Floor Statements

Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, 24 hours before the majority closes shop and sends us home for 7 weeks, and what are we debating?

Are we talking about creating jobs for families who are struggling to make ends meet and wondering what happened to the American Dream? No, of course not. Instead, we're taking up yet another divisive partisan measure that will do nothing to kick-start the economy or help people who have been kicked in the teeth by this recession.

The Obama administration's TANF waivers promote work. They allow States the flexibility. For example, they allow States to consider education as work, providing education and training, to move people off welfare so that they can find jobs that actually pay a living wage so they can support their families.

Mr. Speaker, I've been on public assistance. I know what it's like. It's a bad, bad feeling. It doesn't make you proud. I did it because I had to, certainly not because I wanted to.

I would wake up in the middle of the night frozen in fear of what would happen if one of my three children, they were 1, 3 and 5 years old, got ill. What if they broke an arm. They were rowdy little kids. What if they grew out of their shoes before I planned to buy new shoes? It was a very scary time.

The day that I went off welfare was the day that I celebrated because I didn't need it. I could stand on my own two feet. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this debate. The majority party's current standard bearer has said he believes 47 percent of the American people are essentially--and that would have been me back there with my children--freeloaders and parasites who don't take responsibility for themselves. That's outrageous and it is class warfare.

Denigrating the poor and the middle class is a favorite strategy on the right. It should be creating jobs, but it doesn't seem to be the way they go.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we stop all this tomfoolery and we think about the people in this country. We know we have a job to do, and that job should be done before we leave here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with both pride and sadness to honor my friend Robert Frank Ohrenschall, a Marin County businessman, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and community leader who passed away on August 28, 2012 in San Rafael, CA. Bob was known for his intelligence, wit, and compassionate heart combined with warmth that enabled him to connect with people.

Born on June 9, 1926, Bob grew up in Baltimore, Maryland, graduating from Boys' Latin School in 1944. After receiving a B.A. in American History from Yale University, he first moved to New York City to work for an ad agency, and then served as a U.S. Navy lieutenant during the Korean War. After his military service, Bob came to San Francisco, where he worked for an ad agency and met his future wife, Susan Page. He and Sue were married in 1955 and settled in Greenbrae to raise their four children. In 1960, Bob and his partner Huntley Soyster founded Soyster & Ohrenschall, a San Francisco-based design company which became the leading firm in the field.

After the company was acquired in the mid-1980s, Bob was able to devote more time to other interests. Travelling, reading, and family time were among his favorite pastimes. He and Sue visited close to 50 countries and enjoyed visiting their children and grandchildren on the West Coast and in Spain.

Bob's philanthropy demonstrated his commitment to a broad range of local, national, and international causes, from education to the environment to medical needs in developing countries. He devoted his talent, energy, and personal resources to numerous organizations, including the Eisenhower Institute, San Francisco State University College of Business, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Tiburon-Belvedere Rotary Club, WiRED International and International Diplomacy Council. He also supported the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Boys' Latin School and College of Marin.

From successful business executive to devoted family man, dedicated naval officer to compassionate philanthropist, Bob was a very gifted and caring individual who touched many lives. He connected with people across the political spectrum, referring to himself as my ``embedded republican friend.''

In addition to his wife, Bob is survived by his four children, Mark, Ross, Page, and Sally, and their families.

Mr. Speaker, Robert Frank Ohrenschall leaves a legacy that will inspire generations to come. I ask you to join me in honoring his life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County, CA, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Millions of people--and flora and fauna--have benefitted from the law President John F. Kennedy signed on September 13, 1962, ``to save and preserve, for the purpose of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that remains undeveloped.''

Celebrating with the theme of A Natural Sanctuary, A Human Haven, Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) truly embodies these values. From its pristine beaches and forests to its ranches and grasslands, the area provides recreational and cultural resources as well as habitat for a wide variety of species. And nearly one-third of known marine mammal species feed in the waters just off the park's coast.

The Point Reyes peninsula has an unusually rich history. Coast Miwok Indians inhabited the peninsula 500 years ago, and, in 1579, Sir Francis Drake and his crew became the first Europeans to meet the Miwoks when they stopped to replenish water and supplies. The survivors of a shipwrecked Manila galleon came ashore a few decades later, foreshadowing a history of shipwrecks that led to the establishment of dramatic lighthouses and lifesaving stations that exist today. In the 19th century, ranchos were developed by Mexican land grantees, and ranching continues today

in pastoral zones in which cows share the landscape with native birds, plants, and animals. Lying on the San Andreas Fault, PRNS also displays the effects of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the sign of geological land in motion as the peninsula moves north at the rate of two inches a year.

This special area was first conceived as a park in 1938, and today it hosts over two million visitors a year. It is one of the country's most visited national parks.

Mr. Speaker, it takes hard work by many visionary and dedicated people to create and maintain a jewel like Point Reyes National Seashore. I am proud to congratulate all of them on 50 years of providing A Natural Sanctuary, A Human Haven.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Spectrum LGBT Center on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. Located in Marin County, CA, Spectrum has been a leader and an integral part of the community for three decades.

With a mission ``to promote acceptance, understanding, and full inclusion for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people,'' Spectrum

has engaged in mobilizing and advocating for people who are LGBTQ, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Questioning, and their friends, families, and supporters.

Founded by the Reverend Jane Spahr in 1982 as a support program for LGBT youth in Marin, Spectrum has grown under the leadership of current director Paula Pilecki. The agency now provides programs for seniors, counseling, advocacy, training, and public awareness and coordinates with organizations around the North Bay. This year, it launched the Spectrum LGBT Equality Pledge for businesses and professional organizations that want to show their support.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to organizations like Spectrum LGBT Center, we have seen progress over the last 30 years in rights for LGBTQ individuals. There is still much work to do, and we will continue to rely on Spectrum until full equality is achieved. Congratulations to Paula Pilecki and the staff at Spectrum on their 30th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Too many American women-- sisters, daughters, nieces, wives, friends, neighbors, and coworkers-- are losing their lives to this disease. This year alone, more than 20,000 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and more than 15,000 will die of the disease.

Ovarian cancer is the ninth most common cancer among women, and the deadliest of gynecologic cancers. If ovarian cancer is treated before it spreads, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent. But, because there is no ovarian cancer screening or early detection test, many women won't learn their diagnosis until the odds are against them.

We must do everything we can to make women aware of the risk factors, signs, and symptoms of ovarian cancer before it is too late. Doctors recommend that women see a gynecologist if they experience any of the symptoms of ovarian cancer daily for more than a few weeks. We must all become familiar with the early symptoms and share this information.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting investments in medical research. We must ensure that the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are receiving the funding they need to put an end to ovarian cancer. Investments in medical research will lead to breakthroughs in screening, early detection, and treatment.

Today, I stand with the ovarian cancer community in their efforts to increase awareness of the symptoms, boost federal funding for ovarian cancer awareness, and expand federal research to improve treatments and develop a desperately needed screening or early detection test.

Please join me in recognizing September as National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month to increase public knowledge about this deadly disease and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Petaluma National Little League All Stars for their amazing run in the 2012 Little League World Series. I couldn't be prouder of the way they represented our community and themselves.

Even though they fell short of the national championship, they distinguished themselves as one of the nation's and the world's best youth baseball teams. More than 6,500 teams from around the globe entered the tournament, and the boys from Petaluma finished second in the United States and third in the world. They played more games than any other team in the tournament, winning five and losing two. Even in their final loss to Tennessee, they showed fierce determination and a refusal to give up, rallying for a 10-run comeback to force the game into extra innings.

Bradley Smith led the way with an astounding .636 batting average, a tournament-leading 14 hits, a record-breaking 6 doubles and 11 RBI, as well as great fielding and pitching.

Hance Smith hit .429, leading the team with 4 home runs and knocking home more runs (12) than any other player in the Little League World Series.

Daniel Marzo hit .348 with a walk-off game-winning home run in extra innings against New Jersey, on top of his outstanding pitching.

Cole Tomei batted .333 with clutch hitting and dazzling third base defense that reminded many of Brooks Robinson.

Logan Douglas, who provided great all-around leadership and top-notch relief pitching, also had a .318 batting average, and his 11 runs scored were the second-highest in the tournament

Catchers Austin Paretti and James O'Hanlon provided perfect handling of the pitching staff throughout the tournament, with James contributing timely hits and Austin adding 8 runs scored in only 8 at- bats.

Dylan Moore, Blake Buhrer and Kempton Brandis all contributed clutch performances, including Kempton's two home runs against Tennessee; Blake's big hit to spark a rally against New Jersey; and Dylan's overall solid work in the field, on the mound and at bat.

Porter Slate scored 8 runs out of the leadoff slot while playing stellar defense at second base.

Quinton Gago's home run against the Southwest would still be going if it hadn't hit the side of a hill. And his dominant pitching performance against Texas gave the team a huge lift.

Andrew White provided outstanding relief pitching, not just in the Little League World Series (where he earned the team's only save), but throughout District 35 and regional play.

Not enough can be said about the coaching staff, led by manager Eric Smith. He, pitching coach Trevor Tomei and assistant coach Mike Slate built a cohesive group that gasped and applied the fundamentals of the game. Their commitment to the team and the families was nothing short of remarkable. They didn't just teach the boys on-the-field skills; they instilled in them poise, determination and drive.

The Petaluma National Little League All Stars are talented ballplayers, but they also succeeded because of grit, hustle and desire. Most importantly, at every step along the way, they revealed themselves to be poised young men of strong character. They demonstrated sportsmanship in victory and in defeat. They were models of teamwork and discipline, qualities that will serve them well throughout their lives.

And they were backed up by a tight-knit community that couldn't have been more enthusiastic and supportive. There were generous fundraising efforts to allow family members to travel to Williamsport to see the games in person. There was hardly a movie theater, restaurant or bar in town that wasn't showing the games. Their effort was inspiring. It filled us with pride. What fun it was to see them have so much fun.

The Petaluma National Little League All-Stars exemplify what is best about youth sports. They have been true to the mission and values of Little League Baseball. Their performance on and off the field is a testament to their coaches, their parents and their teachers. These boys are unquestionably champions. They are America's future, giving us great confidence for our country. Today we honor and salute the Petaluma National Little League All-Stars.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute the Little League 12-year-old All-Stars from my hometown of Petaluma, California. I salute them for their amazing run in the 2012 Little League World Series. I couldn't be prouder of the way they represented our community and themselves.

Even though they fell short of the championship, they distinguished themselves as one of this year's best youth baseball teams, finishing second in the country and third in the world. Even in their final loss to Tennessee, they showed fierce determination, rallying for a 10-run comeback to force extra innings. Each and every player contributed to the effort.

Bradley Smith led the way with an astounding .636 batting average, a tournament-leading 14 hits, a record-breaking 6 doubles, and 11 RBIs, as well as great fielding and pitching. Hance Smith hit .429, leading the team with 4 home runs and knocking more home runs--12--than any other player in the tournament. Daniel ``Danny'' Marzo hit .348 with a walk-off home run against New Jersey, on top of his outstanding pitching. Cole Tomei batted .333 with clutch hitting and dazzling third-base defense that actually reminded many of Brooks Robinson.

Logan Douglas, who provided great all-around leadership and topnotch relief pitching, also had a .318 batting average, and his 11 runs scored were the second-highest in the tournament. Catchers Austin Paretti and James O'Hanlon provided perfect handling of the pitching staff, with James ``Jay-O'' contributing timely hits and Austin adding eight runs scored in only eight at-bats.

Dylan Moore, Blake Buhrer, and Kempton Brandis all contributed clutch performances, including Kempton's two home runs against Tennessee, Blake's big hit to spark a rally against New Jersey, and Dylan's overall solid work in the field, on the mound, and at bat. Porter Slate scored eight runs out of the leadoff spot while playing stellar defense at second base. Quinton Gago's home run against the Southwest would still be going if it hadn't hit the side of a hill. And his dominant pitching performance against Texas gave the team a huge lift. Andrew White provided outstanding relief pitching, not just in the Little League World Series, but throughout district 35 and regional play.

Madam Speaker, not enough can be said about the coaching staff: Manager Eric Smith, Trevor Tomei, and Mike Slate. Their commitment to the team and to the families was nothing short of remarkable. They just didn't teach the boys skills and fundamentals; they instilled in them poise, determination, and drive.

The Petaluma National League All-Stars are talented ballplayers, but they also succeeded because of grit, hustle, and desire. They revealed themselves to be young men of maturity and strong character. They demonstrated sportsmanship in victory and in defeat. They were models of teamwork and discipline, qualities that will serve them well throughout their lives. These boys exemplify what is best about youth sports, being true to the mission and values of Little League baseball. Their performance on and off the field is a testament to their coaches, their parents, their teachers, and their individual character. These boys are unquestionably champions. They are tomorrow's leaders, and they give confidence for our country's future.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes from now, Members of the House and the Senate will head to the Capitol steps. We're going to the Capitol steps for a moment of remembrance to honor those who were killed in the attacks on September 11, 2001--September 11, 2001, a day that will forever be seared into the memory of American citizens and the world.

Eleven years later, Mr. Speaker, spouses still grieve; children still feel the void; parents are still devastated by the loss of their children. It was a tragedy for individual families and for the entire Nation. One of the lingering tragedies of that day is that it led to policy decisions with terrible consequences that we're still living with today. Over the last decade-plus, violence and mayhem have just led to more violence and mayhem.

Our continued military occupation of Afghanistan has not brought the stability. It has not brought security. It has not brought a strong democracy to that country. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest and most dangerous places on Earth. The Taliban has not been driven into oblivion. The terrorist threats continue. And according to a New York Times article this past weekend, even U.S. commanders are admitting that the Taliban remains ``resilient'' while al Qaeda is ``evolving'' and ``adapting.''

Mr. Speaker, while we in the House adjourned for the month of August, there was no recess for our troops. In fact, since we were last in session, another 60 U.S. servicemembers died in Afghanistan. Countless more suffered wounds to the body and to the brain. And then there are the Afghan civilians, many of them children, who are being killed every single day. How do we tell the families of these children that this is all for a good and just cause? We can't.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to stop conducting national security policy on the principles of revenge and retaliation and on the false hope that we are making it better. The right way to secure and ensure security is to put America's best foot forward, to lead with our compassion and not our military power.

That's what my SMART Security platform is all about. It puts development and diplomacy front and center, and it makes war a last resort. It is based on a commitment to improving the lives of Afghan people, alleviating power, creating economic opportunity, rebuilding infrastructure, improving education, and attacking public health problems in that area.

We can't do this with the military surge. We can only do it with a civilian surge--a surge of experts, of aid workers, of technical experts, from engineers to midwives. Of course, our development agencies are doing this kind of work, and they're doing the best they can possibly do, but not nearly the scale that's necessary to make this possible. Compared to billions of dollars every month that we spend on the war, we're investing just a tiny fraction of that on humanitarian work that is so badly needed.

Public opinion has turned dramatically against this war, and yet our most visible leaders continue to lag behind the people that elected them. The President of the United States says he will end this war in 2014, which is a good goal, but it is not nearly soon enough. His opponent, on the other hand, in the most important speech of his life a few weeks ago, didn't see fit to even mention Afghanistan--not even once.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we gather on the steps of the Capitol, as I bow my head, it will be in remembrance of those who died 11 years ago today, and it will also be with a fervent prayer of hope that we can honor their memory by finally ending the war in Afghanistan and finally bringing our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, on July 25, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 438. Had I been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 504: ``yes''--Holt of New Jersey Part C Amendment No. 2.

Mr. Speaker, more than 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, that dramatically understates the human cost of this war, a war that is now nearly 11 years old.

A recent Time magazine cover story details the silent killer of our brave servicemembers--the tragically high suicide rate among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and other members of the service. The article describes how one Army helicopter pilot, who had flown 70 missions in Iraq over 9 months--70 missions over 9 months--waited on the phone for 45 minutes to speak to the Pentagon crisis line when he was in severe distress. The last communication his wife received from him was a text in which he said, ``Still on hold.'' Several hours later, she found him in their bedroom with a fatal gunshot wound to the neck.

A second victim, an Army doctor who wasn't deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, wrote an email to his wife minutes before hanging himself. It read:

Please always tell my children how much I love them, and

most importantly, never, ever let them find out how I died.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer deny the devastating mental health impact of repeated deployments, of continued exposure to explosions, horror, carnage and destruction. Of course, in an institution like the U.S. military that values courage and toughness, there's a reluctance to admit to depression and anxiety.

Sometimes that manifests itself in the worst possible ways. For example, one Army major general wrote an angry diatribe on his blog about the selfishness of troops who killed themselves or were leaving others to ``clean up their mess.'' He admonished:

Act like an adult, and deal with your real-life problems

like the rest of us.

It's about time, Mr. Speaker, that we lost that attitude because we're losing brave Americans at a terrifying clip. In fact, according to the Time article, more soldiers have taken their own lives than have died in Afghanistan. While veterans make up 10 percent of the adult population, they account for 20 percent of the suicides.

We are starting to see more awareness of this problem, thank Heavens. Secretary Panetta says the right things, but it's time to back up rhetoric. It's time to back it up with more resources because the fact is only 4 percent of the Pentagon's medical budget is devoted to mental health, about the same amount that we spend on the Afghan war every day and a half. We spend $2 billion a year to treat servicemembers suffering from psychological trauma, but we spend $10 billion a month on the war that is the root of much of that trauma in the first place.

Even if the Afghanistan war ended tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, so much damage is already done. We would still be left with a huge crisis that will require more resolve than we are seemingly prepared to muster. I would expect every Member who has enthusiastically supported this war to just as eagerly support what it takes to fight the suicide epidemic this war has caused. It's

time to stop the bleeding to make sure our heroes are removed from the conflict that is inflicting so much damage. We can start winning the war on suicide by ending the war in Afghanistan.

Let's bring our troops home now.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to titles I and II of H.R. 4078.

My amendment would exempt a proposed worker safety rule from the ``regulatory freeze'' and the prohibition on so-called ``midnight rules.'' This OSHA rule would update 40-year-old protections for those working around high-voltage transmission and distribution lines and equipment, which would bring them into the 21st century. If this amendment is not adopted, Madam Chair, many workers will be needlessly electrocuted or burned from electrical hazards--at least until unemployment drops to 6 percent.

Are we really going to make workers wait until the jobless rate is 6 percent before getting protections for workers against burns from high- voltage electric arcs that run as hot as 35,000 degrees? If we are, they will be waiting a long time, because this Republican majority shows absolutely no interest in passing a jobs bill.

Is it fair, Madam Chair, to make these workers wait for 6 percent unemployment before their employers have to assess and provide safe minimum distances from high-voltage lines? Is it morally defensible to make workers wait for a full economic recovery before they get simple protections like rubber-insulated sleeves so that their arms aren't blown apart from having contact with high-voltage wires?

Certainly not.

Unless the bill sponsor is aware of some new scientific discovery, 35,000 degrees feels just as hot no matter how many Americans are out of work. Shock at 14,000 volts of electricity does the same damage whether unemployment is 8 percent or 6 percent. Yet this bill seems to assume lethal hazards are somehow less lethal during tougher economic times. Even worse, this bill implies that preventable electrocutions are somehow acceptable whenever unemployment is high.

This is irresponsible, if not unethical.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, each year, 74 electrical workers covered under this rule are killed on the job. Another 444 are severely injured. OSHA is authorized to regulate a hazard when the risk of fatality is more than 1 in a 1,000. The fatality rate for workers covered under this OSHA rule is 14 times that level. Full compliance would eliminate 79 percent of these fatalities and injuries.

Madam Chair, the one-size-fits-all approach of this bill will block a commonsense, cost-effective rule that produces an estimated $4 in benefits for every dollar in cost. OSHA's proposed update would provide an estimated $100 million in savings every single year.

While the authors of this bill argue that the President can seek a waiver from Congress to allow the rule, I'm not buying it. As we saw with the so-called ``comma bill'' proposed by Mr. Sensenbrenner a number of years ago, it took three sessions of Congress just to fix a harmless typo. We all know that when a special interest wants to stop something around here, there are countless ways to win. If this bill is not amended, Madam Chair, Congress will be sentencing scores of workers every year to preventible electrocutions and to burns.

I ask for adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the gentleman from the other side of the aisle is not correct on this. If the President signed the bill, the regulation would be stopped.

In closing, Madam Chair, the adoption of my amendment will save the lives of Americans who work in some of the most dangerous conditions imaginable. It is ridiculous and it's downright cruel to tell these men and women who risk electrocution everyday that OSHA will only step in to help them when the jobless rate reaches some arbitrary level. Whether unemployment is 6 or 8 or 10 percent, whether the economy is strong or weak, we need to protect our workers.

I ask for Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pride today to honor Mei T. Nakano of Sebastopol, CA. Ms. Nakano has spoken out about her life in a World War II internment camp and has become a powerful advocate for human rights, justice, and world peace.

Born in Colorado in 1924 to Japanese immigrants who farmed there, Ms. Nakano was later interned in a camp in Amache, Colorado, for three years during World War II. She met and married her husband Shiro there and then saw him drafted into the U.S. Military Intelligence Service.

After the war, she raised three children, and, inspired by women's liberation and civil rights movements, went back to school and earned a Master's Degree in Language and Literature at age 51. According to Mei, ``The Japanese American community finally began to claim its history during the 1970s in the foment of the liberation movements. Simultaneously, we began to feel the full rights of citizenship and entitlements due us.''

After working for several years as an English instructor at Laney College and Diablo Valley College, Ms. Nakano became a partner and editor at Mina Press Publishing. She turned increasingly to free-lance writing and human rights activism, becoming well known for her depictions of the Japanese American experience and the importance of social just and multiculturalism.

One of her seminal books, Japanese American Women: Three Generations, first published by Minna Press in 1991 and now in its fifth printing, was hailed as the first of its kind historical survey of Japanese American women from the initial immigrant generation trying to adapt their cultural values to America through later generations who balanced these values with those of the society they were born into. For Mei's generation, the second, the experience of the World War II concentration camps defined everything that followed.

Mei Nakano organized the first Asian American Women's conference in Oakland, in 1992 and continues to speak out movingly and cogently about her beliefs and experiences at high schools, colleges, other institutions, and public events. ``The salient point to be made,'' she says, ``is how pernicious and destructive racism is, how anti-human. It can cause people to defer their aspirations, lose hope, and, at times, strike out in anti-social behavior. Others may go down that sinkhole of safety of `having done well enough . . .'' The issue of injustice because of `otherness' is not done. It takes vigilance to recognize it, a commitment to be moved to do something about it.''

Ms. Nakano has always been very active in her local community. Since 1979, she has been a member of the Executive Board of the Sonoma County Japanese American Citizens League, and she was an organizer of the successful effort to establish the Sonoma County Commission on Human Rights. She served as the Commission's first chair (1992).

In speaking out on the injustices she sees, Mei Nakano also gives us a message of hope: ``Finally, I need to say that I rejoice in the fact that we've come a long way here in America

regarding the issue of `otherness,' not the least of which is the extraordinary fact of electing an African American president. For me, the `foreign-ness' which I felt so starkly in childhood and in my growing years, has gradually dissipated as I find myself tossed in the salad bowl of American society, proud to be in the skin I'm in.''

Mr. Speaker, Mei T. Nakano has used the experiences of her life to inspire others and is now enjoying time with her husband of 69 years and her three children as well as her grandchildren and great grandchildren. She is also gardening, reading, responding to requests for writing articles, working on book of short stories, and, of course, speaking out when the need arises. Please join me in honoring this special activist who reminds us of the causes worth fighting for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last September, the Department of Labor published a proposed rule on children employed in agriculture. I saw it as an important regulation that would protect young people working in one of the top three most hazardous industries in the Nation--agriculture. But in May, the Department withdrew the rule. I want to say this again: in May of this year, the Department withdrew the rule.

That wasn't enough, apparently, for the Republican majority. Today, they've decided to waste precious legislative time on a bill that tells the Department of Labor not to issue this regulation--again, a regulation the Department already withdrew. Today's debate gives new meaning to the idea of government waste. Not only did the Department of Labor withdraw this rule; the administration has said it will not reissue the rule.

I was disappointed that the Department chose not to pursue the rule in the first place because the rule sought to implement specific recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA, and increase parity between the agriculture and non- agriculture child labor provisions.

Agriculture is dangerous, Mr. Speaker. Children working on farms, like their adult counterparts, work with or around toxic pesticides. They carry very heavy materials, and they use dangerous equipment. The fatality rate for child farmworkers is four times higher than for children in other industries. There are an estimated 400,000 children working on farms that are not owned by family members, and those children deserve health and safety protections. That is all this rule would have required. Children under 16 should not be permitted or required to work with hazardous pesticides or dangerous equipment-- period.

But let's be clear. Nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' farms in the first place. I've been a steadfast supporter of family farms throughout my 20 years in Congress. We have many family farms in California's Sixth Congressional District.

They are the important economic engine and a part of the fabric of our beautiful and diverse community.

Mr. Speaker, my intent here is simply to protect children who are in danger of being exploited and injured. The withdrawal of this rule was disappointing. Today's debate, however, is a disgrace. There are nearly 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. Instead of addressing the real issues that affect them, we are debating legislation that does nothing that hasn't already been done. It prevents a rule that has been already prevented by powerful special interests--and talk about a waste of taxpayer money.

With the Republican majority taking floor time with meaningless legislation like this, it's no wonder Congress has an approval rating in the low teens.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat what I said in my opening remarks. Nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farm. The proposed rule maintains the parental exemption.

But again, to remind everybody, the Department of Labor withdrew their proposal. We are wasting time today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

Again, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farm, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we're ready to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, once again, at a time when there are so many Americans looking for work and so many middle class families struggling to make ends meet, Congress has better things to do than take up a redundant bill. It's wasteful, it's unnecessary, and it prevents us from doing the real work that our constituents have sent us here to do. Let's answer the important challenges facing the country. Let's start creating jobs for the American people. Let's start now, and let's stop wasting time on something that has already been satisfied.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment offered by my friend from California. As she clearly stated, this amendment would cut $19.2 billion of Pentagon spending and bring the overall spending down to $500 billion while at the same time protecting our troops and their medical needs.

Even with this cut, the $500 billion that remains amounts to a generous appropriation for the Defense Department. With this cut, the Pentagon

budget would still be greater than the next 10 countries' defense budgets combined. That's right: military spending from China, Japan, Germany, the U.K., Russia, India, France, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil combined would still trail our United States' military Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars.

I just don't understand how someone can stand here and say half a trillion dollars isn't enough. How many more outdated Cold War weapons systems do we need? How many helicopters with unreliable mechanical systems do we need? How many fighter jets causing pilot blackouts do we need? How many more private defense contractors do we have to pay and overpay?

At some point we have to say enough is enough. It's time, Mr. Chairman, for a reality check. It's time to accept that we spend too much on our bloated defense budget. I mean, ask any other Department or agency if they would make due with half a trillion dollars. I think we all know what that answer is--they would be delighted.

I urge you all, vote ``yes,'' bring some sanity back to our budget.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this week, the House is debating the Defense appropriations bill, which provides an excellent opportunity to point out something quite ironic about my colleagues in the majority because, Madam Speaker, for all of their talk about getting spending under control, that same rhetoric is surprisingly absent when we are talking about the Pentagon budget, which we are talking about this week.

You see, they're eager to slash and burn when it comes to programs that invest and support middle class working families, but somehow, when it is time for sacrifice to be shared, the military industrial complex is nowhere to be found. While we have to fight for every penny of domestic spending, the Pentagon simply fills in its amount on a blank check, it appears. So I think we ought to have a dollar-for- dollar match in spending cuts.

I will be offering a series of amendments to the DOD appropriations bill that call for defense cuts in the exact amounts by which other important programs are being reduced.

For example, the proposed Labor-HHS-Education spending bill eliminates the title X program. Title X, the family planning program that historically has been passed with bipartisan support, has provided contraceptive and preventive health services to low-income women for more than 40 years. The Republicans want the title X $294 million investment gone. So let's cut the defense budget by an identical $294 million;

The Ag appropriations bill provides $119 million less than the President requested for WIC--the Women, Infants, and Children's program--which provides badly needed nutrition assistance for poor pregnant women, new mothers, and children up to the age of 5. So, if we are going to shortchange a pillar of our safety net by $119 million, then I believe the Department of Defense can do without that same $119 million.

Here's the big ticket item: the Republican budget. The budget that passed this body in March zeroed out all funding for the Social Services Block Grant, including $1.7 billion in cuts for next year. If my Republican friends believe that we can't afford $1.7 billion next year to provide daycare, housing, home health care, home meal delivery, and other social services, then I say we can also eliminate a corresponding $1.7 billion in defense spending.

The fact is, Madam Speaker, defense cuts are not only fiscally responsible and morally defensible; they're widely popular. USA Today reported yesterday on a new survey that shows that two-thirds of those living in Republican congressional districts believe that the defense budget is too large.

It is no secret that military spending is widely out of control. Let's remember that none of this takes into account the war in Afghanistan, which isn't funded through the appropriations process. On top of the bloated defense budget, American taxpayers are shelling out another $10 billion a month--not a year--for a decade-long war that is failing to advance our national security objective.

It's time to reverse this course. It's time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. It's time for the Pentagon to assume its share of the shared sacrifice. It's time to do the right and the sensible thing: stop spending on weapons and warfare and start investing in the American people.