H.Res. 1493House111th Congress (2009-2011)Passed Congress

Providing for budget enforcement for fiscal year 2011.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

5 earlier actions

HouseFloor Latest Action

Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1500, H. Res. 1493 is considered passed House. (consideration: CR H5357-5358; text as passed House: CR H5357-5358)

July 1, 2010 • 8:02 PM

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

June 30, 2010

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to House Budget

Budget Committee

June 30, 2010

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

June 30, 2010

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to House Rules

Rules Committee

June 30, 2010

HouseFloor

Passed/agreed to in House: Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1500, H. Res. 1493 is considered passed House.(consideration: CR H5357-5358; text as passed House: CR H5357-5358)

July 1, 2010 • 8:02 PM

HouseFloor

Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1500, H. Res. 1493 is considered passed House. (consideration: CR H5357-5358; text as passed House: CR H5357-5358)

July 1, 2010 • 8:02 PM

Floor Debate

23 members

What members said about H.Res. 1493 on the floor

+18

4 Republicans19 Democrats

Rep. David DreierR-CA-26 · Sep 29, 2010

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to join in expressing both appreciation and congratulations to Sophie…

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to join in expressing both appreciation and congratulations to Sophie Hayford for her 34 years of dedicated service to this institution. It is true, I think, that the thing that struck me--I mean, I have never analyzed the National Archives hidden behind her desk. I have been able to benefit from some of the wonderful things that she has cooked. But I will say, Mr. Speaker, the most important thing from my perspective is that Sophie Hayford has always, always, always offered a smile and encouragement, which doesn't always take place from side to side in this institution. And that's the thing that I will miss the most.

I just want to wish her well. I know that her first action is going to be to jet off to Paris. And I will say, mine is going to be to jet off to Los Angeles, California. And while I am looking forward enthusiastically to that, I will say that the idea of going to Paris is very appealing. So after 34 years of great service, having worked with our Rules Committee colleague Mr. McGovern on the staff of Mr. Moakley, and having worked so closely with that great man, our former chairman, it is something that obviously taught Sophie a great deal, Mr. Speaker, because Joe Moakley was a man from whom I learned a lot, and I know others in this body who had the opportunity to serve with him and staff members who had the opportunity to work for and with him learned as well. So I would say that those 10 years of service in Mr. Moakley's personal office obviously played a big role in creating the kind of spectacular public servant that Sophie has been. And I want to join in wishing her well, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing appreciation to my very good friend from Rochester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and to say that, not surprisingly, I believe that based on the facts, the American people have a slightly different take on what it is that has gotten us to where we are and what it is that we are doing here this evening. Apparently, the House is wrapping up its business tonight, adjourning early for the campaign season. Our final act will be the passage of this continuing resolution, made necessary by this majority's many, many failures.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to remind us over and over again that they have completed their agenda. We just heard that from the distinguished chairwoman. That completed agenda is, Mr. Speaker, the failed stimulus bill, the unsuccessful cap-and-trade legislation, and the evermore unpopular government takeover of our health care system.

What they will not mention, Mr. Speaker, what they will not mention is the work that they did not do. They did not pass a budget for the first time since the implementation of the 1974 Budget and Empowerment Act. They did not complete work on a single appropriations bill. And to make matters worse, they are leaving town with a tax hike looming for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a record of which to be proud.

But that is not all. The 111th Congress is departing with another dubious distinction. Not a single bill was considered under an open amendment process, not one. Not a single bill in this entire Congress considered under an open amendment process. This fact alone makes this Congress the most closed Congress in history.

Let me say that again. Sadly for the American people who have been denied the opportunity to be heard in this institution, the action of not allowing one bill to be considered under an open rule has made this the single most closed Congress in the 221-year history of our Republic.

How did we end up here?

Wasn't it just 4 short years ago that we were promised a new direction?

Didn't Speaker Pelosi assure the American people that their business would be conducted in the most open, honest, ethical way possible?

Those promises are still available on the Speaker's Web site. It is almost eerie, as we look at the past 4 years, Mr. Speaker. It is almost eerie to read the words that appear on the Speaker's Web site. They read, in part: with integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our new direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, those are the words that at this moment are still on the Speaker's Web site: with integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our new direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, 4 years later, the hopes and dreams of the American people are being crushed by a tragically high unemployment rate and rising debt. They are clamoring to understand how and why legislation they pleaded with the Congress not to pass could be forced through with procedural games. They are wondering why, when they are being forced to tighten their own belts, the Congress refused to consider a budget for our Nation's spending priorities.

The American people know that this is not the new direction they were promised. They know that this majority has led our country the wrong way.

Today, my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee and I released a new report that I have right here; and I would commend to my colleagues, and our colleagues who don't have a hard copy of it can get it by going to our site, which is house-rulesrepublicans.house.gov. So I would commend this to our colleagues: ``The Wrong Way Congress: How the Democratic majority took America in the wrong direction with the wrong bills in the wrong way at the wrong time.''

And we have right inside here, Mr. Speaker, symbolic of what it is that we have gotten, the sign that many people across this country have seen: ``Putting America to Work Project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.'' That is what we have right here. And we all know that this

sign, in and of itself, is an indication of the failure.

This report outlines the procedural abuses and the failures of the 111th Congress and the role that the House Rules Committee has played in executing them. Rather than focusing on job creation, as the American people wanted, the Democratic majority pursued a job-killing agenda based on reckless spending, over-regulation and, tragically, tax increases. The details are all too familiar by now.

It all started, Mr. Speaker, with the failed stimulus bill. There were no hearings, and well after midnight the bill was rushed through the Rules Committee at warp speed. We continue to hear that everything is done in the light of day, and the stimulus bill was passed out of the Rules Committee after midnight.

We were told that this lack of regular order, Mr. Speaker, was necessary to keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. That is why we had to rush the stimulus through so we could make sure that the unemployment rate that at that point was at 7.7 percent would not exceed 8 percent.

Well, we all know today how painful it is that we across the country are suffering with a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and in my State of California, a nearly 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate.

Next up was the unsuccessful cap-and-trade legislation. Now, I don't need to remind any of my Rules Committee colleagues about our meeting on that bill. Think back to the cap-and-trade legislation. It wasn't considered in the light of day. Mr. Speaker, it was 3 o'clock in the morning--not 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock--3 o'clock in the morning, just hours before we voted here on the House floor, that my friend Mr. McGovern was in the process of reading the motion to report out the special rule. He had already begun reading the motion to move this bill to the floor. And at that time, at 3 o'clock in the morning, we had dumped onto our places a very warm, 300-page amendment, a 300- page amendment that completely rewrote the bill.

It was that hearing, and that manager's amendment, that launched the hue and cry across this country when the American people said, read the bill. And the next day, Republican leader John Boehner stood right where I am, and he took his privilege, as leader, to explain to our colleagues and the American people what was in that 300-page amendment.

Then, next up was the health care reform legislation. Who can forget the town hall meeting, the public outrage, the long hard slog that they went through, Mr. Speaker, to find the votes for its passage?

Things got so bad that the majority searched for ways to pass the bill without actually voting on it. It was dubbed the Slaughter Solution, named for our very distinguished committee chair. The public outrage was so intense that they eventually abandoned the so- called Slaughter Solution strategy.

Again, Mr. Speaker, that bill was reported from the Rules Committee in the middle of the night, not in the light of the day, in the middle of the night. The bill was unpopular when it was passed. And as we all know from public opinion polls today that we see from virtually every source, Democrat and Republican alike, that health care bill is even more unpopular now than it was then.

Mr. Speaker, as they pursued this job-killing agenda, the wrong-way Congress abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of budgeting and appropriations work. As I said earlier, for the first time since 1974, when the Budget Act was put into place, the House did not even consider a budget resolution. This failure was part and parcel of their strategy to shut down the appropriations process and restrict the amendment debate. It began in the summer of 2009, a year ago this past summer; and it became complete this year. We considered only two of the 12 spending bills and both with a handpicked list of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this crackdown was not without consequence. Listen to this number, Mr. Speaker. As the number of amendments declined, the rate of nondefense discretionary spending actually increased an astounding 91 percent. Nondefense discretionary spending since we put into place the crackdown on the opportunity for 435 Members, Democrat and Republican alike, to offer amendments, we have seen that increase take place since we saw the process for the first time ever completely shut down. This was not a coincidence.

So here we are on the final day of the legislative session before the election. The House is operating under unrestricted martial-law authority, giving the majority the ability to call up any bill at any time with just an hour's notice.

In the event that any of my colleagues are wondering when that happened, let me remind them that they voted for it last week when the House approved a rule providing for consideration of small business legislation. It is not surprising that most Members wouldn't notice. It was tucked into the rule, just as it has been for every single week that we have been in session, but one, since the month of May.

This is the new normal. The majority can do whatever it wants whenever they want to do it.

But let's remember, Mr. Speaker, what they won't do. They won't pass a budget. They won't vote to prevent the coming tax hikes that are crippling our economy with uncertainty. They won't allow a vote to get spending under control. They won't allow the House to debate a bill under an open rule.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am an eternal optimist. I was privileged to be elected the day Ronald Reagan was elected President, and I believe in that Reagan sense of optimism. I believe that there is still a chance for the majority to do what was promised in a new direction for America, and that is to truly offer a new direction. I believe that the ``Wrong Way Congress'' can in fact make a U-turn and remove the uncertainty that is hurting our economy.

We can have a vote to prevent tax hikes on all Americans, including small businesses and job creators. We can have a vote on a responsible level of spending, sending a powerful signal that we will work together to get our fiscal house in order, as was promised and as can be still read on the Speaker's Web page. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that would be the right thing to do for all of us and, most importantly, for the American people who have entrusted us with dealing with these very, very serious challenges and problems that we as a Nation face.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, and I am going to urge my colleagues also to defeat the previous question first. And if we are successful in defeating the previous question, we will offer a motion to go to the spending levels that were before the failed stimulus and before the bailouts, to the 2008 spending levels.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and, if we are not successful on that, a ``no'' vote on the rule. And I will say let's work together in a bipartisan way to deal with these very important issues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my friend is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is very troubling that we are here at this late hour having not passed a budget for the first time since the Budget Act was put into place in 1974, having not completed a single appropriations bill, and having passed legislation which has dramatically exacerbated the debt that is going to be shouldered by future generations.

We can do better, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt that we can do better. We can do better right now. I and my colleagues are prepared to stay here so that we can ensure that Americans don't face the uncertainty of a tax increase, which will clearly impinge the potential for economic growth as we are struggling to get out of this recession. I am convinced that if we stay here, we can in fact get that done; I am convinced that if we stay, we could complete a budget; and I am convinced we could even complete the appropriations work.

Now, I know the writing is on the wall. We have passed an adjournment resolution. It is up to the majority leader to determine whether or not we can do this. But things have moved so quickly, things have moved out of the Rules Committee so quickly, I think that we should make an attempt to try and address our constitutionally mandated items, like passing a budget, like completing our appropriations work.

So I urge my colleagues to do that. It is very sad that this has become the wrong-way Congress. But as I said, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we do have the chance to turn things around, make a U-turn.

This wrong-way Congress document is not filled with lots of hyperbole. It is filled with facts. It is filled with the very sad facts about what we have seen over the past 4 years, and I would commend it to my colleagues.

I am going to ask my colleagues to join me now in defeating the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will change the budget enforcement ``deemer'' resolution to reduce our discretionary spending levels to pre-bailout and pre-stimulus levels, 2008 levels.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment appear in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, this House, as I said, has failed to budget and failed to appropriate. The majority leadership of this House has actively denied Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to make spending decisions, particularly when it comes to cutting its Federal deficit. We can see the result, as I have been saying: A 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending.

This amendment we have would restore some sanity to our fiscal outlook, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Rep. Sheila Jackson LeeD-TX-18 · Jul 1, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will have an opportunity to do something we have not been able to do, and that is to debate the Afghan war and the direction that this war is taking and the impact on our men and women on the front lines. I particularly want to say to the families how much we appreciate the sacrifice that you've made as these men and women stand on the front lines of Afghanistan. But I think we're long overdue for a major debate that has to do with that direction.

I support this underlying rule for the purpose of allowing us to have this debate, but also that it provides, on the domestic spending, crucial issues.

Pell Grants will be provided for in $4.95 billion; border security that impacts the northern and southern border so that we can stand as we do comprehensive immigration reform and assure the American people that we will secure our boarders.

In the most catastrophic oil spill from the region that I come, the tsunami of oil spills, we are taking care of the people by providing $304 million for the gulf coast oil spill, including moneys for unemployment assistance.

Then, coming from the region I belong to, as well, we had a tragedy at Fort Hood, and we are now rebuilding the Fort Hood processing center that saw a terrible loss of life because of terrorism.

FEMA disaster. This is the most vigorous season that you could have ever imagined that is to be expected in hurricanes, and we know, among other disasters, we'll have the money here.

But we're also going to say to the youth of America when we vote on this, we're providing money for summer youth jobs, $1 billion in youth jobs that we in the Congressional Black Caucus--and many Members joined us--are fighting for. This is a crucial step forward. We're providing for black farmers who have been discriminated against over the years.

And then, as I have indicated, we will have an opportunity to question not the men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq, but to question whether or not it is wise to focus on insurgents versus terrorists so that we send men and

women into harm's way without a discerning goal.

I thank the gentleman.

I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, when you begin to fight those who are classified as your neighbors--and I don't use that term loosely. The Taliban live in Afghanistan. And whenever you determine to fight those individuals, it makes it very difficult to win this war.

The gentleman has his own time. I appreciate it. I am concluding.

And finally, let me say that I offered an amendment to maintain NASA human space exploration and the funding as it was. I look forward to working with this Congress and the Democrats to make sure that happens.

I thank the gentleman.

And let me publicly apologize to the gentleman. I was rushing. I wanted to make sure I mentioned NASA. But let me say that, yes, I am aware, and I am enthusiastic about that language. And I thank the leadership for it because, in fact, it is celebrated and supported by 40-plus school districts in Texas to prevent the Governor of the State of Texas from misusing education dollars, as they have been misused before. This is money that will be effectively used for the schoolchildren of the State of Texas. And I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, what I'm aware of is that this language is supported by at least 40 school districts that support the money being able to come directly to them or not being used if it is not used for education. Additionally, this language only includes education funding not stimulus dollars. So it will not artificially increase any costs to the taxpayers. The school districts will benefit from the Governor having to use federal education dollars for education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before you today in support of H. Res. 1500, a rule providing for H.R. 4899, the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.''--a bill that will help create jobs for Americans and provide assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for their leadership on this timely legislation. Clearly, this is an important bill and must be only amended with items that are essential to provide the necessary assistance this country so greatly needs.

H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge-building, but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the nation.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriation is quite different from any other supplemental appropriation that members of this body will ever consider. This supplemental appropriations bill provides over $37.47 billion to support our troops, over $24 billion to keep teachers, firefighters and law enforcement personnel on the job while states continue to recover from the recession; over $13 billion for Vietnam veterans and survivors exposed to Agent Orange; $5.7 billion for PELL; $2.8 billion for Haiti; $677 million border security; $275 million for the Gulf Coast oil spill including unemployment benefits program and unemployment assistance related to the oil spill and an oil spill relief employment program that are underway for the self-employed businessman and women who were greatly impacted by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

No price is too great to pay, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to doing what is necessary to aid our country. This bill must only be amended with key items that are critical to adequately address this nation's needs. I am therefore, offering several amendments to H.R. 4899.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 4899--``Supplemental Appropriations Act 2010.'' H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge- building but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the nation.

My amendment would ensure: all managed funding for the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) NASA Constellation programs will be maintained through fiscal year 2015 with the assumption that the Constellation program will continue: (2) U.S. human space flight systems shall be lead by the U.S. government to ensure crew safety and to ensure skill, capabilities and institutional knowledge attributable to NASA and ISS can be retained by the U.S. for the appropriate time; (3) strengthen partnerships between universities and NASA centers; and (4) ensure a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization shall be established.

The President's proposed FY2011 budget eliminates funding for a portion of the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.

Earlier this year, I introduced H. Res. 1150, ``Designating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a national security Interest and Asset,'' and stating findings that the elimination of funding for the NASA Constellation program in the President's proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security concerns.

It is critical that managed funding for the NASA Constellation programs is maintained through fiscal year 2015 as:

1. Elimination of the Constellation programs will present Homeland Security implications for Cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and Intelligence community of the United States;

2. Elimination of the Constellation programs will compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence; and

3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to maintaining thousands of American jobs and the U.S.'s leadership role and technological edge as well as securing valuable knowledge that improves national security, climate, and research in science and medicine.

International Leadership and Technological Competitive Edge

Eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of the Space Shuttle will diminish the nation's international leadership role and efforts to advance scientific research in space. The United States will for the first time, since its space program began, be without a human space flight program.

Additionally, transferring funds from the Constellation program to the development of commercial space programs to carry a human crew into space is taking a chance on an unproven quantity and is an unnecessary and unreasonable risk this country must not take at this time. It is more prudent to establish a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization at this time.

It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today. Our government has already invested literally years and billions of dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life.

The retirement of the Space Shuttles this year will leave the United States vulnerable and dependent upon Russia to put U.S. astronauts in orbit without the Constellation program. In May of last year when it became clear the U.S. had no one else to turn to, Russia raised its prices from $48 to $51 million per launch for each astronaut.

In addition, it is important for us to remember that the Constellation program is not just about going to the moon, as the U.S. has a commitment to the International Space Station (ISS). With the Space Shuttles being retired this September, the Constellation is the only system under development that will give NASA the future capability to launch crews to and retrieve them from the ISS. Decreasing the use of the International Space Station would impact the ability to sustain its systems and physical infrastructure.

National Security and Homeland Security

The Congress should recognize the policy outlined in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential element of national security and the ability to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration of space.

The human space flight program should be funded to continue use of the International Space Station to support the agency and other Federal, commercial, and academic research and technology testing needs. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency.

NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports has improved decision making for natural resource management and

emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.

NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle, and contribute to improving our ability to monitor water resources and water quality from space. We must also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are plausible threats against which we can better protect the United States through NASA's research.

Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the intelligence community of the United States. Elimination of the Constellation program will also compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence.

Continuation of NASA's human space flight program is crucial to improving national security, studying climate change and its effects, and research in science and medicine.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, it is my hope that this committee will join me in supporting efforts to maintain NASA's Constellation Program. It is through balanced policies that promote economic growth that we will continue to maintain our international leadership and technological competitive edge, and gain valuable knowledge relating to the national security of our nation. I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that we preserve a robust human space flight program in the United States.

Amendment to H.R. 4899

Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Rep. James L. OberstarD-MN-8 · Sep 15, 2010

Madam Speaker, pursuant to paragraph (c)(2)(C) of H. Res. 1493, Providing for Budget Enforcement for Fiscal Year 2011, I submit the following findings that identify changes in law that help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may authorize.

Introduction

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is

committed to improving efficiency in the Federal Government

and providing cost savings to accomplish the joint goals of

reducing expenditures and ensuring maximum value to the

taxpayer in Federal programs within the jurisdiction of the

Committee.

Beginning in the 110th Congress, the Committee has

aggressively reviewed program implementation to ensure that

Federal agencies, and their state and local partners, were

appropriately implementing laws consistent with statutory

intent and the best needs of the public. The commitment is

not to programs, but to the goals and objectives that best

serve the needs of the American people in an efficient,

fiscally responsible way. To that end, the Committee has

developed and will continue to develop multiple proposals to

improve the operation of government, including opportunities

to reduce expenditures and the deficit. Because many of the

programs within the Committee's jurisdiction are implemented

in partnership with state and local governments, the

Committee continues to pursue improvements at all levels of

government.

Today's report describes a list of activities and proposals

that include reductions in and elimination of mandatory

spending, reductions in and elimination of authorizations for

discretionary spending, investments that would be expected to

achieve quantifiable future savings, and revenues that more

equitably distribute the cost of government services among

the beneficiaries of those services and reduce demands on the

General Fund. These proposals will allow the Nation to

achieve its investment goals at less cost and allow Federal

investment to provide increased benefits.

These proposals reflect the Committee's efforts to date.

The Committee will continue its efforts to find creative and

efficient ways to make government more responsive to the

needs of the Nation.

Recent Highlights

The Committee's oversight efforts recently resulted in

exposing unwarranted cost overruns in Federal construction.

At the Committee's request, the Government Accountability

Office (GAO) analyzed courthouse construction since 2000 and

determined that expenditures have been unnecessarily

increased by nearly $900 million. The Committee is responding

through general legislation and authorizations for specific

Federal courthouse construction projects to ensure that such

unnecessary costs are not repeated.

Other positive results of the Committee's efforts have

resulted in improvements and corrections to the Coast Guard's

Integrated Deepwater Program, the Federal Aviation

Administration's regulatory responsibilities and air traffic

control modernization, mismanagement at the Federal Maritime

Commission, disaster response by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, international water quality expenditures,

and the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers.

The Committee's efforts associated with the Coast Guard's

Integrated Deepwater Program (Deepwater) continue to provide

benefits. Deepwater is a series of procurements being

undertaken by the Coast Guard to replace or upgrade its major

surface and aviation assets. The procurements are expected to

cost $25 billion by the time they are complete in 2026.

The Committee conducted an investigation that probed deeply

into the contract management and decision-making processes

within the Coast Guard and its contract partner, Integrated

Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) (ICGS consisted of Lockheed Martin

Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation). The Committee

found that the Coast Guard was warned of flaws in the designs

for Coast Guard assets long before the designs were

finalized. The Committee also found that in some cases,

substandard information technology equipment was installed on

the patrol boats. Finally, records indicated that there were

irregularities in the process for testing and certifying the

ships for standards designed to prevent the release of

classified information.

The Committee's investigation resulted in the Coast Guard

removing ICGS as the lead systems integrator for Deepwater,

and a reimbursement claim by the Federal government of $96

million from ICGS.

The Committee continues to monitor the Deepwater Program,

guarding against waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and

ensuring that taxpayers receive the full value of their

investment.

While the Committee continues to conduct oversight of

agency programs in all areas of its jurisdiction, in this

Congress, the Committee is being particularly aggressive in

overseeing the implementation of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (P.L. 1115).

The Recovery Act provided $64.1 billion for programs within

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, including $38 billion for highway, transit,

and wastewater infrastructure formula programs. Since

enactment of the Recovery Act, the Committee has performed

vigorous oversight, to ensure that the funds provided are

invested quickly, efficiently, and in harmony with the job-

creating purposes of that Act.

Just 10 days following enactment of the Recovery Act, the

Committee requested monthly reports from States, major public

transit agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations on

the use of highway, transit, and wastewater infrastructure

formula funds provided under the Recovery Act. The Committee

continues to receive those reports.

The Committee's request goes beyond the transparency and

accountability requirements of the Recovery Act, expanding

the scope of programs covered by the reporting requirements,

and accelerating the deadline by which information is

reported. These reports include information on the number of

projects that have been put out to bid, are under contract

and underway, and have been completed. The information also

includes job hours created or saved and payroll figures. The

Committee receives monthly reports from Federal agencies

implementing Recovery Act programs under the Committee's

jurisdiction.

Since April 2009, the Committee has published a monthly

report reflecting this information. All released information

can be found at the Recovery Act section of the Committee's

website: http://transportation.house.gov. The Committee

requested that these recipients continue to submit monthly

reports directly to the Committee for the remainder of 2010.

Of the $38 billion available for highway, transit, and

wastewater infrastructure formula program projects under the

Recovery Act, as of June 30, 2010, $35 billion (92 percent)

has been put out to bid on 18,718 projects. Within this

total, 18,002 projects totaling $33.4 billion (88 percent)

are under contract. Across the Nation, work has begun on

17,024 projects totaling $32.7 billion (86 percent)--work

producing badly needed jobs today. Work has been completed on

6,920 projects totaling $5.3 billion. From these investments,

not only has the economy benefited from the jobs created, the

public benefits from the investment itself through improved

transportation and quality of the environment.

In addition to the monthly reporting, the Committee has

held 18 oversight hearings on the Recovery Act since its

enactment, with seven of these hearings occurring during

2010. This total includes nine Full Committee hearings and

nine subcommittee hearings. These 18 hearings included a

total of 123 witnesses and spanned 64 hours. The breadth of

witnesses included Ray LaHood, Secretary of the Department of

Transportation and Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency, as well as other Federal,

State, and local government officials, private industry

leaders, and workers actively engaged in implementing the

Recovery Act.

The Committee held its most recent oversight hearing the

last week in July, and will continue to hold oversight

hearings on the Recovery Act throughout 2010.

In addition to overseeing implementation of the Recovery

Act, as of the date of this report, the Committee and its

subcommittees have conducted 23 separate hearings in 2010 to

review the budgets and programs of agencies within the

Committee's jurisdiction. Additional hearings are planned.

This report includes specific findings and recommendations

developed by the Committee related to Federal spending and

government operations. As the findings and recommendations

demonstrate, the Committee has made and continues to propose

many

positive changes to improve the efficiency 'of government and

deliver the best possible outcomes to our constituents.

Specific Findings and Recommendations

Reduce Excess Expenditures on New Courthouse Projects

This proposal achieves deficit reduction by promoting

efficiency and reform of government and reducing waste by

ensuring that the number of courtrooms in proposed new

courthouse projects constructed by the General Services

Administration (GSA) more accurately reflects needs and

budgetary realities by aligning the number of courtrooms to

reflect courtroom sharing by judges, and realistic

projections of additional, future judgeships. Where

practicable, the Committee seeks to ensure authorizations

directing that courthouses be redesigned to eliminate not

only excess courtrooms, but also the additional building

volume that would have accommodated those excess courtrooms.

In accordance with 40 U.S.C. 3307, appropriations for

specific GSA construction projects may only be made if

authorized by resolutions adopted by the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of

Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public

Works of the Senate.

The Government Accountability Office reported (GAO-10-417)

that courtroom overbuilding, as a consequence of both

inordinately high judgeship projections by the Judiciary and

the Judiciary's failure to share courtrooms in a fashion

supported by empiric courtroom usage data, resulted in

construction of 1.8 million square feet of unnecessary space

for 33 courthouses completed since 2000.

This excess construction translates into a one-time

construction cost waste of $422 million, and an annual waste

of $26 million in additional operation and maintenance costs

for the unneeded space.

The budgetary impact of downsizing proposed courthouses is

being realized today. Since June 2009, the Committee has

authorized five courthouses with curtailed numbers of

courtrooms. According to budget estimates provided by GSA, or

derived from information provided by GSA, the Committee has

saved more than $87 million to date by limiting the number of

courtrooms in new courthouses. The savings are a consequence

of lower initial capital costs to build, and less money spent

by GSA to lease space because the proposed courtroom space

can now be used by Federal agencies that do not need to be

located in leased facilities.

[In millions] San Diego, California Courthouse:.................................$50.8 Greenbelt, Maryland Courthouse Annex:..............................$5.2 Mobile, Alabama Courthouse:........................................$7.8 Savannah, Georgia Courthouse:......................................$7.8 San Antonio, Texas Courthouse:....................................$15.5

Rep. David DreierR-CA-26 · Jul 1, 2010

I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from…

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend from Worcester, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my friend's, the gentleman from Maryland's, outline of this rule, but the fact of the matter is this is one of the most convoluted rules that we have seen in a long, long period of time.

I say that because, while my friend tried to make it sound as if this rule were fashioned to ensure that every single Member of this institution would have the opportunity to have a say, to play a role and to ensure that the House is working its will, the fact of the matter is it is a rule which is designed, I believe, in many ways to deny what a majority of this House would like to do.

We all decry the fact that we still have men and women in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We wish very much that the wars could come to an end and that we could bring our troops home, and we all enthusiastically look forward to doing that just as expeditiously as possible. Yet we know that a request was made for $33.5 billion--this is a request that the President made--to ensure that our men and women in uniform have exactly what they need. The Secretary of Defense and other leaders in our military have indicated that it is essential that they have this before the 4th of July. When is the 4th of July? It is this coming Sunday.

Now, last May 27, more than a month ago, the Senate took its action. By a vote of 67-28, they voted in favor of this $33.5 billion in order to ensure that our men and women in uniform have exactly what they need.

Mr. Speaker, I am not in any way an advocate of our being a rubber stamp or of our doing exactly what our friends in the other body propose. That is why I wished very much, in the month before last, in late May, that we had begun the process so that we would not be here on the eve of the date at which time the Secretary of Defense had indicated we must have this money.

With the action that this institution might consider taking, we are jeopardizing the ability of our men and women in uniform to have exactly what they need now. There is nothing that any of us does in our jobs that is more painful than talking to the family members of those who have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan or in any place in the world.

My friend from Worcester just talked about two of his constituents who died in Afghanistan recently.

We can on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, talk about these challenges. We want to ensure that we never again have to call and talk to those family members. That is why, as Mr. Hoyer said very eloquently in his opening remarks, we want to ensure that we diminish the kind of threat that exists for the United States of America and for our interests around the world. That is the reason that we are there.

Now, the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules just a little while ago upstairs talked about the fact or

implied in some way that we were imposing democracy on the people of Afghanistan and it is something that they are not really interested in.

Well, the fact of the matter is, our colleague Mr. Price and I, along with 18 other Members, have a commission which has expended time, energy, resources and effort in 15 new and reemerging democracies around the world, working to build their parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, one of our partner nations for the House Democracy Partnership happens to be Afghanistan. And while there have been real difficulties with democracy there, there have been difficulties and a real struggle as they begin to plant the seeds of democracy, we have been working closely with their parliament, and they are enthusiastic about the process of moving ahead and, interestingly enough, modeling themselves after much of what we have here in the House of Representatives. So as we look at where it is that we are headed, we have to ensure that those resources are there. We don't like the fact that we have to do this, but it is essential.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this rule, the rule is one which is, as I said, very convoluted. We have dealt with war supplementals in the past. My colleague Ms. Foxx upstairs in the Rules Committee talked about the fact that consistently President Obama when he was a candidate indicated that he would not be asking for any war supplementals.

But I will say that when we have considered war supplementals in the past, under the chairmanship of Jerry Lewis and in the work that we had in the Rules Committee, every single war supplemental that we brought forward came under an open amendment process. That is the way to allow the House to work its will.

Now, we are where we are. We are where we are on the eve of Independence Day and the time when the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders have said it is essential for us to have the resources that are necessary.

So what is it we should be doing? We should defeat this rule. We should defeat this rule, go right back upstairs to the Rules Committee, and come down here with a rule that will allow us to let the House work its will and have an up-or-down vote, an up-or-down vote on whether or not we accept this $33.5 billion request, along with a few other items that are included in this measure, including funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which, as Mr. Hoyer said, is desperately needed. That is included in the measure that came over from the Senate. And we should have an up-or-down vote and see what this House will do.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I believe fully that if we were to have that up-or-down vote, that a bipartisan majority, a bipartisan majority in this House would in fact vote to complete the work, ensure that our men and women in uniform have all the resources that they need to proceed, and then we will have done our job.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule for numerous reasons, the most important of which at this moment is to ensure that our men and women in uniform get what they need as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from West Chester, Ohio, the very distinguished Republican Leader, Mr. Boehner.

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

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Urbana, Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Houston wouldn't yield; so I will yield 30 seconds to my other friend from Houston, Mr. Culberson.

I would be happy to yield an additional 15 seconds to my friend from Houston if she might yield to our other friend from Houston, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friends that we are in the midst of a debate on the war supplemental.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Howard, Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a tireless worker on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Lake Jackson, Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson), a hardworking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we all hate the fact that we have to deal with this war on terror. September 11, 2001, changed the lives of every single one of us. And it is painful and, as I said earlier, the most difficult part of our job is to call the families of loved ones who've paid the price in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other spot in the world. And we all hope and pray that we never, ever have to do it again.

We also recognize that we have to come together and ensure that our men and women in uniform who are on the front line in this battle against radical extremism have what they need.

Now, the American people are sick and tired of wasteful Federal spending. But the American people also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the United States Constitution are, in fact, ``provide for the common defense.''

Virtually everything else that we do, other than our Nation's security, can be handled by individuals, by families, by churches and synagogues and mosques, by counties, by cities, by States. But our national security can only be handled by the Federal Government.

Now, the President of the United States has just issued what we refer to by the acronym a SAP around here. It's a Statement of Administration Policy. And while we sit here having a debate, which I think is very important for us to have, the President has said that if we don't provide him a clean bill that is independent of all these other extraneous matters--and by the way, if they all don't pass, this bill just dies and we have to start over again--he will veto it.

And so it is fascinating. We, as Republicans, and many thoughtful Democrats, have stepped up to the plate and said that we will join with the President to ensure that that $33.5 billion that is needed is there for our men and women in uniform.

We've heard from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, who talked about the fact that just this week General David Petraeus, Secretary Gates, and others have said we must have this funding by July 4. This is Thursday evening, July 1. The request was made in February. The Senate passed, by a 67-28 vote on May 27, this bill, and here we are just 3 days before this time by which the Secretary has said they need these resources.

And what is it we're doing? We're adding spending, we're shifting some 10-mile stretch in Pennsylvania from one district to another. What does that have to do with an emergency supplemental? And we're increasing spending when the American people have said we need to bring about responsible spending cuts.

We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We can do better. We can immediately, after defeating this rule, go upstairs and bring down a rule that will allow us to let Members of Congress who are opposed to providing that $33.5 billion the opportunity to vote ``no,'' and those of us who want to provide those resources for the troops to vote ``yes.''

And so, Mr. Speaker, let's vote ``no'' on this rule. Let's move ahead right now. Let's do what we can to bring this war to an end so that our men and women can come home just as quickly as possible. And the best way to do that is to ensure that they have what it takes so that they can be successful.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Rep. James P. McGovernD-MA-3 · Jul 1, 2010

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1500 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, my very good friend (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4899 and makes in order a motion by the chair of the Appropriations Committee to concur in the Senate amendments with the five amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.

The rule waives all points of order against the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21.

The rule provides that the motion shall be debatable for 1 hour and 30 minutes as follows: 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee; then 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative Lee of California and an opponent; and then 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative McGovern of Massachusetts and an opponent. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except that the question of adoption of the motion shall be divided among the five House amendments, with the first portion of the divided question considered as adopted. If the remaining portions of the divided question fail of adoption, then the House shall be considered to have made no disposition of the Senate amendment to the text.

The chair of the Appropriations Committee may insert in the Congressional Record not later than July 3, 2010, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate amendments and the motion specified in the first section of this resolution. The rule provides that House Resolution 1493 is hereby adopted.

Finally, the rule amends the time periods in clause 10 of rule XXI to align with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me say when the Democrats were in the minority, we as a party submitted a budget every single year. The Republicans, to my knowledge, have not done that. Mr. Ryan, my colleague and friend on the Budget Committee, did submit a budget under his name, and perhaps if he wants to make that budget in order, I am sure our leadership would love to have a debate on a budget that turns Medicare and Social Security into a voucher system.

But the budget document that the Democrats have put forward would cap discretionary spending at $1.2 trillion, which is $7 trillion less than what President Obama proposed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, since the distinguished minority leader raised the issue of our commitment to our troops, I should point out for the record that when we debated and voted on the defense authorization bill only a few weeks ago, only nine Republicans voted for that bill. Because they thought the issue of gays in the military was more important than supporting our troops and their families.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

I actually agree with the gentlelady in my disappointment that the President has decided to submit a supplemental bill to fund this war in Afghanistan. But I think it is not--it is a little bit, well, unfair for her to criticize President Obama when President Bush

did this routinely. And we have spent over $1 trillion, $1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the vast majority of that money is not paid for. It's all borrowed. We're not paying for it. Our kids will pay for it and our grandkids and our great grandkids.

And, you know, so I find it also a little bit puzzling that we're having this, we had this debate earlier today over the extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of people who are unemployed in this country due to this terrible economy. And my friends on the other side of the aisle said, well, we can't afford it. We can't afford to pay for it so we're going to deny these citizens who have fallen on hard times the ability to get unemployment compensation.

Yet, when it comes to funneling money to the corrupt Karzai regime, we're a bottomless pit. So I think all of us, Republicans and Democrats, need to come together and figure out how to get this right.

And I hope that the gentlelady will join with me and my colleague, Dave Obey, in supporting our amendment asking for the President to develop a plan consistent with his statement that we will begin the withdrawal of our forces in July of 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues here that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, with the exception of only nine, voted against the Defense authorization bill just a few weeks ago, a bill that provided a great deal of support for our troops and their families. Why did they vote against it? They voted against it because they were preoccupied with the social issue of gay marriage. Where were they then when it came to supporting our troops and supporting their families?

My friend talks about all of the great crises that we're facing, but much of the crises that we're facing are as a result of some of the actions that my

friends on the other side of the aisle took: two wars on borrowed money; on top of that, tax cuts for the rich on borrowed money.

And now we have an economy that the President has inherited that we're trying to dig ourselves out of, and we're going to do that. But I think it's important to keep some of this in perspective.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support of this rule, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this rule makes in order an amendment offered by myself, Mr. Obey and Mr. Jones of North Carolina to require a meaningful exit strategy from Afghanistan.

As we are being asked to consider tens of billions of dollars in supplemental funding for the war, I believe that now is the time for us to ask tough questions and demand straight answers. Of all the problems that President Obama inherited from the Bush administration, Afghanistan is the one that keeps getting more and more complicated.

In just the past few weeks, two brave young soldiers from Fall River, Massachusetts, in my district, lost their lives in Afghanistan. So this is a big deal, and we need to get it right.

Last December, President Obama told the American people that we would begin to withdraw our forces next July. The American people deserve to know if that plan is still in place and how we're going to get there.

Much has been made about General Stanley McChrystal's comments in Rolling Stone magazine about the Nation's civilian leadership. But there are other parts of that article that I find to be much more disturbing. General McChrystal's chief of operations said that Afghanistan, and I quote, ``is not going to look like a win, smell like a win, or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument.''

A senior adviser to General McChrystal said, and I quote again, ``If Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it would become even less popular.'' A senior military official said this, and I quote again, ``There's a possibility we could ask for another surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here.''

Mr. Speaker, I voted in 2001 to go to war in Afghanistan, to hunt down al Qaeda, and to eliminate their threat. And I would cast that same vote today in a heartbeat. But what we are doing in Afghanistan today is far beyond that original authorization. We are engaged in extensive, expensive nation building in Afghanistan. And frankly, given the level of unemployment and the severe economic situation we face in the United States, I would rather do a little bit more nation building here at home.

Some in this body have refused to support extending unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans because they say we cannot afford it. We are told we can't afford to help States avoid laying off teachers. We're told we can't afford to improve our roads and our bridges or help more families afford a college education. We are told we can't afford to prevent foreclosures or to improve child nutrition, and now we are being asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation building in Afghanistan?

We don't have the money to help American working families. But when it comes to supporting a corrupt and incompetent Karzai government, we are supposed to be a bottomless pit. You know, we talk a lot about the deficit around here. We have borrowed $350 billion, added to the debt, not paid for, for the war in Afghanistan. How are we supposed to address the deficit if we don't know how many more billions of dollars we are going to be spending in Afghanistan?

My colleagues, we all have a responsibility here. It's not just the President's war. It's our war, too, like it or not. We voted to send our sons and daughters to war. We voted repeatedly to send money to support this war. We have a responsibility to ask the tough questions and to do the right thing. So I urge all my colleagues to think long and hard today about this critical issue. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and do its duty.

I hope my colleagues will support the Lee amendment. I hope they will support the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment. And I hope they will support this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

2 versions available

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Engrossed in HouseIssued July 1, 2010

H. RES. 1493

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 1, 2010

RESOLUTION

(a)

Budget enforcement

For the purposes of budget enforcement:

(1)

Budget allocations

The following allocations shall be the allocations made pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations and shall be enforceable under section 302(f)(1) of that Act:

(A)

Fiscal year 2010

In addition to amounts allocated under the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13), the allocation for new discretionary budget authority to the Committee on Appropriations shall be increased up to $538,000,000 for program integrity initiatives listed in section 422(a) of S. Con. Res. 13. The outlay allocation for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 shall be adjusted accordingly.

(B)

Fiscal year 2011

(i)

New discretionary budget authority, $1,121,000,000,000.

(ii)

Discretionary outlays, $1,314,000,000,000.

(iii)

New mandatory budget authority, $765,584,000,000.

(iv)

Mandatory outlays, $755,502,000,000.

(2)

Discretionary spending enforcement provisions

The provisions of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13) shall remain in force and effect in the House, except that the references in section 424 (point of order against advance appropriations) to fiscal years 2010 and 2011 shall be references to fiscal years 2011 and 2012, respectively.

(b)

Additional enforcement provisions

For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13)—

(1)

section 421 of S. Con. Res. 13 shall no longer apply to the consideration of bills, joint resolutions, amendments, or conference reports;

(2)

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may exclude the effect of any current policy adjustment as provided in section 4(c) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 from a determination of the budgetary effects of any provision in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report; and

(3)

the terms budget year, current year, and direct spending have the meanings given those terms in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that the term direct spending shall include provisions in appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to substantive law as described under section 3(4)(C) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.

(c)

Sense of the House on deficit reduction

(1)

Findings

The House finds that—

(A)

passage of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, passage of legislation to reform the defense acquisition system, and passage of health care reform legislation reducing the deficit represented valuable contributions to fiscal responsibility;

(B)

strengthening the economy and creating jobs are critical to reducing the long-term deficit;

(C)

fiscally responsible investments in education, including the retention of high-quality teachers in the classroom, help to lay the foundation for a stronger economy;

(D)

the discretionary levels for 2011 included in this resolution represent a reduction below the President’s comparable budgetary request, and further contribute to fiscal discipline; and

(E)

defending our country requires necessary investments and reforms to strengthen our military—including providing sufficient resources to aggressively pursue implementation of GAO recommendations to achieve efficiencies, and evaluating defense plans to ensure weapons systems that were developed to counter Cold War-era threats are not redundant and applicable to 21st century threats.

(2)

Sense of the House on deficit reduction

It is the sense of the House that—

(A)

by 2015 the Federal budget should be in primary balance—meaning that outlays in the Federal budget shall equal receipts during a fiscal year, not counting outlays for debt service payments;

(B)

the debt-to-GDP ratio should be stabilized at an acceptable level once the economy recovers;

(C)

not later than September 15, 2010, the chairs of committees should submit for printing in the Congressional Record findings that identify changes in law that help achieve deficit reduction by reducing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, promoting efficiency and reform of government, and controlling spending within Government programs those committees may authorize;

(D)

prior to the adjournment of the 111th Congress, any recommendations made by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and approved by the Senate should be brought to a vote in the House of Representatives; and

(E)

any deficit reduction achieved by the enactment of such legislation should be used for deficit reduction only and should not be available to offset the costs of future legislation.

(d)

Reserve fund for deficit reduction

Upon enactment of legislation containing recommendations in the final report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, established by Executive Order No. 13531 on February 18, 2010, that decreases the deficit for either time period provided in clause 10 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall, for the purposes of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, exclude any net deficit reduction from his determination of the budgetary effects of such legislation, to ensure that the deficit reduction achieved by that legislation is used only for deficit reduction and is not available as an offset for any subsequent legislation.

(e)

House rule XXVIII

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to engage rule XXVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Clerk.

Committees

Bill referred to 2 committees

Rules Committee

House

Referred on June 30, 2010

View

Budget Committee

House

Referred on June 30, 2010

View

Bill Status

Progress100%

ChamberHouse

StatusPassed Congress

Policy AreaEconomics and Public Finance

Introduced6/30/2010

View on Congress.gov