Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career of Mrs. Aloysia Fouche, owner and CEO of Fouche's Hudson Funeral Home, Inc., as she is awarded a 2012 Living Legends of Funeral Service award from the One Hundred Black Women of Funeral Service Organization.

A trailblazer in the funeral business for nearly three decades, Mrs. Fouche transitioned into the funeral profession after the passing of her late husband and founder of the Funeral Home, Mr. Aramis Fouche. At a time when African-American women business owners were few and far between, Mrs. Fouche achieved her five-year business plan within two years. She brought greater financial solvency and extensive facility improvements to the business,

which continues to thrive today--in spite of a difficult economic climate.

Fouche's Hudson Funeral Home continues to be a source of pride in the Bay Area, serving our local African-American community with diligence and personalized care. A former educator, with a master's degree in Curriculum Development, Mrs. Fouche was also a fearless principal, as well as a celebrated teacher and instructor of media studies. Among her numerous accolades and associations, Mrs. Fouche was named Teacher of the Year, oversaw many of her students' award-winning animation films, and produced a weekly television program for parents to enhance their children's at-home learning.

In addition to her proud membership with the One Hundred Black Women of Funeral Service Organization, Mrs. Fouche is active in NFD&MA, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Friends of Father Augustine Tolton, and Phi Delta Kappa National Fraternity. Mrs. Fouche has also spent countless hours supporting and volunteering for local organizations aiding the underserved through food assistance, education scholarships, veterans services, faith ministries and AIDS awareness and prevention. She has also traveled the world extensively and counts tennis and dance among her hobbies.

As Fouche's Hudson Funeral Home management, staff and supporters look forward to its centennial anniversary in 2014, the receipt of Mrs. Fouche's Living Legends honor is timely and well-deserved. Thank you to all of the One Hundred Black Women of Funeral Service for being leaders in your communities and for providing families dignity, closure and excellent care.

On behalf of California's 9th Congressional District, Mrs. Aloysia Fouche, I salute you. Your many years of service have made an indelible mark in our community. Thank you for your continued work, and best wishes to you and your loved ones in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall votes 557-559. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three votes.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues so important to the health of women and to the health of our country.

I'd like to also take a moment to commend Congresswoman Norton, the duly elected representative for the residents of the District of Columbia, for her relentless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and her leadership in fighting back the onslaught of attacks against the women of the District of Columbia.

Tea Party Republicans continue to make D.C. their launching ground for attacks against women's health as part of the ongoing war on women.

H.R. 3803, the so-called--and this is very sinister--District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is nothing more than a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and a vehicle for yet another ideological attack against women's reproductive rights. It's a direct threat to the health of every woman living in the District of Columbia. It contains no exceptions for health, for rape or incest, and it demonstrates a very callous disregard for the real-life experiences of women and their families.

It is tragic--tragic--that the Tea Party Republicans refuse to bring up any bill that would create jobs but would rather wage war against the women of the District of Columbia. It is offensive, it is wrong, and it is unconstitutional. Government and politicians should stay out of the health care decisions of women, and they should stay out of the private lives of women.

Women's decisions, as it relates to their health care, should be made by themselves. These decisions should be made with their medical professionals and their clergy or whomever they choose. Women should be able to make their decisions, not Members of Congress, not politicians, and not government officials.

This is a direct threat. It is callous. Again, it is unconstitutional, and it's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall votes 499-503. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 499, ``no'' on No. 500, ``yes'' on No. 501, ``no'' on No. 502, and ``no'' on No. 503.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in more than two decades, the United States will host the 19th International AIDS Conference, drawing over 20,000 people from around the world to our Nation's Capital.

Having participated in every conference since I was first elected to Congress in 1998, I knew we could not bring the conference back to the United States until the discriminatory immigration ban on people living with HIV was lifted.

In 2007, I introduced a bill to repeal the ban. Few believed it could be done, but through bipartisan support we achieved this goal, and I want to thank Members who are still here for their support in that effort.

This week, the return of the conference is an important opportunity to shine a global spotlight on the fight against AIDS in the African American community and communities of color, and a national spotlight on the ongoing global epidemic. Yesterday I introduced new legislation to do just that.

Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Act articulates a policy and financing framework to achieve an AIDS-free generation in the United States and abroad. I urge all my colleagues to support it so that we can begin to bring an end to AIDS here at home and around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It would put a responsible end to combat operations in Afghanistan by limiting funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of United States troops and military contractors.

Eleven years after Congress wrote a blank check for war without end, which I could not support, the United States is still in Afghanistan. Ever since that vote, I have introduced this Lee amendment--that responsibly and safely brings our troops home--on numerous occasions and at every opportunity. It is past time that Congress caught up, had the debate, and passed this amendment.

Today, we have the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. It is clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing across this land to bring this war to an end, and it is past time for Congress to answer that call.

After over a decade of war and over a half a trillion dollars in direct costs--not a penny of it, mind you, paid for, and we talk about deficit reduction--when we should have been actually investing in jobs and our economy here at home, it is really time now to say enough is enough. It is crucial to our economy and to the future of this country to stop pouring billions into a counterproductive military presence in Afghanistan. It is no wonder that 7 out of 10 Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war should end, that it should not go on for another year or 2 years and, surely, not for another decade or more.

Mr. Chair, the costs of the war are unacceptable, particularly when we ask what we gain by keeping our troops in Afghanistan through 2014. The war in Afghanistan has already taken the lives of over 2,000 soldiers, has injured tens of thousands more, and has drained our Treasury of over a half a trillion dollars. These costs will only go up as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans, which of course we must do.

As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved in defending our Nation; but the truth is our troops have been put in an impossible situation. There is no military solution, and it is past time to end the war and to bring our troops home. Quite frankly, it is time to use these savings from ending the war to create jobs here at home. We need to provide for the health care and economic security of our returning troops by rebuilding the American economy.

The American people have made it clear that the war should end. Not an extra day--not an extra dollar--should be spent extending the decade-long war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years now, it is time to bring our troops home.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues in offering an amendment to set Pentagon spending at the levels from the 2008 financial year adjusted for inflation, or at $500 billion.

I'm offering this amendment for one simple reason: the bloated Pentagon budget must be addressed if we are serious about solving our Nation's deficit. Quite frankly, our real national security is about rebuilding our economy. It's time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at home.

It's time to rebuild America and also to provide for the health and economic security of our brave troops and the communities that they live in back here at home. Even with this modest cut--and it's very modest at $19.2 billion--the Pentagon-based budget would still be, mind you, a half trillion dollars, excluding war funding for Afghanistan, far outpacing any other nation in defense spending.

Americans across the country have been forced to cut back, and many are barely able to make ends meet while Pentagon spending has doubled over the past decade. The United States spends as much on its military as the next 14 countries combined, and all but three of these are close allies. Americans believe no Federal agency should be immune from cuts, including the Pentagon. In fact, the average American would pursue a much larger cut of over $100 billion according to a poll released earlier this week by the Stimson Center.

Some have argued that defense cuts will result in job losses. The Pentagon, quite frankly, is not a jobs program. Even if it were, defense spending creates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than investing in other sectors: education, health care, clean energy, or even tax cuts.

The bloated Pentagon budget has been immune from oversight and scrutiny for too long. We couldn't even pass my amendment yesterday calling for an audit of the Pentagon. This really has resulted in unbalanced spending where nearly 60 cents of every discretionary dollar now goes to the Pentagon. If we are serious about addressing the deficit, we must take reasonable steps to rein in Pentagon spending.

My amendment makes modest cuts to defense spending while protecting our active military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to cut their compensation and health care expenditures by prohibiting the additional cuts from coming from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts from the defense health program. Let me repeat: not a single penny would come from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from defense health programs.

President Eisenhower famously said that the United States ``should spend as much as necessary on defense,'' which we all agree with, ``but not a penny more.''

At a time when American families, businesses, and government agencies are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, the Pentagon should not be immune from the need to justify its expenses and guard against waste, fraud, and abuse.

I am proposing a very modest proposal over the course of a decade that would equal less than $200 billion, $200 billion. The Bowles- Simpson Commission outlines $750 billion in suggested defense cuts in the next decade.

President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb, has proposed $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon over the next 10 to 12 years. As I said, the average American would cut 18 percent of the Pentagon budget, or a little over $100 billion.

Finding $19 billion in savings next year is a very modest first step after an unchecked decade of runaway Pentagon spending. While many Americans would support a larger cut, this is a commonsense amendment to change the direction of Pentagon spending towards a reasonable level aligned with actual threats to our national security.

I hope my colleagues, many of whom speak out here on the House floor frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support this amendment. If we are really concerned about the deficit, then vote for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The Lee-Van Hollen-Smith amendment would limit Department of Defense funding to the amount authorized under the Budget Control Act of 2011, resulting in a $7.6 billion reduction in spending from the level authorized by the Appropriations Committee.

This amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues, Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, and Representatives Amash, Blumenauer, Clarke, Johnson, Nadler, Polis, Schrader, Stark, Welch, and Woolsey, among others.

As you know, Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which put in place spending caps on discretionary spending. Despite these statutory limitations, the Appropriations Committee set overall military spending billions of dollars above what the Pentagon requested or what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

A deal is a deal. While many of us did not support the discretionary caps under the Budget Control Act, our amendment simply brings Pentagon spending in line with the law. Again, a deal is a deal. It does this while protecting our Active Duty military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to cut their compensation and health care expenditures, by prohibiting the additional cuts from coming from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from the Defense Health Program.

Let me repeat: not a single penny would come from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from the Defense Health Program.

The Pentagon budget already consumes almost 60 cents out of every discretionary dollar we spend, and adding billions of unrequested dollars--mind you, unrequested dollars--at the expense of struggling families during the ongoing economic downturn is wrong.

Once again, I just have to remind us that yesterday an amendment was struck down, made out of order, that we still can't even get an audit of the Pentagon; and here, once again, we're going against the law of the land and violating a deal and asking for more money--outrageous.

At a time when American families, businesses, and government agencies are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, why shouldn't the Department of Defense be asked to become more efficient and eliminate wasteful programs?

While many of us would support a larger cut, this is a commonsense amendment to keep spending in line with what was agreed to last year. Remember, a deal is a deal.

I hope my colleagues, many of whom speak here on the floor frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support this amendment. So I ask my colleagues, if we are really concerned with the deficit, then vote for this amendment. This is money the Pentagon did not ask for and it does not need.

Some of us really do believe that your word is your bond.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in more than two decades, the United States will host the 19th International AIDS Conference--drawing over 20,000 people from around the world to our Nation's capital.

Having participated in every Conference since I was first elected to Congress in 1998, I knew we could not bring the conference back to the United States until the discriminatory immigration ban on people living with HIV was lifted.

In 2007, I first introduced a bill to repeal the ban. Few believed it could be done, but through bipartisan support we achieved this goal.

This week, the return of the Conference is an important opportunity to shine a global spotlight on the fight against AIDS in African American communities and a national spotlight on the ongoing global epidemic.

Today, I will introduce new legislation to do just that.

Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Act articulates a policy and financing framework to achieve an AIDS-Free Generation in the United States and globally.

I urge all my colleagues to support it so that we can begin to bring an end to AIDS here at home and around the world.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, first of all, let me just say thank you to my colleagues, Representative Jones and Representative McGovern, and to all of the Members today in calling for a real debate on the war in Afghanistan, which really should have occurred when it was authorized in 2001, which, of course, I could not support then knowing it was a blank check. It was an overly broad resolution for war without end. I have to thank my colleagues today for their leadership in calling for a safe and swift end to this war in Afghanistan. We all know the simple truth: there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Earlier this summer, we passed the sad milestone of 2,000 American lives lost in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands suffer more from wounds both visible and invisible.

As we remember and honor our dead and our wounded and pray for their families and their loved ones, we also have the duty and responsibility and opportunity to act today to ensure that further losses are avoided and that we accelerate the transition to Afghans ruling Afghanistan.

Later on today, I'm going to introduce an amendment to this Defense appropriations bill to limit funding in Afghanistan to the responsible and safe withdrawal of troops. We have the power of the purse strings in this House. For those who believe enough is enough, we should vote for this amendment.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Lee amendment, which will save at least $21 billion and, most importantly, the lives of countless Americans and Afghans. Quite frankly, as has been said earlier, it is time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at home. It is time to rebuild America and also to provide for the economic security of our brave troops. They have done a tremendous job. They have done everything we have asked them to do. They have carried a tremendous load over the past decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Asking them to stay in Afghanistan 2 more years when there is no indication that circumstances on the ground will change is really unconscionable.

Before we send our men and women in uniform into Afghanistan or ask them to stay for another 2 years, we have an obligation to answer simple questions like: What national security interest does the United States currently have in Afghanistan? To what extent does the United States presence in Afghanistan destabilize the country by antagonizing local Afghans? How critical is the overall effort in Afghanistan compared to other priorities in our own country?

Earlier this year, along with my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones and Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman McGovern, we held a hearing on Afghanistan with Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. This was an ad hoc hearing, mind you, because we should have had the authority to hold that hearing in the House Armed Services Committee or the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but quite frankly the leadership would not let us have a formal hearing. So we had our own.

We had an ad hoc hearing with Colonel Daniel Davis, a brave, outspoken whistleblower, who risked his career to tell the truth about what he saw on the ground in Afghanistan. It was a hearing that every Member of Congress should have heard before voting to spend tens of billions of dollars and risking the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of Americans in uniform.

Those of you who attended the hearing or read the witnesses' testimony understand that the current strategy of propping up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan will almost certainly fail. Instead of having a full debate on the current strategy in Afghanistan, instead of having a real debate about what we hope to gain with more years in Afghanistan, we are limited to these brief opportunities on the floor to remind Congress that the American people overwhelmingly want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end. People are war-weary, and they want this over.

This Congress has the opportunity once again to stand with seven out of 10 Americans who want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end by voting ``yes'' on several of the amendments that we're going to be considering. My amendment I will introduce later in this debate will limit the funding to the responsible and safe and orderly withdrawal of United States troops and contractors from Afghanistan.

Madam Chair, let me thank once again our colleagues, Congressman McGovern and Congressman Jones, for gathering us here this afternoon. We have very limited opportunities to reflect the majority of the American people's sentiment in terms of their weariness of this war. It's time to end it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I join with my esteemed colleague, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, in offering an amendment which hits really at the heart of the issue of fiscal responsibility.

My amendment is short and to the point. If enacted, it would freeze Department of Defense programs at fiscal year 2008 levels unless the financial statements of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 are validated as ready for audit within 6 months of enactment of this act.

This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve and National Guard personnel accounts, as well as the Defense Health Program accounts from this potential funding freeze. It also contains a waiver for any potential harm to national security or combat forces.

Now, some of my colleagues may make the argument that the Department of Defense is making progress on this issue in response to congressional engagement. They might reference language in recent Defense authorization bills requiring DOD to develop and implement plans to achieve audit readiness by September 30, 2017.

But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this is wholly unacceptable that we are still just developing plans for the Department of Defense to have much its fiscal house in order 5 years from now. This problem is not newly discovered and further delay is really an abandonment of our congressional duty, given the enormous and increasing proportion of Federal dollars going towards the defense budget. In the 1990s, Congress was promised that these financial deficiencies would be solved by 1997. This timeline then was delayed to 2007 in the early 2000s. Given the Pentagon's past failures to meet deadlines, why should we believe the 2017 timeline will be honored?

Nearly 60 cents of every Federal discretionary dollar now goes towards defense spending, and by the Pentagon's own admission, they cannot properly account for how the money is spent.

Can you imagine? We have nonprofit organizations that get shut down behind a few thousand dollars in unaccountable funds.

There is no doubt that these circumstances have contributed to instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon, including more than $300 billion in major weapons cost overruns identified by the Government Accountability Office.

It's time to finally do away with the culture of unlimited spending and no accountability at the Pentagon. Being strong on defense does not mean handing a free pass to irresponsible spending. I believe it's critical that the Department of Defense be not only prepared and validated as ready for an audit, but actually pass an audit.

Today I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and take a first step toward compelling the Department of Defense to act with urgency on this matter. The financial reforms necessary to abide by basic accounting standards, laws, and regulations at the Department of Defense cannot wait.

I deeply regret that my colleagues would invoke a point of order on an issue of such vital importance to Congress' charge to conduct responsible oversight on Federal expenditures. I wish that the Pentagon would be held to the same standards as nonprofit organizations and those in business and other entities responsible for responsibly spending Federal dollars.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, once again, is very straightforward. It reduces the overseas contingency operations account, which is currently funded at $85 billion, by $21 billion.

That leaves $64 billion in reserves, more than enough funds for the safe and swift withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

This amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. It is clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing across this land to bring this war to an end, and it is past time for the Congress to answer that call here today.

I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment and all of my colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the year and supported my legislation, H.R. 780, to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan.

Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and more. Asking our troops to remain in Afghanistan for another 2 years when there is no indication that circumstances on the ground will change is unconscionable.

As we send our men and women in uniform back into danger on multiple tours, they are bearing an overwhelming and unfair burden of sacrifice while so many of us go on with our daily lives. An alarming number of troops are coming back home with post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide cases are rampant, and sadly, each day we continue to hear more and more about our veterans and the terrible toll this has taken on their lives.

Mr. Chairman, the costs of this war are unacceptable, particularly when we ask what the added benefit is of keeping our troops in Afghanistan through 2014. The war in Afghanistan has already taken the lives of over 2,000 soldiers, injured tens of thousands more, and drained our treasury of over $500 billion. And those costs will only go up as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans, which of course we must and we should do.

Instead of spending over $85 billion in Afghanistan this next year, we should restrict funding to the safe and responsible withdrawal of all of our troops and use the tens of billions of dollars in savings right here at home, investing in jobs and education and health care and mental health care.

The situation on the ground in Afghanistan, whether we leave in 2013, 2014, or 2020, whether 100 more United States troops die or 1,000, let me just say, not an extra dollar should be spent extending the decade- long war in Afghanistan. We have the power of the purse strings in this House. For those who believe that enough is enough, they should vote for this amendment.

As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But the truth is that our troops have been put in an impossible situation; there is no military solution. It's past time to end the war and bring our troops home. And quite frankly, it is time to use these tax dollars from ending the war to create jobs here at home and economic security for the American people. It's time to rebuild America, and also to provide for health care and, of course, as I said earlier, the economic security of our troops.

Today, once again, we have the opportunity to stand with 7 out of 10 Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting. And I'll say it again, not an extra day, not an extra dollar should be spent extending the decade-long war in Afghanistan.

I knew 10 years ago that this would be a war without end. I could not support it then. More Members of Congress are beginning to see that this was a blank check to wage war forever unless we end it now. So after 11 years, yes, we should bring our troops home. We can do that responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let me just say that I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Some Members here continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House being on record supporting the protection of labor standards.

All of us, or at least the majority of us, have been in support of prevailing wage requirements. It helps to ensure that local projects that provide local jobs have these jobs that have affordable, middle class wages with benefits. The law protects government from contractors trying to win Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent workers.

This amendment should be opposed. If we really want people to move toward achieving middle class standards, if we want to keep the middle class with good jobs, good-paying jobs with benefits, then there is no way we should repeal Davis-Bacon.

People are losing the American Dream quite quickly here in our own country, unfortunately. And here we go again trying to erode one of the basic protections of working men and women.

So I hope we oppose this amendment, maintain standards of prevailing wage for our workers, and ensure that they too have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as the founder and cochair of the Out of Poverty Caucus, this morning many of us stood with advocates and faith leaders to say in one voice: no cuts to food stamps in the farm bill.

Food stamps provided that critical bridge over troubled waters for me and my family when I was a young mother, and I thank our government and the

American people for this safety net. The American people were there for me and my family when we needed it most. We need to be there for people who need it most now.

Every year, several Members take part in the Food Stamp Challenge. You eat for 1 week on average food stamp benefits, which is $1.50 per meal. Every Member should join us in the food stamp challenge this year, especially Members who want to cut food stamps. You need to know what it means to be hungry.

We simply cannot cut $16 billion in critical SNAP benefits. Food stamps not only feed hungry children, seniors, and veterans, but also promote real growth and create jobs. It makes no economic sense and no moral sense to cut $16 billion from the food stamp program.

We should reject these heartless cuts on the poor and get back to creating the jobs and opportunities for everyone. People would rather have a job instead of food stamps to feed their family, but until Republicans support efforts to create jobs, we have a moral responsibility and a duty to make sure that at least people eat.

It's hard to believe, in 2012, we are debating feeding people.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, but also for your unwavering and relentless leadership on so many important issues.

I rise in strong opposition to the GOP Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, wasting the American people's time on voting on this bill. I think it's for about the 31st time.

This Tea Party majority is so disconnected from reality that this House takes vote after meaningless vote on bills that have no chance of ever becoming law. One of the most conservative Courts in a generation has found the provisions of the health care law constitutional, and Tea Party representatives immediately took to the steps of the Supreme Court to blast the Court as activist and promised a full repeal.

Let's call this what it is, Mr. Speaker. It's a politically motivated waste of time because Republicans have no serious jobs plan. I will say, though, that the only silver lining in this incredibly sad process is that the Tea Party has finally named a bill honestly, Patients' Rights Repeal Act, because this bill does exactly that, repeals the rights of millions of patients to access to health care.

Children now have a right to stay on their parents' policy until they are 26. Republicans want to repeal this right.

Patients have a right to not have lifetime caps on their policies nor have preexisting conditions prevent them from getting health care insurance. Republicans want to now repeal this right.

And let me just say, people will not have, under this bill, a right and responsibility to see a primary care doctor rather than have taxpayers pay for their primary care in emergency rooms if this Patients' Bill of Rights--or Patients' Rights Repeal Act were passed.

I tell you, our seniors, now they have a right to have a reduction in their prescription drugs. This right would be repealed under this GOP Patient's Rights bill. This is downright outrageous.

Health care finally is becoming a right. People in our country deserve health care. They deserve to have the benefits that our society has provided for so many years and helping achieve the American Dream.

Finally, they will not have to go bankrupt due to high health care costs. Finally, yes, they will have a right to health care, which of course now the Tea Party is calling for the repeal, as it is called, the GOP Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Mr. Speaker, recently, as many of my colleagues have remarked on the House floor, we reached the sad milestone of two thousand American soldiers having lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Tomorrow we break for our July 4th recess, celebrating our nation's independence, but for too many American families missing a father, a son or a daughter, the fourth of July will be a day of absence.

Mr. Speaker, we have a word for people who lose a spouse: ``Widower.''

We have a word also for the children left behind when parents die: ``Orphans.'' But we have no words for the parents of children who die.

It is a tragedy when a parent outlives their child, and it is time to put an end to our children dying in Afghanistan.

For the families of two thousand American soldiers, and equally important, for the Afghan families who have lost sons and daughters, we need to end this war and bring our soldiers home so that a political solution can be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses for coming to the floor to denounce the deeply partisan and divisive effort by congressional Republicans to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt. We need to be doing what the American people elected us to do, and that is to create jobs and to get our economy back on its feet.

This contempt vote stands in stark contrast to our duties in Congress. We should be devoting our time to creating jobs, addressing our Nation's neglected infrastructure, and ensuring that student loan rates don't balloon starting next week.

Too many hardworking American families are looking for their next paycheck, and yet this Tea Party-led Republican Congress is wasting precious legislative time and energy on a purely partisan effort to generate conflict where none exists.

The Republicans' claims against Attorney General Holder defy belief. The simple fact is the Bush administration developed the inappropriate tactics, and once this Justice Department, under President Obama, learned about it, Attorney General Holder stopped the program--stopped it.

So instead of handling our Nation's priorities, this Tea Party-led Republican Congress is choosing to stick its head in the sand, ignoring the wide range of documents and open cooperation provided by the Justice Department but now engage in a game of political theater with no regard for struggling families across America.

The true motivation behind this contempt resolution is simple: As Leader Pelosi remarked last week, this is really about suppressing voter turnout. The National Rifle Association, unfortunately, has insisted that their supported Members of Congress vote for it or face political peril.

Let me tell you, these Tea Party Republicans don't like it when their ideological efforts to prevent people from voting get blocked by the Justice Department doing its job--and that's defending the Constitution of the United States. They know they can't win in judicial courts and they cannot win in the court of public opinion, so instead they're doing all they can to undermine the Justice Department by dragging Attorney General Holder through the mud, making endless demands, changing the goal posts, and monopolizing his time so that they can continue their efforts to undermine the democratic process. And they're asking for information that would violate the law. Furthermore, this is unprecedented. The House has never voted to hold an Attorney General in contempt.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of seeing these Tea Party Republicans pursue a senseless and destructive agenda. There's a reason that Congress has the lowest approval rating in history, and it has everything to do with efforts like this--a contempt vote that does nothing to improve the economy, does nothing to create jobs, and does nothing to strengthen our middle class or to help those trying to raise themselves out of poverty.

We need to invest in transportation, in education, and in ensuring above all that jobs and jobs and more jobs are added to our economic recovery. We only have a matter of weeks before Congress effectively shuts down for the August recess, and we cannot waste any more time doing anything other than putting Americans back to work. Jobs should be our number one priority, our number two priority, and our number three priority.

So I join my colleagues in the tri-caucuses calling for an end to this useless path of petty politics. Let us work during the remainder of time we have this congressional session to do the work that we were sent here to do. No more political witch hunts, no more political fishing expeditions, no more excuses. It's time to get back to work.

Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank our ranking member for yielding. But also, I want to thank yourself and our subcommittee chair and the entire staff for their tireless effort to bring this appropriations bill to the floor.

I also want to say to the ranking member, Mr. Olver, that I will miss your thoughtfulness. I will miss your real clarity of purpose on all of the issues. I will miss your attention to detail and the bipartisan spirit that you bring to this Appropriations Committee. I just have to say I wish you the best, as you close this chapter of your life and begin the next chapter, but I'm going to miss you deeply--as we've heard tonight and we will hear until you begin this next chapter. So thank you again so much for your service. And most importantly, I just want to thank you for your friendship.

Yes, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I really understand the constraints which we have been working under, but I cannot support the inadequate sub-allocation in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not meet the basic responsibilities that we have to the American people. It shortchanges key housing and transportation initiatives which would rebuild America and put construction workers back on the job. And in a time of great need, this bill does not include a single dollar for the TIGER grant program.

Like many communities across the Nation, including in my home district, especially in my city of Oakland, California, we continue to struggle with high unemployment and crumbling infrastructure. Smart investments in infrastructure, such as TIGER grants, create jobs and fix our infrastructure.

Tonight, Congresswoman Maxine Waters will offer an amendment to add $500 million in TIGER funding. I'm very proud to cosponsor this amendment. I appreciate Congresswoman Waters bringing this forward because this is a very important amendment for us to support. So I hope all Members will support that $500 million increase in TIGER funding.

In addition to shortchanging our transportation needs, this bill fails to invest in our Nation's critical affordable housing stock. I know the chairman and Mr. Olver remember in committee I tried to begin the debate on increasing the project-based section 8 voucher program because landlords and developers and tenants are going to be shortchanged if we don't fix this. Hopefully, that amount will be increased in the Senate.

Now, in the middle of a housing emergency, gutting support for affordable housing for our Nation's seniors, the disabled, families and children, that's just plain wrong. Republicans supported bailouts to Wall Street, but even the smallest programs to help families on Main Street like Choice Neighborhoods and Sustainable Communities, those initiatives are completely zeroed out.

This bill fails to fund the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which Senator Sanders and myself initiated when we both were on the Banking Committee many years ago.

Thank you very much.

This bill, as I said a minute ago, this fails to fund the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund--very important initiative. Senator Sanders and myself, we initially put forth this idea when we were both on the Banking Committee. This was an excellent idea, it was an excellent bill, it was an excellent program which would build the desperately needed housing. It would create thousands of construction jobs, which would of course boost the entire economy.

This bill that we're debating tonight does not fund that, and that is really too bad. The American people need Congress to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. We cannot build a strong and prosperous Nation if our roads and bridges are crumbling beneath our feet. We cannot build a strong economy if we leave millions of Americans in poverty at the risk of homelessness and struggling to find a good-paying job.

So I urge Members to oppose this bill. But again, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for working on the subcommittee bill in the spirit of bipartisanship. But I think it just falls short for many of us to support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional life of Mr. Stanley Howell Hall. ``Stan,'' as he liked to be

called, was a trailblazing public servant who had the distinction of serving as one of the first African-American City Managers in the State of California. Known as a hard-working and talented colleague, a visionary consultant and a man of great faith, Mr. Hall has left an indelible mark on Bay Area communities. With his passing on May 31, 2012, we look to Stan Hall's public legacy and the outstanding quality of his life's work.

Born on June 11, 1946 to William and Hazel Hall, Stan was the sixth child of a family of eight children. He was named Outstanding Young Man of America twice by the U.S. Jr. Chamber of Commerce and was a high school honors graduate. Earning his bachelor's in History at San Francisco State University and a master's degree in Public Administration from Golden Gate University, Mr. Hall acquired a breadth of civic knowledge that he would use throughout his career. He settled in Richmond, California, working as the Administrative Assistant to the City Manager. Eight years later, he became the first African-American City Manager in Seaside, California. He did all of this by the young age of 32.

In addition to career milestones serving as Director of Governmental Affairs for the Port of Oakland, as well as City Manager for both East Palo Alto and Hollister, California, Mr. Hall became a sought-after consultant. He founded the government advocacy and consulting business, American Service Associates, which aided local community development through expertise in transportation, parking and project management.

Mr. Hall was also keenly committed to community leadership. Among his numerous accolades and associations, he was a three-term President and CEO of the Bay Area Urban League, as well as Principal Officer of West Coast Infrastructure for Amtrak. He had the distinction of being honored by the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington, DC and received awards from the Harbon Publishing Co. and the Gillette Co. for Achievement in Business and Professional Excellence. His awards from Members of Congress, the State Assembly and the State Senate speak to the quality of his prolific career. And most recently, he was recognized by the U.S. Department of the Treasury for Patriotic Service.

Active in 100 Black Men of the Bay Area and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Mr. Hall was also a devoted church member. He served both Mt. Carmel Missionary Baptist Church in Richmond and Allen Temple Baptist Church, where he sang in the chorus and built a strong spiritual family. From his groundbreaking work in public service to his renowned work ethic, Mr. Hall never ceased to challenge himself. He was even an accomplished pianist.

On a personal note, I will miss Stan's smiles, his words of encouragement and his support. Stan held a very successful event for me at his home recently and he was as happy as I to be with long-time friends. He proudly showed me through his cozy house and he was especially delighted to show me his backyard, with its beautiful fruit trees and grass. When I visited him in the hospital a few days before his passing, he smiled. In his own way, he communicated the depth of love for his friends and me--and I felt that he was at peace and ready to meet the Lord. I will miss him tremendously.

Today, California's 9th Congressional District salutes and honors an outstanding individual and a stalwart community leader, Mr. Stanley Howell Hall. He was a respected colleague, a beloved brother and a dear friend who will be deeply missed by an extended group of loved ones. I offer my sincerest condolences to Stan's surviving family and to the many friends and associates whose lives he touched over the course of his incredible life. May his soul rest in peace.

Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this issue. Of course I rise in strong opposition to the rule and also the bill.

This so-called Domestic Jobs and Energy Act is yet another example of how the Tea Party-led House is wasting the American people's time by passing legislation that will never become law.

This unconscionable wish list for Big Oil contains dangerous provisions that would irresponsibly expand drilling on public lands, roll back policies to provide for safe and responsible energy production in the United States, and it will endanger our public health by blocking important public health safeguards under the Clean Air Act. Gutting the Clean Air Act will not lower gas prices, but it will hurt the health of millions of Americans.

Madam Speaker, we need a real jobs agenda, not another massive giveaway to Big Oil. We must pass the American Jobs Act, invest in our infrastructure, increase job training efforts, and strengthen our safety net. We should support the economy and create jobs by investing in the American people.

In conclusion, this Congress must ensure that our Nation's safety net is a bridge that is strong enough to deliver us all--even the most vulnerable--over these troubled waters. This giveaway to Big Oil will not do that. We need to protect the public health of the American people.