Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill could result in an additional $36 million in aid this year for students and colleges impacted by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. It is a commonsense bill, and I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3863; but we cannot stop here.

Congress must do more to make college affordable for all students, including victims of the hurricanes.

Unfortunately, the House probably will vote next month on H.R. 609, a Republican bill that would increase the cost to students of Federal aid by billions of dollars.

Ironically, one of the provisions of the Republican H.R. 609 legislation would change the formula for distributing campus-based aid while not increasing the amount of that aid.

Earlier this summer, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) offered an amendment in committee that would have ensured that changes in the formula were not tied to full increases but to real increases in aid; but the amendment was defeated by the Republicans in our committee.

H.R. 609 simply would rob Peter to pay Paul, rather than address the real problem, which is the Republican refusal to significantly increase Pell grants and other grant aid to make colleges more affordable for low- and middle-income families.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support what Congress is doing today because it will help college students in the gulf region, but I encourage everyone to keep an eye on what Congress does next month because that will change what we do to help college students nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to first thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, supporting after-school programs is one of the most important things that we in Congress and the people around the country can do to improve our children's lives and ensure that they have bright futures. High-quality after-school programs provide children with safe, enriching activities, a place to be where they are welcome and where they are comfortable. Without these programs, the hours between the end of the school day, actually between the school bell and the dinner bell, become the time that children are most likely to get into trouble.

So while these programs are important to all families, they are particularly important and invaluable to working families. Good after- school programs build stronger communities by involving parents, community leaders, business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of young people. That is why I am delighted to support ``Lights on Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after-school programs.

On October 20, 2005, as many as 1 million people around the country will attend events to spread the word about the critical importance of high-quality, after-school programs. But we also have to remember that resolutions are not enough. As this resolution notes, there are more than 14 million children in the United States of America who do not have a place to go after school. Yet in recent years, this President and Congress have cut funding for after-school programs.

So by all means, let us resolve today to support these programs, but when it comes time to put our money where our mouths are, let us support them financially also.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Lowey), the sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), an original cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution fits directly into my legislation, the Balancing Act, legislation that is intended to help working families bridge their responsibilities of work and their responsibilities to their families.

As this resolution notes, there are more than 14 million children in the United States who do not have a place to go after school. Yet in recent years, this President and this Congress have cut funding for after-school programs. So by all means, let us resolve today to support these programs, but when it comes time to put our money where our mouths are, let us support them financially as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested yesterday for simply exercising her constitutional right to freedom of speech outside the White House, has awoken a

sleeping American public. She deserves a great deal of credit for her tireless campaign against the Bush administration's lies and abuses which have governed the war in Iraq from the very beginning. Her campaign awakened the American people to realize just how awful this war truly is.

This weekend over 300,000 Americans, and I know it was more than 100,000 as reported by the press because I was there, over 300,000 Americans demonstrated the same resolve as Cindy Sheehan by showing up in force at a rally in Washington, D.C. It was one of the first times since the 1970s that so many people had descended on the Nation's capital to protest a war.

If strength of numbers demonstrates the injustice of a particular policy, then the thousands who participated in Saturday's march depicted the wrongness of the Iraq war.

Most Americans know that the war in Iraq is not increasing our national security, that by continuing to fight an unwinnable war the President is ensuring our national insecurity.

Most Americans know that the Bush administration had no plan for how to conduct the war. They had no plan for securing the country once Saddam was deposed; and now they have no plan for ending the war.

Most Americans know the terror and chaos that plague Iraq cannot be resolved simply by staying the course. I am sure the families of the 2,000 American soldiers and countless thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in this war would argue that the last 2-plus years of fighting have not brought much stability to Iraq or to their lives.

Let us not forget about the thousands of American soldiers who were not killed in Iraq, but whose lives will nonetheless be changed forever as a result of injuries sustained during the war: arms and legs lost, shrapnel wounds cutting into every body part, emotional trauma. How will these wounds ever heal?

The thousands of Americans who bravely serve in our Nation's military deserve better. In fact, all Americans deserve better. They deserve better than an endless war that is slowly draining our national coffers. They deserve better than $9 billion of congressionally appropriated funds being lost; $9 billion lost. That is really pretty hard to imagine. Lost under the Coalition Provisional Authority's watch, or the new $1 billion that has gone missing to the Iraqi Government, U.S. money intended for training of Iraqi security forces.

While the Bush administration is failing the American people through its foreign policies, they are also neglecting priorities at home. Just take the recent hurricanes that have bombarded the southeastern United States over the past month.

If anything, Katrina and Rita have demonstrated just how skewed our national priorities have become. The Federal Government failed to assist thousands of Americans, mostly poor, mostly underprivileged, mostly African American during their great time of need.

What we need now is an independent commission to investigate how the hurricane response was botched so badly. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's response to the failures at home is just like his response given to its failures in Iraq: deflection and misdirection of any blame whatsoever.

President Bush has announced that he will establish a partisan, congressionally appointed oversight committee; but that is not what the American people need. That is not what the American people deserve. We need an impartial, independent commission to get to the bottom of why the National Guard was in Iraq and not in the United States to protect its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we need a drastic change in policies, both at home and in Iraq. The American people know when they are being lied to, when they are being misled.

It is time that Congress started doing what it was created to do: represent the will of the American people, rescue victims of natural disasters, and rescue our troops by bringing them home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 125th Anniversary of Ursuline High School. Ursuline High School, founded in 1880 in Santa Rosa by the Ursuline Sisters, is a private Catholic secondary school committed to excellence in educating young women.

Ursuline High School, known in the early years as Ursuline Academy, first opened its doors at 10th and B Streets in the former Santa Rosa Christian College Building. By 1957, the school relocated to its current location in northern Santa Rosa on a portion of the Howarth Estate. The year 1965 saw the addition of Cardinal Newman High School, a private school for young men, on the adjacent property.

Even as Ursuline High School has grown and spawned such acclaimed alumni as Olympic Swimming Champion Ann Curtis and Broadway actor Valerie Leonard, the school has remained focused on empowering young women to realize their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Ursuline High School for its 125 years of commitment to educating young women to be leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The Committee on Education and the Workforce voted for this Head Start bill unanimously, 48 to 0. But many of our Republican colleagues today would destroy this bill, making it partisan by allowing religious discrimination in hiring while using Federal funds, using taxpayer dollars.

Most Democrats were not allowed to bring their amendments here to the floor for debate, although a bill was allowed that would add religious discrimination to this Head Start bill. It is a poison pill.

I offered an amendment with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) to fully fund Head Start and

to increase funding for early Head Start. Even though we are serving fewer than half of eligible children, the first 4 years of the George W. Bush administration included four of the five smallest Head Start funding increases since 1991. And the number of children served by Head Start has increased by less than one-tenth of 1 percent since the end of the Clinton administration.

In a country as wealthy as ours, this is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable that while denying Democrats a debate on expanding access for children, we will debate an amendment from the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) to allow some providers to divert public funds to private profit.

Opponents of my amendment will say that they would like to increase funding for Head Start, but that they just cannot because budget constraints make it impossible. But this is authorizing legislation, Mr. Speaker, and authorizing legislation should tell appropriators what we need to accomplish our goals. If appropriators do not have the resources to do this, it is only because the administration and this Congress choose more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us over help for our children.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this debate reminds me of the old saying, I have got good news and I have got bad news.

The good news is that our committee worked in a bipartisan way to report out a bill by a vote of 48 to zero. And I want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); and the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for making that possible, as well as all the members of the committee.

This bill is a great step forward from where we were last Congress. First and foremost, the bill protects the high quality of Head Start programs by protecting local control of those programs. In other words, there is no State block granting. The bill also increases funding to migrant and seasonal and Indian Head Start programs, strengthens teacher qualification requirements, and limits uses of the administration's ill-conceived national testing system.

But there is also bad news. First, even though fewer than half of eligible children receive Head Start services, and even though the number of children served has been going down under the Bush administration, this bill does nothing to increase the number of children who will receive these critical services.

Second, this bill does not increase resources to help Head Start programs hire the better qualified teachers that the bill requires. It is unusual for me to be the one explaining to my Republican colleagues how market forces work, but in this case it is pretty clear they do not get it. More highly qualified teachers will cost more money, and we are demanding more qualified teachers without providing the necessary financial support. That is the good news and the bad news.

Now, here is the worst news, which is actually a poison pill for this bill. The majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over what could have been a rare bipartisan achievement. That probably sounds hard to believe, but it is true.

Under current law, religious organizations can and do receive Head Start funding. They also can only hire members of their faith when they use their own funds. So I ask you, what is the problem? Apparently, the problem is that religious organizations want to discriminate in hiring when they are using public funds, your tax dollars. Well, actually, religious organizations have never asked any of us to waive their discriminatory rights and privileges that they are asking for over on the other side of the aisle.

Under the Boustany amendment, a prospective Head Start teacher could face a religious test before being hired. This amendment is unnecessary. It is wrong. I will not support a final bill that includes it.

Head Start kids are enough at risk as it is, without their teachers being chosen because of their religion, rather than because they are actually the best qualified.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the chairman of the committee.

The rights for faith-based organizations are already protected when they use their own funds. We are talking about using Federal funds, taxpayers' dollars, or they are talking about it, in order to enhance religious discrimination. That is what we oppose.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Chair of the Democratic Caucus.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the chairman, we are talking about taxpayers' money to support religious discrimination. That is what we cannot forget.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, kill Head Start? Supporting religious discrimination which was added by the majority to this otherwise very good bill is exactly what would kill Head Start. Shame on the gentleman for thinking that it is any other way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), who is a member of the Education Reform Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for his hard work on this bill. This language has been negotiated, and we have no objections to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for offering this amendment, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, helping Head Start centers develop with college students, students who will then help young children when they are learning to read, certainly will help those children. But also it is going to encourage more students at the college level to become and remain Head Start teachers.

Anything that accomplishes both of these goals is worth doing. And I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), for offering this amendment and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his support.

Approximately two-thirds of Head Start children are African American or Hispanic, but not nearly so many of their teachers are. The more diverse our teachers are, the better they will be able to understand the experiences of children in our evermore diverse society, and the better they will be able to help those children learn. And the children will also learn better because they will have models that they are missing in their lives right now.

I want to caution, however, any Member that cares about teacher diversity not to vote for the Boustany amendment because religious discrimination bears a direct relationship to race and ethnicity. It goes hand in hand. Think about that if you want diversity with your teachers.

This is an excellent amendment that is provided by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Kind, for offering this important amendment.

It is one thing to assess children to understand how best to help them learn.

But, this Administration rushed to test hundreds of thousands of children, and in so doing, used tests that are invalid and unreliable.

Moreover, in its rush, the Administration also seems to have virtually no idea how to use this unreliable data. Had the data been reliable, it would still have been virtually useless.

This amendment will bring a critically needed scientific perspective to bear on the Administration and keep them from implementing this program until they do it right. It is an important amendment and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for offering this amendment and the chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for supporting it.

We know the base bill increases teacher quality requirements, and we also know that we are not doing nearly enough to help Head Start programs hire and keep these more qualified teachers. So I support my colleague's interests and understanding on making this happen.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for offering this amendment and our chairman for accepting it.

Head Start is a program to give a helping hand to vulnerable children, and no child is more vulnerable than a homeless or foster child. This amendment will improve outreach and coordination of services for these very children, and this will help ensure that they receive the services they need to succeed in school and in life.

Mr. Chairman, this is a worthy amendment and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Musgrave amendment. The underlying bill requires that Head Start grantees keep their administrative expenses to 15 percent or less of the grant. The grantee that keeps expenses lower than 15 percent would have the remaining funds available for teacher salaries or more books or other improvements that benefit the children. That is, unless this amendment passes and the grantee is a for-profit organization, in which case under my colleague's amendment, the difference between the 15 percent and lower expenses simply would be in the pocket of the for-profit organization.

So my colleague's amendment comes down to this, very simply: whether we want the benefits of more efficient administration of grantees to go to the children or whether we want to give the businesses an incentive to cut corners for profits. I hope Members all remember HMOs; those profits do not go directly back into the program to benefit the children.

I think the answer is obvious, particularly when we are serving fewer than half the eligible children. I only hope that the majority will be as willing to spend Federal dollars on serving the children as they would be in giving those dollars to for-profit companies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) who is unable to be here this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help some of the most vulnerable victims of Hurricane Katrina, the children. As a result of Hurricane Katrina, many families have been displaced from their homes and their schools. This amendment allows displaced families to enroll their children under the age of 5 in Head Start.

In Mississippi, 44 Head Start centers were impacted by Hurricane Katrina,

18 centers will be closed indefinitely, and 26 more are in need of repair. Approximately 26,743 children within the State of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) are eligible for Head Start services prior to Hurricane Katrina. In the aftermath, the number is expected to double.

In the neighboring State of Louisiana, 117 centers were impacted, 83 remain closed, and 34 centers are providing partial services.

In Alabama, 9 centers were impacted, 3 centers will be closed indefinitely, and 6 are in need of repair.

This amendment provides a waiver for 6 months for those families that do not have proof of immunizations and income levels to participate in the Head Start program. This 6-month waiver authority also permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive the 20 percent local Head Start match requirement.

This amendment directs the Secretary to provide technical assistance, guidance, and resources which permits agencies to provide Head Start services to children who have been affected by the hurricane. The total number of Head Start children affected by Hurricane Katrina is approximately 18,000. Since the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, more families are now Head Start eligible. If you want families to come back and restore their communities, their children need to be safe and healthy in environments where they can learn and play.

I understand and appreciate that the majority will accept this amendment and I think that is wonderful. I hope that the majority will also join us in the coming days to appropriate supplemental funds for these same children.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very sad that we are debating this amendment. I think it is sad because we are squandering a rare opportunity for a real bipartisan achievement with the Head Start bill today. It is sad because we are debating whether to amend a program that came out of our country's struggle for civil rights by restricting those very civil rights. And it is sad because we are debating whether to make religious discrimination a higher priority than finding the best qualified Head Start teacher for at-risk children.

We are discussing supporting religious discrimination paid for with Federal dollars. Under current law, religious organizations can and do participate in Head Start, and they always have from the very beginning. They do a very good job. Under current law, religious organizations can hire members of their own faith using only their own funds, and they have always been able to do that. And under current law, job applicants have the right to apply for a federally funded Head Start position without submitting to a religious test.

We are not talking about forcing Catholic churches to hire Jewish priests. We are talking about whether if a religious organization chooses to accept Federal funds for Head Start, it should be allowed to discriminate using those funds, which, by the way, is exactly what President Bush called on Congress to do earlier this year. The President said, ``We ought to judge faith-based groups by results, not by their religion.''

But, sadly, the Boustany amendment is asking us to allow some Head Start programs to judge job applicants by their religion, not by their results.

So I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose final passage if the bill includes this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to read two paragraphs from a letter from Barbara Pickney, who is head of the St. Landry Parish Head Start program and is State president of the Louisiana Head Start Association.

Paragraph number 1: ``I have become aware that an amendment has been offered by Representative Boustany, a Republican from Louisiana, to the Head Start bill on the House floor today that would give faith-based organizations providing Head Start services the right to discriminate with Federal funds against employees who are of different faiths. As the State President of the Louisiana Head Start Association, I strongly oppose such an amendment.''

Then she goes on to say, ``I am greatly concerned that the provision to remove civil rights protections for employees could have a negative impact on the children and families who participate in these programs. Tens of thousands of at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children currently in Head Start could lose their teachers, who often are the most important adults to whom they have bonded, other than their parents; not because those teachers are doing a bad job, but because they are the wrong religion.''

That was Barbara Pickney, St. Landry Parish Head Start program, State president of the Louisiana Head Start Association.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This is an amendment that allows Federal funding to support discrimination. It is paid for by Federal tax dollars. It will strip civil rights protections by allowing religious organizations to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion for Head Start positions, and I repeat, using Federal taxpayers' money.

Under the amendment, a religious organization could tell a potential Head Start teacher, of all of the applicants we have seen, you would be the best one to teach our kids, but we are not going to hire you, because you are not the right religion.

As I said earlier, Head Start kids are at risk as it is, without their teachers being chosen because of their religion instead of whether they are the best qualified.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the members of this body, think before you vote yes on this. Think before you set a precedent that has Federal funding paying for discrimination based on religion.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, since the United States went to war in Iraq over 2 years ago, Congress has approved spending bill after spending bill to pay for military operations in Iraq. But one thing Congress has never done is provide any meaningful oversight over the war and the spending on the war.

Think about it. Congress will spend money on Iraq to the point of busting our already fragile budget, but when it comes to truly managing the war, Congress is nowhere to be found. Every single Member of Congress and the people that elected them should be utterly ashamed of this absence of Congress on this crucial issue.

With nearly 2,000 United States troops killed, another 15,000 wounded, and countless thousands of Iraqis killed, the U.S. Congress must, must exercise its oversight responsibilities to determine why things are going so drastically wrong in Iraq.

I have repeatedly asked the House Armed Services Committee and the House International Relations Committee to hold hearings on Iraq. Unfortunately, no committee has undertaken a serious and thoughtful examination of the war.

Since Congress has continually failed in that duty, I have decided to take matters into my own hands. Last Thursday I held a hearing to assess how to end the war in Iraq and start bringing our troops home.

Such luminaries as former Senator Max Cleland, four-star Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, and former U.S. Ambassador David Mack testified at this hearing.

Thirty Members of Congress, bipartisan Members at that, all of whom are frustrated by the same tired policies when it comes to Iraq, joined me at this hearing. The purpose of this hearing was to address not the when of ending the war, but how to end the war. After all, we should all be able to agree that the United States cannot continue to fight in Iraq indefinitely.

Given that fact, we need to start thinking about how the United States can responsibly leave Iraq without making a bad situation worse. As Senator Cleland so eloquently stated, ``When we talk about an exit strategy, we need to put the focus on strategy.''

If the hearing demonstrated anything, it is that we need to start bringing our troops home because it is our very presence in Iraq that is encouraging and uniting Iraq's insurgency. But the sad truth is that the Bush administration is doing nothing to help end the war. They have no plan for how to conduct the war, they had no plan for securing the country once Saddam Hussein was deposed, and now they have no plan for ending the war.

Well, if they do not, we will. That is what our hearing was about last week. We are trying to jump-start a debate in Congress that should have begun long ago.

The hearing was not about endorsing any one exit strategy, it was about putting all of them on the table and getting the discussions started. It was about encouraging the rest of the Congress to take a strong stand against permanent U.S. military bases on Iraq's soil and Iraqi control of Iraqi oil.

The American people have known for many months that the rationale for going to war in Iraq was based on fraud and lies. They have known that the war will continue to drain our resources and kill our young men and women in the military.

Now, two-thirds of Americans support a partial or complete military withdrawal from Iraq. It is time for Congress to start getting that message. And it is time for Congress to catch up with the American people and to catch up with the witnesses at Thursday's hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Mary Ruthsdotter, of Sebastopol, California. Mary will be 61 years old on October 14, an appropriate occasion to reflect on her profound influence on the recognition of the historical importance of women in this country.

In 1980, with Molly Murphy MacGregor, Maria Cuevas, Paula Hammett and Bette Morgan, Mary founded the National Women's History Project (NWHP) in Santa Rosa, California. It was both the fulfillment of a dream to organize a national clearinghouse and curriculum development center and the beginning of a sustained effort to celebrate the diverse and historic accomplishments of women.

Mary's passion for women's issues began shortly after she moved to Sonoma County from southern California with her husband David Crawford and her daughter Alice. Although not previously involved in the burgeoning women's movement, she became interested after receiving a letter from the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Woman and volunteered to work for the group (she later became Chair). She soon realized the Commission could not provide all the needed services for women and was instrumental in organizing the nonprofit Women's Support Network to fill these gaps and operate as an umbrella agency for other groups.

The NWHP, with the assistance of other supporters, spearheaded the movement for National Women's History Week leading to the designation of March as National Women's History Month in 1987. This designation raised the group's national profile; however, Mary's work with them involved much more.

In the days when the Internet was not available for widespread communication, Mary established a nation-wide network and newsletter and was instrumental in providing resource materials and lists to schools. She co-produced a video series, Women in American Life, as well as the first video documenting the role of Latino women, Adelante, Mujeres. Publishers all over the country sent thousands of books as Mary coordinated book reviews on the subject of women in history. She later indexed all the selections and donated them to Sonoma State University. In fact, she still reads women's biographies for fun.

Mary's can-do attitude, high energy, organization, and up-beat optimism are hallmarks of all aspects of her life. Several years ago she and her husband were leaders in organizing an ``intentional community,'' a co-housing project in Sebastopol, CA, where people of different ages and backgrounds could share in and enrich each other's lives. They have recently returned from visiting their daughter, son- in-law, and grandson in Australia.

Recently, Mary worked as a field representative for State Assemblymember Patricia Wiggins who described how creatively ``Mary never gave up when she was providing service and refused to let the bureaucracy interfere in her progress.'' When a local hospital encountered long delays from the State in securing certification for a newly hired physician, Mary got busy on the phone. When she asked where his application was in the stack, her contact replied, ``On the bottom.'' So, Mary said, ``Well, why don't you just put it on the top?'' The worker did, and the hospital received certification immediately. She was the heroine in many, many similar situations.

Mr. Speaker, as Mary wrote in her article Women and Equal Rights, ``Today, America is living the legacy of the great progress women have made, while their earnest quest for full and true equality continues.'' Mary Ruthsdotter exemplifies the passion and spirit behind this quest. She is a role model for young women and an inspiration for all of us. Thank you, Mary, for all you are and what you mean to so many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. I. King Jordan upon his retirement as President of Gallaudet University on December 31, 2005. Dr. Jordan is an accomplished, respected leader and someone I consider a personal friend.

Dr. Jordan became the Nation's first deaf university President when appointed in 1988 and the first deaf President to preside over Gallaudet University. During his tenure there he has proven to be an able, caring leader propelling the University forward as well as becoming a strong advocate for deaf students on the federal level.

Among his accomplishments, he led the University's first ever capital campaign, raising nearly $40 million, which supported the construction of the state-of-the-art Student Academic Center and contributed to the extraordinary increase in the University's endowment, which paved the way for an increase in scholarships and more academic programs. He also established a fellows program to provide support for deaf college graduates to complete their terminal degrees and become faculty members.

Dr. Jordan was not only a strong advocate for the Gallaudet community, but for individuals with disabilities across this Nation. Another proud accomplishment of Dr. Jordan's is the work he did to assist with the passage of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. He was a lead witness in support of the ADA during a joint session of Congress and delivered significant testimony in Congress and across the country during the deliberations of this bill.

Before coming to Gallaudet Dr. Jordan's life was filled with many other accomplishments. A native of Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, a small town near Philadelphia, Dr. Jordan earned a B.A. in psychology from Gallaudet University and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology from the University of Tennessee.

Upon receiving his doctorate, Dr. Jordan joined the faculty of Gallaudet's Department of Psychology. Before his appointment as President, Dr. Jordan served as chair of Gallaudet's Psychology Department and as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He has been a research fellow at Donaldson's School for the Deaf in Edinburgh Scotland and an exchange scholar at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland.

Dr. Jordan holds eleven honorary degrees and is the recipient of numerous awards, among them: The Presidential Citizen's Medal, presented by Bill Clinton in 2001; the Washingtonian of the Year Award; the James L. Fisher Award from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE); the Larry Stewart Award from the American Psychological Association and the Distinguished Leadership Award from the National Association for Community Leadership. President George H.W. Bush appointed Dr. Jordan Vice Chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (PCEPD) in 1990, and President Clinton reappointed Dr. Jordan to that role in 1993. In the summer of 2005, Dr. Jordan was presented the George Bush Medal for the Empowerment of People with Disabilities from President George H.W. Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Dr. Jordan much happiness in his retirement as he looks forward to traveling with his wife Lynda and spending more time with his family. His compassion and service will be greatly missed. I am proud to have had a chance to work with him these past years.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed roll call vote 471 and 472 on Thursday of last week. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on roll call 471, and nay on roll call 472.

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, September 15, we held an informal congressional hearing to discuss and explore a military withdrawal from Iraq. It was called ``The Bipartisan Congressional Forum on How to Bring the Troops Home.'' It was the first of its kind and it was about time.

I had hoped that the House Committee on Armed Services or the House Committee on International Relations would have taken up the matter, but repeated calls for such hearings have fallen on deaf ears. So, with the help of my colleagues and with many others and also my wonderful staff, we went about putting together this very needed hearing.

In so doing, we knew absolutely that opposition to the war is a stance that is firmly in the political mainstream. Less than 40 percent of Americans, according to the recent polls, approve of the President's handling of Iraq, and roughly half want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. With this being an American sentiment comes responsibility to be more than a protest movement.

We also knew that we needed to offer sound, thorough policy proposals that could turn our deeply held convictions into operational reality, and that is what Thursday's hearing was all about. This was not an opportunity for placard waving, though there is certainly a time and a place for that. We were more interested in how to bring our troops home, rather than why.

We heard from a broad range of experts, from scholars and military strategists. We heard from Senator Max Cleland from Georgia.

We started with an overview of the situation on the ground, including a perspective on the lives of Iraqis under U.S. occupation. Later, we heard about specific ways that we can pivot away from the current policies, ending our military presence in Iraq and bringing our troops home. From there, we transitioned into a discussion of what next. I have always insisted that ending the war does not and cannot mean abandoning Iraq and its people.

Believing in the principle underlying Colin Powell's ``Pottery Barn Rule,'' and that even if it was the Bush administration policy that broke it, at the very least we must play a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraq.

Most of all, Thursday's hearing was designed to inspire a long overdue national conversation about alternatives to the current Iraq policy.

Our goal was to fill the policy vacuum and break the silence on Capitol Hill where, frankly, Members of Congress have been slow to embrace the fresh thinking and new approaches to Iraq that their constituents are eager to discuss and are eager to hear. For too long, for a number of reasons, this debate has been ceded to the Bush administration, even as they have produced a bloody and ruinous debacle.

Thursday's hearing demonstrated that we want to do more than just say no to the war in Iraq. We want to say yes to a new, intelligent, progressive, peaceful Iraq policy that will both protect the American people and fulfill our obligations to the Iraqi people. Chief among these obligations is to ensure that the United States does not maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq. That means no permanent bases and no control over Iraqi oil.

From our witnesses, it was clear: We need to engage in an open and robust dialogue, both at home and in Iraq. They agreed that multiparty peace talks are the best way to convince all factions of Iraqis that we are serious about allowing them to dictate their country and rebuild it, and, most important of all, the need for a commitment to bring the U.S. troops home. The truth is that our military presence in Iraq is contributing to the chaos there, not alleviating it. By bringing our troops home, we can save both American and Iraqi lives and we can reunite thousands of American families in the process.

Mr. Speaker, my hope is that last week's hearing will serve as a catalyst for elected officials, for think-tanks and others around the country to join in a dialogue about military disengagement from Iraq, that the hearing will start a discussion that has been long, long overdue. The time for action in Iraq is now. So let us start taking action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elizabeth Terwilliger on the occasion of her 96th birthday. Known as Mrs. T, her philosophy is to teach children to love nature because people take care of what they love.

Fifty years ago, Mrs. T settled in Marin County, California and sought to teach her own children to love nature. Her inquisitive and thoughtful approach to teaching with a new understanding of seeing nature soon led to more children joining their excursions.

Anyone who has been on one of her excursions will remember her contagious joy and enthusiasm for all the plants and animals of Marin.

The Elizabeth Terwilliger Nature Foundation was founded in 1975, and is now part of the nonprofit environmental education organization WildCare. WildCare and Terwilliger Nature Guides continue Mrs. T's work and reach over 40,000 children and adults annually.

Mrs. T did not stop at teaching others to love nature, she actively engaged in protecting it as well. She helped to save the Richardson Bay Preserve, develop bicycle paths, and build a footbridge at Muir Beach. Inducted into the Marin Women's Hall of Fame, designated a ``Rara Avis'' by the San Francisco Enquirer and Chronicle, starring in several films and her own newspaper column is just a sampling of her numerous achievements.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor Elizabeth Terwilliger, whose love of nature and desire to teach others to share that love leaves a legacy that is part of the fabric of our community. Mrs. T's commitment has touched so many lives in her 96 years, and those lives will continue to educate future generations about nature and protection of the environment.