Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, since 2005, I have spoken from this very spot 399 times. On nearly every occasion that House rules allow, I have stood to deliver a 5-minute special order speech highlighting the moral outrage of the United States' continued military engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. I speak of the need also for a new Smart Security to keep America safe.

Today will be my 399th speech. I look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and I will continue this drumbeat until my last day as a Member of Congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1\1/2\ years, time to bring our troops safely home.

During this week, the week that the House is debating defense appropriations, I thought it would be fitting to focus on war spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being

asked to bear for our military occupations.

Ten billion dollars a month is a lot of money. That's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against Afghanistan: $10 billion a month. The American people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions: Where is that money going, and what exactly is it accomplishing? What are we getting for our $10 billion a month? Are we more secure here at home? Is the Afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? Have we not already defeated al Qaeda? And so who are we fighting and why?

For $10 billion a month, Mr. Speaker, our expectations as taxpayers, as Americans, and as Members of Congress, should be high. Is it too much to think that $10 billion a month could buy a stable ally, an ally capable of standing on its own two feet, taking responsibility for its own security, and having respect for the rule of law? Instead, corruption and chaos are ruling the day in Kabul. Basic government institutions are failing to provide services. President Karzai has tried to establish a special court, in fact, for the purpose of stripping 62 members of Parliament of their seats. The financial system is teetering on the brink of collapse with the head of the central bank fleeing the country and accusing Karzai's regime of fraud and cronyism.

And just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, a brawl broke out on the floor of the Afghan Parliament with one member throwing a shoe at another member when a motion was proposed to impeach President Karzai. For $10 billion a month, is it not too much to ask that the Afghan Parliament not look like an episode of the ``Jerry Springer Show''?

There is so much we could do with $10 billion a month right here at home, especially at a moment when so many of our people are struggling and so many of our communities so badly need public investment, especially at a moment when the clock is ticking toward a catastrophic default on the national debt. I'm not suggesting that we ignore or that we run away from Afghanistan's deep-seated problems, but I believe we cannot begin to address their needs with a military solution. It will never work. It is time to reinvest at pennies on the dollar in Smart Security efforts, humanitarian and civilian aid, aid that will promote democracy, and economic support to address poverty and to rebuild infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, this is a moment and this is a time where we put our priorities in order, but it's not a job for our troops. They have served with unbelievable valor. Now it's time to bring them safely home and invest in a humanitarian way in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Amash-Kucinich amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and at the same time call on other Members to join us on the floor right now for this important debate.

Mr. Chairman, I have been struck in recent days by the profound lack of seriousness in Washington when it comes to confronting this illegal war we are fighting in Libya. Last week at a news conference, the President dismissed congressional concerns about war powers authority and his Libya policy and, he said ``all kinds of noise about process.''

At the same time, the U.S. Senate essentially punted on the issue earlier this week, pulling the plug on an important debate that the country needs because a few Republican Senators complained that they canceled recess only to deal with the debt ceiling, and they were not going to discuss Libya.

But perhaps it was right here in the House that we have seen the most incoherence on Libya. Right before we adjourned almost 2 weeks ago, this body voted against authorizing the use of force in Libya; and then less than 2 hours later, the House voted to continue funding the war we had just refused to authorize.

Mr. Chairman, Congress has the ``power of the purse,'' and we must be prepared to use it. We must use this opportunity to send a powerful message. A vote of no confidence in this Libya policy will prove that we do not and will not write another check for a war that Americans don't want and a war that we did not authorize.

Hostilities with Libya--and, let's be frank, these are hostilities-- have now been going on for more than 100 days with the cost climbing toward a billion dollars, and that doesn't even include the moral costs and the cost of civilian lives. The people's money is too important and too precious, especially during this time of fiscal austerity.

No one believes that cutting off Libya alone is enough to make meaningful progress on deficit reduction; but I think it's outrageous that we are talking about cuts in Social Security benefits, and those cuts are on the table while we are discussing the debt ceiling negotiations while we continue to throw money at not one, not two, but three wars.

A Brown University study concludes that when it's all said and done Iraq and Afghanistan will suck the Treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. Enough, already.

Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon is like that teenager. You keep giving the kid the keys to the car, and he keeps crashing it. It's time we cut him off.

We must draw the line, and we must draw it here. No more funding for Libya; no more continuance in Libyan hostilities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my good friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) which I am very proud to be a cosponsor.

The war in Libya, which was not authored by this body or our Senate colleagues, has lingered for more than 100 days.

Mr. Chairman, despite the legal contortions coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the dropping of bombs, the killing of civilians, and the use of drones in Libya most definitely constitutes hostilities. And it's our responsibility in the Congress to make sure that these hostilities do not escalate into a full-blown ground war with boots on the ground and the United States becoming an occupying force in Libya.

The President has assured us that this won't happen, and I believe that a ground war is not his intention. But it wouldn't be the first time, Mr. Chairman, in the history of the United States' warfare that there was a shift in military, with the military campaign beginning as one thing and ending up as quite another. So it's critical that we assert ourselves using the congressional authority to appropriate funds to say ``no'' to launching a third ground war.

Our authority rests on how we use the people's money. Today's amendment denies the use of our tax dollars to send troops into Libya.

The war in Libya is a war of choice, except it's one that Americans didn't choose. It's not one that their elected representatives here in the people's House and Senate chose either.

We must ensure it does not go any further. We must listen to our people--the people who sent us here, the people we work for--who are insisting that we set limits. They know that we can't afford another Libya becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Are these the values that we celebrated over this patriotic holiday weekend? Permanent warfare that leads to mayhem, despair and instability without advancing our national interests? It's time we start embracing the principles of smart security--humanitarian aid and civilian support--instead of perpetual warfare.

Haven't we had enough? Haven't our troops proven their valor? Haven't military families proven their selflessness and sacrifice? Haven't the taxpayers parted with enough of their money?

Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers-McClintock-Woolsey-Lee amendment. Say no to ground troops in Libya.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Mike Thompson, to honor the 100th birthday of an important community institution, the Boyes Hot Springs Post Office. On July 8, 1911, the Sonoma Index Tribune reported that ``A.D. Graham of Graham's Cash Store received the appointment as post master of Boyes Springs. Located at his store.''

The store, lost in a 1923 fire along with most of the town, was near the train depot at Boyes Boulevard and the Sonoma Highway (Hwy 12). After rapid rebuilding, the post office was located in the Woodleaf Store (now a diner that is part of the Sonoma Mission Inn) until 1951 when its current site was built at the Plaza Center at Boyes Boulevard and Sonoma Highway.

This site, previously known as the Boyes Springs Plaza, had been the scene of street parties and fiestas. Now, redevelopment plans include a public plaza in the surrounding space, reviving it as a place for celebration.

Boyes Hot Springs has a lively history, integral to the fabric of the Sonoma Valley. Formerly the center of a great resort area, it hosted thousands of visitors during its heyday. There were dozens of resorts, from small motor courts to the grand Sonoma Mission Inn. The Boyes Bath House boasted the second largest indoor swimming pool in the country. And, for many years, the area was a training ground for professional football and baseball teams such as the Cleveland Browns and the San Francisco Seals.

After the demise of the passenger railroad, the area still thrived with the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge and the rise of the automobile. Boyes Springs real estate man L.E. ``Bud'' Castner was one of the first directors of the Golden Gate Bridge District.

In the 1960s, as the resorts faded, Boyes Hot Springs faded a bit as well. Community pride, however, never waned. The area became attractive in the 1980s and 1990s to home buyers who were priced out of the Bay Area market. Attracted by its rural charm, they purchased its large stock of charming cottages to rehabilitate. At the same time, the population of Mexican immigrants grew, attracted principally by the grape growing and wine businesses.

To old timers and new residents alike, the post office is the center of the community. Since most of the surrounding streets receive no mail delivery, residents make a daily trip to the post office where they catch up on the latest local news with their friends and neighbors. The immigrant population relies on it for communication with their families back home. The postal workers are personally known to all, a part of the broader community family.

Mr. Speaker, the community is hosting a celebration to honor this anniversary. In the words of one of the organizers, Michael Acker of the Springs Community Alliance, it will ``salute the past, show appreciation for service, and look to the future with hope.'' Please join us in honoring the centennial of the Boyes Hot Springs Post Office.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my dear friend Congresswoman Lee and the rest of the authors.

Congresswoman Lee is a courageous voice for peace in Afghanistan and around the world, and what she says--this is the bottom line of this amendment--is clear: We should not spend one more dime waging war in Afghanistan. The only money we appropriate must be used to wind down the war with the safe, orderly, complete, and long overdue military redeployment out of Afghanistan.

The White House announced about 2 weeks ago that we would have a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. I believe that announcement was tragically inadequate. Actually, I was hoping to hear that at least 50,000 troops would be coming home by the end of 2011. Instead, the President announced his intention to wait another year, the summer of 2012, before removing the 33,000 troops that were added with the surge. Too slow, too cautious, too modest.

I don't know how much clearer the writing on the wall has to be, Mr. Chairman. Afghanistan remains in terrible disarray, with a terribly corrupt central government and a security force actually incapable of enforcing security. Our military footprint isn't doing enough in Afghanistan. It is actually causing more harm than good. Meanwhile, the human cost here at home is nothing short of devastating. Casualties have spiked. Americans are dying in Afghanistan at an unacceptable rate, more than 200 troops so far this year and over 1,600 troops since the war began nearly a decade ago.

And, Mr. Chairman, making it home alive doesn't mean making it home whole. Thousands upon thousands of servicemembers will spend the rest of their lives coping with the wounds and the scars they acquired in this unnecessary war. Many have left limbs behind in Afghanistan. Others will never regain their mental health or their peace of mind, suffering the devastating effects of PTSD.

Why would we continue to throw another dollar at a war that has done so much to hurt our people and Afghan civilians and done so little to help Afghanistan in general? This week, as a matter of fact, all of Washington is abuzz about the debt ceiling negotiations. Commentators are asking us, where will we find consensus that preserves the full faith and credit of the United States of America? Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a consensus in the United States, a consensus among the American people, and that is that the $10 billion a month that we're spending in Afghanistan is roughly $10 billion too much. But war spending is not on the table in these talks. Instead, Medicare cuts are on the table, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are clinging tight to loopholes and subsidies for oil companies, corporate jets, and the horse racing industry. Their spending priorities are just totally warped.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to bring all this in line with the priorities of the American people. It's time to end this war. It's time to stop investing money that we need right here at home, and it is time to invest only in bringing our troops home safely.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House has the opportunity today to actually have a serious debate on the war with Libya.

Like most Americans, I am disappointed in any argument that says we are not at war. I believe that argument shows contempt for the Constitution and for the executive's coequal branch of government--the United States Congress.

How can this not be war? If another country launched aggressive air strikes against the United States, you'd better believe we'd consider it an act of war. Does anyone remember Pearl Harbor or 9/11? We certainly considered those acts of war against our country. To say that our bombing of Libya does not rise to the level of ``hostilities'' flies in the face of common sense.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation can't afford a third war. The ones we are already fighting are bankrupting us morally and fiscally. This Congress must reassert our power of the purse and not fund an unauthorized war. Today, we must send a clear message that the American people and this Congress will not support perpetual war.

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I was profoundly disappointed in President Obama's announcement last night. I had hoped that he would offer an Afghanistan troop drawdown that was significant, swift, and sizable. Sadly, the proposal failed on all three counts. Now is the time for bold action and decision-making to bring our Nation's Afghanistan policy in line with what the American people want, while recognizing the deep and grave toll this war has taken on our global credibility and our national security. Instead, the administration's choice was to largely stay the course. Instead, President Obama chose to perpetuate a war that is not only bankrupting us morally but fiscally as well. The loss of blood and treasure cannot be underestimated.

The American people have been enormously patient, Mr. Speaker. They have endured great sacrifice. But after nearly a decade of war, they're weary of losing their bravest men and women and their hard-earned tax dollars to a policy that simply has not achieved its goals.

We are not more secure. The Afghanistan leadership wants us out and their people do not appreciate our sacrifice. This is not a partisan issue. When asked, the majority of Americans want our troops to come home. And not several years into the future. No, they want our troops to come home now.

Abandoning this military policy does not mean that we will abandon the people of Afghanistan. A smart security plan would provide for development and reconciliation. It would bring the international community together and help the Afghan people move towards a sustainable future through economic and domestic support, among other means.

Mr. Speaker, more than 1,600 lives have been lost. Where will it end? When will our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and people we know in the community come home from Afghanistan? How many empty chairs are there at the dinner table tonight? When will the heartbreak end?

Let's talk about the economic cost. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about dollars and cents, about how this and other actions we take are costing us too much money. Well, while we stand here, money is flying out of our Treasury to support this war. Try $10 billion a month. Imagine what we could do with $10 billion a month. Just last week, this House voted to take food from the mouths of pregnant women and their children. We're supposed to pinch pennies on important investments like our children and other American projects while we waste huge sums on a failed war. This boggles the mind and it shortchanges the needs we have right here at home.

It is long past time, Mr. Speaker, that we put an end to this madness. It is time to bring our troops home--all of our troops--safely home.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 479. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 479: ``No''--On Ordering the Previous Question.

Mr. Speaker, tonight the President of the United States has an opportunity to show the bold leadership that the American people are crying out for regarding Afghanistan. Tonight he will announce how many troops will be redeployed out of Afghanistan. This must not be, as early reports are indicating, a token withdrawal, bringing only as few as 5,000 troops home now and 5,000 troops home by the end of the year, because that number falls tragically and painfully short of what the national security and moral decency demands.

There are many interpretations, Mr. Speaker, of ``sizable, swift or significant'' as the requests have been for him in his drawdown, but none of those interpretations go so low as 5,000 now and 5,000 by the end of the year. ``Sizable, swift or significant'' is not what 5,000 troops would accomplish. Ten thousand troops doesn't even bring us to where we were before the surge.

That is not a new way forward in Afghanistan. We were promised a new way forward in Afghanistan, and it is going to take 18 months just to get even that much done. How many times are we going to move the goalposts? Anything less than a major shift in Afghanistan policy will be a huge disappointment to the Americans who are paying for it in blood and treasure.

Clear, strong majorities of our country believe it is time we finally end this awful foreign policy blunder. This is not a partisan stance. You just heard Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina. This is common sense. Several Republicans in this body oppose this war. Even some of the Republicans running for President have expressed concern about continuing the military occupation much longer.

It is simply not acceptable to ask for more patience and more time for this strategy to work. You mean 10 years isn't enough? How many families were missing a seat at the table on Father's Day this weekend because we kept giving this dreadful policy one more chance?

Afghanistan casualties are on the rise, Mr. Speaker, with 2011 on pace to be the deadliest year yet and 43 percent of fatalities having occurred since the surge began a year and a half ago. How many more people have to die, Mr. Speaker, both U.S. servicemembers and Afghan citizens, before we say enough? How many more lives have to be destroyed? How many more young Americans have to leave limbs behind in Afghanistan? How many more have to come home ravaged by post-traumatic stress? And how many more billions in taxpayer money do we have to waste for the privilege of having our people killed and our global credibility destroyed? For pennies on the dollar, we could fight terrorism the right way, with a civilian surge that emphasizes humanitarian and political aid and reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, it continues to pain me that we have to scratch and claw for every single dollar of Federal investment in the American people. One

child nutrition program last week was held out there as an example of what we don't need--but we do. Also we are scratching to support health care, education, even support for veterans, but we still continue to waste $10 billion a month in Afghanistan. In the time I take to give this speech, roughly $1 million will fly out of the Treasury to pay for this war.

Mr. Speaker, I implore the President to listen to the American people. Tonight is a moment where he can make history. End the war. Bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Joan Brown and recognize her contribution to volunteerism and community involvement in Marin County, California. Ms. Brown is retiring as Manager of the Civic Center Volunteers, CCV, program after more than 32 years of fostering citizen participation in local government.

After graduating from Northwestern University, Joan continued a legacy of service begun by her family. Her initial work as an elementary school teacher greatly inspired her career path, and the professional standards she cultivated as a teacher carried over into the environment she created at CCV. A trip to the Soviet Union in 1973 focused her passion for service on participation in local government. Her official guide on the trip insisted that the Berlin Wall was nonexistent, just U.S. propaganda, reminding Joan that citizen involvement is essential for democracy.

The CCV was established in response to Proposition 13, which reduced tax revenue to the counties. Joan was hired temporarily and quickly became a permanent employee in the Personnel Department as she helped to create a place where women, retirees, and recession-impacted professionals could dedicate their skills through volunteerism. Through her leadership, the CCV grew from zero in 1979 to 8,400 in 2010.

Marin County would be a very different place were it not for Joan's success with citizen involvement in each county department, saving the Marin taxpayers millions in the process.

Joan's knack for volunteer management extended beyond the reach of the CCV. She took on the challenge of co-founding the National Association of Volunteer Programs in Local Government which included both national and international training. With Community Mental Health, she engineered volunteer development in her successful 10-year Job Coach program. And she also promoted employee effectiveness by creating a newsletter for employees by employees and establishing an employee recognition event.

For her accomplishments both within Marin County and beyond, she earned the First Acts

of Caring Award from the National Association of Counties and the Volunteer Administrator of the Year Award from the international Association for Volunteer Administrators.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in commending Joan Brown's contributions of over 32 years to the people of Marin County. Joan leaves our county more enriched through her innovative vision of volunteerism and community service. I wish her an enjoyable retirement with her family and success in her continued service commitments.

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago, we were promised a new way forward in Afghanistan, a way that would include a significant military drawdown. The date for the redeployment to begin was July 1, 2011, just 2 weeks away. Then last year, the goalposts were removed and it was decided that, in fact, our troops would remain in Afghanistan through 2014.

But apparently that wasn't enough. Negotiations are now under way with the Karzai government--negotiations that are happening apparently in secret and without proper accountability and transparency--for the construction of military bases in Afghanistan. Officials are being very careful not to say that these bases would be permanent, but it's clear that our government could be hammering out the details of an agreement that would call for a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for as far as the eye can see.

I can't understand the logic here, Mr. Speaker. Why can't we grasp the very idea that the longer we are perceived to be an occupying power, the more resentment we breed in Afghanistan? The longer we're there, the more we fuel the insurgency, the more we leave our troops vulnerable, the more we put our own national security in jeopardy. Erecting permanent bases would be the biggest favor we could do for the Taliban.

I salute my good friend and fellow Californian, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, for her leadership on this issue, and I would urge my colleagues to consider my legislation that would require the President to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would clearly prohibit the establishment of permanent bases.

Mr. Speaker, the outgoing Defense Secretary, Mr. Gates, says we're seeking joint bases where the United States acts as a tenant as opposed to an occupying force, but I don't believe for a minute that the Taliban appreciates the subtlety of that distinction.

As long as there are boots on the ground, and not just boots but large installations with American trappings and English language street signs and so forth, the more we embolden the very radical forces we're trying to defeat.

We're going exactly the wrong direction, Mr. Speaker. At a moment when the American people are crying out for this military occupation to end, our leaders look as if they are preparing to extend it into perpetuity. At a moment when casualties are on the rise, we're preparing for a long-term presence that will further endanger, not protect, Americans.

We can't afford permanent war. It's unsustainable. We can't afford the cost in blood, treasure, lost credibility or dwindling moral authority. It's time to bring our troops and our contractors

home and leave no military footprint behind.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my colleague from Alaska, Mr. Young's amendment to prohibit funding for the

Food and Drug Administration to approve genetically engineered salmon.

The FDA is considering an application to sell patented genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. This fish would be given a gene from an eel-like Pout fish and a growth hormone from the Pacific Chinook salmon, which would allow it to grow twice as fast as traditional Atlantic salmon.

If the FDA approves the request, it would be the first genetically engineered animal approved for human consumption, and it would open the door for many more.

Unfortunately, the FDA evaluation process has lacked transparency, failing to provide the public adequate information or sufficient time to provide comment or express concern. And a recent poll found that 91 percent of Americans oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered animals for human consumption.

Mr. Chair, I'm also concerned about the potential commercial impact of G.E. salmon. Salmon fishermen in my district and many others along the Pacific coast have been devastated in recent years by fishery closures. Last year's salmon season was limited to just 8 days because of the continued steep decline in the salmon population.

Because G.E. salmon are more sexually aggressive and resistant to environmental toxins, their escape would pose a catastrophic threat to wild salmon populations.

If just 60 of these G.E. fish find their way into a population of sixty thousand wild salmon, the wild species would fade into extinction in a matter of decades.

While its producer claims that genetically engineered salmon would be sterile, FDA's own documents show that five percent of this G.E. salmon would, in fact, be able to reproduce.

Each year, millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water nets, threatening wild fish populations. Even if a small number of fertile G.E. salmon spilled into nature, our wild salmon and fisherman would be suffering the consequences for years to come--possibly for evermore.

I want to thank my good friend Don Young for his hard work on this important issue and his leadership as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Wild Salmon . . . even though he considers my salmon ``bait'' for his fishers.

I look forward to continuing to work with him and other concerned colleagues to protect our natural fisheries and stop this ``frankenfish.''

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. For consumer safety, for the purity of our waters, and for the continued viability of our fishing industry . . . we must block funding for the FDA to approve genetically engineered salmon.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, for some families--too many, as a matter of fact--the meals served at school may be the only decent meal that their children get that day. Especially during this current economic downturn, with many Americans barely getting by, more people are relying on school meals to keep their children fed and ready to learn.

Why, then, is the Republican majority trying to turn back the clock on school nutrition? Why are they trying to undermine the quality of school meals by gumming up a regulatory process that is designed to ensure that our kids are eating healthy?

Mr. Chairman, I'm offering this amendment because it will stop the majority's attempt to block the implementation of scientific standards for school meals.

Here's the backstory. Since the Truman administration, Congress and the United States Department of Agriculture have set standards for school lunches and breakfasts. But for most of that history, those standards have not reflected the expertise of nutritionists and other health professionals.

Then, last year, Congress passed and the President signed a bill directing the USDA to make school meal requirements, for the first time, consistent with sound science and dietary guidelines issued by the Institute of Medicine. The bottom line: That would mean healthier food for our kids. It would mean the cafeteria line would have more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains and low-fat milk, and less sodium and saturated fat. As instructed by the law that we passed, USDA wrote a regulation and received over 130,000 comments.

Now, just when the process is wrapping up, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to use report language in this appropriations bill to scrap the rule and compel USDA to write a completely new one. This is a stall tactic, plain and simple. Better school meals must not, can't be, from this act, a priority for the other side of the aisle. They apparently don't believe we need to do anything about the epidemic of childhood obesity that is rapidly becoming a major public health crisis, so they're looking for any way to put on the breaks.

The process has worked. We've had congressional direction and we've had mandates. We've had open comment period and rulemaking based on sound science. But the end result is not to the majority's liking, so they want a do-over. This is not only unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, but expensive, as there would be costs associated with starting the rulemaking over--going back to square one. In one fell swoop, the Republicans are showing themselves to be anti-science, anti-child, anti-public health, and anti-fiscal responsibility.

My amendment would stop their shortsighted and irresponsible scheme. It would prevent funds made available by this appropriations act from being used to require USDA to reissue a new rule.

Important advocates agree with me. My amendment has been endorsed by the National Education Association, the American Dietetic Association, Bread for the World, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and many other groups, which I will include in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, our children need balanced, healthy, nutritious meals, not costly bureaucratic delays. They need this to help them succeed in school and in life.

H.R. 2112, Amendment No. 20, List of Supporters

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dietetic

Association, American Public Health Association, Association

of State & Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors,

Bread for the World, California Association of Nutrition &

Activity Programs, California Food Policy Advocates, Campaign

to End Obesity Action Fund, Center for Science in the Public

Interest, Community Food Security Coalition, Food Research &

Action Center (FRAC), Jewish Council for Public Affairs,

National Education Association, National Farm to School

Network, The National WIC Association, Public Health

Institute, Trust for America's Health, The United Fresh

Produce Association.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is now mid-June and we are just weeks away from the July date the President promised for a drawdown of American troops from Afghanistan. But so far, so far, there appears to be little movement towards the kind of redeployment that the moment actually calls for and that the American people are insisting on.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, Defense Secretary Gates, on his way out the door, endorsed a ``modest'' drawdown, even though the President has promised something significant. This is not a moment that calls for modesty. This is a moment for boldness and true leadership. This is a moment to break out of the war default posture--the posture that we've been in for going on 10 years now.

The longer this war goes on, the bloodier it becomes. We were told last year that fatalities would be unusually high in 2010 as the surge troops begin penetrating the Taliban strongholds. But it turns out there's no sign that casualties are tapering off, and we're on pace for an equally deadly 2011. We lost more troops in March, April, and May of this year than we did during the same months of 2010.

And let's not forget--because I don't think it's talked about nearly enough--that it's not just uniformed members of the U.S. military being put in harm's way by this conflict. The United Nations said over the weekend that there were more civilian casualties in May than in any single other month of this war. Needless to say, killing innocent people is certainly not the way to win the hearts and minds of another country.

The American people's patience is wearing thin, Mr. Speaker; and there are many Members of this body--a fair number in the Republican majority--who cannot support this Afghanistan policy either. I for one am tired of being told that the strategy is working and it just needs more time to succeed. How many military families will lose a father or a mother or a son or a daughter in the time it takes for this strategy to go nowhere? How many troops will be physically and psychologically damaged beyond repair?

Mr. Speaker, I think nearly a decade--longer than any war in American history--is more than enough time to admit that the strategy does not work. We don't need simply a token drawdown. We need a fundamental change in policy and a complete reorientation of our thinking about national security. We need to finally end this war and bring our troops home.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, it is often said that a society can be judged by how it treats its young, its elderly and the less fortunate. Today is a perfect example of that.

Instead of feeding the women, infants and children, it appears that the Republicans in Congress are slashing the Ag budget to make room for more tax breaks for the wealthy. Let's have a look at how these priorities balance out. If we got rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires for one measly week, we would pay for the entire WIC Program for a year--a full year. So let's get this straight.

During these times when there is a job shortage, when a person has a job but wages are lower than they should be, when the cost of food is very high and when we have low taxes on the

rich, pregnant women will go hungry and their babies will be born underweight so that someone can afford another beach vacation. Kids will go without breakfast so that someone can buy a second home.

First, the Republicans in Congress passed the Ryan budget act to dismantle Medicare for our seniors and for our disabled. Now they want to take food from the mouths of needy children and women. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how they sleep at night.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. There are WIC recipients in every single congressional district in this country--red States, blue States. Hunger doesn't see political affiliation. This is not some abstract political theory. There are real women and children in every single congressional district who will have to forgo meals. How many of us have ever given up a meal so that a child could eat or have explained to a 3-year-old why there won't be lunch today or have soothed a crying baby who won't get formula?

We should end this shameful spending of $10 billion a month in Afghanistan. We should bring our troops home. We should stop the war tax. We should tax millionaires and billionaires. We should create jobs. We should vote against this bill. Let's show America's working families that we stand with them and that we will be there for them during times of need.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of Terra Linda High School in San Rafael, California. The school's Golden Anniversary was celebrated on May 28, 2011, by a gathering of three generations of proud Terra Linda alumni.

Since its founding, Terra Linda High School has provided thousands of Marin County children the firm and balanced footing they deserve, and it has played an integral role in the strength and success of San Rafael and Marin County. The school upholds high standards in education and extracurriculars, balancing a host of advanced placement offerings with the art, music, and athletic activities that truly enrich the learning experience. Terra Linda and schools like it remind us of the limitless potential of our system of public education when students are provided the resources they need to excel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of Terra Linda High School. Few institutions are as intimately tied to our national identity as our public schools, and none is more essential to our collective future. Terra Linda represents the best of this tradition, and I am proud to honor its legacy in our county.