Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise with my colleague Representative Mike Thompson, to honor a local public broadcaster, KRCB in Sonoma County, California. KRCB is celebrating 25 years of service to our local communities.

Nancy Dobbs, President and CEO, has been the guiding force behind KRCB from the beginning. She notes that it is a rare opportunity to build such a public institution. ``When we started in January, 1981,'' she says, ``we had to argue for the license before the FCC, find land on which to build our offices and studios, raise money for a station that did not yet exist, and convince the community about the importance of our own public broadcasting service.''

Fortunately for all of us, the effort was successful. Today, we cannot imagine life in Sonoma County without KRCB, which provides PBS television, NPR radio, and local programming. It is the only PBS service available to more than a quarter million residents.

Working with nonprofits, businesses, and government agencies, KRCB has led community dialogs on health care, the environment, and disability awareness, to name just a few. The station has been awarded three Emmys for its national environmental series National Heroes, has been honored by the California Teachers' Association for its North Bay Report, and has received honors for local election coverage, provided consistently for the past 17 years. KRCB also provides air time to celebrate local cultural events, such as the full season of the acclaimed Santa Rosa Symphony, which are available in no other venue.

According to Dobbs, ``It was clear from the beginning that KRCB's mission was to utilize the public airwaves of which we are stewards to strengthen the communities we serve. Public broadcasting is a critically important tool with which to stimulate community dialog and engagement, central elements of a healthy democracy.''

Madam Speaker, we congratulate KRCB Television and Radio on its 25 years of service It is indeed a treasure of Northern California.

Madam Speaker, a report written by General McChrystal, the commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, was leaked to the press yesterday. In this report, General McChrystal warns that the conflict in Afghanistan ``will likely result in failure'' if we don't send in more troops.

The leak was an apparent attempt to put pressure on the White House and the Presidency to escalate the conflict. But, to its credit, the administration didn't go there and did not cave in.

President Obama said that he is skeptical that sending in more troops will do any good. And he said, ``I'm certainly not somebody who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries.''

Madam Speaker, I'm relieved that we have somebody in the White House who will think long and hard before sending America's men and women into harm's way. But the President will certainly face a lot more pressure in the coming weeks to increase troop levels. I urge him to resist the idea for three very good reasons.

First, there is no military solution in Afghanistan. We tried it for over 8 years. Our troops have fought with incredible skill and courage. But sending in more troops will only fuel anti-Americanism, and it will convince the Afghan people that the United States is an occupying force that must be resisted.

Second, poll after poll shows that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the majority now believe that the war in Afghanistan is simply not worth fighting.

Third, Madam Speaker, we cannot afford to keep pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this conflict. We need every one of those dollars to meet our urgent domestic needs here at home. We need to use our resources to dig out of the recession, not dig into a quagmire in Afghanistan.

For all these reasons, the President and his advisers must rethink our mission in Afghanistan and look at changing our strategy.

The Rand Corporation has produced a study of extremist groups that should help us develop the right strategy. Rand studied the history of 648 extremist groups, finding that military force was effective against these groups only 7 percent of the time. Two strategies that work better were negotiated political settlements and the use of intelligence and police agencies to dismantle extremist networks. Combined, these two strategies were effective 83--83 percent of the time. That's about 12 times better than the military option.

Rand also applied its analysis to the current situation in Afghanistan and

concluded that ``policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts'' against al Qaeda in that region.

That's why policing and intelligence are two key components of my national security plan, which is described in House Resolution 363, the Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century. My plan also emphasizes economic development, infrastructure, jobs, education, and better governance for Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, by refusing to be rushed and sending more troops to Afghanistan, President Obama has shown that he is willing to change course. And we must change course. The American people want an exit strategy for Afghanistan, not an escalation strategy.

Mr. Speaker, every child and every adult is familiar with the story of Goldilocks. Remember how it goes:

After wandering into the three bears' house, Goldilocks saw three bowls of porridge. One was too hot, one was too cold, but one was the medium temperature, and it was just right. I mention this because The New York Times recently reported that Goldilocks is playing a role in shaping American defense policy. According to the report, General McChrystal is expected to give Secretary of Defense Gates three options for troop increases in Afghanistan. The three options are, first, 15,000 more troops; second, 25,000 more troops; or third, 45,000 more troops. Pentagon officials apparently believe that Gates will choose the medium option of 25,000 troops. According to the Times, they actually call this the ``Goldilocks option.''

Here's why: Sending 15,000 more troops would be too cold because it wouldn't be enough to satisfy the generals; sending 45,000 more troops would be too hot because it would cause political problems; so sending the medium number of troops, 25,000, is considered ``just right.''

Of course the problem with this is that Afghanistan is not a children's story. It is a real war where real people are getting killed, and it is rapidly losing the support of the American people. Recent polls show that the American people want to reduce our troop strength in Afghanistan, not increase it. The American people have good reason to oppose the escalation of the conflict. They know that the recent elections in Afghanistan were filled with fraud, and they believe the Kabul Government is more interested in corruption than in improving the lives of the Afghan people.

The American people also know that we have already spent nearly $225 billion in Afghanistan but have little to show for it. Our troops have performed brilliantly and courageously, but the insurgency is growing, and the war is getting harder to fight every single day. Besides, they believe the money that we have poured into Afghanistan is desperately needed here at home for health care reform and other vital domestic problems. The American people also know that we do not have a clear mission in Afghanistan, there is no exit strategy, and they fear that we run the risk of being considered an occupying force. Since the Afghans have opposed and defeated every single foreign power that has ever tried to occupy their nation, it all seems to be a repeat of past failures.

For all of these reasons, we need to debate, and we need to reconsider what the U.S. role is in Afghanistan. I am urging the House to support my bill, H. Res. 363, the SMART Security Platform for the 21st century. The SMART Security Platform would change our mission in Afghanistan to emphasize economic development, humanitarian aid, education, jobs, and better governance. It would also help Afghanistan develop its policing and intelligence capacity. Policing and intelligence, you see, are far more effective than massive military invasions when it comes to tracking down violent extremists in the communities where they lurk.

Mr. Speaker, if the administration sends more troops to Afghanistan, the United States will be doubling down on a strategy that has already failed. The Afghan people don't want the United States to occupy their country, and the American people don't want an occupation, either. I urge President Obama to reject any plan to send more troops to Afghanistan because, like Goldilocks who should not have eaten any of the porridge that did not belong to her, Afghanistan does not belong to the United States.

I thank you again, Congressman Ellison, for your leadership on these weekly hourly discussions about health care reform and what's going on in our Congress at this particular time.

Things have happened this week. Finally, the Senate has two bills that were written and have been introduced. The second bill, coming out of the Finance Committee, has not passed through the committee yet, but it is the Bachus health care reform bill. And we have gotten a lot of pressure here--I know I have, I know you have, most progressives have-- because there's some idea out there that because the Bachus bill that doesn't have any Republican support either, after 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans spent months and months and months writing it, now Senator Baucus seems to be almost standing alone with that one. But he'll pass it through his committee, and we'll see what happens.

But what does that mean to our proposal and our absolute commitment for a robust public option to be included in a very strong health care reform bill? As far as I'm concerned, it means nothing. What it does is it shows the opposite of what this country could end up with, and it gives wind beneath our wings for our debate on just why we need a strong, robust public option. And one of those why's in Senator Baucus's bill is that it does not provide a public option of any level.

The public option we offer through the Progressive Caucus would have its rates determined based on Medicare plus 5 percent, and do you know that that saves $110 billion over 5 years? Over 5 years. And the Energy and Commerce Committee has a public option that they have proposed, and their public option rates would be based on negotiating with the administration, and their negotiated rates would save $25 billion.

So we have $110 billion in savings through the Progressive Caucus plan, $25 billion in savings through the Energy and Commerce, and we have zero savings through Senator Baucus's plan. So that in and of itself is enough for me to know that that is not a bill that I want to be negotiating and compromising with.

Of course it's an important fact to know. I mean, if anybody is close to their patients and to the needs of this country, it is our physicians. They've been very important in inputting to all of the committees that have been writing legislation.

And another thing that will be very important is when the House of Representatives brings all three of our bills--one from Ways and Means, Energy, and the committee we sit on, Congressman, Education and Labor-- when we unify those bills and come up with the House bill and we can say to our constituents and to the people of this country, this is the House of Representatives health care reform bill, then we will be able to hear back from them on exactly what that bill is. Right now we keep saying, well, it might be, we think it is. I mean, we're pretty sure about 99 percent of it, but not all of it.

That was a negative pun.

That's right.

Would the gentleman yield?

Do you think it would be important for our viewers to know why the co-ops are of no value?

I think we should explain that.

Co-ops could be of value over time, but what we need is a public option that's available the day the exchange goes into effect so that that is one of the options. If we depend on co-ops, right now there are less than 10 in the country. I really know of only one that's totally successful and that took more than 10 years to get up and running. It's not impossible, and it could happen; but that should not be what we consider a public option. It can be an option at another time.

A robust public option.

If the gentleman would yield.

That's the only way we can level the playing field so that employers who do provide health insurance for their employees aren't at a disadvantage in competing with like industries.

If the gentleman would yield, you're not going to be wealthy staying in this job----

Or you're going to stay the same.

Absolutely.

Well, I have a lot of thoughts on that. You see, I represent, probably, not the wealthiest district but the wealthiest county in the Congress, and I have not gotten one letter from one constituent who says, ``Woolsey, how dare you think about raising my taxes.'' I mean this is of the people who would have to pay taxes.

Those are not the kinds of people I represent. They are educated and progressive, and they get it. When other people are taken care of, they're better off in the long run. Their employees are. Their kids in school are safer because the other kids are covered and have good health care. They just totally get it, and I think, if there weren't so many fear factors around, most people would understand the concept.

That's absolutely true.

There are many things we ask of our constituents, but mostly there are many things that the government provides for them, like public education, police, fire, roads. We pay for all of that because we use all of that--some more than others. Some benefit more than others from these services, but it's pretty proportionate about how much you pay and your taxes depending on how much you earn, on how much you have and on how much you've actually benefited from this country of ours. So I believe you're right. It's a shared thing.

One of the suggestions is, of the people who have health care benefits, their benefits should be taxed. There are a lot of us who feel that taxing a person's benefits is not the way to go because they've already, probably, in this economy of ours, given up raises in order to keep their benefits in the first place. To tax those benefits on top of that would just be a hit to the middle class of this country.

Right.

If the gentleman would yield again----

With just that 2 percent difference, that cuts into middle-income workers.

I don't know what the numbers are, but I think, if they earn $41,000 a year and have four children, then they wouldn't be eligible for the subsidies. I don't have that in front of me. I'm sorry. I might be off a little bit, but it really cuts into middle- income workers.

Part of what this bill is about is making it secure for all workers who already have coverage, not making it harder for them to have their coverage. Part of that is security. They might love the coverage they have, but they know, in their heart of hearts, that they could lose that.

Their employers could decide they can't afford to cover them anymore, and boom, that's the end of it. They might lose their jobs. They might want to change jobs and not have insurance going with them.

The truth of it is is that, not the Baucus bill particularly, but the House health care reform bill makes it more secure for people who are already covered. They lose nothing. They don't have to leave their coverage unless their employers decide they don't want to cover them anymore. With the House bill, they have a place to land. They have a place to go, and they can get health care coverage without prejudice.

In the House bill, it's 2-1.

Tell what it is in the Baucus bill.

5-1. Can you imagine?

That's right.

Well, I'd like to say that the Progressive Caucus believes that it is our responsibility in the House to get our bill united and that it is our responsibility to bring our bill forward and to get it voted on so that we have that as an example of a robust health care reform package, so that Senator Harkin's Health Committee can follow suit, and so that we can give him a lot of the strength that comes from this House. We'll be negotiating with them later, but we'll be negotiating two very good bills. We want to go first.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, because it invests in the future of our Nation, making college a reality for more students by investing in Pell Grants and programs that will ensure improved graduation rates and the renewed investment of our Nation's future.

Creating the American Graduation Initiative was one of the most important parts because it will help community colleges find innovative ways to improve the developmental education and job skills training that so many students and workers need.

In the end, we are investing in our future. Twenty-five percent of our population are the young people of this Nation. One hundred percent of our future is made up of those individuals. With H.R. 3221, we are ensuring that we will have a better future because they will have a better future.

I request that every Member of this Congress vote for our kids and our future.

Madam Speaker, on September 14, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall Nos. 696-98. Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 696: Yea--Recognizing the significant contribution coaches make in the life of children who participate in organized sports and supporting the goals and ideals of National Coaches Appreciation Week;

Rollcall No. 697: Yea--Expressing support for designation of ``National Safety Month;'' and

Rollcall No. 698: Yea--Supporting the goals and ideals of senior caregiving and affordability.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of one of the most tragic days in America's history, September 11, 2001.

On that day, our Nation was attacked, and nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. We continue to grieve for them and for their families, and tomorrow we celebrate a national day of remembrance and service in their honor and memory.

Soon after 9/11, Mr. Speaker, American troops invaded Afghanistan, where the attacks had been planned. Many Americans have considered the war in Afghanistan a good war. Our troops have shown incredible skill and bravery in a very difficult conflict over those 8 years. But now, 8 years later, our troops are still in Afghanistan and are still facing a growing insurgency. The Taliban appears to have regained control of half the country, and many al Qaeda operatives have fled to Pakistan. As a result, a growing number of Americans now oppose a war that no longer serves our national security interests.

In three recent polls, more Americans called for reductions in our troop levels rather than increases, and in one poll, the majority of Americans said that the war in Afghanistan is simply not worth fighting.

Despite this, General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is expected to ask the President to commit more troops. There are reports that General McChrystal may ask for as many as 30,000 more, which would bring the American troop level to about 100,000. Enlarging the American footprint in Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker, will almost certainly lead the Afghanistan people to see the United States as an occupying force, and if history has taught us anything, it is that the Afghan people will resist any foreign occupation. That is the bitter lesson that the Soviet Union and the British empire learned.

Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is concerned about the problem. In a recent interview, Secretary Gates said he asked General McChrystal about the implications of significant additional forces and whether the Afghans will see this as the United States becoming more of an occupier rather than a partner.

Secretary Gates also spoke last week about the failures of previous foreign forces in Afghanistan. He said one reason for their failures is that the Afghans concluded that they were there for their own imperial interests and not there for the interests of the Afghan people.

Mr. Speaker, the worst thing our Nation can do right now is to stumble into an occupation that the Afghan people do not want, one that will last many years, that will cost many lives and that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars that we can't afford.

We should not double-down on a strategy that hasn't worked. We need a brand new strategy, one that is based, among other things, on economic development for the Afghan people, on better governance and on improvements in policing and in intelligence. We need to have strategies that are the best ways to capture violent extremists, and we must have a clear exit strategy and a timetable for the withdrawal of our brave troops.

If we do that, if we can stop more people from dying--our troops and the Afghan people--we will truly be honoring the 3,000 who died on September 11, 2001.

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman Ellison, for every week having a 1-hour Special Order on the very subject of health care. We've done a lot over these last few weeks, and the Progressive Caucus is very proud of the role that we have played in bringing health care to where it is. I think Keith said earlier this morning that we probably have just finished the first few innings of a ball game, and we're the ball now after last night's great speech by our President, and his clarity and his ability to explain to the country what it is he wants in a health care bill and his willingness to actually debunk some of the myths that have been out there and some of the lies that have been told about this health care debate and, at the same time, talk about what his priorities are.

And one of those priorities, from what he has given us, which is a laminated card that lists what he wants in a health care bill, and it says under--if you don't have insurance, there are one, two, three, four points, and the third point says--and this is what--I'm going there right away because this is what Progressives were looking for. If you don't have insurance, quality, affordable choices for all Americans, this bill would offer a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice.

Now, that says to us that the public option--and we want a robust public option--remains on the table, that the ball is in our court. Now, I guess this is the third or fourth inning of getting this thing together so that we can bring a health care bill to the floor of the House that is worthy of all Americans, and now that the ball is in our court. We, as the Progressive Caucus, have pledged to define what we consider a robust public health option to be, to work with our leadership and with the administration and to see that our definition of ``robust public option'' is included in health care reform.

Mr. Ellison, you have been absolutely magnificent in making that happen.

Sixth.

Oh, I'm sure you do.

It was a Sunday in the city of Sonoma. I was presented with--that's the list of names that is very impressive. But I was presented with a stack of petitions like that, and I was so proud. I barely could hold them because they were so heavy.

So let's talk about why it's important to have a public option. I think it's time that we start repeating the value and the need for a public option because we get criticized, A public option will cost, blah, blah. The public option absolutely saves money. And the reason it does, there is the same level of overhead, like Medicare or Medicaid, because there's no marketing fees. There are no high-paid executives in the six and seven figures, and there's no shareholders that have to be paid on their stock. So it saves money.

The other thing it does, it provides competition to the private health care industry, health insurance industry. And why is that important? Well, without competition, the rates soar, and they have been over the years to a point where if it continues--right now $1 out of every $6 goes to health care in this country, and that number is going to grow so quickly, and we will be so embarrassed and in so much trouble that we'll know that we made a huge mistake. We don't want to make that mistake.

The other thing--you know about competition. Let's talk about competition for just a minute. The President last night said only about 5 percent of Americans would opt into the public option. Well, I truly believe it would be more than that. But at first it might be--and it needs to prove itself and become just a very viable health care provider, which it will be if it's robust like we want.

But if it's only 5 percent of the overall, why are the private insurance companies so worried? They do not want a public option. And they don't want any competition, and they know that this is the competition they really don't want because it will prove itself over time, and more and more people will indeed select the public option when they have that choice.

Now, the other thing that the public option provides--and I know you're going to be able to add more, but security, security for people who are covered on plans by their employers today. One of the big arguments out there is 85, 75 to 85 percent of all Americans already are covered by their employer and they like the coverage. Well, you know, they might, they might not, but they're covered. But they are not certain that that coverage will last.

And there's a poll, the Belden Russonello poll that shows that 60, 70 percent--I can't remember exactly; I think it's 68 percent, something like that--of the people who have insurance feel insecure on whether that insurance will be available to them for as long as they will need it. And certainly they can't feel secure if they lose their job or if they want to take a new job or if their employer decides, I can't afford to cover my employees anymore. And we want the public option to be one of the choices they have in a soft landing if any of that happens. And they don't feel that secure, and we know it.

What does it look like?

If the gentleman will yield.

It will look like a catalogue. It will be a print catalogue of health care plans available by region.

Congressman Conyers knows that the Progressive Caucus, almost to a person, and there's 85 of us, would have voted right this minute for a single-payer. That's what we wanted. And we knew that it was a nonstarter. But we also felt that to get to single-payer--we are not supposed to say that. We are not supposed to tell people that the public option could be a step towards single-payer. But if it does and proves itself like I know it will, more and more people will select the public plan. And so we compromise. It was a huge compromise for us.

I represent the Sixth District in California just across the bridge from San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge, one of the best educated and one of the most affluent, by the way, districts in the country. And I say that because

they're also one of the most progressive districts in the entire United States of America. After President Obama was sworn in and we started talking health care and I would be at meetings and they would talk single payer and I knew that wasn't where we were going and I told them, they actually got tears in their eyes. I felt like I had so let them down, John, I really did. But now they're with us, they're with us 100 percent for a public option. But not just a public option with triggers or co-ops or mishy-mash that's just going to put it off and put it off and make it absolutely never happen.

They're with us for something that would be modeled after Medicare, the Medicare provider system so that the public plan doesn't have to go out and put together their own provider system, and possibly the rate structure based on Medicare. That's how I would do it. And of course it would have all the base benefits that we're insisting on for every health care plan. And because there won't be the 30 percent overhead, actually, it can be less expensive and have better benefits.

So do you want to know what I say?

And Keith you were perfect.

My answer is that we don't have health care reform unless we have a public option. And this is health care reform. Now, if we had legislation to tweak around the edges of health insurance, we can do a lot that will be good in this bill, but it would be a health insurance total tweaking bill. And so then name it what it is, but don't call it health care reform. Because we're not coming back here and revisiting this in my lifetime, and I know it. I want us to do this right, and I believe we will.

So I'm not going to go there, you know--``Would I or wouldn't I?'' I mean, I've drawn the line, and many lines before, but I'm not going to vote for something and call it health care reform that isn't.

And the gentleman from Minnesota has a clinic in his State called the Mayo Clinic that is an example of excellence in that regard.

I have a few things I would add to what I think is a robust public option.

Well, I would believe that to be robust, the public option must be available nationally, across all State lines. It should be available from day one, with no trigger. And next week let's talk about triggers and co-ops.

I would have a robust public option that was built on the Medicare network structure, which means the providers, the doctors and the hospitals and the clinics that take Medicare, will automatically be assumed will take the public option. Now, I think if they don't want to, they don't have to. That is the way it is with Medicare also. But that they take it. This is brand new patients for them, paid for by the public plan. And it would be publicly accountable. This plan will work for the public and will be held accountable to the people of this country.

If the gentleman will yield, next time I am on this floor I am going to have mine sent here. It is really impressive. I will bet you every Progressive member has a stack like that. We need to all bring them.

I bet every Member, not just Progressive members. Shame on me.

Thank you, and thank you for doing this every week. You are wonderful. I am going to read one more time what this card that is laminated says. The press is saying to me, how do you know he is going to do that? I say because this will never destruct. ``You said,'' we will say.

But, anyway, last night and on this card it says that the plan that the President supports offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured who can't find affordable coverage with a real choice. It does offer more than the uninsured, but not immediately. So that is very honest there.

Thank you, Mr. Ellison. We will be back.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science and Technology may have until 11:59 p.m. on Friday, September 11, 2009, to file its report to accompany H.R. 3246.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Phyllis Ellman, who died on June 2 at the age of 86. An activist in Marin and Sonoma Counties for more than 40 years, Phyllis was a leader who cared deeply about her community, its people and the environment.

The oldest of four children born in 1923 in Des Moines, Iowa, Phyllis had deep roots in America as one of her ancestors was the military secretary to Gen. George Washington. Phyllis joined the U.S. Army during World War II, and after her honorable discharge, she earned a BS in biology at Kansas State University. She earned a master's degree in biochemistry at Washington State College, where she also met her future husband, George. Six months later they married and moved to Pasadena, California, where Phyllis taught at Cal Tech while George completed his PhD.

In 1958 the Ellmans moved to Tiburon, Marin County, where Phyllis became an avid hiker. She developed a passion for wildflowers and was expert in identifying the unique flowers of the Tiburon hills earning the moniker, ``Mother Botany.'' A member of the California Native Plant Society, she wrote two booklets on the local flora of Ring Mountain.

Always an activist, she pushed for the creation of the Tiburon Bike Path, was appointed to the Tiburon Parks and Recreation Commission in 1973, helped launch the first South of the Knoll playground in Richardson Bay Lineal Park, and with Marilyn Knight, Phyllis established the Belvedere Tiburon Child Care Center, the first such center on the peninsula.

It is Ring Mountain for which she is fondly remembered as being the catalyst saving it from development. Walkers can now kike to the top of Ring Mountain on the Phyllis Ellman Trail which honors her years of public service and devotion to her community.

In 1980 the Ellmans moved to Glen Ellen, Sonoma County, where Phyllis was a dedicated docent at the Bouverie Preserve. She also sang with the Quercus Quire, a group she helped start who performs for elementary school audiences, singing about environmental issues to about 2,000 children each year.

Phyllis leaves her husband of 60 years, George Eliman of Glen Ellen, who is a former Tiburon mayor and town councilmember. Devoted to her family, she also leaves a daughter, brother, two sisters, and seven nieces and nephews.

Madam Speaker, Phyllis Eliman will be missed by so many who shared in her work and passions. An activist in the best sense, she was a valued member of the Marin and Sonoma communities. Her friendship and bright spirit will be missed by all who had the opportunity to know her.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Donna Garske for her deep commitment to ending violence against women. Congratulations to Donna as she celebrates this milestone of three decades of service to the Marin Abused Women's Services, and the survivors of domestic violence that the organization serves.

Through her leadership, Donna has raised awareness of the importance and prominence of domestic violence in Mann County and beyond. As a result of her devoted efforts, abused and battered women and girls have increased access to safety and justice.

The enthusiasm and passion she exhibits for her work is truly commendable. From her directorship of the Marin Abused Women's Services, to her service with the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and her scholastic focus on abuse prevention, she has remained an influential and inspiring leader.

Donna's work on behalf of women knows no borders. With the Network of East/West Women, Donna creates dialogue with women in Eastern/Central Europe and the former Soviet Union about violence against women. Earlier in her career, Donna's passion and commitment took her to the Institute for the Study of Male Violence at Stirling University in Scotland where she studied violence issues.

Since her early work as a counselor at the Women's Transitional Living Center and board member of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Donna's advocacy on behalf of women remains firm and strong.

Madam Speaker, Donna Garske's unstinting dedication to ending violence against women shows citizens in our community the power one person has to make an important difference. Over the years, it has truly been a pleasure for me to work with her. Thank you, Donna, and congratulations.

Madam Speaker, on July 31, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 685. Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 685: No--On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern about the recent developments in Afghanistan. Sadly, 51 American troops were killed in August, making it the deadliest month for the United States since the conflict began 8 years ago.

August also was the deadliest month of the war for the combined coalition force. Many innocent civilians were tragically killed in the air strikes during the month of August, and there is growing evidence that the recent elections may have been marred by fraud.

Madam Speaker, for over 8 years we have relied almost exclusively on the military to stop violent extremism in Afghanistan. But these recent events show that this strategy isn't giving us a victory on the ground or political solutions to the problem. The American people are beginning to recognize that relying on the military option alone isn't the best way to go.

The latest Washington Post-ABC poll shows that 45 percent of the American people want to reduce our forces in Afghanistan, while only 24 percent want to increase our forces. This latest poll from the McClatchy Newspapers came up with similar results.

It is clearly time, Madam Speaker, to develop a new strategy and a new mission for America in Afghanistan. We must begin to use all of the tools of ``smart power.''

Smart power means improving police and intelligence work in the communities where extremists hide. Well-trained Afghan policemen, who are familiar with local people, with customs and conditions, can often do the best job of hunting down extremists. Smart power also includes regional diplomatic efforts, education, better governance, and a civilian surge of experts and workers to support economic development in Afghanistan. These are the things that will give the Afghan people real hope for their future and eliminate the root causes of violent extremism.

As National Security Advisor James L. Jones has said, This war will not be won by the military alone. We tried that for years. The piece of our strategy that has to work in the next year is economic development. If that is not done right, there are not enough troops in the world to succeed.

I know that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton agree that improving the lives of the Afghan people is the key to victory. They have pledged to do everything they can to help rebuild Afghanistan and show the Afghan people that we offer them a better future than the Taliban.

Madam Speaker, I and other Members of the House who oppose our occupation of Iraq watched for years as Congress did nothing to prevent that disaster. But we still have time to get it right when it comes to Afghanistan. This time, let's use smart power. It will save lives, save money, and make our country safer.

Mr. Speaker, I request that the Record note that for rollcall No. 661, Murtha of Pennsylvania Part A Amendment No. 1, I voted ``no'', but would like the Record to reflect, I intended to vote ``aye.''

I request that the Record note that for rollcall No. 675, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, I voted ``yea'', but would like the Record to reflect, I intended to vote ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Walter Jones for his 5-minute speech. That was a perfect lead-in to my remarks tonight.

Mr. Speaker, last week I stood in the House to mark two tragic milestones. I said that July had become the deadliest month for our soldiers in Afghanistan since the conflict began, and I reported that the number of American troops who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq had gone over the 5,000 mark.

Today, I rise to warn the House that a third tragic milestone is coming up. According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, Congress has approved $941 billion in war-related spending since 9/11. If Congress approves the administration's request for the next fiscal year, funding for Afghanistan and Iraq will go over the $1 trillion mark. And that is just for direct military operations, Mr. Speaker. The $1 trillion figure doesn't include the indirect costs, such as health care for our wounded veterans. Many of our veterans will need care for the rest of their lives. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, has estimated that when you add it all up, the occupation of Iraq alone will cost us over $3 trillion.

Tragically, all that spending has not made us any safer. Violent extremists have launched more attacks around the world since 9/11 than before 9/11. The war spending hasn't made us any richer either. It has contributed to our economic crisis, exploded the lid off our national debt, and diverted funds from desperately needed domestic priorities.

Besides Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has also approved spending for a third war called the global war on terror. That war has been a big mistake, too. As the Rand Corporation has pointed out, when you use the word ``terrorist,'' you elevate them. You elevate them to the status of holy warriors and it encourages them to conduct holy war against the United States.

We need to call terrorists what they really are, criminals and violent extremists. To stop them, we need good intelligence and good police work in the communities where they hide, not massive military occupations that don't get the job done and bleed our Treasury dry.

I am glad that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have stopped using the phrase ``war on terror.'' That is a good first step. But now we need to take several more steps. We must speed up the withdrawal of our troops and military contractors from Iraq. We must change our mission in Afghanistan to emphasize economic development, humanitarian aid, education, jobs, and better government.

This is the kind of help that the people of Afghanistan want and need from the United States. This is the kind of help that will give the Afghan people real hope for the future and a reason to reject extremism.

And throughout the world, we must replace military power with the tools of smart power, such as diplomacy, multilateral action, and nuclear nonproliferation. I have offered a ``SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century'' which could put these tools to work and make the world a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, America cannot afford to keep using military power as our only option. It is dumb foreign policy, dumb military policy, and dumb fiscal policy. Smart power will save lives and money and build a more peaceful world for our children and their children.