Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that. We've got a great charter school dealing with science and technology in Apple Valley, California.

It's a fabulous school, and that model is working with our local people creating opportunities for jobs, et cetera. I like your idea. I may very well join you in some of those amendments, but at least join you in supporting this bill.

Will the gentleman further yield?

Presuming that, I mean, this is really a good idea. If we can get all the teachers unions in California to join us in this sponsoring of charter schools, then I'd really get excited about it.

Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the remarks of my colleague from California as well as his colleague from the Rules Committee, I wouldn't be making these remarks. I will begin with a quote:

``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.''--Senator Barack H. Obama, March, 2006.

By 2009, Senator Obama had become President Obama. In the 2 years since he became President, Federal spending has increased by over $500 billion a year. In the past 2 years, he has added nearly $4 trillion to our national debt. Now President Obama is in favor of increasing the national debt limit. When, oh when, will the real Barack Obama stand up?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to express my deep appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee as well as the ranking member, especially for the number of public hearings they had reviewing all of the programs of this subcommittee, taking us back to regular order in almost unprecedented form, making sure the public had a chance to talk to us about their view as to how these programs were working.

As we meet today, the country is faced with a crisis regarding our debt. Should we raise the national debt ceiling or not? That debate is swirling around whether we should reduce spending or we should increase taxes to fund additional spending desired by the administration and the former majority. It's very, very important to know that we are at a crisis point in terms of spending. With that backdrop, we can hear the same debate taking place in this very committee discussion. People complaining about not enough money for EPA, for example.

The fact is that most of these programs are over-funded relative to just a few years ago, and the debate and the concern is an expression about a desire for more spending or a lack of increased funding above and beyond the wish list of many around here. The fundamental issue ought to be discussed in terms of how programs have worked and not worked.

I've heard many complaints about air quality questions today by the other side. It was, Mr. Chairman, my privilege to write the toughest environmental laws in the country relative to improving air quality. Years ago, as we discussed implementing those policies in my State of California, the center of the discussion was to make sure we focus upon the real problems.

We can solve the problems of stationary sources, we said then, very quickly, very easily--up to 97 percent-plus of their pollution. The real problem lies with the automobile, doing something serious about that. What people do driving their cars is the key to the question.

The EPA has failed us in many, many a way in dealing with these major challenges, and I would suggest that any number of issues that might be raised is illustrated by the one endangered species I'd mentioned. That endangered species is the desert tortoise.

We could have solved that problem years ago by planting endless numbers of eggs in the East Mojave. Instead, the EPA decided to ignore and the environmentalists decided to ignore that potential, saying it took too long to plant those and have them grow to adulthood. The fact is, over the last 15 years, had we done that, we would not have that endangered species any longer. Recently, we learned the only healthy population of the desert tortoise was on the National Training Center Army base where they took care of the animals versus what we did in the environment. Indeed, the EPA deserves some serious review as well as reauthorization.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I've been listening from afar to this discussion on the floor, which is so, so fascinating. The former majority, wanting so desperately to become the majority again, is suggesting that by way of this bill we're taking the heart out of America's infrastructure program.

The fact is, in just recent years, the former majority increased spending in all of these categories at levels that would almost startle the people if they'd ever see the detailed facts. The fact that we are not increasing spending to their wish lists ahead, in some way, becomes a cut in their mind's eye when we're faced with the reality that the covered wagon that took us to California from the East is about to go over the cliff of bankruptcy if we don't do something about spending. This same voice, or series of voices, is currently doing battle over the debt limitation, and they're suggesting that we're holding this up because of some loopholes in taxes for the so-called ``rich.''

Conversations taking place by many of the rich of the House indeed reflect the reality that what they really want is more spending and more funding for these programs. While we're attempting to make an effort to cut back spending and to cut the impact of government on the private sector, these same voices will not give up until they have an opportunity to impose more taxes.

One of the two parties having this discussion wants more spending on government programs and wants more taxes. The other side of this discussion would suggest we ought to cut back spending, make sense out of our budget and, indeed, recognize that the private sector, in keeping some money in their jeans in order to invest in the private sector, is really the way to create jobs.

With that, it's fascinating to watch this discussion. I'll be glad to come back three or four more times and have this discussion, Mr. Chairman. In the meantime, I certainly would hope more people would talk about what they really know about the environment or really know about the Interior bill rather than the rhetoric that is part of next year's campaign.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my colleague for yielding.

Very briefly, while I am very respectful of my colleague's attempt here to

do what he can to cut clear back on spending, this is a very important area of our committee's responsibility.

The amendment would totally eliminate funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It is a bit, a step too far, and I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague and reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I appreciate my chairman yielding.

I must say that the gentleman from Georgia is making a point that we all understand. The Guard and Reserve are very important to our future, clearly, but even more important is for us to get this House back on a pathway to regular order, whereby we bring bills through the committees, bring them to the floor, open rules, have the opportunity to have these debates and the like.

I must say our chairman has done a fabulous job in moving in that direction, but I also would say that the ranking member of the subcommittee, who's also ranking member of the full committee, has been publicly committed to getting us back to regular order. Indeed, as a tribute to both of their work by way of strengthening the future of the House and our work this year, I would hope we not just defeat this motion to recommit but give an overwhelming vote in support of their fine work on final passage.

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

I very much appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman, and I rise only because I can't help but be moved by the Progressive Caucus' interest in getting us out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

I know of those who are very concerned about America being involved in wars anywhere. It was not my intention to speak about this subject until I heard my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) who has an amendment later that would strike the funding for approximately 2\1/2\ months of the proposed cost of this effort in Afghanistan.

And as I thought about that, I would want to caution my friend, Mr. Garamendi, and others, about the role in Afghanistan. Indeed, it is important for us to note, those of us who may have read ``Charlie Wilson's War,'' and I am sure my colleague has read it thoroughly, but Charlie Wilson was a colleague of mine on the Subcommittee on Defense who first raised the prospect of challenges in Afghanistan.

At that point in time, the Soviet Union was attempting to move into Afghanistan to take over that entire country, giving them access to the entire region, a warm water port, and

otherwise. If it had not been for, in my judgment, the effort as a result of Charlie Wilson's war and the efforts of Pope John Paul, who was then the bishop from Poland, perhaps it is very possible that the Soviet Union never would have fallen. But, indeed, Charlie Wilson's war created a circumstance where the Soviets did withdraw from Afghanistan. And so we were right on the edge of opportunity and peace and freedom in Afghanistan.

And what I would caution my colleague from California about is, following that, what did America do? America did what we often do in the world where there is strife and struggle, where we are asked to play a role in leadership, providing for opportunity and change for peace. The vacuum that was left in Afghanistan as a result of our walking away after the war, after the Soviets left, was that vacuum. And within the vacuum, there came terrorists who would have America and freedom in mind. Indeed, as a result of that vacuum, al Qaeda, Taliban, and others got strength and found a terrorist center. And now we are involved in a war that involves the future of the world, not just peace for the world but American peace as well.

Indeed, I would be very cautious as we go about suggesting that we ought to automatically walk away from the commander in chief's plan. Indeed, if we are not careful, the vacuum will catch up with us, and America will find itself in a much broader and a much more intense struggle.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the goals of this amendment which are to demand accountability from a nation that until recently has been one of our good friends.

Pakistan has faced serious problems throughout its history, and the United States has played a leading role in helping stabilize that troubled nation. We have spent billions and billion of dollars in military support and billions and billions more in economic assistance. We have worked as close as we can with Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies in order to stabilize the border region near Afghanistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban are trying to overthrow both Afghanistan and the Pakistan governments.

It is therefore hard to express the anger and frustration of all Americans when we discovered that Osama bin Laden, the man who had engineered the death of thousands on American soil, was living in comfort just a short drive from Islamabad. And we have asked in vain how this could occur. Rather than help us get to the bottom of how this international criminal could live for years within blocks of their military school, we received protests from Pakistani officials that our brave Special Forces captured and killed bin Laden under their noses.

But, Mr. Chairman, what has really outraged me and many of my colleagues is that the Pakistanis have had

the audacity to arrest and detain the informants who helped us bring this ultimate terrorist to justice. It is almost too much to take, and it is time that we made it clear to the Pakistanis that our friendship is at the breaking point. For this reason, I am convinced that we must carefully scrutinize every dollar that we are spending in Pakistan in this bill, and especially in the Foreign Operations bill.

And, Mr. Chairman, while I want to support Chairman Young and the work of Mr. Dicks, as well as the rest of my colleagues on this committee, I do want to serve notice that as we go forward and I am able to gather more information, I could very well be presenting a very similar amendment in the Foreign Operations bill. It is high time that we get the answers that we seek here and know really which friends are truly our friends.

Mr. Chairman, I thank very much Mr. Young of Florida and Mr. Dicks of Washington for the fabulous work they've done working together and developing this measure, which is something over $500 billion. And the public certainly will know that that's no small amount of money. But certainly, also they'll know it is the reason for us to have a Federal Government--funding available to preserve our Nation.

And as we leave this weekend to celebrate the 4th of July and the history of our country and the history of freedom, not just here but also available around the world, we know it's the work of this subcommittee and people like these leaders that have allowed us to continue to be on the point of the spear for freedom around the world.

Indeed, if there's a reason for us to have a Federal Government, it is to be able to preserve our freedom and to provide opportunities for others elsewhere in the world.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, it's also very, very important for me to point out that we are about serious and difficult challenges, especially in the Middle East at this moment.

A while ago, my friend Norm Dicks mentioned 1989 and Afghanistan and the challenges there. At that point in time, the Soviet Union was attempting to take over all of Afghanistan as a way of taking over the Middle East and to extend their desire to take over the world. A stop to that came by way of this committee's work and leadership from this committee.

If you have not taken the time to read about Charlie Wilson's war, you should, and recognize that that war led to the chants for freedom in Afghanistan.

If one would recognize, as of Charlie Wilson's war's time, we were successful at stopping the Soviet Union. But as we had that success, America did what it often does overseas: We walked away and left a vacuum in Afghanistan. And it was that vacuum that allowed the terrorists, al Qaeda and others, to extend themselves and train themselves and put us in the pressure box that we are in today in the country.

America must constantly be aware that we are the force for freedom and, working together, we will continue to help freedom in the world.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my deepest congratulations to these two gentlemen, these two leaders of this committee, Bill Young and Norm Dicks, extremely talented people who are bringing our committee and the Congress back to regular order so that we can work with one another and make changes in bills like this with free debate on the floor. Indeed, that is the strength of our Congress.

If the people will be patient with us, we'll actually accomplish some things. Indeed, freedom will continue to be a force in the world because of the work of these gentlemen. And our congratulations, as well as our best wishes, go out to their continued work and success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate my colleague yielding me this time.

I have come to the floor to let the world know that during the time I have been in the Congress, from my view, one of my dearest friends has just passed away.

Geraldine Ferraro and I came to the Congress together as classmates some three decades ago. She was more than just a friend. She managed to have me serve on the same committee with her that first term. From the Public Works Committee, it wasn't very long before she convinced a cross-section of us to travel with her to New York to attempt to have us better understand the difficulty New York has in delivering potable water to the people of the great City of New York.

Geraldine was a really, really tough lady, according to some. I knew her as a wonderful friend. She was a woman who cared about her constituency and fought very hard to represent their interests; and, indeed, the initial role of any Member of Congress is to represent or try to represent their people well, and Gerry and I learned together what that was all about.

So over these years as I look back on this service, the opportunity to serve with the woman who became the first major-party woman as a Vice Presidential nominee, it was always my privilege to say that Gerry Ferraro most importantly was my friend.

Mr. Speaker, when Gerry Ferraro and I came to Congress in 1979, she was one of just 16 women serving in the House of Representatives. It could be frustrating for my female colleagues at that time--my friend Congresswoman Shirley Pettis, who I had the honor of succeeding in the House, told stories of being asked on several occasions if she was someone's secretary when she got off the member's elevator.

But Gerry Ferraro, who had made a name for herself in the New York district attorney's office, soon caught the eye of Speaker Tip O'Neill. He named her to the Public Works and Transportation Committee and later to the Budget Committee. It was the beginning of a close relationship with Tip O'Neill, who eventually had a strong hand in putting Gerry in line to be named as the first female vice presidential candidate from a major party.

As a fellow member of the Public Works and Transportation Committee, I quickly saw that Gerry would be a very strong advocate for the needs of her Queens district. We both understood the absolutely essential priority of serving our constituents, and ensuring that federal dollars flowed where they could provide solutions to very major challenges.

I also found that although Gerry Ferraro had a pretty liberal reputation, she was ready and willing to work with members on both sides of the aisle to accomplish goals and serve the needs of her constituents and all Americans. She and I worked together often in recognition of the fact that 90 percent of the issues we confront here have nothing to do with partisan politics.

Her willingness to fight for her district and her ability to get things done brought her respect and admiration from people throughout New York and beyond. It also led Tip O'Neill to get her appointed to chair the party's convention platform committee in 1984. And that in turn led Walter Mondale to realize the great qualities of this hardworking, pragmatic representative from Queens. He asked her to be his vice presidential nominee, and history was made.

Mr. Speaker, today we welcome 74 women colleagues in the House and 17 in the Senate. That is without question an improvement to be applauded, although my old friend Gerry Ferraro would say there is still a lot of work to do. I do not doubt that many of those who serve with me drew their inspiration to run for office from Geraldine Ferraro's pioneering spirit, and I will always be proud that I served as her classmate.

So, with that, in memory of Gerry's service here in the Congress, I watched her grow as a human being and a public servant, and I am very proud of the fact that she is my friend.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Leader, I understand your recognizing Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks and others and our staffs for their fabulous work; but I think it would be a shame if we didn't recognize a specific person who has essentially been Mr. Rogers' right hand during all of this discussion. He is leaving the House at the end of the month to go to the private sector. He is a fabulous, fabulous guy, who is respected on both sides of the aisle.

Let's give Jeff Shockey a hand.

Amendment No. 232 Offered by Mr. Nadler

I thank the gentleman.

As Arlene and I were sharing thoughts about you, dear Jane, she expressed some consternation that she had not been able to find a young Sid. But, nonetheless, she suggested she was going to put up with me anyway.

Jane, we have admired your work for all of my life in public affairs. Since I have been in the Congress you have become a wonderful friend as well as a policy partner. I can't tell you how much I have enjoyed our years together on the Intelligence Committee.

Our work on behalf of our national security together hand in hand has been very important to Arlene and myself. You are a wonderful person, a wonderful personality, and we love you and wish you well as you go forward, Jane.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague for yielding me this time.

It has been suggested by more than one person, not just today but also a moment ago, that we are headed towards a cliff in terms of our financial circumstances. It could take our country to bankruptcy and create a circumstance from which we would, perhaps, never come back.

To suggest that this substitute makes sense really baffles me. I've been told by the Speaker that the gentleman from Ohio is a very thoughtful Member and will contribute a great deal to our committee, which he has and is; but across-the-board cutting in an effort to make sense out of our spending process makes no sense at all. We are elected to look at the whole mix and to pick winners and losers, to decide what programs should be cut significantly, and to decide which ones should be eliminated. Indeed, that is part of our work.

In this substitute, essentially we are taking all the work we've done these last several days and kicking it out the door. These efforts on the amendments were not worth any time at all. We shouldn't have been here these last several days. If this amendment is successful, there is just one thing that it does that is bothersome to me but which illustrates the point:

This amendment would provide $1 billion below our CR in terms of Homeland Security. That is 2.6 percent lower in funding for those people who are protecting the border. To suggest by way of this substitute that we can eliminate 1,000 of those people who are on the border is ludicrous in my judgment.

Indeed, it is our responsibility to select winners and losers, and this substitute is a waste of our time if we are serious about changing the direction of our country. So I would strongly oppose this substitute.

Madam Chair, during voting on Walden Amendment No. 404 to H.R. 1, I intended to vote ``yes'' in support of the amendment, but accidentally voted ``no'' due to the confusion of two-minute voting increments on a long series of amendments.

Amendment No. 516 Offered by Mr. Camp

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to very strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from southern California.

Before going to that, though, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to express my deep appreciation to both the work of my chairman and his ranking member putting together what I consider to be overall a very, very fine bill. I know of Mike Simpson's concern about those issues that relate to our environment and the interior especially. He is a fabulous chairman, assisted today by a very, very fine young person who is his staff director, not so young as he used to be, Dave LesStrang. But this fine bill also is put together by a cross-section of great staffers who are doing all they can to improve the conditions in which we live.

I rise to oppose this amendment in no small part because Ken Calvert and I over the years have shared the same problem. We live in a region known as the Inland Empire, and it is surrounded by beautiful, beautiful mountains. It's a wonderful area; but during much of our lifetime, indeed for decades, for 250 days-plus a year you could not see the mountains. How come? It wasn't because of the fog. It was because of 7 million automobiles starting their engines in Los Angeles and that which was spewed out going up against the mountains crystallizing with sunlight creating a thing called air pollution or smog. Indeed, the battle against air quality problems began many, many years ago for us, efforts to create a new standard of regulatory enforcement that would make a difference in the region.

Today, you can see that beautiful valley almost every day of the year because of the progress that we have made in terms of cleaning the emissions from mobile sources. We are very proud of the fact that we've controlled stationary sources. It is easy to point a finger at the big smoke stack and say, Oh, my God, that's the problem. Indeed, we have solved 99 percent of all those emissions, and air quality still is a challenge.

When you come to this question today, we are talking about serious efforts to improve the emissions that come largely from trucks, but diesel-using engines and those emissions have a tremendous impact upon air quality as well.

Over the years, all of our efforts have saved I don't know how many tens of

thousands of lives because we have improved the conditions in which these people have to live and breathe. But to suggest that we ought to begin to break down the progress being made on these engines by way of this relatively easy but, I must say, simplistic kind of transfer is a very, very big mistake.

So, Mr. Chairman, in the strongest way I urge our members to vote ``no'' on this $50 million transfer and recognize it's a lot more important to save the lives of those breathing foul air than to give a pittance to a very important environmental problem.

I very much appreciate my colleague, the chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues say they are shocked at the spending reductions we have proposed here. No one should be surprised. For the past several years, Congress and the administration have been spending like there is no tomorrow.

Since FY '08, we have increased non-security discretionary spending by almost 25 percent. In some areas, it has jumped by nearly a third in 2 years. Those were historic spending increases, and they don't even include the $800 billion that was in the massive failed stimulus package. That was such a huge amount of money that some agencies still have not been able to spend it 2 years later.

Well, my colleagues, tomorrow is here. The bill is coming due; and if we do not find a way to stop spending, we are headed towards fiscal disaster.

This absolutely should surprise no one. Republicans on the Appropriations Committee have been warning for 2 years that we cannot continue spending this way. We tried to stop it, to at least slow it down; but for the past 2 years we have not even been able to get an amendment to change the direction of our spendthrift ways.

So now we are faced with record deficits. The President's budget predicts an all-time high of $1.65 trillion in red ink next year. We have been warned that the Federal debt limit of $14 trillion must be increased. Within a decade, our Federal debt could equal more than 70 percent of our GDP.

Without question, this kind of spending is going to run our Federal budget off a cliff, and it will do more harm to our economy than we've seen from the current terrible recession. At least a third of our national debt is owned by foreign nations and investors. What will they do if we cannot begin to pay it down?

Last year, we paid nearly $415 billion in interest on our national debt. That is more than we spent on any discretionary government program other than defense. That is hundreds of billions of dollars not being spent to create jobs, not being spent to fix our roads, not being spent to secure our Nation; and it will continue to grow at an ever faster rate as long as we keep running up these huge deficits.

The American people told us last November that it is time to stop. They were alarmed enough to raise questions all over the country. They, indeed, at the polls indicated that we needed to find a new direction. They want fiscal sanity. They want us to stop spending now before it is too late. The spending reductions in this package are extremely painful. The cuts will affect programs supported by every Member of this House. When Americans begin to understand what is being reduced, we will all be receiving calls from people who are asking us to change our minds.

We must resist these calls for more spending. We cannot become Europe, where citizens believe that government can do everything. We cannot let the United States become another Greece or another Ireland or another Portugal--faced with fiscal collapse.

We have to make the decision now. These cuts will seem harsh, but we cannot avoid them. We cannot settle for half measures in the hopes that in 5 or 10 years we will stop adding to this terrible Federal debt. This is just the down payment. We need to begin entitlement reform to really solve our fiscal problems, but we must start now and we must start here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan. Or as he would have preferred 61st anniversary of his 39th birthday.

Our friendship began when he was Governor of California and I was a newly elected Assemblyman. We had a private meeting about a complex childcare issue. I walked away impressed by his grasp of the subject and how we shared a belief in the importance of the mother's involvement to early childhood development.

I was also impressed by Reagan's efforts to ease the impact of automobile exhaust in California. For too long, a dense layer of smog hid the gorgeous California landscape. Reagan worked tirelessly to make sure that, along with curtailing factory pollution, automobile emissions were kept in check.

President Reagan's leadership style blended deeply held conviction with an ability to transcend partisanship. His friendships with those across the aisle are a timely reminder of how the governing process should work. Reagan meant it when he said ``There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.''

Reagan's contributions on behalf of freedom around the world are unparalleled since the end of World War II. There is no more Cold War, there is no more Berlin Wall, there is no worldwide threat of Communist dictatorship because of the leadership of President Reagan.

When the history of our time is written, the accomplishments of President Reagan will shine out. He made America the land of opportunity once again, and brought the breath of freedom to millions of people around the world who had spent decades under the yoke of tyranny. His memory will live on among all the freedom-loving people around the world.

For me, the most endearing of his traits was his eternal optimism. Ronald Reagan truly believed that America was a ``shining city on a hill.'' His ability to see that, despite tough times, America is a nation of limitless potential was an inspiration to all.

I am honored to have both known and worked with Ronald Reagan, one of the great leaders of the 20th century. On behalf of all my Congressional colleagues, I wish him the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me in praising the life of Pauline Murillo, who was a wonderful lady, a strong leader for the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians, and one of the most important chroniclers and teachers of Indian history in Southern California. Mrs. Murillo passed away Jan. 21, 2011.

Pauline Chacon was born in 1934 on the San Manuel Reservation, which is in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains in Southern California. When Pauline was a young child, the reservation was tucked away from any nearby towns, and was little known to the residents of San Bernardino County.

But from an early age, Pauline became involved with an effort to reach beyond the boundaries of the reservation to help area schoolchildren learn the history and culture of the San Manuel tribe. Pauline and her mother, Tribal Spokeswoman Martha Manuel Chacon, visited schools to share factual accounts of tribal history, culture and language.

Pauline would carry this work forward as a tribal culture bearer, native speaker, author and presenter dedicated to a principal, ``To never forget who you are or where you came from.'' Today she is regarded as one of the most knowledgeable and influential resources on Southern California Indian history and culture.

She married George Murillo in 1952, and together they have three children, eight grandchildren and 19 great-grandchildren.

Mrs. Murillo wrote two books about her life and San Manuel culture and traditions, ``Living in Two Worlds'' and ``We Are Still Here Alive and in Spirit.'' Both contained hundreds of rare photographs. She was instrumental in the creation of an interactive CD-ROM for the Serrano- language and made traditional Indian cradle dolls and other crafts.

Pauline and George are well known for their philanthropy, donating time and funds to hospitals, schools and non-profits to benefit the greater community. In 2009 the Murillos donated $900,000 to Cal State San Bernardino to construct an observatory, which was named for the family. In 2008 the family's contribution to Loma Linda University Medical Center allowed the hospital to expand its lounge for oncology patients and their families and was rededicated to the family.

While Pauline Murillo was leading the San Manuel tribe in reaching out to the greater community, the cities of San Bernardino and Highland have grown to surround the reservation's borders. Although the reservation was once impoverished, tribal members have found success with the opening of casinos--and have become one of the top local employers in the process. As a highly-respected tribal elder, Pauline Murillo has ensured that the tribe remains a strong presence throughout the community. She was a member of the Highland Senior Center, the Highland Women's Club and the ``Red Hat Ladies'' service group.

Mr. Speaker, Pauline Murillo was beloved throughout our region--her nickname of Dimples tells much about her always-smiling presence. She was a treasured resource for Native American culture, identity and tradition. She spent hours with high school students and faculty telling of the language and history of the Serrano people. We will all miss her greatly. I ask you and my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to her loving family and friends, and to express our appreciation for the lifetime of service to her community.