Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few moments and put some of this in perspective. I've been here 18 years now, and I've seen a lot going on in government, and I've had the experience in the State legislature and also in local government before getting here.

This is nothing but a ploy to shut down the government for ideological purposes. It has nothing to do with running the greatest Nation on earth and trying to be a responsible government, trying to teach democracy to countries around the world, that if you copy our system you may have a freer and more open system. This is about shutting down the entire United States Government over use of birth control.

It's also the party that has a history of shutting down government. The last time government was shut down it was shut down by the Republicans. And after they shut it down, what we did, before that, is we enacted taxes to pay off the debt under President Clinton. And guess what? That was a tough vote. Not a single Republican cast a vote for that. That was probably one of the greatest economic votes ever cast in modern Congress because it put the country back on foot. We didn't have a deficit. We removed it because we earmarked those taxes to pay off the debt.

Along came President Bush. The first thing he did was repeal all those taxes. The question was, well, how are you going to pay for this? Oh, no, no. We don't have to pay for this. Well, Mr. President, you are about to go into a war. How are you going to pay for that? We don't have to pay for it, we'll just put it on the credit card.

They came up with a great plan to give senior citizens Medicare drug reimbursements but instead of using the Medicare program, no, they invented another one. They gave the money to the pharmaceutical companies and said, you take care of the poor, charity work. And guess what, it won't cost you anything. Well, it cost us a lot of money. And when asked, how are you going to pay for it? We'll put it on the credit card.

The fact is this huge deficit we got into was driven through by the party now that wants to shut down government, the party that has shut down government in the past, the party that keeps not wanting government to work.

You took an oath of office when you came here, an oath to uphold the Constitution. That Constitution is based on, if you look around this room, the lawgivers, people of history who've done incredibly bold things.

Our Constitution is incredibly bold. There's nothing in that Constitution that says that your job in Congress is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

And that's exactly what their budget is doing, their strategy is doing, and now the shutdown of government. They're gleeful about it. And it's a very, very sorry state that we have to, in these modern times, think that the greatest country in the world has to deal with shutting down government. That's the last thing we ever came here to do. It's a sorry state.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of swift U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. This decade-long war is costing our country tens of hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2010 alone, nearly 500 brave American men and women lost their lives, which is 63% more than the 2009 death toll. And as I speak, our government, which has vowed to reduce the deficit, has sent millions more overseas for a war with no foreseeable end. From 2008 to 2011, overall government spending has increased by 9%, while funding for the war in Afghanistan has increased by a startling 25%. As many of my colleagues demand $100 billion budget cuts, they need look no further than our reckless war spending. For the good of our troops and the health of our economy, this war must end.

And this viewpoint is shared across the nation. According to a recent Washington Post poll, nearly two-thirds of the American people support an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, our job in this chamber is to represent our constituents, and they have spoken loud and clear. The American people are fed up with a war that has done little to improve our national security or bolster our international standing. Furthermore, after nearly ten years of fighting, it is crystal clear that the problem in Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means alone. Stabilization and reconstruction, governance, and peace-building activities can help to stabilize states, promote rule of law, and bring enduring peace at a sliver of the cost we pay for troops on the ground.

Make no mistake about it: I firmly support our men and women in uniform. For this reason, we must bring them home from a battlefront with no real hope of military victory. I thank my colleague, Mr. Kucinich from Ohio, for re-introducing this Resolution. I was proud to cosponsor it in the last Congress, and I will firmly offer my support today in hopes that we can finally end this war.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to raise a glass of scotch in memory of Jim Mannassero, who died late last year following a brief illness. Jim was a giant among giants in the Salinas Valley's $4 billion produce industry. He was involved for decades in vegetable production at all levels and was admired as a true leader by colleagues and competitors alike. So while you may have never heard of Jim Manassero, I can guarantee that every member of Congress has eaten something that Jim helped to grow.

Those fortunate enough to know Jim will remember his gravely voice--a voice that he never hesitated to use to tell it as he saw it. Jim was always free with his opinions and observations, but he never let those opinions stray from his own deep knowledge and wisdom. When Jim spoke, you always knew that there was thought behind his words, even if those words came with a kick in the pants. He never left you in doubt about where you stood with him. But Jim's leadership and authority didn't come from being loud or pushy, it came from unfailing honesty and deep integrity. So while you may not have agreed with Jim, you always trusted him. Jim's friends will also remember his sense of style, with one pant leg tucked into his boot and accessorized whenever he could with a glass of scotch.

Jim worked for D'Arrigo Bros. of California for thirty two years, serving as Vice President of California Operations for the last 25. He was a member of Class I of the prestigious California Ag Leadership Program. He was the current Chairman of the Monterey County Agriculture Advisory Group which counsels the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on issues facing the agricultural industry. He was a founding member, and past President, of the Salinas River Coalition, where he worked with other Salinas Valley land owners to reduce the flood risk to Salinas Valley Communities and the surrounding farmland. Since 1979, Jim served as a member of the California Lettuce Research Board, serving as the organization's Chairman from 1997 to 1999. Jim served as Chairman of the Board of the Grower-Shipper Association in 1985-1986. Just last year he was the recipient of the Association's highest honor, the E.E. ``Gene'' Harden Award for Lifetime Achievement in Central Coast Agriculture. The additional boards, commissions, organizations and committees on which Jim served are too numerous to mention but, it is enough to say that Jim did the work of a dozen people. The United States is a better place for Jim's efforts.

Mr. Speaker, Jim leaves behind his wife, Ginny, his two children, Victoria and Paul, and one grandson, Julian. I know that I speak for the whole House in extending to them and to Jims friends and colleagues our deepest condolences.

Mr. Speaker, while the media may focus on NPR, the federal dollars being targeted by this awful bill now go directly to local public radio stations, not to NPR.

The federal dollars received make up a small percentage of the budget for larger stations, but these dollars represent a significant percentage of budgets for local public radio stations, like KAZU and KUSP in my district. It's important to note that stations are then able to leverage those federal grants into millions of dollars in donations from listeners, corporate supporters and foundations. That's the definition of a good federal investment.

Those federal grants enable our local public radio stations to do in- depth stories on local issues important to our region--our world famous tourism events like the AT&T Pebble Beach golf tournament, the Monterey Jazz and Pops festivals, our multi-billion dollar agriculture industry or the budget crisis in California.

Unlike commercial media, local public radio employees have only one concern--to serve their audience. Public broadcasting gives voices to the smallest and most diverse communities in our country that are overlooked by commercial broadcast radio. These are the voices that will be lost if H.R. 1076 is enacted.

H.R. 1076 is an ideological attack on public broadcasting masquerading as a fiscal issue.

Without so much as a single hearing on a subject that affects 34 million Americans weekly who depend on public broadcasting for their commercial-free news and more, this legislation dismantles fifty years of quality public broadcasting and thousands of jobs because of a political bias.

I hope my colleagues will consider the impact that any cuts or elimination of the ability to buy NPR programming would have on institutions in your district.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of swift U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. This decade-long war is costing our country tens of hundreds of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. In 2010 alone, nearly 500 brave American men and women lost their lives, which is 63% more than the 2009 death toll. And as I speak, our government, which has vowed to reduce the deficit, has sent millions more overseas for a war with no foreseeable end. From 2008 to 2011, overall government spending has increased by 9%, while funding for the war in Afghanistan has increased by a startling 25%. As many of my colleagues demand $100 billion budget cuts, they need look no further than our reckless war spending. For the good of our troops and the health of our economy, this war must end.

And this viewpoint is shared across the nation. According to a recent Washington Post poll, nearly two-thirds of the American people support an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, our job in this chamber is to represent our constituents, and they have spoken loud and clear. The American people are fed up with a war that has done little to improve our national security or bolster our international standing. Furthermore, after nearly ten years of fighting, it is crystal clear that the problem in Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means alone. Stabilization and reconstruction, governance, and peace-building activities can help to stabilize states, promote rule of law, and bring enduring peace at a sliver of the cost we pay for troops on the ground.

Make no mistake about it: I firmly support our men and women in uniform. For this reason, we must bring them home from a battlefront with no real hope of military victory. I thank my colleague, Mr. Kucinich from Ohio, for re-introducing this Resolution. I was proud to cosponsor it in the last Congress, and I will firmly offer my support today in hopes that we can finally end this war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day. Around the world, this global milestone is marked as a time to celebrate

women and their achievements throughout history. It is also a time to reaffirm our commitment to ending discrimination and violence against women and pursuing policies to guarantee the basic rights of every woman and girl.

Over the past century, tremendous progress has been made in achieving full gender equality. Internationally, women account for 80 percent of the 70 million micro-borrowers, 67 countries have gender equity laws on their books, and women have been elected to government leadership roles in every country. Here in the U.S., women continue to play an important role in caring for their families, but now, more than 50% of college students are women and nearly 60% of the American workforce is female. I am also extremely proud that today in the United States, more women than ever before are being elected to public office. I was honored to serve with the first woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the 18 women Members of Congress from California.

But there is still more work to be done. At this very moment, there are too many parts of the world where women and girls are denied access to education, lack adequate health care, die from preventable causes, or are targets of sexual and physical violence. Even here, in our own country, women on average still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. In the midst of our recession, pay parity is no longer solely a question of gender equity; it is an issue of economic necessity.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Rep. Jan Schakowsky's International Women's Day Resolution. And while this day is of unique importance, I believe that we can and must treat every day as an opportunity to fight for gender equality around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a good friend and great American who passed away tragically on November 18, 2006. The Defense Language Institute is dedicating its newest classroom building for Middle Eastern languages in honor of Alfie Tawfick Khalil.

Alfie, who was a native of Egypt, came to this country in the late 1960s. In 1979, Alfie joined the faculty of the Monterey, CA Defense Language Institute (DLI) where he taught Arabic to U.S. military personnel. He soon stood out as a leader among the DLI faculty. In 1980, he became a shop steward with AFGE Local 1263, the union representing the DLI faculty. By 1987 he was elected president of Local 1263.

In the post 9-11 world, foreign language capacity is a national security tool. In 2005, General John Abizaid, former Commander of U.S. Central Command, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, that the ``ability to cross the cultural divide is not an Army issue. It is a national issue. We have to be able to deal with the people in the rest of the world as the globe shrinks in terms of communication and problem solving and sharing.'' As the world's largest foreign language school, DLI plays an indispensable role in moving this defense strategy forward. But DLI can't do it without its faculty. They are native speakers of their mother languages who, like Alfie, come from the distant places of the globe to help our nation better defend itself.

Alfie understood this and made the advocacy for DLI faculty and staff his life's work. After my first election to Congress, I learned quickly that there were two people I needed to know at DLI: the commandant, a Colonel who would move on or retire after a two year stint, and Alfie, who would always be there representing the best interests of the faculty. Alfie made his presence felt in so many ways.

One of the best examples of this was his hard work on behalf of ``locality pay''--the small salary boost for federal workers based in particularly high cost areas. Alfie pointed out that Monterey County was, indeed, one of those areas, but that the federal government still considered it rural so paid DLI faculty at much lower rates. Alfie and I worked together for more than three years to secure a decision by the Office of Personnel Management that Monterey County based civil service workers deserved locality pay. This hard work on Alfie's part has helped DLI attract and retain the best language teachers in the world.

However, Alfie was about more than just pay at DLI. He was about professionalism. That became clear in the most recent fight to keep DLI off the base closure list. Alfie was a never-ending resource to my office and the BRAC Commission. He provided information and statistics on the level of expertise and depth of training of the DLI faculty. With this information it was easy to make the case that DLI could not be recreated anywhere else--that it was dependent on and unique to the talent of the Monterey area. Alfie was a key player in keeping DLI open and in Monterey.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for the entire House of Representatives in sharing our sincere condolences to Alfie Khalil's family both here in the United States and in Egypt and to his extended family of students and colleagues throughout the DLI community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps and the nearly quarter million people who have served in the Peace Corps in the name of peace.

Fifty years ago, John F. Kennedy signed the executive order creating the Peace Corps, and the significance of this executive order reverberated around the world. At that moment in our history, America was in the throes of a Cold War, and the international community viewed our great Nation with increasing cynicism.

Amidst this global tension, the Peace Corps showed the world the enduring values of peace, commitment to national service, and an optimism that had been eclipsed in the Cold War and World War II.

Under the masterful direction of Sargent Shriver, the Peace Corps' ranks swelled to 15,000 volunteers in 44 developing countries within the first 5 years of existence.

I was one of those early recruits. Right after college, I found myself in Peace Corps training and ended up in a poor barrio in Medellin, Colombia. I saw the grinding cycles of poverty that left so many men, women, and children without hope. I committed then to work to end the culture of poverty. It is in no small part because of that experience in the Peace Corps that I am standing here today in the well of the United States Congress.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Dreier, and I appreciate your support as well.

Over the past 50 years, through war and conflict, the Peace Corps has shown the world the hopeful, uplifting side of America that reflects our fundamental ideas of peace, service and grass-roots development. That great legacy continues today. At this moment, 8,655 volunteers are serving in 76 developing countries around the world.

I am proud to say that 25 of those volunteers are from my district. Among them is Gabe LaHue, who was the valedictorian at Aptos High School. He then went on to study plant sciences at Cornell. Just 4 months after graduating summa cum laude from college, Gabe entered into the Peace Corps in Paraguay to serve in an agricultural role there. Right now, Gabe is working shoulder to shoulder with community members in eastern Paraguay on rural agricultural development. Like many Peace Corps volunteers, Gabe's service ripples out far beyond one single project. He also helped to start a composting initiative, teaches English, and is working to set a library up and get it running.

There are others, like Ashley Burke from Marina, who is teaching English at an orphanage in Rwanda; and there is James Staples from Pacific, who is working on sustainable rural tourism in Guatemala.

Gabe, Ashley, and James are powerful ambassadors who have committed 2 years of their lives to serving America's best values abroad. The American taxpayers reap a huge return on their investment in this remarkable program. To date, more than 20 countries have requested Peace Corps volunteers, and other countries want an increase in the number of volunteers allocated to them.

The Peace Corps is able to build this goodwill on a shoestring budget. Dollar for dollar, Peace Corps volunteers are one of our most effective ambassadors of international development and diplomacy. In fact, the Peace Corps amounts to, roughly, 1 percent of our total Federal budget. For the cost of sending one soldier to Afghanistan, the Peace Corps can send 13 volunteers to developing countries to serve U.S. interests in the name of peace. In the midst of our tight budget climate, the Peace Corps is one of the most low-cost, high-return tools in our foreign policy toolbox.

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, I am proud to join my fellow returned Peace Corps volunteers, who are Tom Petri, Mike Honda and John Garamendi--all Members of Congress--to introduce a bipartisan bill to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia to recognize the founding of the Peace Corps, which will be at no expense to the U.S. taxpayer.

This bill, which passed the House by voice vote last Congress, commemorates the creation of a unique form of public service that promotes peace through people-to-people diplomacy and cross-cultural understanding, and it doesn't cost the taxpayers a single penny. I urge my congressional colleagues to honor America's commitment to peace by supporting the swift passage of this timely legislation.

So today, as we mark a significant milestone in America's history, I urge each of you to join me in honoring your constituents who have served in and who are supporting the Peace Corps funding so that we can usher in the next generation of Americans who want to serve this country in the name of peace.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Lois Capps. I'm so fond of you and the service you give in your wonderful district, the Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo County coastlines.

Yes, I was with Congresswoman Capps last week when we hosted, in Surabaya, dinner with Peace Corps volunteers. And what struck me is, one, some of their assignments were much tougher than the one I had in a barrio in Medellin, Colombia, back in the 1960s, that women live with Muslim families because Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. They teach in schools.

Very interesting how, and essentially progressive even, those Muslim schools were, allowing the American women not to have to be covered and to essentially be themselves and represent this country, and how fond the students are of their teachers and the faculty of the teachers. So Peace Corps was there.

And it's interesting that, as we pay tribute on the 50th anniversary, there's no age limit to joining the Peace Corps. We're in, I think, 77 countries now. We're about half our full size. We once were 15,000 volunteers. We're down

to 7,000. Growing. Congressman Garamendi and myself and others have been working to try to increase the Peace Corps budget because it's the only thing that's standing in the way between more volunteers being overseas.

There's 20 countries that want Peace Corps. There's 20,000 people that apply to the Peace Corps. And there's only, every year, about half of 7,000, so about 4,000, 3,500 jobs available. So only one in three or four ever can get a chance to get accepted, and that's not fair. And we need to double the size of Peace Corps.

And lastly on that point is that it costs, I think it's for every soldier we sent to Afghanistan, we could send 12 Peace Corps volunteers abroad. So we really get a good bang for our buck.

Why I rise tonight and I will try to be quick before I give it back to Mr. Garamendi is to, on behalf of all four of us who are returned Peace Corps volunteers now serving in Congress, we circulated a letter asking the President of the United States to issue a proclamation honoring the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps. It was signed by 136 Members of Congress.

Today, on the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps, the President of the United States said the following:

``In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed an Executive order establishing the Peace Corps''--remember, Executive order. It wasn't done by a congressional act; it was a Presidential act--``establishing the Peace Corps, forever changing the way Americans see the world and the world sees us.

``Today, one of President Kennedy's most enduring legacies can be found in the over 200,000 current and returned Peace Corps volunteers who have collectively given over a half a century of service to the cause of peace. On its 50th anniversary, the United States Peace Corps remains an enduring symbol of our Nation's commitment to encouraging progress, creating opportunity, and fostering mutual respect and understanding throughout the world.

``Over the past five decades, Peace Corps volunteers have served in nearly 140 countries, bringing a wealth of practical assistance to those working to build better lives for themselves and their communities. From the first group of volunteers to arrive in Ghana and Tanzania in August of 1961, they have been emissaries of hope and goodwill to the far corners of the world, strengthening the ties of friendship between the people of the United States and those of other countries.

``Living and working alongside those they serve, volunteers help address changing and complex global needs in education, health, HIV/ AIDS, business and information technology, agriculture, environmental protection, and youth development. With each village that now has access to clean water, each young woman who has received an education, and each family empowered to prevent disease because of the service of a Peace Corps volunteer, President Kennedy's noble vision lives on.

``In our increasingly interconnected world, the mission of the Peace Corps is more relevant today than ever. Returned volunteers, enriched by their experiences overseas, bring a deeper understanding of other cultures and traditions back to their homes here in the United States. The lasting accomplishments of the Peace Corps continue to strengthen the partnerships with leaders in countries around the world.

``This year, we also mourn the loss and pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Sargent Shriver, the founding director of the Peace Corps. The impact of his decades of public service will echo forever in countless places across the globe that have been touched by the Peace Corps.

``On this anniversary, we honor the men and women from across the country who have carried forward our Nation's finest tradition of service, and we rededicate ourselves to fulfilling the dream and continuing the work of all those who aspire and yearn for peace.

``Now, therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby claim March 1, 2011, as the 50th Anniversary of the Peace Corps. I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that honor the Peace Corps and its volunteers, past and present, for their many contributions to the cause of global peace and friendship.

``In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of February, in the year of our Lord 2011, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 235th. Barack Obama.''

So in that honor I am very pleased that my colleague and friend from California, John Garamendi, has asked us to pay tribute to the Peace Corps on its 50th anniversary. And I yield to my good colleague, who had the wisdom to set up this moment of special order.

John, I went into the Peace Corps right after graduating from college in 1963. I knew I wanted to be called for that service. I had done Air Force ROTC in college, and I worked overseas for a cousin who had a factory in Argentina. It was my cross-cultural experience. And I realized that once I got bitten by wanting to see other languages and other cultures, that when the Peace Corps was announced, that's what I would do. And I thought when I left the Peace Corps--when I went in, I thought when I leave I will probably come back and be a high school biology teacher.

My background had been in science. And I went to do urban community development, which just means we were listening to what we call the felt needs of very poor people in a very poor barrio that didn't have any water or lights. And we were taught, and it was very interesting, because it's been probably one of the best teachings I have ever had in my life is don't go down there and just tell them what you want do based on your values, because you are going to be in a country that doesn't have infrastructure. Your main thought and idea will be about cleanliness because you haven't lived in dirt before. And you don't have garbage pickup and you don't have that infrastructure. Don't let your values not allow you--open your eyes and your ears and listen. Look before you leap. And that was really great advice, because I think in politics you really do have to be a good listener.

So we listened to the community, and what they wanted to do was first build a soccer field. I thought that's odd. I played soccer, but I have no idea of the dimensions of a field. I don't know how you do this. It didn't matter. It was just like, okay, they need a motivational force. I am there. I said, okay, how do we do this? Got some shovels, got some picks. Where do you want to do it? And we did it. What was interesting is they had never worked together in a community project. So the teachings there were community development, how do you get together. And from there on we went to build schools, and we put in sewers, all by hand by the way.

And we had to go downtown to the municipal government to get the sewer pipes and to get bags of cement. So that petitioning of government, going down, and a long story but quickly, it woke me up to thinking I am in another country, I can't vote here. I am petitioning government. I won't be able to vote for or against it. We have got poverty in America. The book had come out, ``The Other America,'' which showed there was a lot of poverty in the United States. Why don't I go home and petition my own government to right wrongs? And here I am in the United States Congress.

You did it even more so, because you were married, you were a rock star athlete out of California, you were at the University of California Berkeley. And to be married and to take that risk, sort of walking away from what was just the ideal life to go off to Ethiopia must have been an incredible pull.

Would you share for me, I got here a little late, maybe you already did, but I think you did one of the most remarkable diplomatic missions ever in being asked to come back to Ethiopia with some colleagues of the Peace Corps by the president of the country to see if you could help to settle the dispute with neighboring Eritrea. And as I recall, it was a band of Peace Corps volunteers that put that peace agreement together.

It's one thing to be a Peace Corps volunteer. It is one thing to bring two nations at war together living in peace because you are Peace Corps volunteers. I think that's a great tribute. You mentioned Chic Dambach. He was a student of mine when he was going into volunteer service in the Peace Corps in Colombia.

It seems that you and I have developed a great fondness for Chic. Maybe he is more important than either of us because he has been so instrumental in your life and what happened in Ethiopia and Eritrea, and was instrumental in my life in Colombia. I am glad he is here tonight because he really is part of the Peace Corps legacy.

I would also like to mention that we could use a lot more Peace Corps volunteers because of these countries that want us. They want us to come in for the first time, they want us to grow. Vietnam is interested in getting the Peace Corps.

We were just in East Timor. They were there. We were pulled out due to unrest. They are now in peace. They want them back. Surabaya in Indonesia, there are, I think, 18 volunteers there now. They could grow that to hundreds of volunteers. The country wants it.

But the one thing we have to do here in Congress is give them more money. Frankly, I want to really salute the President of the United States, because in these tough fiscal times, where everything else has to be cut back, this year he has asked Congress to give the Peace Corps more money than we gave them last year, and that's one of the bounce-up programs.

We have gotten strong bipartisan support on this, and hopefully in this Congress, which is going to be mostly a cut, squeeze, and trim Congress, we don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as you said. What an incredible opportunity at a time when peace might be breaking out in the Middle East. They are going to need a lot of this. They are going to need a lot of community development.

You are going to need people to understand. I mean, I could go on for hours at what I just saw in East Timor where women had, three, four, five babies in houses with no electricity, mud floors, before anyone got to them and said, you know, you need to go through a prenatal discussion and some postnatal treatment. Even in that poverty, what they are just trying to do is sequence the babies so they won't be born so quickly one next to another because there is a high risk of low birth rate.

You know who is there right on the ground doing that--that is what the Peace Corps does. So the need, the war on poverty never ends.

The war, or the path to peace, the process for peace, as we have seen hopefully breaking out in the Middle East, that we can get a democratic society, they are all going to need teachers, and as we need them here at home we need them abroad. Teachers and not just traditional reading, writing, and arithmetic but teachings of health care and HIV prevention and so on. And I know you and Patti have dedicated your lives to that work and what a wonderful way to celebrate on this 50th anniversary.

He met his wife there too. They are happily married. So some Peace Corps volunteers come home with new families.

We had small business development in Colombia. There was also a whole bunch of people working on educational television, which the country was implementing and needed teachers who knew how to do that, and technicians on how to run the studios and set it all up.

We also had architects helping design public facilities and parks. You don't work on your own. You work with host country counterparts who are professionals like you are.

I think that's very important. One of the things I did today, because I was in the same conversation that you were having, somebody asked me about it who was my age and wanted to know whether he could go in the Peace Corps. And I said, go look up the Peace Corps on the Internet.

Not only that. It shows every one of those countries, 77 countries, and what jobs are in that country. You can go out and look around the world and see the country you want to go to and find a job that you think you're qualified to do, and that gives you a motivation to do that. Also, not all Peace Corps volunteers live in mud huts. If you're teaching in a university or in a school in an urban area, you could be in a much more comfortable, middle class setting than people out--the image of sleeping in a hammock in a mud hut. So it's all kinds of opportunities, just depending on the skill sets of you, the individual, and the needs of the host country.

We are always there as a guest being asked by the country to be there, and we do the jobs they ask us to do. And, frankly, I think we have enough innovation, as you and I found out, that sometimes if the job isn't working exactly as they described, you just look around and see what else is needed and adapt yourself. That's a lot of fun. That's a lot of creativity and I think a lot of satisfaction for the volunteer.

Happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for reinstating funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Following the recent votes on the House floor, I urge my colleagues to recognize volunteerism as a historic and valued tradition, and we cannot close the door on millions of Americans who want to serve their country.

As a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, I know firsthand the expansive value of service. America has an unparalleled history of extending a helping hand to lift up our neighbors in times of need. Now more than ever, we must rebuild our country and strengthen our national spirit through service in our communities.

The Corporation for National and Community Service is one of our country's finest expressions of volunteerism. Through programs like AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America, CNCS creates important opportunities for Americans of all walks of life to offer their brains, brawn, and heart in service to others. I am proud to say that there are 1,117 folks from my district currently serving in CNCS programs. And they are part of a five-million strong corps of volunteers across the country who are dedicating part of their lives to meet our nation's critical needs in education, health, safety, and the environment.

CNCS exemplifies the best of what America has to offer. Senior Corps volunteers have given over 1 billion hours of service as foster grandparents for at-risk youth and companions to the elderly. More than 400,000 Americans have served in AmeriCorps on critical projects ranging from Hurricane Katrina and Deepwater Horizon disaster relief to homelessness and neighborhood revitalization around the country. And well over 1 million high school students have experienced the power of civic engagement through participating in Learn and Serve programs. CNCS' work touches public agencies, schools, national and local non- profits, and faith-based organizations.

Yet despite the critical mass of people wanting to serve and the widespread need for service, my colleagues have chosen to eliminate CNCS from our national budget. This dissonance between supply and demand makes absolutely no sense. For the sake of saving .03% of our total federal budget, my colleagues have taken away the ability for millions of Americans to help their fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I honor the service of my constituents on the Central Coast and Americans across the country. I reject this legislation and will fight to restore robust funding so that we can continue our noble legacy of service to those in need for this and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Food for Peace. Over the past 50 years, this essential program has fought hunger and offered hope for some 3 billion people in 150 countries. For less than .05% of our total federal budget, Food for Peace is able to provide emergency food relief, combat famine and starvation, and promote much-needed stability in the most poverty-stricken corners of the world. Without question, food security is global security. Struggles to gain access to food can easily erupt in violence, instability, and health epidemics. Food for Peace's small financial investment in hunger security yields tremendous returns in the form of increased stability in fragile areas, reduced dependence on foreign aid, and increased goodwill towards America.

As the Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I know that Food for Peace is far more than just a helping hand. This program works with communities to promote agricultural development and access to local markets so that food recipients can transform into food producers. Rather than create enduring reliance on U.S. aid, Food for Peace strengthens communities to provide for themselves. In this tight fiscal climate, what better return on our investment could we ask for than decreased dependence on foreign assistance and increased stability in conflict-prone states?

Yet, my colleagues have made dangerous cuts to this critical capacity-building program. These cuts, which amount to marginal cost- savings, would eliminate support to millions of the world's poorest and hungriest at a time when food prices are rising across the globe. Rather than providing smart investments to uplift these communities, we are ripping away resources and sinking them deeper into an unbreakable cycle of poverty and instability. As our country faces increasing international scrutiny, this is not the face of America that we need to be showing the world.

On behalf of the billions who have been lifted up by Food for Peace and the millions for whom it currently gives hope, I strongly oppose my colleagues' misguided efforts to save a few dollars. America is better than this, and I will never stop fighting to promote our national security through smart international assistance.

I think that this is a problem. And I think Mr. Kind has a way of looking at trying to remove the money, but it's not going to make the problem go away.

I agree that this is a thing that needs to be addressed because there's going to be retaliatory implications if this money is just pulled, and those retaliatory implications are unknown to an awful lot of other agriculture who may even support this amendment. So it is an idea that we need to address. This is not the place to address it.

I oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have been on a 3-day marathon talking about how we are going to cut, squeeze, and trim the Federal Government. Frankly, we haven't even hit the big stuff. Seventy-five percent of the budget isn't even up for discussion here on the floor. What you are seeing with this amendment is you are taking a meat axe to essentially a bloody mess.

We know this bill is not going anywhere because it doesn't really get into trying to do structural reform. If we really wanted to deal with debt, you deal with a plan to get rid of debt, not just with a hacking and hacking away. Let's devise a plan that will really make this country deal with its debt just like you do with your mortgage, your long-term mortgage. It's a lot of money. People aren't scared, as long as they have a job, to how they are going to pay their mortgage because they have a plan. That's not what we are getting at. This amendment is a meat axe to a bloody mess that ought to be opposed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise reluctantly because Mr. Kingston and myself, I think, have a great deal of respect for how we ought to be managing the future of payments, and

I concur with his remarks. But I am rising in favor of the amendment because I think we have to push the attention to how vital it is that we reform this program, and I don't think you get that attention without bringing this amendment to the floor and passing it.

It's going to be hard to implement in the next remaining months, as so many of the amendments that we've adopted here in the last 3 days, but I do think that it is worth the debate of how we focus on the rest of the year. Because, frankly, we ought not to be just paying entities in this country hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didn't get the price they wanted at the market.

I represent the biggest growing area, and we don't get any of these payments. Not a single farmer. These are just a few entities, and it's wrong. So we ought to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition.

If any of you live in coastal communities, you want to oppose this bill. Ocean acidification is a real threat to this Nation. Climate change is happening, and the ocean is where climate is born. The coast of California is seriously considering all of what the rising oceans will do to the economic value of the most valuable coastal property in the United States.

So you don't want to take out the partner in working with State and local governments on these issues. If tourism is in your community, if fishing is in your community and, in fact, educational institutions. Yesterday, hundreds of high school students from all over the United States were here working, showing their science projects on ocean acidification. They won awards from government entities and nonprofit entities. Their future is about studying these issues. This is the kind of program that we want to invest in. Smart technology, smart energy, that is the way we are going to handle this problem in the future. Those are jobs.

``No'' on this amendment.

Thank you for yielding.

I represent a lot of fishermen in the west coast in California and up the west coast all the way up to Alaska. The catch share program has worked very well.

The reason you have it is, one, you only have two systems in fishing--you have a season and you have a limit or quota. The pounding of all of the boats going at the same time regardless of weather is a very risky thing. Now we've given that up to share. We give shares to boats.

So what happens if you're a small fisherman in a small boat, you've got a share. You've got your right. You can go out when you want to. Not just when the weather is really foul and may be dangerous. People like this. It's sustainable. They can get loans on their boats. They know they've got all kinds of certainty that they've never had before.

To wipe this out, it may be uncomfortable in some other communities, but if you'd much rather direct it, if you want to get mad, do it to those communities because wiping it out this way, you're going to really hurt where it works. And where it works, it works really well. So please oppose this amendment.

Thank you for yielding.

This is a bad amendment, and I urge all of my friends to carefully consider it.

Mr. Heller may have an issue in Nevada, and he says he wants to have legislation to require Congress to make these designations, but that's not what's here today. He's wiping out the money to give the President the ability to make these monuments.

Look it. We just made one in California on the entire coast of California for all the rocks and islands and is probably the largest monument in the United States. It was overwhelmingly endorsed by all of the communities along the coast. Let local governments be involved in these things so they can petition the President.

More Republican Presidents have used this than Democratic Presidents. It affects all of your States. The Grand Canyon was originally a monument before Congress made it a national park.

Taking away this tool in the tool box would just leave these lands fallow. They're BLM lands. They're already owned by the Federal Government. They'd have no use. You can't get into the other activities that the others have.

This is a great tool. Don't throw it away.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the dangerous and irresponsible cuts to the State and Foreign Operations budget. This short-sighted budget slashing generates petty savings at the expense of America's long-term national security and economic growth.

There are no two ways about it: Our national security depends on investments in development, diplomacy, and defense. As Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, ``The challenges confronting our nation can't be dealt with by military means alone.'' But this legislation and many of the amendments to it are tone deaf to this common sense.

Mr. Speaker, this fiscal negligence will come back to haunt us if we cripple our efforts to prevent conflict, promote rule of law, and support the creation of stable allies.

I am particularly upset that the Peace Corps, one of our government's most cost-effective tools of peacebuilding, is slashed by $70 million. Do you know what Peace Corps could do with that money? Send 1,400 Americans to high-priority countries in the Middle

East, Africa, and around the globe to work on critical projects like education, agricultural development, and HIV/AIDs relief, while promoting goodwill towards America.

Similarly, I am concerned about amendments to defund the U.S. Institute of Peace. Our country is fighting a multi-billion dollar war. And as General Petraeus affirmed, USIP works closely with the military in both Afghanistan and Iraq to promote on-the-ground peacebuilding efforts and bring an end to conflict. Yet, as my colleagues propose to increase funding for the war, some have also proposed to eliminate funding for USIP, the only independent government actor that is dedicated solely to conflict prevention and resolution. That makes absolutely no economic sense.

Rather than make smart investments in civilian instruments of security, this bill and a lot of the amendments to it cut many other excellent foreign assistance programs with strong returns on investment. These include international family planning, poverty and infectious disease alleviation, and the Inter-American Foundation.

As Secretary Gates said, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending in soldiers.'' If we want to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars, then why are we ripping resources away from the low-cost, high-return international programs that create strategic alliances and prevent multi-billion dollar wars?

The foreign aid budget is less than two percent of our total federal budget. This boils down to about $126 per American. That's about $100 bucks less than an army service uniform. So, for just $126 a head, America remains the beacon of democracy in the world. Now, that makes good economic sense.

Our job in this body is to serve the American people. But what kind of public servants are we if we vote to jeopardize America's national security so we can save a few bucks this year?

These cuts to foreign assistance masquerade as fiscal responsibility. But the reality is that this is a short-sighted proposal that endangers our long-term security, stability, and economic health. I strongly oppose this misguided legislation.