Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, whenever we debate the Defense appropriations bill, I feel like I'm living in an alternative universe, because the other 51 weeks of the year all I hear from my Republican colleagues is that the sky is falling and we have to rein in a deficit that is wildly out of control. When it comes to the military budget, that rhetoric is nowhere to be heard and my friends in the majority become the biggest spenders of all. If cutting spending is a matter of such great urgency, then I believe the Pentagon, which has been generously funded over the years, can pitch in its share. Why do the programs that Americans depend on for basic needs have to take the budget hit? For example, under the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the title X program is not just trimmed but completely zeroed out. For more than 40 years, title X has been a lifesaving source of family planning services and preventive health care for millions and millions of low-income women. PAP tests, breast exams, early detection of cervical cancer--uninsured women depend on title X in order to receive these vital services at clinics nationwide. The proposed elimination of funding would be devastating to these women and to their families. It's critical to point out, Mr. Chairman, by law, not a single penny of title X money is used to perform an abortion. If, however, you want to reduce unintended pregnancies, as the other side says it does, then there is no more effective program than title X. Title X was signed into law by President Nixon and has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support, at least until the Republican Congress decided to launch a war on women. Now they want to eliminate funding for the program completely. We spent just under $294 million on title X last fiscal year. To put things in perspective, Mr. Chairman, that's less than what we spend on any given day to continue a failed military occupation of Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, if we're going to ask poor women to give up all the benefits they receive from title X, then I think we can ask the Pentagon to give up the exact same amount: $293 million. It's just so big, it makes my head spin. If we did that, we would be saving the misguided elimination of title X. That's what my amendment does, because I believe women need to access lifesaving health care at least as much as the military needs another $293 million. In fact, if my Republican colleagues truly believe that the Federal deficit represents a moral crisis demanding sacrifice from everyone, then I'm confident they're going to support my amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, the Republican majority passed their budget blueprint which, unbelievably, called for the complete elimination, over 10 years' time, of funding for the Social Services Block Grant. This program is designed to help people in desperate straits, people who have fallen on hard times, people who need a hand up from their government in their hour of need. But the majority said, Sorry, we can't afford that. The country, they say, just can't afford day care for children and adults, special services for people with disabilities, substance abuse assistance, low-income housing, home-delivered meals, employment services, and other support that people need when they have fallen on hard times and what people need when they're working very hard to become self-sufficient. That kind of compassion is too expensive, apparently. But this week, when we're deciding how much to spend on our war machines and our Department of Defense bureaucracy, the sky is the limit. Money is no object. Well, those aren't the values I was taught. That's not the kind of country I want to live in. The Pentagon has received more than its fair share of taxpayer dollars over the years. And, frankly, they haven't always been the most careful stewards of the people's money. They haven't always had the best accountability and oversight. They haven't always delivered the best bang for the buck, Mr. Chairman. Recent polling indicates that Americans overwhelmingly want defense cuts, but instead we've got a defense spending bill that is larger than last year's and larger than what the President requested. I say it's time that the Pentagon contribute its fair share. My amendment calls for a $1.7 billion cut to Defense appropriations--an amount equal to the cut we have asked of the Social Services Block Grant program for next year. If you believe that human dignity and basic compassion are more important than throwing money at wasteful weapons, then I hope that you will support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by my friend from California. If approved, this amendment would accomplish two goals: One, to end this war, and two, to save the taxpayers $21 billion, something I think both sides of the aisle could agree on. Let's be clear about what this amendment really does. It fully funds a safe and responsible redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan. It's not cut and run; it's funding redeployment. The Afghan people do not want us there. The American people don't want us there. Yet, we are spending $10 billion a month for a decade- long war that's failing to advance our national security objectives. Why would we want to continue down this road, especially at such a great cost in blood and treasure? More than 2,000 servicemembers have been killed, and $548 billion in taxpayer money has been spent. This amendment provides sufficient funding to ensure that every man and woman in uniform leaves Afghanistan safely. At that point, we can look away from defense spending to a national security policy based on the other two Ds: diplomacy and development. We can turn away from military force and toward SMART Security, an agenda that keeps America safe by alleviating human need and investing in human capital in Afghanistan and around the developing world. Since 2004, Mr. Chairman, I have come to the House floor 437 times during Special Orders to call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since I am retiring at the end of this term, this will be my last debate and last vote on defense spending. I hope it can be my legacy and yours to finally reorder our national security priorities and put an end to the war in Afghanistan. We owe it to the next generation, and we owe it to Americans in Afghanistan, together. Let's bring our troops home in a safe and responsible way. Let's vote ``yes'' on Congresswoman Lee's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Another day, Mr. Speaker, another wave of attacks by insurgents in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported yesterday that the Taliban killed five police officers with a roadside bomb in what it calls ``a relatively peaceful province'' in central Afghanistan. Separate attacks in Kandahar led to the deaths of three officers, with six civilians wounded. A motorcycle bomb took the lives of several more people in Helmand province on Sunday night, and then yet another motorcycle bomb in northern Afghanistan on Monday, wounding 26, with 10 in critical condition. And a deeply disturbing video is making its way around the Internet showing a 22-year-old Afghan woman being brutally executed by the Taliban over accusations of adultery. Almost 11 years after our military occupation began, the security situation in Afghanistan is clearly abysmal. Our troops are in danger, Afghan security forces are in danger, and innocent civilians are in danger. Nearly 11 years ago, we went to war with the goal of defeating the Taliban, and yet the Taliban is alive and well, winning recruits, operating in the shadows, and ruling by terror throughout Afghanistan. I'm not saying that ending the war and bringing our troops home will stabilize Afghanistan overnight. But I am saying that the longer we continue with our military occupation, the more we breathe life into the very forces we're trying to defeat. It is the resentment of our boots on the ground that is helping to sustain the Taliban. There are clearly urgent humanitarian needs in Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker, and we have a moral responsibility to help meet them. This is one of the poorest nations on Earth, with infrastructure needs, children who need schools, and malnutrition that must be addressed. But deploying thousands and thousands of troops for more than a decade is not the way to meet these challenges. Our military is not trained or equipped to do that kind of work. For pennies on the dollar, Mr. Speaker, we can have a true civilian surge, investing in development aid to improve the lives of the Afghan people. We could give USAID a fraction of the $10 billion a month we spend on the war in Afghanistan and we could do a world of good. This approach isn't just the right thing to do, it isn't just a moral imperative, it's the SMART national security strategy as well. On the other hand, the existing strategy of invasion and occupation has not served us well. The Afghanistan war has cost us dearly--in precious lives, in taxpayer dollars, in moral authority, and global credibility. It is undermining our national security interests instead of advancing them. Mr. Speaker, it's time to do the smart thing--bring our troops home and, in return, invest in the hopes and future of the Afghan people-- and do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there was a very compelling op-ed piece in The Washington Post last week by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker. In it, he paid tribute to the many American civilians who are risking their lives doing important humanitarian work to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. I couldn't agree more with Ambassador Crocker that those men and women working for or contracting with the State Department or USAID are doing extraordinary work rebuilding infrastructure, helping children to go to school, improving infant and maternal health, wiring the Afghan people to the Internet. Mr. Speaker, the burning question is this: If this work is so important, why aren't we doing more of it? The human need in Afghanistan is far greater than the resources we're devoting to the effort. For the last few years, we've had a military surge in Afghanistan, a surge that's led to more death, more violence, more instability, and more strength for the extremists and insurgent forces we're trying to defeat. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a civilian surge. We need a great emphasis on development and diplomacy, on democracy promotion and debt relief, on peacekeeping and conflict resolution, not just in Afghanistan, but in impoverished and unstable countries around the developing world. All of this is at the heart of the SMART Security proposal that I've been promoting since 2004 that I introduced during the middle of the Iraq war. Contrary to the conventional wisdom we've been fed, military aggression does not advance our national security goals. It undermines them. It makes us less safe, not more. It emboldens terrorists, instead of vanquishing them. We've tried it this way for more than a decade now, Mr. Speaker, and it simply has not worked. It hasn't fundamentally changed the fortunes of the Afghan people, and it hasn't driven the Taliban and other terrorist networks into oblivion. At an international conference on aid to Afghanistan this past weekend, Secretary of State Clinton said that the administration would request Afghanistan aid funding at or near levels provided over the last decade. But at or near is not enough. It comes to somewhere between $1 billion to $4 billion a year, which seems like a lot of money, until you realize that's what we spend on military operations in Afghanistan roughly every week or so; $10 billion a month waging a destructive war on Afghanistan that is killing civilians, but only a few billion dollars a year rebuilding Afghanistan and empowering civilians. That just doesn't make sense. Ambassador Crocker has pointed this out. Our priorities are totally out of whack. We can't continue on the same current destructive course, Mr. Speaker. This military occupation is failing America and failing Afghanistan. Let's finally end this war. Let's bring our troops safely home and start investing in civilian aid and other SMART security initiatives, and let's do it now. Let's also expand these initiatives to prevent war around the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Our ranking member today has proven something that's very clear to me: this is baloney. The arguments are baloney. So baloney, baloney, baloney. We're here, Mr. Speaker, standing on the House floor for the 31st time with the majority serving more baloney regarding the Affordable Care Act. They haven't brought a single jobs bill to the floor; but for the 31st time in the last year and a half, they are voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is just another political show, act XXXI in the Republican theater of the absurd. In a moment when what we need is real leadership to tackle serious challenges, I'm still waiting for the majority's constructive ideas on health care. But all I hear are crickets. This leaves me to conclude that they truly prefer a health care system in crisis--millions uninsured and out-of-control costs crushing families and small businesses. They must believe that it's okay for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition and particularly to charge you more if you are a woman. They are obviously against seniors saving on prescription drug costs, and they are against increased access to preventive care. We need to strengthen these reforms instead of dismantling them. The Affordable Care Act is the beginning, not the end. Actually, for nearly a half century, Medicare has provided coverage to seniors and those with disabilities in a fair, cost-efficient way. So maybe, just maybe, it's time to give every American those same benefits. We could do that by passing Medicare ``E,'' ``Medicare for Everyone.'' Enough baloney, because it's time for the wealthiest Nation in the world to provide health care for all.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 28, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 438. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 434: ``yes''--Securing Maritime Activities through Risk- based Targeting (SMART) for Port Security Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall Nos. 414-423. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 414: ``yes''--On Hoyer of Maryland Motion to Instruct Conferees; rollcall No. 415: ``no''--On Black Tennessee Motion to Instruct Conferees; rollcall No. 416: ``yes''--Connolly of Virginia Amendment; rollcall No. 417: ``no''-- McClintock of California Amendment; rollcall No. 418: ``no''--Garrett of New Jersey Amendment; rollcall No. 419: ``yes''--Capps of California Amendment; rollcall No. 420: ``no''--Gosar of Arizona Amendment; rollcall No. 421: ``no''-- First Broun of Georgia Amendment; rollcall No. 422: ``no''--Second Broun of Georgia Amendment; rollcall No. 423: ``no''--Fourth Broun of Georgia Amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the bicentennial of the establishment of the Russian colony at Fort Ross. Founded in September 1812 by Russian explorers, Fort Ross was the southernmost Russian settlement in North America and the first European settlement in Sonoma County. After the fort's assets were sold to John Sutter in 1841, Fort Ross became a shipping hub and tourist destination and in 1909 it was established as one of California's first State Historic Parks. This year we commemorate the natural, cultural, and human history of Fort Ross, which has been influenced by diverse groups of people, including Russians, Kashaya, Pomo, and Miwok Natives, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Americans. These diverse groups, who settled at Fort Ross or lived in the surrounding area, made important contributions to early California history: they built California's first ships and windmills, introduced glass-paneled windows, created the first brickyard, and catalogued the local plant and animal life. At Fort Ross, Native people of various tribes lived, hunted, and labored alongside the Russian colonists; many learned Russian and intermarried with both Russians and Natives of other tribes. The story of the people of Fort Ross is unique, and it serves as an excellent example of the best that California and Sonoma County have to offer the world: a rich history, diverse cultural legacy, beautiful nature, and dedicated people. Today, Fort Ross is a National Historic Landmark visited by 150,000 people each year. It also still serves as an important connection between Sonoma County and Russia. In 2010, California State Parks signed an agreement with Russia's Renova Group, creating a public- private partnership to provide financial support for Fort Ross. The Fort Ross Renova Foundation continues to provide support for maintenance, educational programs, cultural events, and other initiatives for the enhancement of Fort Ross. Mr. Speaker, Fort Ross is an important cultural and historical landmark celebrating the two hundredth anniversary of its founding. Please join me in honoring the bicentennial of the establishment of Fort Ross.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, while the House was out of session last week, the Nation suffered its 2,000th fatality in the conflict known as Operation Enduring Freedom, the overwhelming number of those deaths coming in Afghanistan. For more than 10 years now, we've been losing young, courageous servicemembers on a mission that isn't bolstering our national security, isn't supported by the American people, but is costing us billions of dollars every month. What a disaster and what a tragedy. Mr. Speaker, from this Chamber, I regularly hear Members of the majority invoking morality in support of efforts to cut effective programs that help the most vulnerable members of our society. So where is their moral outrage and where is their budget axe when it comes to the most expensive government program imaginable that has killed 2,000 of our troops? Two of those 2,000 come from my part of the country, the Sixth Congressional District of California. Army Specialist Christopher Gathercole and Army Sergeant Ryan Connolly, both of Santa Rosa, California, were killed less than a month apart in the year 2008. We had others who were killed during the nearly 9 years that our troops were in Iraq, but 2,000 deaths doesn't even begin to tell the story of the human cost of this war. More than 15,000 Americans have come home wounded, many in ways that will alter their lives forever. Even those who returned with their bodies intact often suffer from devastating posttraumatic stress that may never go away. Postdeployment suicide has reached epidemic levels. Nearly 2.5 million men and women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I actually can't say that I trust that the veterans health care system is prepared or will be prepared to deal with the huge demand that will be placed on the services in the coming years. A recent report prepared by VA doctors outlines the unique and varied health care needs of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In addition to traumatic brain injuries, depression, and substance abuse, there's chronic muscle pain, sleep disturbances, hypertension, and complications from environmental exposures. Many of our returning heroes have difficulty readjusting to civilian life, integrating once again into their families, their workplaces, and their communities. We had better be willing as a Nation to write that check for their care as we were for the war that damaged them in the first place. And it's critical, Mr. Speaker, that we remember the human cost is not just here in the United States. Two thousand Americans have died in nearly 11 years of war. Well, 3,000 Afghan civilians, many of them children, were killed last year alone for the cause of their so-called liberation. It's not enough to acknowledge the casualties of this war, to memorialize the dead and pay tribute to their service. What we need is an immediate change of policy. To extend the war through 2014 is to sentence hundreds more servicemembers to their deaths, all for a policy that isn't achieving its stated objectives while strengthening the very terrorists and extremists that we're trying to defeat. There's only one solution, Mr. Speaker. There's only one choice that will finally keep the death toll from climbing. That choice is bring our troops home. Bring them home now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the leadership of the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, whose work on behalf of justice for the LGBT community is an inspiration in Northern California and across the country. Rev. Spahr began her ministry as a proud progressive and feminist, and as one of few willing to work publicly for the cause of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In 1980, Rev. Spahr served as Minister of Pastoral Care for the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco's Castro District. And in 1982, Rev. Spahr founded what would become the Spectrum LGBT Center, Mann County's premiere LGBT service provider and advocacy organization. In 1991, Rev. Spahr was called to serve as co-pastor of the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, New York, making her the first openly gay person called to such a position of leadership within the Presbyterian tradition. Unfortunately, Rev. Spahr's pastorship was challenged and ultimately revoked by Church leadership. The Reverend was instead invited to serve the Presbyterian congregation in Tiburon, California, with a focus on working within the denomination to end discrimination and foster inclusiveness and social justice. More recently, after the Supreme Court of California struck down the State's ban on same-sex marriage, Rev. Spahr became known for officiating at the marriages of several gay and lesbian couples. The Reverend was again challenged for refusing to comply with the anti-gay marriage policies of Church leadership and earlier this year Rev. Spahr received a formal censure for her actions. However, as in the past, the congregation has rallied behind her, and the local presbytery voted overwhelmingly to refuse the censure. Although Rev. Spahr's battle continues, I am proud to support her mission to see the dignity and humanity of every individual respected. In 2007, I honored Rev. Spahr in the Congressional Record upon her retirement from Spectrum, emphasizing that her courageous passion for justice and inclusion for LGBT people has left a legacy that is paving the way to a better future. Clearly, she has advanced the cause of same-sex marriage and other rights during this time and will continue to be an inspiration and role model to all of us who care about human rights. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to join me in thanking the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr for her many contributions to a stronger and more inclusive community, and to the ongoing fight for full LGBT equality. We wish her every success, and we look forward to the day--closer now than ever-- when the last vestiges of anti-gay discrimination are erased from our laws and from our society.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eddie Wong, a man who has played a significant role in the ongoing restoration and development of the Angel Island Immigration Station in Marin County, CA. On June 30, 2012, Mr. Wong is retiring after four productive years as Executive Director of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation (AIISF). Located off the coast of Tiburon, California, in Angel Island State Park, the Immigration Station is the site of the detention of 175,000 Chinese immigrants from 1910 to 1940. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, many of them were held for weeks, months or years in a prison-like barracks where life was difficult and humiliating. The restoration of this Station and related educational projects recognize the struggle of these immigrants and our nation's challenge to honor our history of immigration. AIISF, with the hard work of its many supporters and partners, including the California State Parks and the National Park Service, has led these rehabilitation efforts. During Mr. Wong's tenure, the Immigration Station Museum opened, the Immigrant Heritage Wall was created, and the hospital at the site was stabilized. The Angel Island Immigration Station now hosts more than 50,000 visitors, including 30,000 schoolchildren, every year. I have had the privilege of participating in this effort by securing federal funding, and I share Eddie Wong's belief that with the partnership we have, we can complete the remaining work on this important testament to our rich and complex history. Mr. Wong came to the Executive Director position with a strong background in the cultural social issues at stake. He graduated from UCLA with a BA and MFA from School of Fine Arts Motion Picture and Television Program. Before joining AIISF, he co-founded Visual Communications, the nation's first Asian American film production company, served as the Strategy and Investment Principal for Media and the Advisor on Social Justice for the Democracy Alliance, and was Executive Director of the National Asian American Telecommunications Association (now known as the Center for Asian American Media). Understanding that the Angel Island Immigration Station site resonates personally with many immigrants, Mr. Wong says, ``I think that my father, who was deported from Angel Island as a 15-year old and came back a year later determined to better his life, would be proud that a place of shame has now become a site of conscience `` Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Eddie Wong and in wishing him well in his retirement.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a strong American future depends on the sound stewardship of our oceans. Nowhere is the ocean more magnificent and majestic than off of northern California's Sonoma County coast. These are some of the most abundant waters on Earth, but much of the area is vulnerable to ``drill, baby, drill'' enthusiasts. That's why I have offered a bill to more than double the size of our existing national marine sanctuary off these coastal areas, giving these waters the permanent protection they need to protect them from oil and gas exploration. This legislation is a win-win--a pro-environment and pro-economic recovery bill. It is a conservation imperative, and it would provide a boost to our commercial fishing industry and to our local tourism industry. In recognition of World Ocean Day, I urge my colleagues to sign on to my bill, H.R. 192, the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Protection and Modification Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, a bipartisan group of Members convened a panel discussion on Capitol Hill. Actually, it was an informal hearing about the Afghanistan war. One of the speakers was Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis who, after two tours in Afghanistan, has courageously come forward, speaking truth to power with his assessment of the situation on the ground and his belief that the war is wrong. I wish more of my colleagues had been there to hear what Lieutenant Colonel Davis had to say. He talked about the arrogance and stubbornness that allows our country to continue this military occupation long after it's proven futile. He discussed the strain and stress we put on our Armed Forces. And, as he explained, the Taliban are stronger now than they were. Push them down, he said, and they pop up in another area. After the most powerful military surge in the history of civilization, we still haven't been able to keep them down. This shouldn't be a major revelation. When will we learn? We are emboldening the very radical forces that we're trying to defeat. It's common sense that thousands and thousands of occupying U.S. troops will breed and do breed resentment and drive the Afghan people straight into the arms of the Taliban. Every additional day that we keep boots on the ground in Afghanistan is another day that the Taliban wins over more recruits and poses a greater threat to our safety and our interests. Here's a novel idea, Mr. Speaker. How about we win over the Afghan people instead of alienating them and giving them common cause with insurgents? How about we move to implement a SMART security agenda where war is the very last resort? Under SMART Security, we would emphasize diplomacy and development. We would seek peaceful conflict resolution instead of military force. And instead of launching drone attacks on troubled nations half a world away, SMART Security would have us empowering and investing in the people who live there. And why? Because it's the right thing to do. Absolutely. But also because the goodwill it engenders works to our benefit because, by helping people, we help ourselves. The foundation of SMART Security is the recognition that killing more people will not make us safer, that it will undermine our national security instead of contributing to it. But if we help send Afghan girls to school, if we help Afghan women get proper prenatal care, if we help Afghanistan rebuild its infrastructure and its economy, these are the things that will advance in our interests, and our security will be better off. A more Democratic, more prosperous Afghanistan is one where the extremists can't get a toehold, where the Taliban can't exploit and feed off people's desperation. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, we can do SMART Security at a fraction of the cost of our current approach-- pennies on the dollar. Humanitarian aid is a lot more cost effective than weapons systems and military occupation. The current Afghanistan policy has been given a chance to work, and it has failed spectacularly. The time for patience, after more than a decade of war, has long since come and gone. As a matter of moral decency, fiscal sanity, and common sense, it's time now to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, later today I will join a bipartisan group of Members at a panel discussion about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Joining us as a special guest will be Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, one Afghanistan veteran who has spoken the devastating truth about conditions on the ground. During his second tour of duty in 2010 and 2011, he interviewed or interacted with 250 soldiers at all levels in several Afghan provinces. He also spoke with Afghan security officials and with civilians. He prepared both a classified and an unclassified report about what he saw and what he heard. Here is some of what he concluded in his own words, Mr. Speaker. He said: What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders. He said: I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level. I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or international security assistance force base. And he said: From time to time, I observed the Afghan security forces collude with the insurgency. Davis tells us that one Afghan police captain actually laughed at him when Davis asked about how they responded to a Taliban attack. No, we don't go after them, said the captain. That would be dangerous. One senior officer told Lieutenant Colonel Davis: How do I look a soldier's wife in the eye and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful? Mr. Speaker, is that what we have to show for nearly 11 years of war and hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money? As we recognized Memorial Day on Monday and over the past weekend, don't we at least owe it to the war dead and their families to ensure that their sacrifice was for a worthy cause? Lieutenant Colonel Davis did not have to come forward. Without a doubt, it would have been better for his military career to keep his head down and his mouth shut. But with the stakes so great and the costs so high, he felt that he had a greater obligation to the truth. Lieutenant Colonel Davis' story must be heard. It needs to be heard because it balances the last 10 years at the Armed Services Committee and in various other briefings and forums where we've been exposed to nothing more than the official line on how this war is going. It's time we got firsthand experience and a firsthand version from someone who has seen the dysfunction of our Afghan policy at the ground level. In February, a group of Members sent a letter to House leadership asking that Lieutenant Colonel Davis have the opportunity to testify at a formal hearing of a relevant committee of the House, but this invitation has not been extended to him. So, thanks to the leadership of my friends, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Walter Jones, we will convene a panel later today to give Lieutenant Colonel Davis a chance to tell what he saw in Afghanistan. I invite all Members of Congress to attend. It's at 2 p.m. at B 318, Rayburn. If you do, you will hear convincing and overwhelming evidence that this war is a colossal failure, and it's time, finally--after more than a decade--to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely appalling that in the year 2012 women still make 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male peers. This isn't just an issue of fundamental fairness. With so many women heading households and being the primary breadwinner, it's a matter of economic security for American families. These women face the same financial pressures as any other American. They certainly don't get a 23 percent discount on their rent or mortgage payment, on the groceries they buy or on the children's shoes they have to replace. We must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which the Senate plans to vote on next week and the House passed in the last Congress. I ask my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, why the Republicans aren't making this a priority instead of today we're voting on a divisive abortion bill that criminalizes a woman's most private health care decisions. Women do not need yet another attack on their reproductive rights. What they need is economic justice. When will the majority get it?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to honor my friend Susan Moore, of Santa Rosa, CA, who recently received a Lifetime Achievement Volunteer Award from Roseland School District in her hometown. This well-deserved accomplishment reflects Susan's passionate efforts as a driving force behind the creation of Roseland University Prep. Eight years ago, Susan worked with Roseland Superintendent of Schools Gail Ahlas to establish a high school in a largely Latino area where few students went on to attend college. The school's purpose is to give each student both the opportunity to take the necessary classes and the support needed to succeed. Recently U.S. News & World Report ranked Roseland University Prep as one of the top-performing high schools in the nation. Susan Moore's commitment to children in underserved communities is long-standing. She is a person who sees a need and uses her skills and determination to fill it. In 1999, she developed the Girl by Girl Mentoring Project to serve young girls who are ``ethnically underrepresented in the college system'' by bringing in the best community resources to help them. She personally mentored many of the girls herself. Susan also found the time over the years to take leadership roles in the local chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Women's Justice Center (Roseland), Worth our Weight (for kids timing out of foster care), and Friends of Graton Rancheria (support of a Native American tribe). Her upbringing in Port Arthur, TX, and a background as a teacher likely contributed to both Susan's resolve and her understanding that education is the path to a better a life. She also counted on the support of the No Name Women's group, formed in the 1980s with other strong local women who wanted not only to network and support each other, but also to promote progressive candidates and causes. Susan was always willing to make the phone calls to urge the group forward, and today she still makes the calls to an expanded group addressing a broad range of issues, from the Governor's race to astrophysics. I am proud to have had the group's support over the years as we addressed the same causes. Susan Moore cannot be described without mentioning how much fun she is to work with. When her name is mentioned in a group, you will hear chuckles and someone will always say, ``Did you hear about the time Susan . . .?'' Although she doesn't take ``no'' for an answer when she has an issue in her sights, Susan makes people feel that they are willingly joining her in a great adventure. She even learned tap dancing with a group of women who worked on a routine to tap for women's rights in a Santa Rosa Rose Parade. Mr. Speaker, Susan Moore is an inspiring role model who makes our community a better place. Please join me in congratulating her on receiving the Lifetime Achievement Volunteer Award from Roseland School District.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge, a modern architectural marvel and a landmark that defines California and the West Coast. Since its opening on May 27, 1937, the Golden Gate Bridge has stood as a symbol of human potential--a triumph of ingenuity, creativity, and progressive vision that complements the beauty of our natural surroundings and enriches life in the San Francisco Bay Area. Since the Gold Rush first brought American settlers to the San Francisco Bay Area, residents have been interested in the idea of linking the Bay Area with a bridge spanning the Golden Gate. A single span would bring together the northern and southern halves of the greatest natural port on the West Coast, easing transportation and spurring economic growth across Northern California. For years, though, the task was considered too costly and too complicated to realize. By the 1920s, engineers had become more confident that technological advances made a fixed link feasible, and San Francisco City Engineer Michael O'Shaughnessy launched an effort to make the proposal a reality. In 1921, Joseph Strauss--later the Chief Engineer of the Golden Gate Bridge--submitted his first designs. After they were made public, communities on both sides of the Golden Gate began lining up behind the plan. Under the leadership of Santa Rosa businessman Frank Doyle, a public coalition formed in Sonoma County with representatives from across the North Coast, all pushing for the Strauss design. In 1923, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District Act, authored by Senator Frank Coombs of Napa, passed in the California Legislature. In 1924, Marin and San Francisco Counties submitted a joint application to the War Department for permission to build on the federally owned headlands at each end of the strait. Permission was granted by the end of that year. In 1929, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District met for the first time, with members from San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, and Del Norte Counties. Strauss was named Chief Engineer, and the Oakland-based architect Irving Morrow was appointed to consult on the final plans. Morrow would become famous for crafting a design in harmony with the rugged coast, balancing graceful Art Deco features with strong lighting and powerful lines. Morrow was also responsible for convincing authorities to accept the radical choice of painting the entire Bridge in the now-famous international orange. While the Great Depression deepened, work forged ahead. In 1930, casting aside fears that infrastructure was an unwise long-term investment, District voters overwhelmingly approved a bond measure using their own homes, ranches, and vineyards as collateral. By 1934, the first tower--the Marin tower--was complete. By 1936, both towers and the cable spinning were complete, and over 1,000 workers were employed in the construction. In April 1937, ahead of schedule and under budget, the Bridge was ready for pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The first to cross on foot was a young runner from Tamalpais High School in Mill Valley. The first to cross by car was none other than Santa Rosa's Frank Doyle, the business leader widely credited with uniting Northern Coast residents behind the endeavor. In the 75 years since its opening, the Golden Gate Bridge has borne witness to millions of lives, and to many changes in the Bay Area. The Bridge is a crucial route to work and school, a magnet for global tourism, and a center for recreation that links two jewels in the federal park system. It is a demonstration of American labor and engineering. It is a theater for advocacy and protest. For many soldiers sailing into the Second World War, it was their last memory of home. For new Americans emigrating from Asia and the Pacific, it is their first welcome to a new future. The Golden Gate Bridge is more than a modern wonder of architecture and engineering--it is at the heart of what it means to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge, and in thanking all those who have fought for, built, and stewarded the Bridge over the years. We also owe a special debt to the eleven workers who were killed and the many others who were injured in the course of the construction. The Bridge is a testament to their dedication and expertise, and it is a proud monument to the greatness that we can accomplish when we harness our collective energy and resources to better our future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chair, on May 18, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 288. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 288: ``no''--Rehberg of Montana Amendment No. 59. Amendment No. 111 Offered by Price of Georgia