Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States traveled to Afghanistan last week to sign the Strategic Partnership Agreement with President Karzai, and while this agreement is intended to signal the beginning of the end of the Afghanistan war, instead it actually looks like it could lock the United States into a military commitment for years to come.

The agreement calls for our Armed Forces to be involved beyond 2014 in the ``training, equipping, advising, and sustaining'' of Afghan security forces so that Afghanistan can combat terrorism and ``secure and defend itself against internal and external threats.''

The irony in that statement, Mr. Speaker, is rich. When are we going to realize that the internal threats facing

Afghanistan gather more strength with every day that American boots are on the ground? Insurgents are energized and animated. They bolster their recruitment and increase their numbers because of their resentment over a U.S. military occupation that is now in its 11th year--11th year. We will not bring stability to Afghanistan until we fundamentally alter our bilateral relationship to emphasize peaceful, civil engagement over military engagement. The good thing about this Strategic Partnership Agreement, however, is that it does include provisions relating to democracy promotion, economic development, and assisting in the reforming of the Afghans' governing institutions. These programs need to be the centerpiece of our Afghan strategy, along with major investments in development aid across the board.

The war won't truly wind down until the White House commits--I mean commits--to spending more on diplomacy and more on development and reconstruction than they're spending on the military occupation. We need a dramatic shift in resources--more to rebuild Afghan infrastructure, more to fight poverty, more to reduce infant and maternal mortality, more to send children, especially girls, to school. As long as we maintain a military presence in Afghanistan, as long as fighting is the focal point of our relationship, we will be preventing and undermining the important humanitarian work that needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, investing in the Afghan people is not just the right thing to do because of our common humanity, it is the smart thing to do from the standpoint of our national security objectives. That's why I call my plan SMART Security. It needs to be implemented not just in Afghanistan, but in other unstable parts of the world where terrorism poses a grave threat.

Thomas Friedman of The New York Times is on board with the principles behind SMART Security. In a column last week, he talked about how a $13 million scholarship program for Lebanese students is doing a lot more to advance our values in that country than $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt. He quotes a schoolteacher in Jordan who talks about how the former is for ``making people'' and how the latter is for ``killing people.''

What is the point of our engagement, Mr. Speaker, with the rest of the world--to make people or to kill people? That's a very important question for us to answer. As Friedman puts it:

So how about we stop being stupid? How about we stop

sending planes and tanks to a country where half the women

and a quarter of the men can't read, and start sending

scholarships instead?

How about we stop being stupid, Mr. Speaker? How about we make the shift to a SMART Security approach? How about we make that shift now and begin that shift with bringing our troops home?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery and selflessness of Maurice and Sophie Conti of Muir Beach, California. On October 13, 2008, the Contis, along with their young children Massimo and Annabelle, led the rescue of three sailors stranded by the sinking of their yacht some 60 miles from Fiji. The Contis have been recognized internationally for putting their own lives at risk in the service of others, and their example is a true credit to the sailing community and the people of Marin County.

On the night of October 12, 2008, the Australian and New Zealand crew of the Timella issued a distress call after running aground on the Takau Lakaleka reef in Fijian waters. After contacting the Australian and New Zealand High Commissions, the Contis quickly realized that no other vessel was in a position to assist the Timella. In the darkness, they set out on the two-and-a-half hour voyage to meet the stranded sailors, whose ship and life raft had both already sunk by the time of their arrival.

While Sophie Conti handled the Contis' catamaran in swells measuring 10 to 15 feet, Maurice Conti carefully navigated the reef to reach the crew of the Timella by dinghy. Coordinating with rescue teams based in New Zealand, the Contis then brought the stranded sailors safely to Fiji.

The Contis were awarded the International Maritime Organization Award for Exceptional Bravery at Sea in 2009, and Cruising Club of America has awarded them the 2009 Rod Stephens Trophy for Outstanding Seamanship. This month, Maurice and Sophie Conti are also receiving New Zealand Bravery Medals from the government of New Zealand.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking the Conti family for their courage. They represent the best of the maritime tradition, and they are exemplary ambassadors for the civic-minded spirit of our community.

Mr. Speaker, in my dictionary, a ``slush fund'' is defined as ``a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda.'' Yet, the Speaker of the House used that term, and the chair of the Education and Labor Committee used that term ``slush fund,'' to describe the prevention and public health fund, which saves lives by paying for childhood immunizations and screenings for cervical cancer and birth defects.

We are the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. I refuse to accept the idea that to solve one problem, we have to create another.

The Democrats proposed righting the Ryan Republican budget wrong by taxing oil company profits. Therefore, their suggestion that we go from 3.4 percent interest to 6.8 can be paid for out of the wealth of oil companies that benefit from our country so tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, I reject the blackmail inherent in H.R. 4628. I don't want anybody to know that it's okay to pit one group against another, and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. We have to do the right thing. We have to choose both.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628.

A Union of Professionals,

April 26, 2012.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 1.5 million

members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), I urge

you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction

Act.

As you know, on July 1, interest rates on federal

subsidized Stafford student loans will double from 3.4

percent to 6.8 percent. This increase will affect 7.4 million

low- and middle-income students, having a lasting impact on

the long-term costs of their loans and on their future life

decisions, like buying a home, owning a business or starting

a family.

College students are graduating with record levels of debt.

In fact, national student debt has surpassed our nation's

credit card debt, and with the high levels of unemployment

and underemployment for graduates, there could hardly be a

worse time for the interest rate on Stafford loans to double.

We are pleased that both parties in the House have now

finally acknowledged the need to prevent interest rates from

doubling in July. However, there is a right way and a wrong

way to pay for the cost of keeping the rates low for one

year. Under H.R. 4628, the majority proposes to take billions

of dollars from the prevention and public health fund in the

Affordable Care Act. This fund helps ensure that women

receive affordable and critical preventive healthcare, like

breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings that can save

their lives and reduce unnecessary medical costs to them and

to taxpayers. And the fund supports community health centers,

provides child immunizations and helps children with birth

defects. Alternatively, the minority supports ending unfair

tax loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals and

corporations, and then using these savings to prevent loan

rates from doubling.

Congress should not rob Peter to pay Paul by using a

funding stream geared to help public health and provide

preventive healthcare to pay for the loan rate extension. It

is unconscionable, when other options are available, to

propose that the student loan problem be solved by

undercutting the healthcare available to women, children and

others most in need of assistance. Instead, the majority

should be supporting other ways to pay for this proposal,

such as requiring wealthy individuals and corporations to pay

their fair share of taxes.

Again, I urge you to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4628. The House

must stop playing politics with students' debt and put forth

a serious proposal with responsible and fair offsets.

Thank you for considering our views on this important

matter.

Sincerely,

Kristor W. Cowan,

Director, Legislation.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the United States Government and Afghanistan reached a strategic agreement to define the terms of the relationship between our two countries in the near-term future.

First of all, this agreement affirms that our combat troops will not leave Afghanistan until 2014, which is far too slow a timetable. Don't we have enough evidence right here after 10-plus years that we're not making America safer with this war, we're not minimizing the terrorist threat, and we're not bringing stability and security to Afghanistan?

How much more will Americans be asked to sacrifice? How many more tens of billions in taxpayer dollars will be wasted when we have so many needs right here at home? How many more Americans have to come home in a casket? How many more will take their own lives because the mental health distress of serving in a combat zone becomes too much? How many more have to spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair, or without a limb or limbs, because of injuries suffered in an immoral and unnecessary war?

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there is not a minute to waste. Now is the moment to end this war and bring our troops home.

The meeting this weekend does, however, show the importance of a plan going forward, a plan that will define the terms of our engagement with Afghanistan after the war is over.

I've always said that ending the military occupation does not mean abandoning Afghanistan. The question is, what form will our partnership take? And on that question, the agreement signed this weekend provides very little guidance.

According to The Washington Post, in fact, and I'll quote them, they say: ``The specifics of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan have yet to be formally outlined.''

Then The Post adds that ``the document provides only a vaguely worded reassurance, leaving many to guess at what the U.S. commitment means in practice.''

Well, Mr. Speaker, we need more than a guess. We need a clear strategy for investing in Afghanistan and it's people. And while a lot of the talk has been about continuing to shore up Afghan security forces, we need a much more comprehensive approach.

In short, we need to implement SMART Security, the strategy that I've spoken of from this spot hundreds of times since 2004. SMART Security would replace our military surge with a civilian surge. It would put humanitarian aid in front and center. It would emphasize development and diplomacy instead of invasion and occupation.

It would mean, in place of troops and weapons, we send experts with tools and resources to rebuild Afghan infrastructure, hospitals, and schools. It would mean investing in programs to improve maternal health and child mortality. It would mean a focus on democracy promotion and rebuilding civil society in Afghanistan. It would also mean shifting the emphasis to peace-building, conflict prevention, and human rights education.

This approach would save lives. It would promote peace. It is a superior counterterrorism and national security strategy. It will keep the American people safe. It will advance our values in a way that a decade of war clearly has not.

We can't wait until 2014, Mr. Speaker. We need a SMART Security approach in Afghanistan, and we need it now. And we need to start by bringing our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Rep. Mike Thompson, to honor the career of Dr. Robert Agrella, who formally retires from his position as president

of Santa Rosa Junior College (SRJC) on May 5, 2012, after 22 years. Just the fourth president in the 94-year history of SRJC, Dr. Agrella has overseen a period of substantial change in an institution now recognized as a national leader in community college education. His management and foresight have benefitted us all by bringing higher learning closer to the people of the North Bay.

Serving over 36,000 students each semester, and drawing on the expertise of some 3500 faculty and staff, Santa Rosa Junior College is amongst the oldest and most widely recognized two-year colleges in California. It is also a large and growing institution, with two main campuses and a number of career-specific facilities dedicated to public safety, agriculture, technology, culinary arts, and more.

It is a proud part of Dr. Agrella's legacy that many of the SRJC facilities have been built, expanded, or refurbished during his tenure. In the 1990s, classes first began at the Petaluma campus, and SRJC moved into several new buildings in Santa Rosa. In the past decade, during a time of increasing budgetary difficulty, the new Frank P. Doyle Library, a new student services center, and vast new improvements at the Petaluma Campus and elsewhere have all been completed or undertaken. These are the products of Dr. Agrella's tireless work to unite SRJC staff and a Sonoma County community committed to the funding and planning necessary for continued growth. SRJC has also become a model for environmental consciousness, supporting green construction and a thoughtful, collaborative approach to development.

As the North Bay has grown and diversified, so too has the training and education SRJC offers to meet the needs of our community. While opening new facilities in agriculture and public safety--areas of historic strength in Sonoma County--Dr. Agrella has also overseen an expansion into new areas that will strengthen our economic base and serve the needs of a modern workforce. High technology, green energy and green building, tourism and hospitality, and performing arts offerings have all been upgraded. At the same time, scholarships have been greatly expanded to serve a diverse and inclusive College community.

Dr. Agrella's role in realizing these changes has been widely recognized in Sonoma County. He has been named Santa Rosa Citizen of the Year, and he is the recipient of the Spirit of Sonoma County Award. In appreciation of his longstanding service to SRJC and Sonoma County, Dr. Agrella has also been named the College's first president emeritus.

Mr. Speaker, we ask you to join us in thanking Dr. Agrella for his contributions to Santa Rosa Junior College, and in wishing him all the best in his retirement. Dr. Agrella leaves SRJC with a remarkable legacy of service, and with a firm footing for a strong, progressive future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of a passionate and dedicated public servant. Marin County Fire Chief Ken Massucco retired at the end of March 2012 after a career of nearly four decades protecting our communities.

After a year volunteering with the Kentfield Fire Protection District, Chief Massucco joined Marin County Fire Department in 1974. He rose through the ranks as Fire Lieutenant, Senior Captain, and Battalion Chief before being appointed Fire Chief in December 2001 by the Marin County Board of Supervisors.

Throughout his tenure, Chief Massucco maintained a special connection with the residents he served in unincorporated Marin County, and with the firefighters and office staff responsible for keeping our communities safe. In a Department that includes more than 80 full-time and 60 seasonal workers covering a broad and geographically diverse region, it was the care and leadership of Chief Massucco that ensured strong partnerships with the public.

I was especially impressed to see Chief Massucco's work as a lead member of the team that battled the Angel Island fire in October 2008. Marin County firefighters spearheaded a difficult effort to save invaluable cultural and historical treasures, including the Angel Island Immigration Station, which is recognized as a National Historic Landmark and a part of the California State Parks. All Americans owe a debt of gratitude to Chief Massucco and the Marin County Fire Department for their efforts to ensure the survival of this unique site.

Chief Massucco also brought his leadership to other public safety initiatives, and his work was recognized beyond our County. He assisted firefighters in emergencies across California as an Operations Section Chief within the Incident Command System, and in 2009 he was recognized by the California Fire Chiefs Association as Fire Chief of the Year. Chief Massucco also led our County Urban Search and Rescue Task Force, which offers emergency services not only in Marin County, but also to partners across the country in need of additional responders.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in thanking Chief Massucco for his contributions to Marin County. He has set an admirable standard for compassionate and responsive public service, and we wish him the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David Grabill, a lawyer in Santa Rosa, CA, who is receiving the Jack Green Civil Liberties Award from the Sonoma County Chapter of the Northern California American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This award is presented annually to a leader who has advanced the cause of social justice in the community.

During his 45 years of practice, David Grabill has represented individuals and groups in civil rights cases not only in our community, but in places like Gary, Indiana; Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota; Charleston, West Virginia; and Delano and Escondido, California. He assisted in Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign, represented members of the Black Panther Party in Los Angeles, and worked with the United Farm Workers on union rights. He has also extended his practice to welfare and reproductive rights, Native American legal services, black lung, labor matters, and others, giving his time and expertise to those in need of legal services.

Mr. Grabill grew up in Washington, DC, and attended Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania law school. He met his wife, Dorothy Battenfeld in West Virginia, and, in 1981, settled with his family in Santa Rosa. He served for 14 years as directing attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), working on behalf of California's rural poor.

He soon joined with other attorneys during the Reagan administration to obtain an injunction prohibiting the federal government from detaining any individual merely to investigate her/his immigration status unless they had reasonable grounds to believe the person was not legally in the Country. He also served for many years on the Board of the Sonoma County ACLU Chapter where he provided significant pro bono legal support on various issues.

Today David Grabill specializes locally in cases involving affordable housing and housing discrimination. With the Housing Advocacy Group (HAG) that he started with friends in 1998, he focuses his efforts on creating more affordable housing and combating discrimination against lower income, mostly Latino and African American, residents.

Mr. Speaker, David Grabill has dedicated his life to the advancement of social justice and human rights. Please join me in congratulating him on the Sonoma ACLU's Jack Green Civil Liberties Award.

I'd like to thank the chairman of the Progressive Caucus for bringing this together today to talk about what's so important to the people of the United States of America, our country, and in turn the world.

I want to say a few things about the Buffett rule just to fill out that discussion. There are some things we know: the Buffett rule is fiscally responsible. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett rule could reduce the deficit by anywhere from $47 billion to $162 billion over the next decade. The Buffett rule is widely supported, as the chairman just said. The Buffett rule would restore the principled fairness of the Tax Code because it ensures that millionaires can't game the system to pay a lower rate than middle class families.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans across the political spectrum believe millionaires should pay their fair share. An overwhelming 76 percent of Americans support increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than $1 million per year, which includes 75 percent of Independents and 56 percent of Republicans.

The majority of millionaires themselves support the Buffett rule. In a recent poll of millionaires, an overwhelming 68 percent support the Buffett rule. Millionaires support the Buffett rule.

And remember, it's taxation above $1 million and it's stepped up. It isn't the minute you hit $1 million you're taxed at a much greater rate. It's over. From $1 million up, the taxes will go up.

Seven thousand millionaires paid no individual income taxes in the year 2011. Seven thousand millionaires didn't pay any personal taxes in 2011. According to the Tax Policy Center, 7,000 millionaires--it was that tax center that told us that.

The Republican budget would shower even more tax breaks on millionaires while putting more of the burden on the middle-class families. While Democrats are fighting to restore fairness in the Tax Code, the Republican budget offers extreme right-wing alternatives-- that's my opinion--that would shower millionaires and billionaires with tax breaks at the expense of the middle class, and that would further skew the system in favor of the wealthiest Americans.

So we've got a lot of statistics. We know the facts. We're ready to support the Buffett rule. Millionaires, themselves, support it. So the question is: Why can't we get the people we work with in the U.S. Congress to support the Buffett rule?

I want to add a couple of things about the Buffett rule. There is so much to talk about that, I'm sure, our C SPAN viewers and probably most of the Members of Congress really don't realize.

The 400 highest-earning Americans in 2008, who made an average each of $271 million, paid an average effective Federal tax rate of just 18.1 percent. At the same time, a married couple earning $70,000 a year paid a rate of 25 percent. Is that just unbelievable?

The Buffett rule seeks to restore balance to families, and the Tax Code would make sure that no millionaire would pay a lower tax rate than middle class Americans. In fact, the Buffett rule is targeted. The legislation will only impact taxpayers with a taxable income of over $1 million who are not paying a minimum tax rate of 30 percent. So realize that. Of the 144 million tax returns filed in 2010, fewer than 500,000 of them--0.1 percent of the taxpayers--had taxable incomes of over $1 million. Remember, these are taxable incomes because there are lots of write-offs.

You're right. They have an influence in the political process, and average working Americans don't realize that that's not them. The families who earn $70,000 a year are taxed on that at a rate of 25 percent.

I would like to say, by caring about American workers, by caring about women and children, by caring about our seniors, by wanting to put food on the tables of all Americans and help them with clean air and good food and clean water, if that labels us, so be it. All that says to me is somebody is very frightened about the good things we do. I think we should move on now.

Thank you.

I believe that it's evermore important that we do something about the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which overturns nearly 100 years of campaign finance laws in this country which limit corporation involvement in political campaigns.

In that action by the Supreme Court, big business was given a louder voice than the individual in this country. If we want to protect our democracy, that's what we have to bring an end to, all that money coming into the political system without transparency and making the average citizen feel like their voice means nothing.

Hank, the entire time I've been in the Congress--I mean, I've been here for 20 years now, and we've had a Republican majority and we've had a Democrat majority. But when the Republicans have been in the majority, they use as part of their mantra that they are returning government to the people.

Excuse me. Citizens United takes government away from the people. I don't hear them trying to change that. They--the other side of the aisle, the party in the majority right now--seem to be defending Citizens United.

The other thing they are doing at this moment is they are trying to upend the Presidential campaign finance system. They want to drown out the voice of the people and give more power to the well-heeled special interests in the Presidential elections as well. Those elections go quite well with public financing. People choose on their tax form whether or not they want to give to the Presidential elections.

Congressman, the one beacon of light in the system is the public financing of Presidential campaigns. I have to remind everybody, that's voluntary. People volunteer $1 a year out of their tax return to support the public financing of the Presidential races. They have to opt to do that. They don't have to. It's served our country well, and it's a very limited expense. It needs updating. It doesn't need dismantling. We need more public financing of our Federal election, not less.

Actually, if I had my way, we would have public financing, we would have a much shorter campaign season, and we would also publicly finance advertising as well as set spending limits and not turn campaigns--it's an industry in this country now that certainly employs thousands and thousands of people. But it spends a lot of our time and individual money in order to get people elected.

Right. I have been so fortunate because I represent a district that I fit. You know I'm retiring, but I have represented this district for 20 years, and I have fit so well that I have not had to raise millions of dollars.

I have watched my colleagues who are in these districts that could go either way and where now Citizens United has brought this super-PAC

money in against them, and I don't know how they do it. I mean, what a way to ruin our democracy, to have the people you elect to represent you spend much of their time raising money instead of raising consciousness, instead of raising issues, instead of fighting for what we know needs to be done in this country.

This corrupt campaign finance system we have, with the special interest money, is going to actually corrode our democracy. If we don't step up to it on both sides of the aisle, everybody is going to be affected by it, not just Democrats.

Right. If everybody has a certain amount of time on air, they can spend it putting down their opponent, or they can spend that time letting their constituents know who they are. If they want to be negative, they can do it the way they want to, but they will probably find out it's much more wholesome and people will like them a lot better when they know them for who they are and not as put-down artists.

When you say there's folks from the other side of the aisle, and I'm sure there are, I think that it's our job now to pull together a core here in the Congress who are willing to limit the influence of contributors and who are willing to curb the power of political action committees and impose spending limits and not let corporate America have a bigger voice than the average voter.

Somehow or another, I think it's going to be possible, but it's going to take leaders like yourself, Hank, to make that happen, so I'll be cheering for you.

Well, if we eliminate special interest money, if we have the Declaration for Democracy and have a constitutional change, the United States Constitution regarding this Citizens United action of the Supreme Court, I think we can help turn that around.

I signed the little card. I haven't signed that one, but I'm looking why aren't I on there. I mean, that's how much I support it.

Actually, Leader Pelosi has signed the declaration. It's very well received in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Americans filed their tax returns, sending the Federal Treasury funds for the government to perform vital functions. Unfortunately, much of that money, way too much of that money, continues to be wasted on a policy that has failed miserably.

I'm talking about a policy that has lost the confidence of the American people whose taxes support it, a policy that has cost nearly 2,000 American lives, a policy that has done more to undermine our national security goals than is done to make our Nation safer. Of course, I'm talking about the war in Afghanistan.

This past weekend brought yet more evidence that our continued military presence in Afghanistan, carrying a price tag of roughly $10 billion a month, is stirring up unrest and emboldening insurgents rather than providing security and stability. Beginning this last Sunday, the Taliban launched a series of bold, coordinated, and simultaneous attacks throughout Afghanistan, hitting the parliament building and diplomatic sites throughout the country.

Thankfully, there were limited casualties. By many accounts, the Afghan security forces handled themselves with skill in response to the violence, which is very good news, because as the Afghans are better able to police and protect themselves, that's all the more reason to hasten our military withdrawal from Afghanistan. Every day that we continue our military occupation, Mr. Speaker, is another day that we breed resentment, that we inflame tensions and create more impassioned enemies.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are writing the check for this war. In fact, they just sent in their annual check this week. They deserve a better return on that investment. They deserve a set of policies that are more humane, more consistent with our best values as a Nation, and more likely to advance our national security objectives.

They deserve the kind of SMART Security approach I have been talking about for many years now. Instead of invasions and warfare, we need diplomacy, we need multilateral cooperation. Instead of military surges, we need civilian surges. Instead of troops with guns, we need to send humanitarian experts, experts that can help Afghanistan and other developing countries fight poverty, rebuild their infrastructure, educate their people and so much more.

Listen to this quote, Mr. Speaker:

In today's ever-complex world, we must use all the tools of

national security to achieve our objectives, including a

strong State Department and other civilian-led agencies.

Development and diplomacy keep us safe by addressing threats

in the most dangerous corners of the world and by preventing

conflicts before they occur.

That's an excellent explanation of SMART Security, but that's not Lynn Woolsey, and it's not the Out of Afghanistan Caucus talking. It's from a letter to Congress signed by 80 retired military leaders making the case not to cut USAID and arguing for a strong, international affairs budget.

The time is now, not in 2014, Mr. Speaker. The time is now to bring our brave troops home to implement the compassionate and cost-effective SMART Security agenda that can keep our Nation safe, and it can keep peace in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Robert A. Corrigan and recognize his contribution to higher education, civic engagement and the application of university expertise to community issues. Dr. Corrigan is retiring as the President of San Francisco State University.

One of our nation's leading public urban universities, under Dr. Corrigan's leadership, San Francisco State University has become acclaimed for its diversity and is known as a ``college with a conscience.'' With nationally recognized programs in a range of fields, the more than 212,000 graduates have contributed to the economic, cultural and civic fabric of San Francisco and beyond. Dr. Corrigan has been a dedicated supporter of the partnership between San Francisco State and the Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, located in my district. Through research, education and outreach, and with a focus on San Francisco Bay, the Romberg Center works to advance the understanding of the world's complex marine environments.

A graduate of Brown University in Rhode Island, Dr. Corrigan earned his master's and doctoral degrees in American Civilization from the University of Pennsylvania. During a 54-year career in academia, Dr. Corrigan has held faculty positions at the University of Iowa, Bryn Mawr College, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. He was a provost at the University of Maryland and Dean at the University of Missouri, before becoming chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

Starting at San Francisco State University in 1988, during a period of transition, Dr. Corrigan restructured the management of the university to build a better rapport between administration and faculty. A leader with considerable collaborative skills, he has worked hard to keep the campus competitive through careful management of funds during difficult budget cuts. A well-respected colleague and administrator, Dr. Corrigan presided over a major overhaul of the campus, funded with a $120 million facilities bond measure, student fees and private fundraising. Recently, the university opened its newly renovated library and there are plans to build a new performing arts center as well as a student wellness center.

A champion of diversity in higher education, Dr. Corrigan is credited with building a model multi-cultural campus focused on social justice and equity. Where people of color constitute 70% of the student body and 41% of the faculty, Dr. Corrigan nurtured a culture of tolerance where differences are respected and debated peacefully on campus. He is the recipient of many awards and recognitions, including the 2009 Distinguished Service Award from the Association of Public and Land- grant Universities, the 2009 San Francisco Business Times ``Most Admired CEO'' award and the Distinguished Community Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League.

A keen advocate of civic engagement, Dr. Corrigan has served on the boards of a variety of organizations, such as the Mayor's Children, Youth, and Families Policy Council, two

terms as chair of the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Economic Development Corporation, and the California Historical Society Board of Directors. Among several active memberships, he is currently serving on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Anchor Institutions Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Corrigan is a man of remarkable talent and considerable commitment, he will be missed in the community and at the university, but we honor him today and wish him well in his next endeavor. Congratulations, Robert Corrigan, and thank you.

I thank the Congresswoman from Connecticut for this Special Order and for those kind words. Thank you very much.

So let me see, do I have this right? Am I getting it? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think it's just fine for the wealthiest Americans to avoid their fair share of the tax burden, that it's fine for a millionaire to pay a lower Federal tax rate than his secretary. So, tell me who they believe should make do with less in order to close the budget deficit. Just who do they want to sacrifice? Oh, of course, those Americans who are barely getting by, who can't afford life's basic necessities without support from the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, to convert SNAP into a block grant program and cut nutrition assistance would cut a giant hole in the social safety net. Actually, the SNAP program is a smart investment in Americans who need help the most. It stimulates the economy, it increases worker productivity, it's good for our children's development and academic performance. At this very moment, when a harsh economy is threatening the security of so many families, we should be increasing these investments. We shouldn't be standing here talking about scaling them back.

You know, Mr. Speaker--you probably don't know--I know what it's like to be working and still not earn enough to put food on the table. I was a single mother, it was 45 years ago. I had three small children, they were 1, 3, and 5 years old. Their dad was ill, he abandoned us. I went back to work to support my family. In fact, I had to lie about my marital status and about my childcare arrangements just to get a job-- remember, that was 40 years ago. My salary was not enough to provide for the four of us, so to help my paycheck cover the basic needs of my family I went on public assistance--kept on working--and that was how I could make ends meet. But without food stamps, we never could have made ends meet. As I said, my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old. They had needs.

Eventually, we got through the rough patch and my children grew up to be healthy, successful adults--they're amazing, by the way--but I don't know what we would have done or how we would have survived without that help. In fact, isn't that what America is about? When our fellow citizens fall on hard times, don't we pitch in to help them? Well, that's not what the Republican philosophy is. It's quite different than that. I believe that they believe every man and woman is on their own and should be fending for themselves.

Millionaires and billionaires deserve the special breaks that they don't need. And more hardship for Americans who are suffering enough already is just what they have to do when they happen not to be very wealthy, or in need. It's appalling, and it's shameful.

Mr. Speaker, you don't need to have my personal experience; nobody needs to. I didn't have to do the food stamp test for 5 days--I know what it's like to live on food stamps. But we, as Americans, as Members of Congress, have to fight with everything that we have to protect the nutrition programs that we have in this country because families in America depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly today to honor the Environmental Technology Center, ETC, on the occasion of its tenth anniversary. Located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, CA, ETC was one of the first `green' buildings on a university campus.

Before the concept of a green building was a familiar part of our national culture, Rocky Rohwedder, Professor and Chair of the Environmental Studies and Planning, ENSP, department, realized that an environmental center could provide a valuable teaching tool. He and Professor Jean Merriman Falbo (now retired) sought grants to realize this vision. I was proud to assist their effort with funds from the National Science Foundation, NSF. With further support from the California Energy Commission, the majority of the funding was in place.

Partnering with experts at Sonoma State University and in the community, ETC was carefully designed and opened its doors in the fall of 2001. The Center represented an exciting new advance in both building and education. Functioning as a teaching tool, demonstration project, and resource hub, it is used as a classroom for the Environmental Studies and Planning Department and several sustainable certificate programs as well as a center for service learning, technical assistance, and community-based research.

Considered a Zero Energy Building because it actually generates more energy than it consumes, its sustainable technologies include roof integrated photovoltaics, advanced window systems, extensive use of daylighting, recycled materials, and thermal mass as well as energy and water-efficient landscaping.

In February, 2002, shortly after ETC opened, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a Congressional field hearing in the Center on the theme of ``A Renewable Roadmap to Energy Independence.'' As the Ranking Member of the Science Energy Subcommittee, I was able to bring nationally known experts whose testimony delivered a clear message: that we could become energy independent with sustainable technologies using the techniques exemplified in the building. In addition, faculty at the Center, such as Dr. Sascha von Meier, testified in Washington, DC, before the Committee and later helped me in writing alternative energy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating all those who made the Environmental Technology Center possible and who continue to make it a focus of research and application for sustainable building ten years later. I applaud their commitment and foresight in creating ``The Building That Teaches.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th wedding anniversary of Ute and Patrick Goggins, longtime friends and constituents in Mill Valley, California. Ute and Patrick have been dedicated and conscientious members of our community since the late 1960s, and their joint passion for social justice and community service has made their active presence in the San Francisco Bay Area a true blessing.

Ute and Patrick were married March 27, 1962, in a lunchtime civil ceremony at San Francisco City Hall. The setting was appropriate for a couple who have always had a natural partnership. In the years since, Ute and Patrick have become important voices in the peace movement not only in the Bay Area, but worldwide. The Gogginses were at the forefront of opposition to the war in Vietnam, and eventually they were joined by their children in more recent demonstrations against war in Iraq.

Ute and Patrick have also contributed to a richer cultural environment, and to the idea that a stronger sense of community is a precursor to peace and justice. Patrick has spearheaded a number of local Irish cultural and historical associations, including the Irish- Mexican Association and the Irish Forum. Ute has long been a recognized local artist, and taught art at San Domenico School for over three decades.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing the 50th anniversary of Ute and Patrick Goggins. We wish them many more years of happiness, collaboration, and companionship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mann County dairy rancher Anthony (Tony) Silveira who passed away March 9, 2012, at the age of 90. Mr. Silveira spent most of his life working on the family ranches and was known for his proud defense of the family's property rights as the County became increasingly urbanized.

Mr. Silveira's father, like many of Mann County's early dairy ranchers, emigrated from the Azores. He founded the ranching business in 1900, and in 1920 helped found Mann-Dell Dairy (sold in 1954).

Born in 1921 on the Miller Ranch (now Marinwood), Tony Silveira was committed to the family business; after his father died when he was only 15, he and his siblings helped his mother Mary run two ranches. With Marinwood ranch and the Burdell Ranch north of Novato along Highway 101, drivers could enjoy the sight of some of the family's 1500 cows grazing on prime Mann County grasslands.

After graduating from local schools, Mr. Silveira attended UC Davis before returning to Mann ranching. The ``Home'' ranch in Marinwood, where his father had acquired land around St. Vincent's School for Boys, is centrally located and soon became the focus for possible housing growth. Others argued that the land should be preserved as buffer zone, with minimum development. Mr. Silveira fought passionately for the right not to have the property down-zoned, speaking out often at meetings and in press.

Mr. Silveira was involved in agricultural organizations such as the Mann County Farm Bureau and the Western United Dairymen as well as the University of California Alumni Association, Native Sons of the Golden West, and the IDESST Portuguese Hall in Sausalito.

He is survived by Lorraine, his wife of 65 years; daughter, Renee; siblings George and Jean; and three grandchildren. His son, Ronald Anthony Silveira, predeceased him in 2000.

Mr. Speaker, Anthony Silveira's proud ranching background is an important part of the fabric of Mann County history and his battles for property rights reflect the pressures and conflicts that are an ongoing dialogue of life in the County. I am honored to salute his long life and career.

Mr. Speaker, women are just over 50 percent of the U.S. population, but we bear much more than half of the Nation's health care costs.

In so many ways, the American health care system has been geared toward men, men's bodies and men's needs. As women we've had to fight and struggle for parity, and finally the Affordable Care Act has given us that level playing field.

So naturally, my friends in the majority want to scrap this law that has helped so many women obtain life-saving preventive care services. They couldn't repeal it through the democratic process, so now they're trying to get the Supreme Court to do it.

We must say no. No, we will not tolerate discrimination in the health care system. No, being woman is not a pre-existing condition.