Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as the founder of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus, I rise to continue talking about the crisis of poverty and the ongoing jobs emergency in America today.

Tea Party Republicans are busy blaming the President for our struggling economy, and the fact that our economy only gained 69,000 jobs last month. I want to remind my Republican colleagues that it was their deregulation, failed economic policies, and two wars off-budget that had our Nation losing over a million jobs every month when President Obama came into office. We were losing over a half-million jobs every single month.

Now they are complaining the Democrats have not been quick enough in cleaning up the Republicans' mess. The President and a Democratic Congress helped to stem that tide, and now despite every roadblock and Republican obstructionism, our economy is growing slowly and jobs are slowly coming back. So I don't understand how anyone can even try to blame the President's economic policies when they have refused to enact any of them.

Republicans have refused to work with us and to help Americans refinance underwater homes, to help protect investors and consumers by implementing the sound regulations of the Dodd-Frank bill. Also, they refuse to pass the American Jobs Act, or any sort of jobs plan, quite frankly. In fact, Republicans have done everything possible to obstruct every proposal to create jobs at every turn. Even though 56 percent of Americans think jobs should be Congress' number one priority, Republicans have failed to pass even one significant jobs bill. Instead, they work to create another false panic about a so-called fiscal cliff if they aren't allowed to immediately extend hundreds of billions of dollars in tax giveaways to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two real fiscal cliffs that I see. One is the fiscal cliff that will push our entire government over if they can make good on their threats and force our Nation into default and shut the government down. The second fiscal cliff is one that Republicans are pushing American families over the edge of when they cut off, mind you, cut off the emergency extension of critical unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who are struggling to find a job.

Republicans are telling struggling Americans that there is a fiscal cliff if you are out of work; they have to cut off your employment benefits. They are telling struggling Americans that there is a fiscal cliff if you are poor and hungry; they have to cut your food stamps. But somehow, if you are rich and a defense contractor, Republicans make it their business to protect you from facing any cliff or falling off of any cliff.

This is not the path forward for our Nation. What we need to do right now is to stop pushing families off fiscal cliffs. We have to support the economy by investing in the American people. We need to get back to growing the middle class by lifting millions of Americans out of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, we must pass the American Jobs Act, invest in our country's infrastructure and transportation needs, increase job training efforts, and strengthen our safety net. Safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and unemployment insurance just don't support struggling families, they support small businesses all across the country and in every single congressional district regardless of one's party.

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.

Americans are waiting. Democrats have been prepared to act, and Republicans must join us in creating jobs and reigniting the American Dream for all.

Mr. Chair, I was unable to speak during last week's floor debate on the FY13 Intelligence bill--the following is the statement I would have made before the amendment was adopted by voice vote:

First, let me thank my esteemed colleague Congressman John Conyers for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important amendment.

I would also like to recognize Congressman Keith Ellison who has been an outstanding leader on issues affecting the Middle East.

Mr. Chair, first let me say unequivocally that we can all agree that we must work to prevent an Iran armed with nuclear weapons--which would never be acceptable.

That is not what this amendment is about, this amendment is noncontroversial.

This amendment is really just about common sense.

It would simply require that the National Intelligence Director give Congress a report outlining their assessment of the consequences of launching a military strike against Iran.

This amendment is necessary because, once again, we have saber rattling voices who are beating the war drum.

If we have learned anything from the past ten years, it is that we have to be deliberate, be thoughtful, be careful, and know exactly what we are getting ourselves into before we launch another war in the Middle East.

These decisions should not be taken lightly, and they must be based on sound reasoning, and the best information, and the best intelligence.

We have a duty to our brave men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much during the past decade of war to have an informed debate about the consequences of military action.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Congresswomen DeGette and Slaughter, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and our colleagues for standing up for women's health today.

As a Member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and Health Care Task Force Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3541.

This bill would do nothing more than lead to the further stigmatization of women--especially Asian-Pacific American women--who seek to exercise their constitutional rights to an abortion.

It is clear that Republicans are not serious about addressing the very real issues of gender discrimination that persist in this country.

Supporters of this bill are exploiting serious issues like racism and sexism to forward their goal of making all abortion illegal.

And we already know that attempts to restrict or deny access to safe abortions is harmful to women's health and would ultimately take us back to the days of back alley abortions.

If this bill passes it would forever change the doctor-patient relationship as we know it, by casting suspicion on doctors that serve communities facing the greatest health disparities--many of which are minority communities.

And this is why the bill is opposed by some 100 organizations, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health Association and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

If supporters are serious about advancing the real interests of women, I urge them to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the cofounder of the Congressional Out of Poverty Caucus, I rise today to continue talking about the crisis of rising poverty devastating families in every single congressional district all across our country.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to recognize Linda Lee and Geraldine Matthew. These two extraordinary women are among a group of farmworkers who spent their lives working in the swampy fields bordering Lake Apopka in Florida. Their backbreaking work helped to provide the bulk of the winter season produce on the eastern seaboard.

In the early 1990s, a settlement was negotiated with the large farming corporations where 20,000 acres of land were sold for roughly $100 million. A negligible amount of 200,000 was allocated for the 2,500 farmworkers, and most were simply given pink slips, despite decades of service on the farm.

For years, these workers were exposed to a chemical mixture of carcinogens and other contaminants as planes crop-dusted the fields. Now these workers are suffering from an array of diseases that have been linked to long-term pesticide exposure. Their children suffer from defects cause by prenatal exposure to harmful contaminants.

These women have worked for over a decade to bring attention to their cause, while many of their former colleagues, unfortunately, have passed away. Although these women are desperately seeking some relief and good health, what they ask for more than anything else is their dignity. Dignity is the contribution of their community to feeding this Nation and the sacrifices they made in doing so.

I would, therefore, offer my profound and earnest gratitude to these incredible women, to their community, and to farmworkers across the country, for theirs truly are the hands that feed us. Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we need to redouble our efforts to reward hard work. We must work to be sure that Americans who work all of their lives have something to show for it.

This does not just affect Linda Lee or Geraldine Matthew. We cannot ignore the fact that millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings decimated, their pensions shortchanged, and their wages stagnant or falling.

Even in the face of a rising tide of poverty and an economy with high unemployment, the Tea Party-led Republicans continue their efforts to slash programs which protect the health and well-being of millions of low-income and working poor families.

In the coming weeks and months, we will begin to see the impact of the, quite frankly, immoral cuts to vital unemployment benefit extensions as thousands of people, thousands of people across our country who are struggling to find a job will be thrown off of unemployment benefits, thrown off, kicked off the rolls.

Some of them may be lucky enough to find work, but far too many will be suddenly cut off with nearly nothing, nothing to keep them from falling behind into poverty. They will have been left out and left behind.

We may disagree on how to help families in need and workers who are struggling find work access needed health services or feed their children, but we can all agree that leaving struggling families completely cut off of unemployment insurance with nowhere to turn for help is not the American way.

When Republican politicians protect tax cuts for millionaires, we must be very adamant about protecting the working poor. When Tea Party Republicans fight to protect tax writeoffs for corporations and Big Oil, we must fight to protect hardworking Americans.

When Republican Tea Party members continued to expend their energy protecting the dividend gains on investments, we must fight to protect Linda Lee and Geraldine Matthew, women who have worked their entire lives and are left with nothing to show for it.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately there are some who continue to support policies for the 1 percent where profits, rather than people, matter. We need a jobs bill for those who are desperately in need of a job, and we need to help with their support for themselves and their families. So we do need a strong safety net to act as a bridge over these troubled economic times. It's critical to reaffirm that the needs and the aspirations of the poor and the working poor are really important and critical for us to address where they too are aspiring to be part of the middle class.

I want to thank Congresswoman Jackson Lee for her support because I know she cares about Linda Lee and Geraldine Matthew and all of the issues that she continues to fight for.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Hastings for his leadership and for yielding, and also to Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her relentless leadership on the Paycheck Fairness Act and also as the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee.

I rise to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. It's totally unacceptable that in 2012 women continue to be blatantly discriminated against in the workplace in terms of equal pay for equal work. This is just downright wrong. It contributes to the economic insecurity of women, also of children and of men.

In 2011, African American women earned 62 cents to every dollar earned by white males, and for Latinas, it was 62 cents per dollar. This discrimination against women of color and all women must end.

Now it's been nearly 50 years since the passage of the Equal Pay Act, but at the rate we're going, if we continue to do nothing, women will not have pay equity until the year 2056. So we need a comprehensive solution to this historical and systemic discriminatory practice, and that is what Congresswoman DeLauro has introduced.

So I urge consideration and passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Women deserve economic justice.

Mr. Chair, first, let me thank my esteemed colleague Congressman John Conyers for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important amendment.

I would also like to recognize Congressman Keith Ellison who has been an outstanding leader on issues affecting the Middle East.

Mr. Chair, first let me say unequivocally that we can all agree that we must work to prevent an Iran armed with nuclear weapons--which would never be unacceptable.

That is not what this amendment is about, this amendment is noncontroversial.

This amendment is really just about common sense.

It would simply require that the National Intelligence Director give Congress a report outlining their assessment of the consequences of launching a military strike against Iran.

This amendment is necessary because, once again we hear very loudly the drum beat of war.

If we have learned anything from the past ten years, it is that we have to be deliberate, be thoughtful, be careful, and know exactly what we are getting ourselves into before we launch another war in the Middle East.

These decisions should not be taken lightly, and they must be based on sound reasoning, and the best information, and the best intelligence.

We have a duty to our brave men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much during the past decade of war to have an informed debate about the consequences of military action.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

First let me thank you, Congressman Bishop, for yielding time, and also for your very thoughtful and steady leadership as our ranking member on this Appropriations Subcommittee. We appreciate your leadership.

Also, I want to thank the chairman and, again, our ranking member for your bipartisan efforts, and also for including language in this bill which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to report to Congress detailed plans to eliminate the backlog and improve the accuracy of the claims process within 6 months.

I introduced this language because, first, I just have to say, as the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved with military service. But let me say this: It is just totally unacceptable and shameful to force the very people who put their lives on the line to wait months--and, in some cases, years--to receive the benefits that they have earned.

Last week, I joined with my colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Speier, and over 200 veterans at an event to address the backlog at the Oakland Veterans Affairs regional office. We listened to the veterans as they came up to speak one by one with a story and a struggle. The pain and suffering of these veterans, it was overwhelming. I wish, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, you could have been there to listen to this testimony. Hopefully, we'll be able to share some of that with you and with the subcommittee because this language that we put in really will address many of the issues that were raised.

For example, I heard one of my constituents say that he waited 6 months just for the paperwork and spent another 2 years waiting for the Oakland Veterans Affairs office to consider his request to upgrade his disability rating for posttraumatic stress. This young man sacrificed a great deal going overseas to fight for our country, and yet now he has been asked to put his life on hold--really, just on hold--until his claim is processed. There are thousands of other stories just like his where veterans are waiting an average of 320 days to see some relief.

I just want to conclude by saying, now the VA is saying that they will reduce this backlog and improve accuracy by 2015, but waiting 3 more years is really quite unacceptable. Veterans in my district and throughout the country cannot wait any longer, Madam Chair. These veterans served our country when we needed them, and it's our responsibility as a Nation to be there when they need us.

So I want to thank you again for inserting this language into the bill, and hopefully this will be the beginning of some justice for these veterans who deserve it.

First, let me thank Congressman Conyers for yielding the time, but also for your very bold and relentless leadership as our ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

I rise today as a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and also as the Health Care Task Force chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

Supporters of this bill claim that the legislation would combat sex- selection abortion and prevent the United States from becoming a safe haven for women seeking an abortion based on the sex of the pregnancy.

Here we go again. This war on women continues. And this, quite frankly, is a shocking battle in this war. It really is shock and awe.

Don't get me wrong. Of course we all are opposed to sex-selection abortion based on gender. That's not what this is about. This is about women's health care and gender discrimination.

Let me read a paragraph from a letter signed by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups:

If passed into law, this bill would require that medical

and mental health professionals violate doctor-patient

confidentiality and report known or suspected violations of

the law to law enforcement authorities. The penalty for

failure to report is a fine or incarceration of up to 1 year.

Shock and awe. This is a continuation of the war on women.

There are those who have been actively working to reverse much of the progress women have made by declaring this war on women that includes stripping reproductive rights for women and cutting critical Title X funding and for the WIC nutrition program for low-income infants and pregnant women. And yes, this war on women continues with slashed funding for food stamps and day care spending.

Let's call it what it is, Mr. Speaker. Supporters of this bill really are exploiting serious issues like racism and sexism in a backdoor attempt to make abortion illegal. It would also lead to further stigmatization of women, especially Asian Pacific American women, who seek their constitutional rights to an abortion.

The ramifications are real, and they are very dangerous. Attempts to restrict or deny access to safe abortions is harmful to women's health and would ultimately take us back to the days of back-alley abortions.

I thank the gentleman.

If this bill passes, it would forever change the doctor-patient relationship as we know it by casting suspicion on doctors that serve communities facing the greatest health disparities, many of which are minority communities.

As a woman of faith, I have always believed that decisions about whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy, or raise a child must be left to a woman, her family, and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor or health professional. Politics--government--has no place preventing doctors and other health professionals from informing patients about all their health care options, and doctors should not be criminalized for providing constitutionally protected care.

If supporters are really serious about advancing the real interest of women, I urge them to vote ``no'' on this bill. We need to work together to ensure that all women have meaningful access to the health care that they need to stay healthy and to improve their own lives and their children's lives.

We need to make sure that women get equal pay for equal jobs.

I just want to conclude by saying if you really care about women and their children and their families, we need to work to end wage discrimination in this country. We need to work to end domestic violence that's tearing apart families across this country and reauthorize a real Violence Against Women's Act. We need to reject this insidious attack on Roe v. Wade.

Mr. Speaker, I recently voted ``no'' on House Resolution 568. I have made it clear that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

My legislation, H.R. 4173, presents a viable approach to achieving a nuclear-arms free Iran by pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. I am deeply concerned about Iran threatening its neighbors, Israel in particular. I have always strongly supported Israel's security and rights as a nation, and will continue to vote in favor of measures which will enhance the prospects for a peaceful Middle East. This resolution, however, does not advance that goal.

First, the focus on nuclear weapons ``capability'' suggests a lowered red-line threshold, which could make a U.S. strike much more likely. While this term has been used in varying contexts in recent years, it is a vague term that can potentially create openings for those seeking military conflict with Iran.

Further, Clause 2(A) would put Congress on record opposing any diplomatic agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program that allows Iran to enrich any uranium whatsoever, even for peaceful, civilian energy purposes subject to intense international monitoring and safeguards. This provision constitutes a poison pill that would pre-emptively kill any diplomatic solution to the crisis, because there is no feasible agreement that can be achieved with Iran in which it would give up its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.

Finally, Clause 6 would ``reject any U.S. policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons capable Iran'' and ``oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.'' This clause is unhelpful and unnecessary as no policymaker is suggesting a containment strategy.

As the sole Member of Congress to vote against the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, I am wary of legislation that could put our men and women in uniform in harm's way due to a lack of deliberation before entering a war.

This legislation did not reduce the prospects for war with Iran, nor did it advance it's stated purpose of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The above mentioned clauses therefore ignore and undermine the prospects for a diplomatic solution. Because of these flawed provisions, I voted against H. Res. 568.

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

First, let me just say this. It is just downright outrageous that the McGovern-Jones amendment was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee, denying this House the opportunity to debate and vote on their amendment.

Secondly, we really do need a clear and 2 days of debate, at least-- not 20 minutes--on this critical issue of Afghanistan. So for the life of me, 20 minutes is not long enough. And I don't quite understand why, in fact, the McGovern-Jones amendment was not given the full amount of time, because the American people deserve to hear both sides of this issue from a variety of policy perspectives.

My amendment today would put a responsible end to combat operation in Afghanistan by limiting the funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors.

And I have to thank the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment-- Representatives Jones, Conyers, Paul, Woolsey, Welch, Nadler, Hastings--and all of our colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the years to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. I have offered this amendment in the past, and it has been a bipartisan amendment.

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

The reality is there is no military solution to the war in Afghanistan. Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and more.

As a daughter of a military veteran, I also know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible situation. There is no military solution, and it's past time to end the war and bring the troops home.

Over a decade now, over $500 billion spent in direct costs and, mind you, not a penny of it has been paid for. Instead, we should have been investing in jobs and in our economy here at home and a smarter national security strategy.

It is time to say enough is enough. With almost 2,000 United States troops killed in Afghanistan and many tens of thousands more maimed with injuries both hidden and visible, we must recognize that the boots on the ground strategy in Afghanistan must end. It's critical to our economy and the future of this country that we stop pouring billions on a counterproductive military presence in Afghanistan.

The American people have made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting--not for another year, not for another 2 years, and surely not for another 12 years. Today, Congress should stand with seven out of 10 Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years, it is time to bring our troops home. We can do that responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself 30 seconds and respond to the gentleman from Florida and just say this amendment--I think he's probably not reading the amendment that I have offered.

What this amendment does is restrict our funding for the purpose of the safe and the orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense. It is not a cut-and-run amendment. This is a force protection amendment. It would bring our young men and women out of harm's way and it would provide the resources to move forward to help stabilize the region.

I'd like now to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I'd like to yield now 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me just first say that I appreciate this 20-minute debate, but we should have a couple of days to be able to have a full debate on why we need to, one, protect our troops and provide for their safe and orderly withdrawal.

The American people are war weary. We need to reunite our brave men and

women in uniform with their families at home. We should transfer the billions of dollars that we're spending on war to creating jobs here at home. We should ensure that our troops are provided with the resources that they deserve and they need during this withdrawal.

We're asking for a safe and orderly withdrawal. We're saying our young men and women have fought; they've done everything we've asked them to do. We think that now, as the American people are saying, the combat mission, the fighting should end, and we should begin by protecting our troops and contractors; and we should begin to end the longest war in American history. It's time to end the war in Afghanistan.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment today is very straightforward. It would limit the Department of Defense funding to the amount authorized under the Budget Control Act of 2011. This would result in an $8 billion reduction in spending from the level authorized by the House Armed Services Committee.

The amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues, Representatives Paul, Woolsey, Stark, Blumenauer, Schrader and Frank, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee and a long-time advocate for reasonable defense-spending reform.

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 House Armed Services Committee set overall military spending billions of dollars above what the Pentagon requested, or what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

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. It does this while protecting our active duty military personnel and retirees. 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 50 cents out of every discretionary dollar that we spend. And adding billions of unrequested dollars, at the expense of struggling families during the ongoing economic downturn, is just downright wrong.

So I ask my colleagues, if we are really concerned with the deficit, then vote for this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In reclaiming 30 seconds of my time, I just want to respond to the gentleman and say that that's further from the truth, what he just said.

First of all, our active duty troops in the field are covered by the Overseas Contingency Operations funds. Secondly, the Pentagon did not ask for this money.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 10 seconds.

First of all, sometimes we respectfully disagree with the President.

I think that this $8 billion in cuts to bring us back to the Budget Control Act of 2011 is reasonable given the very difficult times we are faced with now and the fact that, of all the government agencies, the Pentagon has benefited the most from generous funding. We've got plenty of outdated and unnecessary Cold War-era weapons systems that can and should be canceled. I think this is a reasonable amendment.

I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Let me yield the 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It would appoint a Special Envoy for Iran to ensure that all diplomatic avenues are pursued to avoid a war with Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It is cosponsored by my colleagues, Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman Conyers.

I must say that all of the cosponsors of this resolution agree that we must prevent an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, which would be totally unacceptable. As President Obama said, all options, including diplomatic options, need to be on the table with Iran.

We all recognize that the military option has been and will continue to be on the table, but we must not let the military option override any diplomatic initiative which would keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Let me just say and cite section 1221 of the bill in its Declaration of Policy on Iran. This is in the bill as it is currently written:

It is the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

The bill also sets forth what it takes to require the military to prepare for war. So we all recognize that the military option in this bill is on the table. It's stated very clearly.

My amendment would just take two simple steps to support the diplomatic option. First, it would require President Obama to appoint a high-level Special Envoy to Iran to engage in sustained bilateral-- that's country to country--comprehensive negotiations with the aim of ensuring Iran gives up any efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

Secondly, my amendment would lift the ``no contact policy'' that prohibits high-level American diplomats from communicating directly with their Iranian counterparts.

In addition, it's just common sense that in order for the current multilateral negotiations to be effective, we need to get rid of this current policy that treats diplomatic talks as a prize rather than a tool for statecraft. My amendment in no way undermines current multilateral negotiations. In fact, we need both; we need bilateral and multilateral negotiations if in fact we're going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

We can all agree that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons really is unacceptable. Experts agree that at best an armed strike against Iran would set its nuclear program back 3 years while locking in Iran's determination to obtain nuclear weapons. So we're trying to do everything we can do. As one who has always supported nonproliferation, I understand what is taking place as it relates to the multilateral negotiations, but I think it is very important that we strengthen those with bilateral negotiations.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I'd like to yield now 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Woolsey.

Let me just say I respectfully disagree that this would undermine the current Six Party Talks. I think it would strengthen the Six Party Talks. We need bilateral and multilateral negotiations if we're going to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

This bill is very clear in terms of the military option, in response to my colleague on the other side. The underlying bill says it shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action, if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran's neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

In no way does this amendment appease the Iranians. What it does is bring some semblance of balance and another strategy, another layer to strengthen the negotiations that are currently taking place so that we can keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and prevent an all-out war.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the African American Education Task Force, co-chaired by Mr. Oscar Wright and Mrs. Wandra Boyd, for its record of success in encouraging and acknowledging academic achievement by African American youth in California's Oakland Unified School District.

Today, the African American Education Task Force and the Oakland Unified School District will celebrate a successful decade of

recognizing our local African American students' Honor Roll status. The African American Education Task Force Academic Achievement Celebration takes place at the ACTS Full Gospel Church, pastored by Bishop Bob Jackson in Oakland, California.

During this year's event, 1,026 African American students from the 8th through 12th grades will be honored for attaining grade point averages of 3.00 or above for the 2011 2012 school year. This outstanding group of young people has accomplished a great deal, and we are pleased to commend them for their academic dedication and success. Especially in light of the great budgetary challenges faced by the State of California and the city of Oakland, these students have proven themselves to be bright, capable and resourceful.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate each and every student for earning this distinction. Thank you for understanding and promoting the importance of staying in school. By continuing to be the best students possible and by making the most of your education, you will enjoy a full range of opportunities to achieve your personal goals, as well as give back to your communities.

Your accomplishments represent the strength of your initiative and a commitment to excellence. The skills and discipline you have developed will be of great use as you continue to follow your dreams toward success. I am so very proud of you for taking personal pride in your studies. Oakland's future leaders are certainly present at this celebration of academic achievement, and I welcome your many civic contributions in the years to come.

On behalf of the residents of California's 9th Congressional District, I again salute you for your exemplary academic performance. I am confident that you will continue this fine record of scholarship, service and success. Keep up the good work, and I wish you the very best in all of your future endeavors.

First, let me thank you, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, for your long-time and steady support and work on behalf of so many issues relating to women, especially those as they relate to violence against women. You have consistently over the years done this work, oftentimes when no one else was doing it, and thank you for staying the course. It is so important that we come together again in a bipartisan way to get the right bill, the correct bill, passed; and so thank you very much.

I want to thank Congressman Garamendi for your leadership in helping to put together this Special Order but also for your leadership on behalf of women all around the world. I know your wife very well and your children, and you have always really stood on the side of what was right for equity and for justice as it relates to women, so thank you very much.

I believe we all can agree there really is an acute need to put an end to domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual harassment. It's critical that we continue to speak out against intimate-partner violence at every opportunity and call attention and awareness to it whenever we can. And so that's why we really have to get this bill back in the shape that it needs to be in so we can protect women, because I can remember when I was in the California legislature. For example, I wrote California's Violence Against Women Act for the State of California; and I worked on many domestic violence bills that were signed into law, mind you, by then-Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican Governor. And, of course, I continue to cosponsor and work on numerous bills here in Congress to support victims of domestic violence and to prevent domestic violence.

Now, as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, I know how traumatic this experience is. I know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. There was no Violence Against Women Act in the late sixties and early seventies when I had to deal with many, many issues that we're talking about tonight. There was no place to turn. I also know from personal experience that domestic violence is not only physical. It is emotional. It is brutal. It is dehumanizing to the batterer and the battered. And without strong and enforceable criminal laws and services in place, one's life really can be shattered and destroyed.

Unfortunately, instead of being serious about the Federal reauthorization of VAWA, Republicans are attempting to roll back current law and weaken protections for women. This bill, H.R. 4970, would further marginalize LGBT victims, tribal victims, and immigrant victims by removing the limited, but important, protections that the Senate version extends to LGBT domestic violence victims, including key nondiscrimination provisions. Those are essential.

It removes the commonsense and constitutionally sound provisions in the Senate version that would allow the prosecution of nontribal violators who commit domestic violence against tribal women. This is horrible. It's wrong. It's immoral.

Under this bill, the protection of immigrant victims would be subject to unsubstantiated, abuser-provided evidence, among other bureaucratic barriers to protection, including delays in the prosecution of abusers.

Now, without changes and rollbacks like these--and these are only a few of them--I question, really, if the Republican proposal should even be called a Violence Against Women Act. I understand that Congresswoman Adams' amendment would make some small changes to this bill; however, it would still roll back key protections for immigrant victims, allowing the abuser to have the power during investigations and to maintain control of the victim's immigration status.

Under the guise of fraud concerns, Republicans are attempting to roll back important protections even as the Department of Homeland Security officials say that VAWA petitions are among the hardest immigration programs to defraud because of the already high evidence requirements.

Now, our colleagues in the Senate recognized the need to modernize and expand protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. On April 26, the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act passed with a rare show of bipartisan support, and that is what we are here to say we should do tomorrow in this House.

In this bill, though, that the House is considering, this would really pose a serious threat to the lives of victims. This is happening while all around the world nearly one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime--one in three, here in the United States. As many as one in three American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or a boyfriend at least once in their lives. That's shocking.

In my home State of California, the statistics are even more staggering, where approximately 40 percent of California women experience physical intimate partner violence in their lifetimes. Of these women, three out of four had children under the age of 18 at home.

Children who see or experience domestic violence have a much greater chance to become either victims or perpetrators as adults. They are also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution, and commit other crimes.

So there is unquestionable evidence of the need for a serious proposal to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. So I urge my colleagues to pass the Senate Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

We cannot afford to play political games with women's lives. We must not go back to the days, which many of us remember, where there were no protections, no safe places, where the courts would not allow battered women syndrome as admissible evidence in court, and women were incarcerated for defending themselves against their abusers.

So I have to thank Congresswoman Edwards, again, for your tremendous leadership in bringing us all together and continuing to try to work in a way that's in a bipartisan fashion--because that's the only way we can do this--on behalf of all women. This really is, in many ways, about life and death.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Israel, its rights as a nation, and its unequivocal right to defend itself. I fully support the provisions of this resolution aimed at strengthening Israel's defensive military capabilities. Unfortunately, this resolution also contains overly broad provisions that go well beyond support for those defensive capabilities. Specifically, I am concerned about provisions that include the terms ``defensive articles'' and ``defensive services'' and ``specialized munitions,'' which security experts understand to include a vast array of offensive weapons, including bunker buster bombs. The increased militarization of the Middle East could endanger Israel's security and is a source of regional and global instability. While the bill enumerated ways the U.S. can lend military support to Israel, there was not an emphasis on achieving a negotiated peace with its neighbors. No amount of American military assistance will fully compensate for the lack of a productive and effective peace process. This bill was a missed opportunity for Congress to show balanced support for a comprehensive peace plan. The neglected Israeli Palestinian peace process must be given stronger support by the United States, and this bill reflects the lack of U.S. leadership in achieving a lasting peace. Because of these flawed provisions, I voted present on H.R. 4133.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.

Today, House Republican leadership is asking low and middle income families to sacrifice their health care and basic services in order to protect bloated and wasteful Pentagon spending and to protect tax cuts for millionaires.

This out of touch budget to end the Medicare guarantee while giving massive tax breaks to Big Oil and the wealthiest is not a serious proposal, Mr. Speaker.

In these difficult times for millions of struggling families, Republicans are asking that we vote to cut $36 billion from the food stamp program and children's health services so we can spend more money on cold war weapons that do nothing to improve our national security.

Our budget should reflect our values. We should not be balancing our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.

We do not have to make these heartless cuts that hurt our poor and struggling families so we can spend more money to build two more nuclear submarines or buy more over budget V 22 helicopters.

We do not have to make choices that abandon the needy, our seniors and the futures of our children.

We must come together to protect people who are struggling, our Nation's children and our elderly during economic downturns, not make them more vulnerable.

We must protect and invest in the futures of our most vulnerable families, not dole out more money to the Pentagon for outdated and over budget weapons programs that we don't need and doesn't make America any safer.

We should not be shortchanging the education of our children, risk the health of our seniors and allow our infrastructure to crumble beneath our feet so that bloated defense contractors can keep getting contracts.

The priorities on display in this bill are clear and shameful. Once again, the Republicans put millionaires and billionaires, subsidies for big oil and gas, and bloated Pentagon spending above everyone and everything else.

As co-chair of the Out of Poverty caucus, I urge my colleagues to reject this attack on our most vulnerable.