Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, NATO airstrikes killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers in a tragic ``friendly fire'' incident that has once again elevated tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan. Regardless of who was at fault--whether our forces were acting in self- defense or had legitimate reason to believe they were firing on insurgents--the Pakistan Government is furious and the bilateral relationship is facing a grave crisis.

Pakistan has said they are cutting off supply routes into Afghanistan. They have said they will no longer participate in a critically important international conference in Germany next week--a conference that will help chart Afghanistan's future. This episode is fanning flames of anti-American sentiment in a country whose people are already hostile. In the last few days, we've seen public demonstrations of

Pakistanis burning the U.S. flag and shouting, ``Whoever is a friend of America is a traitor of the land.'' Clearly, Mr. Speaker, instead of winning the hearts and minds, we are giving terrorists a recruitment tool.

Pakistan has not always been the most reliable partner, but they are an ally--and let's not forget, a nuclear power--with whom we share important mutual interests. We need their cooperation if there is going to be political reconciliation and long-term stability in neighboring Afghanistan. This incident leads me to believe more strongly than ever that we must redeploy our troops out of Afghanistan. We have very difficult diplomatic work to do there--work that is being complicated, not facilitated, by our military presence.

After more than 10 years of failed war that is undermining our security interests, it's time to change our role in the region from one of military occupier to one of constructive partner. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the first places we could be implementing the SMART security strategy I've talked about so many times from this very spot.

While it's true that we send enormous amounts of foreign aid to Pakistan, the overwhelming majority of it goes to the military, with very little trickling down to the people. We could instead spend more to boost Pakistan's literacy rate, or more investment in key infrastructure projects, the growth of civil society, or life-changing humanitarian efforts.

To give one specific example, Pakistan is one of four countries on Earth--and Afghanistan is one of the others--that hasn't completely eradicated polio. For pennies on the dollar, compared to our military expenditures, we can help provide the vaccination that would eliminate this dire public threat. Perhaps then we'll be able to change the fact that only 11 percent of Pakistanis have a favorable view of the United States. Perhaps instead of destabilizing influences of 100,000 troops on the ground, we can build a stronger relationship based on mutual trust, one that promotes peace and empowers the Pakistani people with a humanitarian surge instead of a military surge.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for SMART Security, and it starts with bringing our troops home.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3094, the so-called Workforce Democracy and Protection Act, what a great title for legislation that assaults the majority's year-long war against unions, against workers, and the National Labor Relations Board. This is just the latest of that. And they gave it this wonderful title.

And since they took control of this body in January, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been doing everything in their power to stack the deck against labor unions and those who aspire to join them. Seemingly, the bills that they bring to the floor are designed to make life easier for the corporate special interests and, as usual, harder on workers who just want a fair shake.

Curious, since the labor movement is the most powerful force for economic security and upward mobility that we have in this country, and unions are the reason there is a strong middle class in the United States of America, that they would want to attack it. We need to remove obstacles to union elections, and we need to create ways for members to join unions, not prevent them from being union members.

It's baffling to me that my Republican friends have absolutely no plans to create any kind of jobs, but a carefully orchestrated plan to undermine the rights and protections of working people. Instead of helping people who are reeling from this sluggish economy, they work to create distractions and to create scapegoats.

Mr. Chairman, workers deserve better than a government of, by, and for the wealthiest 1 percent.

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 3094.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington DC, November 18, 2011.

Hon. John P. Kline

Chairman, House Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC.

Hon. George Miller

Ranking Minority Member, House Education and the Workforce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Minority Member Miller: On

behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3094,

the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, when it is

considered by the House of Representatives. Masquerading as a

bill to protect the status quo with respect to elections

supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, H.R. 3094

would actually mandate delays, giving companies more power to

wear down support for the union and creating new

opportunities for stalling elections. The result of this bill

will be to make workers wait months, perhaps years before

they are allowed to vote on whether to form a union. The bill

would also destroy 75 years of NLRB case law that has

governed the appropriateness of bargaining units, giving

companies more power to gerrymander the eligibility of voters

in a union representation election in order to unfairly skew

the results.

Under H.R. 3094, no election may occur sooner than 35 days

after the filing of an election petition, even if all parties

agree to an earlier date. But the bill does not limit how

long an election may be delayed as a result of employer

claims, challenges and litigation. The bill would mandate a

full pre-election hearing on any ``relevant and material''

issue, broadly defined to include virtually any issue, even

those that are not in dispute and not material to the

appropriateness of the bargaining unit. By incentivizing

marathon pre-election hearings, the bill would reward

wasteful litigation and increase taxpayer costs by requiring

findings on unnecessary and extraneous issues.

In a further effort to deny workers their right to choose

whether to form a union, H.R. 3094 imposes restrictions on

workers' opportunities to receive information from unions,

but does nothing to curb the power of companies to force

workers to listen to their anti-union propaganda, under the

threat of discharge if they try to object. Moreover, it fails

to protect workers who are fired, threatened, or interrogated

because they want to exercise their federal statutory right

to form a union. In fact, current remedies for well-

documented, wide-spread violations of workers' rights have

been regularly criticized as paltry and ineffective, treated

by companies as merely a cost of doing business.

H.R. 3094 would also overturn the recent Specialty

Healthcare decision, in which the NLRB applied to non-acute

health care facilities, mostly nursing homes, the same

community-of-interest standard that it has traditionally

applied to determine the appropriateness of bargaining units

in other industries. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia upheld that standard in 2008, the bill

broadly applies a one-size-fits-all test in disregard of the

particular needs of specific industries and circumstances.

The bill's newly minted test will create uncertainties for

the parties as this vague new standard is repeatedly

litigated.

H.R. 3094 has one goal: to empower companies which want to

delay elections so they can mount one-sided, anti-union

campaigns, both legal and illegal, to discourage workers from

freely choosing whether or not to form a union. At a time

when more and more experts are recognizing that middle class

incomes are falling in tandem with the declining rate of

union membership, Congress should be finding ways to protect

workers' freedom to form a union, not throwing up roadblocks

to the exercise of this fundamental right.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Government Affairs Dept.

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

(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2465, the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act.

This legislation is the product of bipartisan cooperation and consensus, and I thank the chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee for being here and being the leader on this today.

This legislation updates and improves the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, or FECA, which provides a safety net to 2.7 million Federal civilian and postal employees, ensuring they can continue to support their families and pay their bills if they're injured on the job. A core principle embedded in FECA is that workers should be no better off, or no worse off, for having suffered a work-related injury.

The reforms in this bill are an initial step toward making FECA fairer and more efficient for taxpayers and the Federal employees who depend on the program. H.R. 2465 updates benefits for funeral expenses and facial disfigurement, both of which have not been updated since 1949. It ensures that injuries caused by acts of terrorism are covered and expands the pool of medical providers to include advanced practice nurses and physician assistants. It also expands the continuation of ``pay period'' from 45 days to 135 days for those who are injured overseas in a ``zone of armed conflict'' to make it easier to file for benefits.

This legislation also will improve program integrity by allowing the Department of Labor to match its records against Social Security earnings information, ensuring that beneficiaries are not receiving prohibited salary or outside income at the same time they're receiving FECA benefits. Consistent with a Government Accountability Office recommendation, the bill allows the government to recover a portion of payments that were secured from third parties. Mr. Speaker, these commonsense, bipartisan changes will make FECA more efficient and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will produce savings for taxpayers and the postal service.

The committee is also aware of Department of Labor proposals to slash benefits for workers with dependents, reduce benefits for permanently disabled workers when they reach retirement age, and shrink survivor benefits. While the Department contends their proposal addresses inequities, they have not presented evidence that these changes will not create unintended consequences.

For that reason, I was pleased to join Chairman Kline, Subcommittee Chairman Walberg, and Ranking Member Miller in sponsoring a July 8 request to the GAO asking that it assess the impacts of the Labor Department's proposed changes. The GAO report will be vital--it will be so important--as we look for ways to further improve FECA without undermining its core values.

Before we consider what we're going to be doing, we have to consider who is impacted by changes when we modify this law. And when we do, we have to keep in mind that FECA is these workers' exclusive remedy, which means injured workers and survivors of those killed on the job cannot sue the government for their losses.

Leslie Black was a correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina, when she was attacked by an inmate on May 2, 2007. She wrote this:

The inmate who attacked me had embedded two razors into a

plastic spoon by melting the spoon around the razors,

creating a lethal weapon. With this weapon, he slashed my

throat and right arm, causing severe bleeding, blood loss,

and lacerations.

Since this attack, my family and I have survived on a

reduced income of my workers' compensation benefits and my

husband's income, including his wages as a member of the Army

National Guard. We have three children at home, and my

workers' compensation benefits have been the difference

between financial survival and financial ruin. We hardly live

in the lap of luxury.

She hopes to return to work at the prison in a suitable position in the near future, Mr. Speaker. She asked, ``Why would anyone want to cut benefits for someone who was hurt trying to keep the community safe?''

Given the public service provided by Leslie and other Federal workers, I was disappointed to see that the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has reported out postal reform legislation that adopted many of the Department of Labor's proposals to cut FECA and then went a step further and cut them even more deeply without having first undertaken an analysis of the impacts. The Senate committee even imposed some of these cuts retroactively. Frankly, taking a meat axe to the FECA program without first doing your homework is irresponsible. It is my hope that the legislation before us today, coupled with a bipartisan commitment to study the matter with care, can serve as an example for the correct path forward for improving FECA.

These are not just numbers. They're not just percentages that we're dealing with. These changes could mean unjust impoverishment for a Federal firefighter injured while battling a forest fire or the widow of an FBI officer killed in the line of duty. Representative Gabby Giffords and her staff were covered under FECA following the tragic assault that killed six in Tucson, Arizona, earlier this year.

As we move forward, it is important that any further reforms are fair to both taxpayers and injured workers. While I appreciate the desire of some colleagues to move quickly to address their concerns about FECA, it is prudent to allow a few months for GAO to complete its work before redesigning the benefit structure.

Mr. Speaker, I am also troubled to learn that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform decided to include changes to FECA in a postal reform bill that would create a separate postal workers' compensation system outside of FECA. All Federal workers--all Federal workers--should be covered under the same workers' compensation system, regardless of which agency employs them. So pursuant to House rules, Workers' Compensation Programs, including FECA, have been within the primary jurisdiction of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I expect that members of our committee will have an opportunity to weigh in on that bill before it moves forward.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2465 enjoys the support of a broad coalition of labor unions, organizations of health care providers, and retiree groups.

In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and Subcommittee Chairman Walberg for their work on this legislation.

It has been truly a gift to work in a bipartisan manner.

American Academy of

Physician Assistants,

Alexandria, VA, July 12, 2011.

Hon. John Kline,

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Tim Walberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, every one of us in this Congress believes that keeping the Nation safe, as well as providing benefits to our veterans as promised, is our very top priority. It's a question, however, of just how do we do that. And a decade of war and military occupation is not the best way.

Whenever spending cuts are on the agenda, as they are right now with the supercommittee racing to meet its deadline, military and defense programs continue to get a pass. Why should the Pentagon get a blank check while safety-net programs have to look for ``change in the couch cushions'' to keep their programs going?

It's time for the Pentagon to share in the sacrifice, especially since it's been so generously funded over the years, a 50 percent increase in the DOD budget over the last decade, bigger in real dollars today than it was at the height of the Cold War.

Ending the war in Afghanistan would save at least $10 billion a month--actually, it's more like 12 now--to say nothing of the lives we would save and the injuries that would be avoided.

But I think we should go further in cutting the base Pentagon budget. Just to give a few examples, I'm a longtime advocate of eliminating the V-22 Osprey aircraft. It's a program that, if we eliminated it, would save $10 billion, and it's a program that is notorious for cost overruns and for huge safety concerns.

And we can dramatically reduce the Nation's nuclear arsenal. Why do we need--I ask you this--why do we need 5,000 warheads when just one is enough to destroy life on Earth?

We can wring huge savings out of the system by fundamentally changing how we think and how we deal with national security. For pennies on the dollar we can keep America safe by implementing a smarter security policy, by supporting a civilian surge over a military surge.

My SMART Security platform, which is H. Res. 19, would make war a very last resort and adopt a different posture toward the rest of the world. It's not isolationism. When I say I want to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not saying we abandon those countries. I'm saying we must engage them in a different way. That means investing in their people and their capacity to lead lives free of deprivation and despair.

So instead of weapons systems, let's invest more on development in humanitarian aid, more on maternal health programs, more on mosquito nets to prevent malaria, more on education, health care, microlending, et cetera, et cetera.

You know what would promote our national security, Mr. Speaker, like nothing else is a genuine, well-funded commitment to eradicating poverty and malnutrition in the developing world. Instead of invasions and occupations, SMART Security emphasizes diplomacy. It emphasizes the civilian surge, multilateralism, and peaceful conflict resolution.

It also calls for more investment in energy independence, nuclear nonproliferation, democracy promotion, and civil society programs abroad. Isn't that a better way to combat terrorism than sending 100,000 troops to a part of the world known for widespread anti- American sentiment?

We must stop equating national security with armed aggression because that's how we ended up with out-of-control Pentagon budgets and an ever more dangerous world. In fact, Mr. Speaker, military force has been proven to oftentimes undermine our security instead of enhancing it.

SMART Security protects America because it relies on the very best of American values, moral leadership, compassion, our commitment to peace and freedom. It costs pennies on the dollar. It is efficient and fiscally responsible.

So let's bring our troops home, cut the Pentagon budget, and implement SMART Security now. Then we can have real cost savings in the United States.

And, Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

I thank the ranking member for this time.

Earlier this year, economist Bruce Bartlett, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, had this to say about an earlier Republican balanced budget amendment. He said: ``It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.'' Granted, he was talking about a different version, but I still say that was pretty unfair to interns, who I think could do a lot better than this amendment that we're debating today.

If the balanced budget were in place today, it would cripple the economy and decimate Social Security, Medicare and veterans programs, among many others. The austerity dogma of the Republican majority-- their balanced budget fetish--is hurting America, not helping it. We need more Federal dollars pumped into this economy. We need it to stimulate demand and to create jobs. We don't need less.

If you get caught in a rainstorm--I mean, I wouldn't want to be caught in a rainstorm with anybody on the other side of the aisle because I'd be afraid that they'd propose a constitutional amendment banning umbrellas.

Call me old fashioned, Mr. Speaker, but I think amending the Constitution is a pretty big deal. It should be reserved for correcting gross injustices and expanding fundamental rights. For decades, I've been among those pushing for a constitutional amendment that enshrines the notion that women should be treated equally. Republicans want no part of that, but they're eager for a constitutional amendment that shreds the safety net and could cause another recession for our country. No thanks.

Vote ``no'' on this balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it seems like the surest way to get in the most trouble is to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan. Witness the case of Major General Peter Fuller, whom Congressman Walter Jones just talked about. General Fuller was one of our troop commanders in Afghanistan until he decided to speak his mind. After President Karzai made the outrageous statement that he would back Pakistan in a war against the United States, Major General Fuller delivered a colorful and candid on-the-record reply. He said, ``Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle?'' He said this of President Karzai, whom he also described as erratic and ``isolated from reality.''

He added that the Afghan Government doesn't properly appreciate the enormous sacrifices Americans are making on Afghanistan's behalf, especially at a time when we have major economic challenges right here at home.

And what was Major General Fuller's reward for telling it like it is? What did he get for expressing the frustration so many Americans feel? He was thrown immediately under the bus. He was fired, relieved of his command by General John Allen, who admonished General Fuller for ``inappropriate public comments.'' An interesting choice of words: ``inappropriate public comments.''

As Time magazine pointed out, the implication there seems pretty clear: What Major General Fuller had the audacity to say out loud--that the Karzai regime is feckless and corrupt--is what most people secretly believe. Time correspondent Mark Thompson put it this way: ``It is not a good sign when what everyone is saying privately cannot be stated publicly. In that case, only the troops--the ones dying--and the taxpayers--the people employing both Allen and Fuller--are kept willfully in the dark.'' The writer Christopher Hitchens put it even more bluntly, saying that to silence Fuller ``is to establish a stupid culture of denial in the ranks.''

Throughout this decade, Mr. Speaker, this decade that we've been at war, the failure of our government to level with us has been a persistent problem.

Whether it's the phony weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or prisoner abuse and torture or just the refusal to let soldiers' coffins be photographed--that was during the Bush administration--over and over again the American people have been fed a steady diet of misleading spin and outright lies. But the people who are paying for this war in blood and treasure deserve much better. They are tired of propaganda. They are owed an honest accounting of what's going on, what obstacles we face, and what kind of progress we're making--or not making.

Major General Fuller had enough respect for the American people to tell them the truth. By refusing to dish out the same phony platitudes, he may have lost his job, but he maintained his integrity. If the continued rationale for this war is built on a lie that no one must expose, then surely that's a sign that this mission is beyond repair.

The real solution is not to cover up everything that's going horribly wrong in Afghanistan. The solution is to recapture our integrity as a nation and end this war once and for all, not in 2014, not at some uncertain date in the future--now. It's time now to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the importance of school libraries, which are changing to better address the needs of students in the 21st century. School libraries are an important part of our educational system and help prepare students for college and a good career.

Teacher librarians teach students how to conduct good research, how to be critical users of the information they find, and how to avoid plagiarism. They also play an important role teaching online research skills and raising awareness of cyber safety issues.

Mr. Speaker, I know how important school libraries are to the students in my district and across the nation. Please join me in recognizing the invaluable contributions that teacher librarians and school libraries make to our education system.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I spoke in this Chamber about the U.N. report that outlined, in gruesome detail, prisoner abuse at detention facilities in Afghanistan--inmates beaten with electrical wires, hung from their wrists, and much worse. Now additional reporting by The Washington Post has revealed that U.S. officials knew for some time about this torture of prisoners by Afghan security forces.

So what did our top people in Afghanistan do about these warnings? Apparently, not a thing.

For years our Special Operations forces and CIA officials had been in and out of these prisons--dropping off detainees, meeting with Afghan authorities, taking advantage of the intelligence gathered there. We paid to rebuild one prison with the cold and chilling name Department 124, which sits behind a concrete fortress near U.S. military headquarters in Kabul.

It would be hard--actually, it would be impossible--to miss what was going on inside those walls; but for a long time, it was ignored-- nothing said, no meaningful oversight exerted. It wasn't until a few months ago, when the U.N. made it clear they were releasing a report detailing the torture, that our military commanders suddenly took notice and stopped sending prisoners to these facilities. In a flash, they instituted a monitoring program and human rights training.

It's embarrassing, Mr. Speaker. But it seems like our leadership was more concerned about public relations damage control than adherence to human rights norms and international law.

The American people have sacrificed a lot for this war. And in return, they've been fed a lot of high-minded assurances that we're doing important work that advances American values. The name of this mission is Operation Enduring Freedom, but apparently we're not practicing what we preach in Afghanistan because torture has no place in free society, no place in a campaign that professes to be about human dignity and the rule of law.

At a time when we're considering major cuts right here at home in lifesaving domestic programs so that we can get our fiscal house in order, how can we possibly justify spending billions of dollars every week on a military occupation that seems to be promoting and encouraging torture? We cannot wash our hands of this. We cannot avoid responsibility because this is happening on our watch.

Torture, whether we're practicing it ourselves or just tacitly condoning it, isn't just reprehensible; it's bad national security policy as well. It represents the United States of America in the worst possible light and is surely a great recruitment tool for the terrorists. When it comes to international affairs, the greatest currency we have is our moral authority, but we continue to waste it by acting like outlaws instead of the greatest superpower on Earth.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come. It is time we had a national security approach that showcases the very best of America, one that demonstrates our decency and compassion, one that emphasizes diplomacy and reconciliation, one that puts civilian and humanitarian experts on the ground instead of 100,000 troops with guns.

You don't need to invade a country to prove that America is strong or to keep America safe. That's the heart of my SMART security plan that I have been talking about for many years now. We've tried belligerence. We've tried force. And over the last decade--well, actually, we've tried all of this forever, and it just has not worked.

It's time, Mr. Speaker, for this war to end. It's time to implement a SMART security platform. It is time now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of Empire College in Santa Rosa, California. Founded in 1961 to serve the secretarial and bookkeeping needs of the local business community, Empire College has grown into an important contributor to professional education in the North Bay, and an asset in Sonoma County's development into a prosperous and economically diverse region.

Empire College was founded first as a business school, training staff to meet ongoing shortages in skilled office professionals. Founder Henry Trione, the Santa Rosa businessman and philanthropist, envisioned a college providing practical learning for the greater benefit of the local community. Since then, Empire College has expanded into new areas as the needs of our region have diversified. It now has programs in accounting, information technology, tourism and hospitality, and office administration. It also offers the North Bay's first and only law program leading to a Juris Doctor, which is responsible for almost a quarter of the members of the Sonoma County Bar Association, as well as several judges in Sonoma and other northern California counties.

In both its Business and Law Schools, Empire College has made its reputation as a private institution uniquely committed to the public good. Empire College students support our community in public law clinics for elders, immigrants, and individual with disabilities. They put on events and fundraisers for local nonprofits, including the California Parenting Institute, Legal Aid of Sonoma County, and the Children's Village of Sonoma County. In countless ways, we have benefitted from the presence of Empire College not only as a center of learning and professional development, but as a model of engagement and community service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Empire College. Henry Trione is to be commended for the impressive legacy he has bestowed upon our County, and which the College's long- time executives, Sherie and Roy Hurd, have nurtured over the years. We are privileged to be served by an institution that remains so dedicated to serving Sonoma County and its people.

Mr. Speaker, 8\1/2\ years ago, without provocation or just cause, and based on distortions and deceptions, our country launched a bloody and immoral war in Iraq--almost 9 years, a long time for a war whose mission was pronounced accomplished by then-President Bush in May of 2003.

But now the Iraq war, which has cost our Nation so very much in blood and treasure, in moral authority and global credibility, is finally ending. Thank you, President Obama.

When I heard the President's announcement that our troops would be home from Iraq by the end of the year, I had one thought: it's about damn time. And my second thought was: oh, well, we have to stay vigilant, especially with negotiations still to come about the possibility of military trainers or advisers remaining in Iraq. As we move forward with a constructive bilateral partnership, let's make sure we don't backslide into a renewed military occupation under a different cloak.

To me, however, Friday's news was greeted not so much with celebration but with relief and also with reflection about the senseless sacrifice endured by so very many people. Nearly 4,500 courageous American servicemembers gave their lives for this war. More than 30,000 have returned home with searing wounds to their bodies and their minds, if not missing limbs, then too often post-traumatic stress that can make every day a living nightmare.

And let's not overlook the 100,000-plus innocent Iraqi civilians, many of them children, who were killed because the United States of America chose to ``liberate'' them. When I think about the humanitarian atrocities of this war, it is most often the faces of those children that I see.

Then there's the fiscal carnage. The $800 billion appropriated to prosecute the war doesn't even scratch the surface of the total cost. There is the rise in oil price, the interest on the debt we've accumulated, and of course the veterans health obligations, a promise we must and will keep, a promise that will still be with us at least 50 years from now.

President Obama's announcement is welcome, but long overdue. I've been an outspoken opponent of the war since before it started, and I introduced the first legislation to bring our troops home in 2005. More than 400 times I've stood in this very place in this Chamber to call for an end to the Iraq and Afghanistan military entanglements and the beginning of a SMART Security approach that emphasizes humanitarian and peaceful conflict resolution in place of military might.

I was proud to work with my good friends Congresswomen Waters and Lee to establish the Out of Iraq Caucus. Their leadership, their support, plus our many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle who lent their voices to the cause made the difference because back in 2004 and 2005, ours was not the majority position. Because we broke the silence, because we acted on principle and refused to stand down, the American people came around to the out-of-Iraq perspective. Because we stood on the right side of history, we found ourselves with the majority of Americans on the right side of public opinion wanting--no, demanding-- an end to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Our work isn't done, of course. The war in Afghanistan rages on. It's destructive, it's foolish and about 100,000 troops are still in harm's way there on a futile and expensive mission that is not making us safe, but is actually undermining our national security.

Mr. Speaker, again I give President Obama credit for his decision to bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of the year; and at the same time, I will continue to speak out until Americans get the peace that they want and deserve and all of our troops are home from Afghanistan as well.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this Special Order together with Congressman Poe.

Mr. Speaker, every day, millions of Americans, the great majority of them women, live in fear of attack, not from a stranger lurking in the bushes or a dark alley, but perhaps even more frightening, from the partner with whom they share a home or a bed.

Domestic violence is an assault on everything that matters in a woman's life--her physical safety, her dignity, self-respect, and her job security, as well as her capacity to be a good parent.

Children are directly in the line of fire. Too often they also are physically abused, but mere exposure to the violence can cause behavioral issues ranging from poor academic performance and truancy to drug abuse and domestic violence of their very own.

The societal impact, Mr. Speaker, is huge--billions in health care costs, lost economic activity and more. Domestic violence is a problem that affects all of us.

Increased awareness in recent years has made a difference. There was a time when a woman trapped in a violent relationship had little recourse and faced a stigma that kept her from getting help. Just the fact that women are more likely to call 911 represents huge progress, but we have to do much more.

For example, the Family and Medical Leave Act allows employees to take unpaid time off work after giving birth, after adopting a child or in order to care for a sick relative. I've introduced a bill, the Domestic Violence Leave Act, H.R. 3151, that expands FMLA so that workers can cope with the consequences of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. This would give people the time they need to seek medical care, counseling, legal assistance, and to otherwise heal both physically and emotionally.

Mr. Speaker, if we're serious about showing compassion for those who've suffered abuse, then we have to give them job flexibility. Being punched or raped by your partner is devastating enough. To also lose your income and livelihood as a result is a gross injustice.

Let's make every month Domestic Violence Awareness Month by extending support to women and men who have experienced the pain and betrayal of domestic violence. One way to do this is to sign on to and pass H.R. 3151, my legislation. Another is to make sure that we support and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and all of the programs that that act supports.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my long-time friend and colleague, Mayor Al Boro, who is retiring after 40 years serving the City of San Rafael, CA. During the two decades that Al Boro has been the Mayor of the City, he has set the pace for promoting its economic development and the tone for working in partnership with residents, officials, staff, and agencies.

Mayor Boro's early career was spent as an executive at Pacific Telephone and Telegraph. He began his civic engagement with an appointment to the San Rafael Planning Commission in 1971 where he served until 1987, when he was elected to the City Council. In 1991, he was elected Mayor and immediately set to work on the ``Vision for Downtown San Rafael'' which helped to revitalize the core of the City so it could change with the times. Mr. Boro was a key leader in developing an expanded neighborhood center at Pickleweed Park in the heart of the Canal area and construction of a new public works building and the Parkside Children's Center. He could also be found enjoying the bocce court complex he helped create for families at Albert Park.

On matters affecting Mann County and the Bay Area, Al Boro has been a tireless worker with a keen grasp of regional issues. He has been a mainstay of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District; the Main County Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Cultural Commission; Central Mann Sanitation Agency; Mann County Fair Board, the Sonoma/Marin Area Rail Transit Agency; the Main County Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, and many others.

But more than the list of boards and commissions to his credit, Al Boro is a man of his community. He works long hours attending events, meeting with residents, visiting schools, and generally listening to and appreciating the people of San Rafael. He values the diversity of San Rafael and supports efforts to promote the growing Latino and Asian populations.

Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated my partnership with Mayor Boro, and, as the face of San Rafael, it is hard to imagine the City without him at its helm. I know he will continue to enjoy its offerings and will have more time to spend with his wife Pat, their four children, and their grandchildren. Please join me in wishing Al Boro well in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to honor Dennis Ziemienski, the 2011 Sonoma Treasure Artist. An internationally known artist from Glenn Ellen, CA, Mr. Ziemienski is also a prominent supporter of art events in the Sonoma Valley.

Born and raised in San Francisco, Dennis graduated from the California College of Arts and Crafts before moving to New York for a successful career in illustration and painting. He worked with Time- Life, Levi-Straus, Rolling Stone, and the New York Times and has created compelling images for many high-profile clients such as Super Bowl XXIX, the Napa Mustard Festival, the Kentucky Derby, the California Railway Museum, and the San Francisco Zoo.

An internationally acclaimed painter, Dennis has had several solo exhibitions, won numerous awards, taught at prominent art schools, and illustrated well-known book covers. He has also volunteered his teaching skills at local schools and has donated auction paintings or created posters for local Sonoma Valley nonprofits.

Dennis's work is marked by fine draftsmanship and strong, richly colored images inspired by early 20th century painting and posters. He travels frequently to develop different ideas and sensibilities. ``I love to paint my native California and the West,'' he says, ``but the land of my ancestors, Italy and the Mediterranean, has also been a frequent subject . . . it is also important for me to use a romantic sense of history and place, when required, to create a vision that lures the viewer into the picture, creating the desire to `be there'.''

Dennis is married to artist Anne Ziemienski, and the couple's daughter, Sofia, attends the University of the Redlands.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to congratulate Dennis Ziemienski for his designation as the Sonoma Treasure Artist of the Year for 2011. Please join us and the Sonoma Valley Community in celebrating his accomplishments and contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a colleague, Hal Brown, on the occasion of his retirement after 29 years of service to Marin County. Since he was first appointed to the Board of Supervisors to represent the Second District, Hal demonstrated a caring, thoughtful and committed approach to addressing the issues facing the residents of Marin.

Hal's priorities have been clear from the start. He focuses on families, education, environment, responsible government and economic vitality. His own vitality and dedication led him to serve on more than 25 boards and organizations, from the Marin Conservation League to the Rape Crisis Center, from the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District to the Disabled Students Advisory Board.

This work has resulted in a long list of notable accomplishments--for example, preserving more than 1,500 acres of open space, founding FireSafe Marin, supporting the Marin Energy Authority and Safe Routes to Schools, and authoring Marin's Family Medical Leave law. I remain one of his most appreciative fans for his early and ongoing leadership on important women's issues.

After the New Year's Eve flood of 2005, Hal moved to make his district safer by establishing the first regional flood warning system in the Ross Valley. He continued to work for a watershed-wide approach that would combine flood control with environmental restoration and water quality.

Hal prided himself on his accessibility, and his door was always open to the many who appreciated working with a man of his integrity and drive. The fact that he continued to serve the last year despite battling serious illness speaks volumes about his commitment to his constituents. His thoughtful study of issues, while listening to all sides, has earned him the respect and admiration of colleagues throughout the North Bay.

A San Anselmo resident for almost 40 years, Hal coached various youth sports while raising his two sons, Mike and Chris.

Mr. Speaker, for nearly three decades, Hal Brown has served Marin County with enormous intelligence and dedication. Hal's hard work is one of the reasons that Marin remains such a beautiful, vibrant, well- governed community. It has been a privilege to work with him, and I ask you to join me in wishing him good health and a well-deserved retirement.

``One interrogator kept banging my head against the wall.

``After 2 days, he tied my hands behind my back and started beating me with an electric wire. The interrogation and beating lasted for 3 to 4 hours into the night.

``For the next 2 days, I was tied up from both wrists to the bars of an iron door. From morning until lunchtime they put a hood on my head and hung me by my wrists.''

Mr. Speaker, these are the direct quotes from detainees apprehended in Afghanistan and subjected to torture at the hands of Afghan intelligence officials and police forces. It's all documented in a report issued by the United Nations this week. What they found was systematic abuse that followed a pattern--not random or isolated incidents--a pattern at several different facilities, involving at least 300 prisoners.

There's more. Kicks to the head; beatings with electric cables, rubber hoses, and wooden sticks; electric shocks to the thumbs; threats of sexual abuse, some of them against children. And there are some even more graphic, gruesome details that I know we've read about that I'll spare my colleagues for now.

No Americans have been directly implicated in this. But as long as we're continuing a military occupation of Afghanistan and as long as we've taken on the task of training Afghan security forces, I don't see how we avoid the responsibility for these shameful acts of abuse and ritual humiliation. At the very, very least, Mr. Speaker, we're guilty of shoddy oversight and failure to instruct Afghan officials in humane interrogation techniques.

Of course, this kind of brutality is a gross violation of international human rights standards. But it's also well-documented that torture doesn't work. Torture, at the very most for a normal human being, will force that human being to confess to anything under such duress, and it's a complete failure as an intelligence-gathering strategy.

The war in Afghanistan has been going on for 10 years now. It's costing American taxpayers $10 billion a month. How can we justify spending all this money, money that we need to invest in job creation right here at home, on a policy and a mission that is leading to such barbaric acts. How can we continue to sacrifice blood and treasure on this war, a war that is being waged in such gross violation of our very American values?

I have never been more convinced it's time to bring our troops home.