Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's war hawks are unhappy. Their feathers are ruffled. They accuse President Obama of dithering when it comes to sending more troops to Afghanistan. They want the President to shoot first and they want him to ask questions later, but committing our Nation to war is the most important decision that any President can make. The Commander in Chief must think long and hard before doing any such thing. President Obama is making a careful review of the situation in Afghanistan, and he is right to do so. I've had some disagreements with the President about some of his policies so far, but I strongly support his desire to think things through and consider all of his options before proceeding. So far, the only option the United States has tried for the past 8 years is the military option, and it is painfully clear, Mr. Speaker, that it has not worked. A story in today's Washington Post makes that point. It describes a U.S. official in Afghanistan who resigned his job because he opposed American strategy there. This man is a patriot, and a tough former marine who fought with uncommon bravery in Iraq. But he believes that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan is making the insurgency grow. I made a similar argument when I voted against the Supplemental appropriations bill for Afghanistan back in May. I warned that continuing the military-only strategy will fuel anti-Americanism, and that's what is happening. More and more, the Afghan people see America as an occupying force that cares only about itself. Meanwhile, the Taliban is doing a much better job of winning hearts and minds. We've got to turn that around. The best way to do that is to devote most of our resources in Afghanistan to meeting the civilian needs of the Afghan people. That means humanitarian aid, jobs and economic development, education, agricultural assistance, better infrastructure, and protection from disease. That doesn't mean we should be ignoring the violent extremists in Afghanistan--far from it. We can go after them aggressively by using the highly effective tools of SMART power. SMART power includes better intelligence and surveillance work. The extremists in Afghanistan can be found in many small networks of individuals and groups who are spread out over the countryside. You need good intelligence to track, penetrate, and disrupt their activities. We must also build up the civilian police force so they can arrest the extremists. Strong policing is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it's right there in the villages where the extremists live. We must also step up our diplomatic efforts. We've got to do a better job of engaging all the nations in the region that have an interest in stabilizing Afghanistan. These strategies will work, but they won't satisfy the war hawks. President Obama is right to ignore them. He must also ignore the voices of his own administration, calling for an escalation of the war. As he rethinks America's role in Afghanistan, I urge him to produce a strategy that relies on the tools of smart security and improves the lives of the people. That is the only real path, Mr. Speaker, to success in Afghanistan.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Olga Murray of Sausalito, California, for her commitment to helping destitute children in one of the poorest countries of the world. In 1984, at the age of 60, Ms. Murray founded the Nepal Youth Opportunity Foundation, NYOF, which assists thousands of children through programs operated by the Nepalese themselves. The mission of NYOF, which arose from Murray's vision, is to ``transform the lives of impoverished Nepalese children by providing them with what should be every child's birthright--education, housing, medical care, and loving support.'' Inspired by these compelling words, NYOF's programs include homes for neglected and abandoned children, education programs and scholarships from grade school through graduate school, and even random acts of kindness. But Murray may be best known for her innovative Indentured Daughters program which frees young girls from servitude. Among Tharu farmers, families in poverty sell their girls as young as 6 years old to serve in bondage to higher-caste families around the country where they perform menial labor under difficult conditions and are sometimes beaten and forced into prostitution. Often, the parents believe their daughters will actually be better off. Although the practice is now illegal, the prohibition is not enforced. Murray's solution is to offer the parents a pig or goat in exchange for not selling their daughters as the animal is worth more if bred or butchered. She also pays the daughters' $100 per year school expenses and has funded construction of 36 classrooms to accommodate them. Murray has saved thousands of young girls this way and inspired Nepalese charities to follow her lead in saving even more. Murray is a prodigious fundraiser for NYOF, recognized as one of the most effective organizations of its kind. However, it is her personal passion and loving joy for her work and the people of Nepal that are the secret of her success. She has received numerous prestigious awards including Unsung Heroes of Compassion from the Dalai Lama, a medal from the King of Nepal, the Mannington Stand on a Better World Award, and the St. Vincent de Paul Society Frank Brennan Award for Outstanding Service to the Poor. Madam Speaker, I admire Ms. Murray's commitment to creating opportunities for the children of Nepal. The children of the world are our future, and we can be inspired by people like Olga to make this world a better place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, our chance to make health care available to and affordable for the people of the United States is here. I prefer that we include the robust public option in our final plan because, first, it saves more than $110 billion over any other plan, it covers far more people, and it provides real competition to private health insurers, which in turn will provide lower cost and higher quality for the people that are insured in the United States. This is what we need. This is what we need to do for the people of our country. And now is the time for us to get on with it and do it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on October 22, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 805. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 805: ``yes''--Heinrich of New Mexico Amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, domestic violence is a widespread problem. Over two million people a year are physically assaulted by an intimate partner, and an additional 1.3 million are the victims of stalking. H. Res. 817 is an important reminder that October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and that we need to raise awareness of the problem and its serious consequences for victims and their families. We know that the majority of these domestic violence victims are women, and they often need leave from work to address the effects of this violence. While the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA, P.L. 103- 3) allows employees to take unpaid leave from work for other situations (e.g. for birth, adoption or to care for a spouse, child under age 18, or parent who has a serious health condition), there is no leave for workers who are recovering from domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, and who need medical attention, legal assistance, counseling, or to participate in other activities that take place during working hours. H.R. 2515, the Domestic Violence Leave Act, which I have introduced, expands the FMLA to allow workers to take leave to address the consequences of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. It also provides leave to workers so that they can care for a family member-- spouse, parent or child, including an adult child--who is a victim of abuse. In addition, the bill extends all of the protections of the FMLA to ``domestic partners,'' and ``children of a domestic partner.'' Our primary goal must be to stamp out domestic violence altogether. But until then, we need to help those victims who need time off to deal with its effects.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Afghanistan appears to be headed for a runoff election in the next few weeks. The United States must insist and we must expect that a credible, democratic Afghan government emerges from this political process because so very much is at stake. A democratically elected government in Kabul that has the trust of the Afghan people is necessary because it's our best weapon in the fight against violent extremism in Afghanistan. Such a government, a stable, honest government, would stabilize the country. It would encourage Afghanistan's neighbors to engage in a regional diplomatic effort. And it would be the strong partner America needs to deliver humanitarian and economic aid to the Afghan people. Afghanistan desperately needs this aid. It has seen two foreign invasions in the last three decades and years of political turmoil. Afghanistan is also very, very poor. By some measures, it is just about the poorest country in the world. The United Nations issued its annual Human Development Index earlier this month, Mr. Speaker, and it ranks the countries of the world on criteria such as life expectancy, literacy, school enrollment and gross domestic product. Afghanistan ranked 181st out of 182 countries--next to the last. That's why the United States must put far more emphasis on economic development, reconstruction, humanitarian aid and improved governance if we are to succeed in Afghanistan. To do this, we must redouble our efforts to bring a ``civilian surge'' of aid workers to Afghanistan. In fact, President Obama announced this initiative 7 months ago with a great deal of fanfare, but the results so far have been disappointing. An adviser to General McChrystal, our commander in Afghanistan, told The New York Times last week that ``our entire system of delivering aid is broken and very little of the aid is getting to the Afghan people.'' Another adviser said that the effort has been a ``nightmare'' and that ``vast amounts of aid money have been wasted.'' One of the reasons for this problem, Mr. Speaker, is the violence in the country. The aid workers who are on the ground now in Afghanistan are brave and truly dedicated. But some of them are understandably reluctant to leave the relative safety of Kabul and venture out into the countryside. There are several ways to improve this situation. Some American military personnel could be directed to protect the aid workers. The United States could step up its efforts to train the Afghan army and police so that they can provide local protection. The White House must also provide better benchmarks for measuring the progress of our civilian effort. We must prove that we are doing a better job of delivering American humanitarian aid, and this can be accomplished with three extremely important goals: it would improve the lives of the Afghan people and give them a reason to reject violence. It would demonstrate that America offers the Afghan people a better future than the extremists offer them, and it would help to remove the impression that the American Army is an occupying army. Mr. Speaker, if we want to succeed in Afghanistan, we must let America's humanitarian values shine through. That's the best way to help build a stable Afghanistan that can't be used by the Taliban or other extremists to threaten our security, their security, and the peace of our world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, for all of your efforts in regards to HIV/AIDS and the efforts that you support, that we support, that we must continue. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3792, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. This legislation provides important funding for lifesaving medical and support services that individuals with HIV/AIDS depend upon. With this reauthorization, we're ensuring that several of the Transitional Grant Areas that were slated to lose access to these grants will continue to receive funding. One of the TGAs is Santa Rosa, California, in my district, which is north of San Francisco. This important change will ensure that Santa Rosa will be able to continue to provide a continuity of care to patients with HIV/AIDS. The Bay Area is an example for all of us of just how important the funding is that we provide now, and how necessary it is that we increase this funding and that we pay particular attention to prevention of HIV/AIDS; then we won't need so much over time to cure and provide care. But until we prevent, we will be working to help those who are already afflicted. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, last week, the Hill newspaper here in Washington asked CRS, the Congressional Research Service, to provide information on the cost of the war in Afghanistan. The CRS reported that it now costs the United States about $3.6 billion per month, on average, or more than $43 billion a year. The CRS also reported that it costs about $1 million to send a U.S. soldier to Afghanistan for 1 year. So, if President Obama listens to the advice he is getting from some of those around him and if he sends 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, the war will cost another $40 billion a year, or nearly double. Yet what have we been getting, I ask you, Madam Speaker, for all of that money? The answer is: Higher casualty rates, a growing insurgency and an Afghan public that increasingly sees America as an occupier, not as a liberator. This is the result of a fatal flaw in our Afghan policy since the war began. We have relied far too much on the military option alone while, at the same time, putting very few dollars into what would really work in Afghanistan. Instead, what would work is better intelligence and better policing to disrupt terrorist networks; better governance, justice systems, economic development, and humanitarian aid. The Afghan people desperately need all of these to have hope for a better future and to have reasons to reject violent extremism. The supplemental funding request for Afghanistan, which I opposed in May, was a lost opportunity to take a more successful approach to our relationships in Afghanistan as 90 percent of the funding went to purely military activities while only 10 percent of the supplemental funds was devoted to development activities and to the civilian surge, which are so badly needed. To correct this disastrous imbalance, Madam Speaker, America must have a foreign policy based on SMART security instead of military power alone. One of the advantages of SMART security is that it works to eliminate the root causes of violent extremism by emphasizing economic development and debt relief to the world's poorest countries. The SMART Security Platform for the 21st century, which I have proposed in House Resolution 363, calls for these policies. The need to increase aid to the Third World was underscored last week, Madam Speaker, when the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reported that a record 1 billion people worldwide are now going hungry. The world's poorest and hungriest nations are potential safe havens for violent extremists. The governments are too weak or are too corrupt to keep them out, so the extremists are likely to find new recruits among the discontented populations, and those recruits become terrorists by training, and they are trained to attack the United States and other countries. Even if the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan were to disappear into thin air today, a new terror threat is likely to pop up somewhere else in the world where people are hungry, where people are desperate. If we do a better job of feeding the hungry, we will do a better job of starving terrorism, and we will take an important step toward restoring our moral leadership in the world. I know that President Obama understands this. I urge him to incorporate that understanding into his policies and to use the effective tools of SMART security to make our Nation and the world safer.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that H.R. 2647 contains provisions of H.R. 3403, the Supporting Military Families Act, a bill that I introduced in the House earlier this year. In the 110th Congress, we passed and the President signed into law the first-ever changes to the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, permitting ``next of kin'' of seriously injured and ill servicemembers to take up to twenty-six weeks of unpaid leave to care for these injured and ill servicemembers. In addition, the legislation provides up to twelve weeks of leave to workers when their family servicemembers are about to be deployed overseas to attend to certain ``exigencies'' relating to deployment, such as arranging for alternate child care or going to a lawyer for a will. The legislation passed in the 110th Congress was a good start, however, it has some gaps in coverage, which H.R. 2647 addresses. Under these new provisions, a next of kin can take up to twenty-six weeks of unpaid leave to care for a seriously injured or ill veteran, so long as that veteran incurred the injury or illness while on active duty and the injury or illness manifests itself within five years of the veteran's discharge from active duty. In addition, the twelve weeks of leave for ``exigencies'' relating to deployment includes not only leave for families of National Guard or Reservists in support of a contingency operation, but also leave for: (1) families of regular active duty servicemembers; and (2) families of those who have been deployed overseas. The FMLA is intended to help individuals balance their family and work obligations. So far, working people have used FMLA more than 100 million times to care for themselves and their family members. When the Act was first passed in 1993, it was a giant step and, while we need to pass legislation to provide paid leave, FMLA is still of great importance to working families. Since a majority of military spouses work, they too must balance work and family. They work to put food on the table and support their families. But they face additional challenges because their lives are disrupted by multiple deployments, involving not only active servicemembers but those in the National Guard and Reserves as well. Over 35,000 servicemembers have been injured--many seriously--in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. These injured warriors need substantial support and care from their families, often for long periods of time, and some permanently. In addition, veterans of both conflicts are developing serious illnesses and injuries after they are discharged from active service. Brain injuries such as traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome are disabling conditions but often do not materialize until well after servicemembers have been discharged from active duty. A recent study by the Department of Defense estimates that 11 percent of Iraq veterans and 20 percent of Afghanistan veterans suffer from post- traumatic stress syndrome as a result of their service. No matter where we come down on the merits of these conflicts, we must support families whose loved ones put their lives and their futures on the line for our nation. The provisions of H.R. 2647 will certainly help.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on October 13, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 773. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 773: ``yea''--to reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Madam Hirono, and thank you to the gentlewoman from New York for all you do for women day in and day out. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1700, the National Women's History Museum Act of 2009. It is important because Congress and our Nation, as a whole, must find ways to honor the important roles of women, roles that women have played in shaping our very country. Unfortunately, before the 1970s, the subject of women's history was largely missing from our schools, and it was absent completely in media coverage and in cultural celebrations. That's why, when I chaired the Sonoma County Commission on the status of women in 1978, the commission's education task force initiated a Women's History Week celebration, centered around international women's history day. That celebration, that very celebration, started a national movement. In 1981, Congress responded to the growing popularity of Women's History Week, which was led by the women from my community in Sonoma County, by making it a national observance, and it eventually expanded the week to a month in 1987. During National Women's History Month, many cities and towns celebrate women's contributions through parades and other activities. By building a National Women's History Museum, we will ensure that our Nation celebrates women not just during 1 month but throughout the year, every year, and it will ensure that young families, young girls and young boys come to Washington, D.C., to visit the women's museum and to remember what women have contributed and are contributing. Again, I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Representative Maloney, for her leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the White House is figuring how they should treat Afghanistan, what to do about Afghanistan. As they review the situation, they must be asking themselves a lot of questions: Should our strategy be counterinsurgency or counterterrorism? Should we send in 40,000 more troops, or 20,000 more troops, or should we send in any more at all? And is the Taliban really a threat to our national security? Meanwhile, the American people are asking the most important question of all: Is the war a war of necessity? And most Americans are coming to the conclusion that it is not. And I agree with them. Our military presence in Afghanistan is not necessary because al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11, simply isn't in Afghanistan anymore. In fact, it's estimated that only about 100 al Qaeda fighters remain in the country. Our military presence isn't necessary because it will lead us into another foreign quagmire. Escalating the war will require massive numbers of troops. They will be fighting an endless war with many casualties, no exit strategy at this point, and the American people will not put up with that. This war is not necessary because it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. That's the money we need to put the American people back to work, Madam Speaker, and to get our economy back on track. And finally, this war is not necessary because we have better alternatives. First and foremost, these alternatives include smart security. Smoking out and stopping the violent extremists in Afghanistan requires the effective surgical tool of smart security, not the blunt instrument of massive military occupancy. Smart security calls for strengthening our intelligence and surveillance capabilities. That's absolutely essential because the best way to stop the extremists in Afghanistan is to penetrate and disrupt their networks. Smart security calls for improvements in civilian policing. A well- trained police force is a highly effective counterinsurgency tool because it's right there in the communities where the extremists are. Smart security calls for a regional diplomatic surge. Afghanistan's neighbors have an interest in stabilizing the country just as we do. Those nations include Russia, China and Iran. They need to be engaged. Smart security also recognizes that al Qaeda and other extremist groups have the ability to shift gears and set up shop in other places around the world, probably in the poorest places they can find. That's why smart security supports investments in the development of impoverished nations, to give people the hope and the opportunity they need to reject violence and hatred in the first place. And because we need to keep the extremists away from weapons of mass destruction, smart security calls for vigorous inspection regimes and a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. In this session of Congress, Madam Speaker, I have introduced House Resolution 363, the ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century.'' It is the blueprint we need to defeat extremism in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. Madam Speaker, the strategy I have described is tough. It is pragmatic. It will protect the lives of our brave troops, and it will keep our Nation safe. As the administration conducts its review of the situation in Afghanistan, I urge them to choose this strategy because it is the winning strategy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Senator Edward Kennedy, who passed away August 25, 2009, at age 77. A leader in the Senate for over 46 years, Senator Kennedy dedicated his career to equality and justice for all. Senator Kennedy believed that the fight for quality and affordable healthcare was the cause of his life and nothing less than a moral obligation for us all. His courageous commitment to improving the welfare of all people was inspirational to me and millions of Americans. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, he influenced nearly every piece of legislation that came before the Senate. Because of his deep concern for the treatment of mental health patients, he helped individuals suffering from mental health and substance abuse disorders receive adequate coverage and prompted the growth of America's Community Mental Health Centers. Senator Kennedy was also committed to increasing access to health care for everyone. I wish he was with us long enough to see all his hard work come true. Senator Kennedy was a compelling advocate for equal access to education for all children. His leadership was instrumental in expanding the Head Start Program and he devoted himself to improving teaching quality and equality across the country. Senator Kennedy fought tirelessly to ensure all students who wished to obtain higher education were able to do so. During the 110th Congress, he helped enact the most substantial increase in student aid funding, making higher education more accessible and affordable to all. Madam Speaker, Senator Kennedy was a shining example of what the very best public servants can aspire to become and his passion for helping others will live on through the lives he has touched. His legacy of hard work, compassion, and excellence will continue to impact America for generations to come.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today is the eighth anniversary of American involvement in Afghanistan. America will soon be at war in Afghanistan longer than we were in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War combined. For 8 long years we've been trying to find a military solution in Afghanistan, but we have not succeeded. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and over 850 of our brave troops have died, but the insurgency continues to grow. Now President Obama is being urged to double down on the military option. Some people believe that all we need to do is send in 40,000 more troops, and then we can roll out the ``mission accomplished'' sign. But the last 8 years of fighting, Madam Speaker, have proven beyond doubt that there is no military solution to Afghanistan, and escalating the war now will only make things worse, not better. A study done by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that ``the presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.'' That's why I have joined with 56 of my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle to send a letter to President Obama urging him to reject calls to increase the number of combat troops in Afghanistan. But I'm not urging the President to walk away from Afghanistan; far from it. America needs to stay involved, but we need a winning strategy, and that means understanding the plight of the Afghan people and what they need so that they can reject the Taliban and violent extremism. They desperately need food, education, economic development, agricultural enrichment, better infrastructure, protection from disease, and a government that they can trust. Afghanistan is easy pickings for violent extremists because it's virtually the poorest nation on Earth, and without assistance from the outside world, the Afghan people have little hope for a better future. The United Nations issues its annual Human Development Index on Monday, and it ranks the countries of the world on criteria such as life expectancy, literacy, school enrollment, and gross domestic product. Out of 182 countries, Afghanistan ranks 181, next to last. That's why, Madam Speaker, the United States must break from the military-only approach that hasn't worked for the past 8 years and change our mission to emphasize development, reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and civil affairs. NGOs and military forces can be directed to support these efforts. That would improve the lives of the Afghan people, and it would achieve the crucial goal of removing the impression that America is an occupying country. We must also step up our diplomatic efforts. We've got to do a better job of engaging all the Nations in the region that have an interest in stabilizing Afghanistan. President Obama himself has recognized that military power alone is not the answer to our problems. In his inaugural address, he said that--and I quote him--``Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please . . . Our power grows through its prudent use (and) our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, and the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.'' President Obama is right to believe that America does best when we demonstrate our commitment to peace, to democracy, to human rights and progress. Madam Speaker, I urge the President to remember his words and use them to guide his decisions about Afghanistan in the coming days. If he does, he will take important steps toward defeating violent extremism and making America and the world safer.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of breast cancer awareness and to honor two very brave congresswomen, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz and Congresswoman Myrick. Mr. Speaker, breast cancer is a disease that has touched the lives of far too many people. Young women are especially high risk for breast cancer. In fact, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women ages 15-45 because breast cancer tends to be more aggressive in younger women due to lack of appropriate screening, diagnostic tools, and inadequate education about the disease among young women and among the medical community. We must give young women the tools they need to fight this disease by educating them, and we must make sure that they receive early detection, because when breast cancer is detected in the early stages, the survival rate is more than 98 percent. That is why I support H.R. 1740, the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009. This bill would increase awareness of risk factors for breast cancers and encourage early detection of the disease among young women through community-centered informational forums, through public service advertisements, and media campaigns. H.R. 1740 also aims to educate health care professionals about the unique circumstances young women diagnosed with breast cancer face. In addition to educating women, Mr. Speaker, about the risks of breast cancer, we must expand research into the causes and treatments for breast cancer, especially among young women who are excluded from breast cancer studies. Breast cancer is more difficult to diagnose in young women because screening methods that work on older women are less successful on younger women. We also need to learn more about the long-term effects cancer treatments have on women of any age. That is why the Annie Fox Act is an act that will help us invest in prevention and in treatment. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand here with my colleague from Florida and my colleague from North Carolina. I commend them both on the strength they have shown during their personal battle with this disease, and I applaud their efforts to help all women fighting breast cancer. I pledge to work with them so we can get this behind us.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for organizing tonight's Special Order because the men and women who serve in our military deserve nothing less than our respect, our support, and our admiration, yet the Department of Defense continues to deny them the respect they have earned by pursuing a devastating policy that is nothing less than discrimination against gay servicemembers. Don't Ask, Don't Tell requires that the military discharge gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemen and women because of their sexual orientation. A servicemember could be the best sharpshooter, the best medic, or the best language specialist in the military; it doesn't matter if he or she is a captain or a cadet having served 3 days or 30 years. If that Member is openly gay, he or she is fired. Don't Ask, Don't Tell denies our Nation their service, it denies our Nation--makes us less safe because this terrible and open discrimination in the military does no good. It takes away great members that should be working in what they want to do and helping us be safer day in and day out. It's clear that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a failed policy that not only punishes the thousands of highly qualified servicemembers who have been discharged from the military, but it wastes millions of taxpayer dollars as well. When you add up the cost of the training, the food, the lodging, the equipment, the uniforms, the staff support, and the transportation, our country makes a huge investment in our servicemembers to be the best in the world. But because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, all of this training and funding is wasted if a trained servicemember is openly gay. How can we invest the tens of millions of dollars in these young men and women, all of whom are desperately needed by the military, yet tell them they can't serve our country? This inflexible policy continues to weaken our Nation's ability to protect and defend itself by retaining qualified servicemen and -women. We must stop this. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has to go away. I was a freshman when we put this terrible policy in place, and believe me, I worked really hard trying to defeat it, but it's there. Let's get rid of it. Thank you, Patrick, for doing this. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I look forward to partnering with her to do that, to right the wrong from 16 years ago in this Congress and to finally overturn that discriminatory piece of legislation and to make it right for our troops. With that, I would like to turn it over to a fellow hockey player from the great State of Illinois, although he is a Black Hawks fan and not a Fliers fan. By the way, the Fliers won their home opener tonight 6-5 against the Washington Capitals, Mike Quigley.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has often said that America must restore its moral leadership in the world. He took a very important step toward doing that last week when he spoke at the United Nations. In his speech, the President called for a new era of engagement and diplomacy. He called for international cooperation to address such critically important issues as nuclear nonproliferation, climate change and economic recovery. He also spoke about banning the use of torture and his decision to close Guantanamo as examples of America's new desire to abide by the rule of law. I welcome the President's words. They show that President Obama is committed to peace and human rights. Those are the foundations of moral leadership. But now the President is facing the greatest test of his moral leadership as he reviews his strategy in Afghanistan. The generals are urging him to pour in more troops. I'm sure there are others who are telling him to escalate the fighting just so he can look ``tough on terrorism.'' But as the President makes his next decisions about Afghanistan, I would urge him to make the tough choices. I would urge him to base his decision-making on the following facts: the American people do not believe the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting and want to draw down the numbers of troops there. Sending in more troops will cause the Afghan people to see us as occupiers. And history has told us that the Afghan people always resist foreign occupations and always succeed. America cannot afford to pour billions of dollars more into a futile occupation when we are going through the worst economic crisis of the past 70 years. We cannot, in good conscience, ask our brave troops to take more casualties without a clear mission, and we don't have one. We cannot ask our military families to continue to sacrifice when they have already suffered so very much. And finally, we have no exit strategy. After the disaster of Iraq, the American people will not stand for another endless foreign occupation, one that will cost many lives and not make our country any safer. Afghanistan is a difficult problem, but the President still has good options. He can order the Pentagon to develop a troop redeployment plan and a timetable for withdrawal. At the same time, he can be bold and shift to a new mission that will be far more likely to succeed because it will actually have the support of the Afghan people. This new mission in Afghanistan would include economic development, education, infrastructure, humanitarian assistance, better governance and improved local policing and intelligence to hunt down extremists. This is what the Afghan people want from America so that they can have hope for a better future and reject violent extremism. Mr. Speaker, President Obama deserves credit for reviewing his decision earlier than expected to send more troops to Afghanistan. He is showing political courage, and he is showing an open mind by considering other alternatives. I urge him to choose a new course, one that will make our country proud and the world a much safer place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 732. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 732: No--on Motion to Adjourn.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for reforming our food safety system. As a tireless advocate for consumers' rights, I have continually supported protecting our Nation's food supply. Over the last several years, our country has experienced food- borne illnesses stemming from E. coli in bagged spinach and a salmonella outbreak in peanut products. As the number of outbreaks rise, it's essential that we dramatically improve our food safety laws. H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, will take important and necessary steps to remove tainted food products from our food supply and improve accountability for large processing facilities. I strongly support provisions in this bill that grant the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, new authority to hold more frequent inspections of food processing facilities and the requirement that all food facilities register with the FDA annually. To better combat food-borne illnesses, H.R. 2749 will also enable the FDA to establish a food trace-back system that will help public health officials identify the origin and path of food products when an outbreak occurs. Additionally, ensuring that imported foods are safe and that there are strong, flexible enforcement tools will restore Americans' confidence in the foods they purchase. However, despite these bold and necessary improvements, I continue to believe that we need to do more to respect the unique needs of small and organic farmers in this legislation. This is why I ultimately voted against H.R. 2749. Currently, organic farmers are required to adhere to strict traceability standards through the USDA's National Organic Program. The absence of specific guidance requiring FDA to harmonize new traceability standards with the National Organic Program will create potentially duplicative regulations and standards for organic farmers. The FDA's authority grew this year after Congress passed H.R. 1256, legislation I voted for, which enables the FDA to regulate tobacco products. After passing H.R. 2749, the FDA will also have expanded food safety authority. Without specific requirements included in this legislation, the FDA will not have the incentive or manpower to go above and beyond what is mandated in the law. We cannot overlook the requirements our organic farmers already follow as the FDA issues its traceability standards. Additionally, I worry that the growth of the organics market could be constrained by fee provisions in this bill. An increasing number of organic farmers sell to wholesalers as well as directly to consumers. This bill exempts farmers who sell their products directly to consumers from the annual fee, but not farmers who sell the majority of their products to wholesalers. By incentivizing organic producers to sell fewer than 51 percent of their products to wholesalers, we could be deterring organic farmers from branching out to new markets. This is not the time to be hindering the growth of organic farming by discouraging organic farmers from diversifying the markets where their products are sold. This legislation also must take into account the relationship between the co-management of conservation and food safety. The use of animals for pest control is a crucial component of organic farming, and this bill would restrict farmers from maintaining their organic practices. Instead of regulating all animals, this legislation could investigate other alternatives, including focusing on animals that are at a high risk for passing on diseases, to take into account the needs of organic farmers. More should be done to encourage biodiversity and natural farming techniques that farmers have used to reduce their dependence on pesticides and herbicides. Madam Speaker, food safety legislation must protect the health of consumers and respect the needs of family farms and sustainable producers. It is my hope that we can strengthen the provisions in H.R. 2749 affecting the unique needs of small and organic farmers when this bill is taken up in conference. I am encouraged by the work done to enhance the safety of our Nation's food supply, and look forward to continuing to improve this important legislation and our food delivery system.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague Representative Mike Thompson, to honor the life of Gene Tunney, who served as Sonoma County District Attorney for 20 years. Mr. Tunney passed away August 9, 2009, with his family at his side. Born in New York City in 1931, Mr. Tunney was the son of the famous heavyweight boxing champion James Joseph ``Gene'' Tunney and brother of California Congressman and Senator John Tunney. After a stint in the Army, he moved to the Bay Area where he enrolled in law school in San Francisco. In 1971, he began his first job in Sonoma County as a Deputy Public Defender. A few years later he ran for District Attorney, narrowly winning the race. He served in that office for five more terms, from 1974 to 1994. Mr. Tunney is credited with modernizing and professionalizing the District Attorney's office, guiding its transition in an era of increasingly urban types of crime. He placed restrictions on plea bargains and reviewed all felony cases while becoming an advocate for victims of crime. He was highly regarded for his sense of justice and for bringing changes to offices around the state after co-founding the California District Attorney's Association. Married 49 years ago, Mr. Tunney enjoyed spending time with his wife Ann and their family. After retirement, the couple lived for a decade in Hawaii where they pursued their mutual hobby, flying small planes, as well as traveling, swimming, and reading. They later moved to Tiburon in Marin County, California. Mr. Tunney is survived by his children Alexandra Kelly, Megan Tunney, Erin MacLeon, and Gene Tunney as well as seven grandchildren and brothers John and Jay. Madam Speaker, we are proud to honor Gene Tunney's contributions to our community and know that, with many of his Deputy District Attorneys serving on the bench, his legacy of high standards and fairness to victims will continue in Sonoma County.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleague Representative Mike Thompson, to honor a local public broadcaster, KRCB in Sonoma County, California. KRCB is celebrating 25 years of service to our local communities. Nancy Dobbs, President and CEO, has been the guiding force behind KRCB from the beginning. She notes that it is a rare opportunity to build such a public institution. ``When we started in January, 1981,'' she says, ``we had to argue for the license before the FCC, find land on which to build our offices and studios, raise money for a station that did not yet exist, and convince the community about the importance of our own public broadcasting service.'' Fortunately for all of us, the effort was successful. Today, we cannot imagine life in Sonoma County without KRCB, which provides PBS television, NPR radio, and local programming. It is the only PBS service available to more than a quarter million residents. Working with nonprofits, businesses, and government agencies, KRCB has led community dialogs on health care, the environment, and disability awareness, to name just a few. The station has been awarded three Emmys for its national environmental series National Heroes, has been honored by the California Teachers' Association for its North Bay Report, and has received honors for local election coverage, provided consistently for the past 17 years. KRCB also provides air time to celebrate local cultural events, such as the full season of the acclaimed Santa Rosa Symphony, which are available in no other venue. According to Dobbs, ``It was clear from the beginning that KRCB's mission was to utilize the public airwaves of which we are stewards to strengthen the communities we serve. Public broadcasting is a critically important tool with which to stimulate community dialog and engagement, central elements of a healthy democracy.'' Madam Speaker, we congratulate KRCB Television and Radio on its 25 years of service It is indeed a treasure of Northern California.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, a report written by General McChrystal, the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was leaked to the press yesterday. In this report, General McChrystal warns that the conflict in Afghanistan ``will likely result in failure'' if we don't send in more troops. The leak was an apparent attempt to put pressure on the White House and the Presidency to escalate the conflict. But, to its credit, the administration didn't go there and did not cave in. President Obama said that he is skeptical that sending in more troops will do any good. And he said, ``I'm certainly not somebody who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries.'' Madam Speaker, I'm relieved that we have somebody in the White House who will think long and hard before sending America's men and women into harm's way. But the President will certainly face a lot more pressure in the coming weeks to increase troop levels. I urge him to resist the idea for three very good reasons. First, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. We tried it for over 8 years. Our troops have fought with incredible skill and courage. But sending in more troops will only fuel anti-Americanism, and it will convince the Afghan people that the United States is an occupying force that must be resisted. Second, poll after poll shows that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the majority now believe that the war in Afghanistan is simply not worth fighting. Third, Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to keep pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this conflict. We need every one of those dollars to meet our urgent domestic needs here at home. We need to use our resources to dig out of the recession, not dig into a quagmire in Afghanistan. For all these reasons, the President and his advisers must rethink our mission in Afghanistan and look at changing our strategy. The Rand Corporation has produced a study of extremist groups that should help us develop the right strategy. Rand studied the history of 648 extremist groups, finding that military force was effective against these groups only 7 percent of the time. Two strategies that work better were negotiated political settlements and the use of intelligence and police agencies to dismantle extremist networks. Combined, these two strategies were effective 83--83 percent of the time. That's about 12 times better than the military option. Rand also applied its analysis to the current situation in Afghanistan and concluded that ``policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts'' against al Qaeda in that region. That's why policing and intelligence are two key components of my national security plan, which is described in House Resolution 363, the Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century. My plan also emphasizes economic development, infrastructure, jobs, education, and better governance for Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, by refusing to be rushed and sending more troops to Afghanistan, President Obama has shown that he is willing to change course. And we must change course. The American people want an exit strategy for Afghanistan, not an escalation strategy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every child and every adult is familiar with the story of Goldilocks. Remember how it goes: After wandering into the three bears' house, Goldilocks saw three bowls of porridge. One was too hot, one was too cold, but one was the medium temperature, and it was just right. I mention this because The New York Times recently reported that Goldilocks is playing a role in shaping American defense policy. According to the report, General McChrystal is expected to give Secretary of Defense Gates three options for troop increases in Afghanistan. The three options are, first, 15,000 more troops; second, 25,000 more troops; or third, 45,000 more troops. Pentagon officials apparently believe that Gates will choose the medium option of 25,000 troops. According to the Times, they actually call this the ``Goldilocks option.'' Here's why: Sending 15,000 more troops would be too cold because it wouldn't be enough to satisfy the generals; sending 45,000 more troops would be too hot because it would cause political problems; so sending the medium number of troops, 25,000, is considered ``just right.'' Of course the problem with this is that Afghanistan is not a children's story. It is a real war where real people are getting killed, and it is rapidly losing the support of the American people. Recent polls show that the American people want to reduce our troop strength in Afghanistan, not increase it. The American people have good reason to oppose the escalation of the conflict. They know that the recent elections in Afghanistan were filled with fraud, and they believe the Kabul Government is more interested in corruption than in improving the lives of the Afghan people. The American people also know that we have already spent nearly $225 billion in Afghanistan but have little to show for it. Our troops have performed brilliantly and courageously, but the insurgency is growing, and the war is getting harder to fight every single day. Besides, they believe the money that we have poured into Afghanistan is desperately needed here at home for health care reform and other vital domestic problems. The American people also know that we do not have a clear mission in Afghanistan, there is no exit strategy, and they fear that we run the risk of being considered an occupying force. Since the Afghans have opposed and defeated every single foreign power that has ever tried to occupy their nation, it all seems to be a repeat of past failures. For all of these reasons, we need to debate, and we need to reconsider what the U.S. role is in Afghanistan. I am urging the House to support my bill, H. Res. 363, the SMART Security Platform for the 21st century. The SMART Security Platform would change our mission in Afghanistan to emphasize economic development, humanitarian aid, education, jobs, and better governance. It would also help Afghanistan develop its policing and intelligence capacity. Policing and intelligence, you see, are far more effective than massive military invasions when it comes to tracking down violent extremists in the communities where they lurk. Mr. Speaker, if the administration sends more troops to Afghanistan, the United States will be doubling down on a strategy that has already failed. The Afghan people don't want the United States to occupy their country, and the American people don't want an occupation, either. I urge President Obama to reject any plan to send more troops to Afghanistan because, like Goldilocks who should not have eaten any of the porridge that did not belong to her, Afghanistan does not belong to the United States.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank you again, Congressman Ellison, for your leadership on these weekly hourly discussions about health care reform and what's going on in our Congress at this particular time. Things have happened this week. Finally, the Senate has two bills that were written and have been introduced. The second bill, coming out of the Finance Committee, has not passed through the committee yet, but it is the Bachus health care reform bill. And we have gotten a lot of pressure here--I know I have, I know you have, most progressives have-- because there's some idea out there that because the Bachus bill that doesn't have any Republican support either, after 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans spent months and months and months writing it, now Senator Baucus seems to be almost standing alone with that one. But he'll pass it through his committee, and we'll see what happens. But what does that mean to our proposal and our absolute commitment for a robust public option to be included in a very strong health care reform bill? As far as I'm concerned, it means nothing. What it does is it shows the opposite of what this country could end up with, and it gives wind beneath our wings for our debate on just why we need a strong, robust public option. And one of those why's in Senator Baucus's bill is that it does not provide a public option of any level. The public option we offer through the Progressive Caucus would have its rates determined based on Medicare plus 5 percent, and do you know that that saves $110 billion over 5 years? Over 5 years. And the Energy and Commerce Committee has a public option that they have proposed, and their public option rates would be based on negotiating with the administration, and their negotiated rates would save $25 billion. So we have $110 billion in savings through the Progressive Caucus plan, $25 billion in savings through the Energy and Commerce, and we have zero savings through Senator Baucus's plan. So that in and of itself is enough for me to know that that is not a bill that I want to be negotiating and compromising with.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Of course it's an important fact to know. I mean, if anybody is close to their patients and to the needs of this country, it is our physicians. They've been very important in inputting to all of the committees that have been writing legislation. And another thing that will be very important is when the House of Representatives brings all three of our bills--one from Ways and Means, Energy, and the committee we sit on, Congressman, Education and Labor-- when we unify those bills and come up with the House bill and we can say to our constituents and to the people of this country, this is the House of Representatives health care reform bill, then we will be able to hear back from them on exactly what that bill is. Right now we keep saying, well, it might be, we think it is. I mean, we're pretty sure about 99 percent of it, but not all of it.