squandered money that should be spent at home on health care for the millions of uninsured, on retirement benefits for our Nation's veterans, and funding for new energy sources to stop our dependence on foreign oil. The time has come for a new national security strategy, and I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. In crafting this legislation, my staff and I received brilliant support and counsel from Ira Shorr, from Physicians For Social Responsibility; from Bridget Moix, from the Friends Committee on National Legislation; and Marie Rietmann, from Women's Action for New Directions. Without them, this legislation would not have happened. SMART security will make the world safer by preventing future acts of terrorism. Because terrorism is an international problem, our response to terrorism must involve the international community. SMART security emphasizes multilateral partnership because we are stronger when we work together than when we alienate our friends and allies, rejecting their participation, rejecting their help. The possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands is possibly the biggest threat we face as a Nation, and SMART takes the threat of weapons of mass destruction seriously. SMART takes the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has been successful in dismantling nuclear weapons and materials in the states of the former Soviet Union, and replicates this program in other nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea. It invests not only in new, effective weapons systems and equipment, but in peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts to prevent terrorism, exactly the kind of support that is needed in places like Haiti, Liberia, Sudan. Mr. Speaker, every country in the world knows that America is the strongest nation in the world, particularly when it comes to defense. We have billions of dollars in weapons to prove it, but sometimes situations call for more than just brute strength. Let us not look back in another 4 years and wish we had done things differently. It is time America got smart about its national security. I urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this vitally important resolution, H. Con. Res. 392. Let us be smart about our future. SMART security is tough, pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for nearly 3 months, the Bush administration has flatly refused to cooperate with the United Nations- sanctioned auditors examining the contracts provided to companies like Halliburton for services in Iraq. President Bush's government has withheld pertinent information from the U.N.'s International Advisory and Monitoring Board which was specifically tasked to ensure that Iraq's oil revenues would be managed responsibly during the United States occupation and for as long as American and other companies work on reconstruction jobs in Iraq. Halliburton, my colleagues may remember, is the Texas-based oil company that has received over $1 billion in lucrative contracts from the United States for the reconstruction of Iraq, and they have never had to place a single bid for these contracts. Years ago, the Pentagon established the practice of allowing private companies to bid on various projects, rewarding the most qualified company willing to complete a given project for the lowest price with a highly sought after government contract. Mr. Speaker, this practice was good for American companies, while, through competition, also kept prices down, ensuring that American taxpayers did not get fleeced in the process. The Pentagon, under the shoddy supervision of the Bush White House, has all but disregarded this process in 4 short years. Not only has the Bush administration given rise to the shameful new policy of the no-bid contract, it has also rebuffed any and all attempts by international organizations to provide oversight to those companies that are the recipients of these no-bid contracts. My colleagues may also recall that Vice President Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton. In the months since the beginning of the Iraq War, Vice President Cheney's former company, from which he still receives nearly $200,000 a year in deferred income, has been nothing if not greedy. Cheney's company, Halliburton, overcharged the U.S. Government for the price of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait. Cheney's company, Halliburton, charged the United States Government for thousands of meals for soldiers that were never provided. Yet the Bush administration has done everything in its power to ensure that Cheney's company, Halliburton, gets whatever it wants or whatever it does not want. In this case, Halliburton does not want international auditors to get their hands on documents that stipulate how Iraq's oil revenues have been spent or even how much oil has been processed. Halliburton does not want international auditors to learn that meters have never been installed on Iraq's Persian Gulf loading platforms, allowing for the exportation of an unlimited and unaccounted amount of crude oil. As a result, in addition to the billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, Halliburton may be making millions of dollars more off of the oil that rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people, but then this is the same company that provided fake meals to American troops and overcharged our government for Kuwaiti oil. There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of rewarding cronies at the expense of the American taxpayer has proven to be an utter failure. We need to be smart about how we choose companies to rebuild countries like war-torn Iraq. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, which is legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. The wonderful organizations Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends Committee on National Legislation and Women's Action for New Directions helped me in crafting this legislation. In this day and age, terrorism is an international problem, and so it makes sense that the fight against terrorism should involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and NATO to achieve its goals. Only by actively involving other nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism. The Bush administration likes to talk the talk when it comes to national security, but if they want to walk the walk, they will stop rewarding their buddies with no-bid contracts, while protecting these same buddies from international auditors. If they want to be truly smart about defending our country, they will be smart enough to realize that national security depends on international cooperation.

Mr. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed H. Res. 713, a resolution to condemn the recent decision by the International Court of Justice in opposition to Israel's security barrier. I voted for this resolution, not out of support for Israel's security barrier, but because the International Court of Justice overstepped its bounds in issuing this decision. Make no mistake, I strongly oppose the route of Israel's security barrier, because it deviates significantly from Israel's internationally recognized eastern border. In so doing, the fence encroaches on Palestinian lands and fully encloses some villages, overtly harming many Palestinians by turning these areas into isolated enclaves. I fully support Israel's right to defend itself. But this resolution is not one of support for the fence, it's one of opposition to the politicized ruling by the International Court of Justice. If we're going to achieve peace in the Middle East, we've got to get rid of the politics that have tainted this issue for so long on both sides. Prior to the International Court of Justice ruling, Israel's High Court issued a ruling calling for Israel to take into account the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. The High Court stated that the path of the fence must be adjusted--even if this change results in less security for Israel--and the Israeli government stated its willingness to comply with this decision. Given the High Court's ruling, the decision rendered by the International Court of Justice was both irrelevant and moot, and demonstrated political partisanship rather than a desire to truly affect change in the Middle East. In the end, Congress must do much more than pass resolutions that carry no real weight. Instead, the U.S. should be the lead negotiator to achieve peace in the Middle East. When we take sides on this issue, we diminish our ability to play the role of impartial negotiator. The Bush Administration should be providing leadership in the Middle East by ensuring that both the Israelis and the Palestinians live up to their commitments as stipulated by the Road Map, and by bringing both parties to the negotiating table. Only by re-establishing trust, respect, and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians will we be able to achieve a lasting resolution to this devastating conflict.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Deforest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to consider seeking the authority to postpone a Federal election. In response, I have composed a letter to Secretary Ridge expressing dismay at the very possibility of postponing an election. The letter has been signed by 90 other Members of Congress. Ninety percent of the Democrats have signed this letter and one Republican. Mr. Speaker, the leader reads, ``Dear Secretary Ridge, we are deeply troubled by reports that the Department of Homeland Security has asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what steps would need to be taken to postpone the Presidential election in November of this year. ``We are also concerned that this important issue was not raised last week when Homeland Security Under Secretary Asa Hutchison, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Terrorist Threat and Interrogation Center Director John Brennan briefed Members of the Congress on the possibility of terrorist attacks affecting the upcoming elections. ``Any action taken by the Department of Homeland Security to postpone a Federal election, including requesting an informal review by the Justice Department, would present the greatest threat to date of our democratic process and would invite terrorists to disrupt the selection of our highest leader. ``The mere consideration of postponing an election, the very basis upon which our American democracy is founded, is a capitulation to terrorism. Wars, droughts, floods and hurricanes have not stopped elections, and the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either. ``This move would be unprecedented for a Presidential election. Not even the Civil War stopped the 1864 Presidential election. In 1864, President Lincoln stated,'' and I quote President Lincoln in my letter, ```We cannot have free government without elections, and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might already fairly claim to have conquered or ruined us.''' The letter continues, ``Moreover, such a proposal suggests that State officials responsible for elections in their region are incapable of deciding for themselves what steps to take in the event of a catastrophe. The legislative branch of the government has always held the authority to regulate elections. Now is not the time to transfer this authority to the executive branch. In the event of a terrorist attack, we trust that the respective legislatures across the Nation will make the right decisions to ensure that our democratic process remains intact. ``Fighting terrorism and preventing terrorists from changing our democratic process is the greatest fight we face in America today, but postponing an election due to the possibility of a terrorist attack, or even in the event of an actual terrorist attack, would represent the greatest possible loss for democracy and victory for terrorism. ``Let us make sure that in the fight against terrorism we do not sacrifice the very values we are fighting for in the first place. We urge you to take no further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election.'' Mr. Speaker, this letter is signed by 190 other Members of Congress. Each of these Members realizes there must be a way to both fight terrorism and hold onto the democratic ideals that make our country great. And there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART Security Resolution, which provides a better way to address the threat of terrorism. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART would prevent future acts of terrorism. It is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, SMART focuses on multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists. Mr. Speaker, after hearing about our letter in the House, DeForest Soaries revised his previous remarks. He claimed he could not conceive of any circumstances under which a Presidential election could be postponed or cancelled. Apparently, our message has gotten through. We must be smart about how we react to terrorist threats, and that means never sacrificing the democratic principles that make this country great.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, DeForest Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission and a Bush appointee, and I emphasize ``and a Bush appointee,'' asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to consider seeking the authority to postpone a Federal election. Specifically, he wants Ridge to push for legislation that will give his agency the authority to reschedule the November 2 Presidential election in the event of a terrorist threat or attack sometime near the election. As a result of his request, the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what steps would need to be taken to postpone this year's Presidential election, what steps would need to be taken to postpone this year's Presidential election. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing short of outrageous. I am appalled that this request is even being considered. The postponement of a Presidential election would present the greatest threat to date to our democratic process. It would be an admission of defeat to the terrorists, inviting them to disrupt this election of our highest leader.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I am going to actually address that in a little bit. It would also be unprecedented in our Nation's history. Actually, in early 1864, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) just referred, President Abraham Lincoln feared that he would lose the Presidency due to widespread criticism of his handling of the Civil War. No President had won a second term since Andrew Jackson more than 30 years prior, and the Union had recently suffered a string of military disappointments. Many of Lincoln's closest advisers urged him to postpone the election, but Abraham Lincoln never even considered that possibility, nor should we. In response to calls for postponing the Presidential election, President Lincoln said the following in November of 1864: ``We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might already fairly claim to have conquered or ruined us.'' The fight against terrorism, like the Civil War, will affect more than a generation of Americans, but we must be smart, smart about how we address the threat of terrorism, and we must make sure that in this long fight we do not lose what we are fighting for in the first place. There must be a way to both fight terrorism and also hold on to democratic ideals that make our country great, and Mr. Speaker, there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART security resolution, which provides a better way to address the threat of terrorism. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. Preventing future acts of terrorism, SMART security is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, it focuses on multilateral partnership and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists. Unlike the defective and obtrusive USA Patriot Act, SMART security focuses on tracking and arresting those involved in terrorist attacks, while respecting human and civil rights. Terrorism is an international problem, we all know that. So the fight against terrorism must involve the international community. That is why SMART security calls for working closely with the U.N. and NATO to achieve its goal. Only by actively involving other Nations in this fight can we hope to prevent future acts of terrorism. In the spirit of being smart about our national security, I have written a letter to Secretary Ridge that has been signed by over 100 Members of Congress requesting that Secretary Ridge take no further steps to postpone this year's Presidential election. Wars, droughts, floods and hurricanes have not stopped elections, and the possibility of a terrorist attack must not stop one either. We cannot forget that elections are the very basis upon which our great American democracy was founded. To ensure that the upcoming Presidential election is not postponed by the alarmist Bush administration, I urge all of my colleagues to add their signatures to this important letter to Secretary Ridge.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Wu-Hooley amendment. These two individuals from Oregon are doing a big service for not only their State but my State and many States around the country, because it is absolutely important that we control the spread of sudden oak death and that we learn to treat plants effectively that are being affected by this disease. While sudden oak death's funding through APHIS is set at last year's levels in this bill, this fast-spreading disease has not remained at last year's levels. In the last year alone, sudden oak death was found for the first time in a nursery in southern California, and there is evidence that it has spread to the Northeast and also the Southeast part of the United States, and that ignores the fact that we have already invested $5 million to find out what is the cause and how do we treat it. Nurseries in California are struggling with quarantines that have been put in place against them and their nursery products in Canada and also in our own country in Kentucky, and quarantines of nurseries in Washington State and Oregon State are also under scrutiny. I have been advocating on behalf of funding to fight this disease since it first appeared in my district in Marin County in 1995. Sudden oak death continues in spite of my efforts and in spite of the $5 million that the Federal Government has invested in finding out the cause and what we can be doing about it. Sudden oak death continues to slowly but surely spread, and more and more communities around the country have come to understand that this disease is devastating, and it absolutely must be addressed. And I remind you that sudden oak death's funding to date has not made a dent in the problem. In fact, the problem spreads. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this amendment before sudden oak affects the entire country. Please do not wait until this disease spreads to your own community before your beautiful trees, beautiful oak trees in Marin County or rhododendron plants around the country, before these trees and these plants turn brown, before they die, before they have to be taken away, before you recognize that this is a real problem and we must put the proper funding behind it. Vote yes on the Hooley-Wu amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my friend from Georgia, when he is talking about past Vice President Dan Quayle, what he needed to do was know how to spell potato. Madam Speaker, last week President Bush was asked what distinguishes Vice President Dick Cheney from Senator John Edwards, John Kerry's Vice Presidential running mate. Mr. Bush's haughty reply was, ``Dick Cheney can be President.'' This implied criticism of Senator Edwards, who happens to sit on the prominent Senate Intelligence Committee. And this is quite laughable because Senator Edwards actually has more experience than George W. Bush did at the time he ran for office in the year 2000. The appalling part of this comment is that not only could Dick Cheney be President, he has performed the functions of the Presidency. Since day one, Dick Cheney has wheeled, dealed and cajoled his way to accomplish his dangerous, self-serving, neo-conservative agenda. Dick Cheney has chomped at the bit to finish the job he started in 1991 as Secretary of Defense when the United States first went to war with Iraq. In the year 2003 when President Bush needed to make the case for going to war with Iraq, it was Dick Cheney who met with the intelligence analysts at the CIA to determine whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons. Vice President Cheney claims that he did not strong-arm these analysts into adopting his view that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Despite what I am sure were Cheney's best and most benevolent intentions, the Vice President of the United States probably registered quite a bit of influence with a bunch of career CIA analysts who were likely to give him the evidence he wanted, whether it was true or not. And it was Vice President Cheney, not President Bush, the Commander in Chief, who gave the unsuccessful order to shoot down the hijacked planes on September 11. At a time when America was being attacked, it was Vice President Cheney who made the important decisions. By now this pattern should be quite clear. Vice President Cheney does the real work of the administration, making the key decisions in our times of greatest need. When George Bush says that Dick Cheney can be President, he is right, but that says more about President Bush's own failure of leadership than it says anything about Vice President Cheney's abilities. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve better than a man-behind-the-man presidency. Senator John Edwards will not be the kind of Vice President who will falsify intelligence for the purposes of sending our young men and women to war. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he knows better. We need leaders who will not abdicate the Constitution in the name of political opportunism, a Presidential team that will pursue smarter policies than those of the current administration. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART security resolution, which provides a much smarter national security platform than the one we currently have. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART security means confronting the threat of terrorism not by creating more terrorism, as the Bush administration has done in Iraq, but by striking at the very heart of the real terror networks. SMART would cut off financing for terrorist groups and would break up of their organizations around the world, engaging the international community in this process, the same international community the Bush administration so callously disregarded in its march to war. SMART security provides a better path for America than the one we are currently on. Could Dick Cheney be President? Sure, if you do not mind the fact that the real President is asleep at the wheel, but John Edwards, who could step in for John Kerry on a moment's notice, will not be a shadow President because John Kerry will lead this country on a truly smart path. The voters will decide in November what they want: an administration that unnecessarily sent American troops into a war that has cost the lives of thousands, or a Kerry-Edwards administration that will be smart about America's national security.