Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4855) to establish the Work-Life Balance Award for employers that have developed and implemented work-life balance policies, as amended.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4855, as amended, into the Record.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 4855, as amended, the Work-Life Balance Award Act, a bill introduced with Chairman Miller. I thank Chairman Miller for his hard work in bringing this legislation forward. I also want to thank my Republican colleagues--Ranking Member Kline and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who is the ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee--for their support and for their hard work. H.R. 4855, as amended, establishes an award at the Department of Labor to be presented annually to employers of any size which have exemplary work-life policies. The bill also sets up an independent board, appointed by the Secretary of Labor, based on recommendations from Congress, to develop the application process and to establish criteria for evaluating the work-life balance policies of applicants. The board is also charged with providing awardee recommendations to the Secretary. The board will consist of representatives from children and families' groups, from State and local governments, from business or business organizations, and from labor. The Workforce Protections Subcommittee held a hearing on the introduced bill in April. Our witnesses testified that the bill could be improved by establishing broad guidelines for the board to consider in establishing its criteria. As a result, H.R. 4855, as amended, provides, in determining the criteria, that the board may consider those work-life policies which provide access to employees regardless of wage level, job position, or the number of hours worked; two, which ensure that workers can use the policies without risk of penalty; three, which allow workers to exercise the policy with regard to a broad range of family members. In addition, the board may also evaluate other factors affecting the quality of the workplace, including employee benefits and compliance with labor and health and safety laws. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary to collect data from the application process. This data is important because it will tell us not only what policies are being offered but also what policies are actually being utilized by workers and employers. Working Mother Magazine and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Mr. Speaker, also give out awards to companies with outstanding work-life balance policies. They are great programs, and this award is not intended to supplant these or other awards but to complement ongoing efforts. Creating an award at the U.S. Department of Labor is important for a number of reasons. Outside of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides unpaid leave for qualifying employees, there is no national policy to support work-life balance. This award will send a strong message that the Federal Government supports and encourages work-life balance. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, many years ago, when my children were not parents themselves, I was working full time outside of the home, with four children. It was a struggle to meet both the needs of my family as well as the responsibilities of my job. And as the human resources manager of a startup electronics company about 30 years ago, I was aware that many of my employees were going through the very same struggles that I was. Unfortunately, some 30 years later, nearly every single parent is under these pressures--men as well as women. And they are desperate for work-life balance. One of the main reasons I ran for Congress over 18 years ago was to fight for working families. I was a new Member when we passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, and I knew what an important step we were taking, particularly for working women, to provide job-protected family and medical leave for certain workers, even though it was unpaid. But the benefits provided by FMLA are not sufficient. While more than 100 million leaves have been taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly two in three workers are not covered by the Act. And even if they are, most can't take advantage of its provisions because they simply cannot afford to take unpaid leave. Sadly, the United States lags far behind the rest of the world in providing work-life benefits to their employees. It is unacceptable that our country, which is the number one economy in the world, can barely compete with developing nations in this arena. Workers should not have to choose between work and family, and ultimately we in Congress need to do much more. However, the effort for work-life balance must be waged on all fronts, and currently, many in the business world are leading the way. These companies know that providing work-life benefits increases retention, decreases absenteeism, and increases productivity and loyalty. The award created by H.R. 4855, as amended, will recognize these employers for their efforts and create an incentive for others. It will also set standards for best practices and shine a light on the needs of working families. Mr. Speaker, I hope we will vote for the second step after the Family and Medical Leave Act that this Congress will take to support working Americans, men and women, and help them balance the challenges they meet in doing a good job for their families and a good job for their employer, because it must be possible. And we can help make that happen.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the war in Afghanistan is now 104 months old, passing Vietnam, to make it the longest war in United States history. And as it reaches this dubious milestone, it's hard to imagine things going much worse. The much-hyped military campaign in Kandahar is now way behind schedule, with the Secretary of Defense saying it's more important to get it done right than to get it done quickly. That kind of plea might have worked 80 months ago, Mr. Speaker, but do they not see the irony or the disconnect in preaching patience about a war that is now the longest the Nation has ever fought? Do they not see that the American people, who have given a thousand or more of their best young people and a quarter of a trillion dollars to this war, are long past the point where they are willing to cut some slack and take a wait-and-see approach? And if that's not bad enough, it turns out the campaign we thought we had just finished in Marja never really took in the first place. What seemed to be a quick and decisive military triumph turned out to be an illusion. The Taliban hadn't been crushed; they had gone into hiding, laying low for a while, taking part in the opium harvest, and regaining their bearings, so to speak. Now the Taliban is back, with a campaign of violence and intimidation, planting bombs, attacking marines, and terrorizing the population. As one report in The Washington Post put it, ``They still own the night.'' General McChrystal promised to have a ready-made so-called ``government in a box'' prepared to take over in Marja, but inside that box was a district governor considered hapless by most, who has been outfitted by the marines with a fancily furnished tent, who seems more fond of afternoon naps than in doing the hard work of governing. And the national government that is supposed to be our partner, the repository of our hopes and confidence, the leader of the regime that is supposed to pick up where U.S. troops leave off in providing stability and security, well, his heart doesn't seem to be in the mission. Just a few weeks after being wined and dined by his American hosts during a state visit, President Karzai is wondering aloud whether the United States and NATO can get the job done. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that with each setback and each delay pressure will build to extend the timetable for troop deployment, our troops getting out of Afghanistan. This would be the wrong lesson to learn. What's needed is not more time, but a different policy. Every day that we continue this military campaign will contribute to the chaos in Afghanistan. More time and more troops can only exacerbate the problem. They cannot solve it. I don't think I can describe the war any better than did New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. He said: ``It's just a mind-numbing, soul- chilling, body-destroying slog, month after month, and year after pointless year.'' Mr. Speaker, it's time to end the slog. It's time to end the longest war in American history. It's past time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a week ago Sunday, at approximately 10:06 a.m., after the House had adjourned for recess and Americans were enjoying their holiday weekend, the Nation reached a truly disturbing milestone. At about that moment, according to the National Priorities Project, the combined amount of taxpayer money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan reached a staggering $1 trillion. That's trillion with a ``T,'' Mr. Speaker. That's a breathtaking amount of money to spend, even on something that works. But that kind of spending on two bloody wars that have taken thousands of American lives, destabilized other parts of the world, and done nothing to achieve national security goals, well, it's positively shameful. That trillion dollars doesn't even include some bills that haven't yet come due, like future medical costs for returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, a commitment we absolutely must keep. Nor does it include interest our grandchildren will pay on the debt we have racked up to finance these wars. What I can't help thinking, Mr. Speaker, is the lost opportunity costs that we should be taking into account. What could we be spending that kind of money on if we weren't wasting it on immoral wars? The National Priorities Project did a few calculations that report what we could do with a trillion dollars. They say we could provide a year's worth of health care to 161 million low-income Americans, or we could pay for 137 million Head Start slots, or we could put 16 million more teachers in our elementary school classrooms. But a funny thing happens whenever we try to make significant investments in the American people, especially those who find themselves struggling through no fault of their own. Suddenly, many of the same people who want to hand a blank check to the Pentagon become the strictest penny-pinchers. The priorities are completely distorted. We have to fight and scrap for every dime of spending designed to help our own people. But in the name of overseas invasion and conquest, money is no object and no expense is spared. We don't need to spend a trillion dollars to combat terrorism and protect our people. Instead, we can implement a smart security strategy that rejects warfare for the kind of real power, moral authority, and humanitarian decency that is American. It is America at its very best. It's time to replace the military surge with a civilian surge, Mr. Speaker. We need aid workers, diplomatic initiatives, civil society programs, teachers, democracy promotion specialists, agricultural experts and much more, which would and will make us safer at a fraction of the cost. Mr. Speaker, these trillion dollar wars have to end. It's time to move to a smart security strategy. It's time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Frances L. White, a community college educator for 32 years who is retiring as the Superintendent/President of the Marin Community College District. Dr. White is a distinguished leader who is herself a community college graduate. She is a dedicated educator committed to the community college mission and to the welfare of students, particularly those in the 112 public community colleges in California. A former full-time faculty member in the Peralta Community College District, Dr. White earned her Ph.D. in education administration from the University of California at Berkeley. As an administrator she has served in a variety of roles including President of Skyline College in San Bruno, California and Executive Vice Chancellor at City College of San Francisco. She is the recipient of many awards and recognitions, the author of scholarly publications, and has directed numerous workshops on college leadership, mentoring, and institutional effectiveness. In March, the Association of California Community College Administrators awarded her the prestigious 2010 Harry Buttimer Distinguished Administrator Award. Starting at College of Marin during a period of considerable turmoil, Dr. White is credited with working with the Board of Trustees and the Faculty to successfully stabilize a district plagued by decades of declining enrollments, crumbling classrooms, financial instability, poor community connections, and on the brink of accreditation loss. Capitalizing on her powerful personal qualities, White put a recovery plan in place and implemented a strategic direction that arrested the downward spiral and set the college on a visionary course. A leader with considerable collaborative skills, Dr. White is a compassionate mentor, both to students and to colleagues. With her dedicated support, the Academic Senate developed and implemented Student Learning Outcomes and Program Review, essential for the institution to reestablish accreditation in good standing and what led the Academic Senate leaders to receive statewide recognition for their outstanding efforts. Not one to shy from challenges, three weeks after taking the helm at College of Marin, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution to place a countywide facilities bond on the ballot. While most thought it would fail, under Dr. White's guidance and tireless work, the Measure C Bond was successful and received broad community support. The $250 million bond made it possible for the College to undertake long-deferred facilities renovation and modernization creating newly designed and energy efficient, student-centered learning environments on both the Kentfield and Indian Valley campuses, which helped generate a 15% enrollment increase at Kentfield and a 135% enrollment increase at Indian Valley. In addition to being a very competent administrator, Dr. White understands the importance of raising private funds for the College of Marin, and has been innovative in creating opportunities for friends of the college to support its mission. Launching the highly successful ``President's Circle'' as well as the ``Education Excellence Innovation Fund,'' Dr. White has established an enviable budget reserve of 12 percent. The College has been very fortunate Dr. White came at a critical time and was able to initiate significant change and a notable shift in the institutional culture. Madam Speaker, Dr. White is a gracious woman of remarkable talent and considerable commitment, and it is therefore appropriate to honor her today and to wish her well in her next endeavor. Congratulations, Fran White--you will be missed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we heard all of the arguments before we had our votes yesterday on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but in the past we heard very similar arguments. The Secretary of the Army said he was concerned about how the proposed change would affect the efficiency of the Army. A 5-star general warned of social experiments and worried that with reform in military personnel policy, we may have difficulty attaining high morale. Those are not quotations from 2010, Mr. Speaker. Those are not quotations about the right of gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military. They are from more than 60 years ago during the debate over racial integration of the Armed Forces. Does anyone believe they were right? If so, please speak up. Is anyone prepared to argue that our military has suffered from the full participation of African Americans in its ranks? Thankfully, a majority in this body remembered this history lesson last night when we made history by voting to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, an embarrassment unworthy of a great country and a great military. It has been responsible for the discharge of 13,000 honorable Americans, men and women who were told their services were dispensable not because of how they behaved, but because of who they are. It has done violence to cherished American values like equality, inclusion, and tolerance. And it has damaged our national security, too. Given the military's recruitment challenges at a moment that we're still, unfortunately, fighting two wars, it is incomprehensible to me that we would reject any capable person who wishes to serve. It was particularly galling to watch as hundreds of language specialists who could speak Farsi and Arabic were dismissed just when they were needed the most, when our occupation of Iraq began. The assertion that openly gay servicemembers would undermine unit cohesion is just bunk, Mr. Speaker. It is an argument based on fear, not fact. The research suggests that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are comfortable serving side by side with fellow soldiers who happen to be gay or lesbian. To suggest otherwise is to insult our troops, as the author of the amendment, Mr. Murphy, has pointed out, because it assumes our soldiers are so unprofessional, and even unpatriotic, that they would let another soldier's sexual orientation distract them from the mission. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have said it best when he said, ``I cannot escape being troubled by . . . a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.'' And last night, Mr. Speaker, it came down to our integrity, the integrity of those of us who have the privilege to serve in the people's House. I can't remember too many prouder moments during my time here, because at least we have the integrity to do what's right-- to support our troops and strengthen our military by repealing the cruel and un-American Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on May 6, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 302. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 302: ``yes''--Honoring the workers who perished on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, extending condolences to their families, and recognizing the valiant efforts of emergency response workers at the disaster site.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the people of the Republic of Azerbaijan as they prepare to celebrate Republic Day on May 28. Azerbaijan's Republic Day commemorates the day that this nation, located on the shores of the Caspian Sea, south of Russia and north of Iran, declared its independence from the Russian Empire in 1918, as the first Muslim democracy. The new democracy granted women the right to vote in 1919, a year before the 19th Amendment was passed in the United States granting U.S. women that right. Their independence was tragically short, as the Soviet Union invaded the tiny nation in 1920--altering Azerbaijan's dream of democracy in the 20th Century. That dream reemerged in 1991 when the brutal Soviet regime finally passed to the dustbin of history, and Azerbaijan declared its independence yet again. My congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan: congratulations on the anniversary of Republic Day, and for your continued efforts and commitment to build a strong democracy in the critically important region of the South Caucasus.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, we've heard these arguments before. The Secretary of the Army said he was concerned about how the proposed change would affect ``the efficiency . . . of the Army.'' A five-star General warned of ``social experiments'' and worried that with reform in military personnel policy ``. . . we may have difficulty attaining high morale.'' Those are not quotations from 2010 about the right of gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military. They're from more than 60 years ago, during the debate over racial integration of the armed forces. Does anyone believe they were right? If so, please speak up. Is anyone prepared to argue that our military has suffered from the full participation of African-Americans in its ranks? I hope we all remember this history lesson as we prepare to vote on a repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, an embarrassment unworthy of a great country and a great military. It is responsible for the discharge of 13,000 honorable Americans, men and women who were told their service is dispensable . . . not because of how they behaved, but because of who they are. It does violence to cherished American values like equality, inclusion, and tolerance. And it damages our national security too. Given the military's recruitment challenges at a moment that we're still, unfortunately, fighting two wars . . . it is incomprehensible to me that we would reject any capable person who wishes to serve. It was particularly galling to watch as hundreds of language specialists who could speak Farsi and Arabic were dismissed just when they were needed most, when our occupation of Iraq began. The assertion that openly gay service members would undermine unit cohesion is just bunk, Madam Chair. It is an argument based on fear, not fact. The research suggests that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are comfortable serving side-by- side with fellow soldiers who happen to be gay or lesbian. To suggest otherwise is to insult our troops, as the author of the amendment Mr. Murphy has pointed out. Because the morale argument assumes our soldiers are so unprofessional--and even unpatriotic--that they would let another soldier's sexual orientation distract them from the mission. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have put it best when he said, ``I cannot escape being troubled by . . . a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity--theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.'' And now it comes down to our integrity, the integrity of those of us privileged to serve in the people's House. We must have the integrity to do what's right . . . to support our troops and strengthen our military . . . by repealing the cruel and un- American Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in the year 2005, I joined my colleagues and fellow Californians, Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee, and other strong progressives in forming the Out of Iraq Caucus. That group was critical in galvanizing support for an end to the Iraq war and a return of our troops safely home. Before we formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, Mr. Speaker, questioning the occupation of Iraq was considered a political death wish, but because we had the courage to speak out and to organize, ours became a firmly mainstream position. Without the work we did and the pressure we applied and the growth of our Out of Iraq Caucus, we would not be poised for redeployment out of Iraq later this year. It's now time for those of us who oppose the war in Afghanistan--a bloc that's growing every single day--to do the same thing. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join the new Out of Afghanistan Caucus, formally launched by my friend Mr. Conyers from Michigan. As Afghanistan becomes more bloody, more expensive, and, frankly, more hopeless, we must rally with the same sense of purpose and fearlessness as we did in 2005 in the debate over Iraq. Every day, it seems, brings more bad news out of Afghanistan. The United States death toll has topped 1,000. According to news reports, for the first time we now have more troops in Afghanistan than we do in Iraq, and the combined costs of both wars is fast approaching $1 trillion--that's trillion with a ``T,'' Mr. Speaker. The American people are losing patience with this war, and who can blame them? For 8\1/2\ years, they have sent their finest men and women and their hard-earned taxpayer dollars halfway around the world only to find that the Taliban is resurgent, the terrorist threat remains strong, and Afghanistan remains mired in corruption, violence, and poverty. At just the moment when we need to draw down, we are doubling down. We're pouring thousands of troops into Kandahar for an all-eggs- in-one-basket offensive that no one seems confident will succeed. With all that in mind, how can we, in the House of Representatives, not speak with a louder and more unified voice against this war? But we in the Out of Afghanistan Caucus are not calling for an abandonment of the country. We just believe that a military occupation, which has had nearly a decade to work, can't achieve the objectives of stability and security for the Afghan people. What we need is diplomacy. We need humanitarian aid, support for democracy building and civil society programs. What we need are more resources for agriculture, education, and infrastructure. These are the tools of a smart security strategy that can empower the Afghan people in a way that sheds no more blood. Mr. Speaker, warfare has only led to more warfare, emboldening the very enemy we're trying to defeat. A peaceful civilian surge is actually the only answer. I ask my colleagues to join me in becoming a part of the Out of Afghanistan Caucus and help bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have a disaster in the Gulf of Mexico which makes it absolutely obvious that we do not have the answers to preventing and combating such carnage. We have not, any of us, Republicans or Democrats, invested in the necessary science and the important steps to prevent and combat an oil spill of this size. That's why, as a result of the San Francisco Bay spill over a year ago, I introduced H.R. 2693, to streamline from 17 to three agencies and oversee the prevention and the responsibility to respond to preventing oil spills and to cleaning up oil spill emergencies. I would have the three agencies be: NOAA, which brings its expertise on how to protect marine life and sensitive marine ecosystems. It would be the lead agency. I would have the Coast Guard, which will bring the expertise as the first responder, and the Environmental Protection Agency would be the third agency, to provide an understanding of the environmental and public health needs of any response and prevention methods. We may need more. We'll find out later.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the United States' troops will be on the front lines of the surge in Kandahar, and they are just now deploying, and they are learning the lay of the land. But, ironically, the cloud of smoke over Iceland is delaying many arrivals, according to an article in The Washington Post last week, an inauspicious beginning of the most important battle of this war. The task at hand in Kandahar, however, is less intensive militarily. Frank Ruggiero, our top civilian official in Afghanistan, has said that ``Kandahar is a political problem. And the campaign in Kandahar will be led by governance.'' While it's a comfort to know our troops may not face the gravest possible danger, Mr. Ruggiero's assessment is very troubling because political and governance problems are exactly the ones that this mission has failed miserably. This campaign is called Operation Enduring Freedom, but the only way we can help the Afghan people enjoy enduring freedom is if we help them build durable, sustainable, democratic governing institutions that will thrive long after our military occupation is over. By neglecting that critical task, Mr. Speaker, we are creating a power vacuum that the Taliban and other warlords and strongmen are only too eager to fill. If the Taliban has proved resilient in Marja, and they definitely have after we supposedly drove them out a few months ago, then just imagine how hard it will be to vanquish them completely from Kandahar, their spiritual home. We have proven our military muscle. We have shown that we can invade and conquer. But, Mr. Speaker, that can't be the end game. What are we leaving behind that will actually allow Afghanistan to thrive and its people to prosper? To paraphrase the old Pottery Barn rule from the run-up to the Iraq war, we're good at breaking it, we just don't know what to do once we own it. Or to use the vocabulary of counterinsurgency doctrine, we know how to clear; it's the holding, and especially the building, that we are botching. Things don't look promising, Mr. Speaker. Even General McChrystal conceded last week that we're not currently winning the war. Gilles Dorronsoro, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is even more frank. He says, ``Nothing is working. All the information is that the military campaign against the Taliban in Kandahar is not working and it's not going to work.'' What I believe, Mr. Speaker, will work is the one thing we haven't tried in the last 8\1/2\ years, ending this war once and for all. Of course we won't abandon Afghanistan, far from it. In fact, to address the enormous governance challenges we ought to launch a new kind of surge, a civilian surge. That would mean devoting the energy and the investment to development--democracy-building and other humanitarian efforts--that we have invested in the war, because our continued military presence cannot solve Afghanistan's problems. It can only exacerbate them. It's time, it's time, it's time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the United States' troops will be on the front lines of the surge in Kandahar, and they are just now deploying, and they are learning the lay of the land. But, ironically, the cloud of smoke over Iceland is delaying many arrivals, according to an article in The Washington Post last week, an inauspicious beginning of the most important battle of this war. The task at hand in Kandahar, however, is less intensive militarily. Frank Ruggiero, our top civilian official in Afghanistan, has said that ``Kandahar is a political problem. And the campaign in Kandahar will be led by governance.'' While it's a comfort to know our troops may not face the gravest possible danger, Mr. Ruggiero's assessment is very troubling because political and governance problems are exactly the ones that this mission has failed miserably. This campaign is called Operation Enduring Freedom, but the only way we can help the Afghan people enjoy enduring freedom is if we help them build durable, sustainable, democratic governing institutions that will thrive long after our military occupation is over. By neglecting that critical task, Mr. Speaker, we are creating a power vacuum that the Taliban and other warlords and strongmen are only too eager to fill. If the Taliban has proved resilient in Marja, and they definitely have after we supposedly drove them out a few months ago, then just imagine how hard it will be to vanquish them completely from Kandahar, their spiritual home. We have proven our military muscle. We have shown that we can invade and conquer. But, Mr. Speaker, that can't be the end game. What are we leaving behind that will actually allow Afghanistan to thrive and its people to prosper? To paraphrase the old Pottery Barn rule from the run-up to the Iraq war, we're good at breaking it, we just don't know what to do once we own it. Or to use the vocabulary of counterinsurgency doctrine, we know how to clear; it's the holding, and especially the building, that we are botching. Things don't look promising, Mr. Speaker. Even General McChrystal conceded last week that we're not currently winning the war. Gilles Dorronsoro, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is even more frank. He says, ``Nothing is working. All the information is that the military campaign against the Taliban in Kandahar is not working and it's not going to work.'' What I believe, Mr. Speaker, will work is the one thing we haven't tried in the last 8\1/2\ years, ending this war once and for all. Of course we won't abandon Afghanistan, far from it. In fact, to address the enormous governance challenges we ought to launch a new kind of surge, a civilian surge. That would mean devoting the energy and the investment to development--democracy-building and other humanitarian efforts--that we have invested in the war, because our continued military presence cannot solve Afghanistan's problems. It can only exacerbate them. It's time, it's time, it's time to bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for allowing me this time, and I appreciate the cooperation we're getting from both sides of the aisle on this very important issue. On April 5, 29 miners were killed and two injured in a massive explosion which ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine in Montcoal, West Virginia. It was a shock to all of us. Unfortunately since then, there have been two other mine accidents, one in Kentucky and another in West Virginia, that have resulted in even more fatalities. The explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine was the worst mine accident since 1970 when 38 miners were killed in an explosion at a mine in Kentucky. We are now, Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, and there is absolutely no excuse for these tragedies. There are ongoing investigations into the explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine so we don't yet know exactly what caused this blast, but we do know that Massey Energy has a long, long history of health and safety violations at this mine and others of theirs and that it has received hundreds--not a few--but hundreds of citations before the blast occurred. This tragedy and the conduct of this mine owner towards the safety of its workers further highlight the need for the Education and Labor Committee to fully perform oversight functions. We owe this much to the families of the fallen miners and to those miners who go to work each and every day so that they can come home safely to their families every night. The deposition authority provided by this resolution, which is the product of a bipartisan agreement, as we all know, is a vital tool for the committee, and I urge passage of this resolution by every Member of the House of Representatives.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on May 18, 2010, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 261. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 273: ``yes''--Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Improvement Act of 2009.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, a suicide bomber deliberately crashed his minivan on a street in Kabul during one of the busiest times of the day. According to The New York Times account, and I quote them, ``The blast blew bodies apart. Limbs and entrails flew hundreds of feet, littering yards and walls and streets. In a passenger bus, an Afghan woman lay dead in her seat, cut in half, with her baby still squirming in her arms. Fifty yards away, a man's head lay on the hood of a truck.'' It was the most devastating strike seen in the Afghan capital in some time, Madam Speaker. It served as a kind of ``welcome home'' from the insurgents to President Karzai, just returning home from his visit to the United States, who was getting ready to brief reporters at the Presidential palace, just a short distance away from the site of the explosion. Aside from the gruesome civilian casualties, this attack is also significant because it claimed the lives of five of our soldiers, which brings the total number of U.S. troop fatalities in the war in Afghanistan to over 1,000. This tragic milestone should fill us with horror, Madam Speaker. It should keep every one of us awake at night. For years, the failure to make progress in Afghanistan flew under the radar as the war in Iraq grabbed most of the attention and headlines. But more than 100 months into the Afghanistan conflict, the mission is clearly floundering. More than half of those 1,000 deaths have occurred just since September of 2008. The decision to send more troops has only intensified the violence and emboldened the militants, doing nothing to bring lasting stability to Afghanistan and to its people. This war has not accomplished any of its stated goals. Here we are, 8\1/2\ years after we supposedly drove out the Taliban, and lo and behold, the Taliban is resurgent, poised to fill the power vacuum in districts and villages where we've done nothing to build strong and legitimate governing institutions. Remember the reportedly successful military offensive over the winter in Marja? A few months later, it turns out, the residents are fleeing in droves because the Taliban has reasserted itself. One U.S. official now calls Marja ``a work in progress but not trending in the right direction.'' And this is one of the places where we had declared victory. We have been patient, Madam Speaker. We have given the strategy a chance to work. It failed. It has failed at nearly every turn, and 1,000 deaths is far too many. Before the number grows, let's bring our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week's state visit did absolutely nothing to ease serious concerns about the leadership of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Our counterterrorism strategy is supposed to depend on having a stable, responsive, transparent, democratic government that enjoys the confidence of the Afghan people. Instead, Mr. Karzai's government has proven itself to be irresponsible and ineffective in a way that jeopardizes his country's future and the safety of American troops. Karzai has lashed out at the United States, even threatening at one point to join the Taliban. And our own Ambassador to Afghanistan has publicly questioned his reliability as a strategic partner. While we have no choice but to have a dialogue with President Karzai, it is critical that our approach to this relationship involve at least as many sticks as carrots. We owe the American people some assurance that we are not letting the Afghan Government misuse our tax dollars with impunity. Mr. Speaker, the Center for American Progress has a new report that discusses the crisis of governance in Afghanistan. The government, it says, ``operates on a highly centralized patronage model in which power and resources are channeled through Karzai's personal and political allies. The system lacks the connection, the rules, and the checks and balances necessary to make leaders truly accountable to the domestic population.'' One of the allies, Mr. Speaker, referenced in the report is Karzai's brother, a thuggish political boss who rules Kandahar with an iron fist. There is evidence that he operates his own militia and is actively involved in the drug trade. The report goes on to note that our Afghanistan strategy has overemphasized the military solution and neglected the critical task of helping build viable state organs, especially at the local level. In Marja, for example, we left no government infrastructure behind after the military cleared out the Taliban. Our single-minded focus on using hard power to vanquish terrorists just isn't working. The Taliban remains a potent political force; and the more government fails to provide basic services, the more likely are the Afghan people to rush into the arms of the Taliban. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is the smart security platform. I have been advocating this smart security platform for years. Instead of a military surge which represents more of the same old failed policy, what we clearly need is an aggressive civilian surge. We need to divert resources away from troop deployment and toward programs that will empower the Afghan people and bolster the capacity and competence of their government, a government that works for their people and with the international community. At his press conference with President Karzai, President Obama said that ``Afghans are a proud people who have suffered and sacrificed greatly because of their determination to shape their own destiny.'' Mr. Speaker, that is undoubtedly true, and that's why they deserve better than government by cronyism, and American troops also deserve better than to shed blood for a corrupt and dysfunctional regime. So, Mr. Speaker, it's time to bring our troops home and launch a smart security plan, and it's important that we do it today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Guerneville School District on the occasion of its 150th anniversary. The school can trace its history to several separate one-room schools in Russian River communities in Sonoma County, CA. The earliest was founded in 1860, and the last one merged into the Guerneville School District in 1955. The direct forerunner of the school opened its doors in the old-time logging town of Guerneville on First Street, in a building which now houses the Sonoma County Veterans' Memorial Hall. There were four classrooms serving students in first through eighth grades. In 1949 the school moved to its current location, one mile north on Armstrong Woods Road. Guerneville School District operates from the Armstrong Woods Road site today, although it has gone through many transformations to raise it above flood level and to gradually replace the original rooms with spacious classrooms, offices, gymnasium, library, and computer lab, as well as a modern play yard. Today it houses students in grades K-8. But the school's biggest asset is its community of students, parents, and staff who work together to create a learning environment that addresses the whole student. To achieve this, Guerneville School District offers ``a campus that is friendly, safe, and welcoming; a district that accepts and is committed to diversity; and an educational environment that promotes unity of staff on both professional and community levels.'' The school also works in partnership with the larger community to impart a sense of citizenship to the students and secure local support. One of its programs, Circle of Sisters, was started as a pilot project by St. Joseph Health System to promote the self esteem of middle school girls; Circle of Sisters was such a success that it has been replicated around the area. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Guerneville School District and all of its family, friends, alumni, students, and staff as they celebrate this momentous occasion. Happy 150th birthday!