Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning- hour debate and 10:30 a.m. for legislative business.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, 41 years ago my friend and mentor, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, had a surprisingly simple idea. At the time, the country was fighting an unpopular and unwinnable war, and students were rising up in protest and holding teach-ins on college campuses all over the country. Senator Nelson looked around him and realized that those teach-ins were an invaluable tool in helping to educate people and calling attention to the need to end the war once and for all.

In 1969, when the Senate contained such environmental giants as Ed Muskie, Scoop Jackson, Gaylord Nelson, and Bob Stafford, he gave a pivotal speech at the Seattle Science Center. In that speech he suggested that just as Americans had been involved in teach-ins to protest the Vietnam war, that they should also set aside a day to call attention to the environmental problems facing the planet and to demand real leadership from public officials on producing solutions. Wire services carried the story from coast to coast. And as history shows, the response was overwhelmingly positive. Earth Day was born.

The first Earth Day launched an Environmental Decade, an unparalleled period of legislative and grassroots activity that resulted in passage of 28 major pieces of environmental legislation from 1970 to 1980 alone, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Quality Education Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and others. And Gaylord was at the center of them all.

Forty years later his legacy endures, and half a billion people in 180 countries are expected to gather this week to help clean up their communities and to demand leadership and real solutions to the very real problems facing the planet today, problems like toxic pollution, mercury in our air and water, and climate change.

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, it is fitting that we pass this resolution honoring the founding father of that day. When he initially set the date for it he was roundly criticized by, of all groups, the John Birch Society, because they attacked him for selecting the same day that Lenin was

born. Gaylord pointed out that since there were only 365 days in a year, that each day was bound to be the birthday of both good and bad people throughout the world. And he pointed out, for instance, that, yes, it was the birthday of Lenin, but it was also the birthday of St. Francis of Assisi. But he said, ``more importantly, it's also the birthday of my Aunt Tilly.''

Without the leadership of the late Senator Gaylord Nelson, the air we breathe would not be as clean, we would not be swimming in lakes and rivers as safe as they are today, and we would not be enjoying the beauty of public lands that we were able to protect under the laws he championed. We are certainly a long way away from perfection on those grounds, but we are a whole lot better off than we were when Gaylord started the movement. And we would not be holding Earth Day celebrations around the globe each April 22nd either.

Today we honor Gaylord Nelson and celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. No wonder he was awarded the Nation's highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, by President Clinton in 1995. His leadership is still felt today.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1204, I call up the bill (H.R. 4899) making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4899.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

This a very simple bill. It provides $5.1 billion as requested by the President for FEMA disaster relief because FEMA will run out of money in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Consistent with all prior year FEMA supplementals and the President's request, this $5.1 billion is designated as an emergency. The bill also provides $600 million for youth summer jobs. This funding will support over 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 21. This age group had some of the highest unemployment levels in the country:

Last, the bill extends the successful small business lending provisions that are contained in the Recovery Act for another month and provides up to $60 million for that effort. Again, that new funding is offset. The bill rescinds emergency funding that is not needed in order to provide for the offsets.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that the gentleman is complaining because the committee is using precisely the same procedures that it used in the past when he was chairman and his party was in control of the situation.

When Republicans controlled the House, they brought supplementals to the floor in five out of six Congresses that were handled by the chairman and the chairman alone. That is no different than is happening today. In fact, from 1995 through 2006, while Republicans controlled the institution, the House considered 12 supplemental appropriation bills handled in just that same way.

Secondly, with respect to the so-called runaway spending for summer youth jobs, that spending is fully offset by other cuts in the bill. So much for runaway spending. I can't recall similar fiscal rectitude when the other party was running this place.

Thirdly, let me suggest that when the gentleman complains about not offsetting the funding for the emergency disaster relief program, I would point out that the past administration asked us to do the very same thing eight times in a row, and the Congress did.

Let me also say, by the way, that I would invite the gentleman from California to join me in cosponsoring legislation, which I have introduced in this House several times, which would set up a State- funded disaster program which would be experience rated so that each State would pay into that fund ahead of time on the basis of how much they have drawn out of it in the past.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I would point out that more than half of all disaster relief since 1993 has gone to just four States: Louisiana, Florida, California--the gentleman's home State--and Mississippi; and 80 percent of all disaster relief since 1993 has gone to 10 States: those four plus Texas, Puerto Rico, Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, and New York.

As a Representative of a State that is not in that 10-State group, I am perfectly happy to end the need for virtually all disaster payments paid for by Uncle Sam by establishing the kind of proposal that I have supported for years. I doubt very much the gentleman from California would like that because then California would be paying into it in the same measure that they are drawing out of it through the years.

But I would, nonetheless, invite any Member interested in fiscal rectitude, whether from a recipient State or not, to join me in that effort and then we won't have these meaningless debates on the floor anymore.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the White House submitted this request for disaster relief over a month ago. Everyone in this institution has known about it; in addition to which, the gentleman's staff has known for a good 2 weeks that we would be considering this disaster relief. The only thing that's different is that we found offsets within the past few days that would help to fully pay for the summer jobs program so, therefore, we included that in the proposition.

This is hardly a complicated matter. I am sure that the gentleman from California is up to a full understanding of it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Will the gentleman yield on that?

I would yield to you 30 seconds so I might ask you a question.

Why do you keep saying we're borrowing money to add to the summer youth program when this bill fully offsets every dime that we're spending on it?

No. Would you answer my question? We are not adding one dime to the deficit by what we are adding to the summer jobs program. We are fully paying for it by cuts in other programs.

I have great respect for my friend from Kansas, but he needs to be accurate in what he says.

That's new math.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I invite the gentleman's attention to page 4 and page 5 of the bill. If he will read those two pages, he will see that every dollar of additional spending for summer jobs is paid for by a reduction in other government spending programs.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me simply say I largely agree with my friend from Oklahoma. We have one simple dilemma: both in the case of the Cobell settlement and the Pigford settlement, the administration has asked us to provide the money. We do not yet have an understanding of whether that will be provided through an emergency designation or whether it will be fully offset. We cannot proceed until the decision is made to move one way or another. As soon as it is, we want to bring both of those to the floor because I agree with you, we need to deal with both of them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. Speaker, I would make only one additional point. This bill also provides for a 1-month extension of the Recovery Act Small Business Lending program and provides an additional $60 million for that program.

Through March 12 of this year, the Recovery Act Small Business Lending program has supported nearly $23 billion in small business lending which, according to SBA, has helped create or preserve over 500,000 jobs. I think it is well worth the effort. We need to keep this program alive.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order against the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion because it constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The instructions in the motion include an amendment proposing to include language in the bill that would provide for the rescission of previously appropriated funds made available in other appropriation acts.

This is clearly a legislative proposition, Mr. Speaker. Section 1052 of the House Rules and Manual states, in part: An amendment proposing a rescission constitutes legislation under clause 2(c).

The amendment is, therefore, legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, there is one difference between my friends over here who are speechifying against health care reform today and 50 million Americans. The difference is that the roughly 15 Americans over here all have health insurance, and it is largely paid for by the taxpayers. Fifty million Americans don't have that good fortune. In fact, that difference is shameful, that difference is immoral, and I hope to God that this House has the courage and the decency to vote to change it this week.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very human institution, and it's affected very much by our personal relationships with one another. Very frankly, for the first 20 years that Jack and I served on the Appropriations Committee, we were often adversaries. There were some issues that we differed on. He was, as has already been said, very much old school, and I was more of a reformer.

In fact, when I ran for the chairmanship of the committee against a senior member of the committee, Jack managed the campaign of my opponent and, unfortunately, he did a pretty good job. After I was elected, we had pretty much an arm's-length relationship for a couple of years.

But if you care about your country, and you care about this institution, you swallow your differences and you learn to work with everybody. Jack and I soon had developed a solid working relationship, and we became allies on a host of issues. One of our most important was our view of the war in Iraq and how to get out of it; and another was our concern about the dubiousness of our continued involvement in Afghanistan if we didn't have a better ally in that government to rely upon.

We often talked together, and we traveled together. We went to the Middle East together. We shared something special as well in a different place on this globe. A few years ago, he and I and Dave Hobson and our staffs became concerned about the visitors center at Normandy. It was really pretty much of a cracker box affair, and it was not at all fitting to the history of that place. So we determined that there ought to be a new visitors' center at Normandy. With the three of us working together with our staffs, that visitors center was built.

Today, if you visit it--and it's truly beautiful--there is a little plaque behind that visitors center in front of a small tree with the names of Murtha, Obey and Hobson on it. I know I am proud of that, and I know Jack was proud of that. I think it symbolizes what happens in this place. Two people who started out as adversaries became reasonably good friends, never fully agreeing, because no two people in this place ever agree on everything, but we had a solid working relationship.

I learned one thing about Jack a long time ago. He had the courage of his convictions, and he fought hard every way he knew how for those convictions, and he cared deeply about the welfare of the men and women who served in the Armed Forces and defend this country's freedom.

I am proud that at Normandy there is that little note of the three of us having gotten together, all for one purpose, to honor the people who did so much on those beaches to build and preserve America's freedom and the freedom of the world.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 64.

Madam Speaker, I am the only speaker for our side of the aisle and I plan to be brief. So I will yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the purpose of debate only.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman from Florida has summed up the situation pretty well.

In December, the House and Senate passed a 5-day continuing resolution in order to give the President time to sign the Defense appropriations bill. The President received the CR and the Defense appropriations bill on the same day, December 19. He signed the Defense bill, thereby avoiding the need for the stopgap funding in the CR.

Since the President signed the Defense appropriations measure quickly, I agree that the CR was not needed to keep the government open.

The President sent the CR back to the House, as the gentleman indicated, with his veto. But in that veto message, he suggested in some ways that he had, in fact, pocket vetoed the legislation.

But the fact is clear that the Congress was here to receive a message, and we do not consider it a pocket veto. Therefore, we feel that the appropriate action to be taken is to sustain the veto and take this action to demonstrate that, in our judgment, a pocket veto is not appropriate, that the President exercised a regular veto and it should be treated as such.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 64) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, before I start, I don't see either one of them on the House floor now, but I just want to take this time to note that today is the birthday of the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the ranking member of the Defense appropriations subcommittee, and also of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is the second ranking Democrat on the same subcommittee. So in their absence, I think we wanted to wish them well.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would simply say this is a simple joint resolution, a continuing resolution, which takes the Congress to December 23, next Wednesday. It is made necessary by the fact that it is just possible that the Senate might not finish its work before the 18th. They have been known for their speed, but this may be an exception. It is also useful in order to give the President additional time to review the Defense bill before he signs it.

With that, I would urge support, and I am prepared to yield back after the gentleman has made his remarks.

Madam Speaker, I would again urge support for the resolution, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes,

with a Senate amendment thereto, and offer the motion at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, I think people understand what this legislation is--it is an effort to redirect some $75 billion from TARP funds that in the past have been directed to help Wall Street. Instead, direct them to Main Street to try to help Americans who are struggling to hang onto their jobs, their houses, and their health care. I think the need for it is obvious, and I urge passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support.

I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, when President Bush left office, we were losing over 700,000 jobs a month. We passed the economic recovery package, and we have gotten that down to about 11,000 jobs a month. That's not enough, but it's terrific progress.

I am somewhat bemused, however, by all of the comments by our friends on the minority side of the aisle denouncing the recovery package and saying that it didn't work. Not a single one of them voted for it on this House floor.

But if you check newspaper accounts around the country, you will see, for instance, that the minority leader, in a June 15 press statement, said that he was pleased that Federal officials stepped in and ordered Ohio to use all of its construction dollars for shovel-ready projects that will create much-needed jobs.

The minority whip vowed to shed partisan politics to help the economy. He met with transportation officials about how his home State of Virginia could apply for stimulus grants to build a rail line.

The minority chief deputy whip, in his own press release, outright praised the courthouse in his district receiving funds from the recovery package to build a new courthouse. He said, ``I applaud this funding for the Bakersfield Federal courthouse.''

My Republican colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) announced by a press release that his district received $13 million from the Recovery Act for local flood control projects. ``This is outstanding news,'' he said. He even sent a letter to President Obama asking for speedy release of those recovery funds.

Another of our colleagues from Michigan on that side of the aisle issued a press release saying he was pleased to announce that his international airport would receive $12.7 million from funds received by the Recovery Act.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Another of our colleagues on the minority side from Illinois said, ``There is no question these grants will be of assistance in creating jobs.''

I can go on and on and on citing Member after Member who denounced the bill on the House floor and then went home to their districts and issued grandiose press releases expressing their support for the results of the recovery package.

I have a little difficulty following that ping pong ball when it's bouncing on both sides of the table. I have a little difficulty following the folks on that side of the aisle when they decide to fall off both sides of the same horse. I wish you would make up your mind: which do we believe, your statements that you make at home or the statements and the votes you cast on this House floor?

Could I inquire how much time is left on both sides.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Rangel).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chairman of the banking committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Well, I find it very interesting that the gentleman has not raised this point with respect to the Defense appropriations bill. But let me simply say that the explanatory statement for this bill is very short. It is on our Web site. It was posted there this morning.

Might I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Could I inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he has remaining.

Well, I am the last speaker, and since I have the right to close, I would suggest you use your time and then we'll use ours.

The remainder of the time.

No, we don't have 10 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we have heard three times at least now our friends on the minority side indicate that only 12 percent of the original stimulus funding has, quote, left the Treasury. That's a very slippery way to put it, because the fact is that what ``left the Treasury'' means is that after funds are obligated to those who will actually spend it, and after the bills have been paid by those recipients, then the money has, indeed, left the Treasury. The real term to focus on is what has been obligated. And the fact is that for the programs in this bill, 70 percent of the funds previously appropriated to those programs have already been obligated. So much for that argument.

Example: The minority press release states, ``No funds out of the $1 billion provided for COPS has left the Treasury.'' The fact is, all of that funding has been awarded.

The minority press release states, ``Only $235 million out of the $6.4 billion for EPA wastewater grants has left the Treasury.'' The fact is, 99 percent of that funding has already been provided to the States. So much for that straw man.

Let me, Madam Speaker, simply make this observation: we have before us a bill that determines to redirect $75 billion, which had initially been directed to help Wall Street, and we want to, instead, redirect that money to help Main Street. So we provide $27 billion, for instance, for highway infrastructure projects to put people back in construction. You're either for it or you're against it.

We have provided enough funding in this legislation to assist more than 670 communities address their growing backlog of water and sewer repairs and put people to work in the process. You're either for it or against it.

We've provided $27 billion from Wall Street to Main Street to try to stabilize public service jobs. We're trying to preserve 250,000 teaching jobs over the next 2 years, for instance. You're either for doing that or you're against it.

We're trying to use $500 million to preserve the jobs of thousands of firefighters all across the country. You are either going to help or you're not.

We are trying to provide 250,000 disadvantaged youth with summer employment opportunities. You're either going to help them or you're not.

We're trying to provide 250,000 students with additional college work study funds so they can stay in school. You're either going to help those students or you're not.

We're trying to provide funding for approximately 150,000 individuals in high-growth and emerging industry sectors where we know there are job growth possibilities. You're either going to help support that or not.

We are trying to provide unemployment insurance for 6 months rather than the 2-month extension that was in the previous bill today. You're either going to help those people or not.

We are trying to provide $23 billion to extend the higher Federal match for payments to doctors, or we're not.

So, basically, it's about time to decide where you're coming from. An article in the New York Times today described what happens when you lose your job. It pointed out that more than half of the Nation's unemployed workers have had to borrow money from friends or relatives since losing their jobs. They've had to cut back on doctor visits. That same article indicates that a quarter of those polled had said they'd lost their home or been threatened with foreclosure. They also noted that half of the adults surveyed admitted to feeling embarrassed or ashamed as a result of being out of work. And nearly half of the respondents said they no longer had health insurance. The question is, are you going to help those people or not?

We can argue what our economic philosophy is until the cows come home, as they say in my area, but it seems to me that the question simply is, We've got a problem; what are you going to do about it?

If the gentleman would yield. Well, he doesn't have the time. I will simply take the time to say that if I had known that the Speaker had been able to come to the floor, I certainly would have told the gentleman. I simply didn't know, and I trust that he believes me.

I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, I move a call of the House.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to respond to the gentleman's comments with a straight face. I really think we've had a big lesson in Alice in Wonderland reasoning here today.

Let's simply let the facts speak for themselves. We presently have had five appropriation bills already signed by the President of the United States. In addition, the bill which we will consider today and which will be sent to the President will mean that we have sent six additional appropriation bills

to the White House. That means that during this session, we will have passed every single regular appropriation bill except the defense bill, which we expect to deal with next week. And we did that on top of having to deal with the most calamitous collapse of the economy in 75 years, necessitating a whole round of legislative action to try to salvage the economy.

The gentleman and several of his friends on that side of the aisle have continued to complain that we haven't gotten all of these bills done by the end of the fiscal year. Engaging how seriously we should take that----

No, I will not.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to yield until I have finished my entire statement. The gentleman habitually asks people to yield in the middle of their statement. I'm going to complete my thoughts, and then I will be happy to yield.

The fact is I think this House ought to compare our record this year with the record when the gentleman's party was in control. When we took control of this House 3 years ago, what did we find? We found that they had only been able to pass two appropriation bills.

They had not been able to pass a single appropriation bill that appropriated a dime for the domestic portion of the Federal budget. And they, in fact, left to the next Congress the necessity to pass all of those domestic appropriation bills. How, with that record, they can come forward on this floor and complain because we are 60 days late in their mind is a joke in my view.

Let me cite some of the other records. So far this year, without this bill, we have passed more individual appropriation bills than has been done in five of the last seven years, and most of those years were under Republican control. In fiscal year 2003, Republican control, only two bills were enacted as freestanding measures; the rest were part of an omnibus. In fiscal year 2004, Republican control, six bills were enacted as freestanding measures; the rest were in an omnibus. Fiscal year 2005, Republican control, four bills were enacted as freestanding measures; the rest were put in an omnibus. And the story goes on and on and on.

With respect to the amendment process, our friends on the other side of the aisle were able to offer 96 amendments in full committee, they offered 155 amendments on the floor, and in the conference, on this bill alone, they offered nine amendments. Significantly, their Republican counterparts in the Senate didn't offer any; they felt we had done a pretty good bipartisan job in producing these bills, and I do, too.

The fact is, we have been subjected to obstruction by delay as the minority has apparently tried to turn the House of Representatives into the Senate through filibuster by amendment. We don't have a filibuster in the House rules, but they can achieve the same thing by tossing up countless amendments, many of which are not serious amendments.

With respect to the cost of the bill, they make much of the fact that this bill costs significantly more than its counterparts last year.

Let's walk through what those differences are. Would they suggest that we take out the $3.2 billion increase for veterans so that we can clean up the disability backlog? Would they suggest that there is something wrong with the fact that, in contrast to what happened when they were running the show, we chose to put $14.8 billion for war costs that were previously funded in a supplemental, we chose to put them in the regular bill so you didn't hide the cost in a regular bill?

On infrastructure, as the gentleman pointed out, we've had collapsing infrastructure in this country. Would they suggest we remove the $10.8 billion in additional infrastructure funding?

On health, we are about to pass the most momentous health care changes in the history of the country. We have $6.3 billion of additional funding over last year to expand the capacity of the health care system to deal with the fact that 31 million more people are going to be using that health care system. Would they suggest that we take that money out?

When you total up the cost for those items that I have just recited, the rest of the increase in the bill is $4.8 billion; that is equal to a 1 percent increase. I make no apology for that because, as the gentleman pointed out, we are trying to deal with years of neglect of our domestic economy. This is the bill that does that, and I make no apology for the fact that we bring it to the House today. And I make no apology for comparing our ability to deliver the goods before the end of this Congress in contrast to the inability of the other party to do that when they controlled the House.

I would say never before have we had the kind of systematic obstruction on the part of the minority that we had either.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) the same Mr. Lewis who chaired the Appropriations Committee the last year that the Republicans were in control? It's my impression that he is. As I recall, in that year the Republicans passed exactly two appropriation bills through the Congress and had them signed into law. The other nine appropriation bills were not passed in October. They were not passed in November. They were not passed in December. They were never passed. And so the incoming Congress

under our control was forced to pass their bills at the beginning of the next session before we could even get to our own. Yet the gentleman with that record is now complaining because, with the passage of this bill, we will only have sent to the President 11 of the 12 appropriation bills needed for the year. And I would point out that by next week, we intend to send the last bill to him. If that happens, the only difference between our friends on that side of the aisle and us is that we will have gotten our work done. Despite the fact that we had to deal with the greatest economic collapse in 75 years, we will have finished every appropriation bill.

In contrast to our friends on the other side of the aisle who in the last year they controlled this place were not able to complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill, under those circumstances, for the gentleman on that side of the aisle to squawk about the fact that we are a few days late is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is very interesting logic.

With respect to the spending amount in this bill, I would simply point out, as the gentleman from Massachusetts did earlier, that we are in the process of trying to deal with years of neglect and we are in the process of trying to deal with an economic emergency and catastrophe.

The gentleman complains that this bill is 14 percent above last year for comparable bills. The fact is, let's look at what those differences are. We added $3 billion more than last year so we could clean up the disability backlog for veterans' claims. Anybody on that side of the aisle want to take that money out? We have an additional $4.2 billion for the census because we are required by law to conduct that census so we can redirect huge amounts of Federal money to all of the localities in this country in an accurate fashion. Anybody think we ought to forgo that for the next 10 years?

We've also put $14.8 billion above the previous year in this bill to cover war costs. We put it in the regular bill so it would show up rather than hiding it in the supplemental as previous Congresses did. Would you really rather go back to the old practice of hiding that $14.8 billion?

Infrastructure investments. We have a 28 percent unemployment rate in the construction industry in 14 States in this country, so we are trying to respond to that by putting an extra $11 billion into infrastructure construction programs. Anybody think we ought to take that money out?

Health care. We are about to pass the most momentous health care reform bill in the history of the country. That is going to put 31 million more people under our health care system. This bill provides $6 billion in order to expand the capacity of our health care system to deal with those people. Anybody think we shouldn't do that?

And then on education, I plead fully guilty. We've got $5.6 billion more than last year, so that people who are losing their jobs and need retraining or need some additional education in community colleges can get it.

Does anybody really think we should abandon those students and those workers? We don't think we should.

So I would simply say, this country is struggling to overcome the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. This bill before us today is a key measure to help address the problems and provide relief for millions of hardworking Americans caught in the struggle for economic survival. And for the minority to complain about the fact that we are 90 days or 70 days late in getting the job done when they never got the job done when they were in control of this place is, to me, strange, if not laughable.

With that, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly on the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee, who a few moments ago criticized us because we were some 70 days late in passing the Military Construction-VA appropriation bill.

Let me simply point out that we may be 70 days late, but we are getting the job done. In addition to passing the basic bill, we are, for the first time in history, providing advance funding for VA activities. That is something that the veterans community has wanted for years and years, and it has been this Congress that delivered.

That stands in contrast to the performance of the minority party when they chaired this institution with respect to what they produced on the Military Construction-VA bill. They complain about the fact that we were 70 days late. They never passed that bill at all. They didn't pass it in October. They didn't pass it in November, which would have been 30 days late. They didn't pass it in December, which would have been 60 days late. They never passed it. When a new Congress took over, we had to pass all of those domestic appropriation bills and the Military Construction bill. I think it is quaint, indeed, when they attack us on the question of performance on, of all bills, the Military Construction bill. I think they need to go back and take a look at the record when they chaired this place.

With respect to the funding overall levels in this overall bill, let me simply repeat what I said earlier. When you take into account the necessary increases for veterans disability, for the census, for the war costs which are not being hidden in a supplemental as they were under the stewardship of our friends on the other side of the aisle, when you take into account the infrastructure change in funding and the $6 billion that we needed to prepare the health care system for the legislation which is about to pass, the rest of the increases in the bill before us amount to 1 percent. I hardly think that that's excessive, given the economic crisis that we face.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that this has become another typical ``Who Shot John'' debate, but since it has, let me respond to the distinguished minority leader. Let's compare what President Obama inherited with what President Bush inherited. When President Bush walked into the White House, he inherited $6 trillion in projected surpluses. He inherited 3 years in a row of budget surpluses under President Clinton. And he inherited an economy in which all income groups saw their income rise by roughly the same percentage.

In contrast, when Mr. Obama walked into the White House, he inherited a $1 trillion deficit, he inherited two wars that were paid for on the cuff, with borrowed money. He inherited $6 trillion in projected deficits. And he inherited an economy in which, for six straight years, 94 percent of the income growth went to the wealthiest 10 percent of people, and everybody else got table scraps. In addition, he inherited an economy that was projected to have a $2.5 trillion hole because of the biggest collapse of the economy in 75 years.

And so, indeed, Mr. Obama and the majority party in this Congress spent money to try to prime the pump, to keep the economy going, because we were losing 700,000 jobs a month the last 3 months of the Bush administration. We have now got that down to an 11,000 job loss last month. That's not good enough, but it's certainly a lot better than the situation was when we inherited it.

The gentleman squawks about the debt ceiling. The debt has already been rung up, and now the question is, when the bill comes in the mail, is it going to be paid or not. The fact is, out of that $1.8 trillion debt increase, $1.4 trillion of that is directly traceable to policy actions that were taken by the previous administration and the previous Republican Congress. And $400 billion of it are directly traceable to the actions we've had to take to try to bail the economy out of the mess that you folks got us into.

So if you want to start comparing records, I'd be happy to. I'd much prefer to talk about the contents of this bill and the individual programs of this bill. But since some the gentlemen on that side of the aisle prefer to politicize everything, I guess we're going to have to have the debate at that level. That's too bad, but I've come to expect very little but that from the other side, I regret to say.

I do want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for trying insert a bit of bipartisanship into the debate.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 859 I was involved in discussions with Wisconsin's Governor about upcoming health reform legislation and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the enclosed article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the threat to the Great lakes from invasive species and the need for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative passed by the house last week.

[From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 2, 2009]

15,000 Reasons To Worry About State's Lakes

(By Dan Egan)

Crandon.--A day at the beach in Wisconsin's North Woods

didn't used to go like this.

Candy Dailey spent a Fourth of July holiday splashing with

grandkids on the sandy shore of Lake Metonga when she felt a

nasty sting on her foot.

She didn't need to look down to know the culprit was a

zebra mussel--cuts from the razor-sharp shells have become as

unremarkable as bee stings since the mussels invaded Dailey's

lake eight years ago.

The natives of the Caspian Sea region first turned up in

North America in the summer of 1988, thanks to overseas

freighters' longstanding--and ongoing--practice of dumping

their contaminated ballast water in the Great Lakes, which

are now home to more than 185 non-native species.

None has wreaked more damage than the mussels, which feast

on Great Lakes plankton and have cost the region billions of

dollars in starved fish populations, beach-trashing algae

blooms and plugged industrial and municipal water intake

pipes.

Now, this ecological mess is spreading inland.

``The Great Lakes are just a beachhead for invasions that

are going to play out in lakes across the country in the next

century,'' says University of Wisconsin ecologist Jake Vander

Zanden. ``It's just the start.''

Dailey is painfully aware of this.

``I'm a nurse, so I knew to make it bleed and wash it

out,'' she says of the cut suffered from the molar-sized

mussels. ``I dried it off and taped it.''

Trouble came in the middle of the night when she woke with

a throbbing, swollen foot. By morning a tell-tale red streak

was creeping up her leg. By sunset she was taking a broad-

spectrum antibiotic.

Dailey recovered from the bacterial infection, but her

holiday was over.

It's not the kind of story that makes a headline. It's just

one infection from one cut. It's just one person swimming in

one inland lake.

The problem is Wisconsin has more than 15,000 inland lakes.

Real trouble for real estate

Politicians have tried for years to force overseas

freighters to treat their ballast water--used to steady the

ships--before discharging it at a Great Lakes port in

exchange for cargo.

The shipping industry acknowledges the trouble it has

pumped into the world's largest freshwater system, and its

leaders profess a desire to do something about it.

Yet at the same time they have consistently fought

regulations proposed by Great Lakes states to require

freighters to install onboard ballast treatment systems,

claiming they are impossibly stringent, expensive or

inconsistent from state to state.

Members of Congress, meanwhile, have repeatedly vowed--and

repeatedly failed--to craft an overarching national ballast

law that is palatable to both the shipping industry and

environmentalists.

The result is the door remains open to invasions, the most

recent being the ``bloody red shrimp'' discovered in Lake

Michigan in late 2006. There could well be others that have

arrived since then; it can take years for populations to grow

big enough to be noticed.

Biologists say the damage being done to the world's largest

freshwater system cannot be overstated, but the problem has

become bigger than the Great Lakes themselves. It's now clear

the failure to slam the door on new Great Lakes invasions has

consequences for everyday folks with cottages on inland

lakes, places working-class people across the state like to

claim as their favorite on earth.

``Where is the fun in playing on the shoreline anymore if

our lakes are wall-to-wall zebra mussels?'' asks Dailey.

``Look at the money that we all pay in property taxes to live

on a lake that is now not the lake that it used to be.''

The potential economic impacts of this second-wave invasion

could prove staggering.

Property on Forest County's Lake Metonga sells for an

average of about $1,200 a shoreline foot, and the lake has

roughly 7 miles worth of it. That means a crude estimate of

just this lake's shorefront value--not including any of the

homes built on it--lands somewhere above $44 million.

At the same time, one estimate of the annual savings

associated with using overseas ships to haul cargo into the

Great Lakes instead of transporting it via truck, train or

barge is only $55 million.

That's basically the real estate value of just one inland

lake.

Global trouble knocks

People flock to places like the forested shores of Lake

Metonga to get away from the rest of world.

It is an illusion.

Standing in front of about 400 shorefront property owners

at the annual Wisconsin Lakes Convention in downtown Green

Bay, University of Notre Dame professor David Lodge dimmed

the lights and gave a pointed presentation last spring about

the biological perils for a globe that has been stitched so

tightly together by increasingly efficient transportation

networks.

Lodge pulled up a slide showing the Great Lakes are

directly connected to 12% of the world's ports. That means a

mussel, fish or even virus picked up at a bustling global

port in a place like Antwerp, Belgium, can arrive in a matter

of days at the Green Bay docks just outside the doors of the

conference center at which Lodge spoke.

Then Lodge showed a slide that revealed 99% of the world's

ports are just two stops or fewer away from the Port of Green

Bay, or any other commercial dock in the Great Lakes. This is

not a theoretical problem; freighters are blamed for the

arrival of nearly 60 new species since the St. Lawrence

Seaway opened the Great Lakes to oceangoing vessels 50 years

ago.

And spreading that misery inland like so many viruses are

the fishing boats, Jet Skis and other pleasure craft rolling

on trailers down the state highways that provide a 65 mph

link between the Great Lakes and inland waters.

Wisconsin now has 120 inland waterways confirmed as

infested with zebra mussels, though there is not a

comprehensive annual survey of each lake so the actual number

could be much higher.

Beyond slicing swimmers' feet, zebra mussels have been

linked to inland lake outbreaks of blue-green algae that

produce toxins that can kill an animal and can cause liver

damage in humans.

This algae was a problem in state waters during the 1960s

and '70s, but it faded with a ban on laundry detergents that

contained the phosphorous that fed its blooms.

Now blue-green algae outbreaks are making a comeback, and

scientists are pointing to zebra mussel infestations as a big

reason.

The mussels encourage the blooms because they eat virtually

every type of algae except for the blue-green algae. That

gives the toxic algae a competitive advantage over its

nutrient-rich cousins that have historically nourished the

base of a lake's food chain.

Zebra mussels may also further promote these toxic blooms

because their excrement fertilizes them.

Still, not every lake in Wisconsin is destined to become

home to zebra mussels. Many, for example, don't contain

enough mussel shell-building calcium. Biologist Vander

Zanden's lab analyzed 923 lakes in northern Wisconsin's Vilas

County and found 91 of them to be suitable habitat for zebra

mussels. It's a completely different story in southeastern

Wisconsin, where all but one of 334 analyzed can likely

sustain zebra mussels.

But property owners on inland lakes have to worry about a

lot more than just zebra mussels.

``If you want to know what's coming next, look at the

species that are already in the Great Lakes,'' Lodge says.

And the problem doesn't stop at the state line; boat ramps

around the country are launching more than just boats. Zebra

mussels are widespread in the Mississippi River basin, and

quagga mussels are now plugging pipes all the way out in

California.

Invaders on the way

The list of Great Lakes invaders that threaten inland

waterways includes VHS, a viral disease spreading through the

Great Lakes that can be lethal to dozens of fish species.

It also includes the quagga mussel, a slightly larger and

hardier cousin to the zebra mussel that has exploded across

the bottom of Lake Michigan in the past few years. Scientists

say they are swallowing the base of the food chain and that

jeopardizes everything above it, including the prized salmon

that drive much of the Great Lakes' billion-dollar

recreational fishery.

Overseas freighters also brought to the Great Lakes the

round goby, a bug-eyed fish that thrives on native species'

fish eggs. Lake Michigan has lost more than 90% of its prey

fish population since the arrival of invasive mussels, but

the round goby is thriving, now accounting for about a fifth

of the lake's prey fish.

Gobies were first found in the Great Lakes in 1990 and in

recent years began gobbling their way up Great Lakes

tributaries, in some cases as far as 30 miles inland. The

fish have been found in more than one-third of the Lake

Michigan tributaries sampled.

``They are marching inland, and there is a lot of habitat

for them,'' says Vander Zanden.

Ballast water has also brought to the Great Lakes the spiny

and fish hook water fleas, which are both hard for native

fish to eat because of their namesake tails, and a rival when

it comes to feasting on the microscopic critters at the

bottom of the food chain.

Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources has distributed

more than $10 million to communities to fight aquatic

invasive species since 2003. Regardless, the list of new

invaders is likely to grow.

The only protection the Great Lakes has at the moment from

contaminated ballast water is a requirement that overseas

ships bound for the Great Lakes flush their ballast tanks

with mid-ocean saltwater to expel or kill any unwanted

hitchhikers. It is a practice scientists say goes a long

way--but not all the way--to reducing the risk of future

invasions.

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency released a

report that spotlighted 30 organisms that have yet to invade

the Great Lakes but are medium to high-risk candidates to do

so.

Twenty-five years ago, few in the Great Lakes region had

even heard of a zebra mussel. The question now: What next is

headed up the St. Lawrence Seaway?

``Until we control the ships, there will be lots of species

nobody has ever heard of arriving on their doorsteps,'' says

Anthony Ricciardi, an invasive species expert at Montreal's

McGill University.

Frustrations mount

In 2008, organizers of the Pewaukee Triathlon had to cancel

the swim portion of the event, which drew some 2,000 racers,

because of plumes of blue-green algae. Nutrients flushed into

the lake by heavy rains were a likely factor, but it didn't

help that Pewaukee has also been infested with zebra mussels.

On a busy Sunday over Labor Day weekend, Pewaukee Lake bait

shop owner John Laimon estimated there were about 200

trailered boats on the lake ``coming from who knows where.''

It's not lost on him that Lake Michigan boat ramps are just

a half-hour away. He is flabbergasted that two decades after

zebra mussels were discovered in Lake Michigan, the

government has failed to turn off the invasive species

spigot.

``We're the ones paying for the mistakes at the federal

level, and there is nothing in the wind that is going to stop

that,'' he says.

With little progress in Congress, the state of Wisconsin

earlier this year tried to take matters into its own hands.

It followed the leads of other Great Lakes states such as

Michigan, Minnesota and New York and proposed its own ballast

regulations that would require ships to install onboard

treatment systems.

Shipping industry advocates were not happy, particularly

because Wisconsin's proposed standards, which mirror New

York's, are much stricter than those of neighboring

Minnesota.

They urged the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to

back off or adopt weaker regulations more in harmony with

those of Minnesota, with which Wisconsin shares Duluth-

Superior harbor. What's the point in stringently protecting

just one side of a harbor, they asked.

Conservationists agreed. But they urged Minnesota to get as

tough as Wisconsin was considering.

The shipping industry turned out in force at a public

hearing on Wisconsin's proposal last spring, easily

outnumbering those in favor of greater protections.

``In a time of national recession and a record state budget

deficit, the last thing Wisconsin should do is impose a

(ballast) permit that will: A) destroy jobs, B) reduce tax

revenues and C) not result in any environmental benefits,''

said Andy Lisak, executive director of the Development

Association that promotes business interests in Douglas

County and the port city of Superior.

The DNR has been sitting on its proposal ever since.

And this has left bar-and-boat-launch owner Andy Cuppan

``terrified'' about what might be headed next down the

interstate off-ramp and into his mussel-infested lake.

He and his business partner recently bought the Boathouse

Bar and Grill on the shore of Upper Nemahbin Lake, which is

literally just feet from the rumbling westbound lanes of I-

94.

Cuppan mentions that earlier this summer he dared to take a

shoeless swim and suffered several stinging mussel cuts.

More painful for him is the idea that not enough is being

done to protect him from the big lake 30 miles to the east

and from what's stewing in the water at ports across the

globe.

``We can't do anything about what's here, but let's not let

anything else in,'' he said. ``Our livelihoods are at

stake.''

Of course this is just one guy, on one lake.

The problem is Wisconsin has more than 15,000 of them.

Before you do that, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, if the gentleman has questions, I would like to hear what they all are. When he has asked them all, then I will be happy to respond on my own time.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, what has occurred here is this: As the gentleman from Minnesota indicates, EPA had been developing a standard for oceangoing vessels for quite some time, but it was not until a very few weeks ago that it was discovered that, belatedly, under their proposed rule, they attempted also to apply that to the Great Lakes. When we discovered that, we reacted with alarm on both sides of the aisle. The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), for instance, participated in a meeting with EPA, along with Mr. Oberstar, myself, Mr. Young from Alaska and several other people.

Out of that came a decision to bring forward the proposal that we have in this bill today. That bill does two things. The bill simply exempts from the rule--it does not delay the rule in any way. In fact, the Canadian Government was opposed to the EPA rule--but what this provision does is to exempt the 13 steamers on the Great Lakes from that regulation, for one very good, simple reason--because if they use the kind of fuel that EPA wants them to use, they have a risk of blowing up, and we think that might be a bit of a problem for people on those ships.

Secondly, the provision simply asks EPA to also consider when they deal

with the question of the diesels on the Great Lakes, we ask EPA to simply do two things: We ask them to do an economic analysis to determine what the impact is on the Great Lakes region; and we ask them to provide, as they do in many other rules, for the possibility of a request for a waiver from the operators of those ships. Whether a waiver is granted is up to the EPA to determine.

The other waiver we asked them to consider putting in the rule is a waiver which would apply if the fuel that EPA wants them to use is not available. That sounds to me to be a perfectly reasonable proposition.

I think EPA thinks it is reasonable, which is why they have issued this statement: ``EPA welcomes public input on its Clear Air Act proposal to address emissions from large ships. The agency understands the unique technical and economic challenges that steamships would face if they were required to use lower sulfur fuel. The amendment announced today is consistent with one of several policy options the agency has been considering and would apply to only 13 U.S.-flagged ships, which account for less than one-half of 1 percent of the Nation's particulate matter emissions.''

So if someone wants to make a Federal case out of it, be my guest. But I would point out there are two other reasons for the committee action: number one, the EPA rule as it originally was being contemplated would have been a devastating blow to the Midwest. It could have wiped out steel production in the Midwest because it would raise prices on those tankers so high that that region would have been uncompetitive. The result could be that steel production would move from that region of the country and from Canada to China. If you do that, you wind up with much greater emissions, because under the rule if you operate a ship outside of 200 miles from our coast, you can use the old, dirty fuel. But if you ply the Great Lakes, you have to use the new fuel, because on the Great Lakes you are never further than 200 miles away from shore.

I would also point out that if the result is to shift transit on the Great Lakes from ships to trucks or rail cars, you increase, you do not decrease, the emissions, because it takes a Great Lakes ship 18 tons of carbon dioxide to move 1,000 tons of cargo 1,000 miles. If that cargo were shifted to a rail car, it would emit 55 tons of carbon dioxide for the same job, and a truck would emit 190 tons.

So I submit the committee solution is good for the environment, it is good for the jobs in the upper Midwest, it assists the economies of New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Indiana, and, in economic times like this, I make no apology whatsoever for doing that.

Madam Speaker, two points: First of all, we specifically worked with EPA to assure that there would be no delay in the rule. That is why we did not pursue a wholesale exemption for the Great Lakes, as we originally had requested EPA to consider.

Secondly, I must say I welcome the gentleman from California's belated interest in the health of the Great Lakes.

But I wonder, is this the same gentleman from California who, years ago, when chairing the appropriations subcommittee, brought to the floor a bill which contained some 17 riders to gut virtually every environmental protection you could find which, for instance, exempted the oil refinery industry from air toxic-emission standards, which would have allowed 1 million tons of hazardous waste from cement kilns to be exempted from air toxic requirements, which would have prohibited EPA from protecting any of the Nation's remaining wetlands and would have stopped all work on the Great Lakes Initiative, for which this bill provides $500 million?

Madam Speaker, I rise to regretfully inform my colleagues of the passing of our former colleague, Jay Johnson, who represented the Eighth District of Wisconsin with distinction from January of 1997 through January of 1999, and I would ask that the House observe a moment of silence in his honor.