Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4589 as an interim continuity of assistance to those who need help getting back on their feet. I think you all know I was one of ``these'' people 30 years ago when, as a young mother with three children, ages 1, 3 and 5, my husband left us. I was working full-time, but to get my children the health care, the child care they needed, even though I was employed, I turned to welfare to make up the difference in my income. Eventually, I worked my way out of poverty, got a college degree, started my own company, and now I am a Member of Congress. I believe others should have the same opportunities that I had. Mr. Speaker, as Congress continues to debate welfare reauthorization, we have to remember that our goal must be to move women and their families from welfare to self-sufficiency, preventing the ongoing pattern of welfare to poverty. That is why I support making States accountable for helping families become self-sufficient by creating a standard to determine just how much a family needs to survive without public assistance in any particular State. That is why I want mothers to have access to educational opportunities and job training, to give them the skills they need for jobs that pay a livable wage. And that is why I know how important it is to provide quality child care, including care for infants and care for parents who work weekends and evenings. In my personal situation, my children had 13 different child care situations the first year that I went to work. That was the worst year in our lives. And today, 35 years later, quality accessible, affordable child care, particularly for low-income women reentering the workforce, is almost vacant. Mr. Speaker, States and families need to know that these welfare extensions are going to last longer than 3 months. States need to plan their budgets and families need to know what they can count on. That is why we need a clean, multiyear extension that ensures continued, accessible welfare services, an extension that would do no harm to our Nation's poorest families while preserving the services that they have now and that they need. The base bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) refers to does not accomplish this, and the other body knows it. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important than helping our families get out of poverty and to become, on their own, self-sustaining and independent. So I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting the temporary relief through H.R. 4589 until the time we can do it right.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), the author of this resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 449 to honor the lifetime achievements of Ray Charles. I join my colleagues in mourning his recent passing, and I thank my lucky stars that I have seen him in concert many times. Ray Charles overcame childhood poverty, the loss of his eyesight at age 6, and the loss of both of his parents by the age of 15 to become a 12-time Grammy award-winning performer. Ray Charles was a gifted pianist and saxophonist, but his greatest gift was his songs. He sang the blues, country, rock, big band swing, jazz, even classical. Many credit Ray Charles with the beginning of soul music when he combined gospel and rhythm and blues in his first recording, ``I Got a Woman.'' Ray Charles' version of ``Georgia on My Mind'' became the official song of his native State of Georgia and his performance of ``America the Beautiful'' gave new life and a new audience to a patriotic standard that we did not know before. But whatever Ray Charles sang in whatever style, he started from his very roots, the black American music that became the soul of his music. It is fitting that Members from both sides of the aisle join together to honor Ray Charles, because he was not political. His music was his politics, and it embraced all listeners equally. Ray Charles' music broke down all barriers, and united his audience in appreciation. Ray Charles will be deeply missed. We are fortunate that his music will live on forever and forever. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Res. 630, a resolution congratulating the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers for winning the 2004 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Ice Hockey National Championship. In March, the Gophers won their third consecutive national title, defeating the Harvard Crimson 6 to 2. I want to congratulate Shannon Miller, the 2003 American Hockey Coaches Association ``Coach of the Year,'' in leading the Golden Gophers women's ice hockey team to their third national title in just 4 years. In addition to the titles, Coach Miller holds the top spot among all women's college hockey coaches with a .818 winning percentage. I also want to congratulate Krissy Wendell, who led the Golden Gophers with a goal and 3 assists and scored a total of 8 points during the national semi-final and championship games. Due to her excellent play, Wendell was named the ``outstanding player'' of the tournament. In addition, Wendell's Gopher teammates, Natalie Darwiz, Jody Horak, Allie Sanchez and Kelly Stephens also took home NCAA All-Tournament honors. I also want to congratulate the Harvard women's hockey team for their strong performance at the Final Four on Ice this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), an athlete himself. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the border between India and Pakistan has commonly been called the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint. India is thought to have at least 50, maybe as many as 120, nuclear warheads; and Pakistan is thought to have 30 to 70 warheads, but the two countries took a step towards nonproliferation on Sunday when they signed their first confidence-building agreement on nuclear weapons since 1999. As part of the agreement, both countries will keep open a permanent telephone hotline to warn the other in advance of tests of nuclear- capable missiles. The confidence-building measures also included an agreement to continue the moratorium on testing nuclear warheads and a promise to continue nuclear talks. While largely symbolic, this agreement is significant because it represents the desire of both India and Pakistan, two countries consistently at odds with each other, to avoid a devastating nuclear exchange that could kill hundreds of thousands of people. The United States could take some valuable lessons, Mr. Speaker, from this India-Pakistan agreement. At the same time these two countries are seeking to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, the United States is funding millions of dollars in research on new nuclear weapons. Specifically, in this year's budget request, President Bush asked for over $100 million for research and testing of new nuclear weapons, including the robust nuclear Earth penetrator and so-called yield nuclear weapon. Fortunately, these funds were initially rejected by the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. When it comes to nuclear weapons, President Bush just does not seem to get it. While countries like India and Pakistan have taken the first step to making the world safer, our President seems to think the only good defense is a good offense. But how strong does our offense need to be? We already possess 9,000 strategic nuclear warheads. How many of these weapons of last resort do we need before we feel secure? How much money do we need to spend on new nuclear weapons while neglecting important domestic programs before we decide that we have finally spent enough? Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, a more sensible way, a way more rooted in the best American values, and there is. 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. We need to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and keeping the American people safe must be our highest priority. On that point, the President and I agree; but we must avoid equating our security with aggression and military force. The United States possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile, but nuclear weapons are not the answer to our problems because conflicts between nations require a more delicate touch. Instead, SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. The United States must set an example, Mr. Speaker, an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. We must maintain our commitment to existing international treaties like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. We must support and adequately fund programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works with the Russian Federation and the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles and secure nuclear weapons in Russia; and we must replicate this successful program in other troubled countries like North Korea and Iran, because not every country will proactively choose to give up its nuclear program. In the long run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than scaring them into submission. The Bush doctrine of arrogant nuclear proliferation has been tried and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, not relying on her nuclear capabilities, but our commitment to peace and freedom and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic. SMART security is smart and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I want to talk about a group of Americans that we do not always take the time to recognize, our Nation's first responders. This group of brave men and women are our first line of defense against terrorist attacks and disasters. They are our dedicated firefighters, police, emergency technicians, and health care workers who are the first on the scene when disaster strikes. First responders work around the clock to protect their communities. Unlike most working folks, they are always on call in case of emergency. In fact, many of these dedicated individuals died in the World Trade Center on September 11 because response was so effective they arrived at the scene and were scattered throughout the buildings when the buildings collapsed. As we know, disaster requires the highest level of cooperation between different agencies, meaning the difference between lives lost and lives saved. Because conditions during major disasters are unpredictable, Mr. Speaker, first responders require the most advanced equipment to ensure that they are well protected: equipment including self-contained breathing units, protective clothing for hazardous situation, interoperable radio units so different groups and communities can communicate during a crisis, thermal imaging units so we can determine if people are stuck in buildings or trapped under falling debris, and trained, available health care workers and technicians adequately supplied with vaccines, medicines and provisions. One would think that in a post-September 11 world, Congress would fully fund these response efforts; but that is simply not happening. In fact, the homeland security appropriations bill that came before this House today actually reduces funds for first responders. Despite the majority party's rhetoric, their rhetoric of supporting first responders, most Republicans fully supported President Bush's 2005 budget proposal which would cut $800 million in grants to first responders. Talk about misplaced priorities. We are spending $5 billion every month for the war in Iraq, but cannot find the funds to provide $3 billion this year for our first responders in the homeland security bill; $3 billion is the amount needed to fully fund the programs that are necessary to keep them safe. These are people who safeguard our most precious landmarks like the Capitol Building and the Golden Gate Bridge. Clearly our budget priorities are way out of whack when we cannot provide for those who selflessly protect their communities every single day. This, I believe, is travesty. Every year we lose an average of 100 first responders to terrorist incidents and disasters. With better equipment, more detailed interagency coordination, and more frequent practice exercises to prepare first responders for the real thing, many of these deaths could be prevented. But this requires adequate funding. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a better way, a more intelligent way, a way to prevent the needless deaths of the men and women who are our first line of defense. And there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stand for Sensible Multi-lateral American Response to Terrorism. Instead of spending billions on new bunker buster nuclear weapons and the President's beloved missile defense system, which would not provide an effective defense against a full frontal missile attack, SMART security calls for stronger and smarter investment abroad in peacekeeping and conflict prevention programs, and at home a homeland security program that provides first responders with the equipment and tools they need to provide security to their community. SMART security means supplying adequate funds for first responders. We should be providing them with the exact equipment they need, the exact equipment and tools they are requesting. The Bush doctrine of misplaced priorities has been tried, and it has failed miserably. It is time for a new national security strategy. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, including the brave men and women who offer their time, their bravery, sometimes their very lives, to provide the first line of defense in times of catastrophe. Being smart about our Nation's security means recognizing that real security starts at home with our first responders.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our first line of defense against terrorist attacks would be our first responders, our police, our fire, our health care workers. They are the first on the scene. They must be prepared for whatever emergency arises, but despite the President's rhetoric supporting first responders, his 2005 budget cuts $800 million from first responder grants, and the bill before us tonight cuts 7 percent of the funding for local emergency personnel. This is going in the wrong direction, and it is because of the tax cuts for the best off in the country. If we were not doing that, we would probably have enough money for those programs. While we need at least $98 billion to meet the demand for self- contained breathing units or protective clothing or hazardous chemical attacks, the Federal Government is providing less than 15 percent of these critical funds. Who will pay for this? Local governments of course. Mr. Chairman, funding for first responders is crucial because they need to protect our local communities, because they are the ones that are first in line of defense. We are shortchanging them. They are our brave men and brave women. They are parts of our communities. They protect our communities, and we are shortchanging them while we are cutting taxes for the very best off in this Nation. Shame on us.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, American troops are being court-martialed daily for their role in the heinous crimes that took place in Abu Ghraib, the prison in Iraq. For sure, their role in these incidents is embarrassing and shameful. But if we are searching for the true culprits for these abuses, which include the sexual assault, forced sodomy, and death of Iraqi prisoners, we need look no further than August 1, 2002. That is the day the Justice Department advised the White House in a memo to Alberto Gonzalez, President Bush's top counsel, that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.'' The memo also stated that ``necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability'' for the use of torture. It is not just the physical abuses that took place in Iraqi prisons that is appalling. The thing that is just as appalling is that legal abuses took place here at home too within our own government, when high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice affirmed the use of torture as a war tactic. The White House and the Pentagon approval of torture is not only shameful, it also flies in the face of America's human rights standards. And what happened to the United States setting a positive example for the rest of the world? That is not what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would have us believe. Rumsfeld wants the American public to think that the use of torture was isolated to Abu Ghraib; that by merely court-martialing those directly responsible for inflicting the abuse who he called ``a few bad apples,'' well, now we have gotten to the bottom of it. But the fact that torture occurred in separate places and under the command of different interrogators leads many to believe that a more systematic failure took place. And I believe that the discovery of the Justice Department's appalling sanctioning of torture confirms that belief. Furthermore, an investigation by the New Yorker Magazine detailed a Pentagon operation that encouraged the physical coercion, otherwise known as torture, of Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to produce intelligence about the post-war insurgency in Iraq. This information was also substantiated by Newsweek Magazine, and do not forget about the memo that called the use of torture ``justified.'' What more evidence does one need to understand that this administration condoned and approved the use of torture? There is an eerie pattern at work here. First Guantanamo Bay, then Abu Ghraib. Now we are learning that prisoners in Afghanistan have been subjected to torture by American soldiers. It is becoming very clear that the really ``bad apples'' are at the top of the barrel. They are, in fact, in the White House. There has to be a better way, Mr. Speaker, a more intelligent way, a way rooted in the values that we hold dear in the United States, and there is. I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create smart security for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation; and it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations, with an emphasis on women's health and education. SMART security means interrogation, not torture. It means an open government, one we can trust to do the right thing; not one that will hide behind Justice Department memos condoning torture and secret Pentagon plans on how to use torture to America's advantage during war. The situation in the Middle East requires the best America has to offer. SMART security 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 multilateral leadership. Let us be smart about our future in this country. SMART security is tough, SMART security is pragmatic and patriotic, and it will keep America safe and honored by the rest of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present yesterday during rollcall No. 232, I would have voted ``aye.'' During rollcall No. 233, I would have voted ``aye.'' During rollcall No. 234, I would have voted ``no.'' And, on rollcall No. 235, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, no one disagrees that to keep our country secure, we must become independent of foreign fuels, while at the same time we must control the rising energy costs here in our country. Where the disagreement arises is how this should be done. Today, the House leadership brought up four energy bills in an attempt to look like they are addressing our energy needs. From rehashing a bill that already passed the House not once but twice, that focuses on huge giveaways to big oil and gas companies to a bill that would open up drilling in the arctic refuge, this is nothing more than a sham. None of these bills do anything to promote an energy policy that will keep us secure from terrorism and ensure that our energy needs are met. In fact, opening up the arctic refuge to drilling would increase global oil reserves by only .31 percent. That is right, only 31/100ths of 1 percent. That is less oil than the United States consumes in 6 months. There has to be a better way, a more intelligent way, a way not rooted in ruthless expediency, but in the values that we hold dear. And there is. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. One of the components of SMART is a real strategy for energy independence, especially support for the development of renewable energy sources. Nothing threatens national security more than reliance on Middle Eastern oil. This reliance cannot be met with drilling in the arctic refuge or with giveaways to big oil and gas companies. We must invest in renewable energy and in conservation. We must increase energy efficiency. Only through decreased dependence on oil will we make ourselves more secure. Along with decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, we must stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Keeping the American people safe must be our highest priority. On that point the President and I agree, but we must avoid equating our security with aggression and military force. Just because one has a hammer, not every problem is a nail. The United States possesses the world's largest hammer in the form of its mighty military, but some situations require a more delicate touch. SMART security calls for aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. The United States must set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. We must maintain our commitment to existing international treaties like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Chemical Weapons Convention. We must support and adequately fund programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works with the Russian Federation and the states of the former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles, and secure nuclear weapons in Russia. And we must replicate these programs in other troubled regions like North Korea and Iran. Not every country will proactively choose to give up its nuclear program, and we can provide the incentives if we choose. In the long run, negotiating with other countries will keep us much safer than thinking that we can scare them into submission. The Bush doctrine has been tried. It has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy. SMART security defends America by relying on the very best of America, our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART security is tough, it is pragmatic, and it is patriotic. SMART security is smart, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the people watching the floor today are feeling like they are having deja vu all over again; and, yes, they are right. We did do this before; and, no, there is nothing new here. What we should be talking about is renewable energy. We should be talking about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. We should be talking about ensuring that catastrophes like Enron's cheating the west coast out of billions of dollars never happen again. We should be talking about improving our electrical transmission lines so that the blackouts we experienced last summer do not happen again this summer. We should be talking about how to make our buildings more energy efficient, and we should be talking about the high price of gas and how to bring relief to the American people. Instead, we are talking about the same flawed energy bill that has already passed the House. That bill was not good the first time, and it is not good this time. This is the exact same energy bill that allows companies to pollute our air and contaminate our water while giving huge tax incentives to big oil and gas companies, the same companies that are today gouging the American people with high gas prices at the pumps. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and these bills and to get on with the work of a real energy policy, one that will bring us independence from foreign fuels; one that will protect our environment and ensure that we are no longer depending on fossil fuels.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 3 teachers who are retiring from Two Rock Union School in a rural community near Petaluma, CA. Cathy Giovando, Celeste Hall, and Carol Siebe are special teachers who have worked together at the school for many years. But beyond that, they will always be remembered for their successful efforts to preserve the Two Rock Coast Guard Training Facility. Now the West Coast training center for the Coast Guard's new role in the Department of Homeland Security, the Two Rock facility has 10 schools offering 50 courses to 4,000 students a year. It is hard to believe that this center was on the chopping block in cost-cutting efforts in the 1990s--and not just once, but twice. And twice, Giovando, Hall, Siebe, and others on the Save the Base Committee rallied elected officials and the local community as well as children and parents from the small Two Rock School, to preserve a facility that was originally established by the War Department in 1942. As their representative in Congress during the 1990s, I knew how important this base was to the fabric of this small community and to the security of our Nation. However, without the passion of these teachers, it would have been difficult for me to convince the Coast Guard and the entire California Congressional Delegation of this. It is for sure that Clinton administration officials were especially impressed with the art work and stories sent to them by children from the school. In the world of politics, these children proved that the personal can make a difference. And, as teachers, these women were instrumental in Two Rock School's recognition as a California Distinguished School. Their legacies include one of the first school gardens in the area and, with the entire staff, creation of an assessment program that enables teachers to work with each child's strengths and weaknesses. Retirement will include everything from travel to real estate classes. Coincidentally, the families of all three are from the same area in Northern Italy which will figure prominently in their travel plans. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to honor Cathy Giovando, Celeste Hall, and Carol Siebe whose warmth and dedication exemplify the best that teachers can offer to our Nation's children. Their commitment extends beyond the classroom to an appreciation of the significance of all the key elements--including the Coast Guard Training Facility--that are essential to a community's well-being. These women will be missed at their school and by their students, but we all know they will bring the same energy and heart to all their future endeavors.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is about time we address unemployment. Unfortunately, H.R. 444 is not the legislation that will truly put Americans back to work. It offers only a temporary solution for a limited pool of unemployed workers and is a poor solution to the ongoing unemployment problem of this Nation. Rather than PRAs, personal reemployment accounts, we need across-the- board investments in the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, and the Unemployment Insurance, UI, programs. These are the existing programs that need help so a broader number of workers stabilize their lives and develop the necessary skills to secure new jobs. Proper funding of these programs would make the difference. Finding ways to give unemployed workers real jobs is the real solution to the national unemployment problem, not a bill that puts additional burdens on the States, threatening to undo the Federal unemployment system in the first place. Let me also remind my colleagues that $1 billion invested in highways and transit creates 47,500 new jobs. If we really want to create jobs, we should be moving forward with the transportation bill. These jobs pay a living wage, give workers the opportunity to better their communities, while at the same time supporting their families. H.R. 444 is not a real solution. The real solution would grant unemployment extensions when finding work takes longer than the length of the initial benefits, not a bill that forces workers to choose between receiving WIA benefits or PRA benefits with no flexibility to go back to one when the other is exhausted. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 444 is false security.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my constituents write each week telling me about jobs that are being outsourced, asking me what is Congress doing about it. They are amazed and they are outraged that our President can support this policy, when over 1 million Californians are out of work. I understand their concerns, especially when the Bush administration recently awarded a massive $10 billion government contract to Accenture, a company incorporated in Bermuda, when two American-based companies actually bid for the contract. They also know that the President used outsourced workers in India to make phone calls for his Presidential campaign. All of this, Mr. Speaker, when 8.4 million people are out of work nationwide. Outsourcing is bad economic policy, and I urge the House leadership to address this issue immediately.