Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the College Cost Reduction Act. For far too long we've watched as Pell Grants have stayed flat and tuition has continued to soar, over 40 percent in the last 6 years alone.

Students today are graduating with greater and greater debt. As a result, they are increasingly unwilling to take critical public sector jobs such as first responders, law enforcement officials, nurses and teachers because of the modest salaries. For example, nearly 32 percent of graduates pursuing teacher careers can't afford to repay their loans on a starting teacher's salary.

By passing the College Cost Reduction Act, we are encouraging and rewarding public service by providing $5,000 in loan forgiveness to graduates who take public service jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this is one excellent provision that makes an important investment in our communities, and it's just one of the many reasons I'm going to be supporting this legislation today.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the College Cost Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I rise in very strong opposition to both amendments by my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) which eliminate current protections for sensitive, coastal marine areas for new offshore drill for oil and gas.

Under these amendments, we could literally see the push for new drilling off our coast begin almost immediately. Though oil and gas companies awash in profits from our open constituents profits would have us believe that all the offshore resources are off limits today, that we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil, and also that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling, these arguments don't hold up under scrutiny.

First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, already has access to it. Indeed, according to the Bush administration, about 80 percent of the known reserves are located in areas where this drilling is already allowed. Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns the drilling rights to more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico alone.

Second, there is no such thing as natural gas-only drilling. Drilling for gas, natural gas, means drilling for oil.

Even the Bush administration and the energy industry have dismissed so-called gas-only drilling as unworkable. This is what the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has to say about gas only drilling. This is a quote, ``There are a lot of times when you drill for oil, and find gas instead--and the other way around. You never know for sure what you're going to find until you're in there.''

Here is another quote from the former head of Minerals Management Service. ``While gas-only leasing sounds appealing, as a practical matter, it may remain difficult to implement in a manner that reflects sound public policy.''

Now, finally, new drilling off our coast is not going to lower gas prices today or any time in the near future. It would take an estimated 7 years for natural gas from new leases to come online, 7 years. Serious energy efficiency measures, and more use of renewables, this would reduce demand and bring down prices much faster.

Mr. Chairman, President Bush has promised to end our oil addiction. Yet, energy prices and industry profits are at record highs. The predictable result of a strategy of focusing on supply and ignoring demand. The Peterson amendment to drill within miles off Florida, California and other coastal States is just more of the same. With 3 percent of the world's resources, 25 percent of the world's demand, it should be obvious there is no way we are going to drill our way out of this problem.

We need to use energy in smarter ways to improve fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, invest more of the development of new, cleaner technology. In doing so, we would be generating way more jobs, the kinds of jobs and growth that will ensure our continued preeminence in among the world's economies. Let us not sacrifice our most important treasures, our coastal economies, in a hopeless way to drill our way to energy security. It doesn't work.

I urge all my colleagues to protect our coasts by defeating both Peterson amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these amendments which eliminate, and I think we heard it clearly, eliminate the long-standing bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling.

I support the current ban not just because I think our coasts are beautiful, and they are, and not just because I believe our coasts provide valuable environmental habitat, and they do, I support the ban because I know our coastlines are the economic engines of our communities and that is being threatened by new drilling.

The people in these communities, I represent them. I know the value of their coastlines, and that is why they are so against new drilling in these areas. These amendments would mean drilling within 3 miles of the beaches of Florida, California, North Carolina, and other coastal States. It also means drilling where there isn't a whole lot of oil and gas, and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear they don't want more drilling.

Mr. Chairman, the congressional moratoria has been in place for 26 years and reaffirmed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, and every Congress since 1992. State officials have also endorsed the moratoria, including Republican Governors Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

These actions have all been met with widespread acclaim by a public that knows how valuable, environmentally and economically, our coastlines are. I represent a district with over 20 oil and gas platforms off its coastline. I know that drilling has serious consequences for the environment. I see it every day.

I know that drilling generates huge amounts of waste, and significant levels of air and water pollution. These pollutants are a real threat to our public health.

These amendments are just a continuation of the backward thinking energy policies that have gotten us here in the first place. Last year, 279 Members of Congress voted to protect the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium when we defeated a similar amendment to push for drilling off our coast.

Votes against these amendments are the same thing: A vote to protect our coasts and a statement for new thinking on energy. And so I urge my colleagues with all the strength that I have to oppose these amendments and keep our coastline pristine, the economic engines that they are, and a stewardship we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I thank the chairwoman of the Foreign Operations Committee for her leadership in this area.

My life has been devoted to public health, to bettering it. And this amendment is bad public policy wherever it will affect lives. It forces, actually, bad public health policy and removes the flexibility to opt for better allocation of public health services.

PEPFAR is extremely important to our fight against the transmission of HIV/AIDS and our treatment of the 40 million people living worldwide with this disease. But as the Institutes of Medicine and GAO have both reported, country teams have been greatly limited in their ability to provide effective lifesaving services by the restriction

that has been placed for the past several years.

I applaud Chairwoman Lowey for lifting this restriction by allowing PEPFAR funds to be spent where they are actually needed in order to accomplish the program's goal.

We spent all last week listening to complaints about a lack of responsible spending. Quite frankly, making the amount of funds available for proven effective public health programs dependent upon spending for unproven, ineffective programs is the epitome of irresponsible spending.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to support responsibility.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to MSgt Richard J. Brule, as he retires from the United States Air Force. MSgt Brule hails from Colorado Springs, CO and enlisted in the USAF on May 14th, 1987. During his tenure, he has consistently shown leadership and motivational skills in training other personnel in various skills.

MSgt. Brule began his Air Force career as an experienced mechanic and while at Nellis A1C, helped to establish a ``Self Help'' bay by building, supplying and mounting a tool shadow board in the minor maintenance section. This project enabled local organizations to perform their own minor maintenance which helped to clear the work order backlog, often returning vehicles to service within the same day. Continuing his exemplary service, Brule was selected as ``Airman of the Quarter'' while stationed at RAF Bentwaters in the UK. During operation Desert Storm, Sergeant Brule played a key role in preparing and deploying 120 vehicles to the AOR.

Shortly after arriving at Aviano AFB in Italy in 1992, Brule was promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant. His mechanical knowledge and management skills led to his selection as NCOIC of the Privately Owned Vehicle Inspection Center. In 1996, SSgt Brule was assigned to F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming and was selected as Noncommissioned Officer in Charge of the 90th Security Forces Squadron Vehicle Repair Station, where he was responsible for the maintenance of 125 rapid response vehicles. Within a year of arriving at Sembach Annex, Germany, SSgt Brule was again promoted, this time to Technical Sergeant, where he assumed a great deal of responsibility. Finally, in 2006, MSgt Brule arrived at the 1st Detachment, 345th Training Squadron at Naval Base Ventura County, in my Congressional District. MSgt. Brule is currently teaching the gas phase and pipeline.

It is my pleasure to submit this to the Congressional Record, recognizing the character and dedication of MSgt Brule, upon his retirement.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Manuel (Manny) Lopez as he celebrates his 80th birthday. Dr. Lopez has served the Oxnard community as a doctor, an activist, a community volunteer and as an elected official. I am pleased to recognize Dr. Lopez on this special day.

Born in Oxnard in 1927, Dr. Lopez attended local schools through high school, attended Ventura Community College and went on to attend DC Berkeley for his undergraduate education and as a student of optometry. He returned to his community and has practiced Optometry in Oxnard since 1962.

Before serving on the Oxnard City Council for 12 years and then serving as mayor for 14 years, Dr. Lopez was involved with the Oxnard Planning Commission, the Housing Authority, the Redevelopment Agency, the Community Relations Commission and the Economic Development Commission. While serving as a Member of the Council and as mayor, Dr. Lopez represented the city on a number of local and regional committees dealing with such issues as transportation planning, wastewater treatment, local airport policy and agricultural land preservation. He has also participated in many community groups such as the Oxnard Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Oxnard Optimist Club, the Oxnard Boys and Girls Club and many others.

As a result of his dedication to his community, Dr. Lopez was chosen as the 1991 Oxnard Distinguished Citizen of the Year and, in 1992, he received the Patrick Henry Award. In 2006 Dr. Lopez was the Grand Marshal of the Oxnard Christmas Parade. It is my honor, Madam Speaker, to recognize and commend Dr. Manuel Lopez for his ongoing service to his community on this joyous occasion of his 80th Birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. But then again, you already know that because I have stood on this floor countless times in the past few years expressing this same sentiment.

Today, we have an opportunity to again pass a bill that would direct federally funded, ethical stem cell research and fulfill a promise to the overwhelming majority of Americans who support it.

Fortunately, my State of California has stepped up to the plate and dedicated $3 billion to embryonic stem cell research. But this is only the first step. Because the only way to make true progress is through coordinated research conducted on a national level. In the meantime, we sit and watch as scientists throughout Europe and the rest of the world make breakthroughs that the United States cannot as long as our researchers' hands are tied.

What amazes me most about this debate today is the rhetoric used by the opposition about using Federal money to create and destroy embryos. But then again, that is just what the opponents want you to believe, when, in fact, it is just plain untrue.

As we have discussed many times before, this bill explicitly mandates that Federal funds only be used to conduct research on stem cells already extracted from embryos created by in vitro fertilization which would have been discarded anyway because the donors no longer need or want them.

Please vote today in favor of this bill that will give hope to millions of Americans, including the loved ones of everyone in this body. My own family members suffer from diseases that may be cured through embryonic stem cell research. There is really nothing else left to say other than please don't let these people down. Don't tell them that the potential for cures for their diseases are not important enough.

Finally, I want to commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and all of the people who have worked so tirelessly to bring this sound, bipartisan legislation here before us today.

Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the House passed the No Child Left Behind Act, the biggest Federal overhaul of our public school system in decades. Now, 5 years later, the Congress has an opportunity to reevaluate the law and address what doesn't seem to be working.

During last week's Memorial Day district work period, I met with teachers, parents and school administrators to listen to their thoughts on NCLB. I wanted to hear from the people who are in our classrooms every day. They have seen firsthand the success and failures of the law over the last 5 years.

The most important thing I heard is that there isn't a single teacher, parent or administrator opposed to accountability, but they sure had a lot to say about how we measure it. I learned that, regardless of a school's status, everyone had similar concerns with the accountability measures and assessment of subgroups by the law.

Hearing firsthand about the implications of NCLB through my classrooms visits and meetings with parents, teachers and school administrators was a powerful and instructive experience. As we continue the process of reauthorizing NCLB, I encourage us all to visit schools, talk to teachers, see for ourselves how this law is affecting our public schools. A little more time in the classroom is good for us all.

Mr. Speaker, I voice my deep disappointment with the recent Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tires.

Women, on average, are paid less than their male counterparts. For women of color, the pay is much less. Unless you can look me in the eye and say that women are less intelligent, less capable than their male counterparts in the same fields, the most glaring explanation for this discrepancy is discrimination.

We have made great strides in working to equalize wages for all Americans regardless of gender, race or age. But the decision last week to limit a worker's available recourse in the face of discrimination is a setback to all of our civil rights, and reminds us of how far we still have to go.

Now we must mobilize. To fix this disparity, we must move forward and correct the law so this misinterpretation will never occur again. I urge my colleagues to support a legislative remedy to preserve a worker's right to be compensated for discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of Israel, of the Palestinian people, and of achieving a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine exist peacefully side by side. I have had the pleasure of visiting Jerusalem on more than one occasion, and am keenly aware of its importance to people of different faiths.

I rise today, however, to voice my disappointment that H. Con. Res. 152 conveys rather empty rhetoric instead of constructive observations and commitments. The United States has always served as the historical broker of peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors and this is a role that we should continue to fulfill and I believe we should return to taking a much more active role in negotiations than we have under the Bush Administration's tenure. However, passage of a resolution by the United States Congress which fails to recognize the progress of past peace negotiations runs contrary to achieving our ultimate goal of a lasting peace in the region.

Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel and will forever remain the capital of Israel. However, it has long been understood that a permanent agreement about the Palestinian areas of Jerusalem will be left to final-status negotiations. The sooner the United States returns to a more active participant in the peace negotiations, the sooner we can arrive to a solution for Jerusalem. But in the meantime, I think we tread on dangerous territory when Congress adopts positions that run counter to issues that have yet to be negotiated.

Israel's victory in 1967 was necessary to shatter the idea that the State of Israel could ever be destroyed. Make no mistake that I am firmly committed to the viability and security of a Jewish state in Israel. However, it would be naive to ignore the unresolved consequences of the war and foolish to believe that continued occupation does not pose a real threat to Israel's well-being. I hope that we can use the anniversary of the Six-Day War to look forward and reaffirm a real commitment by the United States to achieve at last a workable two-state solution and a lasting peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the important and essential role that oncology nurses play in providing quality cancer care and to recognize May as ``Oncology Nursing Month.'' Oncology nurses are the health professionals involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and managing the associated side-effects patients may experience. As anyone who has ever been treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial, and supportive care to patients and their families. Every day, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. In short, they are integral to our Nation's cancer care delivery system.

Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease. People with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specializing in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. One in three women and one in two men will receive a diagnosis of cancer at some point in their lives, and one out of every four deaths in the United States results from cancer. Today, more than two-thirds of cancer cases strike people over the age of 65, and the number of Medicare beneficiaries is projected to double in the coming years. Last year approximately 138,680 people in California were diagnosed with cancer and another 55,960 lost their battles with this terrible disease.

Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration, and education in the field of oncology. ONS is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 35,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. I am pleased that ONS has 19 chapters in California which support oncology nurses in their efforts to provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families throughout our state. I commend ONS and its members for their steadfast commitment to improving and ensuring access to quality cancer care for all people with cancer.

I am proud to support the goals and ideals ONS and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing oncology nurses for their communities not only in May, but year-round.

Madam Speaker, I rise also in strong suspects of the COPS Improvement Act.

Since the COPS program began in 1994, it has provided for the hiring of 404 police officers in my congressional district. It has directed billions of dollars in grants to law enforcement agencies, including more than $20 million to benefit my constituents on the central coast of California.

COPS deserves much of the credit for the major drop in crime across our country during the 1990s, but the Bush administration has repeatedly targeted the COPS hiring program for elimination. So I'm glad the new Democratic majority in Congress realizes the

importance of putting cops on the beat. The COPS Improvement Act continues the good work we started in the 1990s. It will help law enforcement agencies in my district to hire another 173 police officers. That's 173 men and women to patrol the streets and keep their hardworking neighbors safe.

Madam Speaker, I urge this House to pass this much-needed legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 296) supporting the goals and ideals of National Eosinophil Awareness Week, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 296, recognizing National Eosinophil Awareness Week, and I commend my colleague Congressman John Larson for bringing attention to this issue.

Eosinophilic disorders are devastating as patients literally suffer from an attack on their bodies by their own immune systems. They are chronic disorders that have no cure and can even be fatal. Because they are rare, patients often go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

And as a nurse, I have seen intimately how heartbreaking it is for a patient and his or her family to go through test after test while suffering all the while from an unidentifiable condition.

That is why I support this resolution, calling for greater awareness of eosinophilic disorders and encouraging health care providers to increase education about these diseases.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I have no more speakers.

As I indicated, I have no more speakers, either, but I do want to say a word of thanks to my colleague from North Carolina. We serve on the same committee. This is an issue that we both care about, but particular thanks to my colleague from Connecticut for reaffirming in me one of the major reasons that I am pleased to be part of this body, which was illustrated by his comments regarding his constituent.

As he observed their personal experience and was able to relate some of his own is when we do the work of the people, to carry the pain and suffering, if you will, the unanswered questions and the concerns, and to do the people's work by first creating an awareness of a situation. We have many issues before us, but for a family with a person diagnosed with an eosinophilic condition, it is a major, major part of their lives.

And we owe a responsibility and it is a privilege and a honor to carry their concerns to this body, to take this first step of recognition and to be welcoming to those who come with personal experiences to our office doors tomorrow and then to learn what the next step after this one might be and to stand ready as elected officials to work on behalf of those who simply desire to relieve the pain and suffering of dear and loved members of their family.

So I thank both of my colleagues for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and of our troops. The tragedy in Iraq has gone on far too long. For 4 years, this administration and its supporters have put forth arguments based on misinformation and fear. I would urge my colleagues to remember this during today's debate.

This administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have presided over perhaps the biggest foreign policy and national security blunder in our Nation's history. They have ignored, shouted down and attempted to intimidate anyone who has dared to disagree.

And now, after 4 years, we see the thousands of brave Americans killed or seriously injured, untold numbers of Iraqis dead and the country in chaos.

Our troops have done everything, and I mean everything, that has been asked of them. But they have been let down by the administration that dishonors their tremendous service and sacrifice with its incompetence and arrogance.

Let us, please, finally make a change in Iraq. Let us end the war and bring our troops home.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support our troops.

I rise in strong support of this bill and of our troops.

The tragedy in Iraq has gone on far too long.

This legislation would bring our involvement there to an end.

I have listened now for more than 4 years as the administration and its supporters up here have come forward with one reason after another for: why we have to invade, why we have to stay, and what will happen if we ``fail.''

They've never made sense to me. Their arguments have been based either on misinformation or fear.

The Bush administration has stumbled and bumbled, dissembled and distorted on Iraq so much that no one--no one--believes a word it says.

Last night, NBC News quoted a Republican Congressman telling the President that ``word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any credibility.''

That is the reality.

So I would urge my colleagues, as they listen to this debate and hear from the Republican leadership and White House why the McGovern bill or the Supplemental Appropriations bill are so wrong, to remember this history.

Mr. Speaker, this administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have presided over perhaps the biggest foreign policy and national security blunder in our Nation's history. They've ignored, shouted down and attempted to intimidate anyone who has dared disagree.

After 4 years we are left with thousands of brave Americans killed or seriously injured, an untold number of Iraqis dead, and the country in chaos. Most tragically, the cost for all these mistakes has been borne by the men and women who wear the uniform, and their families.

Our troops have done everything--everything--that has been asked of them. But they have been let down by an administration that dishonors their tremendous sacrifice with its incompetence and arrogance.

Let us please, finally, make a change in Iraq. Let us end the war and bring our troops home.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support our troops.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1737, the City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act.

First, I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Rahall, and chairwoman or the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Mrs. Napolitano, as well as the ranking members of the full Committee and Subcommittee for expediting the consideration of this legislation and for bringing H.R. 1737 before us today. This bill was passed by the House of Representatives last year but was never acted on by the Senate.

H.R. 1737 would authorize a proposed regional water resources project--the Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment or GREAT Program--located in my congressional district. As you know many communities today are faced with the difficult task of providing reliable and safe water to their customers. The City of Oxnard is no exception.

Oxnard is on of California's fastest growing cities and is facing an ever growing crisis: it's running out of affordable water. The water needs for the city's agricultural and industrial base, together with its growing population, has exceed its local water resources. As a result, over 50 percent of its water has to be Imported from outside sources.

However, through a series of local, state and federal restrictions the amount of imported water available to the city is shrinking, while the cost of that water is rising. Recognizing these challenges, Oxnard developed the GREAT Program to address its long term water needs.

The GREAT Program elements include:

A new regional groundwater desalination facility to serve potable water customers in Oxnard and adjacent communities;

A recycled water system to serve agricultural water users, and added protection against seawater intrusion and saltwater contamination; and

A wetlands restoration and enhancement component that efficiently reuses the brine discharges from both the groundwater desalination and recycled water treatment facilities.

Implementation of the GREAT Program will provide many significant regional benefits.

First, the new desalination project will serve ratepayers in Oxnard and adjacent communities, guaranteeing sufficient water supplies for the area.

Second, Oxnard's current water infrastructure delivers approximately 30 million gallons of treated wastewater per day to an ocean outfall. The GREAT Program will utilize the resource currently wasted to the ocean and treat it so that it can be reused by the agricultural water users in the area.

During the non-growing season, it will inject the resource into to the ground to serve as a barrier against seawater intrusion and saltwater contamination. To alleviate severely depressed groundwater levels, this component also includes pumping groundwater into the aquifer to enhance groundwater recharge.

Finally, the brine produced as a by-product of the desalination and recycling plants will provide a year-round supply of nutrient rich water to the existing wetlands at Ormond Beach.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Natural Resources Committee for trying to find innovative and effective ways of extending water supplies in the West. In my view, the City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act offers such a creative solution. It will reduce the consumption of groundwater for agricultural and industrial purposes, cut imported water delivery requirements, and improve local reliability of high quality water deliveries.

Again, I would like to thank the Natural Resources Committee for supporting this bill, and urge its immediate passage.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor the University of California, Santa Barbara, which is located in my district. UCSB was recently named a winner in the National Wildlife Federation's Campus Ecology ``Chill Out'' contest, a competition that recognizes colleges and universities nationwide that are implementing innovative programs to reduce the impact of global warming. UCSB was one of eight universities chosen to receive the award from over 100 entries.

This prestigious award was given to UC Santa Barbara for its efforts to become a carbon-neutral campus through energy conservation. The project started in 2005 when students from the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management created a Master's group project entitled ``Campus Climate Neutral.'' At a public university dealing with tightening budgets, energy conservation emerged as a solution that would both lower the school's environmental impact and cut expenditures for purchased utilities.

UC Santa Barbara has found ways, through ingenuity and imagination, to provide increased space for research, education and living, while limiting the school's environmental impact. I continue to be proud of UCSB's numerous environmental and academic accomplishments, and encourage them to continue in their noble goal of reducing the campus's greenhouse gas emissions.

Go Gauchos!