Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. I too rise in support of Mr. Flake's amendment. I see it as a small beginning, a very small beginning, to cutting wasteful Pentagon spending. But Mr. Chair, this entire continuing resolution is bad for the economy and bad for this country. It's all a part of the Republican no jobs for America agenda. The majority has no interest in doing anything whatsoever to help the 9 percent of Americans who are out of work. They've controlled the House for just about 6 weeks, and they've not brought up a single bill that would create a single job. They've brought up a bill that would continue to shred our civil liberties. They've brought up a bill that will infuse our campaigns with even more corrupting special interest money. They've brought up a bill that would take away guaranteed affordable health care. But nothing to address persistent joblessness. Nothing at all to fix the devastating recession that they caused in the first place. Their mindless cuts don't do anything to strengthen America. They're not cutting spending; they're cutting jobs. Their agenda means cutting jobs for nurses, cutting jobs for teachers, police officers, small businesses, the very people who form the backbone of the middle class of the United States of America. The Speaker of the House himself said this morning that if some jobs are lost as a result of their cuts, ``so be it.'' He might as well have added, ``Let them eat cake.'' The best way to reduce the deficit is to put Americans back to work, Mr. Chairman, but the Republicans' no-jobs plan is all about cutting the very spending that sustains middle class families. When they say they want to cut costs, what they really mean is they want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid right out of existence, and on top of cutting their hard-earned benefits, the Republicans want to make the middle class pay--pay for Big Oil's big subsidies, pay for higher drug prices, pay for astronomical CEO salaries, for higher taxes to start a small business. The chairman of the House Budget Committee said yesterday, and I quote him, ``What we're doing here is we're having a great debate in Congress about how much spending we should cut. I mean, how cool is that?'' Well, I'd like to tell him it's not cool at all, Mr. Chairman, not when you're asking struggling families to shoulder the sacrifice. Giving a sweetheart deal to corporate special interests and asking the middle class to pay for it--not cool at all. The Republicans' continuing resolution and no-jobs agenda--bad for America, totally uncool.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself the balance of my time. So we have had 10\1/2\ hours, 2 days of debate on regulations, oversight regulations, that our committee and other committees have already agreed they are going to deal with. This, to me, shows that the Republicans are truly in disarray. We are not discussing jobs, the most important issue in the United States of America for our people, and at the same time, in their disarray, the Republicans are pushing an irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that will threaten jobs. I yield back my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, instead of working to rebuild our country and create jobs, this House of Representatives is engaged in a debate on a measure that offers neither. For 10 hours and 2 days, the House of Representatives' time is tied up on a motion telling our committees to perform their constitutional duties. We understand that vigorous oversight and rooting out inefficiencies and waste are absolutely essential, and they are our duties and we must perform them on behalf of the taxpayer. That's not a question. We know that. In fact, on January 15, the Education and Workforce Committees unanimously approved an oversight plan. That plan calls for review of regulations. This resolution calls for review of regulations. Today's debate is duplicative. It is duplicative of our oversight plans. It is unnecessary and a total waste of taxpayers' dollars. Worse yet, we are taking away valuable time when we could be rolling up our sleeves, getting the number one priority of the American people in front of us: creating jobs. For instance, the Education and Workforce Committee could be responding to the very real skills crisis that our Nation's workers and businesses are facing. A recent article in the Washington Post found that, in November, there were an estimated 3.2 million job opportunities across the country. However, businesses interviewed by the Washington Post with ``help wanted'' signs were struggling to find workers with sufficient skills. This is in the United States of America. This has crippled their ability to keep the line running and keep their doors open. This is a major disconnect, Madam Speaker, a disconnect that must be explored and it must be quickly addressed. Certain sectors, such as health care and technology, are projected to grow considerably over the next decade. These sectors actually require more skilled workers, not fewer. That's why our committees should be back in our committee rooms right now looking to ensure the connection between employers that want to hire and workers can be fulfilled. That means looking at training and education programs that connect to the jobs available today and in the future. At a time when jobs are important, this shortfall means lost economic opportunity for millions of Americans. It means a shortfall of businesses that want to make it in America, with American workers. Now, when it comes to reviewing regulations, I have heard some disturbing views from the other side of the aisle recently. I refuse to accept the argument that our Nation's health and safety protections need to be reduced to the level of China's in order to compete. There is a reason why the law of the land ensures basic health and safety protections on the job, and that reason is too often written in the blood of dead workers. Rolling back protections to satisfy powerful special interests at the expense of worker safety is a fool's errand. Relying on faulty one- sided studies that exaggerate the cost of worker safety regulations while excluding any of the benefits, such as the life of a family's breadwinner, leads to a dishonest debate. We have seen the deadly results of failing to properly regulate. We have seen what happens when you rely on self-certification, voluntary compliance, and inadequate protections. Eleven workers die when an oil rig blows up in the Gulf of Mexico. Workers die over and over again on massive construction projects on the Las Vegas Strip. Fourteen workers die in a sugar refinery outside Savannah, Georgia, because there are no protections covering combustible dust. There are 700 workers losing their jobs in North Carolina because loopholes in OSHA regulations allow a massive factory explosion to happen. The explosion killed three and injured more than 50 workers; and that factory is now relocating rather than rebuilding, dealing this community a double tragedy. Madam Speaker, without proper regulation and enforcement, workers are misclassified as independent contractors, robbing them of benefits, robbing our Nation's Treasury, and putting law breakers at an unfair advantage over law-abiding employers. And workers' hard-earned pensions are gambled away. We have the best workers in the world, and these workers deserve basic protections. Our Nation's workers also deserve a Congress devoted to growing and strengthening the middle class, not meaningless debate like today's. I urge this Congress, get to the business of the American people without delay. The business of this Congress should be about jobs, and the business of this Congress should be about rebuilding our Nation's competitiveness, and that business should begin now. We cannot afford any further delays or distractions. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, we need to talk more about what real regulations are that we should be focusing on, not the regulations for oversight that we have already determined we are going to handle committee by committee, particularly this committee, and we always have. USA Today had an article about the sugar blast victims in Savannah, Georgia, and one of the victims is quoted in that article, because his brother was killed and he was injured. He says, ``I've been thinking about my brother,'' who was burned over almost half his body, and ``I know it could've been prevented.'' Now, I am going to say, with the right regulations, it could have been prevented. Then the article goes on to say, ``Despite the outcry after the blast,'' the blast that I said had killed 14 people and injured 40 others, ``the United States still lacks Federal regulations requiring industrial plants to prevent the buildup of fine dust particles that can form explosive clouds in confined areas.'' The regulations that OSHA has to work with are so outdated that they don't include sugar refineries or other industries that would benefit from having dust regulations. The article went on to say that ``Federal regulators concluded that the explosion and fire at the refinery in Port Wentworth, just west of Savannah, was caused by a spark that ignited sugar dust like gunpowder. ``The blast set off secondary dust explosions that turned the packaging plant where Butler worked with his 35-year-old brother, John Calvin Butler, into fiery rubble. ``Last summer, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed $8.7 million in fines against Imperial Sugar and cited the company for 211 safety violations at its two refineries here in coastal Georgia and in Gramercy, Louisiana. ``OSHA has a dust regulation from,'' as I told you earlier, ``the 1980s covering grain and plant silos. But another Federal agency says that's not enough because food processors,'' yes, ``wood manufacturers,'' yes, ``and other industries face the same risks.'' Why are they not covered? Where are the regulations? Why are we not bringing OSHA into the 21st century, instead of having a debate today that has nothing to do with jobs and protecting our workers, and instead talking about oversight regulations that we are already committed to deal with on our committee. Madam Speaker, ``In 2006,'' the USA Today article goes on to say, ``the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates industrial accidents, called on OSHA to close that gap by adopting a new combustible dust regulation. Over the past three decades, the board says, about 300 dust explosions have killed more than 120 workers nationwide.'' Those are the regulations we should be dealing with. Those are the debates we should be having. Those are the steps we should be taking to bring OSHA into the 21st century, not keeping it back in the dark ages. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the world's first official airmail delivery, completed by Fred Wiseman on February 17-18, 1911. The private airman's pioneering voyage took him from Petaluma to Santa Rosa, California, a distance of only 14 miles, but a momentous step forward in the history of aviation and the United States Postal Service. Wiseman was born on a ranch in rural Sonoma County on November 10, 1875, and he grew up fascinated by the mechanics of transportation-- bicycles, racecars, and of course airplanes. In the spring of 1910, less than seven years after the Wright Brothers built the world's first successful airplane, one of Wiseman's own projects was already taking to the air. The Wiseman-Peters, as his final pusher biplane design was eventually known, was a local collaboration between Wiseman and a group of fellow aviation aficionados, as well as one of the first planes built in California to fly. Throughout 1910 and early 1911, Wiseman practiced his flying, even taking part in an early 1911 air race in San Francisco. Then, on February 17, 1911, Wiseman loaded his plane with three letters, 50 copies of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, and a bag of groceries, and he set out on his flight across Sonoma County. Total flight time was less than 20 minutes, but the journey included two forced landings and ultimately spanned two days. Wiseman's plane flew roughly 100 feet off the ground, reportedly at speeds of up to 70 mph. Although Wiseman did not continue making airmail deliveries, he did go on to fly in several other air shows in 1911, and his Wiseman-Peters would be redesigned for use in future exhibition flights. In September 1911, the U.S. Postal Service would eventually hire its first official airmail pilot in New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the centennial of the world's first airmail delivery. Fred Wiseman's independent spirit and passion for adventure live on in Sonoma County, and we are proud to mark this milestone in our history.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, President Obama gave a stirring speech last night, most of which I agreed with, especially the calls for defense cuts; the investments in innovation, education, and infrastructure; and the elimination of oil company subsidies. But given the sacrifice endured by the American people, I thought Afghanistan got short shrift--a mere two paragraphs. The American Prospect magazine described the State of the Union as a ``ride past the wreckage.'' I think that was because it applies to the State of the Union's treatment of Afghanistan. The fact is that the training of Afghan security forces has been slow and ineffective. The inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction said as much this very week. The Taliban remains a vital force in many pockets of Afghanistan, and the head of the Afghan NGO safety office reports a very precarious security situation. The President was correct when he said that Afghanistan will need to provide better governance, but it's hard to see that happening with President Karzai regularly lashing out at us and, at one point, saying he would choose the Taliban over the United States and the international community. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of being talked down to about this war, tired of being told everything is fine and under control, tired of being urged to stay the course, tired of talk about progress that seems to be little more than an illusion. The President reiterated last night that we will begin to bring our troops home in July, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest we're ramping up this war instead of winding it down. Earlier this month, for example, 1,400 additional marine combat forces were deployed, with the possibility of additional mini-surges during the spring, that would push our troop levels in Afghanistan to the 100,000 mark. We're also using heavily armored tanks for the first time, and there are reports that we're considering expanding the war across the border in an unprecedented way, with risky and dangerous special operations ground raids into Pakistan. Does this sound like a war that's drawing to a close? Then in a trip to Afghanistan a few weeks ago, the Vice President suggested to his hosts that the occupation could extend beyond 2014. ``We're not leaving if you don't want us to leave,'' he said. He should check out recent polling that indicates the Afghan people's deep skepticism, if not downright hostility, regarding the United States' military presence in their country. Besides, what about what the American people believe? When are we going to respect their point of view? They're the ones paying for this war in blood and treasure, and clear majorities believe that this war has outlived its usefulness and that it's not worth fighting. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the American people. There is only one sensible and humane solution: That is to bring our troops home and bring them home now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the Republicans will accomplish with this legislation to upend the Presidential campaign finance system is to drown out the voice of the people and to give more power, not less, to their well-heeled special interests. Actually, this repeal bill is the beginning of the end of any hope for a system of public financing for all elections in this country. So Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised. After all, the majority largely owe their unprecedented spending levels in the last election thanks to the Citizens United decision that turned on the spigot of anonymous, unaccountable corporate cash. And in keeping with the spirit of secrecy and lack of transparency, it's somehow fitting that this bill comes to the floor without any hearings, without any committee referral, without full debate or deliberation. We have a deeply corrupt campaign system, Mr. Chairman. Special interest money is having a corrosive effect on our democracy, eating away at the people's confidence in their government and their elected Representatives. The one beacon of light in this system is the public financing of Presidential campaigns. It is, I would remind everyone, a voluntary system. Americans must choose to opt in on their tax returns. It has served the country well, at limited expense. It needs updating. It does not need to be dismantled. We need more public financing, in all of our Federal elections, not less. H.R. 359 goes in exactly the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it's not often that you'll hear me, Lynn Woolsey, say this, but I have recently found myself on the same page of a very important issue, at least in principle, with the leaders of the tea party movement and other top lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. They've said that the military budget must be on the table in any discussion about reducing Federal spending. I agree. I agree completely. The Progressive Caucus has for several years offered specific cuts that would in no way impact our ability to provide for the national defense but that would actually cut the Pentagon spending. Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker: When it came time for the rubber to meet the road, well, guess what happened. The Republican Study Group released their list of cuts last week, and lo and behold, not a single dime of actual Pentagon cuts was in there. What was included were irresponsible cuts to public housing, high- speed rail and economic development, among other things, to say nothing of what would happen to funding for national parks, Pell Grants and NIH, if they followed through with their plans to cut non-defense discretionary spending to what they recommend--to 2006 levels. But perhaps the most reckless of all was the proposal to zero out funding for USAID, the United States Agency for International Development. It just goes to show the narrowness of their perspective when it comes to national security. When they think about protecting America, they think only of weapons and warfare. In fact, that's the approach our policymakers have taken for the last decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it has cost us nearly 6,000 American lives, plus more than $1 trillion of the people's money, while doing next to nothing to defeat the terrorist threat. What we need instead is a SMART Security policy, with humanitarian aid like the kind distributed by USAID as a centerpiece. Instead of a military surge, we need a civilian surge. Wherever there is poverty and deprivation around the world, we need to be there with assistance that promotes stability and keeps terrorism from taking root in the first place. I'm talking about everything from debt relief to democracy promotion, to human rights, to sustainable development, to education, especially including education for women and girls. Mr. Speaker, development aid gives the taxpayer plenty of bang for the buck, and it actually costs pennies on the dollar. It represents a microscopic portion of the Federal budget. Yet development aid has great influence when it comes to creating the conditions for global stability and global peace. If we are serious about national security in the 21st century, if we are serious about projecting moral authority and honoring American values, then we must dramatically increase humanitarian aid, and we must not cut it. If we are serious about deficit reduction, it is time to address the real waste and excess--the Pentagon--which has enjoyed a blank check for far too long. So I applaud the majority if they are truly prepared to cut military spending; but so far, I hear more talking points than serious proposals. I have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is all talk until it is not, and if the majority party wants to do something that would advance our security goals while dramatically reining in Federal spending, then they should join me in a call to immediately bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Alice Muelrath who passed away January 6, 2011, in Santa Rosa, California, at the age of 93. Mrs. Muelrath was deeply involved in the local dairy farming community, having grown up in a ranching family before marrying a ranch hand who later acquired two dairy operations of his own. Alice's parents, John and Maria Albini, were part of a wave of immigrants from Italy who settled the area in the early 1900s, and Alice grew up in Bodega Bay. She and her three siblings spoke fluent Italian which was useful for both translating between cultures and keeping secrets from the kids. In 1936, Alice married Peter Muelrath. The couple acquired a ranch in Bodega Bay and later second one near Santa Rosa. At the Santa Rosa ranch, Alice developed a skill for growing colorful flowers and was known for the beauty and variety of her plantings. They had two children, Bob and Mary; Bob, who is also a Sonoma County farmer, served as president of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. Alice was a cheerful and energetic woman who contributed with enthusiasm to a variety of community causes such as North Bay Dairy Women, Sonoma County Historical Society, Marin and Sonoma Italian Club, Sonoma County Farm Bureau, and Palm Drive Hospital. Alice's husband passed away in 1983. In addition to her son and daughter, she is survived by her sisters Elsie Carmody and Jennie Poncia, five grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Alice Muelrath exemplifies the proud Italian-American ranching tradition of Sonoma and Marin Counties. She and her family demonstrate the vibrancy and importance of agriculture in our community, and I am proud to honor her long life.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Joan Thayer, who retired in January 2011 as the Assessor-Recorder of Marin County. Assessor Thayer's commitment to the highest quality of public service has benefited the people of Marin and strengthened the office she led for so many years. Ms. Thayer began her life in public service over three decades ago in San Rafael, where she first served on the Dixie School Board from 1979 to 1983. She later ran for San Rafael City Council, becoming only the second Councilwoman in the city's history. In those roles, Ms. Thayer established a reputation as an intelligent public servant willing to take on difficult decisions and defend her views with a unique passion and integrity. In 1994, Joan was elected to lead the office of County Assessor- Recorder, then one of only two such offices led by women in California's 58 counties. In the years that followed, she worked tirelessly to ensure that her office continued to serve the interests of Marin residents. She has been an advocate for the just and efficient property tax system our communities rely upon, and she has performed her duties with the utmost integrity and professionalism. Ms. Thayer was also a leader outside of Marin, serving as President of the California Assessors Association in 2003. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking Joan Thayer for her service on behalf of Marin County, CA. Ms. Thayer has helped to build a successful and well-respected institution that embodies the strength of character she consistently brought to her work on behalf of the public.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Earlier this week, Mr. Speaker, we recognized the 82nd birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., perhaps the greatest moral and spiritual leader in our Nation's history. Each of us in our way reflected on Dr. King's teaching, and his message had more relevance than ever in light of the tragic shootings in Tucson. It's a sign of progress that a man whose ideas were considered revolutionary during his life has achieved mainstream iconic status in death. But as we all share his legacy, there is a very real danger that some people will, in a self-serving way, distort King's vision to justify the very policies he gave his life opposing. In fact, Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson has a bizarre, unsettling interpretation of Dr. King's dream. In a speech last week, Mr. Johnson suggested that this great agitator for peace would have endorsed the war in Afghanistan. And I quote him, he said, ``If Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that our Nation's military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack.'' Mr. Speaker, this strikes me as a presumptuous and manipulative distortion of everything Dr. King represented. He was fierce; he was resolute in his opposition to the Vietnam War. It was a courageous, controversial stand that cost him friends and allies. He believed nothing as strongly as the idea that nonviolence was the only route to social change. He left little ambiguity about his feelings on war: ``The chain reaction of evil wars producing more wars must be broken,'' Dr. King once said, ``or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.'' I don't know how you get much clearer than that, Mr. Speaker. Violence, he preached, ``is a descending spiral, begetting the very things it seeks to destroy. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder the hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence.'' Mr. Speaker, we've seen exactly this in our misguided struggle to defeat terrorism through warfare. Killing one Taliban or al Qaeda insurgent emboldens the movement and simply creates more terrorists. Dr. King added that ``a nation that continues to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching a spiritual death.'' These are the words we ought to reflect on as we continue a debate about Federal budget priorities. Far from supporting the war in Afghanistan, I believe Dr. King would be much more likely to embrace the principles of the SMART security platform that I've spoken of from this podium many, many times. It calls for cooperation, not conquest; dialogue, not destruction; engagement, not invasion. It pursues the goal of global peace and security by focusing on our common humanity. It is an agenda that respects human rights, that seeks to empower and lift up the poor people of the world instead of dropping bombs on their villages and on their communities. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson of the Pentagon couldn't be more wrong about the lessons of Martin Luther King's life. I have every confidence that, were he alive today, Dr. King would join me in a loud and unmistakable call to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my long-time friend, California State Senator Patricia Wiggins, who recently retired after a long and effective career in public service. From her first years in Sonoma County politics in the 1980s through her terms in the California legislature as an Assemblymember and a Senator, Pat Wiggins was a leader of vision and compassion. Born and raised in Southern California, Pat grew up in a labor household and, with her father's training, was an accomplished parachutist. At the age of 38, she became the first in her family to graduate from college, earning an English degree with honors from UCLA. She worked as a systems analyst and, in 1979, met a software engineer, Guy Conner, her future husband. They have two stepsons, Jim and Steve Silverman, and four grandchildren. Wiggins' first political job was with the Nuclear Freeze in 1982. After the couple moved to Santa Rosa, California, in 1984, she worked on several political campaigns and eventually became involved in local land use issues when trail access to Annadel State Park was threatened by development. She was a leader in Santa Rosa's growing liberal environmentalism, and an activist in supporting women and women's issues. In 1994, she was elected to the Santa Rosa City Council. In 1998, she was elected to the California Assembly and in 2006 to the California Senate. As a State legislator, Pat continued to demonstrate leadership in environmental and social issues. In the Assembly she founded the legislature's Smart Growth Caucus and authored laws on land use planning and compact development (including social equity). In the Senate, she focused on a broad range of issues including agriculture, youth employment, land use, political reform, health care, veterans' affairs, waste reduction, working families, and education. In 2008, she had the most bills approved by the legislature and the most signed into law of anyone in the California legislature. Guy Conner, her husband and political partner for many years, describes Pat Wiggins as ``the finest grass roots politician'' he has ever known. She inspired many of us in Sonoma County by demonstrating how a leader works collaboratively for an impressive record of accomplishments while maintaining a commitment to progressive values. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Senator Patricia Wiggins on her many successful years in public service and wish her luck in her retirement. Her voice will be missed in Sacramento.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out in emphatic opposition to H.R. 2, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, one of my sons, the father of two and a wonderful husband, came home last week to Petaluma from 6\1/2\ weeks in the hospital. He has many, many more weeks' recovery ahead of him, but I can tell you that this family that still has a huge challenge ahead of them would not have a chance without health care, the health care coverage that they have. This bill, by the way, goes in precisely the wrong direction. Just when we should be strengthening the historic reform we passed last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to tear it apart. Have you never experienced another person that had the needs that my family has today even if it wasn't in your family? Repeal, we know, would leave millions out in the cold, stripping them of access to affordable health coverage. In fact, Blue Shield of California recently announced a rate increase of as much as 59 percent--59 percent--for some 200,000 policyholders. Does the majority not see the problem with runaway costs that are passed on to middle class families already burdened by a deep recession? Do you want to return to the broken health care system that had people crying out for reform in the first place? The claim that cutting government spending is the most important of all flies in the face of the CBO that has concluded that their bill would add $230 billion--your bill, the Republican bill--$230 billion to the Nation's debt by 2021. Do not vote for this.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of serving with Gabby Giffords on both the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and she has always stood out as someone of great energy, intelligence and integrity. She is exactly what you want a member of Congress to be, and a role model for young women who want to serve their communities through elected office. This unspeakable, gruesome attack has shocked and saddened us all. But one thing it will not do, in this body, is conquer our spirit or stop us from doing our jobs. Gabby Giffords was wounded because she saw it as her duty to engage directly with the people for whom she works, hearing their concerns and fielding their questions, putting them in touch with their government. That is how we do it in a democracy, and the violent acts of one madman will not change that. Those who were tragically killed in the attack were holding up their end of the democratic bargain--active citizens eager to connect with their representative. Also, there were other public servants, a federal judge who had sat on the bench for nearly 20 years, and a member of Gabby's staff, whose dedication reminds me so much of the young people who work for me. My heart goes out to those who loved Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwan Stoddard and Gabriel Zimmerman. Even as we mourn their deaths, may we celebrate their rich and glorious lives. Let's also send our get-well wishes to all of the wounded and our undying gratitude to the first responders, including the courageous intern who may have saved Gabby's life. There is every expectation that Gabby will make a full recovery. And hopefully she will return to the House of Representatives to continue a promising career in public service. I can think of no greater gift we can give her--no better way to honor her--than to put this House in better order. I hope we can dedicate this session to her, conducting our debate on health care and other issues with passion and conviction, but also with maturity and respect. As we take up our important business, let's do it in a manner worthy of Gabrielle Giffords. As a tribute to her, to those who died, and to everyone whose lives are forever changed by this senseless shooting, let's do our work in a way that showcases the very best of our democracy, just as it was on display in that shopping center the morning of January 8.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Charles ``Chuck'' Daniels, Jr., of San Rafael, California, who passed away December 28, 2010, at the age of 84. A businessman in Marin County for many decades, Chuck developed the House of Daniels beverage distributing company which had originally been founded, as Golden Gate Distributing Co., by his father at the end of Prohibition. What began as a small warehouse in San Anselmo eventually moved to Black Point in Novato where it became a $20 million business with 75 employees. House of Daniels was known for its fine collection of wines and also distributed beer, spirits, and other beverages. Its last beverage interests were sold in 2005, and the Novato site changed to a storage operation with Chuck as CEO. Chuck also played a larger role in the industry including involvement in Robert Mondavi winery, the North Coast Growers Association, the Old Timers Wine Club of Northern California, and as director or president of statewide groups such as the Spirits Wholesalers Association of America, the Northern California Wine and Spirits Wholesaler Association, and the California Beer Distributors Association. Trellis Vineyards, his own winery, was located in Sonoma County. Involved in the Marin County community, Chuck was particularly active in public safety issues. He served on the California Crime Commission and the Fire Commission of the San Rafael Fire Department as well as working on arson investigations with local enforcement. He also supported a variety of youth activities, and, in 1997, the Marin Council of Boy Scouts named him their Distinguished Citizen of the Year. While a member of Dominican University's Leadership Forum, he promoted the renovation of historic buildings on campus. Chuck's sense of fun was as integral to his personality as his passion for service. He was a founder of the Marin Republican Council as well as the Tocaloma Temperance Society, a social club for retired politicians. He loved spending time at the beaches of Lake Tahoe and in the mountains of Yosemite, as well as seeking out fine wine and dining experiences with his wife Carol. In addition to Carol, he is survived by his three sons, Charles III, Peter, and Jonathan, and eight grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, although we mourn the loss of Charles Daniels in our community, I am proud to celebrate his many accomplishments and his dedication to making Marin County a better place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is now in its 10th straight year of war. The military occupation of Afghanistan is longer than any war in our Nation's history. An entire generation of young people-- including my three grandchildren who came with me to visit Washington for the swearing in--is growing up knowing nothing but a Nation at war. This war is not just a moral abomination with devastating human costs, and it is not just fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable with a price tag of about $370 billion, though it most certainly is all of that. Perhaps the most tragic irony of this war is, for all of the sacrifice, it is not even doing what it was supposed to do: keeping us safe and defeating a terrorist threat. If Iraq and Afghanistan have proven anything to us, Mr. Speaker, it is that we need an entirely new national security model; one that emphasizes brain over brawn; one that uses soft power instead of hard; one that protects America by relying on the most honorable American values--love of freedom, desire for peace, moral leadership, and compassion for the people of the world. With these values in mind, this week I once again introduced a resolution calling for the adoption of a SMART Security platform. SMART Security would redirect our energy and resources away from warfare and it would focus instead on nonproliferation, conflict prevention, international diplomacy, and multilateralism. That means renewing our commitment to cooperation with other nations through the United Nations and other international institutions. SMART Security would build on the new START treaty ratified last month and move us more aggressively toward a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. It would rearrange our budget priorities so we are no longer throwing billions of dollars at weapons systems designed for a different era and instead invest in human capital around the world. That means addressing root causes of instability and violent conflict by increasing development aid and debt relief to poor countries. We would be supporting programs that promote sustainable development, that promote democracy building, human rights education, a strong civil society, gender equality, education for women and girls, and much, much more. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review recently completed at the State Department reaffirms the principles underlying SMART Security, calling for civilian power to lead the way in resolving conflicts and reducing threats around the world, with diplomacy and development mutually reinforcing one other; also strongly recommending a renewed focus on the rights of women and girls. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that might doesn't make right. The conventional wisdom of peace through strength does not work, especially in an era with the greatest threats we face being from nonstate actors. A national security based on occupation and conquest has been given a chance to work over the last decade, and it has failed miserably. What we need in Afghanistan is a civilian surge, not a military surge. For the security of the American and the Afghan people, we need to be humanitarian partners, not military occupiers. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to bring our troops home and implement SMART Security principles. It is time that we do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, this week as the 112th Congress begins, there is a lot of talk from the Republicans about ending business as usual and doing things differently than before. But for all the supposed change afoot, there's one critical matter on which the new majority is fully embracing the status quo--the war in Afghanistan that is now nearly a decade old. This war has been going on so long that 55 percent of my colleagues weren't here when it started. We've heard plenty about changing the House rules, about changing the way we conduct the Nation's business, about changing the relationship between the government and the people. We've even heard about how a new law that will provide affordable health care to all Americans is somehow the greatest threat to the Republic and the constitutional order. But on the subject of war--a disastrous war that has taken the lives of more than 1,400 Americans in Afghanistan and cost taxpayers some $366 billion--the new congressional majority is interested in no change whatsoever. In his speech yesterday, Speaker Boehner spoke of giving government back to the people. In his speech he talked about honesty, accountability, and responsiveness. Look, if he meant that, he should be listening to the 60 percent of people who believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. A clear majority of Americans realize what so many in Washington refuse to acknowledge--that this war represents an epic failure, a national embarrassment, and a moral blight on our Nation. On this matter of life and death, this issue that will determine how history judges the United States, most of the Representatives in the House, in the people's House at that, have told the people that their point of view doesn't matter, that we know better than what they know. As usual, the people are way ahead of their policymakers, just as they were 4 years ago on Iraq. They may hear reassuring platitudes from Washington about how we're on track, but they can see the news for themselves. They can see that the security situation is in decline, that casualties are up, that the Taliban is strong, and that Afghan governance is ineffective at the very best and corrupt at the worst. So I can't think of anything more patronizing than to tell them not to worry their pretty little heads about the war, that us grown-ups in Washington have it all taken care of. We're not bowing before them, Madam Speaker; we're sticking our finger in their eyes. Do we truly believe it's about them and not us? Do we truly believe that we are caretakers whose only legitimacy derives from our employers who elected us? If that's true, then it's time for the Representatives of the people's House to start listening to the people. With that, it's time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, after more than 9 years of the war in Afghanistan and a troop surge that supposedly was going to turn the tide, all we have are modest gains that are fragile and reversible. For the price of $377 billion, the lives of 1,400 brave Americans, that's it? We need to hear more than ``the challenges are tough and there are difficult days ahead.'' We need to hear more than ``stay the course'' platitudes that do little to eliminate the situation for the American people who are footing the bill. Columnist Eugene Robinson assessed the review this way: ``The good news is that President Obama's strategy in Afghanistan is `on track.' The bad news is that the track runs in a circle.'' Round and round on that track we go, Madam Speaker. More of our finest young people thrown into harm's way, more dollars flying out of the Treasury, more of our global credibility destroyed. And because the track runs in a circle, we always seem to wind up in the same place--no closer to defeating the terrorists, no progress made on key national security objectives. Here are some unvarnished facts you didn't hear emphasized in the Afghanistan review: Casualties are rising to record-setting levels. The Taliban remains not just viable but robust, while Afghan governance remains ineffective at best, corrupt at worst. Hamid Karzai remains an unreliable loose cannon, lashing out-- according to one report--that he'd choose the Taliban over the United States and the international community. The security situation continues to deteriorate, with violence so great that the Red Cross says it's nearly impossible for them to do their humanitarian work. An article in the Washington Post several days ago put it best: ``Afghanistan still remains a violent chaotic nation with as many signs of American defeat as of victory.'' With that context, what do we make of Secretary Gates saying that progress in Afghanistan has ``exceeded my expectations''? I shudder to think at just how low his expectations were. The American people, however, have high expectations. that's why 60 percent of them, according to a recent poll, believe that this war isn't worth fighting. Sixty percent, Madam Speaker! My friends on the other side of the aisle are claiming a ringing mandate with less public support than that. And the Afghan people are no more enthusiastic. not even one-third of them rate the work of the work of the U.S. in their country as excellent or good. And despite all this, the response appears to be not an accelerated drawdown, but an escalation of violence. There are reports that the United States is considering expanding the war across the border in an unprecedented way, with risky and dangerous Special Operations ground raids into Pakistan. We can't take much more, Madam Speaker. This occupation has been given every chance to succeed. The time for patience has long since passed. It's time to bring the troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, there are some days when I find myself completely baffled by the cynicism of many people who have the privilege to serve here in Washington. Last week, for example, the United States Senate did it again, staying true to its reputation as a graveyard for good legislation. Using the filibuster once again, a minority of Senators blocked the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. This bill, which the House passed in September, would be the greatest expression of our gratitude for the 9/11 first responders. It would provide health care for those workers who incurred health hazards in their efforts to save lives in the aftermath of that horrific tragedy. But apparently, Madam Speaker, some in Congress are unmoved by the plight of firefighters and emergency medical personnel who breathed in toxic fumes on 9/11. The only way it appears the right wing in America knows to commemorate 9/11 is through exclusion and religious chauvinism--by insisting that a Muslim community center must not be built even a few blocks away from Ground Zero. They've got no interest whatsoever in lending a compassionate hand to those who answered the call on 9/11; no apparent interest in responding to 9/11 with healing rather than dividing. No wonder Mayor Bloomberg of New York calls the rejection of the bill ``a devastating indictment of Washington politics, a tragic example of partisan politics trumping patriotism.'' If I had a dollar for every time a colleague on the other side of the aisle invoked the bravery of the 9/11 first responders, I'd probably have enough money to offset the cost of the bill. But talk is cheap, Madam Speaker; they want to play lip service to heroism. They just don't want to invest any actual money to help the heroes. Hundreds of billions in tax breaks for the very richest Americans, that's not only okay by them; it is the one thing that animates the Republican Party more than anything else, but funds for American heroes who got sick answering the call of duty--sorry, that's just too expensive. Actually, there is one other thing that animates them, and that is the support for endless military occupations halfway around the world. I have yet to hear any of the so-called ``deficit hawks'' ask questions about how we're going to pay for that. I will not, Madam Speaker, take any claims of fiscal responsibility seriously from anyone who is not willing to put Afghanistan war spending on the table. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we have now spent more than $1.1 trillion in taxpayer money on wars that have undermined our national security goals, increasing rather than diminishing the terrorist threat. But what about the folks who were there on that one day that the terrorists attacked? Who jumped right into the debris and now suffer from lung damage and devastating respiratory illnesses? They can't get a modest fund from the country whose values they so valiantly embodied that fall morning 9 years ago. It is an appalling set of priorities. We ought to bring our troops home at once and reinvest the money in our people, including those who showed such courage and who sacrificed so much on 9/11.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this so-called tax compromise because it represents a windfall for the wealthy, a windfall that will result in one thing and one thing only: insufficient funds for all other social programs. By holding assistance for the unemployed hostage and giving tax breaks to the billionaires, tax breaks actually that create absolutely no jobs, we will create a big hole, a big hole in all of the support that we need for our children, for women, for veterans, for our education and health programs, and that only names a few, Mr. Chairman. Rather than tax breaks for the wealthy, we need policies that create jobs, jobs that will help our working families. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this flawed tax package because it will yield only one thing, and that is insufficient funds for any of the social programs we need in our country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on December 14-15, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for Rollcall No. 628-638. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 628--``yes''--Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site Designation Act. Rollcall No. 629--``yes''--Census Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act of 2010. Rollcall No. 630--``yes''--To direct the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Houston, Texas, to the Military Museum of Texas, and for other purposes. Rollcall No. 631--``yes''--Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office. Rollcall No. 632--``yes''--Expressing support for designation of January 23rd as ``Ed Roberts Day''. Rollcall No. 633--``yes''--Recognizing the 45th anniversary of the White House Fellows Program. Rollcall No. 634--``yes''--Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office. Rollcall No. 635--``yes''--Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965. Rollcall No. 636--``yes''--Congratulating Auburn University quarterback and College Park, Georgia, native Cameron Newton on winning the 2010 Heisman Trophy for being the most outstanding college football player in the United States. Rollcall No. 637--``yes''--Congratulating Gerda Weissmann Klein on being selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Rollcall No. 638--``yes''--Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on December 8, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 624. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 624: ``yes''--To extend the Child Safety Pilot Program.