Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to recognize and honor J Vineyards and Winery of Healdsburg, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year.

J was conceived and developed by Judy Jordan, an exuberant, fiercely independent 25-year-old who saw an opening in Sonoma County's wine landscape for a high quality, all-American sparkling wine brand. It was a lofty goal for a product that was first made in an old, ramshackle prune processing barn that routinely flooded when the nearby Russian River overflowed.

From those humble beginnings, J sparkling wines have become some of the finest in the world. The winery's J Vintage Brut is a fixture on high profile wine lists and top hotels around the world. Queen Elizabeth sipped J at the White House. Mikhail Gorbachev spoke of world peace with a glass of J in his hand and J sparkling wines were the official celebratory bubbles of the Academy Awards Governors Ball for four consecutive years.

To produce this remarkable wine, Ms. Jordan and her team rely on ten distinctive vineyard estate properties located throughout the Russian River Valley Appellation. These vineyards have at least twenty different soil profiles, with each vineyard displaying a different soil type and distinctive microclimate. This diversity allows J winemakers to coax the best flavor characteristics from each vineyard.

Ms. Jordon also came to the realization that her vineyards would also be ideal for producing site-specific, cool-climate Russian River Valley varietal wines like Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, and Pinot Gris in addition to her sparkling wines. These wines were added to the portfolio and have become immensely popular products.

The ten estate wines will be ``Certified Sustainable'' in 2012 by the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance. After a number of energy savings initiatives were implemented throughout the winery, J was named a ``Green Winery'' in 2010.

One of the first wineries to offer food and wine pairings to visitors in the ``Bubble Room,'' J was named ``Best Winery Tasting Room'' by Sunset Magazine in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, from its humble beginnings, J Vineyards and Winery has become an international success story and one of the linchpins of the Sonoma County wine industry. It is therefore appropriate that we honor them today on their Silver Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, together with my colleague, Congressman Mike Thompson, to recognize Sandy Covall-Alves who is retiring after 30 years in the emergency management field, the last 16 of which was as Emergency Manager for Sonoma County's Fire & Emergency Services Department and the Sonoma County Operational Area. For those 30 years, she dedicated herself to making sure that people in her charge were safe and received the resources they need in the wake of natural disasters.

During her tenure in Sonoma County, Ms. Covall-Alves coordinated the response, recovery and mitigation efforts for the 1995-1999 and 2006 winter storms and floods, the 1996 Cavedale fire, and the 1998 Rio Nido debris flow. In total, she oversaw the implementation of 14 local emergency proclamations, 12 Emergency Operations Center activations, 8 gubernatorial proclamations and 6 events that were designated by the President as national disasters. Our offices appreciated working with her, knowing that she knew how to pull all her connections together for a coordinated response.

Ms. Covall-Alves was also the guiding force in establishing, implementing and coordinating emergency programs for the county, its cities and special districts. Her commitment to improving emergency management did not stop at the county line. She is a founding member and current Chair of the California Operational Area Coalition (COAC), a forum for information exchange and advocacy on emergency management issues. The COAC's mission is to enhance closer cooperation and collaboration with members of the organization and with the State Emergency Management Agency.

Ms. Covall-Alves began her career in emergency management as a 9-1-1 dispatcher for the Tuolumne County Sheriffs Department. After developing disaster recovery plans for private businesses, she returned to public service with the San Mateo County OES and from there was deployed to the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern California as part of the state's mutual aid program. She joined Sonoma County OES in 1995 and quickly became an integral part of the county's response and recovery team.

Mr. Speaker, Sandy Covall-Alves has had a long and distinguished career in serving and protecting the people of the State of California. We wish her well in her retirement as she enjoys time with her husband, Ron Alves, and their three special pets, Beelsey, Mowese and Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, today the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction holds its first organizational meeting; and it does this as it begins its work on reaching the spending cut benchmarks called for in the debt ceiling compromise.

I have a suggestion for the 12 members who have been entrusted with this responsibility. I know exactly the place they should identify for their savings. It's a government program that's been notorious for waste and cost overruns. It's been cited many times over by neutral experts for its excess and inefficiency. It hasn't achieved its stated goals and it is deeply unpopular with the American people.

I'll give you a hint. It's not Medicare or Social Security. It's not food stamps or unemployment benefits or Pell Grants or WIC. It's not any of the programs that comprise the safety net for our Nation. It's not any initiative designed to lift up the American people and giving them a chance to rise above difficult economic times.

No. It's a decade-long effort that has been fiscally irresponsible, eroded our moral authority around the world, and cost our Nation more than 6,000 precious lives.

That's right, Mr. Speaker, our ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the perfect target for the spending cuts our country needs to restore fiscal balance.

I have written a letter to the supercommittee, cosigned by 23 of my colleagues--so far, they're still signing on--strongly urging the committee to take a hard look at the overwhelming crippling costs of these wars. Afghanistan alone is costing the American people at least $10 billion a month, and to date, Iraq and Afghanistan combined have sucked the Treasury dry to the tune of a staggering $2.3 trillion--not million, not billion, $2.3 trillion. Frankly, this would be a rip-off at a fraction of the cost. If these wars were

revenue neutral, if they carried no price tag at all, I would say it's not worth it. Just during the month of August, when Congress was in recess, 70 more brave Americans died in Afghanistan, making last month the single deadliest month of this 10-year war.

The notion that things are looking up in Afghanistan is ridiculous on its face. Our continued occupation is impeding progress, not making it; fanning the flames of the insurgency instead of putting them out; making us less safe, not more. And for this, we are asking our people here in the United States to go without.

Less than 12 hours from now, however, the President will be speaking from the Chamber, and he will be talking about his job creation strategy. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I fear, will react by saying we can't spend a dime more to solve our devastating economic crisis and put Americans back to work, yet the overwhelming majority of them have nothing at all to say about the trillions of dollars we've wasted and are continuing to spend on reckless, senseless, immoral wars.

It's true that budgets are about choices. Which will we choose: the human destruction of seemingly endless wars abroad or the pressing human needs we have here at home?

The supercommittee has a big job, Mr. Speaker. It will be grossly irresponsible for them to ignore one of the biggest ticket items when they're making their considerations. Let's help solve our budget crisis and our moral crisis at the same time by bringing our troops home.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act.

During my first visit to a charter school years ago, when charter schools were first on the horizon, I was so impressed. I was impressed with the small class sizes. I was impressed with the level of parental involvement and the individualized learning programs. In fact, when I left the school, I was actually teary; I mean, I was overcome because I wanted every single child in the United States of America to have this same rich educational experience.

All charter schools aren't quite that successful and all public schools aren't failing, but charter schools were created to develop best practices and innovative learning methods, and, if they were successful, those methods could be brought back and used in all public schools. While some charter schools have found new ways to promote academic achievement, other public schools have yet to benefit from this investment.

This bill will return charter schools to their original mission by helping improve the public school system and ensuring that charters no longer operate in isolation without strict accountability.

For many years, I've been concerned that charter schools, using taxpayer dollars, would function at the expense of public schools instead of complementing them. For instance, without reform, the most talented and motivated students could simply go to the charter schools, while public schools would be left with the most challenging situations, especially students with disabilities, English language learners, and students who come from broken homes and are having a hard time just keeping up in general. And that was totally contrary to the intent of the charter schools movement; it would weaken, rather than strengthen, our public school system.

So to address this problem, this bill stood up and, in a very bipartisan way, our committee put together a bill that we have here on the House floor that requires charter schools to adopt practices that promote inclusion, that allow for increased enrollment of students with disabilities and limited English skills, and provides an information sharing system regarding systems programs.

There are many other necessary reforms included in H.R. 2218, and they'll all ensure charter schools fill their original purpose. With these reforms, charter schools will play the constructive role in our education system that they were designed to play.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride today to honor Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

Originally known as Two Rock Ranch Station, the 876-acre site was purchased by the U.S. Army for $97,377 in 1942 and used as an electronic intercept station in World War II. There were two officers and 45 enlisted men assigned to it. Two Rock's use was expanded during the Vietnam War to include training, with a re-created Vietnamese village.

The Coast Guard took ownership of the facility in 1971, renaming it ``Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma'' and transferring the Subsistence Specialist School, Storekeeper School, and Radioman School from New York. Since that time, two barracks have been built (Steadman Hall and Horsley Hall) as well as 15 duplex housing units to provide affordable housing to the workforce. Several other buildings for use in training were also constructed (Bauer Building, Juliet-Nichols Building, and Haley Hall). The current replacement value of the facility is close to $245 million.

During the 1990s, Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma was threatened with closure twice as the U.S. reevaluated its bases. The local community rallied in support, and I was able to work with them and with Coast Guard officials to keep this important facility open.

Today, the Center is home to seven ``A'' schools for electronics, technician, food service specialist, health service technician, information system technician, operation specialist, storekeeper and Yeoman. There are also 40 ``C'' schools and a Chief Petty Officer Academy. With a permanently assigned cadre of 500 active duty, civilian, and contractor staff, the facility supports more than 15,000 students per year.

Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma truly embodies its vision: To be a world leader in valid and reliable performance-based training; to be the best place to live and work in the Coast Guard; to be the best and most efficient steward of resources (money and property) in the Coast Guard training system; and to be the most environmentally-friendly Coast Guard base in the world. Having recently attended an event to throw the switch on solar panels that now provide much of the Center's electricity, I have seen first-hand how serious this vision is.

Mr. Speaker, Coast Guard Training Center Petaluma is important to the local community and important to our country. Please join me in congratulating the Coast Guard on the facility's 40th anniversary and wishing it many more years of service.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I'm the coolest grandmother in this country as far as my grandchildren are concerned, not because I'm a Member of the House of Representatives and have been for 19 years, but because I live within walking distance of the National Zoo. They come here, and they can't get enough of the National Zoo that is sponsored by the Smithsonian. And then when they've had enough of the National Zoo and know they can come back the day after, they are on their way to the Smithsonian; and it depends on their age, and they've developed over the years from wanting the simplest entertainment at the zoo to being very curious and wanting to know more and more.

My 7-year-old grandson who was here over the Fourth of July is committed to be a scientist from what he experienced over his last week and the few times he's been here before.

If you don't have grandchildren, maybe you don't get it. You don't think this is important to the people of this country, but there is nobody who comes into my office of any age who doesn't thank me for the experience they have had at the Smithsonian. I remind them that it is their entity. It isn't ours. They pay for it through their taxes, and they are proud to do that.

I stand here against the amendment and in support of the Smithsonian Institution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

As sure as Wednesday follows Tuesday, you can count on congressional Republicans to propose gutting programs benefiting the arts and humanities. It's as predictable as it is irresponsible and unwise. It's the same old penny-wise, pound-foolish approach we have come to expect from a party that wants to spend lavishly on corporate giveaways while cutting just about every initiative that empowers the American people and improves lives and our communities.

I can't believe that while the Nation stands on the brink of default, while Republican stubbornness puts us less than a week away from economic calamity, we're having a debate about funding for the arts that represents 3

cents, 3 cents for every $100 of nonmilitary discretionary spending. Three cents, Mr. Chairman.

Believe me, the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts isn't breaking the bank. Grants to support museums and theater companies are not what caused a huge deficit, and cutting them will not put us on a fiscally responsible course. In fact, investments in the arts more than pay for themselves. For every $1 spent on arts programs, the country gets back $9 in economic benefit.

My friends on the other side of the aisle love to make arts funding a scapegoat. They never miss an opportunity to turn a spending debate into a culture war referendum on art. But let's be clear: The arts represent a vital economic industry, a mainstream employer of millions of Americans, and an integral part of a functioning society. The nonprofit arts sector generates more than $12 billion in tax revenues and more than $166 billion in economic activity every single year.

Communities that have a vibrant artistic life are magnets for tourism and new businesses that create jobs. There's also evidence that communities that embrace the arts tend to have higher real estate values, more civic activities and volunteerism, less crime, and lower poverty rates.

The arts are also a critical ingredient in the development of our children, with research showing that students receiving arts education perform better academically and are more likely to succeed in life.

But despite all the ways that arts support the common good, Republican leaders want to cut NEA. Instead, Mr. Chairman, I think it's time we cut Big Oil subsidies and cut loopholes for corporate jet owners. Arts programs have already taken a budget hit in recent years and are trying to do more with less. If we can give billions in subsidies to oil companies that are already raking in record profits, then surely we can maintain modest investments in the nonprofit arts sector that makes a vital contribution to American life.

Let's stop blaming small agencies for a fiscal crisis that was caused by three wars and tax cuts for the people who need them the least. Let's maintain robust funding for NEA.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, last week, General David Petraeus relinquished control of the Afghanistan command. He did this as he prepares to take over as CIA Director this fall.

We are all grateful to General Petraeus for 37 years of honorable and distinguished service, but the fact remains that the fundamental realities in Afghanistan haven't changed. The New York Times put it plainly, noting that the general is ``leaving behind a country racked by deep political instability, whose fledgling security forces are fighting a weakened but deadly insurgency that kills coalition troops and Afghan civilians and officials nearly every day.''

That's a pretty damning assessment, Mr. Speaker, and it's accurate.

In recent weeks, two of President Karzai's most powerful allies, including his brother, have been gunned down by the Taliban, and ordinary Afghan citizens are caught in the line of fire as never, never before. The U.N. recently reported that more Afghan civilians were killed in the first half of 2011 than in any other 6-month period since the war began. Some of these casualties are the accidental result of errant attacks and night raids by U.S. and NATO forces, but the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths came at the hands of insurgents who were often using suicide bombers.

There were nearly 1,500 civilian deaths between January and June, but according to the U.N., that might be a low estimate given that it doesn't include killings in northern Afghanistan in the last few months, because the U.N. closed its office in that region after it was attacked by a mob that killed several staffers.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that after nearly a decade of war we haven't been able to vanquish the enemy and bring stability and security to Afghanistan. If after 10 years we can't do more to subdue the insurgency, then clearly--clearly--we must be doing something wrong. Clearly, there must be a better approach.

I've been pushing for that new approach for many years now. It's called SMART Security. It's based on the belief that sending 100,000 troops to occupy a sovereign country is not the best way to win trust and to promote peace, which has proven to fan the flames of resentment, to give increased momentum to extremists and to put the lives of American troops and Afghan civilians in danger.

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is an Afghanistan civilian surge as bold as the military surge that has gotten us further entangled in this failed war. That's what SMART Security is all about. Instead of sending troops, let's send humanitarian aid. Let's send our civilian experts who can help rebuild Afghan schools and hospitals, who can help--and I say ``help'' because we want the Afghan people to be doing this, but we can help where necessary--rebuild the political infrastructure and rule of law that will strengthen Afghan democracy, who can promote political

reconciliation and peaceful conflict resolution.

As he left Afghanistan, General Petraeus said, ``We should be clear- eyed about the challenges ahead.'' His successor, General John Allen, said, ``There will be tough days ahead, and I have no illusions about the challenges we will face together.''

But I say, Mr. Speaker, continuing with the current policy demonstrates that, in fact, we are not being clear-eyed at all, that we are gripped by dangerous illusions about what a military occupation can achieve. This strategy has been given a chance to work--10 years. It hasn't worked. It's time for something new. It's time for SMART Security, and it's time to bring our troops home.

I move to strike the last word to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what the American people want from their leaders in Washington can be summed up in a single word: jobs, J-O-B-S. The Republicans have now controlled the House for more than 200 days, and they haven't lifted a finger to address the single overriding priority of the people we work for, that is, jobs.

It's a gross failure of leadership.

Instead, what's on their agenda this week? Only the biggest assault on environmental protections in several decades.

I have yet, Mr. Chairman, to see a poll where Americans are clamoring for the Congress to undermine pollution controls, damage public health, and unravel a 40-year bipartisan conservation consensus. I can't think of a single environmental program or initiative that is spared under the base legislation, and this amendment makes it even worse.

The base bill would mean more toxic mercury, arsenic and soot pollution released in our air. It leaves the area surrounding the Grand Canyon, the Grand Canyon, an iconic national park, open to toxic uranium mining.

It cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 78 percent. It tears the heart out of the Clean Water Act, and it guts the Endangered Species Act. And it removes those pesky regulatory obstacles that keep pesticides out of our waterways.

The Republicans want to block EPA's efforts to protect communities from stormwater runoff and to issue new energy-efficiency standards for new vehicles after 2016. Everything we've put in place that makes sense is what they want to get rid of.

And on and on and on and on it goes, Mr. Chairman, one extreme policy rider after another. None of this will do anything to save taxpayers money. It is an absolute frontal assault on the water we drink, the air we breathe, the public lands we cherish.

This is a big special interest giveaway, and that is simple. It's a classic example of legislating to benefit friends and benefactors, Big Oil and other corporate polluters at the expense of national interests. The Nation's natural resources are not ours to exploit at our will. They are on loan to us. We must be the responsible stewards.

It will be a moral failure if we don't pass an improved environmental bill, and if we don't pass an environment on to the next generation, one that is in even better condition than the one we have today.

But that's what this disgraceful legislation would do. It breaks a covenant that the American people take very seriously, a covenant they actually take for granted. It's Republican extremism run amok on steroids, voraciously rampaging out of control.

The base bill, H.R. 2584, must be stopped. This amendment cannot see the light of day. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here catching my breath after the debate over the extreme Tea Party legislation that we considered yesterday. It's easily one of the worst bills I can remember in nearly 20 years of service here in this body. Every time I think they can't possibly go any farther, the majority blows me away with the audacity of their proposals and the cruelty of their priorities.

H.R. 2560, yesterday's debt ceiling proposal, almost makes the Ryan budget look progressive. It makes the continuing resolution passed back in April look positively generous. On this side of the aisle, we call it the Cut, Cap, and

End Medicare plan, which is completely accurate. But I'm going to give it another name today, Cut, Cap, and Continue Wars, because throughout the debate over the debt ceiling there's been an elephant in the room, if you'll pardon the expression, that hardly anyone is willing to acknowledge, and that is the impact of waging not one, not two, but three wars is having on our Nation's fiscal health.

Afghanistan alone is costing $10 billion a month, with the total price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan, going back 10 years, $3.2 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate, Mr. Speaker. These are staggering figures, especially during a recession when Americans are crying out for Washington to do something about creating jobs and breathing life back into our economy.

And what are the taxpayers getting for their trillions of dollars in war spending? More than 6,100 dead Americans, continued violence in Iraq and a Prime Minister who's cozying up to Iran, and an ongoing civil war in Libya, a corrupt regime in Kabul, insurgents that continue to kill at will, in Afghanistan a nation still under crushing poverty, and an Afghan Government that cannot protect its own people.

By any measure, these wars have been a devastating failure. And yet, with barely any scrutiny, barely any debate, and certainly no outrage from Republican leaders, we continue to write that check. Meanwhile, we have domestic programs that work, proven investments in the survival and prosperity of our people: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, school lunches, student loans, food stamps, unemployment insurance. But the majority says these programs have to be cut and capped so we can continue three wars.

Republicans want to cut programs that are keeping Americans alive while they want to continue funding the wars that have killed more than 6,100 Americans. It blows my mind, Mr. Speaker.

How about we ask the American people: Which do they prefer? These wars that have been failing us for 10 years or the guaranteed Medicare benefits that will allow them and their families to retire with dignity?

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Do you really believe everything should be on the table? Everything? If you do, let's talk about war spending. And if you're really and truly serious about restoring fiscal sanity, where were you when the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a plan that will put us back in the black within 10 years?

The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget proves that we can balance the budget, but we don't have to amend the Constitution to do it. We don't need to shred the safety net to do it. We don't need to tear the heart out of Medicare to do it.

We can do it by bringing fairness back to the Tax Code, by ending subsidies, handouts, and giveaways to people and corporations who will do just fine without them, we can do it by passing a clean debt ceiling and putting our people to work, and, Mr. Speaker, we can do it by ending these wars once and for all and bringing our troops home where they belong.

Mr. Speaker, on July 14, 2011, for rollcalls 574-576 my vote was recorded as ``aye.'' I ask that my vote be recorded as: rollcall No. 574: ``no'', rollcall No. 575: ``no'', rollcall No. 576: ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Vic Rowen, a man whose distinguished career as Head Football Coach for the San Francisco State University Gators for 28 years, earned him the highest accolades.

On June 4, 2011, the San Francisco State University unveiled a statue to commemorate Coach Rowen's service as well as that of his predecessor, Coach Joe Verducci. These men were honored for exemplifying ``the highest ideals of academic performance and competitive athletics'' as well as demonstrating ``personal accomplishments as men of honor and character.'' The statue was paid for by grateful players, colleagues, alumni, staff and friends.

Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1919, Coach Rowen played football in college before earning a doctorate in physical education at Columbia University. He held several coaching positions and then joined San Francisco State in 1954 as Joe Verducci's assistant. He became head football coach in 1961. (Coach Verducci passed away in 1964.)

Coach Rowen's tenure covered over half the span of time that football was played at San Francisco State. In his early years, the school won eight Far Western Conference titles and attracted top talent, but after a student strike in 1968, the football program was severely diminished by budget cuts. Rowen continued to train players and especially coaches (including his son Keith) who excelled in the sport, although the school's winning record was curtailed. My son, Ed Critchett, an all- American inspired by Vic Rowen cherishes the time he spent with the Gators in the 1980s. Rowen retired in 1989, and football was discontinued at the school in 1995.

Also a respected physical education teacher at the University, some of Rowen's other accomplishments include Northern California Coach of the Year, President and Board Member of the American Football Coaches Association, Football Writers Association of America Award, and the Ernie Nevers Award National Football Foundation's College Football Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Coach Vic Rowen on the tribute he and Coach Verducci received on 6/4/11. Vic Rowen was a man who influenced both the character and the skills of hundreds of young men and women at San Francisco State University and is loved and respected by all. I thank him for his commitment and service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor my friend, Dr. Donald Linker of Tiburon, CA, who passed away unexpectedly on June 16, 2011, after a fall. He was a spirited activist and colorful community character who livened up the many causes he took on.

Born and raised in Kentucky, Don Linker moved to northern California after completing medical school. He served as a physician in the Marines before settling for a number of years in San Francisco where he had a urology practice. He later earned a Masters in Public Health from UC Berkeley. Throughout his career, he was known as a compassionate physician and advocate for research on important public health issues like prostate cancer.

Don was married during his time in San Francisco and had three children, Kevin, Jodi, and Dana. He later moved to Tiburon and became active in Marin County. He was a founder of the local schools foundation and served on the boards of the Buck Center for Research in Aging, the Jewish Community Federation, AIPAC, and the Marin Community Foundation. He also found time to become a painter and had a show of abstract art in the works when he died.

Perhaps best known for his extreme athletic feats, Don Linker had his share of close calls whether windsurfing (where he was swept out to sea), mountain biking (where he garnered several speeding tickets) or skiing (including spending a freezing night on a chairlift because of his attempt to get in one last run).

He is survived by his three children as well as his brother Stephen, his son-in-law Richard Steele, and his two grandchildren, Lauren and Sarah Steele.

Mr. Speaker, I will miss Dr. Don Linker's bright wit and colorful sweaters and bow ties. But mostly I will miss his warm friendship and compassionate spirit. Please join me, his community, his family, and his many friends in mourning his passing.

Madam Speaker, in April of the year 2004, my staff came to me with a memo, asking if I wanted to give a Special Order speech on some issue of which I can't remember the subject. My answer at that time was, no, I didn't want to speak on that issue, but I did want to deliver a 5-minute speech that day and every day thereafter, when it was possible, to express my opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to express my belief that there is a smarter way to achieve our national security goals.

So, Madam Speaker, since that day, I've stood here in this spot to say over and over again that these wars are eroding our spiritual core, bankrupting us morally and fiscally, teaching our children that warfare is the new normal. I have delivered these speeches as a member of the majority and the minority, when the President was a member of my party and when he was not, and today, I am doing it for the 400th time.

When I began, the war in Iraq was still quite popular, as was the President who launched it, but we spoke out anyway, refusing to bend on principle because we knew that we did not belong there. My colleagues Representative Barbara Lee and Representative Maxine Waters and I called ourselves the ``Triad.'' We started the Out of Iraq Caucus, and we forced the first House vote to bring our troops home. Along the way, I visited Iraq, and my opinion was confirmed against that very war, but at the same time, it increased my admiration for our troops. Gradually, the tide of public opinion turned. President Bush lost the confidence of the American people, and eventually had to start winding down the war. I don't believe that would have happened unless a few lonely voices had dared to be heard in those early, early days.

I am proud of what we have accomplished, but I am also very frustrated because nearly a decade after the first American boots hit the ground in Afghanistan, here we are--still at war, still occupying sovereign countries on missions that aren't making us safer or advancing our interests. The cost has been devastating. Over 6,100 Americans are dead, and thousands more civilians have died for the cause of their so-called ``liberation.'' Thousands of U.S. servicemembers have come home but may never be the same, either because of physical wounds or mental health trauma, which can, with the physical and the mental health, destroy lives just as well.

In addition to the staggering $3.2 trillion price tag that has piled up over the last 10 years, I don't think we've even begun to come to grips with the resources that the VA will need for the next 50 or so years to meet the responsibility we have to our veterans as a result of these wars.

Madam Speaker, I've said it over and over again that I'm not suggesting we abandon the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Anti-war doesn't mean anti-engagement or anti-security. The underlying principle behind my 400 speeches has been that we need a completely different approach to protecting America--one that emphasizes diplomacy, reconciliation and peaceful conflict resolution.

From the beginning, I have been pushing my own solution called SMART Security, fighting terrorism with better intelligence, with a stronger nuclear nonproliferation program, with humanitarian and economic aid that will give hope to people around the world, with less spending on weapon systems and more on homeland security, human rights monitoring, and energy independence.

Most importantly, SMART Security insists that war is an absolute last resort because, Madam Speaker, for the sake of the future of the human race, we must and we can figure out a way to resolve our differences without resorting to war and violence. I will continue to do this for the remaining 1\1/2\ years that I will be in Congress, giving as many of these speeches as I can. And Madam Speaker, I will not rest until we finally bring our troops home and we adopt the SMART Security approach to preventing war and preserving peace so that my grandchildren and your grandchildren and their grandchildren will have a peaceful, productive world to live in in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Ellen C. Weaver who passed away May 14, 2011. Dr. Weaver was a modern-day Renaissance woman who was a world-class scientist as well as an artist, musician, environmentalist, skier, cook, and beloved wife and mother.

Dr. Weaver received her BA in Chemistry from Flora Stone Mather College at Western Reserve University in 1945 and worked as an analytical chemist for the Manhattan Project where she joined her physicist husband, Harry Weaver after their marriage in 1946. After World War II, the couple moved west to attend Stanford University, where she earned her MS in Chemistry followed by a Ph.D. in genetics from U.C. Berkeley. She had a life-long career as a research plant physiologist, including a collaboration with Jacques Cousteau at NASA Ames Research Center helping to map the photosynthetic productivity of fishing areas off the South American coast.

Joining the faculty of San Jose State University, Dr. Weaver taught plant physiology, served as Director of the San Jose State University Foundation and as Interim Executive Vice President. Retiring from teaching in 1991, she held the position for two years of Associate Dean for Development for the University. She also served on the boards of many professional societies and tirelessly promoted the advancement of women in science.

As a political liberal and dedicated environmentalist with a passion for preservation of redwoods, Dr. Weaver was active as Chairman of the Board for Sempervirens Fund and was a member of the science advisory committee for the Save the Redwoods League.

With her husband Harry and their three children--Lynne, Mark, and Tom--Dr. Weaver lived in Portola Valley, CA, for most of her life before retiring to San Rafael in 2000.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in celebrating Dr. Ellen Weaver's full and rich life which touched countless people.