Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary career of Mrs. Aloysia Fouche, owner and CEO of Fouche's Hudson Funeral Home, Inc., as she is awarded a 2012 Living Legends of Funeral Service award from the One Hundred Black Women of Funeral Service Organization. A trailblazer in the funeral business for nearly three decades, Mrs. Fouche transitioned into the funeral profession after the passing of her late husband and founder of the Funeral Home, Mr. Aramis Fouche. At a time when African-American women business owners were few and far between, Mrs. Fouche achieved her five-year business plan within two years. She brought greater financial solvency and extensive facility improvements to the business, which continues to thrive today--in spite of a difficult economic climate. Fouche's Hudson Funeral Home continues to be a source of pride in the Bay Area, serving our local African-American community with diligence and personalized care. A former educator, with a master's degree in Curriculum Development, Mrs. Fouche was also a fearless principal, as well as a celebrated teacher and instructor of media studies. Among her numerous accolades and associations, Mrs. Fouche was named Teacher of the Year, oversaw many of her students' award-winning animation films, and produced a weekly television program for parents to enhance their children's at-home learning. In addition to her proud membership with the One Hundred Black Women of Funeral Service Organization, Mrs. Fouche is active in NFD&MA, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Friends of Father Augustine Tolton, and Phi Delta Kappa National Fraternity. Mrs. Fouche has also spent countless hours supporting and volunteering for local organizations aiding the underserved through food assistance, education scholarships, veterans services, faith ministries and AIDS awareness and prevention. She has also traveled the world extensively and counts tennis and dance among her hobbies. As Fouche's Hudson Funeral Home management, staff and supporters look forward to its centennial anniversary in 2014, the receipt of Mrs. Fouche's Living Legends honor is timely and well-deserved. Thank you to all of the One Hundred Black Women of Funeral Service for being leaders in your communities and for providing families dignity, closure and excellent care. On behalf of California's 9th Congressional District, Mrs. Aloysia Fouche, I salute you. Your many years of service have made an indelible mark in our community. Thank you for your continued work, and best wishes to you and your loved ones in the years to come.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall votes 557-559. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on all three votes.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for your tremendous leadership on this and so many issues so important to the health of women and to the health of our country. I'd like to also take a moment to commend Congresswoman Norton, the duly elected representative for the residents of the District of Columbia, for her relentless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and her leadership in fighting back the onslaught of attacks against the women of the District of Columbia. Tea Party Republicans continue to make D.C. their launching ground for attacks against women's health as part of the ongoing war on women. H.R. 3803, the so-called--and this is very sinister--District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, is nothing more than a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and a vehicle for yet another ideological attack against women's reproductive rights. It's a direct threat to the health of every woman living in the District of Columbia. It contains no exceptions for health, for rape or incest, and it demonstrates a very callous disregard for the real-life experiences of women and their families. It is tragic--tragic--that the Tea Party Republicans refuse to bring up any bill that would create jobs but would rather wage war against the women of the District of Columbia. It is offensive, it is wrong, and it is unconstitutional. Government and politicians should stay out of the health care decisions of women, and they should stay out of the private lives of women. Women's decisions, as it relates to their health care, should be made by themselves. These decisions should be made with their medical professionals and their clergy or whomever they choose. Women should be able to make their decisions, not Members of Congress, not politicians, and not government officials. This is a direct threat. It is callous. Again, it is unconstitutional, and it's wrong.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall votes 499-503. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``no'' on No. 499, ``no'' on No. 500, ``yes'' on No. 501, ``no'' on No. 502, and ``no'' on No. 503.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE of California. The Lee-Van Hollen-Smith amendment would limit Department of Defense funding to the amount authorized under the Budget Control Act of 2011, resulting in a $7.6 billion reduction in spending from the level authorized by the Appropriations Committee. This amendment is cosponsored by my colleagues, Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen, and Representatives Amash, Blumenauer, Clarke, Johnson, Nadler, Polis, Schrader, Stark, Welch, and Woolsey, among others. As you know, Mr. Chair, last year, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which put in place spending caps on discretionary spending. Despite these statutory limitations, the Appropriations Committee set overall military spending billions of dollars above what the Pentagon requested or what was agreed to under the Budget Control Act. A deal is a deal. While many of us did not support the discretionary caps under the Budget Control Act, our amendment simply brings Pentagon spending in line with the law. Again, a deal is a deal. It does this while protecting our Active Duty military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to cut their compensation and health care expenditures, by prohibiting the additional cuts from coming from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from the Defense Health Program. Let me repeat: not a single penny would come from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from the Defense Health Program. The Pentagon budget already consumes almost 60 cents out of every discretionary dollar we spend, and adding billions of unrequested dollars--mind you, unrequested dollars--at the expense of struggling families during the ongoing economic downturn is wrong. Once again, I just have to remind us that yesterday an amendment was struck down, made out of order, that we still can't even get an audit of the Pentagon; and here, once again, we're going against the law of the land and violating a deal and asking for more money--outrageous. At a time when American families, businesses, and government agencies are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, why shouldn't the Department of Defense be asked to become more efficient and eliminate wasteful programs? While many of us would support a larger cut, this is a commonsense amendment to keep spending in line with what was agreed to last year. Remember, a deal is a deal. I hope my colleagues, many of whom speak here on the floor frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support this amendment. So I ask my colleagues, if we are really concerned with the deficit, then vote for this amendment. This is money the Pentagon did not ask for and it does not need. Some of us really do believe that your word is your bond. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues in offering an amendment to set Pentagon spending at the levels from the 2008 financial year adjusted for inflation, or at $500 billion. I'm offering this amendment for one simple reason: the bloated Pentagon budget must be addressed if we are serious about solving our Nation's deficit. Quite frankly, our real national security is about rebuilding our economy. It's time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at home. It's time to rebuild America and also to provide for the health and economic security of our brave troops and the communities that they live in back here at home. Even with this modest cut--and it's very modest at $19.2 billion--the Pentagon-based budget would still be, mind you, a half trillion dollars, excluding war funding for Afghanistan, far outpacing any other nation in defense spending. Americans across the country have been forced to cut back, and many are barely able to make ends meet while Pentagon spending has doubled over the past decade. The United States spends as much on its military as the next 14 countries combined, and all but three of these are close allies. Americans believe no Federal agency should be immune from cuts, including the Pentagon. In fact, the average American would pursue a much larger cut of over $100 billion according to a poll released earlier this week by the Stimson Center. Some have argued that defense cuts will result in job losses. The Pentagon, quite frankly, is not a jobs program. Even if it were, defense spending creates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than investing in other sectors: education, health care, clean energy, or even tax cuts. The bloated Pentagon budget has been immune from oversight and scrutiny for too long. We couldn't even pass my amendment yesterday calling for an audit of the Pentagon. This really has resulted in unbalanced spending where nearly 60 cents of every discretionary dollar now goes to the Pentagon. If we are serious about addressing the deficit, we must take reasonable steps to rein in Pentagon spending. My amendment makes modest cuts to defense spending while protecting our active military personnel and retirees from misguided efforts to cut their compensation and health care expenditures by prohibiting the additional cuts from coming from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts from the defense health program. Let me repeat: not a single penny would come from Active Duty and National Guard personnel accounts or from defense health programs. President Eisenhower famously said that the United States ``should spend as much as necessary on defense,'' which we all agree with, ``but not a penny more.'' At a time when American families, businesses, and government agencies are facing budget cuts and tightening their belts, the Pentagon should not be immune from the need to justify its expenses and guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. I am proposing a very modest proposal over the course of a decade that would equal less than $200 billion, $200 billion. The Bowles- Simpson Commission outlines $750 billion in suggested defense cuts in the next decade. President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense, Lawrence Korb, has proposed $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon over the next 10 to 12 years. As I said, the average American would cut 18 percent of the Pentagon budget, or a little over $100 billion. Finding $19 billion in savings next year is a very modest first step after an unchecked decade of runaway Pentagon spending. While many Americans would support a larger cut, this is a commonsense amendment to change the direction of Pentagon spending towards a reasonable level aligned with actual threats to our national security. I hope my colleagues, many of whom speak out here on the House floor frequently about the importance of addressing our deficit, will support this amendment. If we are really concerned about the deficit, then vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It would put a responsible end to combat operations in Afghanistan by limiting funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of United States troops and military contractors. Eleven years after Congress wrote a blank check for war without end, which I could not support, the United States is still in Afghanistan. Ever since that vote, I have introduced this Lee amendment--that responsibly and safely brings our troops home--on numerous occasions and at every opportunity. It is past time that Congress caught up, had the debate, and passed this amendment. Today, we have the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. It is clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing across this land to bring this war to an end, and it is past time for Congress to answer that call. After over a decade of war and over a half a trillion dollars in direct costs--not a penny of it, mind you, paid for, and we talk about deficit reduction--when we should have been actually investing in jobs and our economy here at home, it is really time now to say enough is enough. It is crucial to our economy and to the future of this country to stop pouring billions into a counterproductive military presence in Afghanistan. It is no wonder that 7 out of 10 Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war should end, that it should not go on for another year or 2 years and, surely, not for another decade or more. Mr. Chair, the costs of the war are unacceptable, particularly when we ask what we gain by keeping our troops in Afghanistan through 2014. The war in Afghanistan has already taken the lives of over 2,000 soldiers, has injured tens of thousands more, and has drained our Treasury of over a half a trillion dollars. These costs will only go up as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans, which of course we must do. As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved in defending our Nation; but the truth is our troops have been put in an impossible situation. There is no military solution, and it is past time to end the war and to bring our troops home. Quite frankly, it is time to use these savings from ending the war to create jobs here at home. We need to provide for the health care and economic security of our returning troops by rebuilding the American economy. The American people have made it clear that the war should end. Not an extra day--not an extra dollar--should be spent extending the decade-long war in Afghanistan. After 11 long years now, it is time to bring our troops home. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in more than two decades, the United States will host the 19th International AIDS Conference, drawing over 20,000 people from around the world to our Nation's Capital. Having participated in every conference since I was first elected to Congress in 1998, I knew we could not bring the conference back to the United States until the discriminatory immigration ban on people living with HIV was lifted. In 2007, I introduced a bill to repeal the ban. Few believed it could be done, but through bipartisan support we achieved this goal, and I want to thank Members who are still here for their support in that effort. This week, the return of the conference is an important opportunity to shine a global spotlight on the fight against AIDS in the African American community and communities of color, and a national spotlight on the ongoing global epidemic. Yesterday I introduced new legislation to do just that. Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Act articulates a policy and financing framework to achieve an AIDS-free generation in the United States and abroad. I urge all my colleagues to support it so that we can begin to bring an end to AIDS here at home and around the world.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, once again, is very straightforward. It reduces the overseas contingency operations account, which is currently funded at $85 billion, by $21 billion. That leaves $64 billion in reserves, more than enough funds for the safe and swift withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. This amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home. It is clear that the American people have been far ahead of Congress in supporting an end to the war in Afghanistan. The call has been growing across this land to bring this war to an end, and it is past time for the Congress to answer that call here today. I want to thank all of the cosponsors of this bipartisan amendment and all of my colleagues who have worked on this issue throughout the year and supported my legislation, H.R. 780, to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. Our brave troops have done everything that was asked of them and more. Asking our troops to remain in Afghanistan for another 2 years when there is no indication that circumstances on the ground will change is unconscionable. As we send our men and women in uniform back into danger on multiple tours, they are bearing an overwhelming and unfair burden of sacrifice while so many of us go on with our daily lives. An alarming number of troops are coming back home with post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide cases are rampant, and sadly, each day we continue to hear more and more about our veterans and the terrible toll this has taken on their lives. Mr. Chairman, the costs of this war are unacceptable, particularly when we ask what the added benefit is of keeping our troops in Afghanistan through 2014. The war in Afghanistan has already taken the lives of over 2,000 soldiers, injured tens of thousands more, and drained our treasury of over $500 billion. And those costs will only go up as we spend trillions of dollars on long-term care for our veterans, which of course we must and we should do. Instead of spending over $85 billion in Afghanistan this next year, we should restrict funding to the safe and responsible withdrawal of all of our troops and use the tens of billions of dollars in savings right here at home, investing in jobs and education and health care and mental health care. The situation on the ground in Afghanistan, whether we leave in 2013, 2014, or 2020, whether 100 more United States troops die or 1,000, let me just say, not an extra dollar should be spent extending the decade- long war in Afghanistan. We have the power of the purse strings in this House. For those who believe that enough is enough, they should vote for this amendment. As the daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment involved with defending our Nation. But the truth is that our troops have been put in an impossible situation; there is no military solution. It's past time to end the war and bring our troops home. And quite frankly, it is time to use these tax dollars from ending the war to create jobs here at home and economic security for the American people. It's time to rebuild America, and also to provide for health care and, of course, as I said earlier, the economic security of our troops. Today, once again, we have the opportunity to stand with 7 out of 10 Americans who oppose the war in Afghanistan. The American people have made it clear that the war is no longer worth fighting. And I'll say it again, not an extra day, not an extra dollar should be spent extending the decade-long war in Afghanistan. I knew 10 years ago that this would be a war without end. I could not support it then. More Members of Congress are beginning to see that this was a blank check to wage war forever unless we end it now. So after 11 years, yes, we should bring our troops home. We can do that responsibly by voting ``yes'' on the Lee amendment today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, first of all, let me just say thank you to my colleagues, Representative Jones and Representative McGovern, and to all of the Members today in calling for a real debate on the war in Afghanistan, which really should have occurred when it was authorized in 2001, which, of course, I could not support then knowing it was a blank check. It was an overly broad resolution for war without end. I have to thank my colleagues today for their leadership in calling for a safe and swift end to this war in Afghanistan. We all know the simple truth: there is no military solution in Afghanistan. Earlier this summer, we passed the sad milestone of 2,000 American lives lost in Afghanistan. Tens of thousands suffer more from wounds both visible and invisible. As we remember and honor our dead and our wounded and pray for their families and their loved ones, we also have the duty and responsibility and opportunity to act today to ensure that further losses are avoided and that we accelerate the transition to Afghans ruling Afghanistan. Later on today, I'm going to introduce an amendment to this Defense appropriations bill to limit funding in Afghanistan to the responsible and safe withdrawal of troops. We have the power of the purse strings in this House. For those who believe enough is enough, we should vote for this amendment. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Lee amendment, which will save at least $21 billion and, most importantly, the lives of countless Americans and Afghans. Quite frankly, as has been said earlier, it is time to use these tax dollars to create jobs here at home. It is time to rebuild America and also to provide for the economic security of our brave troops. They have done a tremendous job. They have done everything we have asked them to do. They have carried a tremendous load over the past decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Asking them to stay in Afghanistan 2 more years when there is no indication that circumstances on the ground will change is really unconscionable. Before we send our men and women in uniform into Afghanistan or ask them to stay for another 2 years, we have an obligation to answer simple questions like: What national security interest does the United States currently have in Afghanistan? To what extent does the United States presence in Afghanistan destabilize the country by antagonizing local Afghans? How critical is the overall effort in Afghanistan compared to other priorities in our own country? Earlier this year, along with my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones and Congresswoman Woolsey and Congressman McGovern, we held a hearing on Afghanistan with Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis. This was an ad hoc hearing, mind you, because we should have had the authority to hold that hearing in the House Armed Services Committee or the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but quite frankly the leadership would not let us have a formal hearing. So we had our own. We had an ad hoc hearing with Colonel Daniel Davis, a brave, outspoken whistleblower, who risked his career to tell the truth about what he saw on the ground in Afghanistan. It was a hearing that every Member of Congress should have heard before voting to spend tens of billions of dollars and risking the lives and limbs of tens of thousands of Americans in uniform. Those of you who attended the hearing or read the witnesses' testimony understand that the current strategy of propping up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan will almost certainly fail. Instead of having a full debate on the current strategy in Afghanistan, instead of having a real debate about what we hope to gain with more years in Afghanistan, we are limited to these brief opportunities on the floor to remind Congress that the American people overwhelmingly want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end. People are war-weary, and they want this over. This Congress has the opportunity once again to stand with seven out of 10 Americans who want to bring the war in Afghanistan to an end by voting ``yes'' on several of the amendments that we're going to be considering. My amendment I will introduce later in this debate will limit the funding to the responsible and safe and orderly withdrawal of United States troops and contractors from Afghanistan. Madam Chair, let me thank once again our colleagues, Congressman McGovern and Congressman Jones, for gathering us here this afternoon. We have very limited opportunities to reflect the majority of the American people's sentiment in terms of their weariness of this war. It's time to end it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say that I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Some Members here continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House being on record supporting the protection of labor standards. All of us, or at least the majority of us, have been in support of prevailing wage requirements. It helps to ensure that local projects that provide local jobs have these jobs that have affordable, middle class wages with benefits. The law protects government from contractors trying to win Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent workers. This amendment should be opposed. If we really want people to move toward achieving middle class standards, if we want to keep the middle class with good jobs, good-paying jobs with benefits, then there is no way we should repeal Davis-Bacon. People are losing the American Dream quite quickly here in our own country, unfortunately. And here we go again trying to erode one of the basic protections of working men and women. So I hope we oppose this amendment, maintain standards of prevailing wage for our workers, and ensure that they too have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I join with my esteemed colleague, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, in offering an amendment which hits really at the heart of the issue of fiscal responsibility. My amendment is short and to the point. If enacted, it would freeze Department of Defense programs at fiscal year 2008 levels unless the financial statements of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 are validated as ready for audit within 6 months of enactment of this act. This amendment would exempt military personnel, Reserve and National Guard personnel accounts, as well as the Defense Health Program accounts from this potential funding freeze. It also contains a waiver for any potential harm to national security or combat forces. Now, some of my colleagues may make the argument that the Department of Defense is making progress on this issue in response to congressional engagement. They might reference language in recent Defense authorization bills requiring DOD to develop and implement plans to achieve audit readiness by September 30, 2017. But let me just say, Mr. Chairman, this is wholly unacceptable that we are still just developing plans for the Department of Defense to have much its fiscal house in order 5 years from now. This problem is not newly discovered and further delay is really an abandonment of our congressional duty, given the enormous and increasing proportion of Federal dollars going towards the defense budget. In the 1990s, Congress was promised that these financial deficiencies would be solved by 1997. This timeline then was delayed to 2007 in the early 2000s. Given the Pentagon's past failures to meet deadlines, why should we believe the 2017 timeline will be honored? Nearly 60 cents of every Federal discretionary dollar now goes towards defense spending, and by the Pentagon's own admission, they cannot properly account for how the money is spent. Can you imagine? We have nonprofit organizations that get shut down behind a few thousand dollars in unaccountable funds. There is no doubt that these circumstances have contributed to instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon, including more than $300 billion in major weapons cost overruns identified by the Government Accountability Office. It's time to finally do away with the culture of unlimited spending and no accountability at the Pentagon. Being strong on defense does not mean handing a free pass to irresponsible spending. I believe it's critical that the Department of Defense be not only prepared and validated as ready for an audit, but actually pass an audit. Today I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and take a first step toward compelling the Department of Defense to act with urgency on this matter. The financial reforms necessary to abide by basic accounting standards, laws, and regulations at the Department of Defense cannot wait. I deeply regret that my colleagues would invoke a point of order on an issue of such vital importance to Congress' charge to conduct responsible oversight on Federal expenditures. I wish that the Pentagon would be held to the same standards as nonprofit organizations and those in business and other entities responsible for responsibly spending Federal dollars. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in more than two decades, the United States will host the 19th International AIDS Conference--drawing over 20,000 people from around the world to our Nation's capital. Having participated in every Conference since I was first elected to Congress in 1998, I knew we could not bring the conference back to the United States until the discriminatory immigration ban on people living with HIV was lifted. In 2007, I first introduced a bill to repeal the ban. Few believed it could be done, but through bipartisan support we achieved this goal. This week, the return of the Conference is an important opportunity to shine a global spotlight on the fight against AIDS in African American communities and a national spotlight on the ongoing global epidemic. Today, I will introduce new legislation to do just that. Ending the HIV/AIDS Epidemic Act articulates a policy and financing framework to achieve an AIDS-Free Generation in the United States and globally. I urge all my colleagues to support it so that we can begin to bring an end to AIDS here at home and around the world.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, as the founder and cochair of the Out of Poverty Caucus, this morning many of us stood with advocates and faith leaders to say in one voice: no cuts to food stamps in the farm bill. Food stamps provided that critical bridge over troubled waters for me and my family when I was a young mother, and I thank our government and the American people for this safety net. The American people were there for me and my family when we needed it most. We need to be there for people who need it most now. Every year, several Members take part in the Food Stamp Challenge. You eat for 1 week on average food stamp benefits, which is $1.50 per meal. Every Member should join us in the food stamp challenge this year, especially Members who want to cut food stamps. You need to know what it means to be hungry. We simply cannot cut $16 billion in critical SNAP benefits. Food stamps not only feed hungry children, seniors, and veterans, but also promote real growth and create jobs. It makes no economic sense and no moral sense to cut $16 billion from the food stamp program. We should reject these heartless cuts on the poor and get back to creating the jobs and opportunities for everyone. People would rather have a job instead of food stamps to feed their family, but until Republicans support efforts to create jobs, we have a moral responsibility and a duty to make sure that at least people eat. It's hard to believe, in 2012, we are debating feeding people.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, but also for your unwavering and relentless leadership on so many important issues. I rise in strong opposition to the GOP Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Here we go again, Mr. Speaker, wasting the American people's time on voting on this bill. I think it's for about the 31st time. This Tea Party majority is so disconnected from reality that this House takes vote after meaningless vote on bills that have no chance of ever becoming law. One of the most conservative Courts in a generation has found the provisions of the health care law constitutional, and Tea Party representatives immediately took to the steps of the Supreme Court to blast the Court as activist and promised a full repeal. Let's call this what it is, Mr. Speaker. It's a politically motivated waste of time because Republicans have no serious jobs plan. I will say, though, that the only silver lining in this incredibly sad process is that the Tea Party has finally named a bill honestly, Patients' Rights Repeal Act, because this bill does exactly that, repeals the rights of millions of patients to access to health care. Children now have a right to stay on their parents' policy until they are 26. Republicans want to repeal this right. Patients have a right to not have lifetime caps on their policies nor have preexisting conditions prevent them from getting health care insurance. Republicans want to now repeal this right.