Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert Henry of Santa Rosa, California, who is retiring as the General Counsel for School and College Legal Services of California, a Joint Powers Authority which serves school and community college district clients throughout California. Bob is widely recognized as one of the most experienced and accomplished education attorneys in the state. A frequent presenter at law school conferences and school organizations, he demonstrates in- depth knowledge of all aspects of the Education Code. He has argued school cases before state and federal trial, appellate, and supreme courts. Several times Bob successfully defended positions that others were afraid to take because he believed it was right. He has taken such cases to both the California Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Appeals and won. His courage and skill have saved the school districts untold dollars that were used to educate our children. After graduating from U.C. Berkeley (Boalt Hall) Law School in 1971, Bob served as an attorney for the California State University, then as General Counsel of the Coast Community College District and Los Angeles Community College District. He began the development of School and College Legal Services of California in 1984. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Henry is the embodiment of all that is good about the legal profession. He has a profound respect for the law and a sense of mission to use it to insure the best results possible for students. I am proud to acknowledge the work of a man who understands that our nation's children are our future and deserve all that we can do to secure the best education for them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this resolution be less timid and actually ask for a commission beyond the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely outraged last week when I, along with the rest of the world, learned that U.S. servicemembers and private American contractors in Iraq had abused and tortured Iraqi prisoners of war, and had forced them to commit heinous sexual acts. War is devastating and terrifying, but even in war there is no place for actions such as these. The vast majority of soldiers in Iraq are performing courageously and honorably, upholding the high standards of the U.S. military. But the abuse inflicted by a few soldiers will likely be responsible for much ill will around the world. What's worse, I fear that it will embolden our enemies to commit further acts of terrorism against the United States. We must get to the bottom of this scandal, but we must do it in the right way. H. Res. 627, which will be voted on today, does not adequately address these abuses because it doesn't go far enough. Instead of encouraging an investigation through the Department of Defense, this resolution should call for congressional investigations to investigate the roles of both servicemembers and private civilian contractors who may have played a role in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war. The military should not investigate itself in this matter, because we don't yet know if the military leadership itself bears some responsibility for these atrocities. We also owe an apology to the people of Iraq, and to all the countries around the world that look to the United States for leadership and guidance in the area of democracy. This resolution offers no apology. Instead, it absolves the Congress of blame, claiming that we weren't informed of the abuses while they were happening. But the fact that we weren't informed should not stop this body from offering our sincerest regret that military procedures failed to stop this kind of abuse from occurring. Are we so arrogant that we cannot apologize for some of the most heinous acts that member of our military have ever committed? This resolution must be amended to get to the bottom of this terrible scandal. I urge my colleagues to vote against H. Res. 627 unless it is amended to include congressional investigations and regret for the acts of those wearing the uniform of the United States military.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Stewart Udall who has served our country in many ways--for six years as a Member of the House of Representatives, nine years as Secretary of Interior, and countless years as an environmental activist, scholar, historian, and citizen of the outdoors. However, it is for a unique contribution to the preservation of our natural resources that I am here today; as Secretary of the Interior in 1962, Stewart Udall was instrumental in the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore in my district in Marin County, California. Point Reyes National Seashore is truly a treasure for the nation. Conceived as a park in the 1930s, the hard work of dedicated people finally made the Seashore a reality during Stewart Udall's tenure. The park is enjoyed by over 2.5 million visitors annually and ranks among the top twenty most-visited National Parks in the country. Comprising over 71,000 acres of estuaries, beaches, coastal grasslands, salt marshes, and coniferous forests, Point Reyes National Seashore is home to 45% of North American avian species, 18% of California's plant species, and hundreds of migrating whales. Its rich cultural history, dating back 5000 years to Miwok settlements, includes the landing of Sir Francis Drake in 1579 and the development of early 19th century Mexican land grants which are the precursors of modern ranches in the pastoral zones. The Seashore today successfully balances the needs of visitors and ranchers with the preservation of ecosystems and historical sites. Upon his appointment as Secretary of the Interior by President John F. Kennedy, Stewart Udall exhibited the visionary leadership that preserved the natural and cultural heritage of Point Reyes National Seashore as well as other important seashores and lakeshores in the National Park System. He declared that ``few areas in government leave a more abiding and visible mark on our land and our individual future than what is done or not done by the Department of Interior. Our success will be measured by the scars of neglect that are removed and the creative programs we realize in improving this great land of ours.'' As an Arizona native, Secretary Udall brought to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations a unique understanding of the value of the ecosystems of the western United States. His Cabinet career resulted in The Wilderness Bill, The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the creation of four new national parks, six national monuments, eight seashores and lakeshores, nine recreation areas, twenty historic sites, and 56 wildlife refuges. Continuing his exploration of Western issues, Secretary Udall has documented the history of much of the region in several books, most recently, The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West. This book brings to life the stories of actual people who settled the land, dispelling the myth of the predominance of handsome, six-gun- toting cowboys. Mr. Speaker, Stewart Udall's vision, dedication, and leadership exemplify the best in public service. In his own words, ``In the long run the best politics is a job well done.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say regarding the death of Mary McGrory that I just met here a year or so ago. She sized me up and said, you look good, but let us see what you are made of. Well, tonight let us go. Mr. Speaker, last week the House voted unanimously to allow military reservists and National Guardsmen to make penalty-free withdrawals from their retirement accounts when they are called up for an extended period of active duty. Penalty-free withdrawals from their very own retirement accounts. This bill seeks to help the one-third of Reservists who took a pay cut when called to duty in Iraq. Every Member of Congress supported this legislation because everyone supports the brave men and women who selflessly sacrifice their time, their energy, and increasingly their lives on behalf of this country. But we should not be proud of ourselves for unanimously passing this legislation. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for allowing our Reservists to raid their retirement accounts penalty free. We should be doing much more for those who defend this country during times of war. Last November this Congress passed outrageous legislation to fund the war effort to the tune of $87 billion. That is on top of the $78 billion in supplemental funds that was appropriated in March 2003, yet reports show billions of those dollars are being misused, misappropriated and some even stolen in Iraq. On top of that, the Pentagon today is asking for $25 billion more in a 2005 supplemental package. There is something drastically wrong when big companies like Halliburton and Bechtel get rich off the war effort, while the only riches paid to the Reservists who left their jobs to serve in the United States military are those that they raid from their own piggy banks. There has to be a better way, and there is. One that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with American values. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART Security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. It 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 women's education. We need to shift our budget priorities to reflect the true needs of the American people. We must properly support the thousands of soldiers who sacrifice daily to serve and protect our Nation. SMART Security means equipping our troops with the tools essential to their survival, body armor capable of stopping bullets, armor for tanks that will help prevention the destruction of U.S. military conveys, and the necessary water equipment to keep the troops hydrated in the desert heat. None of these things were funded fully, even after Congress approved $155 billion in supplemental spending last year. SMART security means creating a permanent post-conflict unit that provides the first layer of reconstruction in countries that have been devastated by war and/or by oppressive dictators like Iraq and Afghanistan. And SMART would mean funding all Army peacekeeping units devoted to studying and preparing for future peacekeeping missions. The Bush doctrine 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. 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, SMART Security is pragmatic, SMART Security is patriotic. SMART Security is smart, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago on May 1, President Bush made a huge mistake when he stood in front of a banner that read ``Mission Accomplished'' and told the Nation that major combat operations in Iraq were over; huge error. The truth is that major combat operations are very far from being over. Of the 734 American soldiers who have died in Iraq, nearly 600 have died since the President claimed an end to major combat operations. April of the year 2004 was just as devastating to our troop levels as April of the year 2003. To add insult to injury, the Bush administration continues to maintain its tight grip on the media, engaging in a brand of censorship that is at stark contrast with fundamental American values of freedom of speech and freedom of press, a mistake in every way in this country of ours. First the Coalition Provisional Authority, which runs Iraq and which was created by the Bush administration, decided to create its own television operation to broadcast live to the United States 24 hours a day from Iraq. The point of C-SPAN Baghdad, as it was dubbed, was to put a positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks by transmitting directly to local and regional media outlets in the United States. This is not the first time Bush has attempted to control the media in Iraq. Fearing that support for the Iraq war would fade if Americans caught sight of U.S. soldiers returning home in flag-draped caskets, the Bush administration banned all coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecoming on military bases. Another gross mistake, our President has not attended any homecoming or burials to date. There has to be a better way and there is, one that emphasizes brain instead of brawn, one that is consistent with American values, one that trusts Americans will do the right thing when they know the truth. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform 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 women's education in Third World countries. SMART legislation promotes more effective conflict assessment and early warning systems, multilateral rapid response mechanisms, human rights monitoring, civilian policing and investment in civil programs and fair judicial systems. SMART security is about promoting a foreign policy that is open and honest, not one that is cloaked in secrecy and hidden agendas. If we cannot trust our government to pursue policies that are best for America, then I ask, who can we trust? The Bush doctrine 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: Our commitment to peace and 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, almost 3 years ago, on September 11, the United States faced the most deadly terrorist attack in our history. Thousands of people died on that painful day, a day which we will never forget as long as we live. After September 11, our Nation faced a great challenge, the likes of which have not confronted us since the dawn of World War II. Americans had a choice, either rise up and directly challenge terrorism at its very heart, or pass the buck and leave the problem to someone else. In the months that followed September 11, American leaders chose the right path. Democrats and Republicans worked together to provide supplemental funds for New York City, for Washington, DC, and for the unfortunate Americans who tragically lost loved ones that day. We also confronted a regime in Afghanistan that harbored many of those who helped plan the attacks. But we have been thrown off our path in the last 2 years. We did not stay the course in Afghanistan, where a sturdy commitment to peacekeeping would have done a great amount of good. Instead, the Bush administration shifted focus, taking pains to link al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein and with Iraq. This flawed shift in strategy culminated 1 year ago when the President of the United States, without just cause and without being provoked, made the decision to invade Iraq. Over 700 Americans have given their lives for this war, roughly 10 each week, not to mention the thousands wounded, the billions of dollars spent, and the good will squandered internationally. There has to be a better way, and there is, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with American values. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism. It treats the 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 women's education. We must prevent future acts of terrorism. SMART security is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror. Instead of emphasizing military force, SMART security focuses on multilateral partnerships. SMART security is stronger in its intelligence capabilities and it makes it easier to track and detain terrorists. Unlike the defective and oppressive U.S. PATRIOT Act, SMART security focuses on tracking and arresting those involved in terrorism and in terrorist acts 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 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 doctrine 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, our commitment to peace and 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, over 700 Americans have given their lives for the war in Iraq, a conflict with no end in sight. That number does not take into consideration the report the Pentagon just released stating that over 18,000, 18,000 soldiers have been evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons, nor does it take into consideration the billions of dollars the United States has spent to date on this conflict or the international goodwill we are squandering. We were told that this war was necessary to keep us safe. We were told last November that by sending another $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction, on top of just a few months earlier $78 billion for the same purposes, that Iraq would be in better shape and that our soldiers across the world would have the support that they need. The fact is, even after Congress approved $155 billion in supplemental spending bills, Iraq is not in better shape; and many of our troops in Iraq still lack the equipment that is essential for their survival: body armor capable of stopping bullets; armor for tanks that will help prevent the destruction of U.S. military convoys; and the necessary water equipment to keep them hydrated in the desert heat. Under the Bush administration, the annual Pentagon budget has grown from $310 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $420 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of 35 percent in just 4 years. At the same time the United States spends outrageous amounts of money on outdated weapon systems, America's contribution to U.N. peacekeeping missions has suffered a 6.5 percent cut, despite the fact that several critical peacekeeping missions will be launched in the coming year. There has to be a better way, and there is, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, and one that is consistent with American values. I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for sensible multilateral American response to terrorism. We need to shift our budget priorities so that they reflect the true security needs of the American people 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 in the first place. SMART security calls for stronger and smarter investments abroad in peacekeeping and conflict prevention programs and at home on homeland security and first responders. SMART security means creating a permanent postconflict unit that provides the first layer of reconstruction in countries that have been devastated by war and/or by oppressed dictators, like Iraq and Afghanistan. And SMART would mean funding all Army peacekeeping units devoted to studying and preparing for future peacekeeping missions. SMART would develop a real strategy for energy independence because nothing threatens our national security more than our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. The Bush doctrine 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, our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART security is tough, pragmatic and patriotic. SMART security is smart, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it has been a little over 1 year since the President of the United States, without just cause and without being provoked, invaded Iraq. Over 700 Americans have given their lives for this war, roughly 10 each week, not to mention the thousands wounded, the billions of dollars spent, and the international good will squandered. This is the same President Bush who last week could not think of a mistake he had made. We were told that this war was necessary to keep us safe. We were told Saddam Hussein had the world's most dangerous weapons and could strike at any moment. Now even the President has made tacky jokes about looking for the missing weapons of mass destruction under his White House sofa. That was certainly an insensitive mistake. In fact, the President's appetite for belligerence and bloodshed only weakens us, it makes us more vulnerable, encouraging further violence and increasing the risk of nuclear destruction. The President's inaccurate declaration about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities are not just incompetent, they are immoral. And what a mistake that was. There has to be a better way, and there is, one that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with American values. I have introduced legislation 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 is not mistaken, but he is wrong, wrong to equate our security with aggression and military force. Just because you have a hammer, not every single 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. To be smart we would support and adequately fund programs like the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which works with the Russian Federation and the states of former Soviet Union to dismantle nuclear warheads, reduce nuclear stockpiles, secure nuclear weapons in Russia. And we must replicate this program in other troubled regions like North Korea and Iran, because it is a mistake to believe that every country will proactively choose to give up its nuclear program. In the long run negotiations with other countries will keep us much safer than believing we can scare them into submission. The Bush doctrine has been tried, and it has failed. In fact, it is a huge, huge mistake. 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 and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. SMART security is tough, pragmatic, and patriotic. SMART security is smart, and it will keep America safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a new SMART approach to national security, an approach that emphasizes brains instead of brawn, one that is consistent with American values. Talk about mistakes. It has been 1 year since the President of the United States, without just cause, or, in fact, being provoked, invaded Iraq. Hundreds of Americans have given their lives for this war, not to mention the thousands wounded, the billions of dollars spent, and the international goodwill squandered. We were told that this war was necessary to keep us safe. We were told Saddam Hussein had the world's most dangerous weapons aimed at American cities. Now even the President makes tacky jokes about looking for the missing weapons of mass destruction under his sofa. We were told by the administration that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda. Now Richard Clark tells us that invading Iraq in response to 9/ 11 was as senseless as it would have been if FDR had attacked Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. The President's national security policy is not just immoral. It is incompetent. There has to be a better way 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, and it has five major components. In the first section, we address preventing future acts of terrorism. SMART security is more vigilant than the President on fighting terror; but instead of military force, SMART emphasizes multilateral partnerships and stronger intelligence capabilities to track and detain terrorists. Second, we need to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction; and we can do it with aggressive diplomacy, a commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. Third, we must address terrorism's root causes. The first front in the war on terror has to be confronting the despair and deprivation that foster it. That is why SMART security includes an ambitious international development agenda: democracy-building, human rights education, and sustainable development and education for women and girls in oppressive nations. Instead of troops, let's send scientists, teachers, urban planners, agricultural experts, and small business loans to troubled parts of the world. Fourth, let us rethink our budget priorities. We need stronger investments in peacekeeping and reconstruction, less spending on missile defense and outdated Cold War systems, a more serious financial commitment to homeland security and first responders, and a real strategy for energy independence, especially support for the development of renewable energy sources, because nothing threatens national security more than reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Fifth, and the final section of the SMART security platform, stresses that the United States must pursue to the fullest extent alternatives to war. SMART security calls for prevention over preemption. War should be the very last resort to be considered, only after every single diplomatic solution has been exhausted. The SMART legislation promotes more effective conflict assessment in early warning systems, multilateral rapid response mechanisms, human rights monitoring, civilian policing, and investments in civil society programs and fair judicial systems. Keeping Americans safe must be the Federal Government's most urgent priority. On that point, the President and I agree. But his mistake is in equating security with aggression and military force. In fact, his appetite for belligerence and bloodshed only weakens us and makes us more vulnerable, encouraging further violence and increasing the risk of nuclear destruction. And while we are at it, maybe we ought to expand our definition of national security. Can a Nation whose public schools fail its poor children and leave more than 40 million of its people without health coverage truly be considered secure? The Bush doctrine 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: Our commitment to peace and freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity to work with leadership around the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as we gather to celebrate National Women's History Month, I rise to recognize not only the contributions of all women, but most importantly, the work of my constituents that made this month possible. Sonoma County, in my district, is the birthplace of the National Women's History Project, the nonprofit education organization that is responsible for establishing Women's History Month. In 1978, the Education Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women initiated a Women's History Week under my tutelage. I was the Chair, actually, of the commission at that time. Later, in 1987, with the help of museums, libraries, educators across the country, the National Women's History Project petitioned Congress to expand the celebration to the entire month of March. A resolution recognizing Women's History Month was quickly passed with strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. Since that time, Women's History Month has provided a perfect opportunity to discuss and honor the contributions that women have made throughout the history of our Nation, both here in our capital and in our classrooms. There are so many remarkable accomplishments that deserve mention, from the fight for suffrage and reproductive freedom, to efforts to give women and girls equal access to education and employment opportunities. We have come so far in so very many ways; and, yet, Mr. Speaker, we seem to be losing ground on so much of the precious progress we have made. Since we last celebrated National Women's History Month, the President has signed a bill criminalizing a safe and accepted medical procedure for the first time ever. Legislators have now inserted themselves into the difficult medical decisions that should be left to a woman, her family, and her doctor. To add insult to injury, the Justice Department is seeking permission, permission, to rifle through women's personal medical records in the State Department's attempt to uphold this intrusive law. These violations of privacy are without precedent and are simply, simply unacceptable. Women have worked too hard. They have fought too long to be told that they are not allowed to undergo a medical procedure recommended by their doctor, and that the Justice Department and their lawyers have the right to examine women's medical records. It is not enough to devote a month every year to celebrating the progress that women have made in the battles that we have won. If we do not stand up after these recent impositions and insist on our right to make decisions about our own bodies, when will we? How many more restrictions must be placed on us before we insist that this must stop? Well, on April 25 of this year, this month, actually, hundreds of thousands of women, men and children will come to Washington, D.C. to do just that. We will speak out, because women deserve accurate and balanced information about their reproductive options. We will speak out, because women deserve access to contraception and prenatal care. These services are not a luxury for women. They are truly a matter of life or death. At the march on April 25, we will clearly convey that protecting women's lives is of paramount importance for Americans from all walks of life. I look forward to being part of this truly historic gathering and joining with my colleagues, constituents, and people from all over the world to show the United States that we care about women's lives in America. When we gather this time next year to recognize National Women's History Month, we will be able to list the 2004 March for Women's Lives as another notable accomplishment; and even more importantly, I hope we will be able to say that we have stopped the tide of anti-choice restrictions, to say that our private medical records will remain private, and to say that we have the right to undergo medical procedures recommended by our doctors. In honor of National Women's History Month, we must not only remember the accomplishments of the women who have come before us; we must also commit to the protection of that progress on behalf of the women who will come after us.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of TEA LU because it is the most effective economic stimulus package this House has considered since our economy began to slump. No, I am not talking about another tax cut. I am talking about a transportation bill. Infrastructure investments are the smartest, most profitable long-term job creation initiatives available to us at the Federal level at this time. By investing our resources in transportation projects, we accomplish what annual tax cuts have thus far failed to do. We create good jobs, jobs that actually pay a living wage. Workers in these jobs support their families by performing tasks that also improve their communities. Efficient transportation systems will also allow people to spend less time commuting and more time with their families. Traffic adds hours to a parent's workday, making it even more difficult to balance the competing demands of work and family. Vote for TEA LU.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4062, and I am pleased that this legislation reopens the 7(a) loan program and ensures that small businesses will once again be able to benefit from its lending power. As a former small business owner, I understand the frustrations and worries small business owners have had as this program has sat in limbo. Small businesses are one of our Nation's leading employment opportunities, but few businesses can afford to start up of expand without the help of loans. Renewing our commitment to the Small Business Administration 7(a) loan program will not only bolster our Nation's workforce but also the economy as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital piece of legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Bush White House finally succumbed to intense and well-deserved pressure and agreed to allow National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify under oath before the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks. I am glad that Dr. Rice will publicly testify before the commission. This is an important step towards learning about the events surrounding the terrible attacks that occurred in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11. Now we can prevent such events from ever happening again if we get the information that has been withheld. But why is it that the Bush administration agreed to do the right thing only after receiving intense pressure from the public and from Republican appointees on the 9/11 Commission? Why does the White House time and again fail to quickly and transparently disclose what transpires behind its closed doors? After all, who could possibly provide better information in the fight against terrorism than those top White House officials, those who served the administration during that fateful day on September 11? Remember, and we cannot forget, that the Bush administration initially tried to prevent Congress from creating the independent commission in the first place. Since then it has failed to hand over critical documents and fully cooperate with the commission's stated goal of providing a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. Even more recently, the White House refused to support the commission's request for more time to complete its work. To me, it seems like the White House is less than enthusiastic about getting to the bottom of these catastrophic events. As part of the deal struck for allowing Dr. Rice to testify, the 9/11 Commission had to agree in writing not to require additional public testimony from any White House officials, including Dr. Rice. The 9/11 Commission agreed to these terms, but this deal means that regardless of what the commission may learn in future months, no other White House official will be allowed to publicly testify under oath. That is like an attorney asking a judge if half of the witnesses to a crime can skip the trial. It is a ridiculous concept. President Bush and Vice President Cheney will meet with the commission, although privately, and from what I understand, will read their remarks without taking questions. This is very disappointing. I think the American people, and especially the families of the victims of September 11, deserve to know what their leaders knew and when they knew it. I remember when the country rallied together in September and October of 2001. These episodes of unity begin and end with the President. Tough times call for strong leadership. It is once again time for President Bush to lead this country forward, towards truth and reconciliation. He should help us grow as a people by being the very first person to volunteer himself for public testimony. He should avail himself and his staff to the 9/11 Commission so that we might learn something about our past and protect ourselves for the future. The American people, Madam Speaker, deserve no less from their Commander in Chief.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill which at first appears to be fairly straightforward. H.R. 3966 would seem to provide the military recruiters the same access to college and university campuses that other government agencies and private companies are receiving, but the reality is that this bill is not about equal access. It is about discrimination, pure and simple. If H.R. 3966 passes, then colleges and universities that otherwise adhere to strict antidiscrimination policies will be forced to allow organizations like ROTC to openly discriminate against gays, lesbian and bisexual men and women. The flawed ``Don't ask, Don't tell'' policy that the military has adopted allows the military to discharge any serviceman or servicewoman who is determined not to be straight. In no other field can someone be fired simply for being gay. H.R. 3966 is nothing short of an open and codified policy of intolerance, intolerance against homosexuals, for the reason of their sexual orientation. Until the incredibly unjust ``Don't ask, Don't tell'' policy is drastically altered, bills like H.R. 3966 will continue to allow for the open discrimination against one group of Americans. The truth is that H.R. 3966 would unfairly punish those universities who are bold enough to apply the same rules to military recruiters as they do to all other employers, employers who are recruiting on their campuses. I will vote against H.R. 3966.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join my colleagues in urging passage of S. 2241 to extend the authority for important child nutrition programs. I was pleased to stand on this floor last week with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, and our entire committee to pass H.R. 3873, the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act, the House bill which both authorizes and makes some important improvements to the Federal child nutrition program. H.R. 3873 improves accuracy in the school meals program without dropping eligible children. It makes it easier for eligible students to get free and reduced meals by making the application process easier. H.R. 3873 makes homeless and migrant youth and children whose families receive food stamps automatically eligible for free meals. It allows youth up to age 18 to participate in meals programs if they are living in domestic violence or homeless shelters. It increases startup and expansion grants for the School Breakfast Program and includes a study of the best ways to overcome common barriers to offering breakfasts at all schools for all students. H.R. 3873 helps students make better food choices and fight obesity with team nutrition which provides nutrition education to students and training and support to improve the nutrition of food sold in schools. It requires school districts to develop a local wellness policy which addresses both what students eat at school and the role that physical activity plays in good health. It creates greater opportunities for schools. It includes fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables in school meals, gets our very youngest children off to a healthy start with the new WIC Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program that will study the benefits of including fruit and vegetables in the WIC food package. When we passed H.R. 3873 last week, Mr. Speaker, we proved that child nutrition truly is a bipartisan priority here in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues in the other body to make it a priority as well so that we can get child nutrition reauthorization and the improvements we need into law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The primary goal of all of the Federal child nutrition programs is to increase opportunities for low-income infants and children so that they will eat nutritious food. Anytime the economy takes a turn for the worse, as it has done for a while now, we can see it first in the number of low-income children who do not have enough to eat. The 2003 Key National Indicators of Children's Well-Being reports that nearly 46 percent of American children who live in poverty were in ``food insecure'' households, households that reported difficulty in obtaining enough food and increased use of emergency food sources, resulting in reduced food intake and resulting in hunger. WIC and the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs and the Child and Adult Care Food Program are our very best weapons in the fight against childhood hunger. These programs ensure that every eligible infant and child in this Nation has access to nutritious food: at home, through the WIC Program; in child care, through the Child and Adult Food Program; in school, through the School Breakfast and Lunch Programs; during out-of-school time, through After School and Summer Programs; and in homeless and domestic violence shelters. Another way to get more food to hungry kids, particularly kids in working poor families, would be to pass the bill of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), of which I am a cosponsor, to phase out the reduced price category in school lunch and breakfast. The 40 cents fee for reduced school price lunch is a major barrier for children of the working poor. While 40 cents may not seem like much money to us, if your income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty line and you have more than one child, it is often more than you can afford to spend. Eliminating the reduced price category would save schools immeasurable time and money, because it would reduce their paperwork burdens and greatly simplify the eligibility program in the process. Eliminating reduced prices works for schools, it works for hungry kids, and it should be something we start immediately. Another change for the better would be to improve the nutrition quality of all of the food sold in our schools. Today, one out of every six children is overweight; and childhood obesity raises special concerns. It places children at high risk for disease and conditions previously only associated with adults. Nearly two-thirds of obese 5- to 10-year-olds have at least one additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of children with Type II diabetes, the form of the disease directly linked to overweight adults. In addition, childhood obesity is a strong predictor of adult obesity. A recent study found that 77 percent of children with a body mass index greater than the 95th percentile remained obese as adults. A study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that, if current trends continue, obesity will become the leading cause of preventible death by next year; not in the future, next year. Over-consumption of low nutrition soft drinks and snacks plays a key role in childhood obesity. Yet 43 percent of elementary schools, 74 percent of middle schools, and 98 percent of high schools have vending machines, school stores or snack bars that sell soft drinks, candy, salty snacks and baked goods that are at high risk and high in fat, while, at the same time, not providing healthy snacks as a balance. We need a good, scientifically-based study on what is a healthy school environment; and then we need to help schools create that environment for their students. The child nutrition bill that we passed last week takes some good first steps with the local wellness policy and team nutrition, but we need to be doing much, much more. In addition to that, we should be trying to help all children make healthy eating choices. I certainly do not mean that we or should anyone else should become food policemen or policewomen, but schools can be offered incentives to make healthy foods available, and children can be educated to choose those healthy foods. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2231 because to do anything else would be irresponsible. We must continue assistance to those who need help getting back on their feet, and we must continue that assistance through the TANF program. But, Madam Speaker, we can do much better. I speak from whence I came. I know about welfare. I lived it. Over 30 years ago as a young mother with three children, they were aged 1, 3, and 5 years old, my husband left us. I immediately went to work full time; but to keep it all together, I went on welfare, aid for dependent children, while I continued my full-time work so that my children could have the health care and the child care that they needed. Because I was educated, because I had good job skills and good job experience, because I was healthy and my children were healthy, lucky me, and the Members know I was assertive, eventually, I worked my way out of poverty. But it would have been almost impossible without the help of the Federal Government; and, believe me, I think that others should have the same opportunities that I did. I know that we need to make education and training count as work activity for welfare recipients so mothers will have access to educational opportunities and job training to give them the skills they need so that they can get jobs that pay a livable wage, so that they can actually take care of their families. I know that quality child care, child care that actually includes infant and weekend and evening work, helps parents keep their jobs so that they can become self- sufficient and that these programs are essential to any welfare plan to give support to families in need. Madam Speaker, as Congress continues to debate welfare reauthorization, we have to remember that the goal of welfare is to move women and their families from welfare to self-sufficiency, not from welfare to poverty as it is now. Therefore, we in this body must do a lot more to make this a true bipartisan bill so that families can get the real help that they need. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in continuing under S. 2231 what is going on now, so that we can improve the safety net for families in need.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the CBC substitute because it steps up to the needs of key education programs. The Republican budget includes meager increases for important programs like No Child Left Behind; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA; and Pell grant funding. Without the additional funding provided by the CBC budget, these programs cannot serve eligible students who are relying on them, relying on them for the education they need, the education they deserve to become self- sufficient adults who contribute to America. The Republican budget proposal shortchanges No Child Left Behind by $9.4 billion. It does not come close to meeting the Federal promise to fund 40 percent of the costs of IDEA, and it shortchanges the 5.3 million low-income college students who rely on Pell grants to access their higher education training. The CBC budget improves funding for all of these programs without increasing the Federal deficit like the Republican budget would. The CBC budget adds up for all Americans, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it. The Republican budget includes only meager increases for important programs like No Child Left Behind, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Pell grant funding. Without the additional funding provided in the CBC budget, these programs cannot serve eligible students who are relying on them for the education they need and deserve to become self-sufficient adults who contribute to America. The Republican budget proposal shortchanges No Child Left Behind by $9.4 billion; it doesn't come close to meeting the Federal promise to fund 40 percent of the cost of IDEA; and it shortchanges the 5.3 million low-income college students who rely on Pell grants to access higher education. The CBC budget improves funding for these programs without increasing the Federal deficit like the Republican budget does.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3873, the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act, which reauthorizes the Federal Child Nutrition programs. This is a bipartisan bill. It was unanimously reported out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I thank the chairman of the full committee and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, for working in good faith with the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and myself in getting to this point. But I want to say that we would not be here without the great staffs on both sides of the aisle. I thank the staffs so much. While there is more that I would have liked to do in this reauthorization such as a full expansion of the free breakfast program for all kids, no matter their economic status, and tighter restrictions on the junk food that is sold in schools, the Child Nutrition and Improvement and Integrity Act does improve the Federal Child Nutrition programs in many important ways. H.R. 3873 improves accuracy in school meals programs without dropping eligible children; makes it easier for eligible students to get free and reduced-price meals by making the application process easier; makes homeless and migrant youth and children, whose families receive food stamps, automatically eligible for free meals; allows youth up to age 18 to participate in meal programs if they are living in domestic violence or homeless shelters; increases start-up and expansion grants for school breakfast programs; and includes a study for the best ways to overcome common barriers to offering breakfast at schools; helps students make better food choices, and fight obesity with Team Nutrition which provides nutrition education to students and training and support to improve the nutrition of foods sold in school; requires school districts to develop a local ``wellness policy'' which addresses both what students eat at school and the role that physical activity plays in good health. This bill creates greater opportunities for schools to include fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables in school meals, gets our very youngest children off to a healthy start with the new WIC Fruit and Vegetable pilot program that will study the benefits of including fruits and vegetables in the WIC food package. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act improves the nutritional well-being of low-income children by improving the Federal child nutrition programs. H.R. 3873 proves that child nutrition truly is bipartisan and it is a priority of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has very effectively added the irradiation part of this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.