Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Leslie Ann Jones, Director of Music Recording and Scoring for Skywalker Sound, in Marin County, California, for her 35 years as a trailblazer in the recording and music industries.

Ms. Jones began her career, making history as the first female engineer at ABC Recording Studio. Next, Ms. Jones joined the team at the legendary Automatt Recording Studios. It was there she began her film score mixing career, working on such acclaimed films as Apocalypse Now. She also recorded with many jazz greats, such as Herbie Hancock, Bobby McFerrin and Angela Bofill.

Ms. Jones took the experience and knowledge she gained while at Automatt and began a long and respected tenure at Capitol Recording Studios in Hollywood. While there Ms. Jones worked with such talents as Rosemary Clooney, Michelle Shocked and Michael Feinstein. Some of her film credits from Capital include, Grace of My Heart, Lost Highway and White Men Can't Jump.

In February of 1997 Ms. Jones joined Skywalker Sound. After only a short time she was elevated to her current position as Director of Music Recording and Scoring, becoming the first woman to hold this position. During her career at Skywalker Sound Leslie has won two GRAMMY awards. The first in 2004 for Best Chamber Music Recording for the Kronos Quartet's ``Berg'' project; the second in 2005, when she won as a recording engineer for Best Jazz Vocal Album for Diane Reeve's ``Good Night and Good Luck'' soundtrack.

In keeping with her tradition of ``firsts'' Ms. Jones also became the first female National Chair of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences.

Leslie Ann Jones is an inspiration for women in her industry; she continues to lead a fulfilling and accomplished career, marked with a pattern for establishing ``firsts.'' I am honored to call her a constituent; congratulate her for her mastery in the recording studio, and thank her for her efforts to encourage women on the technical side of the recording community.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The recent news from Afghanistan is particularly troubling. American bombs killed Afghan civilians last week. Of course our troops are doing what they can to avoid civilian casualties, but bombs have a large footprint, and innocent people are being killed and injured along with the enemy.

Last week's incident has angered the people of Afghanistan, as it would, and some are demanding the withdrawal of American troops from their country. Anti-American sentiment is spreading.

This terrible tragedy, Madam Speaker, proves once again that war is not the way to win hearts and minds, and it proves that violence is the least effective way to achieve our national security goals and to keep our country safe.

That's why I've called upon President Obama to change our mission in Afghanistan. Instead of military solutions, I've asked him to focus on reconciliation, on economic development, humanitarian aid and diplomatic efforts.

President Obama is under a great deal of pressure to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, but I also know that he is a man of peace, not war. So I'm hopeful that he will begin to rely more and more on peaceful solutions to the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well before things get out of hand.

The President has already taken some important steps towards peace. He is encouraging civilians and military reservists to go to Afghanistan and to Pakistan to help with development projects.

He's also announced that he will go to Egypt next month to deliver a speech to the Muslim world. This will be an important opportunity for the President to hold out the hand of friendship and to spread good will.

The speech in Egypt will be the second time that President Obama has spoken directly to the Muslim people because last month he addressed the Turkish Parliament where he declared, and I quote him, ``The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.'' He promised to ``seek broader engagement with the Muslim people based on mutual interests and mutual respect.''

He then quoted an old Turkish proverb that says, ``You cannot put out fire with flames.'' And he said, ``The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy.''

I agree with the end of destruction wholeheartedly. That's why I propose a comprehensive new national security plan called the SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. Instead of violence and destruction, it emphasizes diplomacy, international cooperation, conflict prevention and nuclear nonproliferation.

This SMART Security Platform would eliminate the root causes of violence by supporting democracy building, global health, better educational opportunities, particularly for girls and women, and development aid and debt relief for countries.

It calls for a broad range of policies to stop the spread of conventional, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. It would deny hundreds of billions of dollars every year to irresponsible regimes by ending our Nation's addiction to foreign oil. And it strengthens international intelligence and law enforcement so we can track down and stop individuals involved in violence while still respecting human and civil rights.

These are the steps that will put America back on the moral high ground, where we will be in a much better position to lead the world toward peace.

Madam Speaker, the Turkish proverb is right. You cannot put out fire with flames. That's what we learned in Iraq, and that's what we're learning again in Afghanistan.

It's time for a new strategy that recognizes that creating, not destroying, is the best way to make our future safe and to make the future of our children safe and the future of our world as well.

Mr. Speaker, between September 11, 2001, and January, 2009, the United States relied on military force as the primary tool of foreign policy. Now we see the tragic results of this tragedy. We remain bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan is in turmoil, Pakistan is on the brink of chaos, and the threat of nuclear weapons continues to haunt the world.

It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the military option hasn't worked. That is why I believe it is time for a new and better approach to our foreign policy. This new approach must focus on diplomacy, international cooperation, conflict prevention and ending the threat of nuclear weapons.

I have sponsored a comprehensive plan to achieve all of these goals. It is called the ``Smart Security Platform For the 21st Century.'' I invite all of my colleagues to consider House Resolution 363, which describes this plan in detail.

The Smart Security Platform would help to eliminate the root causes of instability and violent conflict in the world by increasing development aid and debt relief to the poorest countries. It would further address the root causes of violence by supporting programs that promote conflict resolution, human rights and democracy building. It would also support educational opportunities for the girls and women who hardly ever see the inside of a classroom.

The Smart Security Platform, Mr. Speaker, also calls for the United States to work with the U.N. and NATO and other multilateral institutions to strengthen international institutions and international law. It calls for reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons by supporting the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Convention. It calls for the adequate funding of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to secure nuclear materials in Russia and to secure nuclear materials and other materials in other countries as well and to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

It calls upon the United States to set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the development of new nuclear weapons and working towards achieving Ronald Reagan's vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by

investing in renewable energy alternatives, thereby stopping the flow of hundreds of billions of American dollars to irresponsible regimes. It includes strategies to strengthen international intelligence and law enforcement operations to bring individuals involved in violent acts to justice, while respecting human and civil rights. And it supports civil organizations and programs in the developing world because they play a critically important role in preventing or resolving conflicts.

I want to thank the cosponsors of H. Res. 363, Chairman John Conyers, Chairman Ed Markey, Congresswomen Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, cofounders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and Congresswoman Gwen Moore, a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, the Smart Security Platform For the 21st Century is ambitious, wide-ranging and tough. It uses the many national security tools that we have. It would make us safer here at home. It would cost less than what we are spending now on national security. And it isn't ``soft'' power, Mr. Speaker. It is real power. It is smart power. It is the kind of power we need to make America and the world more secure for ourselves and for our children.

Mr. Speaker, a recent report from the Associated Press gave us a new and very grim reminder of the human cost of the conflict in Iraq.

According to the A.P., the Iraqi Government has secretly recorded over 87,000 killings since the year 2005. The A.P. also added its own statistics on the known number of deaths between 2003 and 2005.

When you add those numbers, you get over 110,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the beginning of the American occupation. But, Mr. Speaker, the death toll is even higher than that. The A.P. said that an Iraqi official estimated the actual number of deaths to be 10 to 20 percent higher because of the thousands who are still missing and civilians who were buried in the chaos of war without official records.

Of course, the death toll itself does not measure the full human cost of the conflict. It doesn't include the injured. It doesn't include the children who have been orphaned. It doesn't include the families that have been devastated by the loss of their loved ones and their breadwinners. It doesn't include the suffering of the 4 million refugees. It doesn't include the countless deaths from indirect causes, which includes the lack of health care because hospitals were closed and so many doctors were forced to flee. And it doesn't include the people who have seen their futures taken away from them because of their schools and colleges being closed by the fighting. It is no surprise that the A.P. report said almost every person in Iraq has been touched by the violence.

And of course, Mr. Speaker, here in America we have seen 35,000 of our finest and bravest men and women killed or wounded in battle, and 140,000 of our troops remain in harm's way today.

Mr. Speaker, war is not a video game. Real people die or are horribly wounded and scarred, and they are scarred and wounded for life. Real families suffer. We need to remember that when we make momentous decisions about war and peace in this House, we have to consider those statistics.

Today, our country is faced with another tough decision about war: What to do about the situation in Afghanistan. I oppose the supplementary funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan. It will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the year 2011, and it will expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely.

Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration must fundamentally change our mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts.

Diplomacy and economic development are two of the cornerstones of my Smart Security Platform for the 21st century. This plan would employ the many effective nonmilitary tools that we have to fight terrorism. These tools will cost a lot less and be far more effective. They will save lives, stop terrorism, and keep us safe at the same time, or at least safer than a military option. I invite all of my colleagues to consider House Resolution 363, which describes the full plan.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the military option has taken us down the wrong road in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 7 years. The military option hasn't made us more secure. It has cost our Treasury over $1 trillion so far, with no end in sight. And the human toll has been appalling. It is time to do something that will make our Nation safer and save countless lives. The smart security platform for the 21st century will achieve both of these goals.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is about protecting every member of our community from violence.

We understand that hate crimes don't just affect the victims of these horrible acts but that they also threaten and affect the fundamental rights of

every single one of us. Intolerance and prejudice are still a part of our world, but when the bigotry leads to violence, this Congress has a responsibility to stand up and say, ``No more.''

With this bill, we will extend and expand on the protections for victims of hate crimes, for victims of crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and on disability. All children and their families must have the freedom to celebrate who they are, and they should be protected under Federal law from personal attacks based on bigotry.

The time has come for Congress to pass this bill in order to send a clear message throughout the world that violence and hate are not acceptable. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I applaud the Obama administration for focusing on the human face of our Afghanistan policy. Rather than going with a policy based on military might alone, the administration is supporting an expansion of the surge of diplomats, of development officials, of humanitarian needs and experts.

The economic, political, and social needs are great in Afghanistan. A recent report released by Women for Women International found a ``bleak and frightening picture for life'' in Afghanistan. According to reports, Madam Speaker, 80 percent of Afghan women are affected by domestic violence, over 60 percent of marriages are forced, and half of all girls are married before the age of 16. Despite this focus on the needs of women and girls in Afghanistan, the situation remains grim.

Like many women in conflict, the drive for security and stability remains strong among the women in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Afghan women are more likely to be impoverished, uneducated, and excluded from health service than men, polls indicate that Afghan women are optimistic about their future. Like women everywhere, they want to play a role in decision making at every single level of society.

Through the recent poll by Women for Women International, the voice of the Afghan woman can be heard. When asked what the biggest problem is that they face in daily life, the top response was lack of important commodities. Again, it's the basics, food and supplies, that Afghan women want for their families. When asked what the government should fix, they answered security and peace first. When asked what were the biggest health care and education problems, women overwhelmingly pointed to insufficient resources and funding. It's clear that the mothers, Madam Speaker, in Afghanistan want all that mothers want around the world: to provide for the basic needs of their families. They want their children to be well. They want their children to be well fed, well educated, and safe.

While I remain concerned about the increase in our military presence, I am hopeful that the administration's diplomatic surge can help the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women. Along with our international partners, we must work to address the pressing immediate needs of all Afghanis.

Madam Speaker, the use of smart power in the place of military force will send a clear message that the United States promotes diplomacy and humanitarian relief over war.

Thank you, Mr. Ellison, for your great leadership on The Progressive Message, which is the message of average, normal American people, and we know it. And we are proud to speak it, because there is nothing like the issues that we stand for with the Progressive Caucus, our progressive promise, that hits home to the American people like what we are promising to work on.

Tonight, we are going to talk about our Earth, I believe. Thank you for bringing that to us.

But also thank you for recognizing my, I believe, 309 5-minute speeches on the floor regarding Iraq and peace in general, and Afghanistan, now that we are looking like we don't know when we are going to get out of there.

We can talk about saving the Earth, but if we destroy it with war, then we won't have an Earth to save. So thank you for doing this tonight.

Well, first of all, Madam Speaker, thank you for being here with us tonight also. We honor you.

You know, as cochair of the congressional Progressive Caucus with Raul Grijalva, it's really an honor to be here and represent the Progressive Caucus and people of this country and the people of my district.

And we are doing this right now because it's Earth Day--yesterday was Earth Day, I believe, but we couldn't do this yesterday.

So before we get into the question you asked me, Congressman, let's talk about Earth Day and how it happened. I think it's good for people to remember that Earth Day is a day designed to promote awareness and foster appreciation for our environment.

Now, yesterday, yes, that is right, it was yesterday, it was the 29th anniversary of the very first celebration. That celebration was determined, and over the 29 years we have recognized on Earth Day something that we should be recognizing every single day and every minute of our lives, that we have a need for a healthy environment and we have to work to protect it. It won't happen on its own because we are working very hard, it appears, to destroy our environment. So we have a lot of work to do.

So, let's talk about what are the roots of Earth Day itself. Although the specific day was set by former U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, his motivation came from the horrific oil spill that engulfed Santa Barbara and the California coast in 1969. That was such a horrible experience for all of us in California. Earth Day is the perfect time, and he knew it, to highlight that event and to work to ensure that oil spills never happened again. Of course, over 29 years there have been other oil spills, but he was so sincere that he put Earth Day together to emphasize no more oil spills.

So many in our country who don't have a strong connection to Santa Barbara oil knew how important it was to California, and they come to our districts and they learn over and over again what a disaster like that will do. And it could happen in their areas too. It could happen on the Great Lakes. It certainly could happen on the Atlantic coast, down in the Gulf of Florida.

So everybody pays attention, particularly to the oceans. But there is more to Earth Day than our oceans. It is our air, it is our water, it is our trees, and Earth Day has become the basis for what we know we must be doing to solve global warming.

But happy birthday Earth Day yesterday.

I remember that one.

Well, we need nothing less than a progressive vision. We need to be bold. You asked me that a little bit earlier. And there is no tip-toeing around this.

I have been on the House Science Committee since I was elected in 1992, sworn in in 1993. I am on the Energy Subcommittee. And in my time here we have never had a hearing with scientists that say global warming does not exist, that it is a dream, that it is a myth. Good science has proven where we are today.

Scientists have been so careful, because that is who they are. They have to prove their point before they come out and say science says global warming is something we have to deal with or else, and we have got this much more time and we need to take these kinds of actions.

This is my ninth term.

Never. Never. I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle on the Science Committee saying that global warming is a myth and pooh-poohing it. It is just something that makes no sense to me, because it is real, and if we don't do something about it soon, the effects are going to be irreversible, and we know that.

Now, here in Congress we get elected every 2 years. Well, we are not going to fix this in 2 years, but we had better start fixing it for our grandchildren. I have five grandchildren, the oldest is 9 and the youngest is 2.

I have four children, and three families have children. So one night one of the families and I were having dinner and we were talking about global warming, and my grandson, then I believe he was 8, he might have been 7, just about came across the table. My grandkids call me ``Amah,'' and he said, ``Amah,'' his eyes were this big, ``do you know about the polar bears?'' And we had a total conversation about what was happening up in Greenland.

Since then I have been to Greenland. I have seen the ice melt. It is not healthy. I have been to the South Pole. I have seen the shift at the South Pole of the science stations, the ones that are built out of ice. They shift every year, and they are shifting at greater speeds. I have seen the penguins that are having a hard time getting from their ice blocks back to land so that they can feed and breed. It is happening, and we cannot deny it. Not just for us, because we are stupid if we don't do it, but for your children and for my grandchildren. Hopefully, their children will have a nice, clean, safe world to live in.

So do we have to be bold? Does it need to be progressive? Yes. And I don't mean progressive that it is our way or no way. I mean progressive in that we are not afraid to do the right thing. We are not afraid to fight. So that we if we have cap-and-trade, we also ensure that we have benefits for the people that are going to be paying for this in the long run, and that we reinvest in alternative energies, that we know that we have an industry, a green industry that must be the new industry for the United States of America. Because if we don't take advantage of the needs, world needs, that it is going to be our science, it is going to be our engineers, it is going to be our technicians that come up with the solutions, if we let the jobs to put all this together go overseas, what a mistake we will be making, because we will buy this stuff, because we are going to make our world cleaner.

Well, you know, I have to confess that I have lived a very privileged life as I raised my four kids in a nice home. It wasn't a palace or a mansion or anything, but it was nice. We were always warm and we had windows open and we had a sprinkler system in my yard.

I feel like I have been part of the problem. I know I have. We eat meat, which uses up so much of our good Earth and our air, and we will probably keep doing a lot of that. But as individuals, as humans, we have to change the way we live and we have to be willing to invest. And I believe, and we are not supposed to use the word, but we have to get a little accustomed to some sacrifice. We need to decide whether we need grass or we need landscaping that survives on little or no water. We have to make these decisions ourselves.

And I don't think we should all have to get incentives to do this. I think that the incentives need to go to industry so they will build the big products, so they will build the solar systems, the wind systems. In our district, we have geothermal, and we need to help in all those areas.

So as individuals some sacrifice will come along. Mostly that sacrifice will be changing the way we do things. That is hard. Nobody likes to change. But we change now, or it will be too late.

Actually, one of the things, under Jim Oberstar's leadership, he is the Chair of the Transportation Authorization Committee, under his tutelage, we have invested a lot in nonmotorized transportation, because it's hard to ask the children to walk to school when their roadways are full of cars and there are no sidewalks. It's hard to ask people to ride bicycles when there are no safe bicycle paths.

Actually, Marin County, in my district, is one of the model programs in his program, and it's certainly proving itself out. You know, California gets a

lot of criticism because we use a lot of energy. But, you know, per capita we use less than any other State in the country, and that's because we actually get conservation and we live conservation. We actually, in most areas, walk our talk in that regard.

Now, the Progressive Caucus is absolutely ready to fully participate in this debate about good ideas so that we can ensure any change in the way we treat carbon will be done to maximize the benefits to the environment, minimize the impact on our constituents, and transform our economy with new energy technologies. Our feet are on the ground. We're ready to go. But what we are going to want is bold decisions and bold resources and bold support so that we aren't tiptoeing along and pretending it isn't happening. We're going to work with the Obama administration. We're going to work with our leadership, and we are going to work with both sides of the aisle to ensure that what we're talking about is real and doable and supported.

First of all, I want to thank you, Congressman Ellison, for these really informative Congressional Progressive Caucus dialogues that you have hosted every week ever since we came back into Congress this session.

I want to say something about cap-and-trade, just so that those who are listening to us know how, what we think it means. And you said it. We already have cap-and-trade in this country. Not with carbon, but with ``NOX and SOx,'' which is better known as the pollutants that cause acid rain. It's been happening since 1990. And guess what? It works.

So therefore, to explain the cap, it means we set a limit on the amount of carbon that large producers can put into the atmosphere. Then, over time, we reduce that number so people are allowed to produce less and less carbon until we get the reductions we need to avoid devastating climate change.

The trade part means that the government issues credits for carbon emitters under the previously established cap. I know that's complicated, but it'll be easier to understand when it all gets laid out in front of people. These credits can then be bought, sold and traded, which means this operates under a free market system.

Now, frankly, I'm just absolutely confused why so many Republicans are upset about a system that works on the principles of the free market. But I think once all of that is debunked, people will be able to better embrace it, particularly if we have some benefits, cap trade and dividends that come back to individuals and to industry and ensure that the cost of it is a benefit to the people who are paying those costs, because big industry is not going to be the only one that pays for it. I mean, they're benefiting from what they're producing. We are too, but they are. But it's going to cost everybody more. It just does. That's all there is to it, so they want to see some benefit from it.

And so let's work on this together. Let's make sure that the investment in clean technology helps all people; that utility bills can come down, and other programs will be made in effect so that we are investing in our future, not our past.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor the Marin Conservation League on the occasion of its 75th Anniversary Celebration. Founded by four visionary women, the League has worked to preserve and protect for public use many of the magnificent lands of Marin County.

As the Golden Gate Bridge was nearing completion in 1934 Caroline Livermore, Sepha Evers, Portia Forbes, and Helen Van Pelt were deeply concerned about unplanned growth a completed bridge would enable. Not wanting 'hot dog stands and billboards,' they met to discuss the future and agreed to raise money for the county to hire planning expert Hugh Pomeroy.

Intrepid women, not easily discouraged they raised $2500 and Pomeroy developed the first countywide planning study. Learning the powers of political persuasion quickly, the women convinced the Board of Supervisors to adopt the plan which recommended the preservation of significant open spaces and guided the county's future growth. Almost at once, they swiftly proposed and persuaded the Supervisors to enact a county ordinance forbidding billboards which is in force to this day.

Caroline Livermore and her three co-founders, along with a growing organization, worked for more than 30 years to create public parks and secure for permanent preservation such Marin landmarks as Stinson Beach, Samuel P. Taylor Park, Drake's Bay, Tomales Bay State Park, and Richardson Bay Wildlife Refuge.

Never shying away from battle, MCL stopped plans for the commercialization of Angel Island when it was declared surplus by the federal government after WWII. The League further fought to have it declared a state historic site and worked 14 more years to ensure the Park's master plan prevented commercial development, preserved historic resources, and protected wildlife habitat. Mt. Livermore, on Angel Island, was named to honor MCL co-founder Caroline Livermore.

Working with Audubon Canyon Ranch and the Nature Conservancy, MCL prevented the development of a recreational resort complex locally dubbed `Newport Beach North.' By purchasing Kent Island and tidelands and donating the lands to Marin County as a park, Bolinas Lagoon was permanently preserved as a wildlife refuge.

Over the years Mann Conservation League has played many significant roles including helping to establish Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In the 1960's they led the fight against massive development in West Marin and stopped a proposed cross- county freeway. They advocated for agricultural zoning and in 1972, MCL helped launch the Marin County Open Space District.

During the 1970's and 80's, as land became more costly, MCL shifted its political priorities to work collaboratively towards the protection of environmental quality throughout the county. They campaigned vigorously to oppose offshore oil drilling, prevent logging on Bolinas Ridge, and worked tirelessly to defeat the peripheral canal, the environmentally costly state plan to divert Northern California water to the Southland.

Never resting on its laurels, MCL continues to work on protecting important natural features while developing environmental public policy, and working to implement that policy. Through careful research and evaluation, MCL prepares positions on government proposals, development projects and ballot propositions.

Madam Speaker, I have appreciated working with Marin Conservation League on many complicated issues and know they will conscientiously continue to monitor project proposals, track policies, and encourage government to adopt decisions that protect the environment. I congratulate the Marin Conservation League on its 75 years of extraordinary achievement!

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th Anniversary of California's Armstrong Woods State Natural Reserve, the only protected old growth Redwood forest in Sonoma County that was once thick with some of the largest trees on the planet. This serene and stunning natural retreat comprises 805 acres of land and is home to California's majestic coast Redwoods.

Armstrong Woods boasts a diversity of trees and shrubs that create a multi-layered canopy

supporting the growth of each species in the grove. Trees and plants in Armstrong Woods, such as Douglas Fir, Big Leaf Maple, Redwood Trillium, Sword Fern, and the most renowned, the imperial coast Redwood, contribute to the forest's diverse ecosystem.

Nurtured by abundant winter rain, moderate year-round temperatures and partial shade, coast Redwoods can grow up to 2-3 feet per year. At more than 310-feet tall, Parson Jones is the Reserve's tallest tree. The cloak of fog that protects the Redwoods from summer's harsh drought conditions allows these supreme trees to flourish along the coast from southern Oregon to central California.

Despite logging and raging fires, these mighty trees continue to provide their striking beauty, ecological significance and are witnesses to hundreds of years of history. The Reserve's oldest tree, Colonel Armstrong, is estimated to be more than 1,400 years old.

Part of the Redwood's resiliency is attributed to its natural resistance to insects, fungi, and fire. Some trees bare scars of the fire that roared in 1926, which is a testament to the strength of the thick, reddish bark.

The history of Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve extends back to 1850, when the area was established as a lumber camp on the north bank of the Russian River called Stumptown, known today as Guerneville.

In 1874, Colonel James Boydston Armstrong, a journalist, surveyor and colonel with the Union Army, relocated from Ohio to Sonoma County where he logged and operated a sawmill site. Armstrong acquired 440 acres of land three miles north of Guerneville, and deeded the land to his daughter, Kate Armstrong, with the intention of preserving the land until its opening as an arboretum.

Because of Armstrong's financial distress and his daughter's ailing health, the parcel was eventually purchased by a family friend, Harrison M. LeBaron. Armstrong's vigilant efforts to preserve the land prevailed under the direction of his daughter Lizzie and the LeBaron family. They launched a well-supported campaign to protect the once mighty forest.

In 1917, the County of Sonoma purchased the property for $80,000 and operated the grove until the State of California assumed ownership in 1934. The Reserve's trails and amphitheatre were created by the Civil Conservation Corps during the Great Depression.

Thanks in large part to Colonel Armstrong's preservation efforts, today the beauty, history and serenity of Armstrong Woods is enjoyed by students, campers, hikers and visitors from around the globe.

Armstrong Woods State Natural Reserve offers visitors an abundance of hiking trail choices, ranging from brief one-mile walks, to an intense 9-mile loop that ascends from 120 feet to 1,250 feet at the summit by Bullfrog Pond. Adventure seekers can enjoy back country campsites, equestrians can trot along trails and families can meander into the park to enjoy lunch flanked by awe-inspiring, 300-foot trees.

Through Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, the Reserve's cooperating volunteer association, students learn about the forest's flora and fauna and can participate in an Environmental Living Program where they discover and explore the area.

Madam Speaker, my hope is that through continued preservation efforts and work on behalf of park staff and volunteers, Armstrong Woods State Natural Reserve will continue to serve as a tranquil reprieve, an ecological treasure, and a recreational destination for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to praise President Obama on his recent meetings with foreign leaders. He changed both the tone and the substance of American foreign policy, and I believe he did a great deal to restore America's reputation throughout the world.

I do not agree with every single detail of his foreign policy decisions, but I certainly applaud his commitment to diplomacy and cooperation as the best way to prevent war, solve international problems and get a dialogue started.

During the G-20 summit in Europe, the President worked hard to restore good relations with our allies, which were stretched to the breaking point by the previous administration's arrogance. He said that America will listen to the concerns of our European friends, and he promised to rebuild our partnership with them.

While he was in London, the President also pledged to work with Russia to reduce both nations' nuclear arsenals, and he announced a new effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons once and for all. And he called for U.S. ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, which I have been asking for for many, many years.

On his trip to Turkey, Mr. Speaker, the President also reached out to the Muslim world. He said that the U.S. is not and never will be at war with Islam. Those were very welcome words, while he also promised to seek broader engagement with the Muslim world based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

Along these lines, Mr. Speaker, the administration recently stepped up its effort to engage Iran in talks. They agreed to participate in talks with Iran and other global powers about Iran's nuclear program.

When the President attended the Summit of the Americas a little bit later, he pledged to work closely with the nations of the hemisphere on climate change and economic development and to cooperate with Mexico to end the violence on our border.

Most important, however, Mr. Speaker, President Obama called for a new beginning in our relations with Cuba. After a delegation of Members of Congress visited Cuba during the Easter work period, President Obama lifted some of the restrictions that Americans face when they want to travel to Cuba and/or send money to relatives there.

So far the response of the Cuban Government has been very positive. I hope this is a beginning to the end of the 50-year cold war between the United States and Cuba, but I know we have a lot of work to do. These problems probably won't be solved overnight, but we are on the way.

I also have some concerns, concerns with our very own administration about some of their policies. For example, the administration is planning to prolong our occupation of Iraq until at least the end of 2011, and it appears that they could be expanding our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely.

The lessons of the past 7 years, Mr. Speaker, have made it clear that a military option won't work in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We must, instead, fundamentally change our mission in both countries to focus on reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid and regional diplomacy.

I am, however, encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by the administration's desire to chart a new and better course for America's place in the world.

President Obama is willing to listen, build partnerships and show respect for other cultures. That's a big step forward for making the world a more peaceful place for ourselves and our children.

Madam Speaker, in an age in which the average job tenure is 5 years, it is increasingly rare fo someone to be with the same company for 20 years, and extraordinary that someone would be with one organization for 45 years and still engaging in the workplace with the same enthusiasm and professionalism that they had throughout their career.

Such is the case with Martha Hernandez, who joined the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company in San Francisco in May 1964 and continues to be with them today, moving with the company to Novato, California, in my Congressional District.

Martha came to Fireman's Fund as a 14-year-old girl having moved from Mexico City with her parents and brother Rubin to the United States where they settled in Pacifica, California. Her first job at the Fund was manually coding policies that would then go to a key punch operator, high tech for the time, but now the technological equivalent of the horse and buggy age. Over time, Martha's work continued to expand and she became an underwriting technician where she developed an excellent reputation for her attention to detail.

For Martha, the people at Fireman's Fund are a part of her family, and apparently it is a two way street. She left the company for a grand total of two weeks in 1984 when there was a reduction in force, but came back when her friends and colleagues helped find another job for her. As far as everyone is concerned, she never left Fireman's Fund just as no one can ever escape a loving home.

Martha is very involved in her church and is a devoted aunt to her four nephews and one niece and a two-year-old great niece. Over the years, she has made her own unique contributions to the Christmas holiday festivities at Fireman's Fund by bringing in her three types of homemade tamales that have reduced the enthusiasm her colleagues have for the ones they usually get in restaurants.

Martha continues to work at Fireman's Fund in their Resolution Services division, and commutes everyday from her home in San Francisco to Novato in her red and white Mini Cooper.

Madam Speaker, most of the news we read regarding work life is directed at people who are in top management who might be making the big decisions. However, our economy is really dependent upon the people who keep things going, processing the information, and making certain that goods and services are provided for. Martha Hernandez is a person who has helped our country to flourish, and it gives me tremendous pleasure to recognize her contribution to Fireman's Fund and to the well-being of the Bay Area.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.

As we face the huge challenges ahead of us, the financial crisis, wars in two countries, rising unemployment, crumbling infrastructure, lack of affordable health care, high energy prices and global climate change, the budget is the legislation that will address all of these issues at one time. That's why, as co-chair, with Congressman Raul Grijalva of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I'm pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2010 Progressive Caucus Budget Alternative.

In November the American people voted to take the country in a new direction, and that is exactly what the CPC budget does, not by making small adjustments, but by fundamentally changing the way our government allocates its resources. That's why the CPC budget eliminates more than $60 billion in unneeded spending at the Pentagon, much of which is spent on weapons designed to fight the former Soviet Union. Our budget cuts defense spending by a total of $158 billion in Fiscal Year 2010.

The CPC alternative budget saves another $8.7 billion a year by fully implementing the nearly 800 outstanding GAO recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse at the DOD.

And finally, we can save another $90 billion by executing a timely and complete withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

Our budget restores fairness and balance to the Tax Code by rolling back the Bush tax breaks for the top 1 percent, closing loopholes for corporations that would equal $100 billion in savings a year, ensuring that Wall Street pays its fair share for the burden placed on taxpayers by the TARP program, and limiting the tax deductibility of excessive CEO pay.

With these offsets, the CPC budget then sets forth an ambitious agenda to address the most pressing matters facing America today. We invest $991 billion in nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal year 2010, which is $469 billion over the President's budget. This bold infusion of resources includes $300 billion in stimulus that was left out of the economic recovery package, and increases spending for domestic priorities. These investments include: $120 billion a year to ensure that every American has health care; $90 billion a year to cut the poverty rate in America by 50 percent; up to $80 billion a year to rebuild and reinvest in our infrastructure; and an increase of $60 billion for international assistance for nonmilitary foreign assistance to fight the root causes of terrorism, to support the 21st century diplomacy.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume. And to meeting basic human needs, universal education and worldwide prevention of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.

Thirty billion dollars a year in our budget is for the President's budget to fight global warming and promote energy independence.

Over $70 billion a year will fully fund the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and IDEA, and $45 billion a year to make veterans health care an entitlement.

Madam Chair, these are the major priorities of the Progressive Caucus alternative budget, and I urge my colleagues to pay attention to it and to vote for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who is the author of this year's reduction of Cold War weapons in our CPC budget.

I'm honored to yield a minute and a half to the former cochair of the Progressive Caucus, Barbara Lee from California.

Madam Chair, I yield a minute and a half to a Progressive vice chair, Keith Ellison from Minnesota.

Madam Chair, how much time is remaining?

Madam Chair, I am honored to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the outspoken Progressive leader, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the Progressive Caucus vice chair, Donna Edwards from Maryland.

Madam Chairwoman, I now yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, John Conyers of Michigan.

Madam Chairwoman, we have two speakers including closing.

Madam Chairwoman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Africa and Global Health Subcommittee, Donald Payne of New Jersey.

Madam Chairman, well, I'd just like to point out that the other side of the aisle must like the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget very much because they've spent the entire hour either promoting their own budget or attacking the President's budget and letting our budget stand as it is.

I'm proud of the Congressional Progressive budget. We cut defense spending by $158 billion in fiscal year 2010 alone, and we increase nondefense discretionary spending to $991 billion, and that's quite an effort and quite an accomplishment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a wonderful establishment in Santa Rosa, California--Friends House. Friends House, a very special continuing care retirement community, is celebrating its 25th anniversary April 24, 25, and 26.

Conceived of in the late 1970s, Friends House opened to its first residents in 1984 and has expanded over the years while retaining its family feel. It is now composed of three related programs dedicated to the health and well-being of older persons--independent living in both houses and apartments, assisted living, and a skilled nursing facility which is also open to the public. It is operated by Friends Association of Services for the Elderly under the College Park Quarterly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends.

It has been my pleasure to meet with the residents of Friends House over the years. I have found them to be a lively and engaged group with a commitment to the progressive values we share. These caring values are evident not only in the democratically run, close-knit community but also in the activism shared by many of its members. Residents and staff are involved in volunteerism through The Art of Giving Back program. Volunteers work in over 30 nonprofit organizations, and the community hosts educational and cultural sessions for the public.

The care given to seniors by the staff at Friends House is often singled out for praise. One woman wrote movingly of her mother-in-law's passing away ``in the loving care of the wonderful angels there.'' She then asked them to send her love and say a prayer for the comfort of another family member at the facility who was not coherent but who had all the support she needed to make her last days something beautiful and special.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor to be able to salute Friends House on its 25th anniversary. I know that its residents and staff will continue to be a loving asset to our community for years to come.

Madam Speaker, President Obama announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan on Friday. I personally am encouraged by much of what he had to say, but I remain concerned by other parts of his approach to the problems in that region.

The President said that ``a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets and bombs alone'' and that a big change from the last administration's approach is absolutely necessary. And I will tell you it is a very welcome change. President Obama called for a package of assistance that will help Pakistan to build schools, roads and hospitals. He also called for a ``civilian surge'' in Afghanistan. He wants to send agricultural specialists, educators and engineers to help develop the Afghan economy.

The President said that ``these foreign assistance programs relieve the burden on our troops. It is better to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour with no transition to Afghan responsibility.''

Madam Speaker, I wholeheartedly support these economic assistance efforts. I have said for a long time that the best way to fight terrorism is to give people real hope for a better future so that they don't become terrorists in the first place.

I'm also heartened by the President's clarification of the roles of NATO, the U.N. and other international partners. He is asking them to help with the civilian effort, and he's asking the United Nations to bring all the nations of the region together, including Iran, to help stabilize the region.

I recently joined my colleagues, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Maxine Waters, in sending a letter to the President asking him for such clarification because I remain concerned about other parts of the administration's approach, including the decision to send 17,000 more combat troops to Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, history makes it clear that the Afghan people do not look kindly on foreign armies. The press is already reporting that the decision to send more troops is encouraging Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan to unite to fight us.

I'm also concerned about the cost of sending more troops, the cost in both lives and treasure. It will require a 60 percent increase in military spending at a time when our economy right here at home is suffering so badly.

That's why, Madam Speaker, now is the time to take a deep breath. Now is the time to pause to consider whether there are other alternatives to sending our troops to Afghanistan. To help with this, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has put together a series of forums on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The purpose of these forums is to engage Members of the House in discussions about our policy options. The forums feature leading experts on Central Asia. In fact, the first forum was last week, and it examined the history and cultures of the Afghan people.

The upcoming forums will examine American strategic interests in Afghanistan and the northwest border of Pakistan, the role and goals of our military in that region, the problems that a comprehensive strategy of Afghanistan should address, our policies toward Afghanistan in the context of Pakistan, and the development of an international diplomatic strategy for the region.

I invite all Members of the House to attend these forums. They are nonpartisan. They're nonideological, and they offer different perspectives and different ideas, because now is the time to explore our choices in Central Asia and to work with the administration to develop the most effective policies. That is what the American people expect us to do, and that is what we must do in the days ahead.