Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to honor my long-time friend, Beth Ashley, of Marin County, California. Beth is retiring from the Marin Independent Journal, IJ, after 35 years of passionate and thoughtful writing that has made her a community institution.

Beth's news career began with school newspapers, including editor of the Stanford Daily. At the Marin IJ, she has served in many roles, most recently as a feature writer. Her columns reflected her immersion in many aspects of county life as well as her foreign travels. From Moscow during the early years of Glasnost to Afghanistan and Iran, her trips tended to focus on the humanitarian struggles in troubled areas of the world. Her compassionate heart shines through all her work.

From raising five sons to serving on nonprofit boards in Marin County, Beth has had a very full life in addition to her IJ duties. Now 83, she writes that ``it's hard to act the intrepid girl reporter, especially when I totter a bit when I walk and can hardly see, hear or speak coherently to boot.'' But she assures us she has ``loved every minute. I only wish I'd done more.''

Beth has done more in her career than most of us can dream of. The community will miss her regular features, but we still expect to see her around town enjoying her new adventure--she will be remarrying in a few months.

Madam Speaker, Beth Ashley's work has expressed the heart and soul of Marin County. It has been an honor and delight to read her columns and to know her as a friend. I wish her the best of luck in her retirement and in her new marriage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with sadness to honor Dr. Leonard Shlain of Mill Valley, California who passed away May 11, at the age of 71, after a struggle with brain cancer.

Dr. Shlain excelled in two professions simultaneously. He was a pioneering surgeon in San Francisco as well as a best-selling author. As Chairman of Laparoscopic Surgery at California Pacific Medical Center and Associate Professor of Surgery at UCSF, he developed his surgical techniques to such an extent that he was flown around the world to train other doctors and also patented several surgical instruments.

His three published books have been best-sellers, their thoughtful and provocative content earning him fans from singer Bjork to Vice President Al Gore. Despite some initial skepticism about a surgeon writing on other topics, his books wove connections between everything from art and physics to human evolution in a highly creative and accessible style.

Art & Physics (1990) was hailed as a visionary exploration of the work of scientists and artists over the centuries. The Alphabet vs. the Goddess (1998) further enhanced his reputation as an insightful and poetic storyteller while Sex, Time and Power: How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution (2003) offers dramatic explorations into the emergence of the human species. His fourth book, Leonardo's Brain, The Right-Left Roots of Creativity, will be published next year.

Dr. Shlain won many awards and was in high demand as a speaker from Italy to Los Alamos. But the most memorable thing about him was his generous and outgoing personality matched by intellectual curiosity and encyclopedic knowledge. His colleagues, friends, and family were privileged to experience this side of him, and he instilled his enthusiasm and drive in his children.

Daughter Kimberly Brooks relates ``dinner conversations typically spanned from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to politics, literature to an incredibly dirty joke.'' He would often ``diagram the operation of the day on a napkin. Later, his diagrams became more adventuresome and expanded to thought experiments that included what it would be like to sit astride a beam of light and how that corresponded with Picasso's rose period.'' She also remembers how, for show and tell at her elementary school, her dad brought a human brain in a white bucket of formaldehyde and how he built a stained-glass geodesic dome (complete with a hot tub) in the back yard instead of a conventional swing set.

Born in 1937 in Detroit, Michigan, to immigrant parents, Dr. Shlain graduated from high school at the age of 16 and from medical school when he was 23. After a stint as a Captain in the U.S. Army, he got married and moved to Mill Valley in the late sixties.

He is survived by his wife, Judge Ina Gyemant, and children, artist Kimberly Brooks, filmmaker and Webby Awards founder, Tiffany Shlain, and doctor/entrepeneur Jordan Shlain. He was also father in-law to filmmaker Albert Brooks, scientist/artist Ken Goldberg, Ph.D. and Caroline Eggli Shlain, Ph.D., respectively. He had two stepchildren, attorney Anne Gyemant Paris and writer Roberto Gyemant, Jr. His son-in- law Michael Paris is a medical engineer. He is pre-deceased by his sister Shirley Wollock and survived by siblings Marvin Shlain and Sylvia Goldstick, and nine grandchildren (with a tenth on the way).

Madam Speaker, although Dr. Shlain taught his children never to trust a man who needs more than one sentence to describe what he does for a living, it is impossible to sum up his own accomplishments so briefly. The world is a richer place for his work, his spirit, and his wonderful family.

Mr. Speaker, everyone here in the House of Representatives knows that I've been a critic of our Nation's long occupation of Iraq. Our strategy there has relied almost exclusively on military power, which is what got us into this quagmire that we still can't escape. Now I fear we're making the very same mistake in Afghanistan and Pakistan because over 90 percent of the supplemental budget for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which the House passed just a few weeks ago and which I opposed, goes strictly toward military purposes, and less than 10 percent goes toward the building of our smart power in that region.

``Smart power'' means investing in humanitarian assistance, in economic development, in reconciliation, and in reconstruction. It means helping the Afghan people to improve their transportation, their health care, their education, and their agricultural systems. It means investing in their judiciary and law enforcement systems to expand the rule of law. It means creating

jobs, building up local capacity and improving the lives of women and girls, and it means strengthening our diplomatic operations in the region.

All of these efforts are desperately needed to shore up the fragile governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They're desperately needed because we must offer the people a better life. We must give the people of Afghanistan real hope for a better future because that is the best way to defeat the Taliban, and it is the best way to bring peace and stability to the region. We will never be able to do that if we nickel and dime smart power.

Even our own counterinsurgency strategy recognizes this. It calls for an 80-20 ratio. That means 80 percent of our funds being spent on the smart investment that I just mentioned with 20 percent going to purely military spending. Currently, we've got a 90-10 split going the opposite way. We're actually ignoring our own best strategy.

On this subject, I would like to call the House's attention to remarks that were recently made by Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, the former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Great Britain. He spoke about Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the very explosive area on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Referring to the tribes there, he said, ``A successful strategy to deal with them is not to take them head on--sending in troops, throwing grenades and missiles or sending in tanks.''

Instead, he said that we should be working to win the hearts and minds of the tribal members, of those who have a great sense of pride and dignity. He said, if America did that, there would be ``resistance to the Taliban, not from 30,000 feet in the sky but right here on the ground.''

He also said, ``The one thing every Pakistani wants for his kids is education.'' If America helped to improve education in that country, he said that we could turn things around in a few years and that America's greatest enemies will become America's allies.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, a strategy that will protect the lives of our troops, that will strengthen our national security and that will help the people of that region to lead better lives. I've recommended a plan to accomplish this. It's House Resolution 363, the SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. I'm hoping every Member of the House reads it and remembers that smart power is not soft power. It's the real power, the power we need to keep America safe and to make our world peaceful.

Mr. Speaker, when the Cold War ended, the people of the world hoped that the threat of nuclear war would end also, but that hasn't

happened. Today, more nations than ever have nuclear weapons. North Korea's powerful underground nuclear explosion last week reminded us that testing continues. And there are great fears that terrorists could get nuclear weapons through the black market. Tragically, the United States has not done enough to stop the threat.

The previous administration turned its back on arms control. It practically laughed at America's obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. It refused to push for Senate ratification of the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and it proceeded with plans for the United States to develop new nuclear weapons, which undermined our ability to deal with North Korea and Iran.

Mr. Speaker, we must do better. The United States must lead. We must lead a new global effort to make the world nuclear free. It's the moral thing to do, and it's also smart politics. If we are seen as leading the fight for nonproliferation and disarmament, we will be in a much better position to convince the world community to put peaceful pressure on North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear ambitions.

President Obama is already moving the right direction. In his speech in Prague on April 5, he promised to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. He announced the new diplomatic effort with Russia to reduce warheads. He promised to work for ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and he said he would seek a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons. I welcome all of these policies.

In fact, 3 days before the press speech in Prague, I introduced Resolution 333, which is called No Nukes. It calls upon the United States to take a number of important actions to end the nuclear threat. It calls upon the United States to pursue multilateral negotiations to produce verifiable steps that every country should take to eliminate their nuclear weapons. It calls for the United States and Russia to work together to end the deployment of nuclear weapons that are currently operational and can be launched on short notice. It urges the President to declare that so long as the United States has nuclear weapons, we will not--and I say we will not--use them first. It calls for ending the previous administration's policy of preventative warfare and ending our development of new weapons of mass destruction, and it calls for a ban on weapons in outer space.

I've also introduced House Resolution 363, which describes my Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century, which includes several initiatives to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It calls for beefing up inspections and regional security arrangements to stop proliferation. And it advocates more funding for the programs designed to keep Russian weapons and materials from falling into the wrong hands.

I urge my colleagues, please examine both of these resolutions and support them. There is no time to waste. The world is getting more dangerous every single minute. And if there is a nuclear attack, we won't be able to save our lives by ducking under our desks like we were taught in grade school.

Mr. Speaker, America must move aggressively to end the nuclear menace. It's the most important thing we can do for our country, and it is the most important thing we can do for our children and our grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Albin Gruhn of San Anselmo, California, who passed away March 18 at the age of 94. Mr. Gruhn was a respected and beloved labor leader and consumer rights activist whose calling was the welfare of the working people of California. His 36 years as president of the California Labor Federation and his role as a founder of the Association of California Consumers were at the heart of a remarkable career.

Mr. Gruhn was born in Eureka, California, in 1915. At the age of 19 he began working for the Hammond Lumber Co. where he joined the Sawmill and Loggers Federal Union. A strike shortly afterwards resulted in the deaths of three union picketers and deeply affected him, resulting in a life-long commitment to the labor movement.

He was also blacklisted as a result of his participation in the strike but soon found employment in construction, joining the Laborers Local where his membership continued for over 60 years. At the age of 22, he became secretary of the Central Labor Council of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties and led that council for over 20 years.

In 1940 Mr. Gruhn was first elected to what is now the California Labor Federation as district vice president and became its president in 1960. He led with skill, enthusiasm, and passion until his retirement in 1996. He helped build the organization into a strong and effective advocacy group for the rights of workers, inspiring several generations of political and labor leaders along the way.

During the 1960s, Mr. Gruhn was also a founder of the Association of California Consumers, California's first consumer group, and later became a founding officer and then president emeritus of the Consumer Federation of California. He also devoted some of his considerable energies to the California Apprenticeship Council and the California Constitution Revision Commission as well as serving on various state commissions. These were appointments over the decades by five California governors and covered a variety of issues from fair housing to air pollution. One of the commissions dealt with children and youth, reflecting his deep involvement in the annual scholarship program established by the California Labor Federation.

Mr. Gruhn was always politically active as a means of supporting the causes he believed in. From campaigning for Franklin Roosevelt at the age of 17 to serving as an Adlai Stevenson delegate in 1956, he stayed engaged in the process. In 1944, he founded the Northern California AFL Political League.

Mr. Gruhn was married to the former Dorothy Coon for over 37 years. Dorothy predeceased him in 2005, and the couple are survived by a large family of eight children, 14 grandchildren, and 17 great grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, Albin Gruhn was proud to fight for working people, and all those with whom he came in contact--from family and friends to political leaders and co-workers--drew inspiration from his commitment. It is fitting in honoring him today to remember the remarks he always used to conclude his labor speeches: ``In unity there is strength. United we stand, divided we fall. An injury to one is an injury to all.''

Madam Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Silvio J. Piccinotti of Petaluma, California, who passed away April 19, 2009, at the age of 100. Silvio was a fixture of the community for most of those years as it developed from an agricultural center to a small city with a variety of businesses but true to its rural roots.

Like many of their contemporaries in the area, Silvio's parents emigrated from the Italian-speaking area of Switzerland to the dairy ranching area of nearby Marin County where Silvio was born. They moved to Two Rock near Petaluma when he was an infant, and he worked on the local ranches as he grew up. In 1930 he purchased a ranch with his brother Americo, retiring from that business in 1975.

But Silvio is most known for his lifelong passion for draft horses, a passion he shared with the community. He was a founding member of the Northbay Draft Horse and Mule Club and tutored many young enthusiasts. He participated with his horse team and wagon in the Sonoma County Fair and the Harvest Fair and was especially appreciated at events in Petaluma, such as the annual Butter and Eggs Day parade. For 25 years he also sponsored an annual draft horse Wagon Train through Sonoma and Marin Counties.

Silvio was predeceased by his wife Alice and is survived by his son Vernon S. and his grandson Vernon J. Piccinotti as well as his dear friend Ellen Wight.

Madam Speaker, in 2005 the Sonoma County Horse Council appropriately inducted Silvio into its Equus Hall of Fame. His true fame lies with the generations of locals who will remember the wagon rides and the teams of draft horses that brought them joy and represented the spirit of the community.

Mr. Speaker, reasonable gun restrictions are the cornerstone of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, opponents of sensible gun laws have taken advantage of every opportunity to undermine the commonsense regulations that keep our communities safe and uphold our Constitution.

Earlier this year, these opponents stalled historic efforts to provide District of Columbia residents with a voting representative in Congress by including unrelated amendments legalizing semiautomatic assault weapons in the District. Today, while the House considers H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, which will grant stronger protections for consumers facing excessive credit card fees, arbitrary interest rate increases, and unfair agreements with credit card companies, we also are faced with an Date unrelated amendment allowing loaded firearms to be carried in parks. These gun provisions have

no place in this bill and loaded firearms have no place in parks. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing these harmful changes.

When the Bush Administration issued its regulations allowing national park visitors to carry loaded, concealed, and operable guns, it was clear these changes were not designed to protect Americans visiting parks. The Bush regulations aimed to overturn reasonable restrictions that had existed for nearly 30 years enabling park visitors with proper permits to carry firearms, as long as they were rendered inoperable with either a trigger lock or by disassembly. Fortunately, on March 19, 2009, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly halted the Bush Administration's regulations from going into effect.

Today, with this amendment, the gun industry seeks to go beyond the Bush Administration's suspended regulations and put into law extreme rules that allow park visitors to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in national parks. This reckless and irresponsible policy will dramatically increase the risk of shooting protected wildlife, vandalizing historic monuments, gun-related accidents for children and families visiting these parks. We cannot allow this dangerous policy to be passed into law.

Our national parks are America's sacred treasures and we must ensure their conservation and the safety of all who visit them. Madame Speaker, I fear that with this amendment, we are sacrificing our national parks and the safety of American families for the wishes of the gun industry and we will set a very dangerous precedent.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Brian O'Neill, one of the great visionaries of the National Park Service, who passed on May 13, 2009.

For 25 years Brian served as Superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, a vast swath of 75,500 acres in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties and across the Golden Gate in Marin County

in my congressional district. His influence on the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA) and on our entire national park system was immense, and will last far into the future.

Brian O'Neill was born in 1941 in Washington D.C. and grew up there. In high school he teamed up with his mother, Virginia and his twin brother, Alan, to found a nonprofit organization to expose urban children to the wonders of national parks. After graduating from the University of Maryland, he joined what was then the Bureau of Outdoor Education, and worked on park planning. The Bureau's name was changed to Heritage Recreation and Conservation Service and later was merged into the National Park Service. In the early 70's, Brian had the opportunity to pitch the idea of urban national parks to President Nixon, who became an enthusiastic backer, and signed legislation creating the GGNRA in 1972. Nine years later Brian became Assistant Superintendent of the park and in 1986, he became its Superintendent.

When Brian first hiked through the GGNRA's fragrant headlands in his green uniform and flat brimmed hat, the park was a beautiful, but in many cases, crumbling collection of former military installations looking out on the broad Pacific and busy San Francisco Bay. Yet these places were steeped in history and brimming with potential. What it took to bring it all together was a passion for parks, a commitment to solid planning and the personal skills to create partnerships--all attributes of Brian O'Neill.

During Brian's tenure he strengthened and expanded the non-profit partnerships at Fort Mason, Fort Baker, the Presidio and the Mann Headlands. Where else could you visit a national park and see such well regarded and varied institutions as the Magic Theatre and Antenna Theatre, the Discovery Museum, the Marine Mammal Center and the headquarters of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary? Where else could you hike through the magnificent redwood cathedral of Muir Woods and the same day hear an internationally known economist lecture at Cavallo Point?

The GGNRA under the leadership of Brian O'Neill became a place to enjoy nature and to learn about nature; a place to renew your spirit and expand your potential; a place to encounter the Bay Area's history and to prepare for its future. It was, and is now, a place for hikers, cyclists, equestrians, dog walkers, artists, educators, environmentalists, wind surfers, college kids and city kids, tourists from near and afar, and ordinary folks, taking just a few minutes to leave the city's bustle, enter the park's natural splendor and get away from it all.

It would be simplistic to say that the Golden Gate Recreational Area became everything to all people because, of course, it can't. Despite its urban interface, it is a national park, and the mission to preserve and protect its natural and cultural resources is always in tension with human uses. Brian's not always so fun job was to find ways to resolve these kinds of conflicts. For this job, he had an affability that diffused conflict, an encyclopedic knowledge of Park Service policies and regulations, and a crafty and creative mind. He never seemed to back down, but he found ways to churn out solutions to the most difficult and complex problems.

The Fort Baker Retreat and Conference Center is a case in point. At first it was to be a rather large public-private endeavor, but that disturbed residents and the City of Sausalito, who asked for my help. The Secretary of Interior intervened, more than a year of negotiation ensued, and the City of Sausalito eventually sued unsuccessfully to halt the project. Brian O'Neill listened and piece by piece he put together a new planning process that resulted in the project's downsizing, the selection of a local developer, new public meetings, and a campus that utilizes green building materials, solar energy, and transportation management.

Fort Baker is now the pride of the Park Service and Sausalito, and it couldn't have turned out so well without the persistence and varied skills of Brian O'Neill. What could have become a political quagmire became instead, Brian O'Neill's triumph.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of people who are going to miss Brian O'Neill, his big smile, his twinkling blue eyes and his obvious enjoyment of his job. My consolations especially go to his wife Marti, his mother, Virginia, his twin brother Alan, and his two adult children, Kim and Brent. They have so much to be proud of. Brian O'Neill has left us a rich legacy in a park that is as wonderfully expansive as the man himself.

Brian O'Neill was an institution, but also a warm, caring human being, a friend . . . and a great dancer.

Madam Speaker, next Monday is Memorial Day, when we honor the sacrifices of the men and women who have died in our Nation's wars. The American people will remember our fallen heroes in many, many ways. We will pay tribute in our houses, in our houses of worship, in our community centers, in our veterans' buildings, and in our cemeteries. There will be family gatherings. There will be parades. Veterans will hold memorials across this Nation, and countless Americans will simply bow their heads and say a silent prayer of thanks.

Sadly, there are more fallen heroes to remember this year. Since Memorial Day last year, 394 of our brave troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by this time next year, I fear there will be more brave dead to remember and more military families who will be grieving; but Memorial Day should be more than a time to remember the bitter harvest of war. It should be a time for our Nation to seek peaceful alternatives to war so that no more of our brave troops will die. That's the best way to honor those who have given their lives for their country.

To accomplish this, however, we must make the military option the very last option that we would choose when we develop our national security policies. We've tried the military option. Where has it gotten us? We're still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our foreign adventures have cost us over $1 trillion so far, and they have contributed to the economic meltdown that we're experiencing now. In Afghanistan, anti-American feeling is spreading, and it has become a major recruiting tool for those who would harm our country.

I know that these problems were dumped into President Obama's lap when he came into office, and I know that he is a peacemaker. On Monday, in his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, he called for talks with Iran, and he called for a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I applaud him for both of those positions, but I voted against the supplemental funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan because it will only continue the policies of occupation, the policies of war that have failed us.

Instead, I urge my colleagues to support a different approach, an approach that will give us a real chance to succeed. I call this approach ``Smart Security Platform for the 21st Century.''

The Smart Security Platform would help to eliminate the root causes of violence in the world by increasing economic development aid and debt relief to the poorest countries. It would further address the root causes of violence by supporting conflict resolution, human rights, and democracy-building.

It calls for the United States to work with the international community to promote diplomacy and to strengthen international law.

It calls for reducing weapons of mass destruction, and it calls for reducing conventional weapons by supporting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions. It calls for adequately funding the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure nuclear materials in Russia and in other countries and to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

It would invest in renewable energy to end our addiction to oil and to stop the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to irresponsible regimes.

It includes strategies to strengthen international intelligence and law enforcement to capture individuals involved in violence, while respecting at the same time their human and civil rights.

Madam Speaker, Smart Security will show the world that America stands for peace once again. It will help protect the lives of our brave troops, and it will keep our country safe and free. That is the best way to honor the memory of our fallen heroes on Memorial Day.

Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson, rise today to honor a dedicated and beloved advocate for preserving both agriculture and the environment of Sonoma County, California. Andrea Mackenzie is leaving the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, and we celebrate her 12 productive years, especially the last eight years as General Manager.

Andrea was born in upstate New York and grew up in Los Angeles. She earned a Bachelor's Degree in Environmental Studies from the University of California at Santa Barbara and a Master's Degree in Urban Planning and Natural Resources from the University of California at Los Angeles.

With her love of both the coast and the rugged mountains of the High Sierra, it is no surprise that Andrea worked for over 25 years in land use and conservation-related positions, including the East Bay and San Francisco where she began to develop a focus on collaborative public/ private projects and regional approaches. She also loves walkable communities, old barns, hiking and kayaking, country rock, and nature writers.

Andrea first served the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District as project manager for the strategic conservation plan update, creating documents that have become models for other public land conservation agencies. In 2000, she was appointed General Manager by the Board of Supervisors.

The mission of the District is to ``permanently protect the diverse agricultural, natural resource and scenic open space lands of Sonoma County for future generations.'' Funded by a quarter cent sales tax, it is the only such district in the state of California and is overwhelmingly supported by Sonoma County's residents.

Andrea helped direct the 2006 campaign to renew the sales tax, which passed overwhelmingly. Voters value the organization's mission and its programs including: matching grants to partner with local cities and agencies for land acquisition, preservation and enhancement; stewardship in managing these lands and various easements to protect them, as well as to allow for public access; land leases to local growers; and public and educational outings, including a focus on underserved populations. Andrea has played a key role in developing these programs as well as increasing the amount of open space from 25,000 acres to 75,000 acres (including 33,000 acres of farmland).

In 2007, in testament to Andrea's management, the District was selected for the National Leadership in Conservation Award from the

National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Trust for Public Land in Washington, D.C. She was also one of 36 Fellows selected to participate in the National Conservation Leadership Institute program, is a member of the Executive Committee and future President of the Bay Area Open Space Council and served on the both the Urban Rural Roundtable (formed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to create a Bay Area Regional Food System) and on the Statewide Watershed Advisory Committee.

Madam Speaker, Andrea Mackenzie's combination of visionary and practical leadership has ma e the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District a vital player in our community. Sonoma County could have gone the way of other growing counties in California with sprawl from end to end. Instead, it remains blessed with green open space, productive agriculture, and many unique and intact ecosystems. We thank her for her great contributions to our children's natural inheritance and wish her luck in her new position where she will be continuing her good work closer to her family.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Cleo Estelle King Zent of Petaluma, California, for an unusual accomplishment. Cleo just celebrated her 100th birthday, an event few people have the opportunity to enjoy.

There is no one secret to Cleo's longevity. Cleo maintains that genetics and a healthy lifestyle have kept her spry. She always avoided alcohol and tobacco use and, since she never drove, she got her exercise by walking everywhere. Cleo's positive outlook has also allowed her to experience ten fulfilling decades of life.

Cleo, daughter of Hugh and Laura Walker King, was born in Floyd, New Mexico on April 9, 1909. Her father was a leading citizen who championed education and promoted school issues among voters.

In 1927, Hugh and Laura King moved the family to Rio Vista, California where Hugh and his sons worked for Speckels Sugar Company until moving to Lodi, California three years later.

Following Prohibition, Cleo worked as a waitress in a local coffee shop where local winemakers gathered for breakfast and conversations. Cesar Mondavi and August Sebastiani were among Cleo's customers.

On May 2, 1942, Cleo married Claude R. Zent. The couple spent most of the World War II years in Alameda, where Claude worked as an electrical engineer at the Naval Air Station. Their first son, William R. Zent, was born in 1945, followed by the birth of Jack Zent in 1948.

After the War, the Zent family moved to a 12-acre plot of land just outside the city of Petaluma and Claude transferred his employment to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo.

For the next twenty years, Cleo and her family spent their time building and improving their homestead. According to Cleo, for years their house looked like they were just moving in or just moving out. When Cleo's dreams for her home were almost realized in 1966, Claude died of a brain hemorrhage. Cleo remained on the family's property walking to and from the grocery store, mowing the lawn and maintaining her home until she was in her 90s.

Today, Cleo lives in the Golden Living Care Home in Petaluma and she shares her life with her sons and her four grandchildren, Caryn Estelle, Kevin, Christy and Christopher Zent.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor Cleo Zent whose experience is a testament to the fact that a healthy lifestyle and optimistic outlook can lead to a long and fulfilling life. Happy Birthday, Cleo!

Madam Speaker, on May 13, 2009, I was unavoidably detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 249.

Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 249--aye, on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have so many concerns about this supplemental, I don't know where to start. But I'm going to start at one point. And I believe the most important point is, this supplemental keeps us involved in Iraq, and it sets up an unending occupation of Afghanistan.

The cost of the supplemental is just too great without a defined stated mission, without redeployment plans. We're going to look at an endless military presence in Afghanistan. That will just serve to fuel anti-Americanism throughout the region, and it will continue to promote the instability.

Sadly, the rule does not provide Members a chance to remedy the situation. Proposals providing accountability and transparency from my colleague Barbara Lee, from Jim McGovern, from John Tierney actually haven't had a chance for an up or down vote. It could have made a difference when we voted on the floor today.

The American people deserve much better than that. I urge my colleagues to oppose this funding and promote a foreign policy based on SMART security, humanitarian assistance, development and diplomacy.

Madam Speaker, I have come to this floor repeatedly. In fact, I have come to the floor over 300 times to discuss the human costs of war. Our brave men and women in uniform have given their lives in service to our Nation, and tens of thousands have returned home with physical and mental scars. And it isn't over yet.

The costs in treasure and blood will be felt for generations. The National Priority Project has done a comprehensive review of the costs, and they are actually staggering.

Since 2001, 675 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan and more than 2,600 soldiers have been wounded in action. The trend is not encouraging: The U.S. death toll has escalated each year, from 12 in 2001 to 99 in 2005, 117 in 2004, and 155 in 2008. And it's not over.

The war in Afghanistan has cost taxpayers $171 billion. With the supplemental that was passed today, we have just added $77 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the year 2009. Obviously, it's not over. An additional $130 billion will fund both wars anticipated in the 2010 budget.

It appears from today's vote that many here in the House of Representatives haven't learned the lesson from our occupation of Iraq. And according to policy experts, Iraq is going to look like a cakewalk compared to the battles that we will be seeing in Afghanistan.

Let's look at what the occupation of Iraq has actually brought: The occupation of Iraq has cost $656 billion so far, with another $52 billion voted on today as part of the fiscal year 2009 war supplemental. At least $2 trillion in future budgetary costs, including veterans' benefits, will be spent in the very near future. Almost 4,300 U.S. servicemembers have died in Iraq so far. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been maimed and killed.

Madam Speaker, the costs are too great. We don't have a defined mission in Afghanistan. We do not have a development plan. Our endless military presence will only serve to fuel anti-Americanism throughout the region. But it continues to go on.

So what's the cost here at home? As we experience one of the worst economic recessions in our Nation's history, every taxpayer dollar becomes more valuable. Today the majority in the House decided that funding an endless occupation of two countries is more important than education, health care, and renewable energy right here at home.

For my State of California, the war in Afghanistan has already cost us $21 billion. That means 2.6 million new Head Start places for children that need to go to school. It means 9 million individuals could have been provided with health care, 38.7 million homes could have been provided with renewable electricity.

We make choices every day on the House floor. Today that choice reflects a decision to keep our troops in Iraq until the end of 2011 and in Afghanistan indefinitely. This vote does not invest in SMART Security. It does not take us into the 21st century, because for every dollar in the supplemental dedicated for smart humanitarian investment, $8 will be spent on the military. And it keeps going on.

I want to say we either change the way we meet our obligations and have a different way of coming together with nations that we don't agree with or we're going to be in a lot of trouble as human beings.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Colorado for being here, and the gentlewoman is going to be here, too.

She just announced to us the great progressiveness of her family and her State. Believe me, I honor you. Thank you for being part of this.

Progressive liberal, liberal Progressive. I mean, how often have we been chastised for being liberals? So we changed the word to ``progressive.'' It means exactly the same thing to me. I am proud if people call me a liberal, and I am proud to be a Progressive, because it is the same thing.

And what does that mean to all of us? What does it mean to me? Why do I want a label? Why do I care?

You know what? It's because I can count on Progressives, the people that I know to be Progressives, to put out their hand when somebody needs help, and that means here, as legislators, to know that our job is to work for those who have less, who maybe have come upon hard times and need a short-term lift. That's why I supported a welfare system that had a floor to it, that would actually help poor people so they didn't fall through the net.

And I am also going to say one more thing about being a Progressive. A Progressive, to me, knows that organized labor made the difference in this country in bringing a middle class to the United States of America, a class where families could work, could afford to buy their own home, could send their children to college and at the same time pay into their own retirement system so they could be independent when they retired, and, oh, what a concept, have health care.

So that's what Progressive values are to me and that's what being a Progressive is about, having the values, having the concerns, having the empathy for others and knowing that it isn't about us. We work for everybody in this country.

That is absolutely true. But I have to tell you, when I was

a mom with my three little kids and my husband that eventually became mentally unbalanced but was very successful before we were 30 years old, I was the one in our group of friends that was arguing for other people.

So I have gone through going on welfare and taking care of my three children and all that. That just solidified for me. Thank heavens, I had that hand up. I certainly think that my job is to make sure others get the same advantage as I had.

But I was fighting for the underdog, for the person who needed help, and for the education of all, way back there when I was very comfortable.