Floor Statements

Next week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world will convene in Washington for the International AIDS Conference.

I find it ironic and a little bit sad that, as so many mobilize to fight this deadly epidemic, the majority in this body want to cut $150 million from USAID's global health initiative, which funds AIDS prevention efforts.

When will we learn? Fighting diseases in the developing world is more than a matter of humanitarian decency. It's also critical to our national security.

This week, as we debate how much money to appropriate to the Defense Department, I hope we will remember that defending America and our values isn't just about how many weapons we build, but how many lives we save around the world. This is the core truth behind my SMART Security proposal, that fighting terrorism and keeping our country safe depends less on American military force and more on American compassion.

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

Mr. Chairman, we'll be spending the next several days debating the Department of Defense budget, a whopping $519.2 billion. By anyone's accounting, that's a lot of money.

What we won't be debating is the future of our presence in Afghanistan. You'd think a Congress obsessed with the deficit and cutbacks would take a look at the costliest item on our books: the war in Afghanistan.

Nope. No debate on that. Instead, a few of us are coming here to the well to take a handful of 5-minute slots. This is for a war that has cost our Nation in blood and treasure, in ways we may never be able to add up.

And what are those costs?

What are those costs? As of today, we've spent $548 billion on the war. That's $10 billion a month. Actually, it's more than this year's DOD budget.

This year, we face the 2,000th death in Operation Enduring Freedom. More than 15,000 of our brave men and women in uniform have returned home wounded. Every day we lose one more servicemember to suicide. And the Afghan people, how many of them have died and been wounded?

So the other side of the aisle wants to talk about cost. Well, let's do that. What has this misguided war cost us in international standing? Is the U.S. more popular in the Middle East and Central Asia? No. Are we any safer? Probably not. As a new generation of Afghan children grow up in an occupied country, aren't they learning to hate the West? Yes.

What's the cost here at home? How many cops could we have put on the beat? How many homes could have been saved from foreclosure? How many farmers could get drought relief? How many small business jobs could have been created? How many more patients could we have cared for at our veterans hospitals? We'll never know. Because instead of having an honest and open debate about our spending priorities, we have to grab 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there. That's not what the American people want. They want transparency. They want more debate. Further than that, they want this war to be over. They want our troops to come home.

So, yes, by all means, let's talk about cost; but let's not squeeze it in among $500 billion worth of weapons, planes, and the rest of the military industrial complex.

I urge the House leadership to have a real debate on the war in Afghanistan, and let's shine some light on how much it costs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's transportation infrastructure is in terrible, terrible disrepair. More than ever, we need to be pumping resources into transportation projects and into initiatives for that end.

We need to upgrade and modernize our roads and highways, but we also need to build up mass transit systems, buses, rail lines, et cetera. Doing so improves lives in our communities, allowing people to move around more freely and easily, and it also creates jobs. And by reducing our dependency on automobile travel, this transportation is clean, energy-efficient, and environmentally sensitive, as well.

Luckily, we have a Federal agency, the Federal Transit Administration, or FTA, that exists to make exactly these investments. I'm proud to say that my home district has benefited from FTA grants to the tune of $11 million over the last year. A new commuter train, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, or SMART train, that connects the major cities in my district is just one of the local projects that is putting FTA money to good use.

So, at a moment when our transportation needs are so great across the country, wouldn't it make sense to increase the FTA budget? Except that the House, expressing the priorities of its Republican majority, recently passed a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that cut $181 million from current FTA spending levels. And at the same time, they're now presenting us with a Department of Defense spending bill that calls for $1.1 billion more in military spending over current levels.

Why are we all being asked to tighten our belts while the military industrial complex gets to loosen theirs by a few notches year after year after year?

If the Federal budget crisis is so dire, Mr. Chairman, so dire that we can pinch pennies on badly needed transit infrastructure, surely we can do the same with a bloated Pentagon budget that has been growing out of control for more than a decade now. And that's the simple concept behind my amendment.

In the interest of fairness and shared sacrifice, I'm proposing a $181 million cut to the Defense appropriations bill identical to the reduction in FTA spending passed by the House a few weeks ago. I trust that all my Republican colleagues, each one more fiscally responsible than the next, will jump at this chance to further cut Federal spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, whenever we debate the Defense appropriations bill, I feel like I'm living in an alternative universe, because the other 51 weeks of the year all I hear from my Republican colleagues is that the sky is falling and we have to rein in a deficit that is wildly out of control. When it comes to the military budget, that rhetoric is nowhere to be heard and my friends in the majority become the biggest spenders of all. If cutting spending is a matter of such great urgency, then I believe the Pentagon, which has been generously funded over the years, can pitch in its share.

Why do the programs that Americans depend on for basic needs have to take the budget hit? For example, under the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the title X program is not just trimmed but completely zeroed out. For more than 40 years, title X has been a lifesaving source of family planning services and preventive health care for millions and millions of low-income women. PAP tests, breast exams, early detection of cervical cancer--uninsured women depend on title X in order to receive these vital services at clinics nationwide. The proposed elimination of funding would be devastating to these women and to their families.

It's critical to point out, Mr. Chairman, by law, not a single penny of title X money is used to perform an abortion. If, however, you want to reduce unintended pregnancies, as the other side says it does, then there is no more effective program than title X.

Title X was signed into law by President Nixon and has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support, at least until the Republican Congress decided to launch a war on women. Now they want to eliminate funding for the program completely. We spent just under $294 million on title X last fiscal year. To put things in perspective, Mr. Chairman, that's less than what we spend on any given day to continue a failed military occupation of Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, if we're going to ask poor women to give up all the benefits they receive from title X, then I think we can ask the Pentagon to give up the exact same amount: $293 million. It's just so big, it makes my head spin. If we did that, we would be saving the misguided elimination of title X. That's what my amendment does, because I believe women need to access lifesaving health care at least as much as the military needs another $293 million. In fact, if my Republican colleagues truly believe that the Federal deficit represents a moral crisis demanding sacrifice from everyone, then I'm confident they're going to support my amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, the Republican majority passed their budget blueprint which, unbelievably, called for the complete elimination, over 10 years' time, of funding for the Social Services Block Grant. This program is designed to help people in desperate straits, people who have fallen on hard times, people who need a hand up from their government in their hour of need. But the majority said, Sorry, we can't afford that.

The country, they say, just can't afford day care for children and adults, special services for people with disabilities, substance abuse assistance, low-income housing, home-delivered meals, employment services, and other support that people need when they have fallen on hard times and what people need when they're working very hard to become self-sufficient. That kind of compassion is too expensive, apparently.

But this week, when we're deciding how much to spend on our war machines and our Department of Defense bureaucracy, the sky is the limit. Money is no object. Well, those aren't the values I was taught. That's not the kind of country I want to live in.

The Pentagon has received more than its fair share of taxpayer dollars over the years. And, frankly, they haven't always been the most careful stewards of the people's money. They haven't always had the best accountability and oversight. They haven't always delivered the best bang for the buck, Mr. Chairman.

Recent polling indicates that Americans overwhelmingly want defense cuts, but instead we've got a defense spending bill that is larger than last year's and larger than what the President requested. I say it's time that the Pentagon contribute its fair share. My amendment calls for a $1.7 billion cut to Defense appropriations--an amount equal to the cut we have asked of the Social Services Block Grant program for next year.

If you believe that human dignity and basic compassion are more important than throwing money at wasteful weapons, then I hope that you will support my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by my friend from California.

If approved, this amendment would accomplish two goals: One, to end this war, and two, to save the taxpayers $21 billion, something I think both sides of the aisle could agree on.

Let's be clear about what this amendment really does. It fully funds a safe and responsible redeployment of our troops from Afghanistan. It's not cut and run; it's funding redeployment.

The Afghan people do not want us there. The American people don't want us there. Yet, we are spending $10 billion a month for a decade- long war that's failing to advance our national security objectives.

Why would we want to continue down this road, especially at such a great cost in blood and treasure? More than 2,000 servicemembers have been killed, and $548 billion in taxpayer money has been spent.

This amendment provides sufficient funding to ensure that every man and woman in uniform leaves Afghanistan safely. At that point, we can look away from defense spending to a national security policy based on the other two Ds: diplomacy and development. We can turn away from military force and toward SMART Security, an agenda that keeps America safe by alleviating human need and investing in human capital in Afghanistan and around the developing world.

Since 2004, Mr. Chairman, I have come to the House floor 437 times during Special Orders to call for an end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since I am retiring at the end of this term, this will be my last debate and last vote on defense spending. I hope it can be my legacy and yours to finally reorder our national security priorities and put an end to the war in Afghanistan. We owe it to the next generation, and we owe it to Americans in Afghanistan, together.

Let's bring our troops home in a safe and responsible way. Let's vote ``yes'' on Congresswoman Lee's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. The total amount of appropriations made available

by this Act is hereby reduced by $119,000,000.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. The total amount of appropriations made available

by this Act is hereby reduced by $1,700,000,000.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec.__. The total amount of appropriations made available

by this Act is hereby reduced by $181,000,000.

Offered By: Ms. Woolsey

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Another day, Mr. Speaker, another wave of attacks by insurgents in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported yesterday that the Taliban killed five police officers with a roadside bomb in what it calls ``a relatively peaceful province'' in central Afghanistan.

Separate attacks in Kandahar led to the deaths of three officers, with six civilians wounded. A motorcycle bomb took the lives of several more people in Helmand province on Sunday night, and then yet another motorcycle bomb in northern Afghanistan on Monday, wounding 26, with 10 in critical condition. And a deeply disturbing video is making its way around the Internet showing a 22-year-old Afghan woman being brutally executed by the Taliban over accusations of adultery.

Almost 11 years after our military occupation began, the security situation in Afghanistan is clearly abysmal. Our troops are in danger, Afghan security forces are in danger, and innocent civilians are in danger. Nearly 11 years ago, we went to war with the goal of defeating the Taliban, and yet the Taliban is alive and well, winning recruits, operating in the shadows, and ruling by terror throughout Afghanistan.

I'm not saying that ending the war and bringing our troops home will stabilize Afghanistan overnight. But I am saying that the longer we continue with our military occupation, the more we breathe life into the very forces we're trying to defeat. It is the resentment of our boots on the ground that is helping to sustain the Taliban.

There are clearly urgent humanitarian needs in Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker, and we have a moral responsibility to help meet them.

This is one of the poorest nations on Earth, with infrastructure needs, children who need schools, and malnutrition that must be addressed. But deploying thousands and thousands of troops for more than a decade is not the way to meet these challenges. Our military is not trained or equipped to do that kind of work.

For pennies on the dollar, Mr. Speaker, we can have a true civilian surge, investing in development aid to improve the lives of the Afghan people. We could give USAID a fraction of the $10 billion a month we spend on the war in Afghanistan and we could do a world of good. This approach isn't just the right thing to do, it isn't just a moral imperative, it's the SMART national security strategy as well.

On the other hand, the existing strategy of invasion and occupation has not served us well. The Afghanistan war has cost us dearly--in precious lives, in taxpayer dollars, in moral authority, and global credibility. It is undermining our national security interests instead of advancing them.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to do the smart thing--bring our troops home and, in return, invest in the hopes and future of the Afghan people-- and do it now.

Mr. Speaker, there was a very compelling op-ed piece in The Washington Post last week by U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker. In it, he paid tribute to the many American civilians who are risking their lives doing important humanitarian work to bring security and stability to Afghanistan.

I couldn't agree more with Ambassador Crocker that those men and women working for or contracting with the State Department or USAID are doing extraordinary work rebuilding infrastructure, helping children to go to school, improving infant and maternal health, wiring the Afghan people to the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, the burning question is this: If this work is so important, why aren't we doing more of it? The human need in Afghanistan is far greater than the resources we're devoting to the effort.

For the last few years, we've had a military surge in Afghanistan, a surge that's led to more death, more violence, more instability, and more strength for the extremists and insurgent forces we're trying to defeat.

What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a civilian surge. We need a great emphasis on development and diplomacy, on democracy promotion and debt relief, on peacekeeping and conflict resolution, not just in Afghanistan, but in impoverished and unstable countries around the developing world.

All of this is at the heart of the SMART Security proposal that I've been promoting since 2004 that I introduced during the middle of the Iraq war. Contrary to the conventional wisdom we've been fed, military aggression does not advance our national security goals. It undermines them. It makes us less safe, not more. It emboldens terrorists, instead of vanquishing them.

We've tried it this way for more than a decade now, Mr. Speaker, and it simply has not worked. It hasn't fundamentally changed the fortunes of the Afghan people, and it hasn't driven the Taliban and other terrorist networks into oblivion.

At an international conference on aid to Afghanistan this past weekend, Secretary of State Clinton said that the administration would request Afghanistan aid funding at or near levels provided over the last decade. But at or near is not enough. It comes to somewhere between $1 billion to $4 billion a year, which seems like a lot of money, until you realize that's what we spend on military operations in Afghanistan roughly every week or so; $10 billion a month waging a destructive war on Afghanistan that is killing civilians, but only a few billion dollars a year rebuilding Afghanistan and empowering civilians.

That just doesn't make sense. Ambassador Crocker has pointed this out. Our priorities are totally out of whack.

We can't continue on the same current destructive course, Mr. Speaker. This military occupation is failing America and failing Afghanistan.

Let's finally end this war. Let's bring our troops safely home and start investing in civilian aid and other SMART security initiatives, and let's do it now.

Let's also expand these initiatives to prevent war around the world.

Our ranking member today has proven something that's very clear to me: this is baloney. The arguments are baloney. So baloney, baloney, baloney. We're here, Mr. Speaker, standing on the House floor for the 31st time with the majority serving more baloney regarding the Affordable Care Act.

They haven't brought a single jobs bill to the floor; but for the 31st time in the last year and a half, they are voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

This is just another political show, act XXXI in the Republican theater of the absurd. In a moment when what we need is real leadership to tackle serious challenges, I'm still waiting for the majority's constructive ideas on health care. But all I hear are crickets. This leaves me to conclude that they truly prefer a health care system in crisis--millions uninsured and out-of-control costs crushing families and small businesses. They must believe that it's okay for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition and particularly to charge you more if you are a woman. They are obviously against seniors saving on prescription drug costs, and they are against increased access to preventive care.

We need to strengthen these reforms instead of dismantling them. The Affordable Care Act is the beginning, not the end. Actually, for nearly a half century, Medicare has provided coverage to seniors and those with disabilities in a fair, cost-efficient way. So maybe, just maybe, it's time to give every American those same benefits. We could do that by passing Medicare ``E,'' ``Medicare for Everyone.''

Enough baloney, because it's time for the wealthiest Nation in the world to provide health care for all.

Mr. Speaker, on June 28, 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. 434: ``yes''--Securing Maritime Activities through Risk- based Targeting (SMART) for Port Security Act.

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall Nos. 414-423. Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 414: ``yes''--On Hoyer of Maryland Motion to Instruct Conferees; rollcall No. 415: ``no''--On Black Tennessee Motion to Instruct Conferees; rollcall No. 416: ``yes''--Connolly of Virginia Amendment; rollcall No. 417: ``no''-- McClintock of California Amendment; rollcall No. 418: ``no''--Garrett of New Jersey Amendment; rollcall No. 419: ``yes''--Capps of California Amendment; rollcall No. 420: ``no''--Gosar of Arizona Amendment; rollcall No. 421: ``no''-- First Broun of Georgia Amendment; rollcall No. 422: ``no''--Second Broun of Georgia Amendment; rollcall No. 423: ``no''--Fourth Broun of Georgia Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the bicentennial of the establishment of the Russian colony at Fort Ross. Founded in September 1812 by Russian explorers, Fort Ross was the southernmost Russian settlement in North America and the first European settlement in Sonoma County. After the fort's assets were sold to John Sutter in 1841, Fort Ross became a shipping hub and tourist destination and in 1909 it was established as one of California's first State Historic Parks.

This year we commemorate the natural, cultural, and human history of Fort Ross, which has been influenced by diverse groups of people, including Russians, Kashaya, Pomo, and Miwok Natives, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Americans. These diverse groups, who settled at Fort Ross or lived in the surrounding area, made important contributions to early California history: they built California's first ships and windmills, introduced glass-paneled windows, created the first brickyard, and catalogued the local plant and animal life. At Fort Ross, Native people of various tribes lived, hunted, and labored alongside the Russian colonists; many learned Russian and intermarried with both Russians and Natives of other tribes. The story of the people of Fort Ross is unique, and it serves as an excellent example of the best that California and Sonoma County have to offer the world: a rich history, diverse cultural legacy, beautiful nature, and dedicated people.

Today, Fort Ross is a National Historic Landmark visited by 150,000 people each year. It also still serves as an important connection between Sonoma County and Russia. In 2010, California State Parks signed an agreement with Russia's Renova Group, creating a public- private partnership to provide financial support for Fort Ross. The Fort Ross Renova Foundation continues to provide support for maintenance, educational programs, cultural events, and other initiatives for the enhancement of Fort Ross.

Mr. Speaker, Fort Ross is an important cultural and historical landmark celebrating the two hundredth anniversary of its founding. Please join me in honoring the bicentennial of the establishment of Fort Ross.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the leadership of the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, whose work on behalf of justice for the LGBT community is an inspiration in Northern California and across the country.

Rev. Spahr began her ministry as a proud progressive and feminist, and as one of few willing to work publicly for the cause of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In 1980, Rev. Spahr served as Minister of Pastoral Care for the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco's Castro District. And in 1982, Rev. Spahr founded what would become the Spectrum LGBT Center, Mann County's premiere LGBT service provider and advocacy organization.

In 1991, Rev. Spahr was called to serve as co-pastor of the Downtown United Presbyterian Church of Rochester, New York, making her the first openly gay person called to such a position of leadership within the Presbyterian tradition. Unfortunately, Rev. Spahr's pastorship was challenged and ultimately revoked by Church leadership. The Reverend was instead invited to serve the Presbyterian congregation in Tiburon, California, with a focus on working within the denomination to end discrimination and foster inclusiveness and social justice.

More recently, after the Supreme Court of California struck down the State's ban on same-sex marriage, Rev. Spahr became known for officiating at the marriages of several gay and lesbian couples. The Reverend was again challenged for refusing to comply with the anti-gay marriage policies of Church leadership and earlier this year Rev. Spahr received a formal censure for her actions. However, as in the past, the congregation has rallied behind her, and the local presbytery voted overwhelmingly to refuse the censure. Although Rev. Spahr's battle continues, I am proud to support her mission to see the dignity and humanity of every individual respected.

In 2007, I honored Rev. Spahr in the Congressional Record upon her retirement from Spectrum, emphasizing that her courageous passion for justice and inclusion for LGBT people has left a legacy that is paving the way to a better future. Clearly, she has advanced the cause of same-sex marriage and other rights during this time and will continue to be an inspiration and role model to all of us who care about human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to join me in thanking the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr for her many contributions to a stronger and more inclusive community, and to the ongoing fight for full LGBT equality. We wish her every success, and we look forward to the day--closer now than ever-- when the last vestiges of anti-gay discrimination are erased from our laws and from our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eddie Wong, a man who has played a significant role in the ongoing restoration and development of the Angel Island Immigration Station in Marin County, CA. On June 30, 2012, Mr. Wong is retiring after four productive years as Executive Director of the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation (AIISF).

Located off the coast of Tiburon, California, in Angel Island State Park, the Immigration Station is the site of the detention of 175,000 Chinese immigrants from 1910 to 1940. Because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, many of them were held for weeks, months or years in a prison-like barracks where life was difficult and humiliating.

The restoration of this Station and related educational projects recognize the struggle of these immigrants and our nation's challenge to honor our history of immigration. AIISF, with the hard work of its many supporters and partners, including the California State Parks and the National Park Service, has led these rehabilitation efforts. During Mr. Wong's tenure, the Immigration Station Museum opened, the Immigrant Heritage Wall was created, and the hospital at the site was stabilized.

The Angel Island Immigration Station now hosts more than 50,000 visitors, including 30,000 schoolchildren, every year. I have had the privilege of participating in this effort by securing federal funding, and I share Eddie Wong's belief that with the partnership we have, we can complete the remaining work on this important testament to our rich and complex history.

Mr. Wong came to the Executive Director position with a strong background in the cultural social issues at stake. He graduated from UCLA with a BA and MFA from School of Fine Arts Motion Picture and Television Program. Before joining AIISF, he co-founded Visual Communications, the nation's first Asian American film production company, served as the Strategy and Investment Principal for Media and the Advisor on Social Justice for the Democracy Alliance, and was Executive Director of the National Asian American Telecommunications Association (now known as the Center for Asian American Media).

Understanding that the Angel Island Immigration Station site resonates personally with many immigrants, Mr. Wong says, ``I think that my father, who was deported from Angel Island as a 15-year old and came back a year later determined to better his life, would be proud that a place of shame has now become a site of conscience ``

Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Eddie Wong and in wishing him well in his retirement.