Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, for some families--too many, as a matter of fact--the meals served at school may be the only decent meal that their children get that day. Especially during this current economic downturn, with many Americans barely getting by, more people are relying on school meals to keep their children fed and ready to learn. Why, then, is the Republican majority trying to turn back the clock on school nutrition? Why are they trying to undermine the quality of school meals by gumming up a regulatory process that is designed to ensure that our kids are eating healthy? Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment because it will stop the majority's attempt to block the implementation of scientific standards for school meals. Here's the backstory. Since the Truman administration, Congress and the United States Department of Agriculture have set standards for school lunches and breakfasts. But for most of that history, those standards have not reflected the expertise of nutritionists and other health professionals. Then, last year, Congress passed and the President signed a bill directing the USDA to make school meal requirements, for the first time, consistent with sound science and dietary guidelines issued by the Institute of Medicine. The bottom line: That would mean healthier food for our kids. It would mean the cafeteria line would have more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains and low-fat milk, and less sodium and saturated fat. As instructed by the law that we passed, USDA wrote a regulation and received over 130,000 comments. Now, just when the process is wrapping up, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to use report language in this appropriations bill to scrap the rule and compel USDA to write a completely new one. This is a stall tactic, plain and simple. Better school meals must not, can't be, from this act, a priority for the other side of the aisle. They apparently don't believe we need to do anything about the epidemic of childhood obesity that is rapidly becoming a major public health crisis, so they're looking for any way to put on the breaks. The process has worked. We've had congressional direction and we've had mandates. We've had open comment period and rulemaking based on sound science. But the end result is not to the majority's liking, so they want a do-over. This is not only unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, but expensive, as there would be costs associated with starting the rulemaking over--going back to square one. In one fell swoop, the Republicans are showing themselves to be anti-science, anti-child, anti-public health, and anti-fiscal responsibility. My amendment would stop their shortsighted and irresponsible scheme. It would prevent funds made available by this appropriations act from being used to require USDA to reissue a new rule. Important advocates agree with me. My amendment has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the American Dietetic Association, Bread for the World, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and many other groups, which I will include in the Record. Mr. Chairman, our children need balanced, healthy, nutritious meals, not costly bureaucratic delays. They need this to help them succeed in school and in life. H.R. 2112, Amendment No. 20, List of Supporters The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dietetic Association, American Public Health Association, Association of State & Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors, Bread for the World, California Association of Nutrition & Activity Programs, California Food Policy Advocates, Campaign to End Obesity Action Fund, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Community Food Security Coalition, Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Education Association, National Farm to School Network, The National WIC Association, Public Health Institute, Trust for America's Health, The United Fresh Produce Association. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young's amendment to prohibit funding for the Food and Drug Administration to approve genetically engineered salmon. The FDA is considering an application to sell patented genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. This fish would be given a gene from an eel-like Pout fish and a growth hormone from the Pacific Chinook salmon, which would allow it to grow twice as fast as traditional Atlantic salmon. If the FDA approves the request, it would be the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption, and it would open the door for many more. Unfortunately, the FDA evaluation process has lacked transparency, failing to provide the public adequate information or sufficient time to provide comment or express concern. And a recent poll found that 91 percent of Americans oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered animals for human consumption. Mr. Chair, I'm also concerned about the potential commercial impact of G.E. salmon. Salmon fishermen in my district and many others along the Pacific coast have been devastated in recent years by fishery closures. Last year's salmon season was limited to just 8 days because of the continued steep decline in the salmon population. Because G.E. salmon are more sexually aggressive and resistant to environmental toxins, their escape would pose a catastrophic threat to wild salmon populations. If just 60 of these G.E. fish find their way into a population of sixty thousand wild salmon, the wild species would fade into extinction in a matter of decades. While its producer claims that genetically engineered salmon would be sterile, FDA's own documents show that five percent of this G.E. salmon would, in fact, be able to reproduce. Each year, millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water nets, threatening wild fish populations. Even if a small number of fertile G.E. salmon spilled into nature, our wild salmon and fisherman would be suffering the consequences for years to come--possibly for evermore. I want to thank my good friend Don Young for his hard work on this important issue and his leadership as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Wild Salmon . . . even though he considers my salmon ``bait'' for his fishers. I look forward to continuing to work with him and other concerned colleagues to protect our natural fisheries and stop this ``frankenfish.'' I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. For consumer safety, for the purity of our waters, and for the continued viability of our fishing industry . . . we must block funding for the FDA to approve genetically engineered salmon.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is now mid-June and we are just weeks away from the July date the President promised for a drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan. But so far, so far, there appears to be little movement towards the kind of redeployment that the moment actually calls for and that the American people are insisting on. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Defense Secretary Gates, on his way out the door, endorsed a ``modest'' drawdown, even though the President has promised something significant. This is not a moment that calls for modesty. This is a moment for boldness and true leadership. This is a moment to break out of the war default posture--the posture that we've been in for going on 10 years now. The longer this war goes on, the bloodier it becomes. We were told last year that fatalities would be unusually high in 2010 as the surge troops begin penetrating the Taliban strongholds. But it turns out there's no sign that casualties are tapering off, and we're on pace for an equally deadly 2011. We lost more troops in March, April, and May of this year than we did during the same months of 2010. And let's not forget--because I don't think it's talked about nearly enough--that it's not just uniformed members of the U.S. military being put in harm's way by this conflict. The United Nations said over the weekend that there were more civilian casualties in May than in any single other month of this war. Needless to say, killing innocent people is certainly not the way to win the hearts and minds of another country. The American people's patience is wearing thin, Mr. Speaker; and there are many Members of this body--a fair number in the Republican majority--who cannot support this Afghanistan policy either. I for one am tired of being told that the strategy is working and it just needs more time to succeed. How many military families will lose a father or a mother or a son or a daughter in the time it takes for this strategy to go nowhere? How many troops will be physically and psychologically damaged beyond repair? Mr. Speaker, I think nearly a decade--longer than any war in American history--is more than enough time to admit that the strategy does not work. We don't need simply a token drawdown. We need a fundamental change in policy and a complete reorientation of our thinking about national security. We need to finally end this war and bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, it is often said that a society can be judged by how it treats its young, its elderly and the less fortunate. Today is a perfect example of that. Instead of feeding the women, infants and children, it appears that the Republicans in Congress are slashing the Ag budget to make room for more tax breaks for the wealthy. Let's have a look at how these priorities balance out. If we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one measly week, we would pay for the entire WIC Program for a year--a full year. So let's get this straight. During these times when there is a job shortage, when a person has a job but wages are lower than they should be, when the cost of food is very high and when we have low taxes on the rich, pregnant women will go hungry and their babies will be born underweight so that someone can afford another beach vacation. Kids will go without breakfast so that someone can buy a second home. First, the Republicans in Congress passed the Ryan budget act to dismantle Medicare for our seniors and for our disabled. Now they want to take food from the mouths of needy children and women. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how they sleep at night. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. There are WIC recipients in every single congressional district in this country--red States, blue States. Hunger doesn't see political affiliation. This is not some abstract political theory. There are real women and children in every single congressional district who will have to forgo meals. How many of us have ever given up a meal so that a child could eat or have explained to a 3-year-old why there won't be lunch today or have soothed a crying baby who won't get formula? We should end this shameful spending of $10 billion a month in Afghanistan. We should bring our troops home. We should stop the war tax. We should tax millionaires and billionaires. We should create jobs. We should vote against this bill. Let's show America's working families that we stand with them and that we will be there for them during times of need. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of Terra Linda High School in San Rafael, California. The school's Golden Anniversary was celebrated on May 28, 2011, by a gathering of three generations of proud Terra Linda alumni. Since its founding, Terra Linda High School has provided thousands of Marin County children the firm and balanced footing they deserve, and it has played an integral role in the strength and success of San Rafael and Marin County. The school upholds high standards in education and extracurriculars, balancing a host of advanced placement offerings with the art, music, and athletic activities that truly enrich the learning experience. Terra Linda and schools like it remind us of the limitless potential of our system of public education when students are provided the resources they need to excel. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Terra Linda High School. Few institutions are as intimately tied to our national identity as our public schools, and none is more essential to our collective future. Terra Linda represents the best of this tradition, and I am proud to honor its legacy in our county.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this is a ``here we go again'' moment on the House floor. Two weeks ago the Kucinich amendment passed the House overwhelmingly with a total bipartisan vote because it was the right thing to do. But, no, the other side of the aisle can't stand to let us have an initiative, the right thing to do, that they really could agree to. So here we are today debating the Boehner resolution to take the air out of the question of whether the United States Congress or the White House has responsibility for the War Powers Resolution and begging them to know that it is our responsibility. Members should not be fooled into voting for the Boehner resolution because it delays action. We should vote for the Kucinich resolution that insists that the Congress reclaim its authority, take its responsibility, and do the right thing regarding Libya. Vote ``no'' on the Boehner resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the first airstrikes against Libya were launched in March. Now it is June. Seventy-six days after this mission began, Congress still hasn't been given an opportunity to vote for or against a declaration of war. Every Member of this body, regardless of individual feelings, should demand--demand--that their constitutional authority be respected. The engagement in Libya is lingering without accountability or checks on Presidential power, without a vigorous debate about the consequences of our actions. What is the endgame? What is the timetable? What are the metrics or benchmarks of success? With the United States already fighting in two theaters, with the human and financial costs of Iraq and Afghanistan mounting every day-- $10 billion a month alone in Afghanistan, our military is stretched to its breaking point. We simply cannot take on a third war.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Last week, by an overwhelming majority of 416-5, this body voted to say ``no'' to boots on the ground in Libya. Today, we must go one step further. We must support H. Con. Res. 51 and end the war in Libya altogether.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we've learned a lot over the last several days about the Republican commitment to both national security and fiscal responsibility. Last week, after the party of limited government spending passed the $690 billion defense authorization bill loaded with Pentagon pork, they jammed through a 4-year extension of key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. With a last-minute rushed vote with virtually no debate, the party of small government authorized more wiretapping and more poking through Americans' personal records. Now today, our ongoing debate over fiscal year 2012 Homeland Security appropriations shows us that the majority's penny-wise, pound-foolish approach is in all of its glory. This bill breaks faith with first responders, underfunding key firefighter assistance grants and State Homeland Security grants that primarily train and equip first responders. Important programs will be rolled into a block grant so that localities will be competing for dwindling Federal Homeland Security grants, this and more undermining our communities' ability to deal with all kinds of hazards, including potential nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks. The bill cuts Homeland Security research and development programs by 40 percent, Mr. Speaker. So while terrorist organizations are busily mastering technologies, we will be eliminating very important research projects in biological and explosives detection and advanced cybersecurity. Shame on us. Homeland Security already took a hit in fiscal year 2011. The majority, which claims to care about nothing more than the safety and security of the American people, wants to cut more than a billion dollars from last year's funding levels, and provides $2 billion less than what the President has proposed. Meantime, while we are nickel and diming our first responders, we are throwing $10 billion every month, $10 billion every month at a war in Afghanistan that is killing Americans, while doing very little, if anything, to advance our national security. Where are the budget cutters when it comes to appropriating that money? Where are all the hard questions and the tough scrutiny when it comes to funding a decade-long military occupation of Afghanistan that has failed in every conceivable way? Ten billion dollars a month on Afghanistan. For the price of about 6 days of fighting the war in Afghanistan, we could make up the difference between the President's Homeland Security request and the allocation in this bill. Six days. The majority clearly has one set of standards for important domestic programs and quite another for military adventures abroad. If you want to wage a war, no questions asked. But if you want to support first responders, or educate small children, or preserve Medicare, you better duck, because the budget axe is aimed at the people's priorities. I remind my friends in the majority that terrorists would strike us here on our shores, in our homeland, in our capital. An enormous military footprint that is stomping down in a sovereign country thousands of miles away, a country where Osama bin Laden wasn't hiding and al Qaeda is barely active, is not where we need to be putting our efforts. Let's do the smart thing. Let's fully fund Homeland Security and let's save money and lives by bringing our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week this body passed the National Defense Authorization Act. In doing so, yet again, it put a stamp of approval on a more violent, belligerent, and militaristic defense policy. While my friends in the majority continue to posture about Federal spending, they are eager to authorize billions and billions on military programs and policies that don't make America safer. During last week's debate over the Defense bill, they voted down an amendment that would have brought the Department of Defense funding levels down to the same 2008 levels they want to impose on domestic discretionary spending. Obviously, the Republicans believe in a blank check for the Pentagon, but austerity for everyone else. They rejected my amendment to eliminate the V-22 Osprey, a multibillion-dollar aircraft with a performance and safety record so shoddy that even Dick Cheney tried to eliminate it when he was Secretary of Defense. They also rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds for permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that an anonymous officer in Afghanistan was quoted in yesterday's Washington Post as saying, ``We've become addicted to building.'' That officer added that supplemental appropriations, with its billions of dollars for construction, ``have been like crack cocaine for the military.'' It gets worse, Mr. Speaker. The Defense bill includes a radically expanded authorization for the use of military force. It completely undermines the War Powers Act, empowering the President, whichever President, whomever is in that office, to declare war regardless of whether an attack against the United States is imminent, regardless of whether our national security has been threatened. The language doesn't even specify any geographic limitation. The Republican majority couldn't even bring themselves to support an amendment that called simply for a plan within 60 days to transfer responsibility for Afghanistan's security to Afghanistan--a plan--so we can begin the process of redevelopment. Just a plan within 60 days. As our distinguished Democratic leader said here on the floor last week when we were debating this, who could be against that? Well, apparently the overwhelming majority of House Republicans could be against it and are against it and voted against it. Then they topped it off by voting to eliminate the modest public investment in the U.S. Institute of Peace, an institute that carries out real, well-respected, lifesaving work on peaceful conflict resolution around the world. Last night the majority played a game of chicken with the global financial credibility of the United States, holding a vote on the debt ceiling that was designed to fail. I challenge them: You want meaningful spending cuts as a condition for a debt ceiling increase? Then stop giving the Pentagon unlimited use of the taxpayers' ATM card. Stop putting the full faith and credit of the United States on the line in order to wage more war. You believe in fiscal discipline, and you think everything should be on the table? Then let's talk about saving $10 billion a month by ending the war in Afghanistan, and let's bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in October, 2011, Azerbaijan will celebrate 20 years of independence as a democratic republic, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, Azerbaijan's desire for independence dates back much further to the collapse of Imperial Russia in 1918. On May 28, 2011, Azerbaijan will be celebrating the 93rd anniversary of the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the first Muslim democracy. Azerbaijan also gave women the right to vote in 1918, over 2 years before the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution made women's suffrage a reality in our country. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan's independence was short-lived, and was snuffed out by the Bolshevik Revolution and the crushing takeover by Soviet Russia. Many Azerbaijanis lost their lives in 1920, trying to keep their independence alive. After years of living under Soviet rule, in 1991, Azerbaijan regained its independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Azerbaijan is a secular, modern, Muslim, country, which practices broad religious tolerance. Religion does not play any role in the Government. The capital city of Baku has five Jewish synagogues and Christian churches abound. The country has a close relationship with Israel. Azerbaijani teams, this year, flew to Israel and helped the Israelis fight large wildfires. State visits, back and forth between the two countries, are common. They are strong trading partners. Azerbaijan is a strong ally of the United States in a very important and very uncertain region of the world with Russia to the north and Iran to the south. Yet, not only is Azerbaijan stable, politically and economically, it was also the first Muslim nation to offer troops to support the United States in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Air fields in Azerbaijan continue to provide logistics support for American troops in both theatres. Mr. Speaker, I commend Azerbaijan as it moves forward on the path to democracy and thank them for their strong support of the United States. My congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan on the anniversary of Republic Day, which symbolizes the universal quest for freedom and democracy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine anything more shortsighted than cutting off funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace. Since 2001, we've taken the militaristic approach to protecting America. And guess what? It has not worked. It's killed thousands of our people. It's cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. And it has not made us any safer. For pennies on the dollar, we can have what I call ``smart security,'' investing in programs like USIP that use time-tested conflict prevention and resolution techniques. From Kosovo to Sudan to Iraq and Afghanistan, USIP personnel have been laying the building blocks of peace and stability. Created by Ronald Reagan's presidential signature, it has been called ``a striking success story'' by General Petraeus. It does extraordinary work that has earned praise from leaders across the ideological spectrum. USIP saves lives. It's up to us to save USIP. Vote ``no'' on this misguided amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, in the current budget debate, I often hear from my Republican colleagues that everything should be on the table. By that they usually mean every domestic program that helps working families make ends meet should be on the table. But if everything is really on the table, that has to include expensive weapons systems that have failed to contribute to our national security, like the V-22 Osprey aircraft. That's why I'm offering this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which will eliminate funding for the V-22 Osprey aircraft. The Osprey's mishaps have become practically the stuff of legend. It's a poster child for the excesses and inefficiencies of the military industrial complex. Its safety record is abysmal. Thirty Americans have been killed during V-22 training exercises. Most recently, Madam Chair, during a public demonstration in New York last spring, its prop rotors knocked down tree limbs and injured 10 civilian bystanders. The Marine Corps itself has even concluded that leaving the engine idling could generate such high temperatures that the entire flight deck could melt in 10 minutes. In 2009, a GAO report gave the Osprey mediocre marks and questioned its ability to perform all of the functions of the helicopter it's supposed to replace. From its ability to operate in high-threat environments to carrying troops and transporting cargo, the Osprey underperformed across the board. I'm still trying to figure out what good it is to have a combat plane that doesn't operate well in high-threat environments. That's like having a coat that doesn't do well in the cold. If you had one, you'd stop wearing it; and you wouldn't spend more and more each year on the same flawed coat. The V-22 Osprey is a boondoggle. One aspect of its maintenance even includes a special lightweight paint that costs $75,000 per aircraft-- and we thought $600 toilet seats at the Pentagon were a rip-off. At a time when Americans are being forced to tighten their belts, they don't want to pay $75,000 to paint a plane that has done little to keep the country safe. It's the job of the Pentagon to protect the American people, not to make defense contractors rich by perpetuating systems and programs long beyond the point that they've failed. That's why the cochairs of the Fiscal Commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, recommended canceling the V-22. That's why the most hawkish of any U.S. Government official I can remember, a former Defense Secretary named Dick Cheney, wanted to terminate it at least 20 years ago. The V-22 Osprey has been given more than enough time to prove its worth. It has been over a quarter of a century. It has cost taxpayers over $32 billion--money we could have been spending on programs the American people need. And for the sake of our national defense, and in the name of fiscal discipline, this V-22 must go. So I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I wouldn't blame the gentleman from Texas for supporting the V-22 when a great bit of it is built in his district and he needs to defend it. But I'd like to just repeat so that people understand this. So far, the V-22 has cost over $32 billion. When it was initiated in 1986, it was estimated to cost $39 billion. Today, it's estimated to cost $53 billion. Terminating the V-22 would save $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 10 years. Actually, it would save $2\1/2\ billion in funding for procurement of the Navy and Air Force just this year alone. With that, Madam Chair, I'd like to say if you're talking about everything on the table, look at this. It's had its turn, 20, 30 years to prove itself; and it's time that we end this relationship. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico for allowing me to speak out of order. Thank you very much. We recently passed the 2-month mark since the military air campaign in Libya began. This is significant because the War Powers Act requires that a President must receive a congressional mandate for any military action within 60 days. The deadline came and went without any resolution being brought before this body, which is a signal that our engagement in Libya is lingering without much accountability or checks, without a vigorous debate about the consequences of what we are doing there. Who knows exactly what our mission is and how we will know when we have achieved it? What is the end game? What are the metrics or benchmarks for success? At the same time, this week we will debate an amendment to the defense bill that would expand the authorization for use of military force, empowering the President, any President, to fire bombs and missiles against any nation or nonstate actor that appears to pose a threat. And without so much as a check-in or consultation with Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have had enough. I have had enough of this state of permanent warfare. I have five grandchildren, and not one of them knows what it is like to live in a country that is not at war with someone and killing someone else's grandchildren. It is time to put the brakes on. It is time for Congress to draw some clear lines, and Libya is the perfect place to do so. I am proud to support the amendment offered today by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that will specifically prohibit the deployment of ground troops in Libya. We cannot afford any further expansion of this engagement. We owe it to the American people who are footing the bill and, of course, to our servicemen and -women who are already fighting on two fronts. To keep this mission from mushrooming into a full-blown ground war and military occupation, we must stop now. We must not put boots on the ground in Libya, and we must close any loophole that allows any President to do so. We still have combat troops in Iraq. We are spending a staggering $10 billion a month on an ongoing war in Afghanistan that has been a devastating moral and strategic failure. We can't keep doing this, Mr. Speaker. Our military is at a breaking point. The American people's patience is wearing thin. Two wars are already more than we can handle. Let's define the mission in Libya, let's complete it, and let's get out. Anything less is a replay of Iraq and Afghanistan, where we must move quickly to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding time to me. Madam Chair, more than 2 months after the military campaign in Libya began, it's time to start defining its parameters and its limitations. Most importantly, we must provide assurance that this will not mushroom into a full blown ground war and military occupation. That's why I am proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by my friend from Michigan. Are two wars not enough? We can't keep doing this. Our military is at a breaking point. The American people's patience is wearing thin. They know the costs in life and tender coming from these wars that we have in Iraq and in Afghanistan; and now what we're doing in Libya comes from important domestic programs right here at home. They don't want to replay Iraq and Afghanistan in Libya. In fact, we all know that it's time to bring our troops home out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is time to engage in smart security for diplomacy, where human and economic assistance are used instead of bombs and weapons, costing us pennies on the dollar. No more wars, no boots on the ground in Libya, and as much as we can do to take care of our business here at home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment and the underlying bill, H.R. 1216. This is just the last attempt, the latest and newest attempt, by the majority to stall health care reform and undermine the health security of the American people. We had barely taken our oaths in January when they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act; now trying to eliminate title X funding that provides critical primary care for women, and last month they went after the funding for the health care exchanges, and they voted to cut grants for school-based health centers that served young children. But worst of all is the Republican budget resolution that was passed last month. It rips the heart out of Medicare, eviscerates and disfigures a program that would no longer be recognized. It's one of the more radical proposals I've seen during 18 years in Congress. They want to strip guaranteed benefits and break the Medicare promise that has served our seniors so well for nearly half a century. And what do they replace it with? A voucher. A voucher that won't be able to keep up with soaring health care costs, a voucher that will give seniors no leverage in the health care marketplace, a voucher that will put older Americans at the mercy of the insurance companies. Madam Chairwoman, the CBO has concluded that the Republican proposal will double health care costs for seniors. So if you are 54 years old today, you will need to save an additional $182,000 to make up for the Medicare benefits you will lose under the Republican plan. And they are not content to destroy Medicare. Medicaid comes in for brutal treatment as well. By converting it to a block grant, they would be throwing as many as 44 million Americans off the insurance rolls, eliminating coverage for the poorest people, most nursing home residents and people with disabilities. My friends on the other side of the aisle who say we have to do this to balance the budget, they know they're wrong. I say they're dead wrong. We do not need to put seniors and low-income Americans on an austerity program in order to rein in the deficit. We do not need to shred the social safety net or to squeeze the middle class in order to get our fiscal house in order. In fact, we can save taxpayers $68 billion over 7 years and expand the menu of health care choices by instituting a public option. If you ask the American people, they would rather see some shared sacrifice than cutting spending. They would rather see us eliminate tax breaks for CEOs who have no idea what it's like to choose between taking their medication or eating their next meal. Madam Chairwoman, I will vote ``no'' on H.R. 1216. It's just another example of Republican negligence and callousness on health care. They clearly prefer the broken system that leaves millions uninsured, imposing crippling costs that bankrupt families and bankrupt small businesses. The majority doesn't want to solve the health care crisis. They want to exacerbate it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 50, 112th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Santa Rosa Community Health Centers and recognize their contribution to health care in Sonoma County, California. They are celebrating their 15th year of leadership and collaboration in building a healthy community. In 1996, five physicians and one nurse practitioner made it their mission to bring high quality health care to the Roseland area of Santa Rosa, where the predominantly Latino community had no access to medical care. These providers worked tirelessly for 4 years until their first clinic opened with the help of the Sisters of St. Joseph and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital. Southwest Community Health Center opened its doors on March 19th, St. Joseph's day, and was warmly welcomed to the community. Under the guidance of CEO Naomi Fuchs, the original clinic at Lombardi Court expanded its hours and its facility. Ms. Fuchs also responded to the needs of several other important community programs that were facing budget restraints that threatened closure. The Elsie Allen Health Center, Turning Point Satellite Clinic, Southwest Adult Day Services and the Family Practice Residency Program were all brought under the Southwest umbrella as well as the Homeless Clinic, Roseland Children's Health Center and HIV/AIDS care. As their service area expanded well beyond the southwest corner of the city, they assumed a name that better represents them: Santa Rosa Community Health Centers. In order to better serve their patients, 2011 saw the opening of the Vista Family Health Center, a 42,500 square foot facility that provides primary care and obstetrics to an additional 10,000 residents. This beautiful new health center reminds patients, many of whom are low income, that a medical home with a caring medical team is a right rather than a privilege. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we congratulate Santa Rosa Community Health Centers on 15 years of ensuring that everyone who enters their doors is heard, valued and honored.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to honor Rod Dole of Sonoma County, California, who is retiring May 31, 2011, after 25 years as the County's Auditor-Controller. During his long tenure, Mr. Dole was responsible for overseeing a wide variety of County financial operations, including serving as Treasurer-Tax Collector when those positions were consolidated with his office 5 years ago. With a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and certification as both an Internal Auditor and a Government Financial Manager, Rod Dole was hired as an auditor in 1976. He was appointed to the Auditor-Controller post in 1985 and subsequently elected. He continued to be re-elected by residents who appreciated his confident and sure hand in this key position. He has served in a number of related organizations including Chair of various committees in the State Auditor-Controllers and Treasurer-Tax Collector Associations, the State Controller, and the State Treasurer as well as President of the State Auditor-Controllers Association. Locally, Mr. Dole has worked with a variety of service clubs and non- profit organizations, on the board of Redwood Credit Union, and on the boards of both the Sonoma State University School of Business and Economics and the President's Advisory Committee. A man of many accomplishments in his field, he is particularly known for authoring State legislation for the ``Teeter Credit'' regarding property tax payments to local agencies; chairing State committees on property tax guidelines and spending limits; and most recently for administering the Sonoma County Energy Independence Program (SCEIP), a national model for a mechanism permitting loans for energy efficiency upgrades through property taxes. He advocated strongly for the program in the face of Federal restrictions on such loans, and SCEIP has won numerous awards as well as a $3 million grant from the California Energy Commission. It is a key component of Sonoma County's leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving energy and has provided hundreds of local construction jobs. Rod Dole looks forward to his retirement with Kathie, his wife of 35 years, and will have time to appreciate his cabin at Lake Almanor and his hobbies of golf, fishing, boating, tennis, and woodworking. He also has two children, Laura and Michael. Mr. Speaker, we ask you to join us in commending Rod Dole's 35 years of service to the people of Sonoma County. We wish him an enjoyable retirement with his family.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the successful raid on Osama bin Laden's hideaway 10 days ago came with an important, and somewhat ironic, reminder. This mission was carried out in Pakistan where we are not at war and have no troop presence. Meanwhile, next door in Afghanistan, we continue to maintain an enormous military footprint of 100,000 or more troops. We're still there, even though Osama bin Laden hasn't been there since he escaped our grasp at Tora Bora nearly 10 years ago, and most of the al Qaeda leadership fled long ago. The death of bin Laden clearly underscores the folly of our current policy. This is exactly the right moment to rethink our approach to Afghanistan and national security more generally, especially with the President's deadline for redeployment just 50 days from now in July. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, our military leaders don't seem to be rising to the moment. According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, officers in Afghanistan have drawn up a plan that would withdraw 5,000 troops by July 1 and 5,000 more by the end of this year. Madam Speaker, that's not even close to an adequate response to the demands of the moment. It's not the bold move that was suggested when the July 1, 2011, drawdown date was first announced; 10,000 fewer troops by the end of the year doesn't even get us to pre-surge levels. We owe it to the American people to do much, much more. They have sacrificed enough. What do we have to show for the 1,500-plus people we've lost and the nearly $7 billion a month we continue to throw at this mission? If anything, we have emboldened the terrorists instead of defeating them. If anything, we've undermined our national security interests instead of advancing them. If anything, we've weakened America instead of strengthening it. Americans see that Osama bin Laden is dead; that the military occupation of Afghanistan isn't accomplishing its goals; that we have urgent priorities right here at home. And they are quite rightly asking: Why do we still have boots on the ground in Afghanistan? We also owe it to the men and women who wear those boots to end this war. Our troops have served with honor and valor in Afghanistan. A deeply flawed and morally objectionable policy is not their fault, but they are bearing the untold burden that will not be easily lifted. Earlier this week, USA Today reported on a new military study showing that troop morale is at an all-time low, thanks to the punishing emotional and psychological strain of multiple deployments and intense combat. The percentage of Army soldiers reporting acute stress has nearly tripled since the year 2005. Even if the war ended tomorrow, Madam Speaker, the anxiety and trauma plaguing so many of our troops won't go away anytime soon, if ever; but it's time to let the physical and mental health healing begin. It's time to stop sending our best and our bravest into this grinder. We have asked enough of them. Madam Speaker, I can think of no better way to support our troops than to bring them home immediately.