Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the Lowey amendment to restore funding for Title X family planning programs. My colleagues have spoken about the achievements of Title X, so I want to focus on what elimination of this highly successful program would mean to the citizens of California.

As you all know, California has been hit extremely hard by this recession and is struggling just to meet the basic needs of its residents. In 2010, Title X funded health care services for over 1.2 million people--which represent 20 percent of all Title X participants. In my district alone, over 33,000 people relied on Title X-funded clinics for their primary health care needs. Eliminating Title X funds would result in a critical loss of vital health care services to an already struggling state with limited resources.

My district has been profoundly affected by the Medicare reimbursement issue because, while we are a high cost area comparable to San Francisco, the reimbursement rate reflects rural costs. As a direct result of doctors no longer accepting Medicare patients, many seniors have been forced to turn to Title X clinics for their basic health care needs. Older adults, both men and women, are able to receive immunizations, physicals, diabetes testing, and STD testing and treatment, in addition to typical gynecological services. If Title X funds are eliminated, these seniors will lose the only access to health care that is available to them.

A vote in support of this amendment is a vote in favor of allowing millions of Americans access to vital health care services. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Lowey Amendment to restore funding to Title X.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Ann Soldo, a generous community leader in California's Pajaro Valley and the first female mayor of Watsonville, California. Ann passed away at the age of 90 on January 24, 2011. She was an admired teacher that taught from the heart and touched the lives of thousands in the Pajaro Valley.

Born in Watsonville, California, on May 27, 1920, Ann received a bachelor's degree from

San Jose State University in 1942, before getting her Master's degree from Stanford University in 1954. From there, Ann began her 40-year career as an educator on California's Central Coast. In addition to teaching, Ann furthered her contribution to education through her role as principal at several schools including Aptos Junior High, where she was the first female principal. She retired from the Pajaro Valley Unified School District in 1978. In 1999, Ann M. Soldo Elementary School was named in her honor.

Ann was the epitome of public service in the Pajaro Valley. She became involved with her local government in 1979, when she was elected to the Watsonville City Council and appointed as Vice-Mayor. From 1983 to 1987, Ann served as the first female mayor of Watsonville. Moreover, she volunteered for numerous community organizations, including the Salvation Army, YWCA, and the Pajaro Valley Historical Association. After the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, she co-chaired the fundraising drive to rebuild a local church and construction of the Henry Mello Center for the Performing Arts.

Mr. Speaker, Ann Soldo was an inspiring leader to so many, a woman who dedicated herself to bettering her community. Ann was proud of her Croatian heritage and took comfort in calling the Pajaro Valley home. She was preceded in death by her husband Andrew Soldo and is survived by her sister Grace Leavitt of Newport Beach, California and stepdaughter Mary Ann Jurchan of Colorado. I know that I speak for the whole House in mourning the passing of this dedicated and loving woman. Her life was a gift to her community.

Mr. Chair, I thank my ranking chair, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I rise with serious concerns. I am the ranking member of the Agricultural Appropriations Committee. I come from the State that is the leading ag State in the Nation, California, and agriculture is the number one economy in California. We're a State that is really diversified, and we do it without subsidies and we do it by partnerships.

The partnership is essentially a public-private partnership, and there is a major role to be able to make the private sector successful with that partnership.

We all care about feeding people, all people, whether they are rich or poor. One thing they all have in common is that they want that food to be safe. They want the drink to be safe. They want the drugs that they buy in the stores to be safe. And the problem with this CR, which is very interestingly talked about on their side in the generic of the necessity of cutting the deficit, which we all agree on. But to take a meat axe approach to the USDA and the FDA cuts the safety net for food and drugs.

For example, the Food and Safety Inspection Service would have to cut down on their inspectors who have to be in every one of the 6,300 slaughter and processing facilities. If they are not there, there is no work. We would have to close these facilities for months at a time; therefore, putting a lot of people out of work, less jobs, and certainly no food safety.

It goes on and on and on. We need to argue these details, not just the generics.

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

FSIS is responsible for the safety of domestic and imported meat and poultry. It inspects nearly 6,300 slaughter and processing facilities. Its inspectors are required to be present continuously during the operation of slaughter plants and to inspect every meat and poultry processing plant in the U.S. every day. All imported meat and poultry must also be inspected by FSIS. The Republican proposal would hold funding for FSIS to the 2008 level. The administration estimates that this would require a furlough of all FSIS employees, including all inspectors, for 30-47 working days (which amounts to 20-30 percent of the working days left in the fiscal year assuming enactment on March 4th.) Without inspectors available, meat and poultry plants would be legally required to stop operating. The administration estimates the economic loss from stopping plant operations at $11 billion. It also expects that consumer prices for meat and poultry would rise with the curtailed supply. That's a lot of jobs and food--not only up unemployment but also drive--up prices.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

FDA is responsible for the safety of food, drugs, medical devices, human blood products, vaccines, cosmetics, and many other products. Consumers spend about 20 cents of every dollar on products regulated by FDA. The Republican proposal would fund FDA at about 10 percent below the 2010 level. Coming this late in the fiscal year, much deeper cuts would be necessary to end fiscal year 2011 at the level appropriated in the Republican bill. The administration has estimated that under the Republican proposal there would be 2,000 fewer FDA inspections of firms that manufacture food and medical products; 10,000 fewer FDA import inspections to verify that imported foods and medical products meet safety standards; and analysis of 6,000 fewer food and medical product samples to identify safety problems. In addition, this level will likely lead to furloughs and/or * * *

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I was going to speak on this, but let me tell you why I changed my mind. First of all, I represent the largest number of organic growers in the United States and the headquarters of Earthbound Farm, which is the largest shipper of organic produce in the United States. And what concerns me is that you totally wiped out the program, zeroed it out.

It is organic transition grants. One, they are competitive because they are grants. Two, it's about people transitioning from traditional agriculture, which is agriculture that uses pesticides, herbicides, and so on, into organic, where you have to lay your land fallow, which means that you can't, for 3 years, use any of those fumigants on your land. That is what this money goes to, to help you transition.

It is not major agriculture that needs these transition grants. It's the really small farmer who finds, as was stated previously, an organic niche that they want to sell to, and they need some assistance both in research and how do you get certified. Because in order to be organic, you have to go out there and have people test everything and be certified as organic before you are allowed to use the ``organic'' label on your marketing.

So it's a small amount of money, but to zero it out I think is just going too far. I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I felt compelled to vote against extending the three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act that continue to give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States and, in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. These intrusive and sweeping powers stand in stark contrast to the fundamental individual privacy rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. All three surveillance provisions are unnecessary, they do not protect us against terrorism, and they should have been allowed to expire long ago. I am appalled by the blatant disregard for the civil liberties of innocent Americans who have absolutely no connection to the global war on terrorism, and I look forward to a time when these provisions are no longer the law of the land.

Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me. This is a very important discussion. I wish we could do it really in an open debate where we could have a debate on this, because I don't think that there is a person in this country that doesn't realize how necessary it is to keep our electorate well informed.

So I join the chorus of well-informed listeners tonight to support America's Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I find it ironic that the news got released today, the day when you think of a national day of communication, a day when we tell our loved ones how much we appreciate them through words and symbols. And here we are attacking the very essence of America's foundation for information that is not commercial information, that is not paid for to get it and have to have ratings in order to get people to purchase the commercials.

It is a sad day that Valentine's Day is used to destroy something we love so much. It is mean news to hear some of my Republican colleagues who want to cut almost half a billion dollars out of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at a time when the world has been dedicated to watching what is going on in the Middle East, in Egypt, which is essentially the essence of communication, the essence of technology, but also the freedom of technology.

In America, we don't own stations, like BBC and Canadian Broadcasting where the government owns the stations. We allow nonprofit entities to do the broadcasting, both on radio and television, as you indicated, Mr. Chandler. And I don't think you can raise children in this country without appreciating the value of what is learned, the lessons learned by programs such as Sesame Street and others.

But to think that you can just cut this out as a value to a greater debate of balancing the Federal Government by eliminating this, is nuts. This is what I always call the persons who know the price of everything but the absolute value of nothing. Because cutting this, you can come up with a pricetag, but the value you lose to the American public.

I wake up, here we are in Congress, and obviously we need all the news we can get. I don't know a Member of Congress who doesn't wake up listening to NPR radio, of all the choices we have, on both sides of the aisle, to get unbiased news in the morning before we come to work. And I know it because when you're on it, people comment the minute you get here. They hear you on NPR, everybody says, I heard you this morning when I was getting ready to come to work. This is not just done by Members of Congress. It's done by everybody in the United States.

And what Congressman Blumenauer talked about is the rural parts of America would never have this program; never have access to this information. If you want to destroy rural America, then destroy their access to information. Because then the only thing the young population will do is have to move out in order to keep up. So we have to make sure that these nonsensical cuts, which have dramatic and negative impacts, are not made to this budget. Let's sustain the budget to keep Americans well-informed and ensure future generations of the richness of public broadcasting. Let's give back our hearts and minds to the American public by maintaining PBS.

If the gentleman will yield, I think what is also very important is this is one government program where there is no free lunch. It requires a local match. It requires a contribution by the community, by volunteers. It's not a paid-for program without raising the money in the local media, as you know in your own station and had to do every year in the volunteer drive. When you think about it, you don't go out and match public volunteerism to buy military equipment. You don't match with public volunteerism practically any other thing in American society. This is one budget that really depends on the popularity of the programming in order to get volunteer support, volunteer contributions, and volunteer help in the studios.

Why would you cut out something that the private sector and personal commitment think is so important?

I would even say it defines our civilization. When you think of programs like StoryCorps, collecting that information for the records and keeping that part of our oral history of America, it is absolutely essential that our culture and our times and that our moment in history and in the world be maintained in the public sector where there isn't private ownership of it.

Thank you for your leadership. It is absolutely essential to America's well-being.

Madam Speaker, I rise with serious concerns with the lack of debate in this House.

I was taught growing up that there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The right way is to look before you leap. We are not today looking at the consequences of our actions. Reckless cuts are as dangerous as reckless spending.

While the Democrats talk about creating more jobs, the other side talks about the race to the bottom in fiscal cuts. Think about it. You can't create jobs by removing the foundation that creates an educated workforce. Cutting access to education won't create more jobs. Cutting job training won't create a more competitive workforce. Cutting social safety nets won't save lives.

Not having hearings on the impacts of our cuts is not a smart thing to do. That's why my granddaughter reminds me we should stop, look, and listen before we cross the street. But not the new Congress, which embraces a race to the bottom rather than informed reductions. We should look before we leap. It might save jobs and lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republican Study Commission's proposed cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development. This proposal comes as USAID undergoes systemic reforms that will bolster American power, fortify our national security, and realize long-term savings. Budget slashing now cuts these reforms off at the knees and seriously jeopardizes our international security and standing.

USAID is transforming itself into a modern development enterprise. Like any good business enterprise, USAID has put a laser-sharp focus on delivering the highest possible value to its shareholders, the American taxpayers. Already, USAID has launched efforts to increase efficiency, dramatically reduce contracting, strengthen evaluation and oversight, and promote capacity development. Taken together, these complex initiatives will enable USAID to achieve better results faster at lower costs.

And lower costs mean that USAID can be a better steward of taxpayer dollars. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, ``Development is a lot cheaper than sending in soldiers.'' Truly, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. USAID civilian efforts do the essential front- end work to prevent violence in the first place by strengthening democratic governance, promoting rule of law, and supporting infrastructure growth to eliminate the root causes of conflict and develop peaceful, secure states. When countries are stable, the likelihood of extremist elements diminishes and vibrant economic markets and partnership for U.S. exports emerges. USAID is helping to create strong local capacity so that development assistance is no longer necessary. USAID is truly working itself out of a job. What could be more cost-effective than that?

Finally, international development is not a partisan issue. It is an American value that reflects our fundamental belief in progress and peace. When we invest in foreign assistance, we promote international stability and build strong allies. USAID has laid the foundation to become a more effective, efficient, transparent instrument of our national security apparatus and diplomacy toolbox. Now more than ever, USAID needs Congressional support to fully realize these reforms and restore American power abroad. I strongly urge my colleagues to reconsider this misguided proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the current participants of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. The Uni- Capitol Washington Internship Program is a unique eight week experience that brings some of the most dedicated Australian university students who have exhibited a passion for civic engagement and public service to Washington, DC to work in Congressional offices.

This year, I am honored to welcome Elizabeth `Liz' Noble into my Washington, DC office and I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to participate in this valuable exchange program, as I have since this program was established in 2000. Since its inception, the program has seen 118 young Australians walk the halls of Congress in various capacities and it is with the utmost pride that I recognize the importance of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program in the United States House of Representatives.

Ms. Noble joined my office on January 3, 2011 from the University of Canberra where she is pursuing her B.A. in International Studies and Political Communication. During her time in my office, Liz has proven herself to be a tremendously caring, intelligent and dedicated intern and I am honored to host her. In addition to serving my constituents with professionalism and respect, she has attended hearings and briefings, drafted legislative correspondence and has assisted my staffers with a variety of important research projects.

Founded and directed by former House and Senate staffer, Eric Federing, the program fosters cultural and educational exchanges between the United States and Australia. Mr. Federing deserves distinguished praise for his efforts in coordinating this program and the support he provides to all participants is truly incredible. Outside of working in Democratic and Republican House, Senate and Committee offices, interns are given the opportunity to explore our brand of democracy through panel discussions with political correspondents, Members of Congress and representatives from various government offices as well as professionals at non-government agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot fully express how remarkable the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program is and how critical it is to strengthening ties with America's allies. Participating in this special exchange is a memorable experience that will stay with Liz, her peers and my staff for the rest of their lives. I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. Federing for developing and organizing this program, to my fellow Members of Congress and their dedicated staff for hosting, to Liz for grasping this opportunity with an open heart and a curious mind and to all participants for engaging in public service. I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the contributions of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program and, again, thank Elizabeth Noble for her admirable participation and diligent work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of the Republican Health Reform Repeal Bill.

The reason is simple.

The bill before us is not about creating jobs.

It's not about strengthening our middle class.

And it's not about reducing our national deficit.

It is however, about denying coverage for up to 284,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions in my district.

It is about increasing prescription drug costs for 6,400 seniors on California's Central Coast.

And it is about increasing the number of uninsured individuals by 80,000 and increasing

the costs to our local hospitals for providing uncompensated care.

Open your eyes, and welcome to reality.

American families are struggling to make ends meet.

They are struggling to stay in their homes.

They are living without proper health care.

And are they going broke paying for medical bills.

So why is this chamber spending their time debating health care reform that has extended coverage and increased protections to millions of Americans, and created 207,000 jobs in the Health Care Industry.

Truth of the matter is--while we run circles around this issue, millions of Americans walk out their front door every morning to look for work, only to return with less hope and more worries.

Everyday Americans across the country are worried sick about losing their homes.

About not being able to adequately provide for their families.

And now Republicans want them to worry about losing their health care coverage.

Please open your eyes, and take a deep look at Americans' dire reality.

I urge all Members to oppose the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight very sadly to talk a little bit about one of the greatest Americans of our generation, a true American hero, in my view, Sargent Shriver.

I really have to say I am also very upset that the Republican leadership wouldn't allow for a moment of silence in today's session for such a distinguished American.

I rise today in honor of his life and legacy.

I got to meet Sargent Shriver when I was a Peace Corps trainee in 1963, about 22 years old in a small, little town in New Mexico, Questa, New Mexico, and I was in awe that I, as a trainee, could meet the first Director of the Peace Corps.

He embodied the relentless spirit of public service that makes America great. He will forever hold a special place in our country's history. I remember just the vitality and spirit that he had that drove me to want to be a Peace Corps volunteer at a time when nobody really knew what they did because they hadn't come home yet. It was a risk, an adventure, and I was really not sure that it was the best thing to do. And yet I look back with pride and admiration and what a privilege it was to serve under his leadership.

With the Peace Corps, Sargent Shriver took President Kennedy's vision of service and optimism and built it into one of America's best institutions. After 3 years as Director of the agency, the Peace Corps had more than 6,500 volunteers serving in more than 50 developing countries. He once told me the story that in those days, with the President's own budgeting, they were able to place Peace Corps volunteers in Latin America and Africa before Congress ever got around to authorizing the program.

These volunteers showed the world the true American values of peace, prosperity, and opportunity that had been eclipsed by the Cold War.

Over the past 50 years, through war and conflict, Sarge's foundational work of the Peace Corps has enabled volunteers to show the world a hopeful, uplifting side of America that reflects our fundamental values of service and tolerance.

Today, Sarge's legacy lives on in a quarter million Americans who have served as Peace Corps volunteers in 139 countries around the world, all in the name of peace and goodwill.

Beyond the Peace Corps, Sargent Shriver was actively engaged in civic society. He served as Ambassador to France; leader of the War on Poverty as the first Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, which began the Head Start program, which began VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America; and as a Vice Presidential candidate. His touch can be found on some of our Nation's finest efforts, including the Special Olympics and racial integration.

But above all, Sarge's devotion to public service was beyond reproach. Like his wife, Eunice, who really started the Special Olympics--and I might add that the Special Olympics is now in more countries than is the Peace Corps--I can't think of a married couple in America who have done more worldwide than Eunice Shriver and Sargent Shriver to help people in need.

I will always hold my special memories of sharing Peace Corps stories with Sargent Shriver--or Sarge, as we called him. At various events that honored the agency, we both got to speak. And one of my most significant moments of my life was the privilege of being presented with a Peace Corps Public Service Award in 2006 by Sargent Shriver.

To all who knew him, Sargent Shriver was a man of tremendous heart and vision who leaves behind a living legacy of service and hope. That legacy of public service lives on in the lives of his children. Their mother died in 2009, but today we have daughter Maria, who is the first lady of California. We have their four other children: son Robert Shriver of Santa Monica, who is an activist in California; former Maryland delegate, Mark Shriver of Bethesda, Maryland; Tim Perry Shriver of Chevy Chase--both involved in Special Olympics; and Anthony Paul Shriver of Miami. Most of all, they have 19 children.

Sargent Shriver's life reminds us of the value of distinguished public service, and that it is incumbent upon all of us to renew his vision of a better America for future generations.

My thoughts and prayers are with his children and grandchildren and the entire Shriver and Kennedy families.

[From Vanity Fair, Jan. 19, 2011]

Sargent Shriver's Lasting Impact: An Appreciation

(By Maureen Orth)

At a Saint Patrick's Day party at the White House during

Clinton's first term, I bumped into Sargent Shriver and

introduced him to my husband as ``the George Washington of

the Peace Corps.'' Shriver corrected me. ``No,'' he said,

holding out his arm waist high. ``George Washington was

here.'' Then he raised his arm above his head and said, ``In

the Peace Corps, I'm here!'' He laughed so easily and so

frequently, and he had such enthusiasm and energy, that he

made the idea of service pure fun. And he was right about

where he stood with so many of us former Peace Corps

volunteers--he was our founding father, an icon. All you had

to do was utter his name--Sarge--and it immediately stood for

giving your all and being your best.

I was recruited into the Peace Corps at age 20, right off

the Berkeley campus, by a loud southern guy with a bullhorn--

he was to become the NBC reporter Douglas Kiker (years later

we met as colleagues). Sarge had the ability to bring

together all sorts of talented and sometimes offbeat people,

and to convince them to try something they weren't really

planning to do.

I served in the Peace Corps for two years in Medellin,

Colombia, and have remained involved with the community. I

was in Medellin last week to help set up a third school for

poor kids that is run by a foundation I created several years

ago to provide students at all three schools with computers

and training in English and leadership. It is a way for me to

continue the work I did in the Peace Corps, and I thank Sarge

for giving me the means to get along in exotic places, to

speak Spanish, and to be a much better journalist, because I

learned in the Peace Corps how to observe acutely and to

understand issues from other people's points of view.

Sarge was both brilliant and selfless--too selfless, some

might argue, when it came to his own political career. His

parents were Catholic intellectuals from aristocratic

Maryland stock. They lost their money during the Depression

and ended up running a Catholic bookstore where the ideas of

social activists such as Sarge's heroine, Dorothy Day, were

profoundly influential. Sarge managed to go to Yale for both

his undergraduate and law degrees, but he was often like the

proverbial kid with his nose pressed against the candy-store

window--although he was drop-dead handsome, everybody else

had a lot more goodies.

After serving heroically in World War II as a naval gunnery

officer--he was a deadly marksman whose ship, in one Pacific

battle, shot down 32 Japanese planes in three hours--Sarge

dropped law to become an assistant editor at Newsweek. During

that job he met Joe Kennedy, who asked him to run ``this

building I just bought in Chicago''--it was the Merchandise

Mart, the largest commercial building in the world at the

time. By then he had met the forceful Eunice Kennedy, one of

Joe's nine children, by whom he had been immediately smitten,

but she gave him a hard time for years before they finally

married, in 1953.

There wasn't a tough job that Sarge did not do well. When

John F. Kennedy asked him to run the Peace Corps, he joked

that J.F.K. had no choice but to give the job to a brother-

in-law due to its enormous potential for failure. A few years

later, Jacqueline Kennedy asked Sarge to arrange her

husband's funeral, and he did so flawlessly. After heading

the Chicago school board and becoming a leading civil-rights

advocate, he was frequently mentioned as both an Illinois

gubernatorial and senate candidate. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson

very much wanted Sarge to be his running mate, but the

Kennedys said absolutely not--it was Bobby's turn first. Then

it was Teddy's turn.

Sarge loved running the very popular Peace Corps, but he

reluctantly quit when L.B.J. twisted his arm to head the War

on Poverty. Democrat George McGovern turned to Sarge to run

with him as vice president, in 1972, after Tom Eagleton

dropped out when it was revealed that he had undergone

psychiatric treatment, but they lost big-time. Sarge also

served as ambassador to France, and in the last decades of

his life he and Eunice founded the Special Olympics and made

it a worldwide force for the intellectually disabled. He was

the kind of husband who seriously thought his wife should be

canonized by the Catholic Church; Sarge himself was so devout

that even as he was ravaged by Alzheimer's in his later

years, the two things he never forgot were his prayers and

his manners. ``You're a good looking kid,'' he said to my son

a few years ago as he stuck out his hand in greeting. ``Are

you my son?''

I loved spending time with Sarge--he was a wonderful father

to Bobby, Maria, Tim, Mark, and Anthony Shriver, all of whom

have distinguished themselves in service to others. For years

they had to share him with thousands of Peace Corps

volunteers for whom he was both a touchstone and an idealized

father figure. It is hard to believe that today we can no

longer have Sarge among us, exhorting us to ``serve, serve,

serve!''

Madam Speaker, oh sister how I have cried, prayed, and listened to stories about you. I am so sorry for your pain of losses, and your pain through your recovery. But I am, at the same time, so proud of you and delighted you are alive.

For all the wrong reasons, today the world rightfully knows what a remarkable person you are. They know how fortunate our country has been to have you in public service. You still haven't stopped serving, because your injured life has given hope to millions that you will recover--and that those with like kinds of injuries may also have a chance. You are a national role model for public service-brave, kind, friendly, accessible and effective.

While praying for your life I recalled every conversation we had and each photo I have taken of you and Mark.

I remember when you were first elected in your great class of freshman. I was so proud to meet the woman that took Jim Kolbe's place. You had been a Fulbright Scholar in Mexico. We talked about your student life there and my similar age experience of being in Peace Corps in South America--how we had parallel experiences serving in the Arizona and California legislatures.

Starting with that first conversation, we both knew we were like brother and sister in a large body of Congress. Over the years I grew amazed at how hard you worked, and it made me wonder if you ever had time for yourself. Obviously meeting and marrying Mark, an admired astronaut, gave you an added value to life. This might be why you always came to work so happy. I pray that you never lose your happiness, as it always lightens up the room for others. But I do worry about how tough your district has made your campaign demands, and thus on your personal life.

Your recovery keeps me smiling, after the tears of tragedy, to watch you--once again--show me--while sitting in the Chamber--the marred of politicians on your Blackberry. Gabby you are the only member that has the full schedule of NASA launches and landings at your finger tips. This is just another example of how clever you are in application of technology to political life style.

So today our colleagues stand in the Chamber to salute you, to mourn the loss of other wonderful people, and to begin the dialogue on what we have learned from your tragic encounters.

I hope that we can learn and honor the victims, with smarter gun control and better funding for mental health treatment. And I hope we can develop a better understanding that hate talk and negative campaigning leaves the wrong impression for young people growing up in our society. A democracy based on negative talk can not survive.

I pray that you fully recover. I lost my 17-year-old sister from a horse accident, while she was visiting me in Colombia during my time with the Peace Corps. It was just months after my mother had died of cancer. My sister Nancy died because of the lack of medical care available in the rural hospital. So I am extremely relieved that the availability of good medical science and a rapid response saved your life.

We all look forward to seeing you back on the floor of the House of Representatives. You have always been the spirit of public service, and will continue to be forever more. God bless you Gabrielle Giffords.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a young, brave soldier who was killed in Afghanistan on Sunday, December 19, 2010. Private First Class Conrado Javier Jr. of Marina, California was only nineteen years old. It is with a heavy heart that I wish to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Conrado Javier Jr.

Private First Class Conrado Javier Jr. served in the United States Army and was assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment based in Vilseck, Germany. He was serving a tour in Afghanistan supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. On Sunday, December 19, 2010, in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan, the vehicle he driving in struck an improvised explosive device. Pfc. Javier was unable to recover from his wounds sustained in the deadly explosion.

Conrado Javier Jr. is the fifth service member from my district to pay the ultimate sacrifice while defending our country in Operation Enduring Freedom. Sadly, he is the youngest service member from my district to lose his life in Afghanistan. There are no words that can fill the far reaching potential of this young man. However, I have no doubt he touched many lives during his very short time on Earth and his life will continue through them.

Conrado attended Seaside High School and was a member of the school's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. It is evident he was dedicated to serving his country and possessed the strengths of a leader. Some may say his strongest value was being a loyal friend, who put others before him.

Madam Speaker, I rise today and ask for my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Conrado Javier Jr. I extend the sincere condolences of the House to his mother, Julia Dominga Javier Diaz; his father, Conrado Javier; and the seven siblings he leaves behind. Private Javier, we salute you!

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 81, The Shark Conservation Act of 2010. I am pleased that the Senate has taken up and passed this bill with so little time left in the 111th Congress, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit and vote ``yes'' to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 81 so that we can send this important piece of legislation to the President's desk.

This bill seeks to adopt important and necessary conservation measures for sharks. Specifically, and perhaps most importantly, the bill amends the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to prohibit shark-finning. Shark-finning is the removal of any fins of a shark (including the tail), and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea. The practice has egregious effects on shark populations worldwide and the fins remain in high demand for use in ``shark fin soup''--an Asian delicacy. It is estimated that 73 million sharks are killed each year as a result of shark-finning. In short, this practice takes a tremendous toll on shark populations.

In addition, many shark species are threatened or endangered, making the conservation measures set forth by this bill timely and necessary. Sharks are one of the top predators in our oceans, and a loss in their population would lead to permanent and detrimental effects on the entire marine environment. The loss of top predators in the marine environment upsets the balance of our oceans, causing severe and sometimes irreversible consequences.

We take so much from our ocean, and yet give nothing back. Protecting and conserving its depleting resources should be a top priority because before long there will be nothing left to take.

For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 81.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Chairman Waxman and Chairman Dingell for drafting a very strong food safety bill and leading a comprehensive debate by the House. Their legislation included three vital components that are all founded on a strong scientific base. I also want to commend them for including the teeth we need to implement mandatory recalls, as well as a commodity-specific approach to produce safety. Also important, the bill incorporated the flexibility we need to cover our growers, handlers, and processors.

Yet the Senate bill we will be voting on today, The FDA Food Safety Modernization

Act, fails to meet that high bar set by the original House bill. Because the version that is now before us has abandoned its original scientific base, I must sadly oppose this legislation.

Let me be clear: I understand the need for food safety reform all too well. The safety of America's supply of fresh fruits, vegetables and nuts will always be my highest priority. I know firsthand the impact an outbreak can have on an industry, and for that reason, understand the strong need for far reaching regulations based on the best science available.

The Center for Disease Control estimates, released December 15th, state that 48 million people in America--that's 1 in every 6--get sick every year from contaminated food. Furthermore, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die being exposed to this contaminated food. These are staggering numbers considering the United States still has the safest food supply in the world.

I also know each time any fruit or vegetable is implicated in an outbreak of food borne illness, the industry as a whole suffers from devastating loses in consumer confidence. In the long run, this is simply not sustainable, and it's certainly not acceptable for growers or consumers.

At the very least, our nation needs a minimum food safety standard that applies to every producer. And we need to help all growers small or large, comply with the regulations that will be promulgated from this legislation. Anything less falls short of true food safety reform, and could be a dangerous disservice to the American public.

The region I represent, California's Central Coast, is the top producing specialty crop region in the world. As such, I am proud to say that food safety is our region's industry's top priority. The men and women who grow, pack, and market fresh produce are committed to providing consumers with safe and wholesome foods from field to fork. Our local industry is constantly working to enhance and improve their performance in growing crops, harvesting and handling for distribution, packaging and processing into convenient ready-to-eat products. In addition to following all protocols to maintain the safest possible delivery chain--all the way to the consumer's table.

Mr. Speaker, Food Safety knows no price point--Salmonella, e. Coli and Listeria don't care if the food is grown conventionally or organically--or if the produce is grown on a large ranch or small farm. That's why provisions in this bill that exempt small producers from oversight are simply unacceptable and dangerous. We need policy based on sound science, and exempting certain sectors of the industry is not sound policy. Instead, we should be providing those small producers with the tools and incentives they need to meet the food safety standards we are voting on today.

Food producers are dedicated to continuously improving on-farm food safety practices--inclusion of exemptions from food safety laws is a huge step backward, and will send the wrong message to the food industry. Even worse, it will send the wrong message to the American consumer.

Congress needs to understand--just as my growers understand--that any fruit or vegetable implicated in an outbreak taints the entire agricultural industry. And those isolated instances are cumulative. If we allow small producers to avoid oversight, the outbreaks that are likely to occur will result in the harm of all growers, handlers, processors, and shippers.

I'm committed to ensuring that when food safety regulation does come to fruition, it is developed and implemented with industry input. And that it provides pragmatic food safety guidelines that are both feasible and effective for growers, processors, handlers, and consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation does offer a step forward, but be certain that today we could have taken a leap forward.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, constituents and the agencies to developing meaningful scientifically based food safety standards. But unfortunately, I can not support this bill as it is presented to us from the Senate.