Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, there are few things more important for us to deal with than the health and safety of our men and women in uniform. For everything they do, for all the courage they've shown and the sacrifices that they've made, we must be absolutely vigilant about protecting them from unnecessary risk. That's why I was troubled to hear news reports about several of our most highly trained and skilled Air Force pilots experiencing loss of oxygen while in the cockpit of the F 22 aircraft. We're talking about blacking out, losing control of the plane, and suffering memory loss. In fact, 18 percent of those who flew the F 22 reported an incident similar to this. In fact, one family blames this mysterious affliction for a crash that killed their loved one. We have some of our most fearless pilots afraid and even refusing to take the controls of the F 22. Two pilots went so far as to appear on shows like ``60 Minutes'' without permission from their superiors so that they could expose the problem. In response, Madam Speaker, I prepared an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House will debate today. My amendment would cut off funding for the F 22 until the Pentagon inspector general completes an investigation on these malfunctions and finds a solution to protect the safety of our pilots. Thankfully, my amendment wasn't necessary because, yesterday, Secretary of Defense Panetta took steps to impose flight restrictions on the F 22, demanding that the Air Force take stronger safety measures to protect our troops. Because of the Secretary's response to these life-and-death concerns, I have withdrawn my amendment, but I will stay on top of the situation. The F 22 isn't exactly a ``bargain basement'' item, Madam Speaker. Throughout the life of the program, it's cost taxpayers $79 billion. And that's for a plane originally designed to fight the next generation of Soviet jet, even though the Soviet Union, itself, didn't have a next generation, and it doesn't even exist any longer. What's more, the F 22 hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. It troubles me, Madam Speaker, that we've spent so much on slick, supposedly state-of-the-art aircraft that are making our Air Force pilots dangerously sick--at a moment when we could use that money on programs our servicemembers badly need. For example, veterans groups are fighting for more resources for mental health treatment, for job placement, for access to education, for VA home loans, and much more. Certainly we should invest in improving the lives of our troops instead of endangering them. My Republican colleagues are fond of pointing out that we're in a challenging fiscal environment where every government expenditure should receive the strictest scrutiny. I just hope that they'll apply as tough a standard to expensive weapons systems as they do to foreign humanitarian aid and important domestic safety net programs right here at home. As we debate the defense authorization today, we must choose the defense programs that actually enhance our national security over ones like the F 22 that are creating more problems than solutions. Madam Speaker, I believe more strongly than ever that we need to end the war in Afghanistan, supporting our troops by bringing them home; but, in the meantime, making sure that the planes they fly and the equipment they use are as safe as possible is certainly our number one responsibility. We owe them nothing less.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters: Project on Government Oversight, Washington, DC, May 15, 2012. Honorable Members, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. POGO's Picks for More Savings, Security, and Accountability in the National Defense Authorization Act: Nine Amendments To Support Dear Representative: As you prepare to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2013 (NDAA) and dozens of proposed amendments, we recommend nine amendments for more savings, security, and accountability. The Project On Government Oversight is a nonpartisan independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government. POGO recently released an update to our recommendations for national security savings with Taxpayers for Common Sense--Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter--which includes $700 billion in spending reductions. Some of those recommendations are being offered as amendments to the NDAA. We haven't assessed all of the proposed NDAA amendments, and don't yet know which ones will be made in order. However, POGO strongly supports the following sensible measures. 1. Prevent Human Trafficking by Government Contractors--Amendment by James Lankford and Gerry Connolly The End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012 is offered as a bipartisan amendment to stop U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding the abhorrent practice of human trafficking in war zones. In its final report to Congress last year, the Commission on Wartime Contracting said it had uncovered evidence of human trafficking in Iraq and Afghanistan by labor brokers and subcontractors. Commissioner Dov Zakheim later told a Senate panel that the Commission had only scratched the surface of the problem. He called it the ``tip of the iceberg.'' Existing contracting regulations to implement anti-trafficking plans are too weak. This amendment will strengthen the law and will require companies to closely monitor and report the activities of their subcontractors down the supply chain. It also would expand the definition of ``fraudulent recruiting'' to apply to laborers who work on U.S. government contracts outside the U.S., mandating responsible labor recruitment practices. It's time to end the suffering and abuses of our taxpayer-funded ``shadow army.'' 2. Restrict Taxpayer-Funded Compensation for Contractors--Amendment by Paul Tonko and Jackie Speier This amendment is based on the Stop Excessive Payments to Government Contractors Act of 2011--part of a bipartisan, bicameral push for reform--and would lower the existing contractor compensation cap to $400,000 and apply it to all defense contractors. Importantly, the provision would also ensure that the cap is set in such a way that it will stop the exorbitant growth rate the current formula has enabled. Taxpayer-funded contractor compensation should be reined in from the ever-increasing cap that currently well exceeds what the government pays its own senior executives--including the President. The current cap for contractor compensation is $763,029. It's time to stop making taxpayers foot outrageous contractor payrolls and rein in the growing cost of the entire government workforce. 3. Reduce Funding for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility--Amendment by Ed Markey, Loretta Sanchez, and Hank Johnson This amendment restores the cut already made by appropriators for a costly and unnecessary plutonium research facility. It also strikes sections from H.R. 4310 that would require the completion of the proposed facility and forbid Congress from funding less expensive alternatives. The cost of this nuclear boondoggle--known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR NF)--has swelled from $375 million to nearly $6 billion over the past ten years. Earlier this year, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said it does not need CMRR NF in order to fulfill its nuclear weapons and science missions. What's more, there is plentiful scientific evidence and expert testimony that says that the increased plutonium pit production enabled by CMRR NF is not necessary to national security. The President's budget and House Appropriations have already zeroed-out the funding, but one member of House Armed Services-- Representative Michael Turner--has ignored the evidence and sought to send more taxpayer dollars into this nuclear money pit. Support this amendment to restore sensible savings. 4. Delay the New Long-Range Penetrating Bomber Aircraft--Amendment by Ed Markey, Peter Welch, and John Conyers This amendment delays development of the next-generation long-range penetrating bomber aircraft through FY 2023 and reduces funds for the program by about $291 million. The Administration initially cancelled the program in FY 2010 as there was ``no urgent need'' for a new bomber because the Air Force expects its fleet of bombers to be operational for years to come. According to FY 2013 budget requests, the program is projected to cost at least $6.3 billion in the next five years alone, and would likely cost billions more over its lifetime. Deferring development of this costly and unnecessary system saves money and is low-risk because of robust U.S. bomb delivery capabilities that will be available for decades. 5. Stop the Rollback of Oversight of Nuclear Weapons Laboratories-- Amendment by George Miller, Peter Visclosky, and Loretta Sanchez This amendment would restore oversight over the nuclear weapons laboratories by modifying Section 3113 and striking Sections 3115 and 3202 of H.R. 4310. These sections pose dangerous rollbacks of health, safety, security, and financial oversight at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons laboratories. Section 3113 gives the NNSA's contractor-operated labs the ability to self-report and self- regulate their performance, despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included these labs on its list of programs that are at ``high risk'' for waste, fraud, and abuse for over 20 years. Section 3115 lowers the bar for health and safety standards at the labs by shifting oversight from the Department of Energy to the NNSA and its contractors. Section 3202 would weaken the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in its role as independent adviser to the nuclear weapons laboratories. Ever since the Board was created in reaction to serious safety issues at nuclear sites, the Department of Energy has been required to accept Board recommendations or give a reason for their rejection, but section 3202 requires the Board to submit drafts of its recommendations to the Department first, which would strip the Board of its complete independence. Section 3202 also increases the amount of time the Department has to respond to recommendations, which could undermine public health and safety. We need more oversight of the contractors at our nuclear laboratories--not less. 6. Replace the Costly Variant of the F 35 with Super Hornets--Amendment by John Conyers and Keith Ellison The Marine Corps' variant of the F 35 fighter plane is the most expensive variant of the most expensive DoD weapon program ever, and has been plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays. This amendment would replace the 6 Marine Corps F 35s the DoD plans to buy in FY 2013 with proven F/A 18E/F Super Hornets, which have many capabilities that rival the F 35 and cost far less to buy and operate. This amendment will save taxpayers $1.7 billion in FY 2013 and millions more in operating costs over the life of these planes. 7. Improve Service Contractor Inventories--Amendment by Jackie Speier Currently, service contract inventories released by the Pentagon provide little, if any, useful data about service contracts. Moreover, those inventories do not provide the agency with any information that allows it to make informed personnel decisions that will save taxpayer dollars. The offered amendment, which falls in line with Pentagon efforts to increase the data reported in the inventories, would require DoD to collect additional data about the labor, hours, and costs of service contract workers that can be used for comparing the cost of the civilian, military, and contractor workforces. 8. Redefine ``Commercial Item'' for Contracts as Proposed by DoD-- Amendment by Leonard Boswell This amendment mirrors the DoD's legislative proposal and would result in improved oversight of billions of dollars' worth of so-called ``commercial'' goods and services. It would narrow the definition of a ``commercial item'' to mean goods or services that are actually sold to the general public in like quantities. This would be a huge improvement over the current definition, which includes good or services ``of a type'' that are ``offered'' for sale or lease. POGO has promoted such a change to the definition since 1999, and now have been joined by DoD, the Department of Defense Panel on Contracting Integrity, and the Acquisition Advisory Panel. Since the mid-1990s, the government has been buying so-called ``commercial'' goods and services that are not actually sold in the commercial market. Making matters worse, these purchases are often without any government review of the cost data that leads to the final price the contractors are proposing. Would you buy a car if the dealer told you that you couldn't see the window sticker? We doubt it, and the government shouldn't either. 9. Right-Size the Bloated Top Ranks--Amendment by Mike Coffman This amendment would cap the number of General/Flag Officers at ``0.05 percent of the combined authorized strengths for active duty personnel.'' In other words, for every 2,000 troops there can be no more than one General or Admiral. This amendment will reduce the General and Flag Officer ranks by less than 5 percent. At the end of FY 2011, the military was more top-heavy than it had ever been in U.S. history. While the enlisted ranks have been shrinking, the top ranks have grown. Since 2001, the very top ranks, 3- and 4-star General/Flag Officers, have grown faster than any other personnel group at the DoD. It's time to right-size the top- heavy top ranks. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other national security issues with you. For more information, please contact me at 202 347 1122 or acanterbury@pogo.org. Sincerely, Angela Canterbury, Director of Public Policy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend Barbara Lee's amendment. Let's look at the facts. Two-thirds of Americans oppose our military occupation of Afghanistan. So if the American people were to vote on this amendment today, it would pass overwhelmingly with support from both Democrats and Republicans. After nearly 11 years, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. Congress must catch up to the people they represent and embrace a responsible end to this war. Instead of dumping $10 billion a month into an unwinnable war, let's redirect our resources towards a SMART Security approach. Let's invest in people. Let's invest in development. Let's invest in humanitarian progress. Let's bring our troops home. Vote ``yes'' on the Lee amendment. Vote ``yes'' for SMART Security. Vote ``yes'' for the American people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank the gentlelady from California for bringing this amendment forward. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and to show the difference between both sides of the aisle, because with all of the fiscal challenges that we face, it's just common sense that the most generously funded government agency, the Department of Defense, would tighten its belt just like everyone else. Sure, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy to cut and are big budget cutters when it comes to food stamps and Medicare and the safety net and anti-poverty programs. But when it comes to war and when it comes to weapons, they actually are the biggest spenders of all. I think the bare minimum we can ask is to keep the DOD budget at the level agreed to last year when we passed the Budget Control Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY. The majority is asking poor children, seniors, and women's health needs to make due with less. The same must apply to the Pentagon. Vote ``yes'' on the Lee-Frank amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, after 8 long and deadly years, we finally ended the war in Iraq. Hopefully, the war in Afghanistan is drawing to a close, but not nearly as quickly as I'd like. The last thing we can afford is to enter another military conflict that kills Americans, drains our Treasury, and undermines our national reputation and our national security. That's why I support this amendment. By sending a special envoy to Iran, we can take definitive steps to avoid war, giving diplomacy the best chance to succeed, and giving ourselves the best chance to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This is consistent with my SMART Security Platform, which demands that we explore every possible alternative to war, that we use peaceful conflict resolution whenever and wherever possible, that we make a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. So let's do the smart thing. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Prevent war.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, during my first term in Congress, I proudly voted for the Violence Against Women Act. It saddens me that 20 years later, in my last term, my Republican colleagues are determined to water down and undermine this landmark legislation. Of all things that shouldn't be partisan, this is it--the need to help those who suffer injuries at the hands of someone who supposedly loves them. As we've seen many times, the majority seems to like playing politics with women's health and safety. And because they rarely miss an opportunity to exclude LGBT Americans from important rights and benefits, they're saying that if you're a woman who is in a relationship with another woman, then you don't deserve the same protection against domestic abuse or sexual assault. We need to be doing more, not less on this issue. I have a bill that would extend family-leave benefits to victims of domestic violence. It's H.R. 3151. Why don't we take up that bill instead of this divisive measure that rolls back historic progress? Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4970.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this body will vote on a Republican budget bill that is nothing short of reprehensible. Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle are insisting that the poor and working-class families continue to suffer and struggle because heaven forbid we should ask the Department of Defense to do its share to meet our fiscal challenges. You can't walk into this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, without hearing a self-serving and self-righteous lecture from a Member of the majority about fiscal responsibility. But when they say, Let's cut spending, what they really mean is, Let's shred the safety net. So their bill puts a giant bull's-eye on the programs that struggling families need to keep their heads above water, especially in this tough economy. Under their bill, fewer women will get breast cancer screenings, fewer poor children will get meals at school or access to health care, and 1.7 million fewer seniors will get Meals on Wheels and other home-based services. They are willing to cut Medicare child abuse prevention and consumer financial protection, and they want to push 1.8 million people off the food stamp program--a program, by the way, that my family needed to survive when I was a single working mom more than 40 years ago. I don't know what we would have done without food stamps. But guess which part of the Federal Government--which bloated, well- fed bureaucracy--continues to get lavish support from the majority? That's right--the Pentagon, the military industrial complex. Even though the sequester is supposed to apply across the board, the majority wants to exempt defense and make domestic programs absorb all the cuts. That's the way they do business. They pinch pennies on the very real human needs of the American people. They nickel and dime hardworking families who deserve a fair shot and need a hand up. For 10\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, we've been at war. And between Iraq and Afghanistan, the American people are out $1.3 trillion--that's trillion, with a T, Mr. Speaker--$1.3 trillion wasted on a policy that is killing our people, hurting our national security, and undermining our standing in the world. For pennies on the dollar, we could replace permanent warfare with a SMART Security platform that will keep our country safe by focusing on development, diplomacy, and investment in humanitarian needs in the developing world. And we'd have plenty left over--plenty--to shore up the safety net, fund antipoverty programs, and restore the American Dream. If we're serious about reducing the deficit, then progressives are willing to talk, but there has to be a shared sacrifice. There has to be a balanced approach. We won't take it out on our most vulnerable people, not when we're waging a failed war that is our biggest ticket item, not when we continue to throw billions of dollars at Cold War aircraft and weapons systems that are serving absolutely no purpose. And not when we continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal that's enough to destroy civilization several times over. Targeting social services while giving defense and war spending a free pass is not fiscal responsibility. It's ideological warfare. Let's get our priorities straight. It's time to cut defense spending, Mr. Speaker. It's time to bring our troops home. And it's time to reinvest in the American people. And the time is now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States traveled to Afghanistan last week to sign the Strategic Partnership Agreement with President Karzai, and while this agreement is intended to signal the beginning of the end of the Afghanistan war, instead it actually looks like it could lock the United States into a military commitment for years to come. The agreement calls for our Armed Forces to be involved beyond 2014 in the ``training, equipping, advising, and sustaining'' of Afghan security forces so that Afghanistan can combat terrorism and ``secure and defend itself against internal and external threats.'' The irony in that statement, Mr. Speaker, is rich. When are we going to realize that the internal threats facing Afghanistan gather more strength with every day that American boots are on the ground? Insurgents are energized and animated. They bolster their recruitment and increase their numbers because of their resentment over a U.S. military occupation that is now in its 11th year--11th year. We will not bring stability to Afghanistan until we fundamentally alter our bilateral relationship to emphasize peaceful, civil engagement over military engagement. The good thing about this Strategic Partnership Agreement, however, is that it does include provisions relating to democracy promotion, economic development, and assisting in the reforming of the Afghans' governing institutions. These programs need to be the centerpiece of our Afghan strategy, along with major investments in development aid across the board. The war won't truly wind down until the White House commits--I mean commits--to spending more on diplomacy and more on development and reconstruction than they're spending on the military occupation. We need a dramatic shift in resources--more to rebuild Afghan infrastructure, more to fight poverty, more to reduce infant and maternal mortality, more to send children, especially girls, to school. As long as we maintain a military presence in Afghanistan, as long as fighting is the focal point of our relationship, we will be preventing and undermining the important humanitarian work that needs to be done. Mr. Speaker, investing in the Afghan people is not just the right thing to do because of our common humanity, it is the smart thing to do from the standpoint of our national security objectives. That's why I call my plan SMART Security. It needs to be implemented not just in Afghanistan, but in other unstable parts of the world where terrorism poses a grave threat. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times is on board with the principles behind SMART Security. In a column last week, he talked about how a $13 million scholarship program for Lebanese students is doing a lot more to advance our values in that country than $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt. He quotes a schoolteacher in Jordan who talks about how the former is for ``making people'' and how the latter is for ``killing people.'' What is the point of our engagement, Mr. Speaker, with the rest of the world--to make people or to kill people? That's a very important question for us to answer. As Friedman puts it: So how about we stop being stupid? How about we stop sending planes and tanks to a country where half the women and a quarter of the men can't read, and start sending scholarships instead? How about we stop being stupid, Mr. Speaker? How about we make the shift to a SMART Security approach? How about we make that shift now and begin that shift with bringing our troops home?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery and selflessness of Maurice and Sophie Conti of Muir Beach, California. On October 13, 2008, the Contis, along with their young children Massimo and Annabelle, led the rescue of three sailors stranded by the sinking of their yacht some 60 miles from Fiji. The Contis have been recognized internationally for putting their own lives at risk in the service of others, and their example is a true credit to the sailing community and the people of Marin County. On the night of October 12, 2008, the Australian and New Zealand crew of the Timella issued a distress call after running aground on the Takau Lakaleka reef in Fijian waters. After contacting the Australian and New Zealand High Commissions, the Contis quickly realized that no other vessel was in a position to assist the Timella. In the darkness, they set out on the two-and-a-half hour voyage to meet the stranded sailors, whose ship and life raft had both already sunk by the time of their arrival. While Sophie Conti handled the Contis' catamaran in swells measuring 10 to 15 feet, Maurice Conti carefully navigated the reef to reach the crew of the Timella by dinghy. Coordinating with rescue teams based in New Zealand, the Contis then brought the stranded sailors safely to Fiji. The Contis were awarded the International Maritime Organization Award for Exceptional Bravery at Sea in 2009, and Cruising Club of America has awarded them the 2009 Rod Stephens Trophy for Outstanding Seamanship. This month, Maurice and Sophie Conti are also receiving New Zealand Bravery Medals from the government of New Zealand. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking the Conti family for their courage. They represent the best of the maritime tradition, and they are exemplary ambassadors for the civic-minded spirit of our community.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in my dictionary, a ``slush fund'' is defined as ``a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda.'' Yet, the Speaker of the House used that term, and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee used that term ``slush fund,'' to describe the prevention and public health fund, which saves lives by paying for childhood immunizations and screenings for cervical cancer and birth defects. We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. I refuse to accept the idea that to solve one problem, we have to create another. The Democrats proposed righting the Ryan Republican budget wrong by taxing oil company profits. Therefore, their suggestion that we go from 3.4 percent interest to 6.8 can be paid for out of the wealth of oil companies that benefit from our country so tremendously. Mr. Speaker, I reject the blackmail inherent in H.R. 4628. I don't want anybody to know that it's okay to pit one group against another, and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. We have to do the right thing. We have to choose both.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628. A Union of Professionals, April 26, 2012. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.5 million members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. As you know, on July 1, interest rates on federal subsidized Stafford student loans will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This increase will affect 7.4 million low- and middle-income students, having a lasting impact on the long-term costs of their loans and on their future life decisions, like buying a home, owning a business or starting a family. College students are graduating with record levels of debt. In fact, national student debt has surpassed our nation's credit card debt, and with the high levels of unemployment and underemployment for graduates, there could hardly be a worse time for the interest rate on Stafford loans to double. We are pleased that both parties in the House have now finally acknowledged the need to prevent interest rates from doubling in July. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to pay for the cost of keeping the rates low for one year. Under H.R. 4628, the majority proposes to take billions of dollars from the prevention and public health fund in the Affordable Care Act. This fund helps ensure that women receive affordable and critical preventive healthcare, like breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings that can save their lives and reduce unnecessary medical costs to them and to taxpayers. And the fund supports community health centers, provides child immunizations and helps children with birth defects. Alternatively, the minority supports ending unfair tax loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, and then using these savings to prevent loan rates from doubling. Congress should not rob Peter to pay Paul by using a funding stream geared to help public health and provide preventive healthcare to pay for the loan rate extension. It is unconscionable, when other options are available, to propose that the student loan problem be solved by undercutting the healthcare available to women, children and others most in need of assistance. Instead, the majority should be supporting other ways to pay for this proposal, such as requiring wealthy individuals and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. Again, I urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628. The House must stop playing politics with students' debt and put forth a serious proposal with responsible and fair offsets. Thank you for considering our views on this important matter. Sincerely, Kristor W. Cowan, Director, Legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the United States Government and Afghanistan reached a strategic agreement to define the terms of the relationship between our two countries in the near-term future. First of all, this agreement affirms that our combat troops will not leave Afghanistan until 2014, which is far too slow a timetable. Don't we have enough evidence right here after 10-plus years that we're not making America safer with this war, we're not minimizing the terrorist threat, and we're not bringing stability and security to Afghanistan? How much more will Americans be asked to sacrifice? How many more tens of billions in taxpayer dollars will be wasted when we have so many needs right here at home? How many more Americans have to come home in a casket? How many more will take their own lives because the mental health distress of serving in a combat zone becomes too much? How many more have to spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, or without a limb or limbs, because of injuries suffered in an immoral and unnecessary war? Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there is not a minute to waste. Now is the moment to end this war and bring our troops home. The meeting this weekend does, however, show the importance of a plan going forward, a plan that will define the terms of our engagement with Afghanistan after the war is over. I've always said that ending the military occupation does not mean abandoning Afghanistan. The question is, what form will our partnership take? And on that question, the agreement signed this weekend provides very little guidance. According to The Washington Post, in fact, and I'll quote them, they say: ``The specifics of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan have yet to be formally outlined.'' Then The Post adds that ``the document provides only a vaguely worded reassurance, leaving many to guess at what the U.S. commitment means in practice.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, we need more than a guess. We need a clear strategy for investing in Afghanistan and it's people. And while a lot of the talk has been about continuing to shore up Afghan security forces, we need a much more comprehensive approach. In short, we need to implement SMART Security, the strategy that I've spoken of from this spot hundreds of times since 2004. SMART Security would replace our military surge with a civilian surge. It would put humanitarian aid in front and center. It would emphasize development and diplomacy instead of invasion and occupation. It would mean, in place of troops and weapons, we send experts with tools and resources to rebuild Afghan infrastructure, hospitals, and schools. It would mean investing in programs to improve maternal health and child mortality. It would mean a focus on democracy promotion and rebuilding civil society in Afghanistan. It would also mean shifting the emphasis to peace-building, conflict prevention, and human rights education. This approach would save lives. It would promote peace. It is a superior counterterrorism and national security strategy. It will keep the American people safe. It will advance our values in a way that a decade of war clearly has not. We can't wait until 2014, Mr. Speaker. We need a SMART Security approach in Afghanistan, and we need it now. And we need to start by bringing our troops home.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Rep. Mike Thompson, to honor the career of Dr. Robert Agrella, who formally retires from his position as president of Santa Rosa Junior College (SRJC) on May 5, 2012, after 22 years. Just the fourth president in the 94-year history of SRJC, Dr. Agrella has overseen a period of substantial change in an institution now recognized as a national leader in community college education. His management and foresight have benefitted us all by bringing higher learning closer to the people of the North Bay. Serving over 36,000 students each semester, and drawing on the expertise of some 3500 faculty and staff, Santa Rosa Junior College is amongst the oldest and most widely recognized two-year colleges in California. It is also a large and growing institution, with two main campuses and a number of career-specific facilities dedicated to public safety, agriculture, technology, culinary arts, and more. It is a proud part of Dr. Agrella's legacy that many of the SRJC facilities have been built, expanded, or refurbished during his tenure. In the 1990s, classes first began at the Petaluma campus, and SRJC moved into several new buildings in Santa Rosa. In the past decade, during a time of increasing budgetary difficulty, the new Frank P. Doyle Library, a new student services center, and vast new improvements at the Petaluma Campus and elsewhere have all been completed or undertaken. These are the products of Dr. Agrella's tireless work to unite SRJC staff and a Sonoma County community committed to the funding and planning necessary for continued growth. SRJC has also become a model for environmental consciousness, supporting green construction and a thoughtful, collaborative approach to development. As the North Bay has grown and diversified, so too has the training and education SRJC offers to meet the needs of our community. While opening new facilities in agriculture and public safety--areas of historic strength in Sonoma County--Dr. Agrella has also overseen an expansion into new areas that will strengthen our economic base and serve the needs of a modern workforce. High technology, green energy and green building, tourism and hospitality, and performing arts offerings have all been upgraded. At the same time, scholarships have been greatly expanded to serve a diverse and inclusive College community. Dr. Agrella's role in realizing these changes has been widely recognized in Sonoma County. He has been named Santa Rosa Citizen of the Year, and he is the recipient of the Spirit of Sonoma County Award. In appreciation of his longstanding service to SRJC and Sonoma County, Dr. Agrella has also been named the College's first president emeritus. Mr. Speaker, we ask you to join us in thanking Dr. Agrella for his contributions to Santa Rosa Junior College, and in wishing him all the best in his retirement. Dr. Agrella leaves SRJC with a remarkable legacy of service, and with a firm footing for a strong, progressive future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of a passionate and dedicated public servant. Marin County Fire Chief Ken Massucco retired at the end of March 2012 after a career of nearly four decades protecting our communities. After a year volunteering with the Kentfield Fire Protection District, Chief Massucco joined Marin County Fire Department in 1974. He rose through the ranks as Fire Lieutenant, Senior Captain, and Battalion Chief before being appointed Fire Chief in December 2001 by the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Throughout his tenure, Chief Massucco maintained a special connection with the residents he served in unincorporated Marin County, and with the firefighters and office staff responsible for keeping our communities safe. In a Department that includes more than 80 full-time and 60 seasonal workers covering a broad and geographically diverse region, it was the care and leadership of Chief Massucco that ensured strong partnerships with the public. I was especially impressed to see Chief Massucco's work as a lead member of the team that battled the Angel Island fire in October 2008. Marin County firefighters spearheaded a difficult effort to save invaluable cultural and historical treasures, including the Angel Island Immigration Station, which is recognized as a National Historic Landmark and a part of the California State Parks. All Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Chief Massucco and the Marin County Fire Department for their efforts to ensure the survival of this unique site. Chief Massucco also brought his leadership to other public safety initiatives, and his work was recognized beyond our County. He assisted firefighters in emergencies across California as an Operations Section Chief within the Incident Command System, and in 2009 he was recognized by the California Fire Chiefs Association as Fire Chief of the Year. Chief Massucco also led our County Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, which offers emergency services not only in Marin County, but also to partners across the country in need of additional responders. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking Chief Massucco for his contributions to Marin County. He has set an admirable standard for compassionate and responsive public service, and we wish him the best in his retirement.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David Grabill, a lawyer in Santa Rosa, CA, who is receiving the Jack Green Civil Liberties Award from the Sonoma County Chapter of the Northern California American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This award is presented annually to a leader who has advanced the cause of social justice in the community. During his 45 years of practice, David Grabill has represented individuals and groups in civil rights cases not only in our community, but in places like Gary, Indiana; Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota; Charleston, West Virginia; and Delano and Escondido, California. He assisted in Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign, represented members of the Black Panther Party in Los Angeles, and worked with the United Farm Workers on union rights. He has also extended his practice to welfare and reproductive rights, Native American legal services, black lung, labor matters, and others, giving his time and expertise to those in need of legal services. Mr. Grabill grew up in Washington, DC, and attended Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania law school. He met his wife, Dorothy Battenfeld in West Virginia, and, in 1981, settled with his family in Santa Rosa. He served for 14 years as directing attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), working on behalf of California's rural poor. He soon joined with other attorneys during the Reagan administration to obtain an injunction prohibiting the federal government from detaining any individual merely to investigate her/his immigration status unless they had reasonable grounds to believe the person was not legally in the Country. He also served for many years on the Board of the Sonoma County ACLU Chapter where he provided significant pro bono legal support on various issues. Today David Grabill specializes locally in cases involving affordable housing and housing discrimination. With the Housing Advocacy Group (HAG) that he started with friends in 1998, he focuses his efforts on creating more affordable housing and combating discrimination against lower income, mostly Latino and African American, residents. Mr. Speaker, David Grabill has dedicated his life to the advancement of social justice and human rights. Please join me in congratulating him on the Sonoma ACLU's Jack Green Civil Liberties Award.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. In that action by the Supreme Court, big business was given a louder voice than the individual in this country. If we want to protect our democracy, that's what we have to bring an end to, all that money coming into the political system without transparency and making the average citizen feel like their voice means nothing.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. I believe that it's evermore important that we do something about the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturns nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws in this country which limit corporation involvement in political campaigns.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I'd like to thank the chairman of the Progressive Caucus for bringing this together today to talk about what's so important to the people of the United States of America, our country, and in turn the world. I want to say a few things about the Buffett rule just to fill out that discussion. There are some things we know: the Buffett rule is fiscally responsible. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett rule could reduce the deficit by anywhere from $47 billion to $162 billion over the next decade. The Buffett rule is widely supported, as the chairman just said. The Buffett rule would restore the principled fairness of the Tax Code because it ensures that millionaires can't game the system to pay a lower rate than middle class families. Overwhelming majorities of Americans across the political spectrum believe millionaires should pay their fair share. An overwhelming 76 percent of Americans support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than $1 million per year, which includes 75 percent of Independents and 56 percent of Republicans. The majority of millionaires themselves support the Buffett rule. In a recent poll of millionaires, an overwhelming 68 percent support the Buffett rule. Millionaires support the Buffett rule. And remember, it's taxation above $1 million and it's stepped up. It isn't the minute you hit $1 million you're taxed at a much greater rate. It's over. From $1 million up, the taxes will go up. Seven thousand millionaires paid no individual income taxes in the year 2011. Seven thousand millionaires didn't pay any personal taxes in 2011. According to the Tax Policy Center, 7,000 millionaires--it was that tax center that told us that. The Republican budget would shower even more tax breaks on millionaires while putting more of the burden on the middle-class families. While Democrats are fighting to restore fairness in the Tax Code, the Republican budget offers extreme right-wing alternatives-- that's my opinion--that would shower millionaires and billionaires with tax breaks at the expense of the middle class, and that would further skew the system in favor of the wealthiest Americans. So we've got a lot of statistics. We know the facts. We're ready to support the Buffett rule. Millionaires, themselves, support it. So the question is: Why can't we get the people we work with in the U.S. Congress to support the Buffett rule?

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to say, by caring about American workers, by caring about women and children, by caring about our seniors, by wanting to put food on the tables of all Americans and help them with clean air and good food and clean water, if that labels us, so be it. All that says to me is somebody is very frightened about the good things we do. I think we should move on now.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to add a couple of things about the Buffett rule. There is so much to talk about that, I'm sure, our C SPAN viewers and probably most of the Members of Congress really don't realize. The 400 highest-earning Americans in 2008, who made an average each of $271 million, paid an average effective Federal tax rate of just 18.1 percent. At the same time, a married couple earning $70,000 a year paid a rate of 25 percent. Is that just unbelievable?

Ms. WOOLSEY. The Buffett rule seeks to restore balance to families, and the Tax Code would make sure that no millionaire would pay a lower tax rate than middle class Americans. In fact, the Buffett rule is targeted. The legislation will only impact taxpayers with a taxable income of over $1 million who are not paying a minimum tax rate of 30 percent. So realize that. Of the 144 million tax returns filed in 2010, fewer than 500,000 of them--0.1 percent of the taxpayers--had taxable incomes of over $1 million. Remember, these are taxable incomes because there are lots of write-offs.

Ms. WOOLSEY. You're right. They have an influence in the political process, and average working Americans don't realize that that's not them. The families who earn $70,000 a year are taxed on that at a rate of 25 percent.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Hank, the entire time I've been in the Congress--I mean, I've been here for 20 years now, and we've had a Republican majority and we've had a Democrat majority. But when the Republicans have been in the majority, they use as part of their mantra that they are returning government to the people. Excuse me. Citizens United takes government away from the people. I don't hear them trying to change that. They--the other side of the aisle, the party in the majority right now--seem to be defending Citizens United. The other thing they are doing at this moment is they are trying to upend the Presidential campaign finance system. They want to drown out the voice of the people and give more power to the well-heeled special interests in the Presidential elections as well. Those elections go quite well with public financing. People choose on their tax form whether or not they want to give to the Presidential elections.