Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, with passage of the FY 2012 Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, we renew our

commitment to keep our promise to our nation's more than 2 million military personnel and their families, reservists, and 23 million veterans.

I have said it before, but I am proud to note again that this committee has a strong history of working in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that recognizes and supports the needs of our active duty service members and our veterans.

The legislation includes a total of $127.8 billion in both discretionary and mandatory funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs--an increase of $8.7 billion over last year's level. In this bill, discretionary funding alone equals $58.3 billion, which is $1.85 billion above the FY 2011 enacted level. This bill also provides full funding of $69.5 billion for mandatory VA programs.

Since January 2007, Congress has increased funding for veterans' health care and other services by $30 billion (over 70%). While I would like to give more resources to Veterans Affairs, even in these tough economic times, I am pleased that we are building on the progress made by the Democratic Majority in the last two Congresses. Importantly, this bill also includes provisions to increase spending oversight at the VA--making sure that the VA uses their increase in funding responsibly and appropriately is critically important for our nation's veterans and their families.

The bill protects the health and well being of our veterans by preserving the advance appropriations for medical care already provided for fiscal year 2012 and providing the mandatory funding for disability, rehabilitation, education, and housing benefits. This bill also includes sufficient resources to fully implement VA homeless assistance programs, including the Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem, the Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development--Department of Veterans Affairs Supported Housing programs.

I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their hard work in ensuring that this bill is another significant step in fulfilling the promise our country made to leave no veteran behind.

I urge my colleagues to support final passage of H.R. 2055.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for yielding and I rise with concerns with this rule.

The rule in one part is good because it's an open rule, allows unlimited amendments, but the rule on the second part, which protects the work of the committee, fails to do so. This committee is about food. It's about food production, about food packaging, about food delivery, and about feeding people. It is the largest poverty program in the United States. We have a lot of poor people in this country of all ages, and instead of taking care of those people, this rule eliminates that protection. It protects those that have but not those that have not.

I stand in opposition to the rule.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today as the ranking member on the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee to draw concern to this bill. I know that we're in tough budget times, but even in tough budget times, people have to eat. It's my opinion that this bill makes it very hard for people to eat, particularly people who don't have any money.

The allocation for the FY 2012 Agriculture appropriations bill, as approved in the full committee, is $17.250 billion. This is $5 billion, or 23 percent, below what President Obama asked for. It's 14 percent below what Congress enacted last year. It's 26 percent below what the Congress enacted the year before. It's even below what we enacted in 2008. So it has taken the wind out of the hopes and food lockers of people who are most poor.

With the allocation that Chairman Kingston was given, I don't envy his position. He was forced to make these drastic cuts that will affect every heart of farm country, and I do appreciate the effort that he has made to invest our very limited resources wisely and cost effectively. In tough budget times, everyone has to tighten their belts; we all know that. I want to point out, though, that it doesn't matter if you're a specialty crop producer in California or a cotton or peanut producer in Georgia; if the resources are not available to deliver the program, then the effects felt by both producers and consumers in urban and rural areas are the same.

I know my friend Mr. Kingston did the best he could but agriculture is about feeding people. This isn't just about looking at the cost of everything. It's also examining the value. It's about making sure that America has the production capabilities and enough food to go around domestically and internationally. The bill almost makes that difficult, if not impossible, especially where nursing mothers and infant babies are concerned, because the WIC program gets whacked.

The bill also calls into question the United States' commitment to our international neighbors who have hungry and malnourished people that depend on our assistance to stave off mass starvation because the Food for Peace program is chopped.

I think there comes a point in budget exercise when you starve the program so much that it just can't function. I fear that this is where this bill is going, with several of the funding levels in this bill, such as implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act and the Dodd- Frank and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The United States is the greatest agriculture producer in the world. We produce more and we produce it more efficiently than any other country, but this bill will undermine the very resources that support our agricultural supremacy. I feel it is important to use this bill to strengthen our rural economy by investing our precious Federal resources, investing in expanding markets for agricultural products and supporting international economic development; by investing in developing alternative markets for agriculture products; by providing financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities, and infrastructure in rural America, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for; and most specifically, enhancing food safety and improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion. These are the things that America does best.

Madam Chairman, as we move through this bill, through the process again, I want to make sure that you understand that there are dire consequences to adopting this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and an outstanding player in the Rose Bowl from the University of Washington.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

How much time do we have remaining?

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, the former ranking member of this committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the Member from Memphis, Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Garamendi), former Lieutenant Governor of the State of California.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Boston, Massachusetts, Mr. Steve Lynch.

Madam Chair, how much time do both sides have remaining?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the former ranking member of this committee.

Madam Chair, how much time does each side have remaining?

I yield such myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to, first of all, compliment Mr. Kingston, who is chair of this committee. He has come on as the chair, and I have come on as ranking member. We have both been on the committee for a long time and served under very distinguished chairs, two of whom are ranking members you heard here today.

It is really tough, because he has been given the allocation to fit all the programs within the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration within the allocation given him, and one can argue that that is it. I mean, we have to hide behind the allocation that was given. You have to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Let me say in this moment, in this allocation of time, that it is about values, and I think the big debate here is not just about how you cut, squeeze, and trim spending.

We have Members of Congress who have spoken today whose families receive millions of dollars in taxpayer money in commodity payments, in crop payments. We ought to be discussing that. What is the value of funding very wealthy people at the expense of taking food away from poor and starving children?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we've heard a lot today. We've heard a lot about spending, because that's what this bill is. It is an appropriations bill. But the talk about spending is wrong because it's not putting into the priorities what is really important in our service to the people of this country. We don't need to be here to protect the rich and to protect multinational corporations. We need to be here to protect the rights of people who don't have the wherewithal to have enough food on their table to take care of their kids.

What you've seen in the debate today is tax spending for the rich is okay; tax spending for the poor is not. Tax breaks for oil companies are okay; food for the poor is not. Cutting our Commodity Futures Trading Commission is okay, but paying for police to police for speculation and misuse of public moneys is not a worthwhile expenditure. Our priorities are not straight, and that's why there's so much criticism for this bill.

I applaud the chairman for working hard to try to get the committee to bring together a bill that could meet the allocation. But I think the allocation was all wrong and our priorities are wrong, and I ask my colleagues to oppose the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Chairman, I rise because I want to respond to my chair, who I respect deeply, but I think there is sort of a misstatement of fact here.

The only budget that has ever been balanced in the last 20 years has been the budget that the Democrats did. We did an unholy thing that the other party can't accept that is going to be necessary to balance any budget, and that is we had to increase revenues. And what did we do? We closed the tax loopholes on the richest families in this country and corporations. We closed loopholes. And we made a lot of cuts, because we also dedicated revenue from those loophole closures to pay off the deficit. And, guess what? We paid it off. We paid it off ahead of schedule.

When the Clinton administration left town and the Bush administration came on, we had an $800 billion surplus--a surplus. And what immediately did they do? They repealed the mechanism that was balancing the budget and said, no, we will give back those tax loopholes to the richest people in the country. And then we go to war. Whenever in history we have gone to war, people have paid for it. Not these wars. We just put it on the credit card.

So, Mr. Kingston, you know, let's be factual about the Democrats being in charge. We were able to balance the budget, something that your party hasn't done.

And just on this whole WIC thing, we all know that the administration administers the program and has to estimate how many people are going to be in need. That is the way we put together these big budgets, whether they be Medicare or WIC or other kinds of things. And last year what we found out is that the estimates were not needed, so in fact there was a surplus. But it was based on fact after the fact, not ahead of time.

This year the economy is down. We have heard many, many speakers talk about the impacts in their districts, of the number of people that are unemployed and are seeking benefits like this. I think the chairman himself has indicated that almost 15 percent of the children in this country are using one or more of these programs.

So this idea that this cut can be sustained, when it is based on a guesstimate, and a guesstimate that didn't take in, one, the rising food costs, and, two, the number of people that are still unemployed, and, frankly, people that are underemployed, including members of the military and their families who depend on this WIC funding.

So I just want to put it in some kind of perspective here, that the budget has been balanced by this party and paid for and left in a surplus, and the fact that the guesstimates on these WIC cuts are going to do more to do harm than to do good.

I now yield to my colleague from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. We are slowly rebounding from a financial crisis that crippled our economy and left millions of Americans out of work. Clearly, consumer protection is important now more than ever. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, known as the CFTC, is an independent agency that protects market users and the public from abusive practices related to derivatives. This includes helping regulate oil speculation and food price speculation.

Now, more than ever, we need a well-resourced CFTC. As Mr. Frank pointed out, this is new legislation. The agency is growing by hiring people who are going to be regulators, and expects by September 30 of this year to have in place what we have given the money for last year, which is 720 full-time equivalent positions. They will help ensure that the public is protected from fraud, manipulation, and systematic risk, and they will make sure that Americans aren't paying exorbitant prices at the pump and grocery stores. And the CFTC can do just that.

In the past 3 years, the CFTC has obtained over $1.3 billion in judgments for Americans who have been victimized by thousands of profit-hungry investors around the country. And yet now, in fiscal year 2012, this bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, slashes the budget of the CFTC by 44 percent. So the first time that we begin to regulate an industry, we are going to cut it back by 160 jobs they will have to let go.

Now, remember, they're regulating an industry that is seven times larger than all regulated industry and regulated markets today. Seven times bigger than all regulated markets. This job cut will dangerously undermine the CFTC's regulation of commodities and contribute to rising oil and food prices, as Mr. Frank pointed out. This is blatant fiscal irresponsibility because here's what these cuts mean. The CFTC can't put enough cops on the beat to prevent the big banks from making risky bets that could lead to another financial crisis. So the American taxpayer will foot the bill to bail out Wall Street all over again. This puts the needs of Wall Street over the needs of Main Street. But you know what else it means? It means Americans will be exposed to manipulation of oil and food prices at the very time when folks are scraping together pennies to pay for rent and cover groceries.

Our job here in Congress is to be the best possible stewards of taxpayers' dollars. And this shortsighted cut will yield absolutely no return on investment. In fact, we could be lining ourselves up to lose big all over again. I urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Kaptur- Farr-Larson-Courtney-Welch-Boswell amendment to restore funding to the CFTC and avoid this misguided attack on the American taxpayer.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill primarily because if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

This has been a law for a long time. It allows our committee and the public to know what the A-76 circular review did. The report is on the Department's contracting-out policies and its budget for contracting out, that information, which Congress has been getting year after year without any problems. The language has been in the bill for many years, and we have always received the report allowing the contracting-out activities to proceed. It hasn't stopped anything.

The language specifically requires a report to go to the authorizing committee reflecting the agreement reached with the former Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee many years ago. It was his amendment that did this.

I have to say personally too that I've done the A-76 circular contracting out. We have a military base in my community, the Defense Language Institute, and the city of Monterey surrounds it. We ended up with an A-76 review, ended up where the city could provide the base operation services much cheaper than the Federal employees on the base, saving the Army about $4 million a year and having much better services delivered.

So, again, delivering this report to Congress seems to me hasn't been a problem for anyone. And it ain't broke, so I don't think we ought to support fixing it with Mr. Sessions' amendment.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment to move funding from the Agriculture Building and Facilities and Rental Payments account and investing that money in the Organic Data Initiative.

Organic agriculture is a very important and growing sector of our farm and ranch community. It has continued to grow at a double-digit rate since Congress passed the Organic Act in 1990.

The office collects and disseminates data regarding organic agriculture through the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Economic Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The organic sector should have the same access to data available to all agriculture--a building block to a successful U.S. agricultural economy.

As the industry surpasses $29 billion, this information is vital to maintain stable markets, create proper risk management tools, and negotiate equivalency agreements with foreign governments. It is imperative that we continue to collect information gained by ODI.

The AMS collects organic prices and disseminates the data through Market News Reports.

NASS conducts surveys and collects data used for the Census of Agriculture. The ERS published the consumer survey ``Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends from Farms to Consumers 2009,'' and continues to produce reports which used the data collected by AMS and NASS in addition to surveying Americans about their organic consumption patterns.

This amendment is needed for the following reasons:

The AMS needs to continue to expand organic price reporting services to more commodities and price points and distribute the data through Market News, creating price stability.

The NASS will be collecting more information on organic production in the next agricultural census.

It is needed to understand the size of the organic industry and create risk management tools.

The ERS is continuing organic economic analysis and expanding to include organic trade data needed to expand export markets.

The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests $300,000 specifically for AMS to continue the collection of and distribution of data.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to continue the Organic Data Initiative.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I normally wouldn't oppose this because it cuts from the account that I just tried to cut from, but I only cut $300,000 to pay for something. This amendment cuts $20 million, and it pays for nothing. I just think that that's not a very good proposition.

We have an awful lot of facilities that are around this country. Agriculture is everywhere--in every single

State and in almost every congressional district. I happen to represent the leading agricultural State in the United States--California--where we grow some 40, 50 crops that no other State grows in addition to hundreds and hundreds of other crops, so we need facilities out there.

I know this is an account that is easy to be offset, and as I said, I tackled the same account myself. Yet, since the gentleman opposed my amendment, I think it's only good quid pro quo that I oppose his.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The concern here is that this amendment double dips from the same account. Maybe we can work something out here. Mr. Broun took money out of this account. I took money out of this account.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment cuts ERS by $43 million, and that's the Economic Research Service for Agriculture. Then it goes on to cut another $85 million out of the National Agriculture Statistical Service, which is essentially the census of Agriculture. And then it goes on and cuts $650 million out of the Ag Research Service, which is two-thirds of the entire budget--and a budget that is absolutely to keep America competitive.

This is an agrarian world we live in. If we're going to stay ahead of the competition and not have all our food imported, we've got to stay ahead of the curve. That's the think tank, the creativity of America. It's also where we know whether we're getting all the bugs and infestation that's coming in. That's what agriculture research is all about.

It zeroes out the Food for Peace program. My God, in the world that we're living in now, we don't want to have any friends left? It puts all that savings into a spending reduction account, does nothing to help anybody except do a lot of damage for agriculture, for all the economics of agriculture, the research of agriculture, and the Food for Peace program. I think this is a very bad amendment, and I hope we strongly oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, frankly, I think that statement is a flat Earth statement because it doesn't even look before you leap. It just says, Let's whack because there's redundancy. There is redundancy in our own body. We've got two eyes, two ears, two arms, and two legs. Why don't we just whack one of them out because you've got the other one.

Look at the consequences. ARS is the Agricultural Research Service. Do you know what they do? They look at how we can make a plant structure more healthy, how we can combat the bugs that come in. I represent a county where we have glassy-winged sharpshooters that affect the wine industry. It's a multimillion-dollar eradication program. We wouldn't know how to eradicate it without the research. We have the brown apple moth that infects nurseries, multimillion dollars of attacks. This is a war, just like those disasters you have been seeing on television that are natural disasters. These are natural disasters, only they're small little bugs. Or E. coli that we've talked about. Why would you want to cut the very service that keeps American agriculture healthy and competitive? This amendment wipes out two- thirds of the entire budget.

I'm one of those that thinks there's a lot of redundancy in government, but what I do is try to get the agencies together in my district and figure out where they overlap and how we can consolidate them, how we can get them to do joint operations. I think if you want to really consolidate a lot of Federal Government, it's going to take a lot more than just whacking away with an amendment making a list of zeroing out money for economic research for the census for agriculture. That's the last thing we want to do. It's a huge, huge market. You've got to have market information. As I said, you certainly don't want to whack ARS. That's the competitive arm. That's where America stays ahead of the rest of the world.

So redundancy is a problem, but it's not always smart just to knock off something because there's more of it, just like your arms, legs, and eyes. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

You know, it's very easy to just go through and start cutting these services because they sound like they're sort of bureaucracy offices, but, in fact, we've been on the committee a long time and we get, you know, oversight of these budgets. We get the Economic Research Service to come before us. And I remember a couple of years ago when they were before us, and I think the committee really got engaged because this is the research service that does the study on the WIC program, what the economic effects are, does the study on the economic conditions of rural America, something that's totally ignored. We've been finding out from them that essentially rural America has been in a recession for the last 10 years, maybe even a depression.

So, if you're going to have strategies which are going to include the Federal Government as part of your strategy, it's also going to include local and State government, you've got to have the economic data on which to build those strategies. And I think to just go and take $7 million out of there because you can and get no benefit out of it and hurt what they do, I mean, these services, whether they be the Economic Research, that information is also used in our marketing activity.

Now, it's a little bit different than the census stuff that we talked about earlier, but I think that this is really a cut that does a lot more harm than the gentleman who's introducing it intends to do, and I think if he really understood what the full scope of the Economic Research Service was he wouldn't ask that he take 10 percent out of that Department just merely to reduce the amount of money that we're spending.

So I oppose this amendment, and I think it does big harm to rural America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I am very interested. One of your colleagues just cut the heck out of this Department, and you want to add money back in. I am kind of for that. But I am kind of curious because I understand--and the question is, do you intend in the general provisions of this bill later to add some language regarding cattle research?

So there is no other amendment? This hasn't to do with an earmark to try to stop closure of--

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I share your concerns, but I'd certainly like to see what we can do to accommodate my colleague.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment.

This is a big cut out of a very important program, just indicated by Congressman Clarke from Michigan. For all the reasons he was trying to increase the program, this amendment goes just the opposite way. It knocks 10 percent of the money that's in the program out. There will be no way that he can increase it with this and work out a deal. And for all the reasons he indicated on food safety and issues like that that are very, very important, we ought not risk the ability to respond to those needs.

So I think this amendment does harm, and it does more harm than the good that it intends to do. That is the reason I oppose it, and would ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jennefer Lloyd Santee Wineman. Jennefer was a gracious, loving and strikingly beautiful woman who generously gave her time and talents in an effort to better the lives of those around her whom she loved. She passed away on November 26, 2010.

Jennefer was born on May 15, 1931 in Montreal Canada, but soon moved to Carmel, California where she later became a proud U.S. citizen. In the beautiful backdrop of cypress trees and glowing sunsets, Jennefer flourished and graduated from Carmel High School in 1949 earning the ``Gold C'' award, which was given to an outstanding scholastic female student. It was during my years at Carmel High School that I really became close with Jennefer, through her younger sister Cindy. Following Carmel High, Jennefer attended Stanford University where she met Nathaniel Baylis and they soon were married. Jennefer and ``Nat'' were blessed with two wonderful sons, Owen and Lloyd. Those closest to her have said that her most natural and intuitive gift was that of being a wonderful, caring mother.

In addition to being a loving wife and mother, Jennefer helped pioneer a revolutionary form of education. She became a teacher at the Charles Armstrong School for the dyslexic, a school which specifically caters to the needs of children who require a different method of teaching. Education became Jennefer's passion and led her to play a pivotal role in the establishment of Chartwell School in Carmel. Through her dedication to improving the lives of her students and their families, Jennefer molded Chartwell school into one of the premier special education institutions. After completing her long held dream of providing Chartwell with its own independent campus, families from across America began to relocate to the Central Coast just to have their

children attend. Chartwell graduates have gone on to very successful careers in many fields, adding to the strength of our country. As Margaret Mead said, ``never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does''. Jennefer and the Chartwell School did change the worlds of many young people for the better.

Not only a brilliant educator, Jennefer was the guiding light for the Lloyd family, a family which will be celebrating the anniversary of its 100th year in Carmel this coming July. She loved her family and cherished her family's history. She set to work tracing her lineage and eventually joined the Daughters of the Revolution, in which her membership remained an integral part of her life. She challenged her family just as she did her students, to overstep the insurmountable and to take what you want from life with tenacity; she was the catalyst that lit the fire.

Jennefer's bright smile and positive outlook helped her see the good in everyone around her and she had the ability to always bring the best qualities of a person to light. Her friends and family have many stories of how Jennefer encouraged them to try again, to gain new skills and reinvent themselves. As a friend of Jennefer's, I truly believe the she took to heart the song, ``Over the Rainbow.'' She believed ``the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.''

Christmas was Jennefer's favorite holiday because it was a time for the entire family to be together and a special time to give thanks for the wonderful things in life. If you were to ask her what she wanted for Christmas, the answer was always the same, ``peace on earth''.

Mr. Speaker, Jennefer Lloyd Santee Wineman always put others before herself and dedicated her life to serving her community and family. She was so beautiful, caring and remarkable and I know that one day, on the other side of the rainbow, where skies are blue, and where troubles melt like lemon drops, that is where I'll find her.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 414, the Amash amendment, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Baca was allowed to speak out of order.)

Charitable Golf Tournament

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 51, which expresses the sense of Congress that we must withdraw our armed forces from Libya no later than 15 days after H. Con. Res. 51 is adopted. It is the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war. In my view, the President committed U.S. troops to a hostile environment without Congressional consent. Therefore, I voted for H. Con. Res. 51.

Simply stated, military intervention endangers the lives of our brave men and women in uniform and that of civilians on the ground. And such a heavy responsibility necessitates concurrence by the Congress. Moreover, our Nation's long term foreign policy cannot be driven by threats of military action in every corner of the world. In order to achieve long-lasting peace and stability, we need to lead by example and look past the sword for solutions. As lessons in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us, military action alone is not a winning strategy for long-term security and peace. Hearts and minds are not won over by tanks and bombs. Instead, they are won by engaging local populations and offering resources that uplift entire communities.

I commend Representative Kucinich for bringing this Resolution to the Floor and I am proud to support it. I always have and always will use my vote and my voice to promote a foreign policy aimed at bringing lasting peace and prosperity to fragile, conflict-ridden regions around the globe.

All time for debate has expired.

Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered.

The question is on the concurrent resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

It is a pleasure to serve on this committee. I might be the longest serving member on the committee, but I'm a ranking member on another committee. It's a pleasure to serve. I welcome the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) to his new role as chair of the committee. And it's always a pleasure to serve with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the ranking and chair of the major committee.

This committee is unique in Congress. It's the only committee where both active duty military and veterans are dealt with from the same policy. There's no other committee in this House or in the Senate that has the one-stop that this committee has. It's a pleasure to be focused on the continuum of care for active duty and reservists and veterans.

This past weekend, we remembered the patriotic sacrifice of those who have lost their lives in service to our country, and today we renew our commitment to keep our promise to our Nation's more than 2 million troops and reservists, their families, and 23 million veterans.

This committee has a strong history of working in a bipartisan way to

produce a bill that supports our active duty servicemembers and our veterans. I am proud to support some much needed increases for the Veterans Affairs Department, and I would note that while this bill is $1.4 billion above last year's level, it is also $1.2 billion less than what the President requested.

Additionally, I am pleased to see that this bill emphasizes the needs of our veterans in rural areas. The National Cemetery Administration anticipates that 10 percent of all veterans will not receive access to a burial option in a national, State, or tribal cemetery within 75 miles of their home. I am pleased that this bill directs the National Cemetery Administration to develop a strategy to serve our rural veterans.

This language is important because it recognizes that veterans who live in rural communities should be treated on par with veterans who live in urban areas in all services provided by the VA. In my rural district, the central coast of California, veterans are moving a step closer to achieving a dream of a veterans cemetery at the former Fort Ord military base.

I commend the chairman and ranking member for their hard work in ensuring that this bill is another significant step in fulfilling the promise our country has made to leave no veteran behind.

I urge support for this bill on one condition. The condition is that the language against project labor agreements needs to be taken out.

I can't believe what a stupid amendment this is because of the message it sends. The majority party whacked the hell out of the Peace Corps in your H.R. 1, and now you want to whack the heck out of the Institute of Peace. What message are you sending to the world? We can't put a price tag on peace. But we certainly can put a price tag on war. Try $6.7 billion. That's what we spend every month in Afghanistan. That amounts to $260 million a day. What a misguided amendment before us.

To eliminate the Institute of Peace only spends the equivalent of 5 hours, 5 hours in Afghanistan. Come on. You are surrounded by peace givers in this room. Look at the law givers. They are not warriors; they are people that tried to make peace. You are not going to win the war in Afghanistan militarily. You are going to win it through peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Marilyn Dorman, who retires as the Executive Director of the Housing Resource Center of Monterey County on May 31, 2011. The HRC is a non-profit HUD- certified housing counseling agency that provides home-ownership education and counseling as well as homeless prevention services. Marilyn has a real gift for grant writing, which has served the agency well as its primary fundraiser.

Marilyn has been active professionally and personally in the housing arena for over twenty-seven years. She was the founding Executive Director of the Housing Advocacy Council in 1984, which merged with the Monterey County Housing Alliance in 2009 to become the Housing Resource Center of Monterey County. Throughout her many years of service Marilyn advocated for the development of affordable low-income housing and worked tirelessly with direct assistance programs to prevent homelessness.

With the 2009 merger, Marilyn's focus expanded to include homeownership education and counseling, as well as foreclosure prevention and loan modification. To date, HRC has successfully modified over 200 loans for Monterey County homeowners. Collectively, the merged organization has served over 24,000 Monterey County households.

Marilyn has also been an active Board, Committee member, and volunteer for the Coalition of Homeless Services Providers, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, the Salinas Downtown Community Board, the ACTION Council of Monterey County, Common Ground, the League of Women Voters, Community Advisory Council for the Salinas Permit Center, Salinas Planning Commission, Salinas Parks and Recreation Commission, Salinas Housing Trust Fund, the Salinas General Plan Parks Task Force, Girl Scouts, and the Volunteer Services Coordinator for the Volunteer Center of Salinas.

Marilyn's husband of thirty-eight years, Mark, has been the grounding force in life. They have three grown daughters and two beautiful grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House as I commend Marilyn Dorman for all she has done and all she will undoubtedly continue to do. I extend my most sincere thanks and warmest wishes for her success and much happiness in her retirement.

Madam Speaker, it appears that there are some in this body who believe that if you state a falsehood often enough people will believe that it's the truth. That's what the bill before us is all about. It's an attempt to legislate something that isn't.

The proponents of H.R. 3 want you to believe that abortion is rampant in America, and we spend zillions of Federal dollars a year, and this bill will stop the use of those Federal funds. This is a crock of baloney.

Everyone in this House knows that Federal funds are not spent on abortions. It's been the law of this land for the last 35 years. H.R. 3 will have no effect, zero, nada, on the use of Federal funds for abortion services in America because it's the law under which we are already operating.

But what H.R. 3 will do is drastically codify an untruth. It will reach into the pockets of women and prevent them from using their own money, their own private money, on purchasing health care insurance which covers abortion services.

This is a mass intrusion into the private lives of people and to businesses. It should be defeated.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3 is an extremely misleading piece of legislation. Supporters of the bill argue that it will simply codify the Hyde amendment and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion. However, we all know that is false. H.R. 3 is actually much more nefarious than that. It seeks to restrict women's reproductive rights and access to health care; increase healthcare premiums for many Americans and small businesses; and, limit the private insurance choices of consumers. It will almost certainly guarantee that insurance companies will no longer offer abortion coverage to consumers.

The Republicans in the House have been on a mission, ever since they took over the Majority, to completely eliminate women's reproductive rights and their access to healthcare.

I recently received a letter from a male constituent who is 68 years young; someone we can all agree is definitely not in need of reproductive health care. This man is a recipient of Medicare and receives his primary care at the Santa Cruz chapter of Planned Parenthood. His doctor is the one of the few doctors in Santa Cruz County who currently accepts Medicare patients.

If the Republicans get their way and federal funding is denied to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide primary healthcare for low income patients simply because they also provide reproductive healthcare, then this man, along with millions of other low income Americans, will be denied their only access to primary healthcare in their communities. Hospital emergency rooms will become the health care provider of first resort. Hospitals that are currently overwhelmed would be further inundated, thereby driving up healthcare costs even higher and costing the federal government even more taxpayer dollars.

If saving taxpayer dollars is truly the goal, then the Majority should be supporting family planning and reproductive healthcare services, not attacking them. We all know that for every $1 spent on family planning, $4 of taxpayer money is saved.

This bill is radical and extreme. It is a far cry from any kind of middle ground or compromise on abortion policy. It will make abortion as difficult to obtain as possible without actually criminalizing the procedure. H.R. 3 overreaches in every possible way. More importantly, it would penalize rather than help taxpayers, impede basic government functions, and discriminate against women who are struggling to do their best in a difficult situation.

Madam Speaker, the American people want both parties to work together. H.R. 3 only inflames an already intense and intractable debate and further polarizes this House. I urge my colleagues to object to H.R. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Edith Wilkie Edwards. Most often known as Edie, I am honored that I have this opportunity to recognize such a caring, giving and loving woman.

Edie's tireless and dedicated work towards making the world a safer and more humane place is remarkable. She was an activist on peace and arms control issues, a former congressional staff member and wife of former Congressman Don Edwards, (D-CA). Edie passed away in Carmel, California at the age of 64. She had cancer and pulmonary disease.

Edie will forever be remembered as one of Capitol Hill's most talented, driven and selfless individuals. She directed Congress' bipartisan and bicameral Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus from 1978 to 1995. In that role, she worked to halt the development of new nuclear weapons, strengthen congressional support for the United Nations, end funding for proxy wars in Central America and expand and encourage human rights around the world. Prior to directing the caucus, she served as chief of staff to Reps. Fortney (Pete) Stark (D-CA) from 1975 to 1978; and Ogden R. Reid (R-NY) from 1968 to 1975.

Additionally, Edie served as president of the Peace Through Law Education Fund, a spin-off of the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, where she co-authored two reports examining the views of key military leaders on peace operations. The reports, ``A Force for Peace'' (1999) and ``A Force for Peace and Security'' (2002), foresaw the increasing need for U.S. troops to participate in multi-lateral peace operations in failed states.

Edie was also an active board member of the Ploughshares Fund, the San Francisco-based foundation that is the largest U.S. grant-making organization focused on peace and security issues; Council for a Livable World, a leading nuclear arms control lobbying organization in Washington; Peace-PAC, which supports arms control activists seeking election to the House of Representatives and the Center for International Policy, an organization started after the war in Vietnam by former diplomats and peace activists to promote human rights and international cooperation. She was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1981, after 11 years together, she married Rep. Edwards, the 32- year Member of Congress from San Jose, CA, who chaired the Civil and Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. They were

married at Martha's Vineyard in a small and beautiful ceremony.

After they both retired from their careers on Capitol Hill in 1995, the Edwards decompressed by living in the village of Loumarin in Southern France. For more than a decade, the Edwards lived half the year in Carmel-by-the-Sea in California and half at Holly Point, their home overlooking the Chesapeake Bay in Edgewater, Maryland. They settled in Carmel for the last three years.

Born in New York on October 5, 1946 to the late John and Dorothea J. Wilkie, Edie graduated from Concord Academy and Vassar College. Tall and slim and athletic, she was an avid tennis player with a forehand her opponents considered lethal.

In addition to Mr. Edwards, she is survived by five stepsons; a sister and two brothers, Rennie Wilkie Lieber, John McNeil Wilkie and Peter Wilkie, and their families. She is also survived by her stepmother, Margot Loines Wilkie, of New York and Martha's Vineyard and two stepsisters, Faith Morrow Williams and Constance Morrow Fullenweider and their families.

Mr. Speaker, Edith Wilkie Edwards touched many lives in her community and devoted her life to building a more peaceful world. It is a privilege and a high honor to recognize her life. She will be missed and I know I speak for the whole House in honoring the life of this dedicated and loving woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Abraham Breehey, who recently passed away at the age of 35. I am honored that I have this opportunity to recognize this bright, caring and loving man.

Through his role as the Director of Legislative Affairs for the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Abe proved to be a strong force within the labor movement. He was able to transcend political differences and generate consensus for many noble causes.

Not only was Abe committed to improving the lives of all Americans, but he was also an outstanding leader in the fight against global warming and involved many unions in that effort. Abe's dedication to the labor movement and the promotion of environmental stewardship has been an inspiration. Abe's sense of civic duty even led him to testify several times before Congress, and was especially supportive of the Clear Skies Act before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

He is survived by his loving wife, Sonya and his daughter, Abigail.

Mr. Speaker, Abraham Breehey touched many lives in his community and around our nation. Abe was a champion for progressive causes who loved the Grateful Dead and Phish and it is a privilege to recognize his life. He will be missed and I know I speak for the whole House in honoring the life of this dedicated and loving man.

Mr. Speaker, I join the chorus of those thanking Father Coughlin for his service and dedication and wishing him well.

I also rise today in observance of the National Day of Silence.

Today is the 14th year we have commemorated the National Day of Silence, a time when students across the country remain silent for the whole day to draw attention to discrimination toward their LGBT peers.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning youth and their allies face verbal and physical bullying on a daily basis just for being who they are, for expressing their sexuality, or for demonstrating a non-normative gender identity. I am proud that my constituents are calling for a stop to this harassment, and I encourage all Americans to join them.

Our Nation is at her best when we are celebrating our differences, not punishing individuals for being different. I am proud to say that in my district Queer Youth and allies work together to make life better for queer youth. Middle schools and high schools in my district host student-run Gay-Straight Alliances, which create a supportive space so that queer youth do not feel isolated. My district also hosts Queer Youth conferences and award events that celebrate our queer youth.

Though many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocates and straight allies are silent today, we in Congress must never be silent.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in appreciation for the hard work that has gone on in our Appropriations Committee. When you think about it, this Saturday will mark 2 months from the day this House passed H.R. 1, which was a really draconian bill that put all kinds of riders and eliminated all kinds of family planning money for things like Planned Parenthood. It sort of knew the price of everything and the value of nothing.

I would like to compliment the Republican leadership for coming around on this agricultural bill. It certainly is an improvement over what it was in H.R. 1. It also shows that they are not wedded to H.R. 1. The message goes out that they make adjustments. They restored nearly all of the $1.9 billion, 9 percent higher than H.R. 1, in overall spending.

The WIC program, the program that feeds low-income women expecting children or who have children, is funded at a level sufficient to support what we think will be the participation levels this year when a lot of people are unemployed and in poverty.

The food safety activities at the USDA are increased by more than 8 percent over H.R. 1. They broke the H.R. 1 hold and have come up, and I compliment them for that.

The Food and Drug Administration was increased by nearly 17 percent; 17 percent in an era when we are really worried about food safety and the issues of food safety.

The McGovern-Dole program, which is food aid to foreign countries, provides our American food to needy countries. It is nearly twice what it was in H.R. 1.

The rural water and waste programs are 30 percent higher than they were in H.R. 1.

But the agriculture title really falls short from the President's request of 2011, particularly for emergency food for people around the world who are in desperate need. We take surplus American food and give it to countries that are really starving. When we are trying to win the hearts and minds of people and fight the war on poverty, we need to have this program not decreased but increased when the world is in a lot of hurt.

Lastly, I would just like to point out that what really bothers me is we are putting $5 billion more in the Defense Department, at the same time cutting $25 million from the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps is only $400 million. It is a small weapons system for the military, the entire thing. We have 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers in 77 countries. Ten more countries want us; 14,000 Americans want to be in the Peace Corps, and we're cutting it? You can't win the war without winning the hearts and minds. The war corps with $5 billion isn't going to do as much as the Peace Corps with another $25 million.