Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I'm the coolest grandmother in this country as far as my grandchildren are concerned, not because I'm a Member of the House of Representatives and have been for 19 years, but because I live within walking distance of the National Zoo. They come here, and they can't get enough of the National Zoo that is sponsored by the Smithsonian. And then when they've had enough of the National Zoo and know they can come back the day after, they are on their way to the Smithsonian; and it depends on their age, and they've developed over the years from wanting the simplest entertainment at the zoo to being very curious and wanting to know more and more. My 7-year-old grandson who was here over the Fourth of July is committed to be a scientist from what he experienced over his last week and the few times he's been here before. If you don't have grandchildren, maybe you don't get it. You don't think this is important to the people of this country, but there is nobody who comes into my office of any age who doesn't thank me for the experience they have had at the Smithsonian. I remind them that it is their entity. It isn't ours. They pay for it through their taxes, and they are proud to do that. I stand here against the amendment and in support of the Smithsonian Institution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, General David Petraeus relinquished control of the Afghanistan command. He did this as he prepares to take over as CIA Director this fall. We are all grateful to General Petraeus for 37 years of honorable and distinguished service, but the fact remains that the fundamental realities in Afghanistan haven't changed. The New York Times put it plainly, noting that the general is ``leaving behind a country racked by deep political instability, whose fledgling security forces are fighting a weakened but deadly insurgency that kills coalition troops and Afghan civilians and officials nearly every day.'' That's a pretty damning assessment, Mr. Speaker, and it's accurate. In recent weeks, two of President Karzai's most powerful allies, including his brother, have been gunned down by the Taliban, and ordinary Afghan citizens are caught in the line of fire as never, never before. The U.N. recently reported that more Afghan civilians were killed in the first half of 2011 than in any other 6-month period since the war began. Some of these casualties are the accidental result of errant attacks and night raids by U.S. and NATO forces, but the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths came at the hands of insurgents who were often using suicide bombers. There were nearly 1,500 civilian deaths between January and June, but according to the U.N., that might be a low estimate given that it doesn't include killings in northern Afghanistan in the last few months, because the U.N. closed its office in that region after it was attacked by a mob that killed several staffers. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that after nearly a decade of war we haven't been able to vanquish the enemy and bring stability and security to Afghanistan. If after 10 years we can't do more to subdue the insurgency, then clearly--clearly--we must be doing something wrong. Clearly, there must be a better approach. I've been pushing for that new approach for many years now. It's called SMART Security. It's based on the belief that sending 100,000 troops to occupy a sovereign country is not the best way to win trust and to promote peace, which has proven to fan the flames of resentment, to give increased momentum to extremists and to put the lives of American troops and Afghan civilians in danger. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is an Afghanistan civilian surge as bold as the military surge that has gotten us further entangled in this failed war. That's what SMART Security is all about. Instead of sending troops, let's send humanitarian aid. Let's send our civilian experts who can help rebuild Afghan schools and hospitals, who can help--and I say ``help'' because we want the Afghan people to be doing this, but we can help where necessary--rebuild the political infrastructure and rule of law that will strengthen Afghan democracy, who can promote political reconciliation and peaceful conflict resolution. As he left Afghanistan, General Petraeus said, ``We should be clear- eyed about the challenges ahead.'' His successor, General John Allen, said, ``There will be tough days ahead, and I have no illusions about the challenges we will face together.'' But I say, Mr. Speaker, continuing with the current policy demonstrates that, in fact, we are not being clear-eyed at all, that we are gripped by dangerous illusions about what a military occupation can achieve. This strategy has been given a chance to work--10 years. It hasn't worked. It's time for something new. It's time for SMART Security, and it's time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, what the American people want from their leaders in Washington can be summed up in a single word: jobs, J-O-B-S. The Republicans have now controlled the House for more than 200 days, and they haven't lifted a finger to address the single overriding priority of the people we work for, that is, jobs. It's a gross failure of leadership. Instead, what's on their agenda this week? Only the biggest assault on environmental protections in several decades. I have yet, Mr. Chairman, to see a poll where Americans are clamoring for the Congress to undermine pollution controls, damage public health, and unravel a 40-year bipartisan conservation consensus. I can't think of a single environmental program or initiative that is spared under the base legislation, and this amendment makes it even worse. The base bill would mean more toxic mercury, arsenic and soot pollution released in our air. It leaves the area surrounding the Grand Canyon, the Grand Canyon, an iconic national park, open to toxic uranium mining. It cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 78 percent. It tears the heart out of the Clean Water Act, and it guts the Endangered Species Act. And it removes those pesky regulatory obstacles that keep pesticides out of our waterways. The Republicans want to block EPA's efforts to protect communities from stormwater runoff and to issue new energy-efficiency standards for new vehicles after 2016. Everything we've put in place that makes sense is what they want to get rid of. And on and on and on and on it goes, Mr. Chairman, one extreme policy rider after another. None of this will do anything to save taxpayers money. It is an absolute frontal assault on the water we drink, the air we breathe, the public lands we cherish. This is a big special interest giveaway, and that is simple. It's a classic example of legislating to benefit friends and benefactors, Big Oil and other corporate polluters at the expense of national interests. The Nation's natural resources are not ours to exploit at our will. They are on loan to us. We must be the responsible stewards. It will be a moral failure if we don't pass an improved environmental bill, and if we don't pass an environment on to the next generation, one that is in even better condition than the one we have today. But that's what this disgraceful legislation would do. It breaks a covenant that the American people take very seriously, a covenant they actually take for granted. It's Republican extremism run amok on steroids, voraciously rampaging out of control. The base bill, H.R. 2584, must be stopped. This amendment cannot see the light of day. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I move to strike the last word to oppose this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I'm here catching my breath after the debate over the extreme Tea Party legislation that we considered yesterday. It's easily one of the worst bills I can remember in nearly 20 years of service here in this body. Every time I think they can't possibly go any farther, the majority blows me away with the audacity of their proposals and the cruelty of their priorities. H.R. 2560, yesterday's debt ceiling proposal, almost makes the Ryan budget look progressive. It makes the continuing resolution passed back in April look positively generous. On this side of the aisle, we call it the Cut, Cap, and End Medicare plan, which is completely accurate. But I'm going to give it another name today, Cut, Cap, and Continue Wars, because throughout the debate over the debt ceiling there's been an elephant in the room, if you'll pardon the expression, that hardly anyone is willing to acknowledge, and that is the impact of waging not one, not two, but three wars is having on our Nation's fiscal health. Afghanistan alone is costing $10 billion a month, with the total price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan, going back 10 years, $3.2 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate, Mr. Speaker. These are staggering figures, especially during a recession when Americans are crying out for Washington to do something about creating jobs and breathing life back into our economy. And what are the taxpayers getting for their trillions of dollars in war spending? More than 6,100 dead Americans, continued violence in Iraq and a Prime Minister who's cozying up to Iran, and an ongoing civil war in Libya, a corrupt regime in Kabul, insurgents that continue to kill at will, in Afghanistan a nation still under crushing poverty, and an Afghan Government that cannot protect its own people. By any measure, these wars have been a devastating failure. And yet, with barely any scrutiny, barely any debate, and certainly no outrage from Republican leaders, we continue to write that check. Meanwhile, we have domestic programs that work, proven investments in the survival and prosperity of our people: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, school lunches, student loans, food stamps, unemployment insurance. But the majority says these programs have to be cut and capped so we can continue three wars. Republicans want to cut programs that are keeping Americans alive while they want to continue funding the wars that have killed more than 6,100 Americans. It blows my mind, Mr. Speaker. How about we ask the American people: Which do they prefer? These wars that have been failing us for 10 years or the guaranteed Medicare benefits that will allow them and their families to retire with dignity? I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Do you really believe everything should be on the table? Everything? If you do, let's talk about war spending. And if you're really and truly serious about restoring fiscal sanity, where were you when the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a plan that will put us back in the black within 10 years? The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget proves that we can balance the budget, but we don't have to amend the Constitution to do it. We don't need to shred the safety net to do it. We don't need to tear the heart out of Medicare to do it. We can do it by bringing fairness back to the Tax Code, by ending subsidies, handouts, and giveaways to people and corporations who will do just fine without them, we can do it by passing a clean debt ceiling and putting our people to work, and, Mr. Speaker, we can do it by ending these wars once and for all and bringing our troops home where they belong.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2011, for rollcalls 574-576 my vote was recorded as ``aye.'' I ask that my vote be recorded as: rollcall No. 574: ``no'', rollcall No. 575: ``no'', rollcall No. 576: ``no.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Vic Rowen, a man whose distinguished career as Head Football Coach for the San Francisco State University Gators for 28 years, earned him the highest accolades. On June 4, 2011, the San Francisco State University unveiled a statue to commemorate Coach Rowen's service as well as that of his predecessor, Coach Joe Verducci. These men were honored for exemplifying ``the highest ideals of academic performance and competitive athletics'' as well as demonstrating ``personal accomplishments as men of honor and character.'' The statue was paid for by grateful players, colleagues, alumni, staff and friends. Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1919, Coach Rowen played football in college before earning a doctorate in physical education at Columbia University. He held several coaching positions and then joined San Francisco State in 1954 as Joe Verducci's assistant. He became head football coach in 1961. (Coach Verducci passed away in 1964.) Coach Rowen's tenure covered over half the span of time that football was played at San Francisco State. In his early years, the school won eight Far Western Conference titles and attracted top talent, but after a student strike in 1968, the football program was severely diminished by budget cuts. Rowen continued to train players and especially coaches (including his son Keith) who excelled in the sport, although the school's winning record was curtailed. My son, Ed Critchett, an all- American inspired by Vic Rowen cherishes the time he spent with the Gators in the 1980s. Rowen retired in 1989, and football was discontinued at the school in 1995. Also a respected physical education teacher at the University, some of Rowen's other accomplishments include Northern California Coach of the Year, President and Board Member of the American Football Coaches Association, Football Writers Association of America Award, and the Ernie Nevers Award National Football Foundation's College Football Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Coach Vic Rowen on the tribute he and Coach Verducci received on 6/4/11. Vic Rowen was a man who influenced both the character and the skills of hundreds of young men and women at San Francisco State University and is loved and respected by all. I thank him for his commitment and service.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor my friend, Dr. Donald Linker of Tiburon, CA, who passed away unexpectedly on June 16, 2011, after a fall. He was a spirited activist and colorful community character who livened up the many causes he took on. Born and raised in Kentucky, Don Linker moved to northern California after completing medical school. He served as a physician in the Marines before settling for a number of years in San Francisco where he had a urology practice. He later earned a Masters in Public Health from UC Berkeley. Throughout his career, he was known as a compassionate physician and advocate for research on important public health issues like prostate cancer. Don was married during his time in San Francisco and had three children, Kevin, Jodi, and Dana. He later moved to Tiburon and became active in Marin County. He was a founder of the local schools foundation and served on the boards of the Buck Center for Research in Aging, the Jewish Community Federation, AIPAC, and the Marin Community Foundation. He also found time to become a painter and had a show of abstract art in the works when he died. Perhaps best known for his extreme athletic feats, Don Linker had his share of close calls whether windsurfing (where he was swept out to sea), mountain biking (where he garnered several speeding tickets) or skiing (including spending a freezing night on a chairlift because of his attempt to get in one last run). He is survived by his three children as well as his brother Stephen, his son-in-law Richard Steele, and his two grandchildren, Lauren and Sarah Steele. Mr. Speaker, I will miss Dr. Don Linker's bright wit and colorful sweaters and bow ties. But mostly I will miss his warm friendship and compassionate spirit. Please join me, his community, his family, and his many friends in mourning his passing.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, in April of the year 2004, my staff came to me with a memo, asking if I wanted to give a Special Order speech on some issue of which I can't remember the subject. My answer at that time was, no, I didn't want to speak on that issue, but I did want to deliver a 5-minute speech that day and every day thereafter, when it was possible, to express my opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to express my belief that there is a smarter way to achieve our national security goals. So, Madam Speaker, since that day, I've stood here in this spot to say over and over again that these wars are eroding our spiritual core, bankrupting us morally and fiscally, teaching our children that warfare is the new normal. I have delivered these speeches as a member of the majority and the minority, when the President was a member of my party and when he was not, and today, I am doing it for the 400th time. When I began, the war in Iraq was still quite popular, as was the President who launched it, but we spoke out anyway, refusing to bend on principle because we knew that we did not belong there. My colleagues Representative Barbara Lee and Representative Maxine Waters and I called ourselves the ``Triad.'' We started the Out of Iraq Caucus, and we forced the first House vote to bring our troops home. Along the way, I visited Iraq, and my opinion was confirmed against that very war, but at the same time, it increased my admiration for our troops. Gradually, the tide of public opinion turned. President Bush lost the confidence of the American people, and eventually had to start winding down the war. I don't believe that would have happened unless a few lonely voices had dared to be heard in those early, early days. I am proud of what we have accomplished, but I am also very frustrated because nearly a decade after the first American boots hit the ground in Afghanistan, here we are--still at war, still occupying sovereign countries on missions that aren't making us safer or advancing our interests. The cost has been devastating. Over 6,100 Americans are dead, and thousands more civilians have died for the cause of their so-called ``liberation.'' Thousands of U.S. servicemembers have come home but may never be the same, either because of physical wounds or mental health trauma, which can, with the physical and the mental health, destroy lives just as well. In addition to the staggering $3.2 trillion price tag that has piled up over the last 10 years, I don't think we've even begun to come to grips with the resources that the VA will need for the next 50 or so years to meet the responsibility we have to our veterans as a result of these wars. Madam Speaker, I've said it over and over again that I'm not suggesting we abandon the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Anti-war doesn't mean anti-engagement or anti-security. The underlying principle behind my 400 speeches has been that we need a completely different approach to protecting America--one that emphasizes diplomacy, reconciliation and peaceful conflict resolution. From the beginning, I have been pushing my own solution called SMART Security, fighting terrorism with better intelligence, with a stronger nuclear nonproliferation program, with humanitarian and economic aid that will give hope to people around the world, with less spending on weapon systems and more on homeland security, human rights monitoring, and energy independence. Most importantly, SMART Security insists that war is an absolute last resort because, Madam Speaker, for the sake of the future of the human race, we must and we can figure out a way to resolve our differences without resorting to war and violence. I will continue to do this for the remaining 1\1/2\ years that I will be in Congress, giving as many of these speeches as I can. And Madam Speaker, I will not rest until we finally bring our troops home and we adopt the SMART Security approach to preventing war and preserving peace so that my grandchildren and your grandchildren and their grandchildren will have a peaceful, productive world to live in in the future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Ellen C. Weaver who passed away May 14, 2011. Dr. Weaver was a modern-day Renaissance woman who was a world-class scientist as well as an artist, musician, environmentalist, skier, cook, and beloved wife and mother. Dr. Weaver received her BA in Chemistry from Flora Stone Mather College at Western Reserve University in 1945 and worked as an analytical chemist for the Manhattan Project where she joined her physicist husband, Harry Weaver after their marriage in 1946. After World War II, the couple moved west to attend Stanford University, where she earned her MS in Chemistry followed by a Ph.D. in genetics from U.C. Berkeley. She had a life-long career as a research plant physiologist, including a collaboration with Jacques Cousteau at NASA Ames Research Center helping to map the photosynthetic productivity of fishing areas off the South American coast. Joining the faculty of San Jose State University, Dr. Weaver taught plant physiology, served as Director of the San Jose State University Foundation and as Interim Executive Vice President. Retiring from teaching in 1991, she held the position for two years of Associate Dean for Development for the University. She also served on the boards of many professional societies and tirelessly promoted the advancement of women in science. As a political liberal and dedicated environmentalist with a passion for preservation of redwoods, Dr. Weaver was active as Chairman of the Board for Sempervirens Fund and was a member of the science advisory committee for the Save the Redwoods League. With her husband Harry and their three children--Lynne, Mark, and Tom--Dr. Weaver lived in Portola Valley, CA, for most of her life before retiring to San Rafael in 2000. Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating Dr. Ellen Weaver's full and rich life which touched countless people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Amash-Kucinich amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and at the same time call on other Members to join us on the floor right now for this important debate. Mr. Chairman, I have been struck in recent days by the profound lack of seriousness in Washington when it comes to confronting this illegal war we are fighting in Libya. Last week at a news conference, the President dismissed congressional concerns about war powers authority and his Libya policy and, he said ``all kinds of noise about process.'' At the same time, the U.S. Senate essentially punted on the issue earlier this week, pulling the plug on an important debate that the country needs because a few Republican Senators complained that they canceled recess only to deal with the debt ceiling, and they were not going to discuss Libya. But perhaps it was right here in the House that we have seen the most incoherence on Libya. Right before we adjourned almost 2 weeks ago, this body voted against authorizing the use of force in Libya; and then less than 2 hours later, the House voted to continue funding the war we had just refused to authorize. Mr. Chairman, Congress has the ``power of the purse,'' and we must be prepared to use it. We must use this opportunity to send a powerful message. A vote of no confidence in this Libya policy will prove that we do not and will not write another check for a war that Americans don't want and a war that we did not authorize. Hostilities with Libya--and, let's be frank, these are hostilities-- have now been going on for more than 100 days with the cost climbing toward a billion dollars, and that doesn't even include the moral costs and the cost of civilian lives. The people's money is too important and too precious, especially during this time of fiscal austerity. No one believes that cutting off Libya alone is enough to make meaningful progress on deficit reduction; but I think it's outrageous that we are talking about cuts in Social Security benefits, and those cuts are on the table while we are discussing the debt ceiling negotiations while we continue to throw money at not one, not two, but three wars. A Brown University study concludes that when it's all said and done Iraq and Afghanistan will suck the Treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. Enough, already. Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon is like that teenager. You keep giving the kid the keys to the car, and he keeps crashing it. It's time we cut him off. We must draw the line, and we must draw it here. No more funding for Libya; no more continuance in Libyan hostilities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, since 2005, I have spoken from this very spot 399 times. On nearly every occasion that House rules allow, I have stood to deliver a 5-minute special order speech highlighting the moral outrage of the United States' continued military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. I speak of the need also for a new Smart Security to keep America safe. Today will be my 399th speech. I look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and I will continue this drumbeat until my last day as a Member of Congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1\1/2\ years, time to bring our troops safely home. During this week, the week that the House is debating defense appropriations, I thought it would be fitting to focus on war spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupations. Ten billion dollars a month is a lot of money. That's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against Afghanistan: $10 billion a month. The American people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions: Where is that money going, and what exactly is it accomplishing? What are we getting for our $10 billion a month? Are we more secure here at home? Is the Afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? Have we not already defeated al Qaeda? And so who are we fighting and why? For $10 billion a month, Mr. Speaker, our expectations as taxpayers, as Americans, and as Members of Congress, should be high. Is it too much to think that $10 billion a month could buy a stable ally, an ally capable of standing on its own two feet, taking responsibility for its own security, and having respect for the rule of law? Instead, corruption and chaos are ruling the day in Kabul. Basic government institutions are failing to provide services. President Karzai has tried to establish a special court, in fact, for the purpose of stripping 62 members of Parliament of their seats. The financial system is teetering on the brink of collapse with the head of the central bank fleeing the country and accusing Karzai's regime of fraud and cronyism. And just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, a brawl broke out on the floor of the Afghan Parliament with one member throwing a shoe at another member when a motion was proposed to impeach President Karzai. For $10 billion a month, is it not too much to ask that the Afghan Parliament not look like an episode of the ``Jerry Springer Show''? There is so much we could do with $10 billion a month right here at home, especially at a moment when so many of our people are struggling and so many of our communities so badly need public investment, especially at a moment when the clock is ticking toward a catastrophic default on the national debt. I'm not suggesting that we ignore or that we run away from Afghanistan's deep-seated problems, but I believe we cannot begin to address their needs with a military solution. It will never work. It is time to reinvest at pennies on the dollar in Smart Security efforts, humanitarian and civilian aid, aid that will promote democracy, and economic support to address poverty and to rebuild infrastructure in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, this is a moment and this is a time where we put our priorities in order, but it's not a job for our troops. They have served with unbelievable valor. Now it's time to bring them safely home and invest in a humanitarian way in Afghanistan.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) which I am very proud to be a cosponsor. The war in Libya, which was not authored by this body or our Senate colleagues, has lingered for more than 100 days. Mr. Chairman, despite the legal contortions coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the dropping of bombs, the killing of civilians, and the use of drones in Libya most definitely constitutes hostilities. And it's our responsibility in the Congress to make sure that these hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown ground war with boots on the ground and the United States becoming an occupying force in Libya. The President has assured us that this won't happen, and I believe that a ground war is not his intention. But it wouldn't be the first time, Mr. Chairman, in the history of the United States' warfare that there was a shift in military, with the military campaign beginning as one thing and ending up as quite another. So it's critical that we assert ourselves using the congressional authority to appropriate funds to say ``no'' to launching a third ground war. Our authority rests on how we use the people's money. Today's amendment denies the use of our tax dollars to send troops into Libya. The war in Libya is a war of choice, except it's one that Americans didn't choose. It's not one that their elected representatives here in the people's House and Senate chose either. We must ensure it does not go any further. We must listen to our people--the people who sent us here, the people we work for--who are insisting that we set limits. They know that we can't afford another Libya becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan. Are these the values that we celebrated over this patriotic holiday weekend? Permanent warfare that leads to mayhem, despair and instability without advancing our national interests? It's time we start embracing the principles of smart security--humanitarian aid and civilian support--instead of perpetual warfare. Haven't we had enough? Haven't our troops proven their valor? Haven't military families proven their selflessness and sacrifice? Haven't the taxpayers parted with enough of their money? Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers-McClintock-Woolsey-Lee amendment. Say no to ground troops in Libya. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to honor the 100th birthday of an important community institution, the Boyes Hot Springs Post Office. On July 8, 1911, the Sonoma Index Tribune reported that ``A.D. Graham of Graham's Cash Store received the appointment as post master of Boyes Springs. Located at his store.'' The store, lost in a 1923 fire along with most of the town, was near the train depot at Boyes Boulevard and the Sonoma Highway (Hwy 12). After rapid rebuilding, the post office was located in the Woodleaf Store (now a diner that is part of the Sonoma Mission Inn) until 1951 when its current site was built at the Plaza Center at Boyes Boulevard and Sonoma Highway. This site, previously known as the Boyes Springs Plaza, had been the scene of street parties and fiestas. Now, redevelopment plans include a public plaza in the surrounding space, reviving it as a place for celebration. Boyes Hot Springs has a lively history, integral to the fabric of the Sonoma Valley. Formerly the center of a great resort area, it hosted thousands of visitors during its heyday. There were dozens of resorts, from small motor courts to the grand Sonoma Mission Inn. The Boyes Bath House boasted the second largest indoor swimming pool in the country. And, for many years, the area was a training ground for professional football and baseball teams such as the Cleveland Browns and the San Francisco Seals. After the demise of the passenger railroad, the area still thrived with the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and the rise of the automobile. Boyes Springs real estate man L.E. ``Bud'' Castner was one of the first directors of the Golden Gate Bridge District. In the 1960s, as the resorts faded, Boyes Hot Springs faded a bit as well. Community pride, however, never waned. The area became attractive in the 1980s and 1990s to home buyers who were priced out of the Bay Area market. Attracted by its rural charm, they purchased its large stock of charming cottages to rehabilitate. At the same time, the population of Mexican immigrants grew, attracted principally by the grape growing and wine businesses. To old timers and new residents alike, the post office is the center of the community. Since most of the surrounding streets receive no mail delivery, residents make a daily trip to the post office where they catch up on the latest local news with their friends and neighbors. The immigrant population relies on it for communication with their families back home. The postal workers are personally known to all, a part of the broader community family. Mr. Speaker, the community is hosting a celebration to honor this anniversary. In the words of one of the organizers, Michael Acker of the Springs Community Alliance, it will ``salute the past, show appreciation for service, and look to the future with hope.'' Please join us in honoring the centennial of the Boyes Hot Springs Post Office.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my dear friend Congresswoman Lee and the rest of the authors. Congresswoman Lee is a courageous voice for peace in Afghanistan and around the world, and what she says--this is the bottom line of this amendment--is clear: We should not spend one more dime waging war in Afghanistan. The only money we appropriate must be used to wind down the war with the safe, orderly, complete, and long overdue military redeployment out of Afghanistan. The White House announced about 2 weeks ago that we would have a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. I believe that announcement was tragically inadequate. Actually, I was hoping to hear that at least 50,000 troops would be coming home by the end of 2011. Instead, the President announced his intention to wait another year, the summer of 2012, before removing the 33,000 troops that were added with the surge. Too slow, too cautious, too modest. I don't know how much clearer the writing on the wall has to be, Mr. Chairman. Afghanistan remains in terrible disarray, with a terribly corrupt central government and a security force actually incapable of enforcing security. Our military footprint isn't doing enough in Afghanistan. It is actually causing more harm than good. Meanwhile, the human cost here at home is nothing short of devastating. Casualties have spiked. Americans are dying in Afghanistan at an unacceptable rate, more than 200 troops so far this year and over 1,600 troops since the war began nearly a decade ago. And, Mr. Chairman, making it home alive doesn't mean making it home whole. Thousands upon thousands of servicemembers will spend the rest of their lives coping with the wounds and the scars they acquired in this unnecessary war. Many have left limbs behind in Afghanistan. Others will never regain their mental health or their peace of mind, suffering the devastating effects of PTSD. Why would we continue to throw another dollar at a war that has done so much to hurt our people and Afghan civilians and done so little to help Afghanistan in general? This week, as a matter of fact, all of Washington is abuzz about the debt ceiling negotiations. Commentators are asking us, where will we find consensus that preserves the full faith and credit of the United States of America? Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a consensus in the United States, a consensus among the American people, and that is that the $10 billion a month that we're spending in Afghanistan is roughly $10 billion too much. But war spending is not on the table in these talks. Instead, Medicare cuts are on the table, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are clinging tight to loopholes and subsidies for oil companies, corporate jets, and the horse racing industry. Their spending priorities are just totally warped. Mr. Chairman, it's time to bring all this in line with the priorities of the American people. It's time to end this war. It's time to stop investing money that we need right here at home, and it is time to invest only in bringing our troops home safely. With that, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has the opportunity today to actually have a serious debate on the war with Libya. Like most Americans, I am disappointed in any argument that says we are not at war. I believe that argument shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive's coequal branch of government--the United States Congress. How can this not be war? If another country launched aggressive air strikes against the United States, you'd better believe we'd consider it an act of war. Does anyone remember Pearl Harbor or 9/11? We certainly considered those acts of war against our country. To say that our bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ``hostilities'' flies in the face of common sense. Mr. Speaker, our Nation can't afford a third war. The ones we are already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally. This Congress must reassert our power of the purse and not fund an unauthorized war. Today, we must send a clear message that the American people and this Congress will not support perpetual war.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I was profoundly disappointed in President Obama's announcement last night. I had hoped that he would offer an Afghanistan troop drawdown that was significant, swift, and sizable. Sadly, the proposal failed on all three counts. Now is the time for bold action and decision-making to bring our Nation's Afghanistan policy in line with what the American people want, while recognizing the deep and grave toll this war has taken on our global credibility and our national security. Instead, the administration's choice was to largely stay the course. Instead, President Obama chose to perpetuate a war that is not only bankrupting us morally but fiscally as well. The loss of blood and treasure cannot be underestimated. The American people have been enormously patient, Mr. Speaker. They have endured great sacrifice. But after nearly a decade of war, they're weary of losing their bravest men and women and their hard-earned tax dollars to a policy that simply has not achieved its goals. We are not more secure. The Afghanistan leadership wants us out and their people do not appreciate our sacrifice. This is not a partisan issue. When asked, the majority of Americans want our troops to come home. And not several years into the future. No, they want our troops to come home now. Abandoning this military policy does not mean that we will abandon the people of Afghanistan. A smart security plan would provide for development and reconciliation. It would bring the international community together and help the Afghan people move towards a sustainable future through economic and domestic support, among other means. Mr. Speaker, more than 1,600 lives have been lost. Where will it end? When will our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and people we know in the community come home from Afghanistan? How many empty chairs are there at the dinner table tonight? When will the heartbreak end? Let's talk about the economic cost. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about dollars and cents, about how this and other actions we take are costing us too much money. Well, while we stand here, money is flying out of our Treasury to support this war. Try $10 billion a month. Imagine what we could do with $10 billion a month. Just last week, this House voted to take food from the mouths of pregnant women and their children. We're supposed to pinch pennies on important investments like our children and other American projects while we waste huge sums on a failed war. This boggles the mind and it shortchanges the needs we have right here at home. It is long past time, Mr. Speaker, that we put an end to this madness. It is time to bring our troops home--all of our troops--safely home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 479. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 479: ``No''--On Ordering the Previous Question.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight the President of the United States has an opportunity to show the bold leadership that the American people are crying out for regarding Afghanistan. Tonight he will announce how many troops will be redeployed out of Afghanistan. This must not be, as early reports are indicating, a token withdrawal, bringing only as few as 5,000 troops home now and 5,000 troops home by the end of the year, because that number falls tragically and painfully short of what the national security and moral decency demands. There are many interpretations, Mr. Speaker, of ``sizable, swift or significant'' as the requests have been for him in his drawdown, but none of those interpretations go so low as 5,000 now and 5,000 by the end of the year. ``Sizable, swift or significant'' is not what 5,000 troops would accomplish. Ten thousand troops doesn't even bring us to where we were before the surge. That is not a new way forward in Afghanistan. We were promised a new way forward in Afghanistan, and it is going to take 18 months just to get even that much done. How many times are we going to move the goalposts? Anything less than a major shift in Afghanistan policy will be a huge disappointment to the Americans who are paying for it in blood and treasure. Clear, strong majorities of our country believe it is time we finally end this awful foreign policy blunder. This is not a partisan stance. You just heard Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina. This is common sense. Several Republicans in this body oppose this war. Even some of the Republicans running for President have expressed concern about continuing the military occupation much longer. It is simply not acceptable to ask for more patience and more time for this strategy to work. You mean 10 years isn't enough? How many families were missing a seat at the table on Father's Day this weekend because we kept giving this dreadful policy one more chance? Afghanistan casualties are on the rise, Mr. Speaker, with 2011 on pace to be the deadliest year yet and 43 percent of fatalities having occurred since the surge began a year and a half ago. How many more people have to die, Mr. Speaker, both U.S. servicemembers and Afghan citizens, before we say enough? How many more lives have to be destroyed? How many more young Americans have to leave limbs behind in Afghanistan? How many more have to come home ravaged by post-traumatic stress? And how many more billions in taxpayer money do we have to waste for the privilege of having our people killed and our global credibility destroyed? For pennies on the dollar, we could fight terrorism the right way, with a civilian surge that emphasizes humanitarian and political aid and reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, it continues to pain me that we have to scratch and claw for every single dollar of Federal investment in the American people. One child nutrition program last week was held out there as an example of what we don't need--but we do. Also we are scratching to support health care, education, even support for veterans, but we still continue to waste $10 billion a month in Afghanistan. In the time I take to give this speech, roughly $1 million will fly out of the Treasury to pay for this war. Mr. Speaker, I implore the President to listen to the American people. Tonight is a moment where he can make history. End the war. Bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joan Brown and recognize her contribution to volunteerism and community involvement in Marin County, California. Ms. Brown is retiring as Manager of the Civic Center Volunteers, CCV, program after more than 32 years of fostering citizen participation in local government. After graduating from Northwestern University, Joan continued a legacy of service begun by her family. Her initial work as an elementary school teacher greatly inspired her career path, and the professional standards she cultivated as a teacher carried over into the environment she created at CCV. A trip to the Soviet Union in 1973 focused her passion for service on participation in local government. Her official guide on the trip insisted that the Berlin Wall was nonexistent, just U.S. propaganda, reminding Joan that citizen involvement is essential for democracy. The CCV was established in response to Proposition 13, which reduced tax revenue to the counties. Joan was hired temporarily and quickly became a permanent employee in the Personnel Department as she helped to create a place where women, retirees, and recession-impacted professionals could dedicate their skills through volunteerism. Through her leadership, the CCV grew from zero in 1979 to 8,400 in 2010. Marin County would be a very different place were it not for Joan's success with citizen involvement in each county department, saving the Marin taxpayers millions in the process. Joan's knack for volunteer management extended beyond the reach of the CCV. She took on the challenge of co-founding the National Association of Volunteer Programs in Local Government which included both national and international training. With Community Mental Health, she engineered volunteer development in her successful 10-year Job Coach program. And she also promoted employee effectiveness by creating a newsletter for employees by employees and establishing an employee recognition event. For her accomplishments both within Marin County and beyond, she earned the First Acts of Caring Award from the National Association of Counties and the Volunteer Administrator of the Year Award from the international Association for Volunteer Administrators. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in commending Joan Brown's contributions of over 32 years to the people of Marin County. Joan leaves our county more enriched through her innovative vision of volunteerism and community service. I wish her an enjoyable retirement with her family and success in her continued service commitments.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, we were promised a new way forward in Afghanistan, a way that would include a significant military drawdown. The date for the redeployment to begin was July 1, 2011, just 2 weeks away. Then last year, the goalposts were removed and it was decided that, in fact, our troops would remain in Afghanistan through 2014. But apparently that wasn't enough. Negotiations are now under way with the Karzai government--negotiations that are happening apparently in secret and without proper accountability and transparency--for the construction of military bases in Afghanistan. Officials are being very careful not to say that these bases would be permanent, but it's clear that our government could be hammering out the details of an agreement that would call for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for as far as the eye can see. I can't understand the logic here, Mr. Speaker. Why can't we grasp the very idea that the longer we are perceived to be an occupying power, the more resentment we breed in Afghanistan? The longer we're there, the more we fuel the insurgency, the more we leave our troops vulnerable, the more we put our own national security in jeopardy. Erecting permanent bases would be the biggest favor we could do for the Taliban. I salute my good friend and fellow Californian, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for her leadership on this issue, and I would urge my colleagues to consider my legislation that would require the President to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would clearly prohibit the establishment of permanent bases. Mr. Speaker, the outgoing Defense Secretary, Mr. Gates, says we're seeking joint bases where the United States acts as a tenant as opposed to an occupying force, but I don't believe for a minute that the Taliban appreciates the subtlety of that distinction. As long as there are boots on the ground, and not just boots but large installations with American trappings and English language street signs and so forth, the more we embolden the very radical forces we're trying to defeat. We're going exactly the wrong direction, Mr. Speaker. At a moment when the American people are crying out for this military occupation to end, our leaders look as if they are preparing to extend it into perpetuity. At a moment when casualties are on the rise, we're preparing for a long-term presence that will further endanger, not protect, Americans. We can't afford permanent war. It's unsustainable. We can't afford the cost in blood, treasure, lost credibility or dwindling moral authority. It's time to bring our troops and our contractors home and leave no military footprint behind.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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