Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I missed rollcall vote number 175 on H.R. 793, and rollcall vote number 176 on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 27. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

Mr. Speaker, today I missed rollcall vote No. 181 on H. Res. 170. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this vote.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, of which I'm proud to be an original cosponsor, and I'd like to thank Representative Kucinich for his work on this resolution and also mainly for his continued and passioned defense of congressional war powers authority. Also, I, too, want to commend Congressman Jones for his leadership on this issue and so many other issues.

This resolution is simple and straightforward. It directs the President to end the near decade-long war in Afghanistan and to redeploy United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan by the end of this year. Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden still has not been found. This resolution comes at a time when a growing number of Members of Congress, military and foreign policy experts, and, in particular, the American people, are calling for an immediate end to this war. Enough is enough.

Let me just say something. First of all, we've heard that polls are showing that nearly three-quarters of the American public favors action to speed up U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Yes, the Congress authorized the use of force in 2001, which I voted against because it gave the President, any President, a blank check to use force, anytime, anyplace, anywhere in the world for any period of time. It was not a declaration of war, yet this has been the longest war in American history, the longest war in American history.

As the daughter of a 25-year Army officer who served in two wars, let me salute our troops, let me honor our troops and just say our servicemen and -women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in Afghanistan. But they have been put in an impossible situation. It's time to bring them home. There is no military solution in Afghanistan.

As we fight here in Congress to protect investments in education, health care, public health and safety, the war in Afghanistan will cost more than $100 billion in 2011 alone.

No one can deny that the increasing costs of the war in Afghanistan are constraining our efforts to invest in job creation and jump-start the economy.

Yesterday, I joined a bipartisan group of 80 Members of Congress in sending a letter to President Obama calling for a significant and sizeable reduction in United States troop levels in Afghanistan no later than July of this year.

This debate that we're having today here should have occurred in 2001 when Congress authorized this blank check. It was barely debated. It was barely debated, and the rush to war has created not less anger towards the United States but more hostilities, and it's not in our national security nor economic interests to continue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to oppose this continuing resolution. Once again, the majority is reading from a very familiar script that imposes budgetary pain on vulnerable communities that can least endure these budget cuts. For a third consecutive time now, the majority is presenting a temporary spending bill totaling $6 billion in spending cuts and $2.6 billion in earmark cuts to very meaningful programs. And once again, this CR does nothing to promote job creation. The majority pledged to develop jobs when they regained control of the House, but they continue to renege on their promise.

It is important to emphasize that the proposed cuts will hit communities that can least afford these hits. The loss of $185 million in State and local law enforcement assistance provided by Byrne grants will further squeeze tight police budgets. With these cuts, communities will be struggling to find funding to support vital police functions. At a time when methamphetamine drug use and drug trafficking is on the rise, this CR includes cuts to COPS to combat the spread of meth use and distribution.

Rather than continue to fund vital programs at the community level that work, we are witnessing budgeting through biweekly CRs. And these cuts will further harm highly vulnerable communities that rely greatly on COPS policing services and technology grants.

Now, also, my constituents regularly call my office asking what source of funding is going to replace the earmarks that historically have supported jobs, small businesses, schools, nonprofits. Also, I continue to press administration witnesses in budget justification hearings regarding the impact of the elimination of earmarks and what alternative resources will replace them.

I hope we vote ``no'' on the CR.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want to know where are the

jobs. After 10 weeks of controlling the House, Republicans have no plan to create jobs, no plan to spur our economic growth.

Instead of listening to the American people and making jobs their number one priority, Republicans passed a budget that will result in 700,000 new layoffs. And what's the response? So be it. Taking food out of the mouths of hungry children by cutting WIC? So be it. Dropping 218,000 kids from the Head Start Program? So be it. Declaring a war on women by eliminating family planning services and punishing the one in five women across America who visit a Planned Parenthood clinic? So be it. Denying the extension of unemployment benefits to those who've reached that 99-week limit and are struggling to make ends meet? So be it.

And now denying homeowners to stay in their homes, the help that they need, by eliminating programs to prevent foreclosures? So be it.

The Republicans No Jobs, their So Be It agenda, it's a failure on all counts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the Peace Corps during this National Peace Corps Week.

I would also like to thank Congressman Garamendi, a returned Peace Corps volunteer himself, for his leadership in organizing this special order on this historic occasion.

Today, March 1, 2011 the Peace Corps celebrates its 50th anniversary. It is with the historic contributions of this organization in mind, that I proudly acknowledge the important work of more than two hundred thousand Peace Corps volunteers since the agency's inception in 1961.

It is not surprising that year in and year out Americans are eager to do even more. While more than 13,000 Americans apply annually to serve their country in Peace Corps, serious budget constraints provide placements for roughly 30 percent of applicants.

President Obama has rightly called for doubling the size of the Peace Corps in order to meet this demand, as well as the overwhelming need for additional volunteers around the globe.

This is a pledge that we must keep.

I am proud to report that California has been and continues to be the largest producer of Peace Corps volunteers with more than 1,100 people currently serving abroad.

My home District, California's 9th Congressional District, can be called home by more than 20 current volunteers who have committed themselves to the Peace Corps mission of world peace and friendship through service.

The University of California, Berkeley located in my district has consistently received top or near top honors for producing the most Peace Corps Volunteers, producing 92 volunteers in 2010 alone.

In fact, UC Berkeley has contributed over 3,400 volunteers to the Peace Corps Program since 1961.

Through volunteer work abroad in fields including health education, food security, local business development, education about HIV/AIDS, and agricultural and environmental improvement, the work of the Peace Corps improves people's lives.

At the same time, this vital work enhances the credibility of the United States abroad, fostering the exchange of ideas, and uniting cultures around values of peace, tolerance, and prosperity.

That is why I have introduced H.R. 384, The Peace Stamp for the Peace Corps Act, which calls for the introduction of a semi-postal Peace Stamp, which will sell at a slightly higher rate than the normal 44 cents, in order to create additional revenues for the Peace Corps.

What better time to celebrate the legacy and significance of this great organization with a semi-postal stamp than on the occasion of the Peace Corps' historic 50th anniversary.

I encourage my colleagues to join as co-sponsors of H.R. 384, which most importantly, would generate additional resources for the work of the Peace Corps through the generous support of the American people.

There is no denying the impact of U.S. foreign assistance programs around the world, and the Peace Corps is a perfect example of our nation's will to promote peaceful relations, the exchange of ideas, and to assist and empower those who are most in need.

Before I finish, it should be noted that the Peace Corps enjoys bipartisan support in Congress, not the least of which from our four Returned Peace Corps Volunteers currently serving in the House: Reps. Garamendi, Farr, Petri, and Honda.

I would also like to take a moment to recognize a man who embodied the Peace Corps' mission of `peace and friendship through service', and that is Sargent Shriver.

Mr. Shriver, who passed away this January, was a true public servant who dedicated his life to promoting justice and creating opportunity not only in America but throughout the world.

In his work and personal life, and most notably as the first Director of the Peace Corps, Mr. Shriver's dedication to this cause has come to define generations of U.S. volunteers working at home and abroad for the betterment of society through the offering of a steady, helping hand.

During National Peace Corps Week we salute past and present Volunteers who selflessly serve abroad in support of the Peace Corps' vital mission.

Today we say happy 50th anniversary to the Peace Corps, and should similarly rededicate ourselves to supporting and strengthening the Peace Corps program for ours and future generations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Let me thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for, once again, coming to the floor and organizing us to make sure that we sound the alarm, to make sure that we put out the facts about what is taking place. Tonight, of course, we are talking about the union-busting efforts of Governor Walker in Wisconsin.

So thank you, Congresswoman Christensen, for your leadership and for your tireless work.

I am pleased to participate in this Special Order tonight as we provide some perspective about the importance of preserving and respecting the process of collective bargaining and of supporting the rights of public employees to protect union benefits won by virtue of the blood, sweat, and tears of unionized workers.

We are talking about the implications of the union-busting efforts undertaken by Wisconsin Governor Walker; but the reality is there is a sweeping antiunion sentiment overtaking our Nation, and public employees who are union workers are being used as scapegoats to balance State budgets. This practice is not only wrong; it is cruel and is calculated. Let's take a look at the facts.

In Wisconsin, for example, Governor Walker is attempting to ram through legislation that cuts State employee benefits and strips unions of their collective bargaining rights by allowing them to bargain only on wages, keeping benefits and other issues off the table, severely limiting union say on hiring, firing, assignments, and other work rules. The Governor appears ready to rush through radical changes that would take away rights from workers without making any effort--any effort--to talk to those workers, much less negotiate a fair agreement with them.

Governor Walker is calling employee unions unreasonable, but his administration has made absolutely no effort to work with or to even contact any of the unions he is attacking. He is demonizing public employees who are protesting at the capital. That's why 74 percent of Wisconsin residents oppose this and the Republicans' bill to take away these rights from the struggling middle-income/middle class residents of Wisconsin.

His proposals are an affront to all workers. When he says that State employees should contribute more, all he is really saying is that they should accept massive cuts in salary without being offered a seat at the negotiating table.

And we're not talking about huge salaries here.

This is not about budgeting; this is about union busting. And it is the kind of policy that will only hurt workers in the State and across the country, but it only leads to stalled economic growth and the slashing of jobs.

The process of collective bargaining has led to the rise of the middle class. It is a fair process that allows employers to sit at the table and craft an agreement that serves both parties. It's a fundamentally American process. It's a democratic process. Yet Governor Walker is bent on undermining decades of hard-earned concessions won by organized labor and its membership. If the Governor is successful in his union-busting efforts, we will see further assaults around the country on union workers and in other States that are really experiencing budgetary woes.

So in response to Governor Walker's action, elected officials--and we are very proud of and stand in solidarity with the elected officials in Wisconsin--decided to protest against his actions.

Public employees have shown that they are serious about balancing the budget by agreeing to Governor Walker's pension and health care requests, concessions that the Governor himself says will solve the budget challenge, but still it seems like this is not enough. The Governor's efforts are denying the rights of tax-paying nurses, educators, emergency response workers--all people who probably are our next-door neighbors. We all know public employees who this will hurt. These are union workers who need and should have a voice.

At the same time, he is pressing for a bill that will do nothing to fix the budget. This bill will shatter relationships among educators and school leaders, undermining current innovations around teacher compensation, evaluation and improvement. It will really have a chilling effect on teacher recruitment and sends a terrible message about the value of public service.

Mr. Speaker, there are ominous signs on the horizon that reflect a growing sentiment by Governors who seem bent on union-busting, anti- democratic initiatives to really undo longstanding collective bargaining agreements. Union workers and public employees are being used as scapegoats to balance the budget. Teachers, nurses, police, firemen and others who perform their jobs dutifully are being treated shabbily by this Governor and those who share his union-busting and anti-collective bargaining philosophy. I hope that cooler heads prevail, and I urge the Governor to pull the State back from this radical governmental overreach.

I see my colleague from Wisconsin, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, will be with us. And I just want to say to Congresswoman Moore that my constituents in the Ninth Congressional District stand in solidarity with you and with all of those bold and brave leaders who have left the State, and also on behalf of all of the union workers and all of those who have come to the Capitol to say enough is enough. So thank you, Congresswoman Moore, for your leadership.

Thank you, Congresswoman Christensen.

Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding. I also thank you and your staff for coordinating not only this Special Order but each Special Order each and every Monday night, or the first night when we are in session, but especially tonight as we close out Black History Month. This is such an important time for this discussion. I also thank you, Congresswoman Christensen, for your visionary and bold leadership as you continue to make history. Truly, you have done remarkable work here in this body.

It is really especially poignant that this year during Black History Month, the Republican leadership has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2011 that will fall most heavily on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society: African Americans, Latinos, and the poor, those who have been shut out of the American Dream.

At a time when we should be remembering and uplifting the accomplishments and contributions of African Americans to the history, culture, civil rights and economy of America, we are literally during this month debating steps that will severely undercut and undermine that legacy.

Can we, Mr. Speaker, cut nearly $750 million from the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children, the WIC program, while we have a record high unemployment rate throughout our country, but especially among African Americans? We can't do that. The unemployment rate among African Americans is over 15 percent. Many African American women rely on WIC while they seek jobs which we are trying to hopefully create.

How can we cut $317 million in funding for vital family planning health services provided through a network of clinics throughout the country that serves nearly one in five women? These programs are vital, not just in saving lives through cancer screening, HIV and STD testing and contraceptive services, but for providing a link for the many poor and low-income women in terms of their link to the public health system. Many of these women are African American women.

And how can we cut nearly $1.1 billion from the Head Start program, which will effectively knock out 200,000 children from participating in this critical early education program which helps provide health, nutritional and support services to prepare children for school? Many African Americans who were part of the Head Start program are now making history in our country because of this great early childhood education program.

The other side has made it clear that no matter who is impacted by these

cuts--women, infants, children, the working poor, people of color, African Americans--their response consists of only three words: So be it.

So be it if 800,000 jobs are lost. So be it if people are put out on the street with no access to homeless assistance grants or temporary housing. So be it if people don't get enough nutritional support or if kids have to go hungry. So be it.

That is not what the civil rights movement was about. We should be working together to build up a nation, instead of tear down the very programs and institutions that have contributed to our Nation's growth and success.

We should be working together to reduce inequality, help the unemployed, and get our economy moving again. Above all, we should be working to create jobs. That's what so many prominent African American leaders have fought for over the years--from those who are well known the world over, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to people who are sometimes well known just in their own neighborhood.

Tonight there is one person I want to mention who influenced my life and the direction I took, our late beloved former Congresswoman Shirley Anita Chisholm.

In 1968, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm was the first African American woman elected to Congress, and she was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. We celebrate, this year, 40 years of this great institution in our Congress, the conscience of the Congress.

It is the 42nd anniversary of the election of Congresswoman Chisholm who represented her Brooklyn-based congressional district with grace and distinction for 14 years, earning a reputation as one of the House's most eloquent orators and greatest champions of human rights, social and economic justice.

In 1972, Congresswoman Chisholm again made history when she became the first African American to run for the Presidential nomination of a major party. That campaign captured the imagination of millions and inspired countless individuals to engage in the political process for the first time. And I know for a fact that Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm paved the way for our great President Obama to be able to win the Presidency 2 years ago.

Congresswoman Chisholm was a catalyst for change, giving voice to the overlooked and underrepresented members of our society: people of color, women, children, and the African American community. And she fought for the unemployed. She fought for those who wanted to work; for those who were seeking the American Dream. I can't help but wonder what she would say right now if she knew this was taking place. I'm sure she does know this is taking place, and I can feel her telling us that we have to fight the good fight because her legacy is so important within the context of creating jobs that we are trying to do for our country.

Later this week, I will be introducing two pieces of legislation to honor the work of Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. The first would recognize and celebrate the 42nd anniversary of her election to Congress, and the second would call on the Postal Service to issue a commemorative stamp honoring the life and accomplishments of Congresswoman Chisholm. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these bills.

As we work to finalize funding for the 2011 fiscal year, let us remember that budgets are moral documents. And as Congresswoman Chisholm said: ``When morality comes up against profit, it is seldom that profit loses.'' So we have to stand up for morality.

Reverend Jim Wallis and Sojourners challenged us. They asked us: What would Jesus cut? Programs to help the poor or wasteful weapons systems at the Pentagon? Ending the war in Afghanistan or programs to feed and shelter the poor?

This weekend, once again, I will be participating in the Faith and Politics Civil Rights Pilgrimage. We are going to Selma, Montgomery, and Birmingham, Alabama, the epicenter of the civil rights movement. We will be led by our hero, a warrior, a great civil rights leader, our colleague, Congressman John Lewis, who sacrificed so much for civil and human rights and economic justice.

I have participated in this pilgrimage many times, and I always feel a sense of gratitude to Congressman Lewis and to Rosa Parks and to Dr. King, to Shirley Chisholm, to all of those who fought so hard for equality and jobs and freedom.

This year, however, I feel that many of these gains, mind you, that all of our great civil rights leaders fought for are about to be eroded due to the increasing income inequality and the reckless budget cuts, which will gut so much in the way of our country's response to the civil rights movement. So, as Republicans fight us so hard to enact budget cuts that will destroy nearly 800,000 jobs, be assured that, in honoring the legacy of our great black leaders, we will fight back.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is unbelievable. But I rise today in support of my amendment.

It really does hit at the heart of the issue of fiscal responsibility, discussed with such passion on the floor over the past few days. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why a point of order would be called on this amendment. It's short and to the point.

If enacted, all it would do is freeze the Department of Defense programs at the fiscal 2010 level, unless the financial statements of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010 are validated as ready for audit within 6 months of enactment of this act.

This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve personnel, and National Guard personnel accounts, as well as the defense health program account from this potential funding freeze.

Let me take a moment and clarify what is expected of the Department of Defense in this amendment.

My amendment would simply require a determination that the Department's financial statements comply with generally accepted accounting principles, applicable laws, regulations, and that they reflect reliable internal controls. These are just basics if you are managing a budget.

Sadly, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the GAO have documented time and time again the Department's inability to answer this basic question: Where are our defense dollars going?

I would like to summarize just a few highlights from a 2009 Pentagon Inspector General's report on the subject of DOD audit activities and financial controls.

The Department of Defense ``acknowledged that it does not meet accounting standards for the financial reporting of public accounts payable because it lacks standard procedures for recording, reporting, and reconciling the amounts of the financial accounting and reporting systems.''

We're talking about a $700 billion budget. No standard procedures for recording, reporting, and reconciling these amounts.

The Department of Defense ``continues to enter material amounts of unsupported accounting entries.'' In other words, they are balancing the books with figures not tied to specific programs or expenditures.

The Department of Defense audit trails ``for estimated environmental liabilities are insufficient, and there is uncertainty regarding the accounting estimates used to calculate the reported environmental liability.''

And, lastly, ``despite efforts and limited progress towards auditable financial statements, DOD still struggles with material control weaknesses that make the financial data unreliable.''

Until these and any other weaknesses in this $700 billion budget are resolved, DOD will not be able to meet its goal of an unqualified audit.

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

That is kind of hard to believe. We're talking about taxpayer dollars; we're talking about a huge deficit, a recession. We can't even audit the Department of Defense until 2017. It doesn't make any sense.

It's unacceptable that we are still developing plans. Do you hear me? Developing plans for the Department of Defense? This is almost laughable. Developing plans for the Department of Defense to have its fiscal house in order until 6 years from now, 2017. It makes no sense.

The problem is not newly discovered, and further delay is unacceptable given the enormous and increasing proportion of Federal dollars going toward the defense budget. Even if we do freeze base Defense Department appropriations at fiscal year 2010 levels, if we wait until 2017, Congress will watch more than $3 trillion--you hear me again?--three trillion taxpayer dollars will be allowed, once again, to go to a black hole at the Pentagon, with no oversight, no accountability, and no consequences.

In the 1990s, Congress was promised these financial deficiencies would be solved by 1997. The timeline was delayed to 2007. That was in the early 2000s. Is there any expectation that the 2017 timeline will not be delayed without Congress demonstrating a willingness to hold the Defense Department accountable? Come on.

I think that this should be a bipartisan vote. We should look at this amendment. It should not be subject to a point of order. We have to have some fiscal responsibility in our defense fund.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, when you talk about fiscal responsibility with the Defense Department, taxpayers' dollars, trillions and trillions of dollars that are unauditable, there should not be a point of order.

These are our dollars, our constituents' dollars. They deserve a vote to see who wants to make sure that there is some fiscal responsibility at the Department of Defense.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just thank Congressman Nadler for his ongoing support, consistent support for efforts to end the war and for offering this amendment, which is really very straightforward.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, let me just be clear up front, that our service men and women have performed with incredible courage and commitment in Afghanistan. They have done everything asked of them. But the truth is that they have been put in an impossible situation. In fact, this concern of ``war without end'' is why I opposed the resolution. I know we disagreed with that, but many of us agree now that we should not have this war without end continued. But I opposed the use of military force on September 14 because it was a blank check, I believed then, and it remains one now.

There are a few things we know with certainty regarding the situation in Afghanistan. We know 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 least unable, to meaningfully root out corruption within his own administration. We know that the United States troop presence has increased from somewhere around 5,000 troops in 2002 to more than 100,000 troops in 2011. At the same time, military and civilian casualties have increased at record rates. 2010, unfortunately, was the deadliest year in Afghanistan.

We also know that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan has been all but eliminated. The administration has been consistent in its assessment that there are maybe between 50 and 100 members of al Qaeda remaining in Afghanistan. The fact is the modern threat of terrorism can emanate from the tribal regions of Yemen or, yes, a hotel room in Germany. It's not feasible or in our national security interest to address this threat through a military-first, boots on the ground strategy. 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. The United States has squandered more than $1.1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economists estimate the total direct and indirect costs of these two wars by their end may be a total of $6 trillion.

No one can deny that the increasing costs of the war in Afghanistan are constraining our efforts to invest in job creation and jump-start the economy. At the same time we are fighting here in Congress to protect investments in education, health care, public health and safety, transportation, the war in Afghanistan will cost more than $100 billion in 2011.

Regardless of the situation in Afghanistan, the Pentagon will come back to us and ask for more time, more troops and more resources. If we're not doing so well there, they'll ask for more time, more troops, more resources. If we're doing well there, they will say we want more time, more resources and more troops.

It's time to say enough is enough. It's time to begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan. We should do so today. I speak today as a daughter of a lieutenant colonel who fought in several wars, one who knows the trauma and the devastation of wars on families.

I want to just thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership and I hope that we all will support my legislation that I introduced today, the Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the Pence amendment and the war on women throughout this bill. And to the gentleman from Indiana, just take a look at what is being proposed and why I call it a war on women.

First, the elimination of funding for lifesaving family planning programs funded by title X which help provide a range of critical services, including testing for sexually transmitted infections, contraceptives, and annual health exams which, by the way, do not include abortions services, though I wish that law was overturned.

This war on women totally eliminates the President's teen pregnancy prevention initiative which supports evidence-based sex education and are specifically designed to reduce abortion. It imposes a funding restriction on how the District of Columbia can use its own funds to pay for health care and abortion services. It includes an amendment to restrict State Medicaid funding for family planning, which are predominantly women of color in many communities.

This is really a shame and a disgrace. This includes an amendment to reinstate the Federal refusal rule issued in the waning days of the Bush administration which would dramatically expand the current ability of health providers to refuse to provide health care services that they oppose ideologically while jeopardizing the ability of patients to get health care. And that's just on the domestic front.

The bill eliminates funding for the United Nations Population Fund, which provides critical reproductive health care, including family planning services to the world's poorest women and which does not provide abortion services, though they are much needed. This bill would also reinstate the global gag rule and prevent family planning organizations that provide abortions with their own private money from receiving Federal funds. This bill cuts $100 million from USAID's family planning programs.

But that's not enough for some people, as an amendment was filed to completely, mind you, completely eliminate these programs which help prevent more than 7.8 million unintended pregnancies around the world.

These decisions by the Republican majority will endanger women's health, severely restrict women's rights, insert the government into the private medical decisions of women and their families, and are nothing short of an all-out war against women.

And we are fighting back. Instead of working together to get our economy moving again, to help the unemployed, and to create jobs, the Republicans are seeking to impose an ideological agenda on the country. And now we have the Pence amendment, an amendment that would restrict title X funding from going to Planned Parenthood, one of the oldest, most important, most trusted, most utilized public health organizations in the country.

Let's be clear, this is not about abortion. Existing restrictions prevent Federal funding for abortion. This is about a direct attack on an organization that provides critical health services aimed largely at women in underserved communities throughout the country.

With over 85 local affiliates and more than 800 health centers across the country, the services provided by Planned Parenthood are invaluable. Every year, Planned Parenthood affiliates see nearly 3 million patients and provide contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients and over 1.1 million pregnancy tests. They provide nearly 1 million Pap tests, identifying about 93,000 women at risk of cervical cancer. They provide 830,000 breast exams, nearly 4 million tests for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. They provide health education for nearly 1.2 million people.

How are any of these activities objectionable? Are you against women getting breast exams? Do you object to women and girls getting tested for HIV? Are you opposed to women controlling their own bodies and determining if and when they want to get pregnant? Let's be clear, government funding does not make up the whole sum of Planned Parenthood's finances, but government funding does provide invaluable support to help local health centers provide services for women to avoid cancer, to protect their health, and to lead healthy and fulfilling lives.

So let's stop this attack on a trusted health provider, and let's stop this war on women. That's not what the American people want. They want jobs. They want a chance to work hard and take care of their families. They don't want to argue with their insurance provider or with their employer or their government or their elected officials about abortion. We should be working together to unite our country and to tackle the challenges that Americans face each and every day, not pursuing divisive, ideologically driven agendas.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR and on all these amendments that wage war on women.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, first let me just say, I am shocked and appalled at the comment yesterday by the Speaker when he said ``so be it'' in response to the likely job losses that will occur as a result of this continuing resolution.

An independent analysis by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute indicates that this bill will result in the

direct loss, mind you, of 800,000 private and public sector jobs. Instead of doing everything we can do to halt the loss of jobs and put people back to work, this bill takes the wrong approach, putting our economy and our country back on the path to recession.

For every job opening in this country, we have 4.7 unemployed people who are looking for work. Why would we want to add to their numbers? ``So be it'' cannot and should not be our response to this economic crisis, not with a 9 percent unemployment rate and over 15 percent in communities of color, and record layoffs and furloughs at the State level, and especially not when Republicans have the temerity to demand tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires paid for through borrowed money. This is just wrong, and it's immoral.

As a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I am in strong opposition to these cruel cuts. Budgets are moral documents, and they are a reflection of who we are and what we value. This spending bill makes it clear that the poor, the young, women, the elderly, teachers, firefighters, cops, and the communities that they protect and serve are not valued. Make no mistake, this bill will harm the most vulnerable among us, and it represents a wrongheaded approach to reducing the deficit or expanding job growth in our country.

Madam Chair, I am especially concerned about the proposed cuts to education and training programs. Among the range of cuts include Workforce Investment Act programs, which last year helped over 8.4 million job seekers find jobs. They got additional education and job training support. This is being cut.

All told, when counting rescissions of prior funding, elimination of the requested FY11 funding, and the advanced funding needed to run these employment and training programs, they will experience nearly a $5 billion cut. Republican cuts in job training will only prolong the recession, keep unemployment high, and keep more Americans collecting unemployment instead of training and getting ready for our 21st century job opportunities.

How can we justify cutting job training programs in the middle of an economic crisis? How will my Republican colleagues respond to the unemployed in their communities who come to them and ask them for help? Will they just say ``so be it''?

Pell Grants. Pell Grants provide vital funds for students who wish to attend 2- and 4-year colleges but who need help to pay their expenses. In my district alone, there are 16 institutions that provide Pell Grants to over 18,000 recipients. This proposal would cut Pell Grants by $845, making college less affordable and accessible for low- and moderate-income students. More than 8 million students benefit from Pell Grants, and many would be hurt by this cut, especially as schools are raising tuition fees to meet rising costs and to deal with tighter budgets.

The bill also entirely eliminates Federal funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which colleges and universities use to assist undergraduates who have the greatest financial need. That program assisted 1.3 million college students last year.

Head Start, under this proposal, is cut by nearly $1.1 billion. This will effectively knock out 200,000 children, mind you, in Republican and Democratic districts from participating in this critical early education program. This helps provide health, nutrition, and supportive services to prepare our children for school.

The Job Corps program, this program is cut by $891 million, which will result in 21,384 jobs lost in communities in every State, the majority of which are in the private sector. There will be $1.7 billion lost in economic activity as a result of this. And 36,000 at-risk young people will be turned away from Job Corps, costing the government and the economy as much as $17 billion over the course of their lifetimes. Additionally, the cuts will guarantee the closure, mind you, of 75 Job Corps centers across the Nation in your districts and in our districts. Slashing one of the most effective, accountable, and market-driven solutions for millions of youth who leave our schools unprepared is really the wrong move at the wrong time.

The majority has stated that they want to cut the deficit, but, in effect, they are cutting the social safety net lifeline for those who need it the most. This CR leads us down a path that will result in hopelessness, joblessness, and desperation, and it destroys the future for our young people.

I urge my colleagues to meet the challenge before us and reverse the potential harm that will be inevitable if this bill is enacted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, first, let me just say that I offer this amendment in support of the unemployed workers across the country who are truly living in a state of emergency and who desperately need our assistance like right now.

This CR really reminds me of a CR that reflects survival of the fittest. Of the nearly 600 amendments to the continuing resolution that have been proposed or considered so far, this amendment is the only one, mind you, that deals with the problem of the unemployed directly. Nowhere in the proposed continuing resolution does the majority try to address the needs of the unemployed, whether to provide benefits or to help create jobs. In fact, the underlying resolution is estimated to cost more than 800,000 private and public sector jobs. The proposal before us would even cut $2.5 billion from job training programs that directly assist the unemployed in getting the skills that they need to find new jobs and get back to work.

The national unemployment rate stands at 9 percent. In California, in my home State, it's 12.5 percent. In Ohio, where the Speaker is from, it's 9.6 percent. And of course, African Americans and Latinos and teenagers have far higher unemployment rates of 15.5, 11.5, and 25.7 percent respectively. Altogether, 13.9 million people are looking for work across the country, 6.2 million of them are classified as long- term unemployed, and yet the Republican response is to cut job training programs. Just think about that for a moment. How in the world does cutting job training programs put people back to work? Madam Chair, I really can't figure out the logic of that. And I wonder how Republicans will explain it to their unemployed constituents. You have unemployed constituents, also.

And so my amendment, on the other hand, is really a very commonsense response to the unemployment problem in our country. This amendment would add language to the continuing resolution from a bill that I introduced with Representative Bobby Scott, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act.

Quite simply, this amendment and my bill would provide an additional 14 weeks of benefits to the existing tier one of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Program in order to help unemployed workers who have exhausted their current benefits. These people have hit the wall.

My amendment includes an emergency designation pursuant to the rules of the House and would not trigger statutory PAYGO rules. This is an emergency. Every single Member of this body has unemployed people in their district, people who just want a chance to get a job, to work hard and to sustain their families. That's all. They just want to be part of this American dream. But for every job opening in this country, there are 4.7 unemployed workers seeking to fill it. Let me repeat that. One job for every 4.7 unemployed workers.

It's clear from that statistic that unemployment is not a problem of self-motivation; it is a symptom of a job deficit. It will take time to close this deficit, and I believe it will require continued government investments to do so, but in the meantime, people have to survive. We have a moral obligation to help the long-term unemployed get through this crisis by extending their benefits now.

The response to the bill and my amendment has been, quite frankly, overwhelming. People from my district and also people from your districts have been calling my office nonstop in support of this bill, wanting to know when the Republican majority will finally deal with the problem of the long-term unemployed. They want to see a real plan from Republicans and Democrats that will create jobs and jump-start the economy. They don't want to hear the Speaker casually dismiss job loss by saying, ``So be it.'' In fact, in 7 weeks, we haven't seen one single effort to create a job. We haven't seen any legislation that would do that.

Now it's your chance to step up to the plate and prove to them that your priorities don't just lie with the rich and the well connected. Many of the unemployed are experiencing poverty for the first time as they literally try to make a dollar out of 15 cents. If we don't act now, many of them will fall into poverty.

So I ask my Republican colleagues: If you can insist on giveaways to the wealthy, why can't you stand up for the unemployed who need our help the most? Extending unemployment benefits is not only the right thing to do, but it also creates and contributes economic growth and job creation, because unemployed workers put what little they have back into the economy as they just try to get by day by day.

I know my colleagues have reserved a point of order. And I urge you, don't resort to parliamentary maneuvers to block help for the unemployed. Join me and our 66 cosponsors, and let's provide an additional 14 weeks of benefits for those who have hit the wall.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, let me just say, providing unemployment benefits for people struggling to survive, it really should not be subject to any parliamentary point of order. I just wanted to say that's really a shame and disgrace.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of the bipartisan Flake amendment, No. 370, to cut $18.75 million from the Defense-wide operations and maintenance budget at the Pentagon.

In my opinion, any discussion about getting our fiscal house in order must begin with a real discussion about reducing the bloated size of the Pentagon budget and ending the war in Afghanistan. And if we are really serious about reducing the deficit, we should be cutting Defense to the 2008 levels rather than cutting domestic discretionary spending to 2008 levels.

We're talking about a $750 billion budget. But the Republican continuing resolution fails to cut the Pentagon budget, and it really increases it by more than $8 billion this year. This will put families and teachers and cops and children out on the street. These cuts will not come close to ending the deficit, will only hurt our economy, won't create any jobs, and given the fact that our economy is on the verge of recovery, we should be doing everything in our power to create jobs. A

nearly $700 million cut to food for women, infants, and children during the height of a recession is really heartless and cold. This cut will not balance the budget and it will certainly not magically reduce the number of hungry children and families across the country.

Republicans want to cut billions of dollars in education programs that impact students at every level, from preschool to graduate school, starting with $1.1 billion in terms of a cut for Head Start. That's going to hurt millions of needy preschoolers. Gutting the Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants by $757 million will really end the dreams of needy college students to be first in their families to earn a college or university degree. Republicans are willing to risk the futures of millions of needy students.

Republican cuts to cost-effective and critical programs like Community Health Centers are a prime example of what is really wrong with this one-sided approach to the budget. Smart investments in improving access to primary care and preventive health services, especially through low-cost programs like the Community Health Centers, are the most effective way to reduce the long-term costs of health care in our country and to reduce the deficit. Republican attempts to cut support for maternal and child health, $50 million; family planning, $317 million; State funds for Health Access Grants, $75 million, worsens the health of children and families, increases the rates of chronic diseases, and does nothing to reduce the deficit.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, we see these budgets come to us each and every day, and we know the impact of what these cuts will do to the majority of Americans who are just struggling to survive through this downturn. We're in the middle of a housing crisis, and we are struggling to correct this. We're seeing unprecedented demand for housing assistance and a near standstill in private construction of affordable housing. Republicans somehow believe that this would be a good time to make massive cuts to rental assistance that keeps countless families from suffering homelessness. They want to dramatically cut Community Development Funds and the Public Housing Capital Fund, which invests Federal dollars in creating desperately needed new affordable housing.

Worse, these cuts will do nothing to create jobs or jump-start the economy. They are the wrong prescription for what ails our country, and we need to go back to the drawing board. The Flake amendment will cut over $18 million from Defense, which is an excellent beginning, but only a beginning.

So, in closing, let me just remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that budgets really are moral documents. They reflect our values and who we are as Americans. Proposing these deep and painful cuts reflects an unfortunate reality that we are putting bombs and missiles and wasteful Pentagon spending first rather than creating jobs for people who deserve to live the American Dream.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Lee of California

Amendment No. 221: Page 306, after line 7, insert the

following:

Sec. 1852. (a)(1) Section 4002(b)(1) of the Supplemental

Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252; 26 U.S.C. 3304

note) is amended--

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``80'' and inserting

``131''; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``20'' and inserting

``34''.

(2) Section 4002(f) of such Act is amended by adding at the

end the following:

``(3) Rules relating to additional weeks of first-tier

emergency unemployment compensation.--

``(A) In general.--If a State determines that

implementation of the increased entitlement to first-tier

emergency unemployment compensation by reason of the

amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the Full-Year

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 would unduly delay the

prompt payment of emergency unemployment compensation under

this title, such State may elect to pay second-tier, third-

tier, or fourth-tier emergency unemployment compensation (or

a combination of those tiers) prior to the payment of such

increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation

until such time as such State determines that such increased

first-tier emergency unemployment compensation may be paid

without undue delay.

``(B) Special rules.--If a State makes an election under

subparagraph (A) which results in--

``(i) the payment of second-tier (but not third-tier)

emergency unemployment compensation prior to the payment of

increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation,

then, for purposes of determining whether an account may be

augmented for third-tier emergency unemployment compensation

under subsection (d), such State shall treat the date of

exhaustion of such increased first-tier emergency

unemployment compensation as the date of exhaustion of

second-tier emergency unemployment compensation, if such date

is later than the date of exhaustion of the second-tier

emergency unemployment compensation; or

``(ii) the payment of third-tier emergency unemployment

compensation prior to the payment of increased first-tier

emergency unemployment compensation, then, for purposes of

determining whether an account may be augmented for fourth-

tier emergency unemployment compensation under subsection

(e), such State shall treat the date of exhaustion of such

increased first-tier emergency unemployment compensation as

the date of exhaustion of third-tier emergency unemployment

compensation, if such date is later than the date of

exhaustion of the third-tier emergency unemployment

compensation.

``(4) Coordination of modifications (relating to additional

first-tier emergency unemployment compensation) with extended

compensation.--Notwithstanding an election under section

4001(e) by a State to provide for the payment of emergency

unemployment compensation prior to extended compensation,

such State may pay extended compensation to an otherwise

eligible individual prior to any additional emergency

unemployment compensation under subsection (b) (payable by

reason of the amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the

Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act of 2011),

if such individual claimed extended compensation for at least

1 week of unemployment after the exhaustion of emergency

unemployment compensation under subsection (b) (as such

subsection was in effect on the day before the date of the

enactment of this paragraph), (c), (d), or (e).''.

(3) Section 4004(e)(1) of such Act, as amended by section

501(b) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance

Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law

111-312), is amended--

(A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;

and

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:

``(H) the amendments made by section 1852(a)(1) of the

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011; and''.

(4) Section 4007(b)(3) of such Act, as amended by section

501(a)(1)(C) of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance

Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law

111-312) is amended by striking ``June 9, 2012'' and

inserting ``September 22, 2012''.

(b) The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any operating

instructions or regulations necessary to carry out this

section and the amendments made by this section.

(c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect

as if included in the enactment of the Unemployment

Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-205),

except that no additional first-tier emergency unemployment

compensation shall be payable by virtue of the amendments

made by subsection (a)(1) with respect to any week of

unemployment commencing before the date of the enactment of

this Act.

(d)(1) The budgetary effects of this section, for the

purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of

2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest

statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation''

for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional

Record by the

Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such

statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

(2) This section--

(A) is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to

section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

(Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)); and

(B) is designated as an emergency pursuant to section

3(c)(1) of H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) and as an emergency

requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13

(111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for

fiscal year 2010.

Offered By: Ms. Lee of California

Amendment No. 222: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Mrs. Lela Duffel Morris, the first African- American graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Nursing at the University of Washington, a career nurse, and a trailblazer in the field of occupational and public health. Mrs. Morris and her husband of 62 years, Dr. Walter Morris, have been stalwart members of the Bay Area community for decades. A loving wife, mother, grandmother, friend and colleague, Mrs. Lela Morris will be forever remembered for her warmth and compassion. With her passing on February 1, 2011, we are reminded of her life's journey and the joyful legacy she inspired.

Lela Duffel Morris was born on April 23, 1927, and was the youngest of Thomas Duffel and Harriett Jones Duffel's 12 children. Just before Lela's birth, the family relocated from the state of Louisiana to Beaumont, Texas. And, not long after Lela was born, her mother passed away. As the family struggled through the heights of the depression, Lela was sheltered from hardship and nurtured by her father and siblings.

In the fall of 1945, she enrolled in the School of Nursing at the University of Washington (UW), becoming the first African American to be admitted, and later, graduate from the nursing program. Mrs. Morris' subsequent career in public health began in the District of Columbia, where she saw a need for regulation and advocacy in occupational and environmental health issues.

At a time when workers were far too often exposed to hazardous workplace conditions, Mrs. Morris became founding director of continuing education for the Northern California Occupational Health Center, a division of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

In her over 50-year career, Mrs. Morris received many accolades, including the 2001 Distinguished Alumna Award from the UW School of Nursing and the Alumni Advisory Council, as well as special recognitions from the Northern California Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the Golden State Medical Association and the American Cancer Society.

In the midst of her career and raising four children, Mrs. Morris received a Master of Public Health degree from the University of California, Berkeley. She also taught college health education courses and served as guest editor of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal. She was an active volunteer with community organizations, such as the Oakland Bay Area Chapter of The Links, Inc., Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, and the Auxiliaries of the National, Golden State and Sinkler-Miller Medical Associations.

On a personal level, I will always remember Mrs. Morris' gentle and kind spirit, but also her strength and brilliance. Her smile lifted my spirits, and she always offered a word of encouragement. She and her husband, Dr. Morris, were my early supporters when I first ran for public office in 1989. They consistently supported me throughout my many campaigns. And for that, I am deeply grateful.

Today, California's 9th Congressional District salutes and honors a wonderful human being, Mrs. Lela Duffel Morris. The contributions she made to others throughout her life are countless and precious. Our community is indebted to her work with East Bay organizations and to her many civic contributions over the years. My thoughts are with Dr. Walter Morris, his family, and Lela's extended group of loved ones as we celebrate her incredible life. May her soul rest in peace.