Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to applicable previous orders of the House, each amendment otherwise debatable for 10 minutes instead be debatable for 6 minutes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to congratulate the gentleman. This amendment is well-deserved, and it's exactly the right thing to do. I appreciate the gentleman taking up the fight to save the jobs in Appalachia--in Virginia and Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, and the other States where coal is mined. This administration declared war on coal when they took office and they're trying to carry it out. I appreciate the gentleman carrying the fight.

I appreciate the gentleman's kindness.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the gentleman from West Virginia for offering this amendment. This retroactive veto of the Spruce mine is the poster child for EPA's regulatory overreach, but there are thousands more permits like this throughout Appalachia that the EPA could put on notice. But coal is not the only industry relying on these 404 permits.

I move to strike the last word.

The EPA's action at Spruce will have severe implications for the agriculture, construction, and transportation sectors because it sets a dangerous precedent that EPA can revoke any permit at any time for any reason, or for no reason.

Mr. Chairman, we need these jobs. And our job-creating industries need regulatory certainty, not more of the same regulatory roulette from the EPA. The gentleman from West Virginia's amendment would inject some certainty into the regulatory environment by stripping the EPA of its authority to retroactively veto existing permits at their whim, with no appeal.

We in Congress need to keep our hand on the reins of this EPA, which is running roughshod over small businesses, family farms, even the constitutional authority of this Congress. I want to thank again the gentleman from West Virginia for offering this amendment, and I hope that we can have the support of all Members of this body.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

Mr. Chairman, let us work. Give us the jobs. Give us the jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Will the gentleman yield?

We bent over backwards to accommodate the gentleman, but this has gone beyond what we agreed to.

Would the gentleman yield this gentleman, Mr. Burgess, 1 minute?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It really is a substitute amendment, and it's an across-the-board cut. This body has spent many late nights all this week debating a yearlong CR which makes targeted spending decisions and weighs the pros and cons of each and every program in the Federal Government, and I think the House has done itself proud this week in that work.

Under an open process, each Member has had the ability to weigh in and make their imprints on the bill through the consideration of literally hundreds of amendments--the embodiment of the democratic ideal. Adoption of this substitute proposal, however, would wipe out everything we've done this whole week. Every amendment adopted would be gone. Every calculated decision would be forgotten. Rather, the amendment would replace our hard-fought spending decisions by taking the easy way out, by making no real decisions at all, by punting the ball to OMB and the bureaucrats instead of making the decisions our electorate elected us to make.

The across-the-board nature of the amendment's cuts provides no opportunity for discretion. It punishes or rewards without regard to merit. For example, under this amendment, the FBI's operations would be cut by $1.5 billion. A reduction of that magnitude would result in the layoff of thousands of agents, undermining our ability to prevent terrorist attacks and to investigate the most serious Federal crimes.

The amendment fails to include the $33 billion in DOD emergency funding for troops overseas, which was passed separately last year. The Department of Homeland Security would be cut an additional $1 billion below H.R. 1, forcing the reduction of Border Patrol agents, ICE agents and active duty Coast Guard personnel.

While activities important to our national security would be unduly cut, other wasteful programs, as well as programs that put a regulatory stranglehold on our economy, are rewarded simply because they exist:

The Census Bureau would continue to receive funding at the decennial FY10 level even though its needs are significantly reduced in FY11, giving the Census Bureau a $4.5 billion slush fund and no reason for having it.

While H.R. 1 cuts $3 billion from the EPA and specifically targets that agency's climate change program funds, this amendment would provide the EPA with ample funding to continue in their anti-business regulatory regime.

While some may feel that proportionately distributing cuts will proportionately distribute the sacrifices, they couldn't be more wrong. Instead, the amendment writes a check, and let's the administration fund their priorities while the Congress sits on the sidelines, leaving the American people saddled with the results.

Congress has a responsibility to make tough choices and to provide the oversight of each department and of each program through the power of the purse. The amendment before us abdicates that responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Madam Speaker, it is time to vote.

I withdraw my reservation.

Let me associate myself with the remarks of my friend in thanking John Blazey for his long tenure and service here in this great body.

Best wishes for the future.

To all the rest of you, I think you've done yourselves proud this week. I think the House distinguished itself, and I thank you, especially this terrific staff that made all of this happen.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Reclaiming my time, when we first stood up TSA, I chaired that subcommittee. We put a limit on the number of employees that TSA could have.

They first wanted, I think it was, 30,000 people. We said no. Then they went up to 35,000; then they went to 40,000; then they went to 43,000. I said time out. So we put a limit of 44,000 on the number of TSA employees that were allowed. That cap stayed in place until 2006, which is when the other party gained control of this body. The cap came off.

Mr. Mica, I don't know the total number. I think it's in the 60s.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

We've heard your statement. We're up to 62,000 now and it's way too much.

Let me ask the chairman: Is there a cap now reinstated in this bill for TSA employees?

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

They can't go above 46,000?

There are 62,000.

So there will be some reductions; am I correct?

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Mica and Chairman Aderholt, who are working together to rein in this organization, which has almost gone beyond belief, so that we can get some discipline and some savings in this organization.

I don't know about you, but at the airports I go through, there are way too many TSA employees just standing around, making conversation with each other. That's okay, but we are overstaffed at TSA. This bill gets us back to being within some degree of reason.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding, and thank him for the great work he's doing chairing this subcommittee in the House.

As Chairman Alderholt has said, SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local communities, a hand up, not a handout.

SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is unquestionably a municipal local responsibility.

The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain funds. However, the Democrats waived many of these requirements in fiscal 2009 and then again in 2010.

When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, then Chairman Price, my friend, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short- term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of fiscal 2010. Yet, here we are today, debating the continuation of a subsidy that our country simply cannot afford.

Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits, no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of local first responders, taking over, in essence, the funding of the local firemen.

Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as the fire marshal for every city and town across the country.

I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding. And I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Reserving the right to object, we have tons and tons of amendments to go, ladies and gentlemen. I hope we can expeditiously move.

I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.

Will the gentleman yield briefly?

To the czars, I say, ``Nyet.''

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Reserving the right to object, we had an agreement. I thought that this would end the debate, and I would hope that that agreement could be agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, we have had I think a very elevated week of debate about the entire government. This is one of those very rare occasions when the Congress, for a single span of time, debates practically every element in the Federal budget. That is a very, very rare occurrence, and I think we have had a very elevated debate on both sides of the aisle. I want to commend all of the Members, Republicans and Democrats, for a good debate on a whole host of issues.

We are making progress, but we have a ways yet to go. I want to thank Mr. Dicks, the ranking member of this committee, for being very, very, very helpful in moving this process along.

And I have to pause, Mr. Speaker, and remind us all of how important staff is to what we do. This staff has been fantastic. We have been working with Mr. Dicks and leadership on both sides to try to find a way to make the debate concise and reasonable in time. We have reached an agreement that we want to propound to the body now which we think is fair and will give everyone an opportunity to make their presentations in due course of time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 92, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for the purpose of debate; amendments 8, 13, 19, 23, 38, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 94, 99, 101, 109, 117, 120, 126, 127, 137, 141, 144, 145, 146, 149, 151, 154, 159, 164, 166, 172, 174, 177, 185, 199, 200, 207, 216, 217, 233, 241, 246, 251, 255, 261, 263, 266, 267, 268, 274, 280, 281, 296, 323, 329, 330, 331, 333, 336, 342, 344, 345, 348, 367, 369, 377, 392, 396, 400, 401, 405, 408, 409, 414, 424, 429, 430, 439, 445, 448, 463, 464, 465, 467, 471, 480, 482, 483, 495, 496, 497, 498, 504, 507, 515, 519, 524, 525, 526, 533, 534, 536, 543, 548, 552, 560, 563, 566, 567, 569, 570, 577, 578, and 583; amendments 27, 278, 466, and 545, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; amendments 104 and 540, each of which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; amendment 273, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; and amendment 575, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes; and that each such printed amendment: (1) may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record, or a designee; (2) shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and (3) shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; and that except as otherwise specified in this order, each printed amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, and all specified periods of debate shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Now that we do have the UC in place, we intend

to take up five amendments this evening, or this morning. There will not be recorded votes this evening. So Members that wish to would be able to leave, but we will debate five of the amendments under the UC and roll the votes until tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to add briefly my thanks especially, along with Mr. Dicks, our thanks to Jennifer Miller on our side and David Pomerantz on the other side who are the ones who crafted this UC very diligently and very accurately, and we want to thank them especially for their work.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 attempts to save the American taxpayer on a number of fronts.

First, we cut $100 billion from regular government spending. Second, we went a step further for the taxpayer by rescinding the remaining balances of the failed stimulus bill, about $5 billion if we act now. We need to act now to stop any more funds from being spent. The longer we wait, the longer we let the administration shop around with the taxpayers' hard-earned money.

Further, we were told that the stimulus bill was the lightning bolt that would put America back to work right away. If these funds haven't been already obligated, when are the people going back to work? Where is the instant impact? Where are the jobs? Unemployment is still over 9 percent in many areas of the country and upwards of 15 percent in other sections. If the funds have not been obligated by now, they probably weren't meant to be in the stimulus package.

Let's save the taxpayers $5 billion today and rescind these funds now. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1 and insert extraneous material thereon.

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

The continuing resolution on the floor today represents the largest reduction in non-security discretionary spending in the history of the Nation. It funds the Federal Government for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, but, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it answers taxpayers' callings to right our Nation's fiscal ship, making specific, substantive and comprehensive spending reductions, cutting more than $100 billion, compared with the President's fiscal 2011 budget request.

This CR reverses a trend of out-of-control Democrat spending over the last 2 years that has increased overall discretionary funding, including stimulus, by 84 percent in 2 years. Never before has Congress undertaken a task of this magnitude, but never before have we been faced with a deficit crisis of this scale. The government is borrowing over 40 cents of every dollar that it spends.

Our constituents sent us a clear, decisive message in the last election. They want government to spend less, stop undue interference in American lives and businesses, and take action to create jobs and get our economy moving again. Through the Republican Pledge to America, we made the commitment to do just that, and today we offer the first step in fulfilling these promises by presenting a spending package to the American people that makes deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of the government.

This bill is about shared commitments and shared sacrifice. Make no mistake: These cuts will not be easy, and they will affect every congressional district. But they are necessary and long overdue. Although we recognize that every dollar we cut has a constituency of support, an association, an industry, individual citizens who will disagree with our decision, these cuts are the necessary difficult work by our subcommittees to make the smartest and fairest reductions possible.

No stones were left unturned, no programs were held sacred. The Appropriations Committee went line by line to craft a responsible, judicious CR, one that will allow our economy to thrive, our businesses to create jobs and our national security to be strengthened. Our subcommittees scoured the budget for wasteful activities and cleaned out excessive and unnecessary spending, while prioritizing the most essential and effective programs, including $460 million for accelerating the process through which veterans resolve their health care claims and an additional $13 million for increased oversight of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP.

The CR includes absolutely no earmark funding and eliminates all previous earmark funding from fiscal year 2010, saving taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion. Furthermore, it includes a provision to eliminate any unobligated stimulus funding approved in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, another $5 billion of taxpayer dollars saved.

As we help put our Nation's budget back into balance, we are finding real savings that are justifiable to the American people and that will stop the dangerous spiral of unsustainable and irresponsible deficits.

In addition, this CR is only the first of many appropriations bills this year that will significantly trim Federal spending. It is hard- and-fast proof that we are serious about returning our Nation to a sustainable financial and fiscal path.

However, so that we can continue the important work of reducing spending in our regular budgetary work for this year, the House, Senate, and White House must come together to complete this process before March 4, when our current funding measure expires. It is critically important that the House move this CR to avoid a government shutdown and get these spending cuts passed by the House, over to the Senate, and let them act their will to avoid a shutdown, and then get the bill to the President. The American people expect no less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Conference in the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the immediate past chairman of the committee, the now chairman emeritus of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Transportation and HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Alderholt).

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the chairman of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), former chairman of the Republican Conference in the House.

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

I yield 2 minutes to a new Member of Congress, a freshman and a new member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from a wonderful place in Arkansas called Rogers, Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a brand new Member of this body, Mr. Duffy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations.

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

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the gentleman wants to go back to a section which we have already covered?

Mr. Chairman, in order to move things along, we have to have rules, and I have to object.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your great service to our country over the time we have served together here. We are classmates from 1980. We were part of the Reagan crop.

Madam Speaker, this is the first step in the effort to reduce discretionary spending to fiscal 2008 levels or below and show the American people that we are serious about reducing the out-of-control government spending that is hampering our economic growth.

Now, the gentleman on the other side of the aisle complains that he does not see a number. Well, he had a chance last year, along with his colleagues in the majority then at that time, to pass a budget resolution with specific numbers in it, and refused. And they refused until they lost control of the House. The number will be coming in due course of time.

The message from the American people was crystal clear in the last election: they want government to spend less, stop undue interference in American lives and businesses, and take action to create jobs and get our economy moving once again.

To do this, we must dramatically cut the massive spending that has dominated discretionary budgets in past years. In order to put our economy on the fast track to recovery, we have to shorten the reach of Uncle Sam, cut up his credit cards, and allow Americans' businesses the opportunity to grow, employ people, and make the economy grow.

Starting with the continuing resolution, the CR, my committee will begin to make the largest series of spending cuts in history, Madam Speaker. Members and staff are working diligently on this as we speak, going line by line to find specific areas and programs to cut. We hope and expect this legislation will soon be brought to the floor in a fair, open and transparent manner, giving all Members from both sides of the aisle an opportunity for amendments.

Let there be no mistake: the cuts that are coming will not be easy to make. They will not represent low-hanging fruit. These cuts will go deep and wide and will hit virtually every agency and every congressional district in the country, including my own. Every dollar that we cut will have a constituency, an industry, an association, and individual citizens who will disagree. And every dollar that we don't cut will also be put into question.

But the fact remains that we are in a national fiscal crisis. We must get our budgets--both discretionary and mandatory--under control. To this end, my committee will put forward appropriations bills this year that will fulfill our pledge to cut spending to the pre-stimulus, pre- bailout levels of 2008. And this will be the beginning--not the end--of the effort.

I have issued instructions to all 12 of our subcommittees to conduct strenuous oversight, including investigations and hundreds of hearings to weed out duplicative, wasteful and unnecessary spending, and prioritize Federal programs so we can make the most out of every precious tax dollar.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that cutting spending will require toughness and resolve. This will not be easy, it will not be quick, and it won't be without pain, but the success of our economy and our future prosperity depend on it.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic time for this Congress, this House and my committee. I can say without a moment's hesitation that this day represents a crucial turning point for our Nation as this new Congress begins a path to fiscal sanity.

With this resolution today, Congress will begin immediately to reduce spending, starting here and now with our own office budgets and our committee budgets and the like.

To demonstrate my strong commitment to slashing spending, reducing our national deficit and getting our economy back on track, I have directed my own committee budget to be cut not by 5 percent, Mr. Speaker, but by 9 percent, nearly double the amount of reduction proposed for other House offices. What the Appropriations Committee is saying to all other committees is, we see your five; we raise you four. So we are cutting 9 percent.

This year, the Appropriations Committee will be ground zero for a wide range of reductions across the Federal Government; and by cutting our own budget first, Mr. Speaker, we are showing we are willing to lead by example.

This is a critical time for the Appropriations Committee, as we will carry out the most expansive reduction of discretionary spending in the history of this country. Under my watch, the Appropriations Committee will be an instrument of change, to enforce the will of the American people.

My Republican colleagues on the committee and I are ready to stand and fight for the American people and show that we are serious about our commitment to rein in government spending and control our exploding deficits. Yet it is important to remember that slashing spending to save taxpayer dollars and reducing the size of government is a means to an end. We must always keep our eyes on the ultimate goal--improving our economy, getting our people back to work and safeguarding the Nation's financial security for the future.

The one and only mandate that we received from the American people in November, in my judgment, was to put our economy and jobs first. This is why people came to the polls and voted for a change in this body, and this is the duty that we must fulfill.

To this end, it is clear that this Congress cannot let favored, yet troublesome, programs slip by or allow turf battles to cloud our shared interest in protecting the taxpayer. Our budget ax will swing wide and true, and no area of the Federal Government will be immune from our scrutiny and cuts. Sacred cows are, for all intents and purposes, extinct.

Mr. Speaker, we have a big job ahead of us. While this resolution is a small step forward, it is a giant leap to show, in a very personal and practical way, the commitment we have to reducing spending and getting our economy back on track. The first drawn blood is ours.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis, for yielding time.

It's been a real pleasure, and I mean that very sincerely, working under the leadership of Jerry Lewis on our side of the aisle, both as chairman and as ranking member of this committee for these last 6 years. He has been gracious in every way. He has lent his talent and his wisdom to us as we prepare to do business. And not the least, he has volunteered his terrific staff, led by Jeff Shockey, to help us in the transition. And I can't say enough to thank Jerry Lewis and all of the staff for all the great work that you have done for the country and continue to do. And we have got some heavy work cut out for you as well, and for the staff.

Madam Speaker, in my vocabulary, one of the most complimentary things I could say is a person is a difference maker. A difference maker sees circumstances that are not correct and applies wisdom and intelligence and perseverance and talent to change. And I can't think of a bigger difference maker--sometimes I thought in the wrong direction, but a difference maker--than David Obey. During my tenure here, coinciding with his, we have watched him over the years with that tenacity and innovation, sometimes blustery, sometimes entertaining, but always very efficient. And we will miss David Obey in this body.

This is the last chance that we will have, perhaps, to say good-bye and best wishes. But I think I speak for the entire body when we say to David Obey, Thank you for your service to America. Thank you for your leadership and your talent on this committee. And we wish you the very best in your future endeavors, especially during the next week as we all celebrate the birth of the Christ child.

And to Beverly and to Jeff and all of the staff on both sides of the aisle, the long hours that these people put in so that the rest of us can look good perhaps is not appreciated fully, and we need to continuously do that.

So to David Obey, bon voyage, best of luck to you. And thank you, Jerry, for the great service you are rendering your country.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding. He is a true gentleman. The long service that this man has contributed to the welfare of the Nation and to its defense, we can never repay Jerry Lewis for the great job he has done as chairman and ranking member of this committee.

Mr. Speaker, how can we explain this year's so-called budget process to the American people? Should I begin with the historic failure to enact a budget resolution? How about the despicable way special interest bailout funds were dumped on the backs of our troops during the war supplemental debate?

What about the Band-aid border security supplemental that was used for political cover just months before the President proposed cutting the Border Patrol? And who could forget the fact that this year marks the first year, the very first year, the House has failed to pass a Homeland Security appropriations bill, a failure that came in the midst of several serious terrorist attacks and disrupted plots?

Then there are the results: no discipline, no oversight, no bills. Instead, we have this monstrosity before us today, a measure that punts our fiscal and oversight responsibilities into a year-long CR that is laden with exceptions, gimmicks, and riders. And it is based upon a strategy of the Senate overriding this bill with a gigantic unaffordable omnibus bill that has never seen the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, that is not a budget process. That is a failure of epic proportions.

As we were resoundingly told just 5 weeks ago, the American taxpayers are demanding far better from the stewards of their precious, but limited, dollars. We need a whole new ball game; no more bucking tough decisions, no more failing to prioritize our security needs, no more letting failing programs slide, and no more enabling the overreach of Federal agencies. We need to go back to the tough job of oversight. We need to go back and usher in a new era of collaboration and transparency. And we need to do the hard work of cutting spending, right-sizing the government, and restoring the trust of the American people.

This CR marks the culmination of failure on all fronts: process, product and performance. I urge my returning colleagues to reject this legislation and prepare to go to work in the 112th Congress.