Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to yield such time as he may consume to the dean of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Fortney Pete Stark, to honor the memory of a man who gave his life serving the people of the San Francisco Bay Area. Alameda Fire Captain Scott Carnevale, a resident of Mill Valley, California, died at the age of 42 on January 3, 2011, of occupational cancer. Cpt. Carnevale was a proud Mill Valley native. He attended Mill Valley Middle School and Tamalpais High School, and it was at Tam High that he first met his future wife, Elizabeth. Mill Valley is also where Cpt. Carnevale took an early interest in firefighting, volunteering with the Mill Valley Fire Department in 1992. Cpt. Carnevale then attended the fire academy in Santa Rosa and graduated the following year. Early in his career, Cpt. Carnevale served as a seasonal firefighter in Marin and worked for the Tamalpais Fire District before finally joining the Alameda Air Station as a full-time firefighter. When the airbase closed in 1997, Cpt. Carnevale was hired by the city of Alameda, where he was promoted to Apparatus Operator in 2001 and Captain of Station Two in 2007. Cpt. Carnevale was also dedicated to his fellow firefighters. He served as an Executive Board Trustee and Shift Vice President for the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 689. He was also an active member of the Fire Labor Management Team, and he organized Alameda Fire Department's participation in the California Professional Firefighters Exposure Reporting Program. Cpt. Carnevale had many outside passions and skills, including craftsmanship and the outdoors. He helped design and build his family's home in Mill Valley. He also helped to restore the fire department's two antique fire rigs, and he took it on himself to repaint the insignia at the front door of Station Three. Even a diagnosis of cancer could not slow him down, as he continued to enjoy spending time with his family, traveling, and kayaking. Cpt. Carnevale is survived by his wife Elizabeth Carnevale and his eight-year-old son. Mister Speaker, it is with a profound sense of loss that we ask you to join us in honoring the life of Cpt. Scott Carnevale. Family and friends remember Cpt. Carnevale as an adventurer who was loved and respected for his integrity, selflessness, and dependability. The people of the Bay Area remember him as a true hero.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Daymon Doss and recognize his contribution to health care in Sonoma County California. Mr. Doss is retiring after forty-five years of leadership and collaboration in building a healthy community. Daymon received his education in Sonoma County, attending middle school, high school, Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University. His work as a registered nurse and respiratory therapist greatly informed his career path and decisionmaking; he is known as an administrator who understands the needs of clinicians. My hometown of Petaluma would be a very different place, were it not for Daymon's vision and sense of social justice years ago. He saw that people without health insurance were using the hospital Emergency Room as their means of obtaining health care. He knew they needed a medical home that offered a full range of care, and used his collaborative skills to establish the Petaluma Health Center. When Petaluma Valley Hospital was facing financial challenges, Daymon negotiated a contract with the St. Joseph Health System to run the hospital. When St. Joseph's threatened to close the OB section of the hospital, Daymon was instrumental in saving the department by bringing all stakeholders to the table to find a solution that worked. You see Mr. Speaker, that is what Daymon Doss does best; he is a consensus builder, a facilitator, a communicator, an inspiration. Daymon knows and holds the respect of our community so that a call from him brings people to the table to find common goals and build workable solutions. An active member of the community, he has served on multiple boards, including Community Health Foundations, COTS, Healthy Community consortium, Sunrise Rotary of Petaluma, Housing Land Trust Sonoma County, and Partnership Health Plan. He has served in a variety of management positions at the Petaluma Health Care District and currently as the CEO. Mr. Speaker, I have turned to Mr. Doss myself, for factual updates of events that unfold while I am working in Washington, DC. He does not color his words with his own opinion, but he does color them with optimism and a strong belief that there is a solution that will benefit everyone. It is appropriate at this time that we thank Mr. Daymon Doss for his many years of service on behalf of the people of Sonoma County. He has worked tirelessly to promote the health of our community; for this, he deserves our appreciation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. In a speech this past weekend to our religious broadcasters, the Speaker of the House called the Federal debt ``a moral threat'' to our Nation. It's an interesting choice of words from the leader of the House majority, who has been a cheerleader for the Nation's most morally objectionable policy of all--the disastrous, despicable war in Afghanistan. For some reason, their moral sensibilities are not offended by a military conflict that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and 1,500 of our bravest, bravest people without advancing national security objectives or truly diminishing the terrorist threat at the same time. So how are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle resolving their moral dilemma? By asking corporate special interests to give up handouts and tax breaks? By asking the wealthiest Americans to give back more to the Nation that has given them so much opportunity? Nope. By their moral calculations, the answer is to demand sacrifice from the very Americans who are bearing the brunt of this recession-- from the people and communities who depend upon public investment. Their moral compass tells them to cut vital programs to the bone or eliminate them altogether: food safety, family planning, health research, public housing, transportation infrastructure, college aid, and on and on. There was an article in my home newspaper over the weekend about how local health clinics could be devastated by these cuts. California alone stands to lose nearly $13 million in homeland security grants needed to train and equip first responders. The Republican budget cuts also, according to one study, would destroy 700,000 jobs--but that's not keeping the Speaker up at night. He sees Americans out of work, and instead of saying this is a moral threat, he says, ``So be it.'' In what moral universe, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does it make sense to destroy jobs at home but send more Americans to die in a senseless war abroad? Programs like COPS and Head Start, which the majority wants slashed, save lives. The war in Afghanistan, which isn't even on the table in this budget debate, has ended nearly 1,500 American lives. Our surviving servicemen and -women are coming home with devastating physical and psychological wounds. Yet the majority party, so enthusiastic in its support for Afghanistan spending, wants to eliminate a homeless veterans initiative. That's their version of morality: Send young Americans halfway around the world to be chewed up and traumatized. Then pull the plug on the support they need when they get home. That's what they call supporting the troops. The majority could kill the proverbial two birds with one stone if they wanted. They could just about solve their debt crisis by bringing our troops home and ending the moral stain on our Nation--that is the Afghanistan war. Somehow, I'm not holding my breath. Until the Speaker and my Republican colleagues are prepared to show moral courage on Afghanistan, I refuse to take their moral outrage about the deficit seriously.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on February 18, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 94. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 94: no--Young of Alaska Amendment No. 533.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the underlying bill go in precisely the wrong direction. We should be talking about strengthening the historic reform that we passed last year. We should not be tearing it apart, because we all know that its repeal will leave millions out in the cold, stripping them of access to affordable health care; and it will cost small businesses the incentives and the tax breaks that they would get. It all goes in the wrong direction. The majority claims to believe in cutting government spending above all else; yet the CBO has concluded that, over a 10-year period, up to 2021, their bill would add $230 billion to the national debt. Now, if you're really serious about reducing our debt, you should have a robust public option. That would save $68 billion.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to express my absolute bafflement at the debate we've been having all week in this Chamber. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle wax on and on about how we have to restore fiscal discipline and cut all kinds of very necessary programs to the bone. Yet they won't even bring to our debate one of the most costly expenses we have in this country, and that's Afghanistan. This war in Afghanistan has cost us nearly 1,500 American lives and the taxpayers a staggering $379 billion and counting. Yet during this debate, the majority, which is enthusiastic in its support for more and more Afghanistan war spending, wants to eliminate a homeless veterans initiative. That's their approach. Send our brave men and women halfway around the world to be chewed up and traumatized, then pull the plug on the support they need when they get home. That's what they call supporting the troops. We need to cut that expense.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate the V-22 Osprey aircraft and the expeditionary fighting vehicle. For years, the Pentagon has been throwing billions at weapons systems that don't work and don't keep us safe; weapons systems that are obsolete in the post- Cold War era; weapons systems that are not giving us bang for the buck. The V-22 Osprey is essentially a lemon. It makes defense contractors rich but doesn't make our military strong. It has a notoriously bad safety record, having killed 30 of our own people in training exercises, and a deadly V-22 crash in Afghanistan last year was claimed as a victory by the Taliban. Billions over budget for a weapons system that's killing our own people--not a good deal for the taxpayer, to say the least. The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet or in extreme heat. It also has problems carrying troops, transporting cargo, and operating in high-threat environments. A combat plane that can't operate in high-threat environments? Is there anything the Osprey can do? Actually, can it deliver mail? The President's deficit commission recently recommended we stop writing blank checks for the Osprey. So did another top official who more than 20 years ago said: ``Given the risk we face from a military standpoint, the V-22 is at the bottom of the list, and for that reason, I decided to terminate it.'' That's not a prominent Democrat speaking, Mr. Chairman; that's a former Secretary of Defense named Dick Cheney. The Marine Corps' expeditionary fighting vehicle would provide almost as much savings, between $8 and $9 billion over the next decade. The President's proposed budget pulls the plug on this system, which is more than 14 years behind schedule and has also experienced major cost overruns. According to the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget, the EFV breaks down on average every 8 hours and has trouble steering in water. Shouldn't we be worried about an amphibious vehicle that doesn't steer well in water? Would you spend billions of dollars on a family car that breaks down every 8 hours and doesn't steer well? And besides, even if the EFV ran like a dream, when was the last time we needed to launch an attack by sea? Once again, we're developing weapons for enemies that no longer exist. With spending cut fever having hit Capitol Hill, you would think these wasteful systems would be among the very first on the chopping block. But naturally my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather scale back the very things keeping people safe and strong-- police on the streets, investments in innovation and infrastructure, NIH research, education assistance from Head Start to Pell Grants, and much, much more. I say we go in a different direction. If we're serious about restoring fiscal discipline, both the V-22 Osprey and the EFV must go. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, amendment 413 states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used in Department of Defense overseas contingency operations budget for military operations in Afghanistan until the President seeks to negotiate and enter into a bilateral status of forces agreement with Afghanistan. Mr. Chairman, we've had troops deployed in Afghanistan for nearly a decade now, making this the longest war in our Nation's history, costing more than $378 billion, with no real end in sight. Close to 1,500 brave Americans have been killed, and they've been killed in the line of duty there. Roughly 10,000 have been wounded, and yet the United States does not have a status of forces agreement, or SOFA, with Afghanistan. The SOFA is a very basic tool which spells out the terms of U.S. military operations in a given country. The United States is party to more than 100 such agreements, for engagements great and engagements small, including Mali, Montenegro, and Micronesia. We have a SOFA with Iraq, signed in the year 2008, which sets out a deadline for complete withdrawal of troops by the end of the year. SOFA agreements determine how the laws of the foreign jurisdiction should be applied to U.S. personnel while in that country. They lay the foundation in a number of areas, including economic, cultural, and law enforcement matters. So it's beyond irresponsible, Mr. Chairman, that in Afghanistan, the country where we are currently waging our longest and most expensive war, we have no such agreement. There is no formal structure to provide rules governing the presence of hundreds of thousands of Americans in that sovereign nation. This must end. It's both morally and fiscally irresponsible. And that's why I have submitted this amendment. It requires the President to negotiate and enter into a bilateral SOFA with the Government of Afghanistan. A SOFA would establish that the temporary presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is at the request and invitation of the host government. It would prohibit permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and it would provide a date no later than 1 year after the signing of the agreement for complete, safe, and orderly redeployment. That includes Armed Forces, civilian DOD employees, and military contractors. Without a SOFA with Afghanistan, Mr. Chairman, our leaders can continue to extend our occupation indefinitely while the cost surges, our deficit rises, and our economy falters. That is poor military strategy and poor fiscal planning. A SOFA provides certainty and clarity about what we're doing in Afghanistan and how much longer we need to be there. It would provide the framework and momentum for redeployment consistent with the terms of the Iraq SOFA. My amendment would move us a critical step closer to an end to this disastrous war, the safe return of our troops back home, and taxpayers' dollars invested in domestic needs right here in the United States. With that, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand strongly in support of Congresswoman Lowey and her amendment and title X and its protections for women and family. What a shame we're here tonight defending a woman's reproductive rights--defending a woman's right to make choices that work for her, that work for her family, that work for their future. Instead, we should be debating how we can get our economy going, how to provide jobs. Instead, we're defending a woman's right to control her body, her right to good health care, her right to prevent a pregnancy, and her right to end a pregnancy. This, my friends, is the 21st century. We are not in the Middle Ages. It is time to respect women and to respect their choices. It is past time to begin creating jobs here in the United States of America. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the NOAA budget cuts in the continuing resolution before us in the House today. Slashing NOAA's funding by 22 percent will put lives, property, and critical infrastructure in jeopardy by diminishing our ability to respond to disasters like the gulf oil spill and to conduct safe evacuations in advance of weather emergencies. Also, marine sanctuaries would be inevitably cut, and those sanctuaries are so essential to a healthy coastal environment, and to the fishermen and to the tourism economies along our coasts. Cutting NOAA funding will also sacrifice the science and technology investments that we need to win the future and to maintain robust funding for this vital agency.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I rise in disappointment that the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) was not made in order. While the Republicans cut the heart out of necessary, needed programs that would help the people who have lost their jobs--and they've lost these jobs through no fault of their own--it actually stuns me how unaware they are that it is our very obligation in this House to help make families whole again, to help them do what they have to do when they can't find work. But of course it's up to the Barbara Lees and the Bobby Scotts of this Congress to insist that we provide a lifeline for hardworking families who have exhausted all of their benefits. It is particularly shameful, Madam Chair, that this is something we're even questioning after giving billions of dollars in deficit-busting tax cuts to the very wealthiest. After extending those tax breaks for the affluent, how can they say that we can't afford to extend unemployment insurance for families struggling to find jobs in this economy? The Republican leadership has given a lot of lip service to creating jobs, but they've yet to bring even one jobs bill to the floor. Now they have a chance to support emergency relief to millions of working families, a chance to extend unemployment benefits to help struggling families which will also help end the recession because, as it was just said a minute ago, getting people back to work will get our economy going again because working is actually the first crucial step in reducing the deficit. Actually, unemployment insurance is a proven economic booster. According to the Congressional Budget Office, for every $1 spent on unemployment insurance, economic activity increases by $2. In fact, the CBO has found unemployment insurance to be one of the most cost effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. There's no shortage of work ethic in America, Madam Chair. There is a shortage of work, however. So where is the majority party's jobs bill? Where is their support for the millions of people who have exhausted all their emergency unemployment benefits and are desperately looking for employment? I urge my colleagues, provide additional unemployment benefits for those whose benefits have run out. And I suggest that the best thing you could do right now is help create jobs for America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the new majority in the House has told us that their decisions are guided by two principles: first, loyalty to the Constitution; and, second, a belief that the government is too large and too intrusive. Well, here's their chance to act on these principles, because the Patriot Act provisions we are voting on today represent Big Brother at its creepiest and most invasive. They are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.''

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, sir. Mr. Speaker, for close to a decade now we've been told that our civil liberties must be shredded in the name of a so-called war on terrorism. We've been told that the national security imperatives of the moment are so great and so different than any we face in our history that we must submit to roving wiretaps and that we must empower the government to retain ``any tangible thing'' related to a terrorism investigation. ``Any tangible thing''--that gives the government pretty broad discretion to ferret out just about whatever they want. It is an invitation to overreach and abuse. I believe it has stifled freedom more than it has advanced it. There is a real incoherence to an approach that says we have to do violence to our Nation's values in order to protect them. Benjamin Franklin's words are just as powerful today as they were more than 200 years ago when he said, ``Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.'' I believe we must let these provisions expire. And let's not stop there. Let's move toward a fuller debate about civil liberties and national security, a debate that revises and ultimately repeals the Patriot Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the new majority in the House has told us that the decisions they make will be guided by two things. First, loyalty to the Constitution. And second, a belief that the government is too large and too intrusive. Well, here is their chance to act on those principles. The PATRIOT Act provisions we're voting on today represent Big Brother at its creepiest and most invasive. They are a clear violation of the 4th Amendment's ``right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Its been close to a decade now that we've lived under the PATRIOT Act. For close to a decade, we've been told that our individual freedoms needed to take a backseat. For close to a decade, we've been told that our civil liberties must be shredded in the name of a so- called war on terrorism. We've been told that the national security imperatives of the moment are so great--and so different than any we've faced in our history--that we must submit to roving wiretaps, that we must empower the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' related to a terrorism investigation. ``Any tangible thing''--that gives the government pretty broad discretion to ferret out just about whatever it is that they want. It is an invitation to overreach and abuse. Meanwhile, it's not at all clear that the PATRIOT Act has made us safer. I believe it has stifled freedom more than it has advanced it. There is a real incoherence to an approach that says we have to do violence to our values in order to protect them. Benjamin Franklin's words are just as powerful today as they were more than 200 years ago: ``Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.'' I was impressed that so many members of the majority, in particular those just elected, voted against this measure when it came up on the suspension calendar earlier this week. I strongly urge them to do so again, and I hope they will be joined by more of their Republican colleagues who claim such a passionate belief in modest government. Or do they want to be known as the party that believes we should be tapping Americans' phones but not giving them affordable health care? I believe we must let these provisions expire. And let's not stop there. Let's move toward a fuller debate about civil liberties and national security, one that revises and ultimately repeals the PATRIOT Act once and for all. This law is Constitutional graffiti. Patriotism means affirming and celebrating the values that have given America its strength and vitality for more than two centuries. A bill that violates several constitutional amendments has no business calling itself the PATRIOT Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on February 14, 2011, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 35-37. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 35: ``yes''--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions; rollcall No. 36: ``no''--To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011; rollcall No. 34: ``yes''--On Approving the Journal.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment before this one, Congressman Gutierrez's amendment, to reduce funding for the V-22 Osprey. This program has been highly troubled since its inception. In fact, it was almost canceled several times. As my friend Mr. Gutierrez noted, former Defense Secretary Cheney actually called for its cancellation several times. During its testing, the V-22 killed 30 people; and in April 2010, a V-22 crashed in Afghanistan, killing four more people. The GAO has noted that this plane has trouble flying over 8,000 feet or in extreme heat. You know what? There's more. This plane has a problem carrying troops, transporting cargo, and operating off naval vessels. No wonder the Pentagon wants to cancel the program in its entirety.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Ms. WOOLSEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is my understanding of what the Pentagon wanted to do, but I yield to your wisdom. I do believe that canceling the V-22 and saving $10 billion to $12 billion over 10 years would be real fiscal savings. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to recognize Mary Evelyn Arnold, who has been named the City of Sonoma's 2011 Alcaldessa, or Honorary Mayor. The title, ``Alcalde'' or ``Alcaldessa'' when referring to a woman, is the Spanish word for ``Mayor.'' During the Spanish colonial period in California, the Alcalde was the primary civil authority. In modern times in the City of Sonoma, it is an honorary title and the contemporary Alcalde or Alcaldessa presides over ceremonial events for the city. Alcaldes and Alcaldessas are nominated by the community and are representative of individuals with a long record of volunteer work. Ms. Arnold is no exception to this rule. At the top of the list of Ms. Arnold volunteer passions is the library. She has served on both the Sonoma County Library Commission and as Chair of the Sonoma Valley Library Advisory Board. She also serves as Treasurer and Chair of the Investment Committee at Vintage House, organizes the Wednesday cooking crew at Meals on Wheels and bakes birthday cakes for the WillMar Center, which offers support and counseling for children and teens grieving the death of a loved one. Pets Lifeline (where she is the unofficial cat cuddler), Kiwanis Club of Sonoma Plaza and the AAUW Scholarship Committee round out her volunteer community activities. Ms. Arnold is also very active in her church, serving on the Committee on Ministry of the Northern California Nevada Conference of the United Church of Christ and serves as Vice Moderator of the First Congregational Church of Sonoma. Ms. Arnold moved to Sonoma County in 1987 and was the co-owner of a specialty wine business and worked for the Wine Business Monthly and Wine Business Insider for several years, finishing her career with internet.com. Mr. Speaker, Mary Evelyn Arnold is the quintessential volunteer, a dynamic and well respected member of the community. It is therefore appropriate that we acknowledge her today as the City of Sonoma's Alcaldessa for 2011.