Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1197, I call from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2642) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may be reciting the PAYGO rule as he wishes it were, but that's not the way it is.

The legislation before the House fully complies with the PAYGO rule. That rule deals with direct spending and revenues.

As to revenues, the revenue effects of this package reduce the deficit, rather than increasing it. As to spending, none of the spending in this package falls into the direct spending category, which is basically defined as spending outside the appropriations process.

Even though not technically required to do so, the Medicaid provisions and the expansion of veterans' education benefits fully meet the PAYGO standard. Both sets of provisions contain offsets to ensure that they do not increase the deficit over the 5- and 10-year periods used by the PAYGO rule.

The rest of the bill consists mostly of emergency appropriations for defense and other security-related needs, largely for things requested by the President. And the other major spending item, relating to extended unemployment compensation benefits, is temporary in nature and responds to current hardships created by the economic downturn.

So I believe that we ought to abide by the House rules as they are, not as some Members wish they were.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the pending legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a tough problem before the House today. We have a war which the majority of this House despises. We have a war that we do not have the power to end so long as the President is as obstreperous as he has been on the subject. That means that we have to find a way to try to manage this problem in a way that sends a clear message to the public that they are the only ones who can, in fact, muster the power to change direction on this war by electing a President who will get us out of this war. It also means we have to manage it in such a way that we set the table for the new President to give him at least a few months to think through how he is going to proceed to extricate us from this war and to get his ducks in a row on Iraqi policy. Therefore, we are taking the Senate bill and we are asking the House to consider three amendments and work their will on it.

The first amendment is very simple. It's an up-or-down vote on providing the funding to pay for the equipment and to pay for the salaries for the troops as long as they are going to be in the war situation. That money will be estimated to run out by June of 2009.

The second amendment would simply be an up-or-down vote on the conditions that the House believes should appropriately be attached to the spending of that money, many of which the House has seen before. Those conditions will, among other things, require that virtually every unit sent to the war be fully combat ready. They will provide that no one who works for the United States may engage in interrogation techniques that are at variance with the Army Field Manual. In plain language, no torture. The conditions will also say that there shall be no long-term security agreements entered into with Iraq without submission of those agreements to the United States Senate for their consideration. It will establish a timetable for extricating ourselves from combat by setting a goal, not a firm date but a goal, of 18 months from the date of enactment.

Also, we have added two conditions which would have the effect of requiring Iraq to provide a dollar-for-dollar match for any of the redevelopment and reconstruction activities that are being carried out by the United States Government. The effect of that would be the functional equivalent of turning 50 percent of what we provide to Iraq into loans. We've done it this way because we have faith that the loans would ever be repaid, and this way we guarantee that the Iraqis, who are now about to develop very large surpluses in their own budget--they will have to meet these costs up front on an equal basis before the United States proceeds to expend its own money. And it would also require that the American military be provided gasoline in Iraq at the same subsidized price as the Iraqis are being subsidized. We don't see why the United States troops who are defending that country ought to have to pay a premium.

Then we will have a third amendment, again up or down, on the other administration requests. Those include food aid. We've increased the international food aid recommended by the President by $745 million. Anybody who has read the newspapers or watched television for the last 2 weeks understands why that is a moral necessity. We have also included the administration request for the Louisiana levies exactly as they have requested it as fiscal 2009 money. We have responded to a request from the Bureau of Prisons to provide $178 million so that they do not have to lay off prison guards and other personnel in the U.S. prison system. The Secretary of Commerce has requested that we provide additional funding because they run into technology problems at the U.S. Census Bureau; so we have responded to that with a $210 million appropriation. We have also added $2.2 billion in military construction funds above the President's request to fully fund the administration's 2008 BRAC requests. We have also included $210 million for military child care centers, which the President from that rostrum told the country he was for but neglected to ask the money for in his budget this year.

There are no Members' projects whatsoever in this bill. In the military construction portion of the bill, for instance, there are 121 facilities that are provided for; 111 of those were specifically asked for by the White House, and the others were identified by the committee as top service priorities after testimony from the military services.

There's only one proposal that could be really considered a specific project earmark, and that is one hospital which the Assistant Secretary of Defense asked to be included in the recommendations, and we're providing planning funds for that facility.

In addition, the other items in that third amendment to be considered would deal with the following:

If we're going to fight the war, we happen to believe that we ought to provide a ``thank you'' to the people who have fought it, especially because there has been no sense of shared sacrifice in this country. The only people who have been asked to sacrifice are military families again and again and again. So what we are doing is including the Webb bill, which would provide for the equivalent of a full-boat 4-year education at a public university for persons who have spent 36 months on active duty, and the benefits are scaled down in accordance with time served. It's long past time that we do that.

We have also included emergency funding for unemployment compensation so that for persons who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, they will have an additional 13 weeks available to them.

We have also in this amendment recommended delaying the administration's rules changes in Medicaid that have been so controversial, and we include two contractor reforms which the House had already passed.

The main difference, Mr. Speaker, between this bill and the administration's bill is that we pay for everything in the bill except the unemployment compensation provision and the President pays for virtually none of his requests.

Now I prefer to pay for the entire war if we are going to have it. I don't think we ought to have it. But if we were going to have it, I thought we ought to pay for the whole thing. So did Mr. Murtha and Mr. McGovern. So we introduced legislation to pay for the whole war with the war surtax. We lost that argument. That is not in this bill.

I felt that if we weren't going to pay for the war up front, then there should be no requirement to provide an offset to provide the additional GI Bill expanded benefits, which are the equivalent of only about 6 percent of the cost of this war so far. But I lost that argument, too.

And so this bill does pay for the expansion of GI benefits. And it pays for that in probably the best way possible, by asking the most fortunate citizens in our society, those who individually make $500,000 or more a year, or as a couple who make $1 million or more a year, we are asking them to help out in the form of a patriot premium by, in essence, asking them to pay a one-half of 1 percent surtax in order to finance the GI Bill expansion.

As I look at this bill, what we are doing is we are asking people who, on average, have gotten a $126,000 annual tax cut to take a tiny portion of that

tax cut to help us make life better for the persons who have been doing the most in order to preserve the way of life which has enabled those people to do so well in life. And I make no apology for it.

Ninety-nine percent of the appropriated dollars in the bill--99 percent of the appropriated dollars in this bill--are being requested by the administration.

This war, Mr. Speaker, has screwed up our economy. This war has injected chaos in the lives of military families all across the country. We make no apology in trying to use this vehicle to respond to the needs of the two groups in society who have been hit the hardest by this war; one being those who have lost their jobs because of the turmoil we have had in the economy because of the war and other factors, and second, the military families whom we believe ought to be treated about as well as the GIs were when they came back from World War II. This war has now lasted longer than World War II. And we think we have an obligation to respond to what is actually out there on the ground in communities all across the country.

We can debate our political philosophies. We can debate our economic theories. We can behave like little budgeteers, arguing about this comma and that comma, this offset and that offset. But in the end, we are dealing with the lives of human beings. We are dealing with the lives of families. We are dealing with people who have sacrificed incredibly much with their family members being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan once, twice, three times. Kids are not seeing their parents.

I represent a city of 37,000 people. We have had almost 35,000 casualties in this country. It is as if 4,000 people in my hometown were killed, and virtually every other person in that hometown wound up in a VA hospital. That is the human toll that has been paid so far just by Americans on this war.

So this is a process which will give Members the opportunity to vote up or down on the major pieces that comprise this legislation.

And I urge the House to move forward.

I, myself, will be intending to vote against the first amendment. I will be voting for the second and the third amendment. I hope that every Member here today exercises his conscience. That is what they are supposed to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California. Those are some of the nicest words he has ever said about me, and I appreciate them deeply.

Let me also say that I think his speech simply bears out that because they can find no real substantive fault with the legislation, they have to fall back on whining about process.

I would suggest that the gentleman from California is the last person I will take lectures from when it comes to talking about an open appropriations process. I was not chairman when the Appropriations Committee when, after the conference was closed and the work was done and the names are on the conference report, I was not the chairman of the committee who allowed 30 pages of unrelated new language not seen by anybody to be inserted in that conference report which insulated the pharmaceutical industry from suit if their products damaged their customers.

I was not the chairman of the committee when the committee, after the conference was closed, and after it was finished, inserted anonymously, anonymously, in the dead of night, language which changed the definition of organic foods on the agriculture bill and led to nicely enriched profits for certain people in this society.

All I can say is that the gentleman may not like the fact that we couldn't finish discussions as fast as we wanted to on this bill. He says he has only been able to see the text for the last day or so. Let me simply suggest that at least the text he reads is the text that will be in the bill after we vote on the bill, which is more than you can say for what happened under his stewardship on several locations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Let me simply make the point, there is virtually nothing in this bill that hasn't been around here for months. This is not new material. The President's war request has been around here for months, as the gentleman himself has indicated.

The unemployment compensation provision that we are providing in this bill already passed the House on one occasion. The Webb bill has been around for months, and it has the support, and, in fact, the sponsorship of the majority of the House and wide bipartisan support in the Senate as well.

I would suggest, I think the question is, the Pentagon is saying you've got to get the money to the troops, because they're about to run out of money and won't get paid. Yet our friends on the other side are asking us to follow a process which would have taken a much longer period of time.

You can't have it both ways. This is a fair process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute.

I am personally opposed to the first amendment which we are presenting to the House. But out of courtesy to the minority, who support it, and out of courtesy to the White House, who supports it, we are allowing that to come to a vote. Our party has not even whipped on that question. We told Members, vote your conscience. I don't see how you could be more fair than that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from South Dakota.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot allow the impression to continue that somehow we have violated House rules or committee rules by this procedure. The fact is that despite some Members having not been around here long enough to remember, the House used to often proceed in this way, moving amendments back and forth between the Senate and the House as a device by which to reach agreement on legislation. That happened routinely during the old abortion debates back in the seventies when amendments offered by Mr. Magnuson and Mr. Flood were bounced back and forth between the Houses.

The fact is also that I offered, and my staff director specifically offered, to have the minority staff participate in every discussion related to appropriation items. We pointed out, we were not drafting, in our committee, the unemployment insurance issues. That was drafted by the authorizing committee. And we were not drafting the language with respect to Medicaid rules. That was done by the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But we offered to have the minority staff participate in all of the staff meetings that were going on with respect to anything over which the Appropriations Committee had direct jurisdiction. If they chose not to exercise that right, that's their responsibility, not ours.

I would also point out that my understanding is that in the 109th and 110th Congress, fully 12 percent of legislation that was passed was passed using this process of moving amendments back and forth between the Senate and the House. So this may be an unusual procedure, but it is far from unprecedented.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority caucus chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is yielded 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I cannot believe what I just heard.

The gentleman just indicated that somehow we're adding $72 billion to a bill ``that has nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of soldiers.'' I would point out by far the largest item that we are adding to this bill, $51 billion over 10 years, is devoted to help those very same soldiers so that the people who fought, when they come home, get treated the same way that the GIs did at the end of World War II. That isn't on the backs of the soldiers. That's trying to enhance their lives. It's trying to enable Reservists and Guard members and regular forces who have had their lives disrupted, who have gone to Iraq two and three times. We're trying to say, Okay, you can stay home for a while. Get yourself a college education.

The GI Bill paid back this country $7 for every dollar it cost.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The GI Bill paid back to this society $7 for every dollar that it cost. There are unfortunately some people in this House who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Fortunately, the people who support this third amendment today will not be among them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, Just Imagine! The mortal sin that we're accused of committing on this side of the aisle is believing that we ought to provide some additional economic assistance to people

who have been hit the hardest by economic dislocation and have been unemployed until their benefits have expired and haven't been able to find a job.

It's suggested that we're doing this ``on the backs'' of our fighting men and women who return home. I'd suggest it's just the opposite. When a man or a woman returns home from Iraq, when we find out that in addition to their having their reentry problem, they also, some of them, may have post-trauma stress reaction, they find out in addition to what they have to worry about for themselves, they also have to worry about the fact that their sister or their brother-in-law is now unemployed, adding to the burden on that family.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I think those GIs recognize this is supposed to be a seamless society. We're supposed to help take care of the people who are in the most trouble, and I don't apologize for using some of the money that we use for veterans benefits. I don't apologize for getting that money from some of the people in this society who have had the least stress in their lives.

It seems to me that that's what the Judeo-Christian ethic is all about, and we plead fully guilty on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield myself 30 seconds, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I would like the gentleman from Texas to point out a single piece of Member pork in this bill.

Yes.

Name one.

Can you name one or can't you? The fact is there's not a single piece of Member pork in this bill. You ought to know.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

And through the Chair, I would invite the Member to name a specific piece of congressional pork in this bill. He cannot because there is none. He's at least had enough time to read the bill to know that.

The only possible piece of pork in this bill is one which we inserted at the request of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for a military hospital in Guam that came here at the request of the Secretary of Defense's office.

You can find no Member's pork in this package, and you know it as well as I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I would like to begin by expressing my great appreciation to my very dear friend, the distinguished and very able Chair of the Committee on Rules, my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter).

And with all due respect to my distinguished committee Chair, I am compelled, not surprisingly, to rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule.

Over the last 1\1/2\ years, my colleagues Messrs. Diaz-Balart, Hastings, and Sessions have stood right here at this lectern and opposed many, many deeply flawed rules. We began this Congress very inauspiciously as the leadership jammed through the opening week agenda before even bothering to set up the Rules Committee, allowing Ms. Slaughter to become Chair of that committee. From the very outset, there has been no pretense of concern for due process, not an inkling of respect for the rules of this House.

While we started at a low point, we have sunk lower and lower with each subsequent rule. One by one the Democratic leadership has trampled the rules and traditions of this body in an effort to shut down debate, cut both Republicans and Democrats out of the process, and jam through poorly constructed bills that rarely, rarely, if ever, become public law. I frequently marvel at each new low and assume that we have reached the rock bottom. As we have considered new forms of restrictive rules crafted under an ever-more restrictive process, I have often thought, ``This one takes the cake. The Democratic leadership couldn't possibly stoop any lower than this.'' Until the next comes, shutting down due process to an even greater degree.

So this time I'm not going to say that this rule is the absolute bottom of the barrel. I don't doubt that with a little more time and effort, based on the track record we've seen, the Democratic leadership will find a way to trample the rules and traditions of this House even more thoroughly. I will say that this is clearly the worst example that we've seen in the last 17 months since they have been in charge.

But before I get into the details of this egregious rule, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to discuss why it even matters what kind of a process is used to craft legislation and hold votes. I know the inner workings of the Rules Committee are thought to be so arcane that even some of our colleagues consider them to be a little too ``inside baseball.'' In fact, the distinguished Chair just spent all of her time talking about the bill itself. She didn't talk about the fact that they're trampling on the rights of Republicans and Democrats. Start talking about rules and procedure and regular order, and most Americans' eyes, and even some of our colleagues', start to glaze over.

So to illustrate why process matters, I will use another set of rules that are

more widely understood as an example. Even before the advent of the television show Law & Order, most of us were familiar with the basics of our criminal justice system. We're all familiar with our basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. We cannot be held without a charge. We're protected from self-incrimination and unlawful searches and seizures. We must be read our Miranda rights when placed under arrest. These basic rights are fundamental, fundamental, Madam Speaker, to American democracy. We know that there can be no justice without a fair process, and we know that the protection of the rights of the individual is more important than the outcome of any one particular case.

The Bill of Rights and the laws that have been enacted to uphold it aren't just a cryptic system of rules and regulations. They guarantee, Madam Speaker, they guarantee our civil rights and they guard against tyranny. Without a fair process, power is abused and rights are abridged. Process matters, Madam Speaker. Process matters because process is democracy.

The rules of the House were established for the very same reason. They ensure that the American people, through their elected representatives, have a say in the crafting of laws that govern them. The rules guard against abuses of power, and they ensure that the legislative process is transparent and fair. Thwarting due process is not just arcane political maneuvering around obscure, complicated rules that no one should care about. It subverts the principles of representative democracy. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, the rule that we are considering at this moment very clearly subverts the principles of representative democracy.

The Democratic leadership's casual disregard for these rules and principles has faced growing criticism in the media. Last week the Politico accused them of ``breaking promises,'' promises for an open legislative process that followed regular order and the rules of the House. Not surprisingly, the paper cited today's underlying bill, the supplemental appropriations, as Exhibit A in the Democrats' assault on an open and inclusive process, which was promised at the beginning of this Congress. That's not my saying that; that's an independent newspaper that made that statement.

Even before the new lows of the supplemental, another publication, Investors Business Daily, reported recently on the leadership's ``widening power grab,'' accusing them of ``anti-democratic'' behavior, running a ``dictatorship,'' and ``showing little or no concern for holding actual votes or building consensus on issues.'' Now, Madam Speaker, those are pretty harsh charges coming from a newspaper that is clearly a very independent publication. And they go on to say that this is all being done in an effort to ``manipulate Congress.'' Madam Speaker, ``dictatorship'' and ``anti-democratic,'' those are pretty harsh words, but they are clearly warranted.

The process used to craft the underlying supplemental appropriations bill has been atrocious. Committee work was completely abandoned. Without a single hearing, without a markup, without so much as consulting Mr. Lewis and the committee members, this bill was concocted behind closed doors. Zero input, zero deliberation, zero consultation. The Senate, of course, won't stand for that kind of treatment and intends to hold a markup later today before proceeding with its floor debate. But the Democratic leaders in this House apparently deem this to be a lesser body, with no right to due process.

The Democratic leadership intended to bring this bill up last week. They had to pull it from the schedule because fiscally conservative Members within their own caucus were outraged at the contents. A week later, Madam Speaker, a backroom deal has now been struck, bringing the remaining Democratic Members on board. How? Bringing Members on board by imposing a tax on small businesses in this country, which is exactly what this is. You see, Democrats love to stir up class warfare by justifying the small business tax as just a tax on the rich. Unless, of course, we are talking about millionaire farmers, and then they like to give them massive government payouts, which is what they did just yesterday in the farm bill.

To add to their inconsistency, they actually waived their own PAYGO rule to fund the farm bill subsidies, and today they refuse to waive the same PAYGO rule and use it as an excuse to levy massive tax increases on small businessmen and women in this country. Only in Washington would such logic be employed.

We became aware of the rough outline of this tax increase, along with every other provision of this bill, only through press reports. Some have reported a $183 billion price tag on this bill. Others have said it would be costing at least $250 billion. Various outlets reported on various provisions. But we didn't get a chance to see for ourselves what was in this massive bill until 3 p.m. yesterday. In fact, the distinguished former Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the now ranking member, my good friend, Mr. Lewis, came before us. Within the hour before that 3 p.m. meeting, he had just gotten the copy of the measure.

Most egregious of all, we're not actually considering a bill here today. We will be voting on three amendments to a Senate amendment to an old House bill that has already passed but was never enacted. Did you catch that? If it sounds gimmicky and underhanded, that's because that's exactly what it is. In fact, this morning I heard our colleague Mr. McDermott on National Public Radio, where he said the crafting of this is tantamount to John Kerry's very famous line in which he said ``I voted for it before I voted against it.'' The Democratic leadership knows that a vote on their full package would never pass; so they plotted a way around an actual vote on final passage.

For anyone who missed that, let me repeat. The House of Representatives will not be permitted a vote on the full underlying proposal. When Investors Business Daily calls this a dictatorship, they seem to have a point.

So what exactly is in this $183-250 billion bill that comes to us without any due process and will pass without a vote? Who can say for sure? But I know that at least $62 billion in new entitlements are included; $11 billion in unemployment insurance, and our friend Mr. Weller will be talking about this in a few minutes; and at least $51 billion in benefits for veterans. Clearly, these are very, very important issues that need to be addressed.

I don't doubt that the Democratic majority will try to claim that Republicans don't care about our veterans or those facing economic hardship. We hear that time and time again. To the contrary, these are such critically important issues for us that we passionately believe that we must address them in a serious and deliberative way. It is simply not good enough to slap together a proposal without a single moment of testimony or debate, throw some money at our problems, and call it a day.

The very critical issues addressed in this bill, from funding for Iraq and Afghanistan to international food assistance to the tremendously important domestic programs, all of these deserve a substantive, deliberative process. We should have an opportunity to examine which of these are truly emergencies and which should be included in the regular appropriations process. And all of them should have the benefit of an open debate to ensure that we are addressing our priorities effectively.

This rule allows for none of this, Madam Speaker. It thwarts the rules and traditions that were put in place to guard against abuses of power, and it blocks consideration of even a single amendment, including the very thoughtful and responsible alternative proposed by the man sitting to my right here, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Lewis. He's offered a clean supplemental appropriations bill which simply provides our troops the funding they need without bogging it down with all kinds of unrelated items or adding new policy that prevents them from carrying out their mission.

Our hope is to get this critical funding to our troops before Memorial Day, which is fast approaching. That's not an arbitrary deadline and it's not a gimmick. Our military commanders have told us that they desperately need this funding now, and we want to be able to go home for Memorial Day and tell our veterans and our military families that we passed a clean bill that funds our troops and their mission. We

want to tell them we crafted a bill without regard to politics, without regard to providing political cover or fodder for political ads. We simply gave the troops the funding they desperately need. Now, Madam Speaker, that's exactly what the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lewis, should be able to provide, and I'm going to seek an opportunity for him to do just that.

But, unfortunately, the Democratic majority can't advance their flawed policies without shutting down the process. So they prefer closed rules to open debate. They prefer backroom deals to the transparent committee process. They prefer hollow, ill-gotten victories that die after the House vote to substantive, bipartisan legislation that is enacted into law. That's exactly what we need to do, Madam Speaker.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I notice my colleague doesn't spend any time at all talking about the rule which is being considered at this time and shutting down democracy which we all aspire to in Iraq and other places in the world.

With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the author of the very important measure that will be made in order if we are able to defeat the previous question, a clean supplemental, my good friend from Redlands, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis.

Will the gentlewoman yield for a question?

I would just like to remind my colleague that 82 percent of the people who fall in the category about what she has just mentioned are small business men and women. And I think we need to realize this is a small business tax.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, my friend from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me say in the name of saying they are taxing the rich, the facts show it. Eighty-two percent of the people who fall in that category are small businessmen and women. That's just the facts.

With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), the ranking member of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee of Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

In light of the fact there is much more time remaining on the other side, may I ask the distinguished Chair if she might proceed and yield some of her time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I understand that my good friend from Cleveland was unable to get time from his side of the aisle.

And so at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cleveland, the Democratic Presidential candidate, Mr. Kucinich.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is remaining on each side.

Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Yes, we have a couple of speakers and then I am going to close.

Let me yield to my very good friend from Wichita, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and who has worked long and hard here, for 1 minute.

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

That is not my goal, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me begin by apologizing to my friend from Wausau. The notion of engaging in debate on the House floor is something I feel strongly about, and I am always happy to yield to people when they make requests for me to yield. I was simply asking my friend to

yield because of the fact that the $40 billion post-9/11 supplemental about which my friend complained and referred to as ``this crowd'' came to this floor under unanimous consent, a bipartisan agreement.

And the three supplemental appropriations, Madam Speaker, about which my friend referred, never, never, denied a motion to recommit to the minority. And I ensured as chairman of the Rules Committee at that time the right of the minority would, in fact, be maintained.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Auburn, Washington, the former sheriff, David Reichert.

I inquire, is the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee the final speaker for the majority?

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me say at the outset, and again the last thing I want to do is offend my friend from Wausau by asking him to yield at any point, but I would be happy to yield to him if he wants to respond to what I am about to say. And that is, the fact of the matter is we have in this Congress the single highest number of closed rules in the 219-year history of the Republic. Never before has this, has the United States Congress had such a period of closed rules. I will tell you, it is absolutely outrageous. Why, because we were promised something that was much, much different than that.

On a supplemental appropriations bill, my good friend, the chairman of the committee said, ``The majority leadership decide to obliterate the legislative process. They discarded a bipartisan committee product, and they threw in unrelated, partisan political items that characterized a full partisan agenda. They have taken abusive power to a new level.''

Madam Speaker, let me say that when we did that, we provided the minority a right to have a bite at the apple, a motion to recommit. They had an opportunity to offer a proposal. I will tell you it is just plain wrong to see what has been taking place here.

I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so I can amend the rule to simply give Republicans one simple bite at the apple, something we always guaranteed the now-majority.

Mr. Lewis, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, introduced a bill on Tuesday, H.R. 6062, a clean supplemental, to provide troop funding without strings and extraneous spending. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order an alternative motion to concur by Mr. Lewis which would simply state that the House concurs in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 6062. This way the House has the opportunity to send the Senate a clean supplemental to get our troops the money that they desperately need without the hocus-pocus, three-in- one vote political gamesmanship that we have before us at this moment.

It's simply the right thing for us to do to send that clean supplemental.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the extraneous material and the amendment included in the Record.

Madam Speaker, it's just one simple bite at the apple, something we always guaranteed the Democrats when we were in charge. It's one amendment. We're just trying to help the Democratic majority become the majority that they promised that they would be. It's not too late. Let them do it, Madam Speaker.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support this very important rule.

I congratulate the very strategic design of the Appropriations Committee. This is tough, and I thank the Rules Committee for listening to us as we presented our amendments.

But I rise today to say that war is ugly. But we applaud and appreciate the young men and women on the front lines. We forever honor them. Just a few minutes ago I was in a room listening to returning war veterans from Iraq, and they gave us these words, horrible stories, such as calling the

Iraqis hajis or sand niggers, telling us about the impact on their families, how many families were destroyed, how many have attempted to commit suicide.

I offered an amendment that many focused on the idea that everything we have asked the soldiers to do under the 2002 resolution has been done, and, therefore, it should expire. The President has no more authority to continue this war.

Then I wanted to debunk the actions of what happened to the Vietnam vets and call for a national day of celebration, a national day of honor for all the returning war heroes that will come home. This is what we should be doing today as we vote against the funding of this war in Iraq. It is important to stand for these soldiers.

But I am glad that we have extended GI benefits for veterans' education. Some of them were telling us that they are now being denied these benefits because of a general discharge, because of their opposition to the war. Yes, it is valuable because we move on to help Americans in this bill as well, extending unemployment compensation, getting rid of these cuts in Medicaid and making sure that we don't damage specialty hospitals that are in our rural and inner city areas who are helping us.

I am grateful to what the Appropriations Committee did on world and food hunger. It is a disaster, and they moved it up higher than what the President asked for. We had a briefing on world hunger and it was appalling what is going on around the world. I am grad that we have monies for refugee assistance and the Merida funding.

The Merida initiative is funding for this horrible drug war between Mexico and its own citizens that's spilling over into the United States. I am appreciative of these dollars, but, my friends, we have got to stop the utilization of drugs here in the United States.

It looks like it's McDonald's where they send these various drugs. When I say that, I am not talking about McDonald's, but I am suggesting that the pinpoints of where these drugs are dropped off in the United States, it is tragic. As we send more money and more money to Mexico, we have got to begin to devise a new policy for drug opposition here in the United States.

Vote against the funding for the war. The underlying other amendments are very good.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1197, Rule providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642-- Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008. While I offer my support for amendments No. 2 and No. 3, I must oppose amendment No. 1. While amendments 2 and 3 contain provisions beneficial to the American people, designed to improve our economy and protect our young men and women, amendment 1 continues a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

I oppose amendment No. 1 because I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 4076 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. Last May, I was proud to vote for H.R. 1591, a supplemental spending bill that would have provided funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops. Though this bill passed the House by a clear majority, the President opted to veto this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I must oppose amendment No. 1. This amendment provides a total of $162.9 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and FY 2009, funds that are handed over without any strings. The amendment does not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans now support. The amendment does not require that war funds can only be used for the responsible redeployment of American troop's home from Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. I cannot support legislation that provides the President with the resources to prolong his ill-advised war effort unrestrained.

I rise today in strong support of amendment No. 2. This amendment lays out a responsible U.S. policy toward Iraq, requiring that troops begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of completing the withdrawal of combat troops by December 2009. As a Member of both the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.

In addition, Madam Speaker this legislation specifically requires that any agreement between the United States and the government of Iraq committing future U.S. forces must be specifically authorized by Congress. The governments of Iraq and the United States announced their intention to forge a ``strategic framework agreement,'' a long-term, bilateral pact, to be completed by July 31, 2008. This negotiated agreement is to be based on the ``Declaration of Principles for a Long- Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America,'' signed November 26, 2007, by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President Bush.

Under the Declaration of Principles, the parties will negotiate a security agreement, under which the United States will support the Iraqi government and security forces in providing security and stability and fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Declaration of Principles envisions an agreement setting forth a wide- ranging set of commitments, which will cover issues including politics, economics, and security. In hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, administration officials have indicated that the President intends to negotiate this agreement as an executive agreement, not subject to Congressional approval. It is essential that any agreement which commits future U.S. troops to the defense of Iraq is outside the purview of existing authorizations, and such an agreement must be submitted to the Congress for approval. This legislation also prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, amendment No. 2 requires that the Iraqi government step up and pay its share of Iraqi reconstruction efforts. I am concerned that the United States has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate amount for Iraq reconstruction, especially when the Iraqi government reportedly has a $25-30 billion budget surplus this year. To date the United States has appropriated more than $45 billion for Iraq reconstruction. American funded reconstruction programs have included: the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global banks, including a reported $30 billion in the U.S., instead of investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi infrastructure. This legislation requires the Iraqi government to take responsibility for the future of its own nation.

There are a number of other key provisions in this amendment. It requires the President to reach an agreement with Iraq to subsidize fuel costs for U.S. Armed Forces operating in Iraq so that our military pays what Iraqis pay. It requires that troop's meet the Pentagon's definition of ``combat ready'' before they are deployed to Iraq; Prohibits troops from being deployed longer than Pentagon guidelines recommend; and requires that troops spend adequate time at home between deployments. This legislation makes substantial strides toward cleaning up contracting in Iraq, expanding current law to make all contractors working in war zones subject to prosecution for offenses that would otherwise be in violation of U.S. law; extending the statute of limitations for fraud cases during wartime; and amending the Federal criminal code to prohibit profiteering and fraud involving contractors overseas. In addition, it prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual, a provision necessary in eliminating torture.

Amendment No. 3

Madam Speaker, the third amendment to H.R. 2642 provides over $21.2 billion for much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending unemployment benefits, expanding veterans' education benefits, and placing a moratorium on the Bush administration's seven Medicaid regulations; this amendment gets us closer to where the Economic Stimulus package should have taken us.

This amendment will provide increased funds for food aid, military hospitals, and the reconstruction of the Louisiana levees.

international food aid

As many of you know, we are facing an international food crisis. According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food prices have increased an average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, wheat has increased by 146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 percent, corn by 41 percent, and rice prices have increased by 29 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Many factors have played into this crisis. In China, India, and other emerging markets experiencing rapid economic growth, consumers are increasing their demand for food, oil, and energy supplies. Rising energy costs have directly raised the cost of agricultural production. Adverse weather-related events have lowered crop yields, particularly affecting wheat harvests. Depreciation of the U.S. dollar accounts for part of the increase in U.S. food prices, while increased production of biofuel has raised the price of corn.

Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one sixth of the world's population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional share of income on basic food commodities.

That is why I, along with other Hunger Caucus members hosted a forum on the food crisis and what it is doing to our children. We met with leaders of the international aid community to come up with pragmatic solutions to the global hunger crisis, both in the short-term and the long-term.

In my district I submitted an appropriations request for the Houston Food Bank to expand their collection and distribution of food to the good people of Houston. We each have to do our part, not only in our district by supporting much needed programs and organizations, but across this great Nation and the rest of the world.

This amendment would give $9.9 billion, $496 million above the President's request for the State Department, USAID and International Food Assistance. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that children are going hungry. We have millions of dollars to bailout Bear Stearns, let's find that same money to help our families and our children.

Expanded GI Benefits for Veterans Education

As champion for veterans, I am especially pleased to see the expansion of education benefits to veterans under the GI bill.

Extended Unemployment Compensation

The number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008. This supplemental would extend unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every state as well as an additional 13 weeks in states with high unemployment.

protecting the medicaid safety net act of 2008 (h.r. 5613)

The Bush administration sought to cut services and payments to American families by adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the stimulus. This amendment places a much needed moratorium on those regulations giving back to our seniors, families, and those with disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.

refugee assistance

$675 million, $454 million above the President's request, to address the refugee crisis in Iraq and elsewhere.

Merida

This amendment would give $461.5 million, $88.5 million below the President's request for the initiative to provide counter narcotics and law enforcement assistance in Mexico, $400 million, and Central America, $61.5 million.

Military Construction

The $4.6 billion for military construction, $2.2 billion over the President's request, including $939 million for BRAC, over $210 million for the military child care centers that the President announced in the State of the Union but never funded, and $992 million for military hospitals to prevent the types of problems that faced Walter Reed.

bureau of prisons

This $178 million urgently needed to meet rising incarceration costs and growing inmate population. The administration would have paid for these costs with cuts to state and local law enforcement funding.

Cleaning up Contracting (H.R. 3928 and H.R. 5712)

Increases accountability and transparency in Federal contracting by requiring companies that receive more than 80 percent of their revenue from the Federal Government to disclose the names and salaries of their top officers, and requires Federal contractors to report violations of Federal criminal law and overpayments on contracts over $5 million.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I also rise to oppose the way that the House majority, the Democratic majority, is managing this legislation, bringing forward a fiscal year irresponsible supplemental bill.

I would note, as I recall, on January 29, the Speaker of the House made a statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus package that was about to pass, and Speaker Pelosi said, ``Let's hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.''

I agree with the Speaker that we should act in a way that is timely, temporary and targeted.

Unfortunately, that's not what the House is being offered today. In addition to a large tax increase, the bill before us today includes an untargeted and overly expensive extension of unemployment benefits.

Consistent with the Speaker's call for targeting help to those who need it most, I introduced legislation and offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to focus extended unemployment benefits on people and States with relatively high or fast-rising unemployment rates.

Combined with regular unemployment benefits available in all States under my amendment, a total of 39 weeks of benefits would be available to unemployed workers whose jobs are hardest to find. On Main Street U.S.A. that helps those who need the help most. Yet this targeted approach was rejected by our Democratic colleagues, the majority on the committee.

Why target benefits? Why target benefits to only relatively high unemployment States? For the same reason, the Democratic legislation proposes longer benefits in high unemployment States because workers there have a harder time finding new jobs and thus are in need of extended benefits.

Targeting is especially important today since today's national unemployment rate is a low 5.0 percent with a third of all States having unemployment rates below 4 percent. That national unemployment rate is well below the lowest prior level when such a program was created in the past. I have a note in 2002 it was 5.7 percent, and, again, today's unemployment rate is 5 percent.

This targeted approach that I offered is also more fiscally responsible. The untargeted Democratic approach costs at least twice as much as a targeted approach and, as the Congressional Budget Office has reported, the Democrat legislation will require State tax increases to pay those additional costs.

The bill before the House would require State tax increases, State tax hikes, totaling $1 billion over just next 5 years.

If this program is extended, as all such temporary programs have been, the tax increases required will only grow. The Speaker was right, we need to act in a way that is fiscally responsible and targeted.

Unfortunately, this legislation before us today achieves neither of these goals and adds to budget deficits and requires payroll tax increases. We can and should do better than this.

Congress Has never Extended Unemployment Benefits at Today's Low

Unemployment Rate

Democratic leaders want to extend unemployment benefits nationwide, with the Federal Government picking up all of the $16 billion tab.

Since the 1950s, Congress has created 7 special or ``temporary'' extended benefits programs, which can double the length of total unemployment benefits from the 26 weeks to 52 weeks--or longer--per laid off worker. The logic of these programs is to provide additional weeks of benefits when jobs are relatively hard to find.

Today's national unemployment rate is a relatively low 5.0 percent. Congress has never created a temporary extended benefits program at such a low unemployment rate. The next lowest unemployment rate when such a program was created in U.S. history was when the last such program was created in March 2002. The unemployment rate then was 5.7 percent--significantly higher than today's 5.0 percent unemployment rate.

Today's U.S. Unemployment Rate Is significantly lower Than Average Rate

At Start of Prior Extended Benefit Programs

It is also useful to compare today's relatively low 5.0 percent unemployment rate with average rates when prior special Federal programs started. When such programs started, average unemployment rates were far higher than the Nation's unemployment rate today.

Today's unemployment rate (5.0 percent) is more than 2 percentage points below the average unemployment rate in the month when Congress chose to start such special programs (7.3 percent).

Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average for All of the 1980s and

1990s

The current unemployment rate is so low it is actually below the average of entire recent decades.

If you look at the 1980s and 1990s--two decades that saw record job creation in the U.S.-- and average all the months, you find those decades actually had higher average unemployment rates than today's 5.0 percent rate.

If such a program should exist today--when the Nation's unemployment rate is quite low by historical standards--when should it not? Creating such a program now is in effect an argument for permanently extending unemployment benefits, which would require at least $12 billion more per year in Federal spending and payroll taxes, in addition to State payroll tax hikes.

Today's 5.0 Percent Unemployment Rate Does Not Reflect an ``Emergency''

The Democratic leadership is suggesting that a special ``emergency'' nationwide extended unemployment benefit program is needed because today's job market is so weak.

Actually, only 20 percent of all months in the past four decades had unemployment rates below today's level. So if today's job market constitutes an ``emergency,'' then the U.S. economy has almost always been in a similar or even worse emergency situation throughout the past four decades. That's a hard case for even the biggest economic pessimist to make.

Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average throughout the Clinton

Administration

Democratic Members are always trying to take credit for the strong economy of the 1990s, even though it was the Republican Congress and its policies of tax relief, spending restraint, and welfare reform that actually promoted record economic growth and budget surpluses.

But let's accept the Democratic rhetoric for a minute that the Clinton era economy was just about the best ever.

What was the average unemployment rate during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration? 5.2 percent--which is above today's 5.0 percent rate. Did a special extended benefits program operate throughout the Clinton Administrations? No. Did a special extended benefits program operate during all the months when the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent or higher? No again.

Current Employment Conditions Are better Than in 1996--Which President

Clinton Called the ``Healthiest'' Economy ``In Three Decades''

It's worth considering another reason why Democratic leaders are so determined to argue that today's economy is so bad: Politics.

Compare today with 1996: 20 million more employees; a lower unemployment rate; a lower long-term unemployment rate; and fewer average weeks of unemployment. All better today than the 1996 levels.

But what did President Clinton, then running for a second term, think about the U.S. economy in 1996? In his State of the Union Address that year he said: ``Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.'' (January 23, 1996) So when a Democrat is in the White House running for reelection, the economy is healthy and strong. And of course no one calls for a special extended benefits program.

But with a Republican in the White House, and despite better economic statistics today,

Democrats portray the current economy as another Depression. Here's how Senator Chuck Schumer put it: ``The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover.'' (Press Release, March 7, 2008)

The Democratic ``Emergency'' Extended Benefits Program Is poorly

targeted

Despite today's relatively low unemployment rate, there are reasonable, arguments for extending unemployment benefits in areas where jobs are scarce. That's the approach Republicans proposed in the Ways and Means Committee, but which Democratic Members rejected. This approach would expand a current program that targets Federal funds for extended unemployment benefits on States with high unemployment rates. Temporarily expanding that program would provide more help to workers where jobs are scarce and the added help is needed most.

Early on, Speaker Pelosi seemed to agree with the need for such a ``targeted'' approach. In her January 29, 2008 statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus check package, the Speaker said: ``Let's hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.''

Unfortunately, the proposed Democratic program does not follow this ``targeted'' approach. Nearly all of its benefits--more than $12 billion of the $14 billion in total benefit spending (not counting administrative costs) in the coming year--would be paid regardless of local unemployment rates. That's poorly targeted, and not fiscally responsible.

Under the Untargeted Democratic Program, Federal Benefits Would Be Paid

in Many States with very low Unemployment Rates

One key reason why the Democratic program is poorly targeted is because extended unemployment benefits would be paid in all states, regardless of the availability of jobs there.

In March 2008, a full 15 States had unemployment rates under 4 percent. Another 17 States had unemployment rates between 4.0 and 4.9 percent. That makes 32 States--two thirds of all States--with current unemployment rates under 5 percent. Those are very low unemployment rates by any measure. Another 13 States have unemployment rates between 5.0 and 5.9 percent.

That leaves just 6 States with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher, which is the Democratic Members' own definition of ``high unemployment.'' Under their own criteria, 45 States today are ``low unemployment'' and only 6 are ``high unemployment'' (includes D.C.). But all States would receive Federal funds to pay extended benefits to workers.

Current Long-Term Unemployment Rate Is below the average Since 1980

Democratic Members have suggested that record numbers of workers today have been out of work for long periods. Actually, the current share of all workers who are long-term unemployed--defined as those who have been out of work for more than 6 months--is below average.

The average long-term unemployment rate for all months since January 1980--covering nearly three full decades, and including two of the longest expansions in U.S. history--was 1.0 percent. So in the average month in the past generation, 1 percent of the labor force had been out of work for more than 6 months.

How does that compare with today? The long-term unemployment rate in April 2008 was 0.9 percent--below the average for the past generation. That means fewer current workers are long-term unemployed than in the typical month in the past 28 plus years.

That's hardly the case Democratic Members have been making for what an ``emergency'' situation this is. In fact, current conditions are better than average when it comes to assessing how many American workers are unemployed for long periods.

Long-Term Unemployment Today Is below Level in 1994 When Democratic

Leaders ended the Extended Benefits Program They Created

Some Democratic Members seem to think whether you support creating a special extended benefits program--and under what terms--determines whether you support workers or not. One even said it was ``unconscionable'' to try and target extended benefits to only those in high unemployment States, as Republicans have proposed and even the AFL-CIO apparently supports.

Yet when Democrats last held a majority in Congress in 1994 they created a special Federal extended benefits program. The Democratic Majority in Congress back then allowed that program to expire in April 1994. But back then a significantly GREATER share of unemployed workers were long-term unemployed than today--21 percent then versus less than 18 percent today.

Was it ``unconscionable'' to ``turn off' that prior special program in April 1994? Weren't they ``leaving workers out in the cold'' or ``shutting them out'' or whatever metaphor Democratic Members use now against those who support a more targeted approach today, when conditions are objectively better in terms of long-term unemployment?

The Untargeted Democratic Extended Benefits Program Would drain federal

unemployment accounts

Some Democratic Members claim there are ``plenty'' of Federal funds to pay for these benefits. Are they right?

To answer that, you have to ask ``what are the chances this special program will last only 12 months as advertised?'' A key fact is since 1970 none of the 5 special programs created by Congress ended as originally proposed; every one was extended. So chances are high that program created now wouldn't stop after just 12 months, either.

In fact, the average total duration of such programs is about 30 months. The untargeted Democratic program would cost about $1 billion per month. So if its length is ``average,'' the total cost will reach $30 billion. That's almost the balance in the Federal unemployment trust funds today.

But remember this program would start at a record low unemployment rate. Also, such programs tend to operate until the unemployment rate falls to the level where it started, or less. So let's assume the program starts now and runs as long as one following the 2001 recession that started and stopped only when the unemployment rate fell below 5.0 percent. That program would operate for 47 months--from now until April 2012--cost $47 billion or more and fully drain the Federal unemployment trust funds, which currently hold just $35 billion.

I very much appreciate your recognizing me to respond to my friend, David Obey.

I am going to speak just a little bit out of order, for two of my colleagues on the floor, David Obey, the chairman of the committee, and my colleague, Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, have shared with me, I thought, over some years, the traditional order of this House. I've seen how the committee system works, especially in the Appropriations Committee, making certain that all Members, Democrats and Republicans, had an opportunity to provide input. And now to have us move so far away from that traditional order by way of this process today is a great disappointment to me.

I can't help but wonder if maybe there is some lack of commitment to regular order that I had never perceived before. For example, my colleague from San Diego, the chairman of the VA Subcommittee, if he had been given an opportunity, could have marked up and had hearings and otherwise on the VA portions some time ago.

This supplemental came from the President well over a year ago. We have had plenty of time to exercise the process in the way that maximizes Members' involvement, remembering that those Members are elected to represent their people at home.

And so the procedure we are going through today has undermined that representative process.

I think many of my colleagues, particularly those who serve with me on the Appropriations Committee, know that I have a great deal of respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd. While he and I may disagree on issues from time to time, it is fair to say that we both share a deeply held love and respect for this institution.

Senator Byrd also reveres the established traditions and precedents of the committee he leads. He understands that we will only truly know what is in the supplemental if it is exposed to the light of day through the regular order committee process. No one, not even the Senate majority leader, is going to tell Senator Byrd to abdicate his devotion to regular order or his responsibility as chairman of his beloved Appropriations Committee.

Unfortunately, the adherence to regular order has now been completely abandoned on the House side of the Capitol. Both Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, the sole authors of the House supplemental before us today, have dismissed as ``a nonissue'' those bipartisan voices calling for full committee consideration of this critically important legislation.

In conversations with both Republicans and Democrats in the House, it is widely felt that the Democrat leadership has unfairly and wrongly circumvented the House Appropriations Committee process.

Further, the House majority has chosen to proceed under a closed rule, eliminating any and all amendments on the House floor, and is intent on bypassing a conference committee with the Senate. In effect, the Democrat leadership has eliminated every conceivable opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to represent the views of their own constituents.

I find this sadly ironic, for it was Nancy Pelosi in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat majority's governing philosophy. And I will quote her: ``Bills should come to the House floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.''

As the body knows full well, we have had not an open process, let alone full and fair debate. Nor have we had any amendment process. Nor have we had any hearings whatsoever. So, I ask the Speaker, what has changed?

In an October 20, 2006 press release, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to then-Speaker Hastert, ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.''

My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concerns about Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey being the sole authors of this legislation without any input from other Members with considerable expertise in these subject matters. I am not alone in expressing this concern.

Last week, my dear friend and colleague, Marcy Kaptur, voiced her displeasure with Chairman Obey and her own leadership. She said, ``Leadership, by keeping the supplemental too close to the vest and not going through a committee markup, has failed to engage the broader membership. It does disenfranchise the voice of people who don't come from leadership locations.''

I just happen to be the ranking member on this full committee. I saw the text and the heart of this proposal only yesterday in the early part of the afternoon. They have had it for months in the works, but have chosen to ignore entirely the minority in this connection. My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concern about this process before.

The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has said that it is disingenuous for Republicans to speak out over the Iraq war supplemental bypassing the Appropriations Committee process. He suggested that the House Republicans, while in the majority, had engaged in similar practices. This argument would be convenient if it were, in fact, true. However, we all know that facts are stubborn things.

According to the April 29 edition of the Politico, ``There have been about three dozen emergency spending bills in the past 20 years, and a handful has passed without input from the Appropriations Committee, including billions in Hurricane Katrina aid and post-September 11 funds. But none of the Iraq war funding bills has bypassed the appropriations panel in the process.''

Have there been occasions where supplemental spending bills have not been

considered by the full committee? Sure there have. But on those rare instances, such as the aftermath of September 11 and so on, there was bipartisan consensus on the need to act quickly. And we did so by working together.

In no circumstance, to my knowledge, did either the Republican majority or the Democrat minority that preceded it ever deny either the opposition party or even members of its own party a seat at the table in writing such critical legislation.

Yet here we stand today, debating the merits of a bill that only a handful of Members have even seen. Very, very few Members know what is in this legislation.

I ask you, anybody in this room, have any of you, besides David Obey, had a chance to really read this bill and know what's in it in detail? You're going to be asked to vote on it anyway, regardless of that lack of input.

Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, deserve to have their voice heard. By the end of the day, not one Member will have an opportunity to offer an amendment or propose any alternative ideas to this body for a vote.

What are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of?

This is the fifth time since January 2007 that this majority has brought a supplemental appropriations bill to the House floor under a closed rule, violating the entire tradition of the appropriations process.

In order for the people's voices to be heard, it is fundamental that the representatives' voices are heard. What is happening here is that we are beginning to lay a pattern to destroy the representative process that allows the people to be heard through the people they send here to represent them in the first place.

Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have effectively said to virtually every Democrat and Republican serving this great body: ``Your voice is irrelevant, and your input is not welcome.'' Again, what are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of?

I believe this practice of circumventing our traditional committee process and ignoring the voices of rank and file Members and their constituents is detrimental to the health of the legislative process. It puts in place a process wherein a handful of powerful legislators become ``the Great Deciders'' of what should or should not be included in this almost $250 billion spending bill. This is not the ``House of the Few Great Deciders.'' It is the ``People's House.'' It is the House of Representatives. We fail to recognize this at our great peril.

On May 24, 2002, my friend and my chairman, Mr. Obey, said, and I quote, ``What a shame, when the legislative process is corrupted to polarize a product that should have been used to forge national unity.''

These words are particularly true today as Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi put partisan interests ahead of the interests of the Members of the House and ahead of the people of this country. We can do better. And ladies and gentlemen, we must do better.

We can do better, and, ladies and gentlemen, we must do better. Vote ``no'' on this package and send it back to where it belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Bill Young.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New York, Jim Walsh.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize my colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, for 2 minutes.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, one of the delights of this process, preparing for this bill, has been to go back through the process of the past and look at some of the protestations and expressions of concern by my colleague, now the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee. I love this quote particularly. He says, ``Now this bill is going nowhere. It's going to be vetoed.'' Which bill are we talking about? This one or that one?

The American people know that once again Congress is putting partisan political considerations ahead of the needs of the American people. What we ought to do is to stop these political games and go forward with the regular process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

(Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2 minutes the former chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Steve Buyer of Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would yield myself 10 seconds.

The chairman of the committee could have raised this 6 months ago since the bill has been around for a full year, but he chose to use political rhetoric today rather than really carry out his responsibilities.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, could you give us the time, please, on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, Mr. Wamp from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston from Georgia.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.