Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, from time to time, people in this House know that I quote my old favorite philosopher, Archie the Cockroach, and Archie said, or maybe it was Will Rogers--I've forgotten exactly which--but one of them noted that there is nothing more pitiful than the sight of a flock of politicians in full flight. They can look as panicked as a loon trying to take off from choppy lake water. And if you've ever watched one of those, it takes them a long time, they make a lot of ruckus, and they look like an unjointed turkey in the process. That's the way the Congress has looked, in my judgment, with respect to this Guantanamo Bay issue.

Now, this country has a problem. After September 11 we picked up a lot of bad and dangerous characters and shipped a lot of them to Guantanamo. We also picked up, on the basis of bad information, some who didn't belong there. From what I can tell, it would appear like virtually every single person there now deserves to be there.

But the problem is that the previous administration had no process by which to separate the merely criminal or the merely misguided from the truly evil. And as a result, thanks in part to the unrelated chaos of Abu Ghraib, the United States, which has rightly prided itself on being the principal advocate of due process and human rights in the world, has come to be seen by some these days as a pretty major apologist for torture and imprisonment without review or remedy. I don't think that's what America really stands for.

President Obama has tried to deal with the fact that Guantanamo has become a major liability to this country in the court of world opinion and in some cases has become a recruiting ground for the very forces that we wish to contain.

In the Presidential campaign, to their credit, both candidates called for closing Guantanamo because they recognized the damage being done to our influence and our security. President Obama won that election and announced his intention to close the facility.

Admittedly, the administration did not demonstrate a high degree of skill in implementing that decision. They had a credible goal, but they clearly had not thought through how to get there. That's why this committee insisted in the 2009 supplemental that the administration present its analysis to the Congress before people who were imprisoned in Guantanamo could be shipped elsewhere and before any detainees could be brought to the U.S. or transferred to another country.

Very frankly, the administration has received very little help from Capitol Hill in thinking through this problem. A number of Members have had legitimate concerns, but they could not come up with any reasonable set of criteria by which transfers could be effected.

Now, this motion would have this body declare that no prisoners can be

transferred anywhere in this country even for prosecution, which they so richly deserve. That means the detainees would have to be transferred to other countries or that Guantanamo would have to remain open as a permanent stain on our reputation for due process.

I think we can do better than that.

Has this country, this country that has even tried the worst criminals in the history of the world at Nuremberg, has this country experienced such a pitiful decline of modern thoughtful political leadership that we now have no capacity except to say lock them up forever, no questions asked, and no due process provided under any circumstances? We may want to lock them up. I'm sure we do. But we can do better in the way we do it.

In America we do not provide due process for the benefit of criminals; we provide it for our own safety's sake.

I don't know how many Members are familiar with the play ``A Man for All Seasons'' about Sir Thomas More, who was martyred by King Henry VIII. When More's son-in-law, Richard Roper, in that famous play, said that he would cut down every law in England to get at the devil, More replied, ``And where would you hide then, the laws all being flat? Yes, I give the devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.''

That's why it's important that we have a process that will allow us to lock up and throw away the key on everyone in Guantanamo who deserves it; but we cannot tell the world that just because this process is difficult, we are simply going to take the easy road and step over the valleys that make this Nation great.

I refuse to believe, as the gentleman from North Carolina has already indicated, I refuse to believe that our law enforcement officials, our prison officials, and our Justice Department officials are not skilled enough and thoughtful enough to imprison these thugs in high-security facilities at minimal or no danger to our citizens and our communities. Our prisons keep us safe from the likes of Charles Manson; David Berkowitz, the ``Son of Sam'' killer; the World Trade Center bombers; and the Kenyan Embassy bombers, whom I detest because they killed several friends of mine. What we want to propose in conference will be built on the faith that we do have that capacity.

Now, we can either let somebody else deal with our problems, or we can let them fester because we don't want to deal with them and make hard choices ourselves. That's unacceptable, and I think it's time that we face up to that.

What will emerge from conference, I suspect, will be language that any reasonable person will be able to say is a good-faith, effective process by which we can keep Americans safe and still continue to stand for the due process principles that we have always stood for.

I know these people are enemy combatants and they don't deserve it. But we don't make our decisions on the basis of what we think of defendants. We make our decisions on the basis of what we think of ourselves. And that's what makes us the greatest country in the world. And I do not want, as this motion would have us do, to depart from that high standard today.

Again, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I thank the gentleman.

I find it quite humorous to think that we are doing these Guantanamo prisoners a favor by exposing them to the ``gentle niceties'' of the prison population in our high-security prisons. In fact, I would suspect that those prisoners at Guantanamo, if they knew what kind of people they would be finding, would much prefer to stay in Guantanamo than wind up in some of those high-security

I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Let me say this is a very interesting institution, and we have all kinds of demands placed upon it which are often contradictory. Example: many a Member in this Chamber will loudly request that we limit earmarks.

And then they will also ask when we go into conference that their own earmarks be funded at the highest possible level. I've had two Members of the House talk to me just today about those matters. Didn't seem to be at all bothered by the conflict in what they're asking.

We have people who say these bills should be available for 72 hours before we vote on them, but some of those same people will not want the House to meet on Monday and they will not want the House to meet on Friday. And if that's the case, then that means that this bill, for instance, even if it is conferenced tomorrow could not be voted on any day in the remainder of the week.

We have people who want us to push these bills through before the end of the fiscal year, and yet, when we say, Well, can you go to conference at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, we were just told today, no, they couldn't; can you go to conference at 9 o'clock, no, they can't; and then when we talk to the Members of the other body and say can you go to conference at 11 o'clock

tomorrow, no, we can only go to conference at 2, if it's in the afternoon.

So anyone managing a bill, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut is going to have to manage this one, is faced with all kinds of conflicting demands from Members who seem to be almost unconscious about the fact that their demands, in fact, are conflicting. And all I can say as chairman of the committee is we will try to give Members the maximum time possible to review the bills, consistent with our obligation to get the work done.

So I think if anyone is concerned about a specific item in the bill, I'm sure the gentlewoman and I'm sure the gentleman from Georgia will be willing to walk them through what the committee has in mind.

But in the end, I would simply--I'm not going to vote for this motion because I can't with a straight face both promise to make these bills available for 72 hours and meet all of the other conflicting demands that Members of the House are making. We've got an obligation to try to balance those requirements, and we will do that to the best of our ability. And in the end, I think we will have reasonable bills, and we will let the public be the judge of just how reasonable they are.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, our principal obligation on this bill is simply to keep the government open. We've got enough problems in the economy right now without adding to people's uncertainty. We had concluded that the least disruptive way to do that and the way with the least delay was to attach this continuing resolution to the one appropriation bill that was ready to be conferenced, the Legislative Branch Appropriation bill.

This is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR. As far as funding levels are concerned, we are simply allowing agencies to continue fiscal 2009 levels, with three exceptions:

First, we are following the House's lead when it voted 388-32 to allow the postal service to cover a budget shortfall by postponing a payment intended to prefund its retiree health benefits;

Second, we're funding the census at a somewhat higher rate to allow it to ramp up activities so the 2010 census can proceed. The calendar is not going to change to suit congressional convenience;

Third, we are providing additional funding for the Veterans Health Administration. The VA expects to treat

over 6 million patients in 2010, including almost 420,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CR also extends a number of authorizations that would otherwise expire: transportation programs, child nutrition, stop-loss payments to our troops, E-Verify, and various other programs.

So, as I said, this is a relatively routine CR which keeps the government open for the next 30 days.

Outside of those items, we make no policy judgments. We change no existing policy except that, in accordance with the House vote last week, we also say no more funds for this 30-day period for ACORN. There have been some objections by the minority to this process. They claim it is procedurally outrageous because we are attaching the continuing resolution to a specific appropriations subcommittee bill. This is certainly not out of the ordinary.

In fact, in September of 2006, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they controlled this House, attached the continuing resolution to the defense bill. I have the roll call on that if anyone cares to take a look at it. If you do, you would find out there were only two Members of the other party who voted against it, and in the Senate, the vote was 100 to nothing in support of it.

So there is no difference in what we are doing today, but there is a difference in how we do it. We are up front with what we are doing. We included this action in the conference notes, and voted on it in the conference. That was certainly not the case in 2006 when the action of adding the CR was not flagged or noticed in any way during the conference or in the conference notes. I have a copy of those conference notes here if anyone wishes to see them. So the action that was taken then was simply taken after the fact in contrast to our doing it up front and in full view. So I believe that, in comparison to that, this action is, certainly, totally transparent.

Now I need to take this opportunity to note one other point: Until last night, we were not in a position to move other appropriations bills because of a dispute between the House and the Senate over how to deal with for-profit earmarks. As I think the membership knows, we have put in place in the last few years significant reforms to the earmark process. When we took over control of the Congress in 2007, we put in place a moratorium on earmarks for that year until we could reform the process and make it much less susceptible to wasting taxpayers' money. Since then, including this year's bills, we have cut the dollar amount of earmarks by 50 percent. We require every Member to request earmarks publicly, ending the practice of anonymous earmarks in the House, and to certify that they have no financial interest.

This year, we have gone one step further. Recognizing the potential for abuse in sole-source contracting, we have insisted that all House earmarks designated for for-profit entities must undergo a competitive bidding process. We still allow those entities to be named so we can help, for instance, small businesses get a foot in the door so that they can be noticed by Federal agencies, which all too often simply notice people with whom they are familiar in their inside processes, but we nonetheless require that those entities still submit a bid and compete in a fair competition.

The Senate did not do that this year, and up until last night, was objecting to even allowing the House to follow this policy. Last night, we reached an agreement that will allow us to proceed with House earmarks subject to that new policy.

There is still one small area of disagreement that remains. There are a small number of projects, approximately 5 percent, which have been included in both the House and Senate bills. Until last night, the other body was refusing to allow those to be competed. Under the agreement we reached this year and this year only, those projects will be dealt with according to Senate policy. Next year and thereafter, they will be managed by House policy. So they, too, will be subjected to competition next year.

We reached this agreement because the other body insisted that, because they had proceeded all year under their policies, it was too late to change the rules of the game for them. We recognize that changing policies at this point would be a procedural problem for the other body. We do appreciate their agreement that, starting next year, we can all agree on how to handle for-profit projects and that they will be handled in accordance with the House procedures.

This will enable us to now proceed to conference on a number of other appropriations bills which have been passed by the Senate: We have had a motion to go to conference on energy and water. We expect next week, after two small matters are resolved, to also be able to go to conference on the Agriculture bill. We hope that, within a week, we will be able to resolve a few remaining differences on the Homeland Security bill and to also go to conference on that and other bills as the Senate grinds through them in their processes.

So, having reported that to the House, I would simply urge an ``aye'' vote for the legislation before us, and would simply note that, given the calendar, a vote against this proposition would be a vote to shut down the government.

With that, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Madam Speaker, I would simply note, in light of the gentleman from Kentucky's comments, there are at least seven outstanding issues on homeland security that, to my knowledge, have yet to be resolved. One is the border fence. Another is the National Bio and Agricultural Defense Facility. There is an argument about where that's supposed to go. We have the Gitmo issue. We have immigration issues. We have FEMA.

If the gentleman wants to resolve those by agreeing with our position on each of them, I would be happy to see them go to conference right now.

The fact is that no one has suggested that they delay the Homeland Security bill in any manner whatsoever. We are noting that there are significant substantive differences. Under the rules of the body, we can't bring a conference bill back to this House until we've reached agreement on all of those differences.

So I think it's patently preposterous to suggest that this bill is being delayed in any way.

The only thing that is delaying it is honest disagreement and, until last night, the disagreement that we had with the Senate which precluded us from bringing up virtually any other bill. Thankfully, that is now gone.

No, I will not. The gentleman would not yield to me. I don't see any reason to yield to him.

Madam Speaker, what we just heard came from a Member of the then-majority party, which turned $6 trillion in inherited projected surpluses into a $2 trillion deficit. We heard that from a Member of the party that provided $2 trillion in tax cuts primarily aimed at the wealthiest people in the country, all paid for with borrowed money, from the same folks who gave us almost $1 trillion in spending on the most ill advised war in the country's history, also paid for with borrowed money.

They ran the country's economy into the ditch with record collapse of consumer spending and record collapse of unemployment. Then they are now complaining when Mr. Obama and the majority party are now trying to pull the country out of the ditch.

Someone else can take that seriously if they want, but I won't be one of them.

Madam Speaker, I want to fully support the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida. Some of the language in this motion is perfectly acceptable, but the most serious defect in the language is that it would simply tell the committee that it cannot do what the then-majority party did in September 2006.

In September 2006, the other party--then in the majority--attached the continuing resolution to the Department of Defense appropriation bill. Only two Republican Members of the House voted against that. Mr. Aderholt voted for that process at that time, so did Mr. Lewis, so did Mr. Boehner, and so did Mr. Cantor. So it would seem to me considerably ill-advised for this House to say that in order to keep the government open, we are not allowed to follow the very same procedure which was followed by the other side of the aisle and for which the gentleman voted.

I think that's enough said, and I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, let me say, there are only two instances in which this is not an absolutely straight, clean CR. We do make an exception for veterans. We fund them at a higher level than we would ordinarily fund them in the continuing resolution. Secondly, we do make an exception for the Census because 2010 is coming at us whether we agree on this House floor or not. Those are the only two legislative items that depart from the traditional CR.

Virtually every judgment made in the contemplated CR is the judgment which is simply that of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, and that's what CRs are supposed to do.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Let me simply say that I see Bill in two ways. First of all, I see him as a legislator. He was a good, solid legislator, a member of the Appropriation's Committee, and I watched him day after day conduct his business with grace and with courage. It was not popular to oppose some of the tax and budget proposals that President Reagan was pushing, for instance, in the 1980s. I know in my district at the time, 70 percent of the country favored those changes. Bill Hefner had courage enough to point out that the numbers just didn't add up and that he carried on his conviction, and eventually facts proved him to be correct.

Bill was also a person who respected this institution. He respected the Congress, he respected the country, he respected his party, he respected the other party, and he respected virtually every person in this institution, and it showed in the way he dealt with others in this body.

But my greatest and fondest memory of Bill is rooted in his gospel singing. I happen to like bluegrass, and I belong to a bluegrass band called The Capitol Offenses, and I learned to love gospel music. And on many occasions, Bill would sing and I and members of my band would back him up. And I have to say, he was one of the best singers we ever performed with. He knew a wide range of gospel but he also had a solid voice, and he had fun doing it. He loved it, and anyone who listened to him knew that he loved it.

He was a man of courage. He had a terrific sense of humor, and he could find a lot of ways to get things done by simply charming people in this place. If logic wouldn't work, if substance wouldn't work, there was always the Hefner charm to push things over the edge.

I was greatly saddened to learn of his death last week. I have to say that I am proud to have served in the same institution with a man of his courage, with a man of his integrity, and with a man of his good humor. I'm certain that he will be missed by his family and his friends. I very much am grateful for the fact that I was able to know him and to work with him for all of those years. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3435) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3435.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, late yesterday, it came to our attention that the cash for clunkers program, which went active just a few days ago, has proven even more wildly popular than its strongest supporters had predicted.

Just last month, Congress passed the program, which provided up to $4,500 if you trade in your old gas guzzler for a new car that gets better mileage. That was done in the hopes of spurring some new car sales and encouraging people to be a little more environmentally friendly. We provided $1 billion in the supplemental to get it going, enough for about 250,000 sales.

The program kicked off Monday, and it has already officially received 40,000 requests for reimbursement, worth about $160 million in rebates. A survey done by the National Automobile Dealers Association this week suggested that at least 200,000 deals have been completed but not yet officially submitted. If that is true, and we are being told it probably is, then the entire $1 billion is just about exhausted. So we have before us a bill to provide stopgap funding for cash for clunkers by allowing the administration to transfer up to $2 billion from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program, which doesn't expect to award funding until late next year.

Some would call this letting the markets work. Consumers have spoken with their wallets, and they are saying they like this program; and clearly it is doing what it was intended to do, to spur car sales in this sluggish economy.

This action will keep it going, hopefully; and I would urge support for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I'm not going to give any political speeches. We are simply trying to react to one program that the public has latched onto. The demand for this was so great that within 3 days of its inception, the funds were, apparently, totally used up. That indicates that we need to do something if we don't want the program to shut down 3 days after it begins. That's what we're trying to do today.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

If the gentleman would yield, I share the gentleman's view that the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program is of vital importance to creating a new, green economy. We have talked with the White House. We have talked with the Speaker, and I want to assure you that all of us certainly have every intention of restoring these funds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that what we have heard several times here today about this action are complaints from the people who helped wreck America's economy and are now complaining because of the way this President and this Congress are trying to pull the country out of the ditch and restore economic growth. We've come to expect that, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schauer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Commerce Department just issued figures which have indicated that the depth of the recession in the last quarter of last year was much more severe than anyone had estimated. This is the good news part of the day: They also tell us that, in the first quarter of this year, the shrinkage of the economy has now slowed considerably, which is a very hopeful sign, because the economy, evidently, performed significantly better than most of the economic experts had thought it would perform. We all welcome that news, but as you know, that is not good enough. We need to see more progress. Our dilemma is this:

Ordinarily in a recession, when the country is losing jobs, the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, and that helps the housing industry to move ahead. It helps the auto industry to sell cars. Our economy is normally led out of the recession by the housing industry and by the auto industry. This time around, the situation is very different, because those two sectors have been basket cases for the past year and a half.

The first glimmer of hope we've seen in the auto industry is the news that we received yesterday from the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. LaHood, who informed us that, in just 3 days' time, when the program was started, as far as they can tell, it's already oversubscribed. That means the consumers like this program; it means they are reacting to it, and it means that it would be irresponsible of us not to try

to prevent the shutdown of this program just 3 days after it began.

So we're here, trying to take advantage of one of the few bright spots in the economy to help move the economy forward. We still have a long way to go before good news shows up on the unemployment side of the ledger, but we'll take every bit of good news we can. Today, I think this is one piece of good news, and I think we need to respond to it.

I would be happy to yield very briefly to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't particularly care to get into a partisan diatribe this morning. I recognize that the gentleman from Texas is the chairman of the Republican House Congressional Campaign Committee, and I can understand, in his position, why he would be willing to look anywhere he can to try to find the slightest issue which he thinks can restore his party to the majority status in this House.

And I sympathize with them because I suspect that he's going to have to strain at gnats often in order to accomplish that. And one such example is the objection that they're raising to the rule this morning with respect to amendments.

I want to walk you through, Mr. Speaker, what the facts are on the amendments that were offered to this bill. There were 35 amendments that were initially filed for the bill. On the Democratic side there were 21. Seven of those amendments were not in order because they violated the rules of the House, so they were set aside.

That left 14 left. Of the 14 that were left, nine of them are now going to be wholly or partially incorporated into the manager's amendment with the agreement of the sponsors. That leaves five left. Two of those amendments, in the judgment of the Rules Committee, were related to arguments that better belonged in the authorizing committees.

Another was, and I'm sure the gentleman from Arizona will be shocked by this, another would have added an earmark which would not have been eligible for funding under the program to which the earmark wanted to be attached, so the Rules Committee turned that down. And then two of those amendments, the remaining two, were dropped with the understanding that we would try to strengthen funding for the programs involved when we move to conference. So we've dealt with all of the amendments on the Democratic side.

On the Republican side there were 14 amendments that were offered. Initially, nine of them were out of order. They were worked with, and that reduced the number to four amendments that were out of order under House rules and subject to point of order. That left 10 Republican amendments.

Three of those issues, again, in the judgment of the Rules Committee, were determined to be issues that more appropriately should be dealt with in the health care reform bill. Example: one sought to prevent us from creating a public plan in the health insurance bill. I did not know that the Appropriations Committee was so talented that, in addition to handling the budget matters, it's also supposed to interfere in judgments about health care reform. Evidently, some people think they should. I think the Rules Committee was right.

Another amendment dealt with an issue that had been disposed of in the authorizing committee, the Education and Labor Committee, in the same week. And then there was one other amendment that simply rehashed an old campaign argument, a matter which relates to elections and more properly belongs in either the Judiciary Committee or the House Administration Committee, which oversees elections.

That leaves five remaining Republican amendments. Four of them were made in order. Four of them were made in order, four out of the five remaining amendments. And there was only one that was not made in order, and that one was an amendment that simply sought to stuff an additional $1 billion into a program that had already been increased by $12 billion.

So if someone wants to make a Federal case out of the fact that one amendment was denied, be my guest. I've seen worse offenses around here.

With respect to the budget, I'm not going to get into a partisan debate. All I want to say is this: both Presidents, Bush and President Obama, were faced with terrible problems when the economy collapsed late last year. We were losing 700,000 full-time jobs at a time when Mr. Obama was still waiting to take the oath to be sworn in, and so he inherited a terrible problem. Both President Bush and President Obama wound up having to push a lot of money into the financial sector of the economy to solve our economic problems. This bill takes care of the rest of the economy, and I hope we get to it and support it when it comes before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 3293.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Tiahrt and every member of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for the work that they've put in in bringing this bill to the floor today. It's a controversial bill. I know we've had a lot of disagreements, but I think that the disagreement has not been disagreeable, and I appreciate that very much.

I want to thank Beverly Pheto, Rebecca Motley, Cheryl Smith, Susan Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Stephen Steigleder, Mike Gentilly, Amy Battaglia, Albert Lee, Christina Hamilton, and Ellis Brachman; and on the minority side, Steve Crane, Stephanie Meyers and AmyClaire Brusch for all of the staff work that has been put into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this country has pushed a lot of money, government money, taxpayers' money, into the financial sector of the economy and Wall Street the last few months in order to try to stabilize the economy. This is the bill that tries to deal with the problems of everybody else in this society.

I urge its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24JY09.025

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado and yield to Mr. Polis.

I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.

I thank both gentlemen for your efforts on this issue. The committee will work with the gentlemen, the Department of Labor, and OMB, to ensure that this program continues to help deserving beneficiaries, and that the Ombudsman's Office continues to have the resources it needs to properly fulfill its oversight duties.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for the remainder of the time.

Mr. Chairman, before I get into the specifics of the bill, I would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to some of the criticisms that have been made about the process by which this bill has come to the floor.

Much has been made of the fact that this bill did not come to the floor under an open rule. There is nothing really new about that. On at least 25 occasions during the Republican control of this House, appropriation bills came to the floor without being under an open rule. But I want to specifically address the so-called ``outrage'' that has occurred by our supposedly denying Republican amendments the right to get a vote.

Here are the facts: Republican Members of the House offered 14 amendments. They filed 14 amendments with the Rules Committee. Four of those amendments were not in order under the rules. A point of order could have been lodged against all of them, so they were out. Three more were on subjects that belong in the health care debate or the health care reform debate, which is now working its way through the Congress.

I think what happened is that some Members on the other side of the aisle mistook me for Henry Waxman and thought we were in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Now, I don't think I look like him. I don't think Henry would want to look like me. But somehow there is confusion.

So our Republican friends have brought a number of amendments, three of them, to this bill on subjects such as forbidding us from having a public option in the health care reform bill. That's not under the jurisdiction of this committee. All that would do is add to the confusion. So those amendments were rejected by the Rules Committee.

Then our Republican friends offered another amendment which dealt with the issue of indirect student loans, whether that program should expire or not. That is an issue which was decided by the Education and Labor Committee earlier this week. It is an authorization. It's not an appropriation issue. So it's decided on that bill.

So that takes us from the Republicans' 14 initial amendments down to five amendments. We made in order four of those five amendments. The one amendment that we did not make in order that was remaining was an amendment that would have added a billion dollars to a program that we already added $12 billion to earlier this year in the recovery package. We put $12 billion in increases into special education. In the 12 years that the Republicans controlled this place, in total they only added $8.5 billion to that program. So we poured money into that program. And given the competition on the part of all other programs for taxpayers' money, I think the Rules Committee justifiably felt that that amendment was a little outlandish, so we didn't vote on it.

Now, if people want to make a Federal case out of that history, be my guest.

The second thing we've heard today is considerable bashing--in addition to bashing of the majority party of the House, we've heard considerable bashing of President Obama. In terms of the bashing of the majority, we were told a bit earlier by one of the speakers over there that we had been partisan in the full committee and had rejected every Republican amendment. That's nonsense. We accepted 57 Republican amendments on all of the appropriation bills that went through the committee this year. I hardly think that that is being partisan.

I would also point out that the bailout, which has been so roundly denounced by several speakers today, that bailout was originally proposed and asked for by President Bush. It was voted down the first time in this House. It was voted up the second time after credit markets further collapsed. And both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, in an act of patriotism, rose above their partisan and electoral interests and supported Bush on that issue even though it was unpopular.

Enough said on that score.

I would also say that for those who are screaming about the President's economic recovery efforts, the President has been in office a very few short months. The Recovery Act passed less than 5 months ago. It is designed to be a 30-month program to try to limit to some degree the job loss in this economy. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month in the last 3 months of the Bush administration. We've now seen that job loss decline to about 400,000 jobs a month. That's not good enough in anybody's eyes, but it is a whole lot better than was happening last year. And it's going to take, frankly, a long time to repair the damage done by 8 years of previous government policy.

So I would prefer to set those issues aside. I don't think it's particularly productive to engage in partisan bashing.

I should correct one statement that I made. I said that we accepted 57 amendments in committee. We accepted 57 amendments in committee and on the floor. Let me correct that statement.

Having gotten rid of all of that underbrush, I would like to now turn to what is in this bill and why I believe the House ought to support it.

As I said earlier, this government, both under President Bush and under President Obama, has pumped a lot of money into what I would call the elite sectors of the economy: the financial sectors of the economy, the banking system, et cetera, and Wall Street. And now this bill is the main appropriation bill that deals with the economic problems and the health problems of every other American, and I want to walk

you through just a bit what this bill does.

First of all, I think we need to understand this bill is fiscally responsible. The committee's allocation cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and in this bill, we have a $52 million reduction from President Obama's request. We have eliminated or cut some 44 programs, saving $1.3 billion.

And I would point out that the largest single problematic increase in the bill is a $993 million increase for the Social Security Administration to dramatically cut back the backlog on disability claims facing that agency. And I think no one would argue those funds are wasteful.

After we account for that increase for Social Security, that leaves us with a 1.7 percent increase for the rest of the bill. After you deduct for inflation, it means this bill, in real terms, is three- tenths of 1 percent above last year. That is hardly profligate.

In addition, a priority for this bill is $1.1 billion which we include for activities to reduce improper payments, fraud, and abuse in the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services and in the Social Security Administration. That is a 50 percent increase in enforcement money to go after fraud and waste and abuse over the previous year. It's been estimated by the budget office that that action could result in over $48 billion in savings and increased revenue for picking up legitimate revenues that would have otherwise been lost.

With respect to the Department of Health and Human Services, this bill increases that agency by about 3.3 percent. Again, hardly a profligate increase.

Now, we're all talking about our desire to pass health care reform. We recognize in the committee that if we're going to do that, we have to increase the capacity in the health care system, and so we are appropriating nearly $3 billion to do just that. We're providing $2.2 billion for community health centers; $530 billion to expand training programs in the nursing field; $135 million for a career pathway innovation fund to again train nurses, medical technicians, and others in the health care industry; $75 million additional funding for State health access grants to help States transition to a health reform program; and $65 billion for State high-risk insurance pools. We've also increased the National Institutes of Health funding by $500 million.

I've said many times on this House floor, when I go home, I've never had anybody in my life come up to me and say, ``Hey, Obey, why don't you in Washington get your act together and cut cancer research?'' and yet that is what the previous President and the previous Congress did. They eliminated over 900 medical research grants at the National Institutes of Health. We don't to that. We add a significant amount of money to try to beef up our medical research across the board.

We also added some $200 million for an initiative begun by former Treasury Secretary O'Neill in Pennsylvania to try to get hospitals to bring under control their life-threatening hospital infection problem which is plaguing the entire country.

With respect to senior nutrition and other services, we provided $1.5 billion. We have rejected the administration's efforts to cut $1.5 billion out of basic grants for Title 1. We've restored that funding.

We have provided a large increase, $446 million, for the administration's top priority, which is the Teacher Incentive Fund, and $500 million for Pell Grants.

The Department of Labor, more than half of the increase in that department is simply to help States to process unemployment compensation claims. We also have a $271 million program in this bill to strengthen our ability to help veterans transition to civilian workforce employment.

And I think, Mr. Chairman, that's about all I want to say about the numbers in the bill.

I just want to add one thing. With respect to the policy provisions in this bill, we have retained every single limitation that was contained in previous appropriation bills when our Republican friends were in the majority. We have retained every single restriction on abortion that was in bills when they controlled the House, and so I think we have leaned over backwards to try to work with our friends in the minority.

And as I say, I appreciate the relationship that I have with the gentleman from Kansas. He's a fine and good man. We don't agree on everything, but as Will Rogers once said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

So we do the best we can to reconcile our differences. We all have deeply held beliefs, but I think this bill represents the values of the country and, I hope, the values of this Congress.

I would urge support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have a manager's amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I believe, is not controversial. It incorporates several amendments requested by Members and makes technical corrections to the underlying bill. These adjustments are fully offset and do not change the bottom-line funding for the bill.

Briefly, the amendment provides an additional $5 million for the Career Pathways Innovation Fund within the Department of Labor requested by Mr. Teague, offset by a reduction in the green jobs fund

It contains an additional million dollars for the emergency medical services for children's programs. As a result, the total of $21 million is included in the bill to bring improved emergency medical care to children due to Mr. Matheson's work on this issue

It contains an additional $1 million for the National Center for Health Statistics within the Centers for Disease Control, fully offset. As a result, the bill includes $140 million for the collection of critical health statistics. Mr. Cohen sponsored this important amendment.

Mathematics and Science Partnership program is increased by $5 million to $184 million to expand professional development for math and science teachers. Again, it is fully offset. It was urged by Mr. Holt and Mr. Ehlers and others.

The amendment provides nearly $7 million for the Reach Out and Read program within the fund for improvement of education in the Department of Education. It will result in an additional $2 million for books to help children learn to read due to the efforts of Mr. McGovern.

The amendment increases the amount from $20 million to $30 million within the charter schools program in the Department of Education that may be used for grants to charter management organizations. It replicates successful charter models at the request of Mr. Polis.

The amendment provides $1 million for university-based modeling and simulation programs newly authorized by the Higher Education Act proposed by Mr. Scott.

It then includes two funding limitation amendments sponsored by Mr. Cuellar with respect to the Federal management program designation and a prohibition on the use of funds in the bill for any first class travel in the agencies funded under this bill.

And the amendment also makes technical correction.

I would be happy to yield briefly to Mr. Cohen.

I would be happy to yield to Mr. Teague.

I thank the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I ask how much time I have remaining.

Let me consume 1 minute of that time myself.

Mr. Chairman, all I would say is that I've had at least two Members of the Republican side of the aisle come up and thank me for accepting various amendments. So while they may not have been the lead sponsors on amendments, they were certainly involved on the Republican side of the aisle in supporting some of the amendments that we have accepted and incorporated.

Secondly, I think the gentleman's recitation of some of the amendments that were not considered illustrates my point earlier. The first amendment that he mentioned was an amendment that was clearly not in order under the Budget Act. It would have put this entire bill under a violation of the Budget Act for being over our allowable funding. I didn't think good conservatives would want us to do that.

Secondly, I would point out that the second, third and fourth option he was talking about all speak to what kind of health care reform we should have, and that is not the jurisdiction of this committee. Those issues right now are being worked on in the Energy and Commerce Committee; they're being worked on in the Education and Labor Committee; they're being worked on in the Ways and Means Committee. And that's where they should remain.

Having said that, I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition.

I would ask the gentleman if he can proceed with another speaker until my speaker gets here.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the underlying language in this bill is, in fact, a compromise. It lifts the ban, but it does not permit Federal funds to be used for needle exchange programs that occur within 1,000 feet of a day care center, school, college or university, any public swimming pool, park,

playground, video arcade, or youth center or any events sponsored by any such entity.

There is overwhelming evidence that syringe exchange programs when implemented as part of a comprehensive prevention strategy are an effective public health intervention for reducing HIV/AIDS and hepatitis and do not promote drug use.

Now let me be clear. I detest illegal drug use. I think it constitutes a national security threat. It ruins lives. It causes crime. It gets us into wars against drugs in Colombia and Mexico; and in fact, it gets us into another war in Afghanistan because of poppy production. So I hate illegal drugs. But even more, I hate the spread of AIDS. There's overwhelming evidence that we can help stop the spread of AIDS by allowing needle exchange programs. They are endorsed by leading public health organizations, such as the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association. They are endorsed by people such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Nation's leading fighter against AIDS; Thomas Frieden; former NIH Director Harold Varmus; former Surgeons General C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served under Republican and Democratic administrations. They are endorsed by people such as Captain Andrew Smith from the Los Angeles Police Department; Atlantic City Deputy Chief of Police Robert Schwartz; and San Francisco Chief of Police Frederick Lau.

Let me make one other point. Every Member of Congress has access to decent primary health care; but we are going to put at risk a substantial number of people if we do not support this underlying committee amendment. I want to say something personal. If we lose this amendment, it is not going to be because a lot of people on this House floor really believe that this ban makes sense. It will be because many Members are concerned and fear a cheap-shot political 30-second ad that distorts their position, spreads half-truths and scares people. I understand that concern.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

But for the good of the country, we are being paid to ignore that kind of pressure and simply do the right thing for the country. I ask every Member of the House to do the right thing because if you do, it will save lives. I ask them to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Let me simply say that I'm perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time, unless the gentleman is prepared to close.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just one; me.

No. I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Title X is America's family planning program. It provides comprehensive family planning services and a wide variety of other preventive care, including breast exams and instruction on breast self-examination, Pap tests, screening and appropriate treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV screening, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This amendment gratuitously blocks Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving Title X funding. Those clinics provide important health care access to low-income uninsured patients, 5 million women in 4,500 clinics nationwide. The breast cancer screenings and the well-mother exams they receive may be the only health care they get all year.

If Planned Parenthood clinics are forced to close, these women may have to forgo critical care because they will lack a single provider providing Title X family planning funding, and this amendment would only make matters worse.

Now, if this amendment is intended to stop abortions, it has no impact whatsoever. Title X statutes forbid the use of funding for abortions, and this bill appropriates no funds whatsoever for abortions. Our bill includes the traditional Hyde language, prohibiting funds in the act from being used to support abortions. And it reads, in part: `` Projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for any activity, including publication or distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidates for public office''. And I repeat again, no funds flow for abortions, none whatsoever.

Planned Parenthood plays a central role in expanding access to care under Title X. Planned Parenthood is the Nation's leading reproductive health care provider. For over 90 years, Planned Parenthood has provided low-income uninsured women with the vital reproductive health care services they need.

I want to make one other point. Every Member of Congress has access to decent primary care. The Pence amendment would cut millions of American women off from their source of primary care. If Members want to do that, go ahead and vote that way. Not me. Not me and not any Member of the House, I believe, who understands the true needs of American women.

I yield back the balance of my time. I urge opposition to the amendment.

I claim the time in opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill. Let me point out a few facts. First of all, as I said earlier, the Appropriations Committee allocation has already cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and this bill cuts $52 million from that same request.

This bill, on a comparable basis, is 3.6 percent above the 2009 limit. That is hardly runaway spending. Furthermore, when you look at program lines, you will see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. The bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. The largest single program increase is for the Social Security Administration, effectively one fourth of the bill's entire increase for 2009.

With dramatically rising retirement and disability claims facing the agency, nobody would argue that those funds are wasteful. After accounting for the SSA increase, this bill is 1.7 percent above for the rest of the bill, meaning, in real dollar terms, after inflation, it is an increase of .3 percent. That is hardly being spendthrift.

If this amendment is adopted, I would point out two problems. First of all, it makes no real spending decisions. It leaves all of that in the hands of the President of the United States. It allows the President to determine this funding level for every single account in this bill. I don't think this Congress should be a rubber stamp for any President.

And, then, I think we ought to look at what the implications are for programs in this bill. Applied to the National Institutes of Health, this cut would wipe out more than 900 new research grants and eliminate inflation adjustments for 36,000 new and existing research grants undermining efforts to treat cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes and

other deadly diseases. Applied to community health centers, nearly 1.3 million people could see their health care services reduced or eliminated. Applied to special education, IDEA funding would be cut by 7 percent below the 2009 level. Applied to Pell Grants, 7.6 million students could see their grants reduced and the maximum Pell award cut by approximately $135.

Applied to LIHEAP, it would reduce the number of households served by over 900,000. Applied to senior nutrition, it would eliminate nearly 240 million meals to 2.5 million vulnerable Americans. Applied to Head Start, over 50,000 low-income children would be denied comprehensive early childhood development services. Applied to the Child Care Block Grant, child care services for over 270,000 low-income families would be eliminated. And applied to the Job Corps, it would deliver a more than 50 percent cut to Job Corps centers.

With all due respect, I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle needs to hear a lecture about deficits. I have opposed the Bush policies, both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge amount of debt and which led to the collapse of the economy. I don't think we need more of that kind of medicine.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I make a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions because it includes legislation and is not in order under clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call the original holy picture amendment. Sometimes we see legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. That's not the way 435 people can come to a constructive conclusion. The fact is that this is a recovery or trailer amendment left over from the stimulus bill of a few months ago.

Just a few months ago, we had a stimulus bill on the House floor which increased special education by $12 billion. In the 12 years the Republicans were in control of this House, they increased special education by a total of $8.5 billion. We increased it by $12 billion in 1 year, and not a single Member on that side of the aisle voted for it.

And now, they're belatedly trying to recover politically by cutting a laundry list of other programs in order to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund Special Education.

I want to point out that this amendment would cut $100 million from the School Improvement account. That could endanger 100,000 kids who, right now, have after-school learning programs. It cuts $148 million from the Innovation and Improvement account, Reach Out and Read, Teach for America, Full Service Community Schools, and Reading is Fundamental.

It eliminates $88 million in smaller learning communities. We've learned from research that a lot of high schools need to be downsized. This cripples the program and would prevent 500,000 high school students from benefiting from that program.

It cuts almost $170 million from the Community Service and Volunteer Program, including AmeriCorps and Summers of Service--summer jobs. It would also put at risk an effort to bolster the participation of disabled Americans in community service. It would cut the Foster Grandparents and Senior Companion program as well.

It would eliminate $300 million from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. If the H1N1 virus has taught us anything, it's that we have to attack these disease problems on a worldwide basis.

I think the amendment speaks for itself. I don't think we want to play ``fruit basket upset'' just so that somebody can get better on a rollcall. I would urge defeat of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, the project under discussion is a transportation project, and this is a transportation bill. Until 10 years ago, my State, Wisconsin, was a donor State to highway trust funds, at one time getting just a 70-cents-on-the-dollar return on our Federal gas taxes. As a delegation, we

fought like the devil for over 30 years to turn that around. We finally have. Despite that fact and the changes we've been able to make, Wisconsin, along with other Great Lakes States, still rank way down the list--45th, 46th, 47th on its per capita return on Federal dollars.

In contrast, the gentleman's State, Arizona, does much better. Compared to Arizona, for example, Wisconsin receives about $759 less from the Federal Government per capita. Arizona does very well, for instance, in Federal procurement dollars, getting about $866 per capita more than Wisconsin. In grant programs, such as highway funds, Arizona gets about $130 per capita more from the Federal Government than does Wisconsin.

When I came to Congress, Wisconsin had 10 Members in the House. Arizona, I believe, had 3. Arizona has had a huge growth in population during the subsequent 40 years, and it has been financed, in very large part, by Federal dollars. I don't remember how much the Central Arizona Project cost, but it was billions. I think what the gentleman is suggesting is, now that Arizona has got his, that he begrudges somebody else trying to get pennies by comparison.

Let me point out that, in this bill, Arizona gets $13 million in earmark funds. He says that Wausau, the community where this highway is being repaired, is not on the interstate. Well, why on Earth should we confine Federal responsibility only to communities lucky enough to be on interstate roads? Why should we tell small rural towns, ``Sorry. Go off in the corner. You don't have a right to participate in Federal support''?

With respect to this particular project, we are trying to help the community of Rib Mountain, part of the Wausau metropolitan area. We are trying to fix some problems on that heavily traveled and congested commercial corridor by adding turn lanes and a median traffic signal. On July 4, two 15-year-old girls were hospitalized by an accident in the very location where this road is to be modernized. I make no apology whatsoever for trying to improve that situation.

I would also point out, if you want to talk about me, the unemployment level right now in the Wausau area is well over 12 percent. The last time I checked, the unemployment level in Mesa was 7.3 percent.

The gentleman from Utah also was commenting on the previous earmark, complaining about that fund. The unemployment level in Utah is 5.9 percent, less than half of what it is in my community. I don't see why I should apologize for trying to get a few items for my district.

I would also note one other thing. If you want to talk about earmarks, as the gentleman knows, they make up less than 1 percent of the discretionary part of the Federal budget. I've never seen a Congress change any President's budget by more than 3 percent. That 3 percent difference in congressional decisions versus Presidential decisions is the difference between having a President and having a King. I make no apology whatsoever for the Congress' trying to occasionally exercise its responsibilities in terms of the power of the purse.

I would also point out one other thing. If you take a look at the real cause of the deficit, the gentleman goes after these very small projects, and then suggests that they have a major impact on the deficit. I don't know where the gentleman was when the previous administration was turning $6 trillion in projected surpluses into a $1 trillion deficit. I don't know where the gentleman was when the administration was spending $1 trillion on a misguided war in Iraq. Those are the items that raise the cost of government. Those are the items that add to the deficit. Those are the items that significantly add to the debt. I make no apology for this project in that context.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I simply think that we are entitled to ask one question: Why on Earth, if we're supposed to take this motion seriously, were we required to listen through the reading of a 55-page amendment, witness it being withdrawn, and then have them introduce an amendment which is virtually the same in an identical form?

I think George will dispute that fact.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a key part of efforts to restore the stability of, and public confidence in, America's financial institutions. For example, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, this bill strengthens its ability to enforce rules that govern investments and financial markets and detect and prosecute fraudulent schemes. Under the Federal Trade Commission allocation, it strengthens the FTC's capacity to protect consumers and combat anticompetitive behavior and prosecute unfair and deceptive practices in areas such as foreclosure and credit repair services.

With respect to the Treasury Inspector General, it provides $30 million to help the Inspector General perform mandated reviews in cases where bank failures or other circumstances caused losses for the deposit insurance fund. It also provides a substantial amount of funding, $387 million more than 2009, to target wealthy individuals and businesses who avoid U.S. taxes by parking money in overseas tax havens.

I think those are four good reasons to vote for the bill.

I also want to speak just for a moment to the LaTourette amendment. That amendment simply is an effort to try to find a way to give auto dealers across the country an opportunity to have a decent review process, a decent appeals process, given the fact that GM and Chrysler have set up their own arbitrary process to shut them down.

I would point out the majority of Members of this House are sponsors of similar legislation, and I would also suggest this. This Congress has provided $60 billion in funding to the auto industry. I think to suggest that somehow they have been abused because the Congress is trying to provide some efforts to help local auto dealers get a better understanding of what is happening to them is, in my view, off the point.

In addition to the $60 billion we provided those auto companies, we've also provided increased Federal purchases of automobiles to try to get rid of their backlog. We've provided the Cash for Clunkers provision which they wanted to see passed, and we provided $2 billion in research funding to help the auto industry develop new technology. I hardly think that they have been underprivileged in terms of their treatment by this Congress.

So I would simply say before people get too exercised about the LaTourette amendment, I don't think anybody expects that language to survive intact. What we do want is to see that language used as an opportunity to get the auto dealers and the auto companies to sit down and work out a better appeals process so that you don't have some significantly profitable auto dealers at the local level being unnecessarily put out of business. That means job losses in virtually every county in this district, and I don't think we have an obligation to support that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both Mr. Pastor and Mr. Frelinghuysen for an excellent bill. They are both first-rate legislators, and I think this bill is a very effective and reasonable response to the problems with which it deals. I think it's, most clearly, a bipartisan product as well, and I appreciate that.

I also appreciate the fact that this bill will continue providing significant assistance to Lake Superior communities who need help with sewer and water in order to be able to provide decent opportunities for economic growth in the future. Communities cannot grow without adequate infrastructure.

I also want to suggest that the nonproliferation efforts contained in this bill are important, indeed.

I would also note that when combined with the actions taken in the Recovery Act, this bill will begin the long process of trying to make up for the fact that for almost 30 years, this country has had no effective energy policy. That has to change, and this is part of the effort to change that.

I also appreciate the fact that, as is the case with previous bills approved by the committee, when this bill is finished on the floor, we will have accepted 24 Republican amendments to appropriation bills in the full committee. We will have accepted another 24 on the floor itself. I think that is testimony to the bipartisan approach taken by the subcommittees on bill after bill. I appreciate the cooperation of all of the Members and the hard work of the staff.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I would like to respond to the fiction that I just heard from the previous speaker. The previous speaker indicated that never in the history of the Congress have we had structured rules for appropriation bills. I would like to suggest that he ought to read a little history.

We have 12 appropriations bills we have to bring to the floor each year. He will find that during the Republican control of this House, at least 6 of the 12 bills were brought to this floor under structured rules. He will find that almost 20 times that is the case.

No, I would not. I have 5 minutes. You attacked me. I will respond without interruption. I would ask the Chair to prevent further interruptions.

The fact is that I would like to ask the House a question: Why is it that some Members of this House believe that the Appropriations Committee must bring bills to the floor that are totally open when the Ways and Means Committee, when it brings tax bills to the floor, is entitled to have a totally closed rule?

Now, there is no inherent difference between the two, but there is one historical difference, and that is that the Ways and Means Committee used to be the committee that handed out committee assignments to Members of the House. And so the message went out: ``Don't mess with the Ways and Means Committee because they determine your career path in this institution.''

There is no great historical or moral or substantive reason to have that differentiation. It is simply a question of power relationships in the House that determined that.

I would also like to point out the Appropriations Committee has the right to bring to the floor its appropriation bills without ever going to the Rules Committee, and in fact we have had subcommittee Chairs who have done that. The advantage to the Appropriations Committee in doing that is that when the bills come to the floor without going to the Rules Committee, what happens is that any legislation on an appropriation bill--which under the House Rules is off limits--any legislation will be stricken on a point of order.

I remember when Neal Smith used to bring his bill to the floor, and within about 20 minutes the bill was shredded. There were a few paragraphs left in the bill. It took about an hour to finish the bill and then Neal could go off and have a conference with the Senate and do anything he wanted to do because there were no limitations.

So it has been an advantage to individual House Members for the Appropriations Committee to go to the Rules Committee, whether or not there's a totally open rule or whether there's a structured rule, because at least then individual Members have some capacity to influence the results.

Now, we have made quite clear to the minority side we would like to proceed in as open a fashion as possible. Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, and I went to the Republican leadership weeks and weeks ago and asked them if there was some way that we could work out time agreements so that we can finish these 12 bills before we go home for the August recess.

The minority says they want us to do all of these bills individually. Not wrap them up in a CR. But then they proceeded to demand a procedure which will, in the end, result in bills going into a CR.

And so we asked the minority leadership, ``Will you agree to time limits?'' And the response was, ``Well, if we did that, our caucus would elect somebody else.''

No, I will not yield. We asked the leadership, ``Would you be willing to go by a process in which we'll give you the opportunity to offer 10 or 15 amendments, the majority party will offer 5 or 6? You pick the amendments.'' And they said, ``No.'' They didn't want to do that.

There are a limited number of hours between now and the time we recess. If we want to get our work done, we have to limit the debate time that we spend on these bills.

So there is nothing radically new about this. We're simply trying to get the job done. And we're going to do that if it takes all summer.

Let me simply say to the gentleman, I don't see any need to continue chewing this cud over and over and over again. We've made our points.

I didn't ask for the time. You offered it to me and I'm accepting it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I simply have one question for the gentleman from Tennessee. Are you really sure you want us to meet with the Senate?

Does that mean you're running away from the Senate?

Madam Chair, let me simply congratulate both the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Texas for the fine work they have done on this bill. I think every Member of the House can be proud of what has happened in terms of our delivering of benefits to veterans on the health care front and on the education front.

Over the past 3 years or so, we have had very significant increases in veterans health benefits. We also last year passed a landmark, an historic, expansion of the GI Bill education benefits by passage of the Webb amendment. In the supplemental appropriation bill this year, we enhanced the ability of spouses and children of veterans to receive transfer benefits to allow them to use the education benefits that would otherwise have accrued to a veteran. There had been a hole in the law which did not include the children of veterans who had died, and that has been corrected, and now this bill goes a whole lot more down the road in dealing with their needs.

When we go into wars, we have an obligation to provide all the support that's necessary to the warriors during and after the wars, and that's in part what this bill tries to do. And I congratulate both gentlemen for the work they have done and urge support for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I agree with every word uttered by the gentleman and rise also in support of the amendment.

The way the system works is that the administration asks the Congress for money. Many times that is not a popular request. Sometimes the only way that the votes can be found to provide the money the administration wants is to provide certain limitations on the use of that money. For any administration to say, Well, we will accept the money, but ignore the limitations is to greatly increase the likelihood that they will not get the money. That is not in the interest of the administration, and it certainly does not respect the rightful traditions and prerogatives of the Congress. And so I very much am in agreement with the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas for offering the amendment and the gentleman from Illinois for offering it in her stead.