To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's very important that, as we draw to the close of this first session of the 112th Congress, we come back and we do what I believe is a yearly review or an assessment.

Mr. Speaker, today, the 8th of December, was the target adjournment day that the leadership of the new majority of the United States House of Representatives hoped would mark the end of the first session of the 112th Congress. Yet today we are short of completing some of the most important work that we must accomplish.

As we enter the final days of 2011 and approach the end of this first session of the 112th Congress, I must take the time to offer an apology to the citizens of the 22nd Congressional District of Florida and to all my fellow citizens across this great Nation. It is not because we have not changed the conversation here in Washington, D.C., but because I would have hoped our exertions would have been as a collective body a bit greater. Failure to pass a balanced budget amendment was a great disappointment and an example of a lack of exertion.

When I was elected to the House of Representatives in November 2010, I was one of over 80 new Members that you, the American people, sent to the House of Representatives, entrusting each one of us to come to Capitol Hill and work diligently--and differently than our predecessors--on the critical issues our country was facing during these challenging times. Record high unemployment; a quickly growing debt; out-of-control spending that leads to budget deficits year after year; a spiraling foreclosure rate around the country, and specifically back in our district in south Florida; businesses shutting their doors, due in part to increasing uncertainty provided by the government from crushing regulations issued by Federal agencies in Washington, D.C., and the list goes on.

Friends, neighbors, colleagues, and our fellow citizens all believed our Nation was on the wrong track, and we were concerned for our future. Many of them felt our country's best days were in the past and that our future looked bleak. Each of them wanted our Federal Government to take a different course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I spent the majority of my adult life--22 years--serving in the United States Army, never having been elected to public office. I have dedicated my career to serving our great Nation. But unlike many of those whom I serve with here in Congress, I am not a career politician. I have led soldiers in combat on foreign battlefields, and was ready to go to our Nation's Capitol and lead from the front on this new battlefield. I understood that where my political experience would fall short, my military training would enable me to serve my constituents well in the Halls of Congress, because in the military we were taught a simple principle, Mr. Speaker, and I think you know it well: We work until the mission is complete. And on election night of 2010, I knew that I was embarking, along with my new colleagues, on one of the most challenging missions that I would ever face.

The leadership of the new majority in the House of Representatives created a calendar for the first session of this Congress, and as a newly elected Member of this body, I provided my assessment, stating that I believed the schedule did not provide the necessary days on Capitol Hill to address the pressing issues our Nation faced. Now, 1 year later, unfortunately, it seems I was correct. On the eve of the holiday season, the United States Congress is dealing with some of its most important issues, all while pressed against the desire to be home and with our families and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with you, spent many holidays away from my family and friends while serving our country in the Armed Forces. Every time I was away from home during the holiday season, as well as I'm sure you did, I proudly put on my uniform and did my duty on behalf of the American people. And while I may not wear the uniform of the United States Army any longer, I am proud to put on my new uniform of a suit and tie and spend this holiday away from home, once again putting our country first so that we may finish

the job our constituents entrusted us to do.

Now, I don't want people to think that I am not happy about certain things, because I am truly pleased that the regular order has been established here and returned to the House floor. The American people are able to see vibrant debate on the pressing issues and legislation is developed by Members and cleared through committee. We are slowly seeing a move away from megabills. Yet these so-called omnibus bills do a disservice to the American people because, rather than allowing elected representatives to vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on certain provisions, these bills create a bill that includes hundreds of provisions for passage.

During the first session in the month of April, I was able to bring to the House floor H.R. 1246. This bill cut $35.7 million of wasteful spending in the form of printing and reproduction at the Department of Defense. What was so important about this legislation is that the vote was 393-0, meaning that we were able to get unanimous support from both Republicans and Democrats.

The American people expect their elected to work together to deal with the issues of our Nation. However, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed over 900 days without the United States Senate passing a budget. That's 900 days. When the House of Representatives did our job and passed a budget on the 15th of April 2011, Democrats continued to use it as a political weapon since it finally addresses the exorbitant mandatory spending that is bankrupting our country and leaving critical programs like Social Security and Medicare on an unsustainable path.

Americans continue to struggle with 9 percent-plus unemployment for over a year. In south Florida, it is even higher. But instead of debating the 20-plus bills passed by the House, many bipartisan, that address the anemic jobs situation in which we are stuck, these bills languish on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's desk while President Obama continues to try to convince the American people that this is a ``do-nothing'' Congress. It is indeed a ``do-nothing'' Senate.

One of the most important and constitutionally mandated functions of the Congress is to fund the Federal Government each year before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. This year, of the 12 funding bills, the House completed six of those bills and the United States Senate only completed one. Congress did not finish conferencing any appropriations bills to be signed by the President by the October 1 deadline. This means that once again we had to pass continuing resolutions to prevent a shutdown of the Federal Government.

I wrote the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations suggesting that appropriations bills should be considered on a priority-based tiered system. I presented several questions, such as what he believed should be considered priority bills and whether or not certain appropriations bills should cover a 2-year period in order to provide more certainty in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, in the military something that continues to fail means that it is broken. And when something is broken, it must be fixed. Our fellow citizens understand that the path we are on is broken and they also understand it is time to fix it. Therefore, we must focus on structural reforms to our legislative and appropriations process.

Over the course of my first year in office, I have been asked numerous times why we refuse to compromise and why can't we just get something done. Mr. Speaker, I find it very funny that no one talked about compromise in regard to a $2 trillion health care law or a $1 trillion stimulus package or cap-and-trade or Card Check. But my answer is simple: The House of Representatives has tried to work with the Senate and President Obama; yet they refuse to listen to the will of the people. Tabling the cut, cap, and balance piece of legislation during the debt debate is a prime example. Instead, they wish to remain on the same path that has proved to be a failure year after year. They refuse to believe that we need major structural reforms. They did not heed the message of the American people of November of 2010.

And while Washington, D.C. has a budget deficit, the leadership deficit is even more disconcerting. Mr. Speaker, leaders take responsibility; and rarely do they take credit, a simple lesson that was taught to me as a young captain in the United States Army. A strong American leader would not take the misfortunes facing the American people and leverage it for political gain. And the facts speak for themselves.

Since January of 2009, more than 2 million Americans are unemployed, close to 26 million are underemployed. National unemployment has been at or above 9 percent for 28 straight months, at or above 8 percent for 34 straight months. And it is double that in the black community.

Average gas prices have gone from $1.83 to over $3.45. The Federal debt has gone from $10.6 trillion to over $15 trillion, with 3 straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits. And the debt per person, Mr. Speaker, has gone from $34,000 to $48,000.

Food stamp recipients are up by 41 percent. Americans in poverty up 16 percent, with an increase of 6.4 million Americans. The Misery Index is up 65 percent, and nearly 48.5 percent of Americans are on some form of government aid.

Home values are down 11 percent, and health insurance premiums are up 23 percent, from $3,354 to over $4,000. United States global competitiveness is down from first to fifth in the world.

We currently borrow 42 cents on every dollar, a dollar which soon, thanks to the insidious monetary policies emanating from the Federal Reserve, may not any longer be the default currency of the world.

Yet with these abysmal statistics, all we hear from the big megaphone of the White House is that we need to tax people--particularly certain people--more. We hear about extending a payroll tax holiday, which is nothing but a Band-Aid approach that only provides a very short-term impetus. What no one is telling the American people, especially our seniors, is that the constant use of payroll tax breaks continues to erode the funding of Social Security, which for the first time this year was running at a deficit.

When combined with the unemployment situation, we are speeding up the demise of Social Security in America. At some point, there must be structural tax and unemployment reform; and we must incentivize our job creators.

America is suffering, Mr. Speaker, from crony capitalism in which the government is picking the winners and the losers in the free market, using our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. We have an Obama administration which believes it is the preeminent venture capitalist in our Nation. Episodes such as Solyndra and MF Global should cause us all grave concern.

You see, American exceptionalism is not constrained by class or caste. There are income levels in our country; but sound economic, tax, and regulatory policies enable our citizens to transit those levels because America is about equal opportunity and not equal achievement, where liberal progressives believe that they are the arbiters of fairness.

There is no leadership emanating from the White House. Instead, we have policy by election-cycle sound bites where the purpose is just to get reelected.

Too many politicians are now focused on manipulative and deceitful rhetoric and not developing visionary, pro-growth economic policies for America. The obvious goal, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is to create more victims in America, an America of dependency, not individual independence.

Therefore, our Nation is truly at a crossroads. There is an ever- widening ideological chasm of what we are going to become as a Nation: Shall America continue as a constitutional Republic led by men and women of courage, conviction, and character? Or shall America become a bureaucratic nanny state, ruled by manipulative deceivers seeking their own political gain?

Is America truly that shining city that sits upon a hill, Mr. Speaker, or will that light be forever extinguished? The choice lies before the American people. I hope that they will choose wisely because our children and our grandchildren are watching, as well as our enemies abroad.

But, Mr. Speaker, for America I say this: fear not, for the Guardians of America's Honor shall ensure that the greatest days for this constitutional Republic lie ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know I had been granted medical leave to recover from hip replacement surgery for the legislative weeks of March 28 and April 4. While I was unable to place recorded votes on legislation considered by the House, I would like to state what my votes would have been.

On Tuesday, March 29, the House considered H.R. 839, the HAMP Termination Act of 2011, introduced by Representative McHenry of North Carolina. On rollcall vote No. 194, H. Amdt. 199 offered by Representative Hanna of New York, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 195, H. Amdt. 204 offered by Representative Jackson Lee of Texas, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 196, H. Amdt. 206 offered by Representative Maloney of New York, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 197, the Motion to Recommit with Instructions offered by Representative Larsen of Washington, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 198, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Wednesday, March 30, the House considered H. Res. 186, introduced by Representative Bishop of Utah, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 471) to reauthorize the DC opportunity scholarship program, and for other purposes. On rollcall vote No. 199, on ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 200, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 201, on Approving the Journal, I would have voted ``yes.''

Also on March 30, the House considered H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, introduced by Speaker Boehner. On rollcall vote No. 202, H. Amdt. 209 offered by Delegate Norton of the District of Columbia, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 203, the Motion to Recommit with Instructions offered by Representative Cummings of Maryland, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 204, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Thursday, March 31, the House considered H. Res. 189, introduced by Representative Webster of Florida, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 658) to amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes. On rollcall vote 205, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

Also on March 31, the House considered H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Gibbs (OH), under a suspension of the Rules. On rollcall vote 206, on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, I would have voted ``yes.''

Further on March 31, the House began consideration of H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Mica of Florida. On rollcall vote 207, H. Amdt. 210 offered by Representative Mica of Florida, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 208, H. Amdt. 216 offered by Representative Garrett of New Jersey, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 209, H. Amdt. 217 offered by Representative DeFazio of Oregon, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 210, H. Amdt. 218 offered by Representative Hirono of Hawaii, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 211, H. Amdt. 225 offered by Representative Capuano of Massachusetts, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 212, H. Amdt. 226 offered by Representative Gingrey of Georgia, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Friday, April 1, the House considered H. Res. 194, offered by Representative Woodall of Georgia, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1255) to prevent a shutdown of the government of the United States, and for other purposes. On rollcall vote 213, On Consideration of the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

Also, the House continued consideration of H.R. 658. On rollcall vote No. 214, H. Amdt. 235 offered by Representative Pearce of New Mexico, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 215, H. Amdt. 236 offered by Representative Schiff of California, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 216, H. Amdt. 228 offered by Representative Sessions of Texas, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 217, H. Amdt. 229 offered by Representative LaTourette of Ohio, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 218, H. Amdt. 232 offered by Representative Shuster of Pennsylvania, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 219, the Motion to Recommit with Instructions offered by Representative Sanchez of California, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 220, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

The House then resumed consideration of H. Res. 194. On rollcall vote No. 221, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 222, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

The House then considered H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Steve Womack of Arkansas. On rollcall vote No. 223, On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, offered by Representative Walz of Minnesota, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 224, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Monday, April 4, the House considered H.R. 1246, to reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction, introduced by Representative Allen West, under a Suspension of the Rules. On rollcall vote 225, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Tuesday, April 5, the House considered H. Res. 200, introduced by Representative Woodall (GA), providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices. On rollcall vote No. 226, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 227, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 228, on Approving the Journal, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Wednesday, April 6, the House voted on a Motion to Adjourn by Representative Jackson of Illinois. On this rollcall vote No. 229, I would have voted ``no.''

The House then considered H. Res. 203, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 910) to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes, introduced by Representative Sessions of Texas. On rollcall vote No. 230, On Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 231, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 232, on Approving the Journal, I would have voted ``yes.''

Also on Wednesday, the House began consideration of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Upton of Michigan. On rollcall vote No. 233, H. Amdt. 240 offered by Representative Jackson Lee of Texas, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 234, H. Amdt. 241 offered by Representative Jackson Lee of Texas, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 235, H. Amdt. 244 offered by Representative Murphy of Connecticut, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 236, H. Amdt. 245 offered by Representative Waxman of California, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 237, H. Amdt. 247 offered by Representative Polis of Colorado, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 238, H. Amdt. 248 offered by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 239, H. Amdt. 249 offered by Representative Rush of Illinois, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 240, H. Amdt. 250 offered by Representative Doyle of Pennsylvania, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 241, H. Amdt. 251 offered by Representative Kind of Wisconsin, I would have voted ``no.''

On Thursday, April 7, the House considered H. Res. 206, offered by Representative Foxx of Virginia, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1363) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. On rollcall vote No. 242, on Ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 243, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 244, on Approving the Journal, I would have voted ``yes.''

Also on April 7, the House considered H.R. 1363, the Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, introduced by Representative Rogers of Kentucky. On rollcall vote No. 245, Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 246, on Motion to Recommit with Instructions offered by Representative Owens of New York, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 247, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

Then the House completed consideration of H.R. 910. On rollcall vote No. 248, on Motion to Recommit with Instructions offered by Representative McNerny of California, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 249, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Friday, April 8, the House considered H.J. Res. 37, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices, introduced by Representative Walden of Oregon. On rollcall vote No. 250, On Consideration of the Joint Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 251, Table Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall vote No. 252, on Passage, I would have voted ``yes.''

On Saturday, April 9, the House considered H.R. 1363, Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, introduced by Representative Rogers of Kentucky. On rollcall vote No. 253, on Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1246) to reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1246. It is a simple, commonsense bill that calls for an overall 10 percent reduction in the printing and reproduction costs of the Department of Defense.

More importantly, the American people support H.R. 1246, as more than 150,000 people voted online via the YouCut program on passing this bill. The American people are behind this, and we need to be behind the American people. H.R. 1246 will help us keep our promise to the American people that we will cut waste, fraud and abuse in government spending and spend taxpayer dollars more efficiently, and that includes every department or agency.

In fiscal year 2012, the Department of Defense proposes to spend $357 million for printing and reproduction services. Now, I am not arguing that paper copies are no longer needed. We all still rely on paper. But I do not understand why we need examples of these expensive, high-gloss color briefing slides and slick books that the DOD sends over here for everything from briefing slides to budget rollouts and miscellaneous reports. If anyone is interested, the House Armed Services Committee has a boatload of these fancy printed reports. I think the information that DOD needs to get to us, as well as share internally amongst themselves or with the public, can just as easily be conveyed using plain black-and-white copies that are printed on both sides. Nowadays, a lot can be transmitted electronically.

During my 22 years of active duty service in the United States Army, I witnessed the growth of the excessive PowerPoint briefs and reproduction. I am well aware of areas where saving money is very possible, and this is one of those areas.

These cuts are aimed at wasteful Defense Department spending and will not affect the overall mission of our men and women in uniform in protecting our national security. Mr. Speaker, a mere 10 percent reduction to this one account would save taxpayers $35.7 million in fiscal year 2012 and nearly $180 million over the next 5 years. We owe it to the taxpayers to take this step.

Now, this may seem like a small amount to some, but imagine if every Member of Congress, all 435 of us, took it upon ourselves to do the exact same

and find where we could cut some wasteful spending. We would regain the trust and confidence of the American people as good stewards of their resources. Let's pass H.R. 1246.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this. I do believe that we must take a first step when we talk about deficit reduction. I think that this is one of the important things. As I said in my statement, if each and every one of us in this House, all 435, made the effort to find these instances of fraud, waste and abuse, then we could have more significant cuts into our deficit and, of course, into our debt. And I think at a critical time when, the gentlewoman from Guam just stated, maybe perhaps also following along with this, we do need to look at the amount of requests for reports that we are having.

But still, as we are talking about efficiency in the Department of Defense, this is a first step toward that efficiency occurring. And I think that anyone that would not be willing to support this says that they are not willing to take that first step toward getting the Department of Defense and all our departments and all of our agencies to be more effective and more efficient. But as well, that does start with us here in the Members of the House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further requests, and also apologies to you, Madam.

I am prepared to close after my colleague has yielded back her time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

H.R. 1246 is an innocuous-sounding bill that proposes to help reduce Federal spending and reduce waste by cutting 10 percent of the Pentagon's printing and reproduction services budget. I believe most of us would agree that the goal of H.R. 1246, to reduce dependence on paper copies in a time of proliferating electronic media, is one that most of us would find reasonable.

In effect, however, the bill does little to address the much more serious deficit issues facing our Nation today, including issues in the defense arena that should be thoughtfully debated by Members of this Congress. The bill is estimated to save some $35.7 million in fiscal year 2012, and then another $180 million over the next 5 fiscal years, which hardly makes a dent in the multitrillion-dollar deficit facing our Nation.

One could also argue that the bill is ill-timed, coming on the heels of increasing requests for the Department of Defense to produce documents for oversight being conducted by congressional committees. Indeed, requests from the Congress for required reports, including, Mr. Speaker, from our own House Armed Services Committee, number in the hundreds and thousands. So it would seem somewhat hypocritical of us to be cutting funding for printing and reproduction services when we, we Members of Congress, are asking for more and more and more reports.

Mr. Speaker, while I will not encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill, I consider it a bad use of valuable floor time that could be used to address legislation to put this country on a track toward greater fiscal responsibility.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the previous speaker.

There are 435 voting Members of Congress, but there are 441 Members of the United States House of Representatives. Although I represent a territory and I am not allowed to vote, I do make requests during committee time for reports.

I just wanted to make that correction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to cast my votes on Monday, April 4, 2011 due to a scheduled meeting in my District with constituents in St. Joseph and Ogden, Illinois and wish the record to reflect my intentions had I been present to vote on H.R. 1246.

Had I been present to vote on rollcall No. 225 on H.R. 1246, to reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction, I would have voted in favor of this bill. It is imperative in these times of rising deficit and debt levels that we take a fine tooth comb to every budget and find wasteful spending. This bill, sponsored by an ex-member of our military, is a prime example of the types of bills we should continue to pursue as we tackle the overall levels of spending through the annual budget and appropriations process. Had I been present to vote on this bill, I would have voted, ``aye.''