Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, while the House was out of session last week, the Nation suffered its 2,000th fatality in the conflict known as Operation Enduring Freedom, the overwhelming number of those deaths coming in Afghanistan. For more than 10 years now, we've been losing young, courageous servicemembers on a mission that isn't bolstering our national security, isn't supported by the American people, but is costing us billions of dollars every month. What a disaster and what a tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, from this Chamber, I regularly hear Members of the majority invoking morality in support of efforts to cut effective programs that help the most vulnerable members of our society. So where is their moral outrage and where is their budget axe when it comes to the most expensive government program imaginable that has killed 2,000 of our troops?

Two of those 2,000 come from my part of the country, the Sixth Congressional District of California. Army Specialist Christopher Gathercole and Army Sergeant Ryan Connolly, both of Santa Rosa, California, were killed less than a month apart in the year 2008.

We had others who were killed during the nearly 9 years that our troops were in Iraq, but 2,000 deaths doesn't even begin to tell the story of the human cost of this war. More than 15,000 Americans have come home wounded, many in ways that will alter their lives forever. Even those who returned with their bodies intact often suffer from devastating posttraumatic stress that may never go away. Postdeployment suicide has reached epidemic levels.

Nearly 2.5 million men and women have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I actually can't say that I trust that the veterans health care system is prepared or will be prepared to deal with the huge demand that will be placed on the services in the coming years.

A recent report prepared by VA doctors outlines the unique and varied health care needs of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. In addition to traumatic brain injuries, depression, and substance abuse, there's chronic muscle pain, sleep disturbances, hypertension, and complications from environmental exposures. Many of our returning heroes have difficulty readjusting to civilian life, integrating once again into their families, their workplaces, and their communities.

We had better be willing as a Nation to write that check for their care as we were for the war that damaged them in the first place.

And it's critical, Mr. Speaker, that we remember the human cost is not just here in the United States. Two thousand Americans have died in nearly 11 years of war. Well, 3,000 Afghan civilians, many of them children, were killed last year alone for the cause of their so-called liberation.

It's not enough to acknowledge the casualties of this war, to memorialize the dead and pay tribute to their service. What we need is an immediate change of policy. To extend the war through 2014 is to sentence hundreds more servicemembers to their deaths, all for a policy that isn't achieving its stated objectives while strengthening the very terrorists and extremists that we're trying to defeat.

There's only one solution, Mr. Speaker. There's only one choice that will finally keep the death toll from climbing. That choice is bring our troops home. Bring them home now.

Mr. Speaker, a strong American future depends on the sound stewardship of our oceans.

Nowhere is the ocean more magnificent and majestic than off of northern California's Sonoma County coast. These are some of the most abundant waters on Earth, but much of the area is vulnerable to ``drill, baby, drill'' enthusiasts.

That's why I have offered a bill to more than double the size of our existing national marine sanctuary off

these coastal areas, giving these waters the permanent protection they need to protect them from oil and gas exploration. This legislation is a win-win--a pro-environment and pro-economic recovery bill. It is a conservation imperative, and it would provide a boost to our commercial fishing industry and to our local tourism industry.

In recognition of World Ocean Day, I urge my colleagues to sign on to my bill, H.R. 192, the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Protection and Modification Act.

Mr. Speaker, last week, a bipartisan group of Members convened a panel discussion on Capitol Hill. Actually, it was an informal hearing about the Afghanistan war. One of the speakers was Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis who, after two tours in Afghanistan, has courageously come forward, speaking truth to power with his assessment of the situation on the ground and his belief that the war is wrong.

I wish more of my colleagues had been there to hear what Lieutenant Colonel Davis had to say. He talked about the arrogance and stubbornness that allows our country to continue this military occupation long after it's proven futile. He discussed the strain and stress we put on our Armed Forces. And, as he explained, the Taliban are stronger now than they were. Push them down, he said, and they pop up in another area.

After the most powerful military surge in the history of civilization, we still haven't been able to keep them down. This shouldn't be a major revelation. When will we learn? We are emboldening the very radical forces that we're trying to defeat.

It's common sense that thousands and thousands of occupying U.S. troops will breed and do breed resentment and drive the Afghan people straight into the arms of the Taliban. Every additional day that we keep boots on the ground in Afghanistan is another day that the Taliban wins over more recruits and poses a greater threat to our safety and our interests.

Here's a novel idea, Mr. Speaker. How about we win over the Afghan people instead of alienating them and giving them common cause with insurgents? How about we move to implement a SMART security agenda where war is the very last resort?

Under SMART Security, we would emphasize diplomacy and development. We would seek peaceful conflict resolution instead of military force. And instead of launching drone attacks on troubled nations half a world away, SMART Security would have us empowering and investing in the people who live there. And why? Because it's the right thing to do. Absolutely. But also because the goodwill it engenders works to our benefit because, by helping people, we help ourselves.

The foundation of SMART Security is the recognition that killing more people will not make us safer, that it will undermine our national security instead of contributing to it. But if we help send Afghan girls to school, if we help Afghan women get proper prenatal care, if we help Afghanistan rebuild its infrastructure and its economy, these are the things that will advance in our interests, and our security will be better off.

A more Democratic, more prosperous Afghanistan is one where the extremists can't get a toehold, where the Taliban can't exploit and feed off people's desperation. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, we can do SMART Security at a fraction of the cost of our current approach-- pennies on the dollar.

Humanitarian aid is a lot more cost effective than weapons systems and military occupation. The current Afghanistan policy has been given a chance to work, and it has failed spectacularly. The time for patience, after more than a decade of war, has long since come and gone.

As a matter of moral decency, fiscal sanity, and common sense, it's time now to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, later today I will join a bipartisan group of Members at a panel discussion about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. Joining us as a special guest will be Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, one Afghanistan veteran who has spoken the devastating truth about conditions on the ground.

During his second tour of duty in 2010 and 2011, he interviewed or interacted with 250 soldiers at all levels in several Afghan provinces. He also spoke with Afghan security officials and with civilians. He prepared both a classified and an unclassified report about what he saw and what he heard. Here is some of what he concluded in his own words, Mr. Speaker. He said:

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements

by U.S. military leaders.

He said:

I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every

level. I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled

virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or

international security assistance force base.

And he said:

From time to time, I observed the Afghan security forces

collude with the insurgency.

Davis tells us that one Afghan police captain actually laughed at him when Davis asked about how they responded to a Taliban attack. No, we don't go after them, said the captain. That would be dangerous.

One senior officer told Lieutenant Colonel Davis: How do I look a soldier's wife in the eye and tell her that her husband died for something meaningful?

Mr. Speaker, is that what we have to show for nearly 11 years of war and hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money? As we recognized Memorial Day on Monday and over the past weekend, don't we at least owe it to the war dead and their families to ensure that their sacrifice was for a worthy cause?

Lieutenant Colonel Davis did not have to come forward. Without a doubt, it would have been better for his military career to keep his head down and his mouth shut. But with the stakes so great and the costs so high, he felt that he had a greater obligation to the truth.

Lieutenant Colonel Davis' story must be heard. It needs to be heard because it balances the last 10 years at the Armed Services Committee and in various other briefings and forums where we've been exposed to nothing more than the official line on how this war is going. It's time we got firsthand experience and a firsthand version from someone who has seen the dysfunction of our Afghan policy at the ground level.

In February, a group of Members sent a letter to House leadership asking that Lieutenant Colonel Davis have the opportunity to testify at a formal hearing of a relevant committee of the House, but this invitation has not been extended to him. So, thanks to the leadership of my friends, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Walter Jones, we will convene a panel later today to give Lieutenant Colonel Davis a chance to tell what he saw in Afghanistan.

I invite all Members of Congress to attend. It's at 2 p.m. at B 318, Rayburn. If you do, you will hear convincing and overwhelming evidence that this war is a colossal failure, and it's time, finally--after more than a decade--to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely appalling that in the year 2012 women still make 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male peers.

This isn't just an issue of fundamental fairness. With so many women

heading households and being the primary breadwinner, it's a matter of economic security for American families. These women face the same financial pressures as any other American. They certainly don't get a 23 percent discount on their rent or mortgage payment, on the groceries they buy or on the children's shoes they have to replace.

We must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which the Senate plans to vote on next week and the House passed in the last Congress. I ask my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, why the Republicans aren't making this a priority instead of today we're voting on a divisive abortion bill that criminalizes a woman's most private health care decisions.

Women do not need yet another attack on their reproductive rights. What they need is economic justice. When will the majority get it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to honor my friend Susan Moore, of Santa Rosa, CA, who recently received a Lifetime Achievement Volunteer Award from Roseland School District in her hometown. This well-deserved accomplishment reflects Susan's passionate efforts as a driving force behind the creation of Roseland University Prep.

Eight years ago, Susan worked with Roseland Superintendent of Schools Gail Ahlas to establish a high school in a largely Latino area where few students went on to attend college. The school's purpose is to give each student both the opportunity to take the necessary classes and the support needed to succeed. Recently U.S. News & World Report ranked Roseland University Prep as one of the top-performing high schools in the nation.

Susan Moore's commitment to children in underserved communities is long-standing. She is a person who sees a need and uses her skills and determination to fill it. In 1999, she developed the Girl by Girl Mentoring

Project to serve young girls who are ``ethnically underrepresented in the college system'' by bringing in the best community resources to help them. She personally mentored many of the girls herself.

Susan also found the time over the years to take leadership roles in the local chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Women's Justice Center (Roseland), Worth our Weight (for kids timing out of foster care), and Friends of Graton Rancheria (support of a Native American tribe).

Her upbringing in Port Arthur, TX, and a background as a teacher likely contributed to both Susan's resolve and her understanding that education is the path to a better a life. She also counted on the support of the No Name Women's group, formed in the 1980s with other strong local women who wanted not only to network and support each other, but also to promote progressive candidates and causes. Susan was always willing to make the phone calls to urge the group forward, and today she still makes the calls to an expanded group addressing a broad range of issues, from the Governor's race to astrophysics. I am proud to have had the group's support over the years as we addressed the same causes.

Susan Moore cannot be described without mentioning how much fun she is to work with. When her name is mentioned in a group, you will hear chuckles and someone will always say, ``Did you hear about the time Susan . . .?'' Although she doesn't take ``no'' for an answer when she has an issue in her sights, Susan makes people feel that they are willingly joining her in a great adventure. She even learned tap dancing with a group of women who worked on a routine to tap for women's rights in a Santa Rosa Rose Parade.

Mr. Speaker, Susan Moore is an inspiring role model who makes our community a better place. Please join me in congratulating her on receiving the Lifetime Achievement Volunteer Award from Roseland School District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge, a modern architectural marvel and a landmark that defines California and the West Coast. Since its opening on May 27, 1937, the Golden Gate Bridge has stood as a symbol of human potential--a triumph of ingenuity, creativity, and progressive vision that complements the beauty of our natural surroundings and enriches life in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Since the Gold Rush first brought American settlers to the San Francisco Bay Area, residents have been interested in the idea of linking the Bay Area with a bridge spanning the Golden Gate. A single span would bring together the northern and southern halves of the greatest natural port on the West Coast, easing transportation and spurring economic growth across Northern California. For years, though, the task was considered too costly and too complicated to realize.

By the 1920s, engineers had become more confident that technological advances made a fixed link feasible, and San Francisco City Engineer Michael O'Shaughnessy launched an effort to make the proposal a reality. In 1921, Joseph Strauss--later the Chief Engineer of the Golden Gate Bridge--submitted his first designs. After they were made public, communities on both sides of the Golden Gate began lining up behind the plan. Under the leadership of Santa Rosa businessman Frank Doyle, a public coalition formed in Sonoma County with representatives from across the North Coast, all pushing for the Strauss design. In 1923, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District Act, authored by Senator Frank Coombs of Napa, passed in the California Legislature. In 1924, Marin and San Francisco Counties submitted a joint application to the War Department for permission to build on the federally owned headlands at each end of the strait. Permission was granted by the end of that year.

In 1929, the Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District met for the first time, with members from San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, and Del Norte Counties. Strauss was named Chief Engineer, and the Oakland-based architect Irving Morrow was appointed to consult on the final plans. Morrow would become famous for crafting a design in harmony with the rugged coast, balancing graceful Art Deco features with strong lighting and powerful lines. Morrow was also responsible for convincing authorities to accept the radical choice of painting the entire Bridge in the now-famous international orange.

While the Great Depression deepened, work forged ahead. In 1930, casting aside fears that infrastructure was an unwise long-term investment, District voters overwhelmingly approved a bond measure using their own homes, ranches, and vineyards as collateral. By 1934, the first tower--the Marin tower--was complete. By 1936, both towers and the cable spinning were complete, and over 1,000 workers were employed in the construction. In April 1937, ahead of schedule and under budget, the Bridge was ready for pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The first to cross on foot was a young runner from Tamalpais High School in Mill Valley. The first to cross by car was none other than Santa Rosa's Frank Doyle, the business leader widely credited with uniting Northern Coast residents behind the endeavor.

In the 75 years since its opening, the Golden Gate Bridge has borne witness to millions of lives, and to many changes in the Bay Area. The Bridge is a crucial route to work and school, a magnet for global tourism, and a center for recreation that links two jewels in the federal park system. It is a demonstration of American labor and engineering. It is a theater for advocacy and protest. For many soldiers sailing into the Second World War, it was their last memory of home. For new Americans emigrating from Asia and the Pacific, it is their first welcome to a new future. The Golden Gate Bridge is more than a modern wonder of architecture and engineering--it is at the heart of what it means to live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Golden Gate Bridge, and in thanking all those who have fought for, built, and stewarded the Bridge over the years. We also owe a special debt to the eleven workers who were killed and the many others who were injured in the course of the construction. The Bridge is a testament to their dedication and expertise,

and it is a proud monument to the greatness that we can accomplish when we harness our collective energy and resources to better our future.

Mr. Chair, on May 18, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 288. Had I been present I would have voted:

Rollcall No. 288: ``no''--Rehberg of Montana Amendment No. 59.

Amendment No. 111 Offered by Price of Georgia

Madam Speaker, there are few things more important for us to deal with than the health and safety of our men and women in uniform. For everything they do, for all the courage they've shown and the sacrifices that they've made, we must be absolutely vigilant about protecting them from unnecessary risk.

That's why I was troubled to hear news reports about several of our most highly trained and skilled Air Force pilots experiencing loss of oxygen while in the cockpit of the F 22 aircraft. We're talking about blacking out, losing control of the plane, and suffering memory loss. In fact, 18 percent of those who flew the F 22 reported an incident similar to this. In fact, one family blames this mysterious affliction for a crash that killed their loved one.

We have some of our most fearless pilots afraid and even refusing to take the controls of the F 22. Two pilots went so far as to appear on shows like ``60 Minutes'' without permission from their superiors so that they could expose the problem.

In response, Madam Speaker, I prepared an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House will debate today. My amendment would cut off funding for the F 22 until the Pentagon inspector general completes an investigation on these malfunctions and finds a solution to protect the safety of our pilots.

Thankfully, my amendment wasn't necessary because, yesterday, Secretary of Defense Panetta took steps to impose flight restrictions on the F 22, demanding that the Air Force take stronger safety measures to protect our troops. Because of the Secretary's response to these life-and-death concerns, I have withdrawn my amendment, but I will stay on top of the situation.

The F 22 isn't exactly a ``bargain basement'' item, Madam Speaker. Throughout the life of the program, it's cost taxpayers $79 billion. And that's for a plane originally designed to fight the next generation of Soviet jet, even though the Soviet Union, itself, didn't have a next generation, and it doesn't even exist any longer. What's more, the F 22 hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It troubles me, Madam Speaker, that we've spent so much on slick, supposedly state-of-the-art aircraft that are making our Air Force pilots dangerously sick--at a moment when we could use that money on programs our servicemembers badly need. For example, veterans groups are fighting for more resources for mental health treatment, for job placement, for access to education, for VA home loans, and much more. Certainly we should invest in improving the lives of our troops instead of endangering them.

My Republican colleagues are fond of pointing out that we're in a challenging fiscal environment where every government expenditure should receive the strictest scrutiny. I just hope that they'll apply as tough a standard to expensive weapons systems as they do to foreign humanitarian aid and important domestic safety net programs right here at home.

As we debate the defense authorization today, we must choose the defense programs that actually enhance our national security over ones like the F 22 that are creating more problems than solutions.

Madam Speaker, I believe more strongly than ever that we need to end the war in Afghanistan, supporting our troops by bringing them home; but, in the meantime, making sure that the planes they fly and the equipment they use are as safe as possible is certainly our number one responsibility. We owe them nothing less.

Madam Speaker, I hereby submit the enclosed letters:

Project on

Government Oversight,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2012.

Honorable Members,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

POGO's Picks for More Savings, Security, and Accountability in the

National Defense Authorization Act: Nine Amendments To Support

Dear Representative: As you prepare to vote on the National

Defense Authorization Act of FY 2013 (NDAA) and dozens of

proposed amendments, we recommend nine amendments for more

savings, security, and accountability.

The Project On Government Oversight is a nonpartisan

independent watchdog that champions good government reforms.

POGO's investigations into corruption, misconduct, and

conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable,

open, and ethical federal government. POGO recently released

an update to our recommendations for national security

savings with Taxpayers for Common Sense--Spending Even Less,

Spending Even Smarter--which includes $700 billion in

spending reductions. Some of those recommendations are being

offered as amendments to the NDAA.

We haven't assessed all of the proposed NDAA amendments,

and don't yet know which ones will be made in order. However,

POGO strongly supports the following sensible measures.

1. Prevent Human Trafficking by Government Contractors--Amendment by

James Lankford and Gerry Connolly

The End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012

is offered as a bipartisan amendment to stop U.S. taxpayer

dollars from funding the abhorrent practice of human

trafficking in war zones. In its final report to Congress

last year, the Commission on Wartime Contracting said it had

uncovered evidence of human trafficking in Iraq and

Afghanistan by labor brokers and subcontractors. Commissioner

Dov Zakheim later told a Senate panel that the Commission had

only scratched the surface of the problem. He called it the

``tip of the iceberg.'' Existing contracting regulations to

implement anti-trafficking plans are too weak. This amendment

will strengthen the law and will require companies to closely

monitor and report the activities of their subcontractors

down the supply chain. It also would expand the definition of

``fraudulent recruiting'' to apply to laborers who work on

U.S. government contracts outside the U.S., mandating

responsible labor recruitment practices. It's time to end the

suffering and abuses of our taxpayer-funded ``shadow army.''

2. Restrict Taxpayer-Funded Compensation for Contractors--Amendment by

Paul Tonko and Jackie Speier

This amendment is based on the Stop Excessive Payments to

Government Contractors Act of 2011--part of a bipartisan,

bicameral push for reform--and would lower the existing

contractor compensation cap to $400,000 and apply it to all

defense contractors. Importantly, the provision would also

ensure that the cap is set in such a way that it will stop

the exorbitant growth rate the current formula has enabled.

Taxpayer-funded contractor compensation should be reined in

from the ever-increasing cap that currently well exceeds what

the government pays its own senior executives--including the

President. The current cap for contractor compensation is

$763,029. It's time to stop making taxpayers foot outrageous

contractor payrolls and rein in the growing cost of the

entire government workforce.

3. Reduce Funding for the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility--Amendment by Ed Markey, Loretta Sanchez,

and Hank Johnson

This amendment restores the cut already made by

appropriators for a costly and unnecessary plutonium research

facility. It also strikes sections from H.R. 4310 that would

require the completion of the proposed facility and forbid

Congress from funding less expensive alternatives. The cost

of this nuclear boondoggle--known as the Chemistry and

Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility (CMRR

NF)--has swelled from $375 million to nearly $6 billion

over the past ten years. Earlier this year, the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said it does not

need CMRR NF in order to fulfill its nuclear weapons and

science missions. What's more, there is plentiful

scientific evidence and expert testimony that says that

the increased plutonium pit production enabled by CMRR NF

is not necessary to national security. The President's

budget and House Appropriations have already zeroed-out

the funding, but one member of House Armed Services--

Representative Michael Turner--has ignored the evidence

and sought to send more taxpayer dollars into this nuclear

money pit. Support this amendment to restore sensible

savings.

4. Delay the New Long-Range Penetrating Bomber Aircraft--Amendment by

Ed Markey, Peter Welch, and John Conyers

This amendment delays development of the next-generation

long-range penetrating bomber aircraft through FY 2023 and

reduces funds for the program by about $291 million. The

Administration initially cancelled the program in FY 2010 as

there was ``no urgent need'' for a new bomber because the Air

Force expects its fleet of bombers to be operational for

years to come. According to FY 2013 budget requests, the

program is projected to cost at least $6.3 billion in the

next five years alone, and would likely cost billions more

over its lifetime. Deferring development of this costly and

unnecessary system saves money and is low-risk because of

robust U.S. bomb delivery capabilities that will be available

for decades.

5. Stop the Rollback of Oversight of Nuclear Weapons Laboratories--

Amendment by George Miller, Peter Visclosky, and Loretta Sanchez

This amendment would restore oversight over the nuclear

weapons laboratories by modifying Section 3113 and striking

Sections 3115 and 3202 of H.R. 4310. These sections pose

dangerous rollbacks of health, safety, security, and

financial oversight at the Department of Energy's nuclear

weapons laboratories. Section 3113 gives the NNSA's

contractor-operated labs the ability to self-report and self-

regulate their performance, despite the fact that the

Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included these

labs on its list of programs that are at ``high risk'' for

waste, fraud, and abuse for over 20 years. Section 3115

lowers the bar for health and safety standards at the labs by

shifting oversight from the Department of Energy to the NNSA

and its contractors. Section 3202 would weaken the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in its role as independent

adviser to the nuclear weapons laboratories. Ever since the

Board was created in reaction to serious safety issues at

nuclear sites, the Department of Energy has been required to

accept Board recommendations or give a reason for their

rejection, but section 3202 requires the Board to submit

drafts of its recommendations to the Department first, which

would strip the Board of its complete independence. Section

3202 also increases the amount of time the Department has to

respond to recommendations, which could undermine public

health and safety. We need more oversight of the contractors

at our nuclear laboratories--not less.

6. Replace the Costly Variant of the F 35 with Super Hornets--Amendment

by John Conyers and Keith Ellison

The Marine Corps' variant of the F 35 fighter plane is the

most expensive variant of the most expensive DoD weapon

program ever, and has been plagued by cost overruns and

schedule delays. This amendment would replace the 6 Marine

Corps F 35s the DoD plans to buy in FY 2013 with proven F/A

18E/F Super Hornets, which have many capabilities that rival

the F 35 and cost far less to buy and operate. This amendment

will save taxpayers $1.7 billion in FY 2013 and millions more

in operating costs over the life of these planes.

7. Improve Service Contractor Inventories--Amendment by Jackie Speier

Currently, service contract inventories released by the

Pentagon provide little, if any, useful data about service

contracts. Moreover, those inventories do not provide the

agency with any information that allows it to make informed

personnel decisions that will save taxpayer dollars. The

offered amendment, which falls in line with Pentagon efforts

to increase the data reported in the inventories, would

require DoD to collect additional data about the labor,

hours, and costs of service contract workers that can be used

for comparing the cost of the civilian, military, and

contractor workforces.

8. Redefine ``Commercial Item'' for Contracts as Proposed by DoD--

Amendment by Leonard Boswell

This amendment mirrors the DoD's legislative proposal and

would result in improved oversight of billions of dollars'

worth of so-called ``commercial'' goods and services. It

would narrow the definition of a ``commercial item'' to mean

goods or services that are actually sold to the general

public in like quantities. This would be a huge improvement

over the current definition, which includes good or services

``of a type'' that are ``offered'' for sale or lease. POGO

has promoted such a change to the definition since 1999, and

now have been joined by DoD, the Department of Defense Panel

on Contracting Integrity, and the Acquisition Advisory Panel.

Since the mid-1990s, the government has been buying so-called

``commercial'' goods and services that are not actually sold

in the commercial market. Making matters worse, these

purchases are often without any government review of the cost

data that leads to the final price the contractors are

proposing. Would you buy a car if the dealer told you that

you couldn't see the window sticker? We doubt it, and the

government shouldn't either.

9. Right-Size the Bloated Top Ranks--Amendment by Mike Coffman

This amendment would cap the number of General/Flag

Officers at ``0.05 percent of the combined authorized

strengths for active duty personnel.'' In other words, for

every 2,000 troops there can be no more than one General or

Admiral. This amendment will reduce the General and Flag

Officer ranks by less than 5 percent. At the end of FY 2011,

the military was more top-heavy than it had ever been in U.S.

history. While the enlisted ranks have been shrinking, the

top ranks

have grown. Since 2001, the very top ranks, 3- and 4-star

General/Flag Officers, have grown faster than any other

personnel group at the DoD. It's time to right-size the top-

heavy top ranks.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other

national security issues with you. For more information,

please contact me at 202 347 1122 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Angela Canterbury,

Director of Public Policy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend Barbara Lee's amendment.

Let's look at the facts. Two-thirds of Americans oppose our military occupation of Afghanistan. So if the American people were to vote on this amendment today, it would pass overwhelmingly with support from both Democrats and Republicans. After nearly 11 years, Mr. Chairman, enough is enough.

Congress must catch up to the people they represent and embrace a responsible end to this war. Instead of dumping $10 billion a month into an unwinnable war, let's redirect our resources towards a SMART Security approach. Let's invest in people. Let's invest in development. Let's invest in humanitarian progress. Let's bring our troops home.

Vote ``yes'' on the Lee amendment. Vote ``yes'' for SMART Security. Vote ``yes'' for the American people.

I want to thank the gentlelady from California for bringing this amendment forward.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and to show the difference between both sides of the aisle, because with all of the fiscal challenges that we face, it's just common sense that the most generously funded government agency, the Department of Defense, would tighten its belt just like everyone else.

Sure, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are happy to cut and are big budget cutters when it comes to food stamps and Medicare and the safety net and anti-poverty programs. But when it comes to war and when it comes to weapons, they actually are the biggest spenders of all. I think the bare minimum we can ask is to keep the DOD budget at the level agreed to last year when we passed the Budget Control Act.

The majority is asking poor children, seniors, and women's health needs to make due with less. The same must apply to the Pentagon. Vote ``yes'' on the Lee-Frank amendment.

Mr. Chairman, after 8 long and deadly years, we finally ended the war in Iraq. Hopefully, the war in Afghanistan is drawing to a close, but not nearly as quickly as I'd like.

The last thing we can afford is to enter another military conflict that kills Americans, drains our Treasury, and undermines our national reputation and our national security. That's why I support this amendment.

By sending a special envoy to Iran, we can take definitive steps to avoid war, giving diplomacy the best chance to succeed, and giving ourselves the best chance to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

This is consistent with my SMART Security Platform, which demands that we explore every possible alternative to war, that we use peaceful conflict resolution whenever and wherever possible, that we make a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

So let's do the smart thing. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Prevent war.

Mr. Speaker, during my first term in Congress, I proudly voted for the Violence Against Women Act. It saddens me that 20 years later, in my last term, my Republican colleagues are determined to water down and undermine this landmark legislation. Of all things that shouldn't be partisan, this is it--the need to help those who suffer injuries at the hands of someone who supposedly loves them.

As we've seen many times, the majority seems to like playing politics with women's health and safety. And because they rarely miss an opportunity to exclude LGBT Americans from important rights and benefits, they're saying that if you're a woman who is in a relationship with another woman, then you don't deserve the same protection against domestic abuse or sexual assault.

We need to be doing more, not less on this issue. I have a bill that would extend family-leave benefits to victims of domestic violence. It's H.R. 3151. Why don't we take up that bill instead of this divisive measure that rolls back historic progress?

Vote ``no'' on H.R. 4970.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks in opposition to a Republican bill that weakens protections for violence against women and in support of the bipartisan Senate bill.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow this body will vote on a Republican budget bill that is nothing short of reprehensible. Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle are insisting that the poor and working-class families continue to suffer and struggle because heaven forbid we should ask the Department of Defense to do its share to meet our fiscal challenges.

You can't walk into this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, without hearing a self-serving and self-righteous lecture from a Member of the majority about fiscal responsibility. But when they say, Let's cut spending, what they really mean is, Let's shred the safety net.

So their bill puts a giant bull's-eye on the programs that struggling families need to keep their heads above water, especially in this tough economy. Under their bill, fewer women will get breast cancer screenings, fewer poor children will get meals at school or access to health care, and 1.7 million fewer seniors will get Meals on Wheels and other home-based services. They are willing to cut Medicare child abuse prevention and consumer financial protection, and they want to push 1.8 million people off the food stamp program--a program, by the way, that my family needed to survive when I was a single working mom more than 40 years ago. I don't know what we would have done without food stamps.

But guess which part of the Federal Government--which bloated, well- fed bureaucracy--continues to get lavish support from the majority? That's right--the Pentagon, the military industrial complex. Even though the sequester is supposed to apply across the board, the majority wants to exempt defense and make domestic programs absorb all the cuts. That's the way they do business. They pinch pennies on the very real human needs of the American people. They nickel and dime hardworking families who deserve a fair shot and need a hand up.

For 10\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, we've been at war. And between Iraq and Afghanistan, the American people are out $1.3 trillion--that's trillion, with a T, Mr. Speaker--$1.3 trillion wasted on a policy that is killing our people, hurting our national security, and undermining our standing in the world.

For pennies on the dollar, we could replace permanent warfare with a SMART Security platform that will keep our country safe by focusing on development, diplomacy, and investment in humanitarian needs in the developing world. And we'd have plenty left over--plenty--to shore up the safety net, fund antipoverty programs, and restore the American Dream.

If we're serious about reducing the deficit, then progressives are willing to talk, but there has to be a shared sacrifice. There has to be a balanced approach. We won't take it out on our most vulnerable people, not when we're waging a failed war that is our biggest ticket item, not when we continue to throw billions of dollars at Cold War aircraft and weapons systems that are serving absolutely no purpose.

And not when we continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal that's enough to destroy civilization several times over. Targeting social services while giving defense and war spending a free pass is not fiscal responsibility. It's ideological warfare.

Let's get our priorities straight. It's time to cut defense spending, Mr. Speaker. It's time to bring our troops home. And it's time to reinvest in the American people. And the time is now.