Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Tom W. Williams, Jr., founding partner and CEO of Williams, Adley & Company, LLP (Williams Adley), and a dedicated community leader, husband, father and mentor. With Mr. Williams' passing on June 22, 2011, we are reminded of his life's journey and the joyful legacy he inspired.

Known for his business acumen, integrity and generosity, Mr. Williams was a giant in the Bay Area business community and accounting profession. A California licensed Certified Public Accountant with a bachelor's degree from Berkeley's Armstrong College, Mr. Williams entered a career in public accounting with KPMG, LLP in 1972.

After leaving KPMG in 1980, Mr. Williams co-founded Williams Adley in September of 1982. Bolstered by the partners' guidance and hard work, the firm grew from a small 8(a) entity, into one of the nation's leading minority-owned small business firms. With current California locations in Oakland and San Francisco, as well as offices in Huntsville, Alabama and Washington, D.C., Williams Adley has built a successful clientele, serving Federal agencies, State and local government, non-profit entities, small businesses and individuals. The firm has provided crucial audit, accounting, tax and management consulting services for nearly 3 decades.

Under Mr. Williams' leadership, Williams Adley has received numerous accolades from various government agencies and the surrounding business community. In fact, just this month, Assemblymember Sandre Swanson and the California State Legislature recognized Mr. Williams as the Assemblymember's Small Business Leader of the Year during its California Small Business Day reception.

Mr. Williams' passion for his company and staff was only surpassed by his incredible devotion to his family and community. He supported numerous civic organizations, professional associations and charities, acting as a founding director and past president of the San Francisco Chapter of the National Association of Black Accountants (NABA) and serving the Committee on Government Auditing of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants.

Mr. Williams was also an enthusiastic mentor to young professionals, encouraging them to pursue their goals through self-awareness, higher education and volunteerism. Williams Adley Oakland staff have volunteered countless hours of expertise and financial support to organizations such as the Alameda County Family Justice Center, United Way, American Cancer Society, National Association of Black Accountants, Girl Scouts, and the Alameda County Community Food Bank. Mr. Williams also shared his astute business talents on Capitol Hill. He spent countless hours educating Members of Congress about small and minority business issues. He was focused, persistent and patient, and my staff and I relied on his wisdom and ``marching orders.''

Tom was so much a part of my life on so many fronts. We were friends as well as colleagues. I will always remember the two conversations we had a few days prior to his death. He was cheerful, and as always, encouraging. Tom supported my campaigns, as he did many candidates, and his generosity helped me in so many ways. We will miss his smile, his voice, his phone calls, his meetings and his awesome presence in our lives.

Today, California's 9th Congressional District salutes and honors a great individual and a stalwart community leader, Mr. Tom W. Williams, Jr. Mr. Williams spent his entire career seeking to improve and expand business opportunities for small businesses and minority firms. The contributions he made to others throughout his life are countless and enduring. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, his son and his extended group of loved ones and friends. He will be deeply missed. May his soul rest in peace.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

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

Let me just first thank Chairman Rogers, our ranking member, Mr. Dicks, and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in putting together this bill.

I rise today to offer the Lee-Jones amendment, joined by Representatives Nadler; Woolsey; Olver; Stark; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Honda; Conyers; Grijalva; Paul; and Amash. And I want to thank each of my colleagues for joining Representative Jones and me on this important amendment.

This amendment would end the war in Afghanistan by ending the funding for combat operations but would provide funds to bring our troops home in a safe and orderly manner. And while I would have preferred to offer the Lee amendment, which I have offered in the past--to fence off and to limit funding to the safe, orderly withdrawal of all U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan--I was unable to do so today given that we are debating on an appropriations bill. So I want to emphasize again this important point: that while this amendment cuts war funding, it cuts combat operations funding, but it does leave enough funding to provide for the safe and orderly return of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

I speak today as the daughter of a lieutenant colonel who fought in several wars, one who knows the trauma and devastation of wars on families. I want to be clear that our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in Afghanistan. They are doing everything we asked them to do. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible position. They are fighting in a way with no military solution and no end in sight. Only a political and diplomatic solution and a regional stabilization strategy will end this war.

In fact, this concern of ``war without end'' is why I opposed the resolution authorizing military force on September 14, 2001. It began a series of blank checks that we have been writing for nearly a decade now.

There are few things that we know with certainty regarding the situation in Afghanistan:

We know that corruption persists unabated, and in many cases has been fueled by the U.S. occupation and influx of foreign cash. President Karzai has proven himself time and time again unwilling--or, at the very least, unable--to meaningfully root out corruption within his own administration;

We know that the United States troop presence has increased from 4,000 troops in 2002 to almost 100,000 in 2011. At the same time, military and civilian casualties have increased at record rates, and violence is on the rise;

We also know that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan has been all but eliminated, and Osama bin Laden is dead. It's not feasible or in our national security interest to address this threat through a military- first, boots-on-the-ground strategy in Afghanistan;

And we know, as military and foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum have told us repeatedly, that the situation in Afghanistan will not be resolved by a military solution.

We need to bring our troops home safely and swiftly, and that is why I am offering this amendment.

This war is costing us too much. With over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount every day. And we have already spent over $400 billion fighting in Afghanistan. It is past time to admit that we can no longer afford to send more blank checks for a war without end.

The United States has squandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economists estimate that the total direct and indirect costs of these two wars by their end may total as much as $6 trillion.

With no military solution, we need to redirect these funds to job creation and supporting those efforts for the most vulnerable, including those who have been unemployed for over 2 years and have no more unemployment benefits. While we spend $2 billion a week--mind you, $2 billion a week--on this decade-long war, critical programs like Medicare are on the chopping block as we seek to get our Nation's finances in order.

The American people are sick and tired of this war and the massive unending spending that it requires.

Just last month, the United States Conference of Mayors passed a resolution to end the wars and to use the savings to build bridges and schools and infrastructure here at home where it is needed. The resolution specifically calls on the President and the United States Congress to end the wars as soon as strategically possible and bring these war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and State governments, and develop a new economy based on renewable, sustainable energy and reduce the Federal debt.

We need to bring our troops back and use the savings to address our Nation's fiscal challenges. The American people recognize this. It's time to say that enough is enough. It's time to begin with safe and orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan. This amendment does just that by ending the funding of combat operations in

Afghanistan while maintaining funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal.

This is not a cut-and-run amendment. This is a responsible amendment to bring our troops home now. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, helping to bring our servicemen and -women home safely and ending the war in Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I want to once again thank Mr. Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this bill. Let me also thank my colleagues who are joining Representative Jones and me on this bipartisan amendment: Representatives Woolsey, Olver, Honda, Grijalva and Paul.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer the Lee-Jones amendment to redirect the $5 billion of the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund into a deficit reduction account. This amendment does nothing to undermine the efforts that our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and with extreme commitment in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world. They have done everything asked of them. And as the daughter of a military veteran, I take any matters that affect our troops very, very seriously.

But supporting our troops does not mean giving a blank check to the Pentagon. I have consistently said that we cannot afford to give any more blank checks to the Defense Department.

This amendment is about eliminating a giant $5 billion check with a blank memo to fight the global war on terror anywhere, at any time, without any accountability. The Department of Defense just has to notify Congress that these funds are being transferred.

This $5 billion giveaway, which is what it is, it's like a slush fund, it's like a war slush fund, another giveaway to the Pentagon. It's a $5 billion check to use as it pleases with little or no congressional oversight. There's no accountability in how these funds are spent. While we understand that the Pentagon needs flexibility to address terrorist threats to this Nation and around the world, we need not create a separate slush fund, mind you, to do it. The flexibility has been given elsewhere in this bill, including $119 billion in flexibility in this appropriations bill, a tremendous amount, at a time when we are cutting aid to American families who need assistance with buying food or receiving health care and also during a time when there are many calling for cuts in Medicare.

We already have a process in place for the Pentagon to get additional funds, as needed, outside of this appropriations bill; and the Congress has consistently responded well to the needs of the military. But Congress does not need to create a $5 billion war slush fund. The Pentagon can incorporate its work to fight terrorism globally into its budget while taking steps to rein in waste, fraud, and abuse in an already bloated budget.

Sixty cents of every dollar of discretionary funds is already handed over to the Pentagon. There's no doubt that this war slush fund would give rise to opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon, such as the more than $300 billion in major weapons system cost overruns identified by GAO.

It's time to address the culture of unlimited spending and no accountability at the Pentagon. Being strong on defense does not mean we have to give a free pass for irresponsible spending.

During such austere times, does the Pentagon really need another slush fund? Why can't the Pentagon budget for its wars, budget for preventing terrorist attacks? It's time to hold the Defense Department accountable for its bloated budget and rein in waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon by ending this war slush fund before it ever gets started.

I think the American people would be shocked to know what's taking place in this budget, especially this $5 billion in war funding that's just put aside for the Pentagon to use as it pleases.

And so I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' to end this slush fund, and let's begin to start reining in these blank checks for the Pentagon. We're asking people who are vulnerable, we're asking our senior citizens, we're asking low-income individuals, we're asking everyone in this country to pay for this deficit and this debt. And we know how we got there.

But we need to really start beginning to look at deficit reduction in a real way, and in a way that is balanced, as the President said. And I don't think allowing a $5 billion slush fund really moves us in the correct direction. It really is, I think, a sad day to think that we would allow for the Pentagon to have a $5 billion slush fund when we cut funding for women and children and people who are hungry, when we won't extend unemployment for people who have exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment compensation.

I can remember asking the Speaker to allow us to vote for unemployment compensation that would provide for 14 additional weeks of unemployment, but we were told there's no money and that was somewhere between 16, you know, to 20 billion that should have been designated as an emergency. Now we're dealing with a $5 billion slush fund. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote to use this money for deficit reduction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Ms. Lee

Amendment No. 94: Page 125, line 6, insert after the dollar

amount the following: ``(reduced by $3,438,789,000)''.

Page 125, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $445,117,000)''.

Page 125, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $337,774,000)''.

Page 125, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $665,978,000)''.

Page 126, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $103,610,000)''.

Page 126, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $20,878,000)''.

Page 126, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $12,714,000)''.

Page 126, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $13,411,000)''.

Page 127, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $315,703,000)''.

Page 127, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $4,719,000)''.

Page 127, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $11,012,116,000)''.

Page 127, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $2,021,929,000)''.

Page 128, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $1,160,729,000)''.

Page 128, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $3,010,749,000)''.

Page 128, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $1,948,995,000)''.

Page 130, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $70,707,000)''.

Page 130, line 16, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

Page 130, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $11,731,000)''.

Page 131, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $119,794,000)''.

Page 131, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $10,159,000)''.

Page 131, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $1,625,451,000)''.

Page 133, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $154,418,000)''.

Page 135, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $4,161,156,000)''.

Page 138, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $21,099,000)''.

Page 139, line 6, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $5,546,000)''.

Page 139, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $34,740,000)''.

Page 139, line 20, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $223,174,000)''.

Page 140, line 9, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $6,847,000)''.

Page 140, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $52,352,000)''.

Page 140, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $40,179,000)''.

Page 141, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $210,224,000)''.

Page 141, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $4,738,000)''.

Page 142, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $15,423,000)''.

Page 142, line 10, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $483,835,000)''.

Page 142, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $61,480,000)''.

Page 143, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $941,192,000)''.

Page 144, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $1,419,000)''.

Page 144, line 25, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $8,253,000)''.

Page 145, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $22,523,000)''.

Page 145, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $30,609,000)''.

Page 145, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $133,194,000)''.

Page 161, line 12, relating to the spending reduction

account, insert after the dollar amount the following:

``(increased by $33,000,124,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Lee

Amendment No. 95: Page 131, line 25, insert after the

dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000,000)''.

Page 161, line 12, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(increased by $5,000,000,000)''.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2021.

By overriding offshore air pollution rules H.R. 2021 dirties our coasts and oceans, endangers the health of our citizens and constituents, and keeps us trapped in the quagmire of the 20th century energy economy when we should be pressing towards the 21st.

I am distressed that many of my colleagues, while consistently touting an increased role for local and state government, want to completely overrun existing state health and environmental regulations. As the California Air Resources Board expressed in testimony, this bill will ``quash local control, impose tremendous new costs on state and local government and taxpayers, and disenfranchise community groups and local stakeholders.''

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Clean Air Act is first and foremost about public health and protecting our citizens from dangerous pollution that directly threatens their health. Turning again to testimony from the California Air Resources Board, which is supported by the Boards of other states, this bill will severely limit existing protections for public health in coastal states. I would particularly note that, as allowed for in section three, ships involved in drilling activities would not have to use emissions control technology, even though these ships already comprise the vast proportion of pollution from drilling operations.

Section two of this bill demands that the pollution being disgorged by offshore drilling projects be measured at the point of its impact with the shoreline. What some of my distinguished colleagues appear to have forgotten is that we in the coastal states actually engage in activities that extend past the shore.

Let's forget for a moment the enormous implications that this measure has for climate change and environmental degradation. What section two essentially states is that the health and safety of our fishermen, boaters, and the workers engaging in the very projects that are the topic of the present debate are inconsequential. I oppose this bill so strongly because these are the people who deserve and need to be protected.

For these reasons, I offer my complete support to my colleague from California, Representative Speier, one of the many Members here today whose constituents will suffer directly under this provision. Her amendment to cut section two from this bill represents at least a small step toward limiting the appalling health and environmental consequences of H.R. 2021, and I support that amendment unconditionally.

My district is home to the Port of Oakland, the fourth busiest container port in the United States. Large container ships like the ones we're talking about here produce enormous amounts of pollution, and when loading and unloading at ports and docks can contribute drastic health consequences for the surrounding communities. These communities, like West Oakland in my district, are often home to poor communities and people of color, groups that remain under-represented in this body. Sacrificing their health and the health of coastal communities all around this country to increase the profits of big polluters like Shell Oil Company is flat-out wrong. I do not and will not support it.

This bill would allow the world's largest oil companies to circumvent pollution standards that have protected our air and health for decades. Rolling back environmental protections hurts my constituents, and it hurts Americans all around the country.

H.R. 2021 is bad for our health, bad for our environment, and bad for our country. I stand firmly with my colleagues in opposing this bill.

I want to thank our ranking member for yielding and for her leadership and for this very important debate this morning.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, this debate, I believe, should have taken place at least 2 weeks prior to the war in Libya. The War Powers Act specifically forbids Armed Forces from engaging militarily in foreign lands for more than 60 days without congressional authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. And we should really make no mistake about it: We are at war in Libya today. We have been actively fighting the Qadhafi regime in Libya since March 19, which is 97 days ago.

No one in this House now would defend the deplorable actions of Colonel Qadhafi and the decades he has spent repressing the Libyan people. But no one should fail to recognize that the actions we have taken in Libya since March 19 amount to a war. Missile strikes, naval attacks, bombings of strategic military targets, all of these actions would be a declaration of war if a foreign country launched such attacks on any country, including our own.

We have committed $1 billion and thousands of servicemen and -women to a new front. And regardless of one's position on our involvement in Libya, one point is crystal clear: This debate should have happened before we launched a war in Libya.

On March 30 of this year, I joined with Representatives Woolsey, Honda, Grijalva, and Waters, and we sent a letter to Speaker Boehner urging him to bring forth an authorization of the use of military force in Libya, stressing the need for a robust debate and vote in line with our congressional prerogative and, indeed, obligations.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Unfortunately, the Speaker did not grant our request, and we find ourselves here today debating this important constitutional issue well over 60 and even 90 days after hostilities began. So you will have to forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical about the political motives behind the floor actions that are scheduled today. Because we really need to understand that this is serious business, and it should not be politicized.

This is not about this President or any President. This is not about politics or isolationism. This is about the War Powers Act and the Constitution. It's about standing up for this body and our important role in one of the most solemn and one of the most important decisions that we make as lawmakers, and that's the decision to declare war.

Unfortunately, this resolution offered by my colleague from Florida (Mr. Rooney) that is before us today has many exemptions that are very broad and, of course, fall short of ending this war. I have some concerns in terms of some of the limitations and exemptions, in terms of making sure that this does not broaden the war with these exemptions.

And I would hope the author, Mr. Rooney, would be able to clarify these items and reassure us that: (1) reconnaissance would be limited to intelligence gathering and not tactical operations and (2) refueling would be limited to intelligence and reconnaissance, not operations.

Again, I hope we can clarify these points because we must stand up for the Constitution and this body.

I hope that today we stand up for our Constitution. We must oppose, I believe, the resolution that gives carte blanche authorization to continue the war in Libya after the fact.

And I want to thank again our ranking member for allowing for this debate, and the chairman of the Rules Committee and Mr. Kucinich and everyone for at least encouraging this debate to move forward. I guess we could say today better late than never, but I certainly wish we had adhered to our constitutional responsibility before the military engagement began.

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank our ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for your leadership for this time, but also for your patriotism and for your commitment to our country and to our troops. And it is an exciting committee, and it's a very important committee. And I want to thank Chairman Rogers for your leadership, and for also his service and for the attempts to bring this committee together in the spirit of bipartisanship.

While I think everyone knows that I respect and support the President and I applaud him for his tremendous leadership on so many issues, like many of

my colleagues, I was tremendously disappointed to hear the President's announcement last night.

Almost three out of four Americans want to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, and this was far from the significant reduction that the American people were expecting. A token troop reduction of 10,000 by the end of this year and waiting another year to remove another 23,000, which in total would merely reverse the 2009 troop escalation, is really, for me, unacceptable; and quite frankly, it flies in the face of the growing bipartisan calls across our war-weary Nation to exit Afghanistan and to refocus on our priorities here at home.

Now, I voted against this original authorization in 2001, which was a very difficult vote for me to cast because I ended up being the only one to cast a ``no'' vote. But I knew then that that authorization was an authorization that was a blank check to wage war for any reason, against any nation, for any length of time. And this has now become the longest war in American history.

As we spend over $2 billion a week on this decade-long war, critical programs--like programs for women and children, nutrition programs, food stamps and Medicare--are on the chopping block. So enough is enough.

There is no military solution in Afghanistan. And in a world where terrorism can emanate from the tribal regions of Yemen or a hotel room in Germany, we cannot adequately address these challenges through a military-first, boots-on-the-ground strategy. It is clear that occupying states and nation-building does not make for effective counterterrorism, and the financial and human costs of continuing this war are indefensible.

With over 1,600 troops killed and tens of thousands more seriously wounded in Afghanistan, the human toll continues to mount each and every day. So we need to bring our troops home and use the savings for our economic challenges here at home, especially for job creation. That's why I'm going to offer some amendments to this bill to end funding for combat operations in Afghanistan and to provide, though, funding for the protection and the safe and orderly withdrawal of our young men and women as quickly as possible. I urge Members to support this amendment.

I will also be offering an amendment to transfer the $5 billion Pentagon war slush fund to a deficit reduction.

I want to explain these amendments today during general debate, so I appreciate the time because I think this is important for the public to know that there is a $5 billion Pentagon war slush fund just sitting over there. So I want to offer an amendment to take that war slush fund, $5 billion, and apply it to deficit reduction.

Especially in this time of deficits and a struggling economy, I hope we can all agree that we should not be handing the Pentagon a $5 billion blank check for a war slush fund that has little accountability and runs counter to our constitutional duty to control the purse strings through this Congress.

We also cannot forget about the 45,000 troops in Iraq. I will be offering an amendment to ensure that all of them are brought home at the end of the year as agreed to in our Status of Forces Agreement. My friend and colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, and myself will offer an amendment to simply require the Department of Defense to provide audit-ready financial statements. That's a pretty simple request, I would think. Now, this $648 billion budget is $17 billion above last year's budget. It could be cut at least by $75 billion to $100 billion without, mind you, jeopardizing our troops or our national security.

As the daughter of a military veteran, let me just say that I support each and every dollar in this budget for our troops because they deserve our support for their safety and their protection and their economic security; but we should be cutting waste, fraud and abuse out of the Pentagon. And we should begin to cut these Cold War-era weapon systems that have no mission, no reason to be developed in this new world of terrorism when we see ourselves faced with asymmetrical warfare. It just doesn't make any sense. So $648 billion is too much; it's much too much. We can ensure our national security, protect our troops, and reinvest some of these dollars to create jobs at home with a rational defense budget.

We will never pay down our debt as long as the military budget continues to soar.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career of Carole M. Watson as she retires from over 30 years of nonprofit management, including the last ten years as Chief Community Investment Officer with the United Way of the Bay Area, UWBA. I join our community in celebrating the many ways in which her life's work has contributed to the success and well-being of countless people throughout the Bay Area and beyond.

In addition to holding a Master of Social Work from Wayne State University and a bachelor's degree in Education & Social Work from Western Michigan University, Ms. Watson completed the United Way of America/Annie E. Casey Foundation's Family Strengthening for Success Fellowship at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2002. Ms. Watson's experience in academia also includes serving as a university faculty member for undergraduate and graduate students of Social Work while residing in Tennessee.

During three decades of leadership experience in the nonprofit sector, Ms. Watson served two Urban League affiliates located in Nashville, Tennessee and the San Francisco Bay Area. In her Urban League roles, she managed job development, led training programs and coordinated job fairs serving thousands of job seekers. Over the years, she has helped over 7,000 job seekers in securing employment opportunities with roughly 100 employers.

In her most recent role as UWBA's Chief Community Investment Officer, Ms. Watson managed grants, programs, volunteers, marketing strategies, donor cultivation, collaborative fundraising, fund distribution and community building across seven Bay Area counties.

As a member of UWBA's senior management team for the last 10 years, Ms. Watson has been known as a fearless and effective leader and mentor. She managed a $6 million portfolio with a Community Investment Team and Community Project staff, comprising over 20 members. And in 2002, she was voted the esteemed UWBA Percy C. Moore Employee of the Year by her colleagues.

The recipient of numerous honors and accolades, Ms. Watson received the National Philanthropy Day Foundation Professional Award co- sponsored by the Northern California Grant Makers and Association of Fund Raising Executives in 2006. She was also recognized as the 2006 San Francisco Boy Scouts of America's Whitney M. Young Community Leader.

Ms. Watson's dedication to improving the lives of children, youth and families through economic development is evident from her countless community affiliations and activities. Whether serving as a liaison to the United Way World Wide Income Advisory Group, creating the Earn It! Keep It! Save It! Campaign, EKS, to provide free tax preparation for eligible EITC tax filers, or serving as Board President of the Oakland Emiliano Zapata Street Academy, Ms. Watson has donated her time to lead bold initiatives for the benefit of her community. She has truly created pathways out of poverty.

On behalf of the residents of California's 9th Congressional District, Ms. Carole M. Watson, I salute you for three decades of outstanding service in assisting families to achieve financial stability and secure future success. I congratulate and thank you for your unparalleled service to our community. You have touched many lives in profound ways throughout your career, and we wish you and your family continued prosperity and happiness as you transition to this exciting new chapter of life.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to cast my votes earlier today. Had I been present to cast my votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 2055, I would have voted ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 2055, and I would have voted ``no'' on House Resolution 300.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my votes this evening. Had I been present to cast my votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on the amendment offered by Mr. LaTourette and ``yes'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Sherman. I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment offered by Mr. Amash, and finally I would have voted ``yes'' on retaining title II, the Department of Veterans Affairs.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Robert Carr. A long-time leader, activist and researcher in the prevention of HIV/AIDS and the promotion of

human rights, Dr. Carr's prolific work benefitted communities all over the world, including in Jamaica and the Caribbean. In his most recent role as Director of Policy and Advocacy at the International Coalition of AIDS Services Organizations (ICASO) in Toronto, Canada, Dr. Carr was a dynamic and effective leader. The global AIDS movement is devastated by the untimely loss of one of their most beloved colleagues. With his passing, we look to Dr. Carr's continued legacy and the outstanding quality of his life's work.

Dr. Carr became active in the field of HIV/AIDS over a decade ago, when he began to research stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV in Jamaica. In 2002, he became Executive Director of Jamaica AIDS Support for Life, a national NGO serving Jamaican society's most disenfranchised populations, including prisoners, the hearing impaired, people who use drugs, sex workers, transgender people, and gay and other men who have sex with men. In response to a lack of access to HIV and health services in Jamaica, he co-founded and was first Executive Director of the Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC), one of the first Caribbean organizations to focus on issues related to the rights and needs of sexual minorities.

As a result of his intellect, passion and talent for collaboration, Dr. Carr began a fast ascent to leadership positions within the AIDS movement and his work quickly took on a global scope. The author of several books, Dr. Carr wrote extensively on human rights and HIV, as well as on the social context that drives stigma and discrimination. From 2006 to 2008, he taught at the University of the West Indies, serving as the Coordinator of the Graduate Programmes Unit at the Caribbean Institute of Media and Communication. In recent years, Dr. Carr served on the NGO delegation to the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) and joined with other global advocates to found the Global Forum on MSM & HIV (MSMGF). He acted as a panelist for numerous Congressional Briefings in Washington D.C., worked with the LGBT Caucus and assisted with high-level meetings at the U.N., as well as countless other global policy arenas.

In these myriad roles, Dr. Carr was universally recognized for his unrelenting principles, his powerful mentorship, his unfailing efforts to build bridges across the broad HIV movement, and his larger-than- life presence. He insisted, unequivocally, that no marginalized community be left behind in the fight for social justice and the end of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. As a social worker and an academic, an attentive listener and an articulate public speaker, Dr. Carr's charming sense of humor, warmth and integrity were at the core of his dedication to activism.

Today, California's Ninth Congressional District salutes and honors Dr. Robert Carr. Our global community is indebted to his life's contribution in countless ways. Dr. Carr will always be remembered as a pioneer in advancing the health and human rights of marginalized groups, while going the extra mile to help them form an empowered, unified front. We extend our deepest condolences to Dr. Carr's family and his extended group of loved ones and colleagues. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a resolution recognizing the significance of National Caribbean-American Heritage month. This resolution acknowledges the important contributions Caribbean-Americans have made to our nation's history and culture.

Let me begin by thanking my esteemed colleagues Representative Donald Payne, Chair of the Caribbean Caucus, Congresswomen Donna Christensen and Frederica Wilson, my esteemed friend Representative John Conyers, Congressman Ed Towns, and many others who have joined me in introducing this resolution today, the first day of Caribbean-American Heritage Month.

I am also pleased that the President issued a Proclamation on May 31, 2011, declaring June 2011 to be Caribbean-American Heritage Month, as has been the practice since Congress unanimously passed House Concurrent Resolution 71 in February 2006. As a long-time supporter of the Caribbean and a frequent visitor to the region, I was very proud to see us celebrate this important commemorative month for the fifth straight year.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Claire Nelson and the Institute of Caribbean Studies as well as all the other Caribbean American organizations in Washington, my home state of California, and across the country that have worked and continue to work to make Caribbean- American Heritage Month a great success.

As the President said in his proclamation, ``Immigrants from Caribbean countries have come to America for centuries. Some came through the bondage of slavery.

Others willfully left behind the world they knew in search of a better life. Regardless of the circumstances of their arrival, they had faith their descendants would have a chance to realize their greatest potential.''

Throughout the history of the United States, this nation has been fortunate to benefit from countless individuals of Caribbean descent who have contributed to American government, politics, business, arts, education, and culture--including one of my personal mentors, the Honorable Shirley Chisholm.

Shirley Chisholm was a woman of Ba-jan and Guyanese descent, who never forgot her

Caribbean roots. She was the first African American woman elected to Congress and the first woman to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

My political involvement began as a volunteer for her historic presidential campaign in 1972. Through her mentorship, she strengthened my interest in issues important to the African Diaspora both here in the U.S. and abroad.

During Caribbean American Heritage Month, we recognize the important contributions of people like Shirley Chisholm, as well as Alexander Hamilton, Hazel Scott, Sidney Poitier, Wyclef Jean, Eric Holder, Colin Powell, Harry Belafonte, Roberto Clemente, Celia Cruz--and yes, Representatives Donna Christensen, Sheila Jackson Lee, Yvette Clarke, Frederica Wilson, Nydia Velazquez, Pedro Pierluisi--and many other persons of Caribbean descent who have helped shape this country.

Caribbean American Heritage Month reminds us of the large and diverse constituencies of Caribbean Americans in our nation, and provides us with an opportunity to celebrate and share in the rich culture of the Caribbean American community through showcases of Caribbean art, festivals, concerts, and film.

In my own district of Oakland, California, individuals and organizations celebrate the rich heritage of people of Caribbean descent through musical concerts and family picnics.

In addition to presenting us with an occasion to celebrate the legacy of Caribbean Americans, this month also provides us an opportunity to strengthen our long-term partnership with nations of the Caribbean community.

From trade, energy, and immigration to disaster preparedness and the challenging issues around HIV/AIDS, we have critical challenges we must face with our Caribbean neighbors. These challenges are regional in nature, so we must confront them together and in partnership.

One issue of the region which continues to deserve special mention is last year's earthquake in Haiti. At the international donors' conference in March 2010, fifty-eight donors pledged over $5.5 billion to support Haiti's Action Plan for Recovery and Development. According to the United Nations, as of March of this year, only about 37 percent of these funds have been disbursed. This is unacceptable. If we are to break the cycle of disaster--emergency relief--disaster in which Haiti has been trapped for many years, we must act with the same sense of urgency in reconstruction as we did immediately following the quake.

It is critical that any long-term reconstruction and development agenda is Haitian-led, that Haitian civil society and the Haitian Diaspora play a central role, and that such an agenda focuses on building the capacity of the Haitian Government to provide basic services and protect the social, civil, and political rights of its people.

Only by empowering Haitians to rebuild their own lives and their own country will we truly ``rebuild differently.''

I would like to end by stating that although the Caribbean faces many challenges, we understand that we must face them together. Despite the often turbulent history between the United States and Caribbean countries, our ties cannot be pinned down to geography alone, or economics alone, or even history alone. The region continues to shape us as Americans as much as we here continue to shape the Caribbean.

So I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure to honor our nation's Caribbean American community and the rich gifts that they have given and continue to give this country.

Let us continue to celebrate the rich diversity of this nation of immigrants and recognize that it will forever be the great blessing and strength of our country.

First, let me thank Chairman McKeon and also Ranking Member Smith for agreeing to include my amendment in this en bloc amendment for consideration. I urge support for these en bloc amendments and specifically for my amendment, 117, which prohibits funding to construct permanent military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have consistently, and we have successfully, worked to include this prohibition of funding for permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Due to our efforts and the support of all of our colleagues here on a bipartisan basis who understand the importance of prohibiting permanent bases in these countries, this language has historically been included in the Defense authorization and appropriations bills and signed into law by President Bush and President Obama. In fact, in working with our colleagues, we were successful in placing the same language in the continuing resolution which was passed by the House and signed into law by President Obama in April of 2011.

By including this language in this bill, we are absolutely being clear that the policy of the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq has never included permanent bases and will never include permanent bases.

However, I'm disappointed that we didn't go one step further today by considering my amendment to begin a sizeable and significant reduction of our Armed Forces beginning this July so that we can begin to end the longest war in American history.

But I am urging our colleagues to support the amendment prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's critical in fighting the perception held by many in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are an occupying army or that we intend to remain as an occupying force. That perception fuels the insurgency and the Taliban and makes our troops more vulnerable and further threatens our national security.

So I want to thank the chairman again and our ranking member for the time and for including this amendment in the en bloc package of amendments.

First let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

I would just say to the gentleman, you are absolutely correct, and I oppose this rule because this is such an important issue that affects our national security, but also the economic security of this country.

This is an issue that warrants much more deliberation and debate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the authorization to use force to go to war in Afghanistan came before us on that terrible day of 9/14, there may have been 1 hour of debate, if that long. And so I think at this moment, as we are turning the corner, hopefully, we should have a full debate on the direction, the timeframe which Mr. McGovern has in his resolution, and also a plan to begin to end the war in Afghanistan.

We must have a political solution and reconciliation in Afghanistan because most military experts have told us there's no military solution in Afghanistan. We know and we hear that if it's going well, we need more money and more troops; and if it's going poorly, we need more money and more troops. So we need here in the House to have this debate. What should we do and how should we do it?

So this amendment, this proposal by Mr. McGovern, warrants much more than a 5-minute debate because it's such an important issue to the country. Over 70-some percent now of the

American people believe it's time to wind down. Many of us believe that beginning in July we should put forth a proposal for a significant and sizeable reduction as the President indicated he would do in the past. Many believe that we should not fund any more combat operations in Afghanistan and that, in fact, we should only use our funding for force protection and to bring our young men and women home.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern.

What the McGovern-Jones amendment seeks to do is begin that debate, to get us on course and to allow this House of Representatives to discuss what in the world should come next.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, I thank you for your hard work, and just say that I think that it's about time now that we have a rule on such an important issue that allows for this body to engage in debate. Our troops deserve that, the American people deserve that, and certainly we need to begin to reflect public opinion on this because the public gets it. They know that $100 billion a year is no drop in the bucket in terms of our resources. We have a deficit, we have an economic crisis throughout the country, and we certainly need to find some balance between our national security interests and our economic security interest. Beginning to develop a plan to get out of Afghanistan warrants a full-fledged discussion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do intend to withdraw this amendment, but I'd like to just say why I offered it and why I think this debate is so important.

We're talking about now trying to address a deficit, which we all want to address. We do not want to leave this debt to our children and our grandchildren. That's a given. The big issue I think for many of us is how do we get there and what do we do? And how do we ensure that we have a budget that reflects, yes, our national security priorities, but also a budget that protects the most vulnerable in our country and a budget that ensures that we have priorities to create jobs and to turn this economy around?

And so I believe that we have to talk about not only discretionary spending and entitlement cuts, which the other side is talking about and making such an issue of. We have not really talked about the Pentagon budget. We have not talked about looking at what it would mean if we cut the defense budget back to 2008 as the Republicans want to do with regard to our domestic discretionary spending.

And so what this amendment basically does is just say that if we are going to do this, we need to engage in a debate that is honest and we need to put everything on the table, and that includes the Pentagon. And in fact, we need to begin to look at how we cut back to 2008 levels.

We all know that there is waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon. We still haven't been able to come up with a way to audit the Pentagon funds, and so we need to do that. I think we should actually put a freeze on defense spending until we know where our tax dollars are going and until we know that our tax dollars are being spent in a prudent way. We don't even know that because we can't even get an audit of the Pentagon.

We also need to recognize that there are weapons systems that do not need to be built because they have nothing to do with our national security interests now. I mean, we are out of the Cold War. We are looking at asymmetrical warfare. We need to have a research and development program and a defense budget that reflects this new world that we're in, rather than going back to the Cold War and developing these Cold War-era weapons systems. So there are billions of dollars in those accounts.

And so it is just prudent, I think, upon us to really begin to look at why, if we're going to start cutting food stamps and Community Development Block Grants and housing, and if we start cutting workforce training and

Head Start and health care and all of the areas which the majority of the American people rely on as taxpayers, then we need to really look at where a huge portion of our budget falls, and that's within the Pentagon's budget.

Also, we again want to talk about reducing the deficit, cutting the deficit. There is no way we will even touch this unless we begin to look at the defense budget and the Pentagon's budget.

And so basically, once again, this amendment, what it does is it forces us to pause; it forces us to look at what type of savings there would be if we go back to 2008 as we want to do with domestic discretionary spending.

Again, I hope that we can discuss this amendment, have this debate. I know there are not enough votes to get this passed, but I do know that we need to begin this process of looking at and examining the defense budget so that the American people can know where their tax dollars are going and to recognize that there are billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse that we need to look at in the Pentagon budget.

And we need to put all of this on hold and go back to 2008 levels, be honest with the American people, and begin to have some real debate about deficit reduction, job creation, and the reduction of spending.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment. Thank you for the time, and let's hope that we can have a debate on the Pentagon budget at some point, a real debate.