Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would guess there is nobody in the House that has more rural territory than this Member, and the program that my chairman is suggesting we put in the bill is one that is very important to my constituency. I do have serious reservations, however, about the way we got to having to present this in the first place.

This Member just received this bill very early this morning. I would guess there may be dozens of Members who have issues that they would hope would be in the bill if they had the time or the flexibility in the approach we handled this bill to have their items considered. So in that sense, I have serious reservations, but it is not my intention to object.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was just 2 days ago that we were debating an $800 billion continuing resolution to fund our troops and veterans, protect our homeland, respond to natural disasters and put our country on a pathway towards energy independence. Many Members, including this Member, reluctantly agreed to support the CR to keep the essential business of our government running through March 6 of next year.

Now in addition to being asked to pay for a bailout for Wall Street, taxpayers are being asked by House Democrats to swallow an additional 60, that is $60 billion in spending on a laundry list of items I saw for the first time just a few hours ago. This would be laughable if it were not so serious.

I was reluctant to support the CR the other day because virtually every dollar was approved without the consideration of the House Appropriations Committee, without floor consideration in the House and Senate, without any amendments or input from any House Member or Senator and without formal House and Senate conference committee work.

During our debate we all agreed on the importance of getting the appropriations process back on track. Just 2 days ago we found ourselves back on the House floor making the very same mistakes again, debating an additional $60 billion--$60 billion is a lot of money--in spending legislation that very few have yet seen. There was no committee consideration, no amendments and no debate. One more time, we are presented with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. So much for getting the appropriations process back on track.

The majority is describing this legislation as a ``stimulus package'' to help our national economy. But let's be clear about that. Let's not fool ourselves. This is a political document pure and simple. If these priorities are so important, why hasn't this bill gone through the normal legislative process? We could have, and should have, debated many of the items included in this package, hearing full committee and House floor consideration when we are considering each of the 12 individual bills. But as we know, the majority is unwilling to move individual spending bills and derailed the appropriations process for this entire year.

Before you make a decision on this legislation, I ask you to consider three sobering facts: First, of the projected $247 billion increase in the budget deficit in 2008, $226 billion results from additional spending, and $21 billion results from decreased revenues. Second, in 2009, spending is projected to reach 21.4 percent of the GDP for the first time since 1993. Third, balancing the Federal budget by 2013 would require either limiting annual spending growth to 1.4 percent or raising annual revenue growth at 8 percent or a combination of both.

So to balance the budget, we either need to raise taxes or we need to spend less. Now I didn't fall off the turnip truck this morning. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that the economy needs our help. And what does this Congress do? It proposes to spend billions and billions and billions more without any offsets in spending. The failure to adhere to pay-as-you-go, or what we call PAYGO, means that this new spending will be financed through additional borrowing, which will increase interest rates and prove a further drag on our struggling economy.

In recent days, government has taken steps to bail out the auto industry to the tune of some $25 billion. It has proposed a bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of another $25 billion. It has committed as much as $70 billion to rescue AIG. In the last few weeks, this Congress hasn't found a cause that doesn't need a handout or a bailout. Where does the spending end, Mr. Speaker? Where does it end?

In this time of financial instability and national anxiety over the state of our financial market, the first goal of the Congress should be to do no harm. But this legislation does just the opposite. Is it any wonder that the approval rating of Congress is now at 13 percent? If Congress were a business, its CEO would have been fired long ago.

Mr. Speaker, there's an old saying: ``No bill is better than a bad bill.'' That is especially true in this case. We would be doing our constituents, our shareholders, the American taxpayer, a tremendous favor if we took our foot off the gas pedal for a while. We ought to be focused on more oversight rather than more spending. Indeed, spending money is not the answer to every problem.

Mr. Speaker, I have got a feeling that I have seen this movie before. And believe me, the sequel is always worse than the original. We must display more discipline and demonstrate better judgment in spending taxpayers' money. There is no better time or place to begin than right here now.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this unfettered spending spree.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time, but I do want to take just a moment to express to the Members that which I have expressed to my chairman in many a forum.

This Member has been very, very concerned about the way the appropriations process has been working during this Congress, concerned enough to think that we could very well be on the pathway to destroy the Appropriations Committee, which has historically been the rock of this place in terms of accomplishing real work.

I certainly don't point to my chairman in terms of these concerns directly. We have very, very fine members with great experience and talent on each of our subcommittees. On both sides we have fabulous staff people who make a great contribution to this entire arena. But over this last year or year-and-a-half, those people have been heard all too seldom. Indeed, while our staffs do work together weekend after weekend, in turn they know full well we are not producing the product we could if we had a fully-developed bipartisan discussion in every one of these very important subcommittees.

It is with that concern that I rise to suggest to the Members, it is long past due that we change the pattern by way of which we are carrying forward our appropriations business.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Advanced Technology Sensors and Payloads.

Account: RDTE, DW.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Trident Systems.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1615 Orange Tree Lane #104, Redlands,

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor my good friend Deborah Pryce whose service to Ohio and her nation has been exemplary.

I first came to know Deborah when I was active in a Task Force to elect more Republican women to Congress. Her spirit and enthusiasm impressed me then and it was no surprise to watch her quickly become a leader among her colleagues. In 2002 she was elected House Republican Conference Chair, a position I once held, where she articulated the party's message and helped craft the Republican agenda. In this capacity, Deborah became the highest ranking Republican woman in history.

I am particularly touched by the work Deborah has done to fight cancer. After losing her beloved daughter Caroline to this disease, Deborah co-founded Hope Street Kids, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing funding and awareness of pediatric cancer. Knowing Deborah like I do, she will tirelessly continue her fight against this dreadful disease.

I wish her well as she returns home. Congress' loss will be her family's gain.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor my good friend and fellow appropriator Dave Hobson of Ohio.

I've had the pleasure of serving alongside Dave as we have fought to make sure our military has the resources it needs to defend our interests around the world. Dave's commitment to ensuring the brave men and women of our armed forces receive the pay, benefits, housing, and quality health care they deserve is second to none.

Dave made constituent service a priority during his time in office. He has long sponsored monthly ``Open Doors'' meetings in his district so his constituents could directly share their concerns with him.

During his time on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Dave visited Northern California on behalf of our colleague John Doolittle. Dave brought to our attention the urgent matter of levees and flood control. His expertise on this issue has been critical as California has worked to address this serious problem.

Retirement is something to be celebrated and enjoyed. It is not the end of a career, but rather the beginning of a new life adventure. I send my friend Dave my best wishes in all his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor Ralph Regula, the second- longest currently serving Republican member of the U.S. House and a man I am honored to call a friend.

I thank Ralph for his years of service. He has inspired a legacy that demonstrates the true character and compass on of his Ohio district. During his many years on the Appropriations Committee, Ralph has done magnificent work on many subcommittees, particularly the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education budget, which is the largest discretionary domestic account. He focused on strengthening our education system to meet the demands of a rapidly changing global marketplace, making health care accessible to all, ensuring that the U.S. remains at the cutting edge of medical research, and retaining workforce training programs that provide people an avenue to seek gainful employment.

He has been an example of the very best of the Appropriations Committee and has been a Member that colleagues on both sides of the aisle could turn to. While I will miss seeing him in the halls of this great institution, I know he will be happy at hone on his farm in Ohio with his wife Mary and their four grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the incredible service of my very good friend Ray LaHood. I have had the privilege of serving alongside him as a Member of the Conference and as an Appropriator.

I first met Ray when he was a young staffer for Bob Michel. He performed invaluable service in helping Bob be a great leader. Ray's son Darin was looking for work and it was a pleasure to bring him into the extended Lewis family as a part of my personal office. With my encouragement, Darin went on to law school as an attorney in Nevada. I know I share Ray's pride as Darin has returned home to Illinois to run for Peoria County State's Attorney.

Ray is a consensus-builder and a common-sense legislator and has distinguished himself as a champion of this great institution. Throughout his time here he has fought vigorously to ensure the Capitol stays the ``people's house'' and that it remains a beacon for motivated and service-minded young people.

I know his constituents appreciate his selfless service. His efforts are a testament to the highest level of commitment an individual can demonstrate on behalf of others. I join my colleagues in wishing Ray, Kathy, and his family well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with serious reservations about the process, or rather the lack of process, governing the development of this year's end spending bill.

This package is made up of several components. We have just heard from the Defense Chairman. It also includes the Homeland Security bill and the Military Construction-VA spending bills, all of these together total some $603 billion; a continuing resolution for nine spending bills funded at fiscal year 2008 levels; emergency spending totaling something in the neighborhood of $23 billion; and other provisions costing even billions more.

If you are like me, you have a great many questions about what is actually included in this package. The simple truth is this: Very few people have any idea what is in it. During this time of economic uncertainty, our constituents are demanding oversight, transparency and accountability from Congress.

Last Friday, I began writing a letter to the three leaders writing this legislation. My message was simple: Given the size and scope of this spending bill, it is paramount that House Members and Senators of both parties be active participants in crafting this bill. I felt then, and I feel now, that it is essential that chairmen and ranking members of our Appropriations subcommittees be at the table during substantive negotiations.

I didn't send the letter, Mr. Speaker, because on Saturday morning I was told that the key elements of the spending bill were already in place and that there would be no Member or Senator participation. In other words, no full Appropriations Committee consideration, no meetings involving the key chairmen and ranking members, and no formal House-Senate conference deliberations.

I am convinced that the completion of this legislation without the full participation of Members and Senators will result in lasting long- term damage to not just the Appropriations Committee, but also to the institution, the House of Representatives that I love. It also leads the House and Senate into an unprecedented dangerous territory by handing the sole decision-making authority on national spending practices to a handful of elected leaders and a whole lot of unelected staff members.

It is not as if these leaders were negotiating 12 individual spending bills that had passed the House and the Senate. This year, the House has passed one funding bill. The Senate has not passed any. Over the last 2 years, out of the 24 regular order bills, the Appropriations Committee in the House has produced exactly one regular order conference report.

The challenge of developing and passing a Federal budget requires full active participation of Members and Senators in the full Appropriations Committee, on the floor of the House and Senate, and through an open House-Senate conference committee.

By the way, I might mention it was suggested on the floor earlier today that the chairman of our committee indicated the reason we haven't had a full, open committee hearing regarding this process was because Members tend to stand up and pontificate in open hearings.

Well, let me suggest that may very well be the case, and I wouldn't suggest that our chairman was ever known for pontificating, but, in the meantime, this lack of Member involvement is absolutely unacceptable. All year long, the majority leadership has chosen to ignore regular order. The assumption has been that Barack Obama would be elected President in November, and that he would support higher levels of spending all across the board.

But join me in this question: What happens if John McCain gets elected President? And what if that President draws an even tougher line than President Bush? What does that mean? Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, that we won't have Appropriations Committee meetings or hearings or bills for another 4 years? It is an interesting question.

When I first came to Congress, legislation was drafted by Members with jurisdiction over the issues of the day. Members of both parties had every opportunity to participate in the debate by offering amendments.

Today, whether you are Republican or a Democrat, you no longer have any opportunity to participate, no opportunity to offer amendments, no opportunity to settle meaningful differences in the committee and on the House floor or in the conference between the House and the Senate.

My colleagues, this is no way to govern. We ought to work together, produce spending bills through a legitimate committee process and return to a full and open debate in committee and on the House floor.

Let me say that I did have a conversation just yesterday, indeed a cursory conversation, with my chairman, Mr. Obey, about what's in this bill. I appreciated that opportunity to chat for a few minutes about this horrendous process as well as this bill.

Let me say that the issue that seemed to have paralyzed the process this year, and caused the committee to essentially close down, involves the majority's unwillingness to address the high price of oil and gas. That issue is finally, at least in part, addressed with this bill. Had we dealt with the OCS moratorium in June, the committee probably would have completed all of its bills, but we chose not to let that process go forward.

It is now late September, and, finally, the voices of millions of Americans, financially drained from paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, they are finally being heard. Section 152 of the CR represents a gigantic step in the right direction relative to energy independence. We actually suspend the moratorium on drilling in the United States.

Now, frankly, depending on who is elected as President, we may have to worry about that next year. I mean, a President could literally be involved in reestablishing that moratorium and thereby hampering America one more time.

In closing, I don't believe we should shut down our government. We must support funding for our troops, our veterans, and protect our homeland. Each of the 535 House Members and Senators should have played a role in shaping this bill.

It is time that we insist upon a return to regular order. It's certainly time that we get back to that which the Speaker promised, an open and transparent process with everybody's involvement, Members, but also the public as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, who is the former chairman of the full committee as well as the Defense subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Hal Rogers, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the committee dealing with military construction and veterans benefits, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), Dr. Weldon, who's probably going to be speaking for the last time on an appropriations bill since he's chosen to retire at the end of this season. Dr. Weldon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, if there's been a Member of the House who has told all of us the urgent need for being able to tap into our resources of oil and gas, it's been the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). I yield him 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have one additional speaker. He doesn't happen to be here, but if the Members would bear with me, I would like to take just a moment on my time.

For just a moment I would like to suggest that because this is likely the last time we will be addressing Appropriations Committee business this year, I want to commend eight of our colleagues who serve on our committee who are leaving Congress at the end of this year to pursue new challenges and new opportunities. They are Bud Cramer, Tom Udall, Ralph Regula, Jim Walsh, Dave Hobson, John Peterson, Ray LaHood and Dave Weldon.

All told, with these retirements, the House is losing over 100 years of cumulative Appropriations Committee experience. The skill and knowledge that they bring to the committee each day will be sorely missed and not easily replaced.

Let me take a moment in a long-standing tradition of our committee in the House to thank each of our retiring colleagues for their friendship, their service, and their fine bipartisan work. Let's stand together, Republicans and Democrats, to show our appreciation and say thank you to our friends and colleagues.

If you have no additional speakers yourself, then with that I will yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, I did.

The gentleman is very kind.

The chairman is most sensitive and generous. Thank you for that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my ranking member on the Rules Committee for a very fine statement that he made on introduction to his opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition to the rule myself.

The folks at home have gotten the message relative to the level of competence or incompetence of the United States Congress. Polls indicate that our rates are somewhere at the 9 percent range, and there are serious doubts about our capability to effectively address major issues and in a sensible way come to conclusions that make sense for them.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was 82 days ago today that in the full Appropriations Committee I personally carried a substitute that would have opened the whole discussion and debate and the possibility of an up-or-down vote of drilling off our Continental Shelf. There is little question there is enough reserves if we will just tap them to assure American energy independence.

Since that time, the Appropriations Committee has closed down, literally they have done none of their work. And because of that, we find ourselves in the circumstance where today the leadership is undermining our ability to go forward towards energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan majority in the House has been calling for a real debate on energy issues for months now. But it was 82 days ago-- during a scheduled full Appropriations Committee markup--that the real debate began.

That debate in full committee was short-lived and it ended rather abruptly; the majority leadership ordered Chairman Obey to pull the plug on that markup when it became evident that they would lose a vote on off-shore drilling. The Appropriations Committee has not met since.

All year long, the majority leadership has abdicated its responsibility to have the Appropriations Committee proceed under regular order, largely relegating our work to the back-burner. The assumption has been that Barack Obama would be elected President in November. The assumption has been that the House majority would remain the House majority and that an Obama administration would be more inclined to support higher levels of spending in bills reflecting the majority's budget priorities.

Such a scenario, assumes that the House pass very few bills, pass a continuing resolution, and leave the future of the remaining bills unanswered until after the November election. But, what if John McCain is elected President? And what if he draws an even harder line on spending than President Bush? What then? Is the Appropriations Committee going to do nothing for the next 4 years?

Because the legitimate work of the House is now being dictated by election-year politics, it now appears that the Appropriations Committee will not meet again this year. It also appears that we will not have a chance to debate and consider a legitimate energy bill this year.

The vast majority of Americans support an energy policy that includes off-shore drilling for oil and natural gas. But the majority leadership still doesn't get it. Rather than working across party lines to develop a bipartisan bill--a consensus bill--we can all support, the House is being forced to consider a ``take it or leave it'' energy bill that leaves out over 80 percent of known energy reserves off our coasts.

This misguided strategy reflects decisions made at the highest levels of the majority leadership. It is especially disappointing to me because in recent years the Appropriations Committee has largely set aside partisan differences to pass all of our bills in a timely fashion. More often than not, we have been able to say, ``We have fulfilled our responsibility. We have done our work.'' But not this year.

This year, one issue--the high price of oil and gas--has completely paralyzed the appropriations process and, indeed, the legislative process in the House of Representatives. We are now two weeks away from the beginning of the new fiscal year and what have we done? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Instead, funding bills essential for every conceivable function of government have been put on a shelf to avoid votes on offshore drilling, on oil shale, and drilling in ANWR.

In past years, when controversial issues have come to the full committee, we took them head on.

During my service as chairman, we debated and considered raising the minimum wage, the millionaires' tax, and the Truman Commission. I was opposed to each of these amendments but felt our Members--Republicans and Democrats--deserved to have their voices heard.

Had the Interior bill been considered in full committee on June 18 as originally scheduled, the committee and the House would not be in this position today. It would have broken the logjam and enabled us to complete our work. And, it would have given Members of the House an opportunity to openly debate the most important issue facing our constituents today.

To me, preparing a long-term energy strategy is like preparing for retirement. It doesn't happen overnight but takes careful, thoughtful, long-term planning. Addressing the OCS issue is just one leg of the energy stool (along with conservation, oil shale, renewables, etc.) just as a 401(k) plan is one leg of the stool when planning for retirement. I believe we have to take the long view just as we take the long view when planning for retirement. It can't and won't happen overnight.

Republicans and Democrats alike deserve an opportunity to have a straight up or down vote on energy amendments addressing the high price of oil and gas. Again, ``all of the above'' has been replaced with ``take it or leave it.''

Mr. Speaker, I don't recognize this place anymore. Once upon a time, members of the People's House worked together to serve the best interests of our country. Now, we either march in lockstop to the whims of the majority leadership or we are left out of the legislative process altogether.

When I first came to Congress, legislation was drafted not by the Speaker of the House but by committee chairmen with jurisdiction over the issue of the day. Members of the minority party had every opportunity to participate in the debate by offering amendments. But those days are no more. Members of the minority party no longer have any rights. We are basically told to ``sit down and shut up'' because the majority leadership knows best.

This Member has had enough. And my constituents have had enough. I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in rejecting this irresponsible approach to governing. Let's work together and openly debate energy policy. Let's vote on a consensus bill that addresses the high price of oil and gas. Remember, our constituents are closely watching this debate. They will remember what we do when they vote on November 4.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and true leader in my community, Dr. Herbert R. Fischer, who is retiring after 37 years of dedication to educational development and public service throughout the Inland Empire.

After 27 years as a classroom teacher, principal, and district administrator in the San Bernardino City Unified School District and as superintendent of the Colton Joint Unified School District, Dr. Fischer was chosen to be the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, a position he held for 10 years.

The San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools office provides support to the 33 K-12 districts and roughly 425,000 students attending more than 500 schools in the county. The County Schools office also provides business and financial curriculum and instruction, personnel, credentials, and management information support to school districts countywide.

Our district is privileged to have many fine educational professionals dedicated to improve the overall well-being of their students. Dr Fischer is no exception and has taken his love for educational development even further. Under Dr. Fischer's leadership, the County Superintendent of Schools office has improved the State Academic performance index for 7 consecutive years. He has expanded many school safety programs through the Law Enforcement Education Partnership and the Countywide Gangs and Drugs Task Force. Dr. Fischer is also a founder of three regional P-16 Councils that work to eliminate the achievement gap by creating a comprehensive system for all levels of education.

Dr. Fischer's forward thinking has made San Bernardino a model for excellence in community service. In particular, he is credited with developing and implementing Alliance for Education initiative, which has over 1,200 business, labor, community and faith-based partners working with public schools to improve the college, career and labor readiness of students.

Throughout his career in education, Dr. Fischer worked with colleagues, students and parents, to increase college going rates, reduce student drop-out rates, and provide greater Internet and technology access to students and teachers. He also established programs to provide quality curriculums for all students and offer parents more educational choices. Dr. Fischer's hard work and dedication to the future success of our young people is truly appreciated.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Dr. Fischer for his many accomplishments and thanking him for making our community a leader in educational and professional advancement. The valuable contributions he has made throughout his career will be remembered for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a motion to recommit. But I want to say first to my colleagues that one of the reasons for my rising with this motion is because there seems to be a good deal of confusion on the part of at least my constituency, and my colleagues' families and constituents at home may have the same kind of confusion.

It seems that my people believe that this President does want to lead to a comprehensive energy independence policy that would include the availability to States to drill off their continental shelf, et cetera, to give us an adequate supply of oil to assure our energy independence. And yet those same people believe that it is the President's Congress that is holding up such action. That is, many of them believe that the Congress, the House and the Senate, are controlled by his party. But that is not the case, and our people are confused. The Congress is controlled by the other party who are resisting those proposals that involve the ability to drill off the Outer Continental Shelf, to tap into shale, to develop a comprehensive policy that will lead to energy independence. My people are absolutely dying at the gas pump. Our small businesses are doing the same.

So I have a motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, with the term, I might add, ``promptly'' in it to allow us to act immediately--I misread it. It is not promptly, it is ``forthwith.'' So it would be implemented immediately. I did that because my colleagues on the other side have been complaining about the word ``promptly.'' We want you to be able to act very quickly, not just strike this on a point of order, but allow the people's voices to be heard. Because I can tell you, when you go home, you are going to hear them if you strike this on a point of order. So back to the point, Mr. Speaker.

This motion would enact the American Energy Act, a comprehensive solution to the energy crisis that is causing families to pay $4 per gallon for gasoline. Adoption of this motion will increase the supply of American-made energy and will relieve those families, those businesses, and my constituents at the gas pump. It will improve conservation efficiency, it will promote new and expanded technologies. Most of all, it will reduce America's increasingly costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.

The minute we send them a message that we are serious about home supply, prices will crash. I can guarantee you that.

We need to consider all solutions to achieve energy independence. I hope that as we prepare to head back to our districts for the month of August, we can go back to our constituents with the good news: We did something; rather than what this Congress has been doing in the past-- nothing.

I urge support for this motion to recommit.

I yield time to my leader from Ohio, Mr. John Boehner, the Republican leader.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman yield?

I consider that to be a great courtesy for your yielding.

I know that you know that I am the Member who carried the amendment that increased the mileage reimbursement for the veterans that is in this bill. I do know they had that problem, because all those veterans who you mentioned in those quotes are the same ones that are also paying $4 a gallon. They would love to have this bill reduce that burden.

I very much appreciate my colleague's yielding. It is really a most interesting commentary, your presentation, which summarizes in this rule what appears to be the dominant leadership of the liberal Democratic leadership in the House. That is, in the quest of power, the ends justify the means. Indeed, at this point in our history when the people's House finds itself dominated by leadership who will exercise the ends justifying the means to maintain power, indeed the public ought to be most concerned about their people's House.

Mr. Speaker, I in turn, though, want to congratulate, myself, both Chairman Edwards and Mr. Wamp for producing a truly bipartisan fiscal year 2009 Military Construction appropriations bill in the longstanding tradition of this committee. Their work is a demonstration to the House that the Democrats and Republicans can work together to create legislation the majority of our Members can support.

As we all know, the Appropriations Committee has steered off course this year because of one single issue which is critical to the American public and which has significant bipartisan support in the House. I do not fault my friend Chairman Obey for the breakdown of the appropriations process this year. While we have had our share of disagreements over the years on overall funding levels and policy issues, he and I have historically worked well together to move our spending bills through the House in a timely fashion.

However, this year the largely bipartisan work of the Appropriations Committee has ground to a virtually standstill because of the energy issue. For reasons I do not fully understand, given present pressures on our economy and the increased worldwide demand for oil, the majority leadership has decided to put on the shelf most of the annual spending bills as well as any and all meaningful bipartisan efforts to lower the price of oil and gas. I don't understand this decision nor do I agree with it. We have had an opportunity and we have an obligation to work on a bipartisan basis to develop and pass long-term energy solutions that involve a combination of conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, and the development of proven resources both onshore and offshore in the United States.

This effort to bolster our energy resources would create thousands of well-paying union and nonunion jobs across the United States. The overwhelming majority of Americans favor increased domestic energy production. So what is the downside if we develop energy resources in a responsible, environmentally safe manner? Why is the Democratic leadership standing in the way?

Just yesterday a dedicated group of Members, led by our colleagues John Peterson and Neil Abercrombie, introduced sweeping bipartisan energy legislation in an attempt to break the current energy gridlock in the House. I applaud their efforts. We ought to debate their bill openly in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor before we leave this town for an August break.

The mere message that Congress was actually debating energy policy, in meaningful, bipartisan debate, would send a signal to the markets and to the foreign suppliers of oil that the United States is serious about addressing its energy future. That powerful message would send oil prices down almost overnight. I believe that an honest energy debate on the floor of the House would be, in itself, a stimulus package that would have a tremendously positive ripple effect throughout our economy, touching every American business and consumer.

Let me respectfully remind my colleagues that it was our Speaker, then the minority leader, in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat majority's governing philosophy, and I quote: ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.'' Mr. Speaker, that's important enough. Let me repeat. The Speaker: ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.''

As the body knows, we have not had an open, full, and fair debate on energy policy in committee nor have we had any open amendment process on the House floor. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee has not moved any bills through the full committee since June 25 because of a pending energy production amendment supported by a bipartisan majority of the committee members but opposed by the majority leadership.

I would remind our colleagues that most of the challenges facing us today have little or nothing to do with partisan politics. At a time when our country is facing daunting challenges at home and abroad, my constituents and your constituents are looking for real leadership. Rather than providing the leadership our constituents deserve, the body is now in a state of paralysis.

Again, I remind my colleagues that it was then a minority leader, the gentlewoman from San Francisco, who wrote in an October 20, 2007, letter to Speaker Hastert: ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on this floor.''

I encourage each of my colleagues to remind the Speaker of these words so we can return to regular order in our committee work and restore civility and open debate to the legislative process in the House. It is time to set aside partisan politics and get to work. We can do better. We must do better. Let's support our veterans funding bill today and then move quickly to support our constituents by openly debating potentially energy solutions.

Again, the House should not leave town for the August recess until it votes to lower gas prices, increase the supply of American-made energy, and promote energy independence.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following: H.R. 6599--The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs FY09 Appropriations bill. Mr. Jerry Lewis (CA-41): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting for the record the following project that has been included in H.R. 6599, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs FY09 Appropriations bill. This project was authorized in H.R. 5658--the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis

Bill Number: H.R. 6599

Account: Military Construction--Navy

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Marine Corps Base Twentynine Palms

Address of Requesting Entity: 73549 29 Palms Hwy., Twentynine Palms,

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a beloved community leader in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, and one of the most caring individuals I have ever known, Maurice Calderon of Banning, California.

The son of a laborer, Maurice Calderon is a shining example of living the American dream to the fullest. He began with night classes at the local community college and an entry-level job as a teller at Redlands Savings and Loan. His long career led him to become the senior vice president for governmental affairs and community development with Arrowhead Credit Union, which he helped to become a community institution.

Even as he was beginning his career, Maurice became the first Hispanic elected official in the city when he won a seat on the Banning Unified School District board in 1967. He served for nine years, becoming a champion of educational opportunities for the large Hispanic community. He later was elected as a trustee of the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District, serving for another nine years.

His community involvement has been legendary. He has served on the foundation boards for the University of California, Riverside and California State University, San Bernardino. He was a leading member of the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Inland Empire African American Chamber of Commerce and the Inland Empire Economic Partnership. He served as president of Sinfonia Mexicana and Chairman of the Inland Empire Hispanic Leadership Council.

The list of his commitments to his community is impressive, but it does not do justice to the depth of Maurice's involvement. When he takes an interest in an organization, he brings a warmth and dedication that quickly make Maurice one of the most valued members. He has been a civic-minded connection tying all these groups together and making them all more effective.

He has also helped Arrowhead Credit Union become a force for bringing the American dream to minority and working class neighborhoods throughout the Inland Empire. He led the drive to open the first banking office in the African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods in west San Bernardino. The credit union has been honored for its minority outreach programs.

For his efforts, Maurice has received accolades from numerous cities and the two counties. He has had Banning street named in honor of his family. In 2004, he received the Ohtli Award, the highest recognition granted by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs to members of the Mexican American Community. He is in the Southern California Native American and Latino Hall of Fame.

His devotion to his children and grandchildren has earned him honors as the Father of the Year. He and wife Dorothy--a community spirit in her own right--have spent 47 years together and in service to the Inland Empire.

Madam Speaker, Maurice Calderon is retiring from his position with the credit union, but wIll most certamly remam active in his many other roles. I ask you and my colleagues to please join me in thanking him for his decades as a community leader, and wish him and Dorothy well in all their future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, we've heard from a number of sources in the last hour or so that this is the 500th day since the President sent this request for absolutely crucial funding for our troops who are fighting in the Middle East. It's been heard enough that I don't think we need to dwell upon that a lot.

Mr. Speaker, today is the 500th day since the President's fiscal year 2008 emergency supplemental request first arrived on the Hill. Oft times we make the mistake of assuming that we're doing the Lord's work in this body. But I remind my colleagues that the Good Lord created Heaven, Earth--and far more--and it took Him 493 fewer days to get it done.

It's no secret that I've had misgivings about the manner in which the majority leadership developed and moved earlier versions of the supplemental, without consideration by the Committee on Appropriations and under a closed rule.

While the regular order process was never followed, today I'm happy to report that the House has worked in a bipartisan fashion--and come to an agreement--on a funding package that will provide immediate support to our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This supplemental is long overdue and comes at a time when the Pentagon has already issued guidance to employees on potential furloughs. Clearly, our agreement on this legislation comes not a moment too soon.

A whole array of legislative provisions had been a part of the earlier version of the supplemental, including a massive tax increase on American small businesses. While several legislative provisions remain, the tax increase as been removed.

This is now a better package, one that provides an educational benefit for our returning troops and their families without placing an additional tax burden on small business--the economic engine that drives our national economy.

This package also includes unemployment insurance language that provides far more accountability than earlier versions considered by the House. The new provision includes an additional 13 weeks of coverage but requires that recipients work for 20 weeks in order to qualify for the benefit. From this Member's perspective, I believe this provision has been dramatically improved because it now requires that the recipient earn the benefit.

I'd like to make one additional observation as I close my remarks. Our friends and neighbors in the Midwest need to know this: Congress is prepared to help you get back on your feet as you respond to the great floods affecting your region. This legislation provides needed, targeted funding to address the many challenges you are now facing.

Mr. Speaker, this is a package that should receive the bipartisan support of the majority of our Members today. It is a package the President will sign. I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman who played the key role in bringing that conference that we had together yesterday together in a fashion that caused us to be able to be here this evening.

I would recognize the Republican leader, John Boehner, for such time as he might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to call upon the former chairman of the committee and my dear friend from Florida, Bill Young, for such time as he might consume.

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

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

At most, we have one remaining speaker, that's me. And so I reserve the balance of my time. And I will use very little time.

I certainly wouldn't want to speak before the Speaker, so I will yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true leader in my community, Dr. Donald F. Averill, who is retiring after 47 years of dedication to education and economic development throughout the Inland Empire.

With 14 years of teaching at the secondary level, and 33 years of community college experience, Dr. Averill was chosen to be Chancellor of a very important education provider in my home town of San Bernardino, California, a position he held for 8 years. The San Bernardino Community College District is comprised of two colleges, San Bernardino Valley College and Crafton Hills College, the Professional Development Center, and its own public television and radio station,

Madam Speaker, I am joining together with my friend and colleague, Ken Calvert, in celebrating the lives of some truly remarkable people.

Fifty years ago, their life decisions seemed simple.

The couple was planning their marriage. It was 1957 and a year away from their wedding--June 21, 1958--at the San Luis Obispo Catholic Mission de Tolosa.

They talked about the family they would have; the careers--she in health; he in public affairs; how the San Francisco area--the City-- would be their habitat--history, family, relatives. Where else would one want to settle?

Now--50 years later, looking back--it was simple, but different. Janet Amelia Janolis and Edward Joseph Slevin--Jan and Ed--lived, worked or traveled in over 50 countries; worked in each of California's 58 counties, and lived for 15 years in Washington, DC., Los Angeles, and San Francisco, before returning home--to Novato, California.

The series of adventures and challenges focused on commitment and dedication to their ideals while giving birth to five children. Together they raised four wonderful, loving daughters and suffered the loss of their final newborn, Peter, to heart disease.

Jan, with her RN degree from San Jose Hospital, worked in hospitals in San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles, and then took a respite from nursing following the birth of Jeanne--followed by Cammie, Maureen and Jill over the next six years.

Ed graduated from Cal Poly and went on to a post-graduate Coro Foundation fellowship in public affairs, served as state director of the California GOP and worked in Republican political campaigns throughout California for most of the 1960s.

Once life had mellowed a bit, and the children were in school, a different path opened and the Slevin family joined the Peace Corps. 1969 saw them moving to Western Samoa where Ed was country director to 55 volunteers while Jan volunteered teaching community health and homemaking projects around the island.

A promotion to Peace Corps country director in Malaysia led the family to Kuala Lumpur and an 18-month stint before relocating to Washington DC. Jan resumed her nursing as a specialist in infection control gaining post-graduate status at the Washington Hospital Center. Ed continued with Peace Corps as a regional director for 22 countries in North Africa, near East, Asia and the Pacific.

1976 saw the Slevin's return to Novato; Jan to nursing at Novato Community Hospital and Ed re-opening his political consulting business and launching Western Polling and Research, a partnership specializing in public affairs. Jan's nursing work coincided with four teen-age daughters while also earning a science degree from St. Mary's College.

But then the tug of international development work struck again. Jan and Ed went off to the Philippines in 1984 with Peace Corps, where Ed directed a contingent of 350 volunteers. Jan began four years of community health work throughout the poverty stricken barrios of Manila establishing baby clinics and organizing privileged Filipinos to join her quest for improving the life of their country folk.

1988 saw them again return to Washington and the Peace Corps headquarters; Ed as an associate director of volunteer recruitment and selection; Jan leading the medical division's health clearance and pre- departure health briefing for volunteer service.

Ed then went to Capitol Hill as executive director to the House Republican Conference under the leadership of Conference Chairman Congressman Jerry Lewis and then on to serve as Chief of Staff to Congressman Ken Calvert.

Ten years ago this traveling couple came home. Home to their beloved grandchildren Cameron, Mikaela, Brian, Nathan, Jana and Casey--and their daughters. Home to their family, relatives and friends.

And yet they spent their life always being home.

Regardless of their address, the constant in their life has been not only their commitment to help improve and contribute to the life of others but to each other. These past 50 years reflects the love and respect Jan and Ed have for each other. They have been and will always be lifelong partners, lovers, friends and adventurers.

And for this we salute them.