Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend Dr. B. Lyn Behrens, who is retiring after nearly two decades of guiding Loma Linda University Medical Center into a regional, national and international role in modern medical technology, trauma care and cancer research.

An innovator and pioneer throughout her career, Dr. Behrens became the first pediatric resident at Loma Linda University Medical Center in 1966, just 2 years after completing her medical degree at the Sydney University School of Medicine. She became the first female dean of the medical school in 1986, and in 1990 she became the university's first female president.

Over the next 10 years, Dr. Behrens became the CEO of Adventist Health System, and then president of Loma Linda University Medical Center, making her the top leader of all of the institutions affiliated with the university in San Bernardino County. Loma Linda now has a staff of 13,000, with 4,000 students from 80 countries.

I first became closely acquainted with Dr. Behrens when we joined Dr. James Slater of Loma Linda in the quest to create the Nation's first proton beam treatment center in the late 1980s. That facility, which has treated more than 12,000 cancer patients, has become a model for Federal/local cooperation in research and medical technology. Although Dr. Slater was the driving force behind this medical breakthrough, Dr. Behrens marshaled the resources and staff of the medical center to provide crucial support for the effort.

Following her first love of pediatrics, Dr. Behrens led the creation of the Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, the only dedicated children's hospital in the Inland Empire--one of the fastest growing major urban areas in the United States. As with all of Loma Linda's institutions, this is a true teaching hospital, and will soon have a state-of-the-art pediatric and maternal health sciences campus.

As an outgrowth of the children's hospital, Dr. Behrens led Loma Linda in creating the Rehabilitation, Orthopedic and Neurosciences Institute, which provides innovative rehabilitation for those who have lost limps, and is an international leader in research on the development of longer lasting artificial joints. The institute includes a park and playground with 26 different play features designed for interaction between able-bodied children and disabled children.

Growing in many other ways under Dr. Behrens' leadership, the university has added a Behavioral Medicine Center, a school of pharmacy and a school of science and technology. The university and medical school have reached out to the community and region in many ways, creating clinics to serve low-income patients and counseling programs for after-school children and at-risk teenagers.

Loma Linda has also established an international reputation for excellence under Dr. Behrens' leadership. Adventist Health International provides administrative support to hospitals and clinics in 12 developing nations, and provides medical support in 48 other countries. The most prominent efforts are in Kabul, Afghanistan, where Loma Linda provides direct support for that nation's only teaching hospital, and in Hangzhou. China, where the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital is the first in China to receive endorsement of quality care by the Joint Commission for International Accreditation.

It goes without saying that Dr. Behrens has taken a leadership role in many medical societies in California and across the nation. Her accomplishments have recently been recognized by the California Hospital Association. which awarded her the Ritz E. Heerman Memorial Award for outstanding contribution in the improvement of patient care in California.

Madam Speaker, after more than 40 years as a leader in medicine and health education, Dr. Behrens is retiring next month. Please join me in thanking her for a lifetime of public service and congratulating her on the many accomplishments that have helped make Loma Linda University Medical Center one of the nation's finest institutions of medical research and education.

Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that a budget is a moral document. It shows what we care about. I couldn't agree more.

The majority's bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration to families across America that the Democratic majority in Congress is intently focused on dipping its fingers into their pockets to take more and more of their hard-earned money. It shows that the Democratic majority will raise taxes, without hesitation, to support its addiction to spending. And it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities, or rooting out waste in government spending.

What we are considering today is the Democrat majority's ``more, more, more resolution.'' More spending, more budget gimmicks, and more taxes.

As my colleagues well remember, we held the line on spending last year thanks solely to the President and Republicans in Congress. The President's budget requested this year $59 billion, or a 6.3 percent increase, in discretionary spending over the present fiscal year. Most people would think $59 billion is plenty, but it's not enough for the ``more, more, more budget.''

We hear our Democrat colleagues pay a great deal of lip service to the poor. But here's what failing to extend these tax cuts in the years ahead will do to the poor:

Six million low-income American families will no longer qualify for earned income tax credits;

Low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit;

Roughly 12 million single women with children will see their taxes increase by $1,100 a year.

As disconcerting as all of this may be, the real 800-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the room is the problem, and that is entitlement spending. Presently, mandatory spending and interest on the national debt consumes nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget, and it is rising at an alarming and unsustainable pace.

If we ignore the 800-pound gorilla, we are walking away from the dire needs, desperate needs, of the American public.

Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying that a budget is a moral document--it shows what we care about. I couldn't agree more.

The majority's bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration to families across America that the Democrat majority in Congress is intently focused on dipping its fingers into their pockets to take more and more of their hard-earned money. It shows that the Democrat majority will raise taxes--without hesitation--to support its addiction to spending. And, it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities, or rooting out waste in government spending.

What we are considering today is the Democrat majority's ``More, More, More Budget Resolution''--more spending, more budget gimmicks, more taxes. For the first time in history, the discretionary budget that is being proposed by this majority will exceed one trillion dollars.

As my colleagues well remember, we held the line on spending last year thanks solely to the President and Republicans in Congress. In spite of the desire of our Democrat colleagues to spend far more, this Congress passed appropriations bills that totaled roughly $933 billion in discretionary funding.

The President's budget requested a $59 billion, or 6.3 percent, increase in discretionary spending over the present fiscal year. Most people would think that a $59 billion increase in spending would be enough. But not this majority. They are proposing a whopping $82 billion, or nine percent, increase over current year levels.

In addition to the tens of billions of additional taxpayer funds they're proposing to spend next year, this majority intends to play budget games and increase advance appropriations by another $2 billion above what was provided this year.

The notion of advance appropriations is arcane budget talk so I'll try to break it down into real English. The majority is committing an additional $2 billion in funding for next year--remember, we don't pay for it this year, we pay for it next year.

My colleague from New York, Mr. Walsh, correctly pointed out during consideration of the fiscal year 2008 Labor/HHS bill that advance funding is a dangerous proposition because if Congress does not keep providing at least the same level of advance funding year after year, drastic cuts will be needed to live within the allocations each appropriations subcommittee receives.

I want to address another troubling aspect of this budget proposal. We have heard--and will continue to hear--our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about how this budget cuts taxes. Nothing could be further from the truth. By failing to make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this budget actually increases the tax burden on American citizens by $683 billion over the next five years.

That's a pretty big number, but let me break this number down in a manner that makes sense to the average family sitting around their kitchen table. Under this budget, the average American family of four that earns $50,000 per year will send an additional $2,100 to Washington in 2011.

We hear our Democratic colleagues pay a great deal of lip service to the poor, but here's what failing to extend these tax cuts does to low- income Americans: 6 million low-income Americans will no longer qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit; low-income families with one or two children will no longer be eligible for the refundable child tax credit; roughly 12 million single women with children will see their taxes increase by $1,100 per year; and about 18 million seniors living on fixed incomes will be subjected to tax increases of more than $2,100 per year.

As disconcerting as the rampant spending is, let's not lose sight of the fact that this budget ignores the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the room--entitlement spending. Presently, mandatory spending and interest on the national debt consumes nearly two-thirds of the Federal budget and it is rising at an alarming, unsustainable pace.

In 1990, we spent the equivalent of $893 billion of today's dollars on entitlement programs--mostly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Today we are poised to spend $1.6 trillion on those same entitlements. For those who like to talk in percentages, that represents a 74 percent increase in inflation adjusted dollars. We ignore this sleeping giant at our own peril.

So my friends, let's ask ourselves this question: who will pay for this budget? The simple answer is our children and our grandchildren.

They will pay for it in the form of higher taxes because this budget refuses to make permanent the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 that spurred roughly 6 years of economic growth.

They will pay for it in the form of reduced future prosperity because Government will continue to spend and spend and spend.

They will pay for it because their Government would consume more and more of what they earn rather than allowing them to invest, create jobs, and improve their quality of life.

In short, Mr. Chairman, this ``big government, Washington-knows- best'' budget suggests that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are better stewards of the public's money than the very families who send it here.

My advice to the American taxpayer is this: Hold onto your wallet because the big spenders in Congress are coming to take more of what you can earn.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the majority's bloated budget resolution. It's time to put Uncle Sam on a diet.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's courtesy. Almost all that I was going to say about UCLA's prowess in athletics has already been stated for the Record.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, many a person looking at the wondrous world of athletics oftentimes thinks only of the 11 banners that involves John Wooden's era as coach of UCLA's basketball team. As has been suggested, one would really miss the point of the fabulous work done at the UCLA campus, way beyond athletics, in academics, et cetera. But indeed, the women's water polo team set the standard by winning the 100th championship when they won one more time. It is a fabulous item to be associated with UCLA and to get this recognition from so many great friends.

In the meantime, I want you all to know that my dog Bruin very much appreciates the attention.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the UCLA Bruins for being the most accomplished athletic program in NCAA history, having won 100 NCAA championships.

Many observers might presume that for UCLA the only game in town is men's basketball. Many walk into Pauley Pavilion and see 11 championship banners, experience the legacy of John Wooden, and presume that's all there is. But for UCLA, that is only the beginning.

The UCLA men's tennis team won the first NCAA championship for the Bruins in 1950 and the last 58 years have been witness to an unprecedented record of success. Including the 11 men's basketball titles, UCLA's championship record extends across 16 different programs including multiple titles in men's volleyball, 19; men's tennis, 16; women's softball, 10; men's track and field, 8; men's water polo, 8; women's gymnastics, 5; women's track and field, 5; and women's water polo, 5.

UCLA's 100th championship came from the women's water polo team, which won its third consecutive NCAA Division I championship on May 13, 2007. The Bruins, coached by Adam Krikorian, finished 28-2 and have been 90-6 over the past three seasons. Courtney Mathewson scored three goals and Jillian Kraus added two more as the Bruins beat rival Stanford. Kelly Rulon was selected as the tournament's Most Valuable Player. Rulon, Mathewson, and Kraus were joined by Emily Feher and Kacy Kunkel as members to the NCAA All-Tournament First Team.

These championships reflect the philosophies of great Bruin coaches like basketball icon John Wooden and volleyball legend Al Scates. Their commitment to hard work, discipline, and sportsmanship has created a legacy of victory unparalleled in college sports. Additionally, the contributions of all the fans, students, alumni, and staff have been instrumental over the years in helping UCLA achieve 100 championships.

The list of Bruin athletes who contributed to the school's heritage of victory is a rollcall of the greatest athletes of our time: Lewis Alcindor, Arthur Ashe, Evelyn Ashford, Jimmy Connors, Gale Devers, Mitch Gaylord, Florence Griffith-Joyner, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Karch Kiraly, Jackie Robinson, Bill Walton, and others.

I'm especially proud that UCLA is a public university committed to diversity and fulfilling the promise of Title IX. Since 1982, Bruin women teams have contributed 30 championships to UCLA's total. This is enough to put them 11th on the NCAA's all-time champions list.

One hundred championships is a reflection of the teamwork that is the hallmark of UCLA athletics and its strong tradition of combining excellence in athletics with excellence in academics. UCLA's commitment to hard work, discipline, and sportsmanship has created a tradition of victory unparalleled in college sports.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin our work in the new year, I want to take a few moments to reflect on the passing of a good friend of mine. Richard Henry ``Dick'' White, Jr., a fixture in Washington for four decades, lost his fight against cancer on December 21, and his death took a whole lot of sunshine from the world.

Like many who came to Washington, Dick White expected to stay in Washington for a very short period of time. A 1955 journalism graduate of the University of Oklahoma, Dick arrived here in 1965 as a correspondent for the Tulsa Tribune. But rather than return home, he moved to public service, and that work caused him to become a congressional staff member over the next 14 years. He was the top staffer for Ed Edmonson of Oklahoma and Dale Milford of Texas.

He left the Hill in the late 1970s to serve as Washington representative on a number of farm-related issues. He later served as the vice president for the Tobacco Institute, and most recently maintained a small public affairs consulting business.

Mr. Speaker, it has regrettably become vogue in politics to suggest that lobbying, that is, representing the American people in Washington, is less than an honorable profession. Well, anyone who knew Dick White would strongly disagree. He represented his clients, small businesses, tens of thousands of farmers, hundreds of thousands of workers, with integrity, humanity and a wealth of knowledge. His service helped thousands of Americans be treated fairly when Congress considered policy changes that would affect their livelihoods.

I came to know Dick White as a friend after his marriage in 1991 to one of my senior staff members, Letitia Hoadley. To say this pair was a devoted couple is putting it mildly. For the past 15 years they have been inseparable and tenderly have cared for each other through good times and bad.

Dick White was always welcome in my office as a member of our extended

staff family. But his optimism and good humor made him welcome anywhere he went. He always added a bit of sunshine on any visit, and left everyone feeling more positive towards the day.

Beyond his public affairs interests, Dick was an avid follower of college sports, including Oklahoma football. He loved to travel, especially to the Caribbean. But his greatest joy was to spend time at his weekend cottage in Southern Maryland where he enjoyed boating, gardening and swimming. He loved to entertain. He would revel in a swimming pool full of kids. He was a great listener, and was considered a great grandpa by every boy and girl who was lucky enough to spend time with him.

Even as Dick battled cancer in the last few years, he maintained his positive nature, hearty laugh, infectious smile, always a part of Dick's life. In his last summer he purchased a small boat, hired an instructor, and provided a sailing school for neighborhood kids.

Dick White is survived by his loving wife Letitia and her family; his daughter, Ann Calvert Brown; son-in-law Stephen Brown; and grandchildren Suzanne Noel Brown and Daniel Calvert Brown. He is also survived by siblings, Miles White of San Antonio, Texas; Elizabeth White George of Belfair, Washington; and Robert White of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, as well as their families, including numerous nieces, nephews and their children.

Mr. Speaker, Dick White, a man of all seasons, gave all who knew him a reason to believe in the value of friendship as we go forward in life. He would have told us not to mourn his passing, but rather to celebrate the life he lived in his time with us. In that spirit, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering a wonderful husband, father and friend to all and to express our warmest good will to his family.

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

Madam Speaker, I have said all I need to say about this bill except to echo the chairman's remarks regarding John's service.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last several days we have said all that we perhaps need to say about the omnibus. We have discussed every inch of it. We all know about the amendment on the Senate side. And, because of that, I am going to give up my 20-minute speech.

I would like to take just a moment nonetheless to ask the Members to join me in paying a very special tribute to one of the most beloved and respected staffers on Capitol Hill.

After 3 years as my staff director, Frank Cushing is leaving the committee at the end of the year to pursue other opportunities. With more than 25 years of Capitol Hill experience, Frank leaves behind a record of integrity and service that few can match.

I got to know Frank in 1995 when he served as my clerk on the House VA-HUD subcommittee of appropriations, a position he held until 2003. In very little time, I saw that Frank was one of those rare staffers who not only loves and respects this institution, but he in turn is respected and trusted by Members on both sides of the aisle.

Prior to his service in the House, Frank held numerous positions in the Senate, including staff director, both majority and minority, of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and clerk of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. More than one professional on both sides of the aisle have said to me, and I would quote them, ``You are fortunate if you have been trained in this business by Frank Cushing.''

Frank, we are going to miss you. We want you to know that, as we express our love for you and for Amy, the entire body wishes you well and wishes your family Godspeed. Thanks, Frank.

Mr. Speaker, we are now just 6 days away from the Christmas holidays. I know the Members and staff are eager to get home to their families so I intend to be very brief in my remarks today.

The House is considering a yearend omnibus spending package that, I must confess, is a much better product than what we considered Monday evening. I reluctantly opposed

both amendments passed by the House 2 days ago because they failed to provide for our troops in harm's way in Iraq. Fortunately, the Senate has now addressed this oversight. The Omnibus returns to the House a much better and complete bill.

Because this spending package adheres to the President's top line on spending, and it contains funding for our men and women in uniform in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I intend to support this legislation. And, I'm pleased to say that all indications are that the President will sign it.

Before concluding my remarks, I want to thank Chairman Obey and the fine committee staff for their tireless efforts this year. Few people realize the tremendous amount of work that goes into the appropriations process each year.

The Appropriations Committee is the workhorse committee. Chairman Obey and our staff have worked very long hours to produce this legislation, and they deserve our gratitude. David, it is time for you to go home to Wisconsin and for me to go to California for a few weeks. It's time to let the staff catch up on some long overdue family time for the holidays.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take almost no more time except to recognize a couple of my colleagues for unanimous-consent requests.

I first recognize the gentleman from Florida, my chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Bill Young.

(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) for a unanimous-consent request.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

As we are closing this down, I would like to join you and use this moment to express my deep appreciation for the fine work in our committee of David Morrison. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to Mr. Obey for recognizing the fabulous work of Frank Cushing. We expect we'll do more of this as we go forward in the several days ahead of us, but in the meantime, his thoughtfulness is very much appreciated by all of us on this side who have worked so closely with Frank on the appropriations process.

It's not my intention to speak extensively on this matter. There are some things that do need to be said. But, nonetheless, all of us know in 7 days it will be Christmas Eve. Tonight I find myself more hopeful than just a few days ago that we will be home, if we choose, by Christmas.

Tonight the House is considering a massive year-end omnibus spending package. I must confess that while I

know the broad parameters of what's included in this package, the details are still not widely known. I'm told that it adheres to the President's top line on spending, which is encouraging and, obviously, a step in the right direction.

I am pleased that, though, through the weekend negotiations Chairman Obey and other leaders have agreed to drop provisions that would have triggered a Presidential veto. Still, I'm troubled by the fact that these two amendments before us fail to provide any funding to our men and women in uniform in Iraq; yet I remain hopeful that this oversight will soon be addressed by the other body.

It's unfortunate that we find ourselves considering an omnibus package at all for it represents to, I think, both the chairman and myself a breakdown of regular order. I do not blame Chairman Obey for this breakdown.

This year the House passed each of the spending bills in an orderly fashion. And while I believe that these bills spent too much money, the House Appropriations Committee kept its word by completing its work. The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the other body, is largely to blame, once again, on our failure to complete our work on time in the regular order of the year.

Our Congress, our country are best served when we move our individual bills through the legislative process. It is the only way that we can provide adequate oversight, both policy and spending, that is. That challenge was particularly acute this year with a Democratic majority writing and passing spending bills that initially exceeded the President's budget by some $23 billion. The President has been very clear all year long that he would veto any spending bill that exceeded his budget request. All told, the House spending bills, as passed last summer, dramatically exceeded the President's budget request, and yet, for months, the Democratic majority chose to dismiss or ignore the President's clear intent.

We are now 78 days into the new fiscal year, and it appears that after months of work by our exhausted committee staff, we are on the verge of having a spending package the President may be able to sign. I say may be able to sign because this package, lacking adequate funding for our troops, is still incomplete. For this reason, I'm not able to endorse legislation as presently written. I cannot and will not support a spending package that fails to provide for the needs of our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where the House has failed to act, I'm hopeful that the Senate will demonstrate its leadership. It is absolutely essential that the Senate support our troops with no strings attached.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to express my appreciation to all of our staff. As David has expressed, the fabulous work by Frank Cushing, he's been supported on our side, as David has on his side, by very hardworking, very fine people who have been working day in, day out, night and day over the weekends. They have prepared this legislation as best their side would allow them, and our side as well. Many of our staff have not yet put a Christmas tree up and even begun to prepare for the holidays because of the work of the committee. Let me say to each of you, I thank you, thank you for your fine work. All of our professional staff has worked together as a team on both sides.

Again, I remain hopeful that the Senate will amend this spending package and quickly return it for our consideration. Until then, I must reluctantly urge my colleagues, I'd include in that even committee members on both sides of the aisle, I encourage our colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee of Appropriations, Mr. Regula of Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time there is on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the last time that Chairman Obey and I were on the floor together, I was heard to quote our friend, Will Rogers, and it had to do about sometimes we talk more than we should. I was intrigued by the fact that while he advised us to never miss the opportunity to shut up, that recently in Latin America there's discussion among Latin leaders in which a fellow by the name of Chavez kept talking and talking and talking, and this is by way of suggesting that we don't really have to keep talking today. I think it was the King of Spain, David, who said, ``Por que no te calles?'' If I could repeat that, ``Por que no te calles?'' That is, if we don't talk too much, we'll be all right here today.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to believe that Christmas is less than 2 weeks away and that David Obey provides me with material for my own presentation one more time.

While most Americans are Christmas shopping and decorating their Christmas tree, Congress continues to stumble its way to completing its business for the year. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go, so we find ourselves today considering yet another continuing resolution.

It was just 1 year ago the House passed a series of continuing resolutions to ensure the continuation of government funding programs into the new fiscal year. My friend Chairman David Obey came to the House floor as the ranking member during that debate to criticize Republicans in the House and Senate for their failure to pass the annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the breakdown in the budget process and vowed that things would be different under a Democratic majority.

We are now only, I say, 74 days in the new fiscal year, and once again the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor decrying the breakdown of regular order. The only difference is that David Obey is now Chairman Obey, and I'm the committee's ranking member.

The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely manner. Earlier this year, my chairman was absolutely beating us all over the room because of our failure to pass bills at the end of the year.

The Senate leader held up our bills. Mr. Obey knew that we'd passed all of our bills in the House by July 4. The year before we'd done the same thing, and all the bills had been signed by the President. And lo and behold, Mr. Obey finds himself. Frankly David, I thought you had much closer relationships with the Senate than I, but here we are. The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely fashion.

The President has been very clear all year long that he would veto any spending bill or any omnibus package that exceeded his budget request. All told, the House-passed spending bills exceeded the President's budget request by $23 billion, and yet the Democrat majority chose to dismiss or ignore the President's clear intent, that is, until now.

A short time ago, Chairman Obey instructed the committee staff to prepare an omnibus spending bill and pare spending back to exceed the President's request by $11 billion. Not included in this total, there was over $7 billion being designated as emergency spending.

Just in the last several days, maybe even hours, the Democratic leadership finally got the message. They came to the realization that the President was, indeed, serious. So it all appears that, after months of work by our exhausted committee staff, work can finally begin on a spending package that the President may be able to sign. I say may be able to sign because the President has not yet seen the details of the omnibus package that will come forward.

For good measure, let me make very clear the President will veto any omnibus spending package that contains any controversial policy provisions, any gimmicks or any consequential budgetary sleight of hand.

I urge Chairman Obey to resist the urge on his part to add any so- called contingency spending anywhere in this package, as it may lead to a presidential veto.

I'd like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past CR debate. He said, and I quote, ``We are here

today with not a single dollar having been appropriated to any government program that has anything whatsoever to do with the domestic operations of this government. That is a disgraceful performance. And so we are left with the choice of passing this continuing resolution or having the government shut down.''

Again, my friends, these are the words of Chairman David Obey from last year, then Ranking Member Obey. They are particularly meaningful today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any other speakers, but I did want to apologize to my colleague and take just a moment to do that. If, indeed, I have lectured the gentleman, I certainly would want to apologize to the House for that, for the House knows he's never lectured us or anybody else. Now I'm not certain what may have gone on in his own caucus, but certainly he doesn't lecture us.

And if my quoting his own words takes the term ``carping,'' I guess it's difficult not to quote him exactly, and if that's carping, so be it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I will just speak on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I was about to present is quite simple. The motion will ensure that we continue to provide funding for our troops in harm's way until Congress takes the necessary action to pass a bridge fund or a full-year war supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 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 one of the most outstanding individuals I have come to know in my 30 years in Congress, Dr. James Slater of Loma Linda University Medical Center, who pioneered the development of the proton beam cancer therapy.

When Loma Linda University Medical Center in my district recruited Dr. James Slater to develop a radiation oncology program in 1970, they gained a unique expert in the field of radiation therapy. Before he became a physician, Dr. Slater's main interest was physics. With a profound understanding of the way radiation works on the human body, Dr. Slater set out to find a way to gain more control of the process and reduce the toll this therapy takes on patients.

He became convinced after nearly 15 years of research that the best way to accomplish this was through proton beams, which had been tested in research laboratories but never developed as a permanent medical therapy. After meeting with scientists and physicians from around the world, Dr. Slater began looking for a partner to develop the technology for a proton-beam treatment center. When private industry declined to take the challenge, he turned to Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) near Chicago, which had been actively involved in research on the potential for medical technology. In 1986, the medical center and Fermilab--backed by the Department of Energy--agreed to build a proton-beam treatment center at Loma Linda.

One of the most marvelous experiences I've had as a member of Congress came in 1987, when Dr. Slater and his team came to my office to lay out the plan for a new way of treating cancer tumors. I was quickly convinced that his idea was fabulous, and his ability to bring together the medical, technical and operational experts was superb. During a hearing before the House Energy Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleagues agreed. Many members had family or close friends who had been afflicted with cancer, and they were eager to help find a new treatment plan. Major funding was approved and the center opened in 1990.

Thanks to the dedication of the medical center and the support of Congress and Department of Energy, Dr. Slater's vision has become a reality in the past 20 years. More than 11,500 patients have received treatment for prostate cancer, brain tumors, and other forms of cancer. A research program is promising new ways to treat breast cancer early and possibly avoid mastectomies in many cases. Another program has helped the National Aeronautics and Space Administration research the effects of space radiation and design better equipment for astronauts. Since 2003, four more proton-beam treatment centers have opened in other areas of the country.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to tell my colleagues that Loma Linda University Medical Center has decided to honor this pioneering medical scientist by naming the proton beam treatment center in his honor. There is no doubt that this honor is richly deserved, and memorializes a true visionary and benefactor for thousands of cancer patients in the future. Please join me in congratulating Dr. Slater on receiving this honor, and thanking him for his dedication to opening new horizons in the fight against cancer.

Madam Speaker, I had planned to make a 10- minute, maybe even a 20-minute speech this evening expressing my concerns about the Labor-HHS conference report. However, given the late hour and Members' desire to join their families for the Thanksgiving Day holiday, I will submit my written statement for the Record.

As I do so, Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the words of my friend Will Rogers, whose statue stands outside the door of this very Chamber. He said, ``Never miss a good chance to shut up.''

With that, I urge a vote to sustain the President's veto, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, here we are on November 15th and only two appropriations bills have been sent to the President--only one of which was enacted. I must confess that I find it quite ironic that the majority party spent the better part of the beginning of this year criticizing Republicans for not getting our work done in a

timely fashion when now those same critics find themselves in an identical, or perhaps even worse, situation.

For those of us who serve on the Appropriations Committee, this will be the sixth time we have voted on this bill this year. Six times! It is the fourth time the full House will have voted on it.

The fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal government's role in education, health, and workforce programs. Regardless of that disagreement, House Republicans agree that many of the programs funded in this bill are vitally important. The majority party would have the public believe otherwise.

The recent rhetoric we have heard with respect to the president's veto of this bill diminishes all that we do as elected officials, and it does not serve this Congress or our country well. It is targeted at raw, base emotions rather than fact. It is intended to mislead the American people. It is, in short, intended for political gain.

The primary difference between the parties on this bill is that Republicans believe we must balance the benefits of these worthwhile programs with the fact that the American taxpayer must pay for them.

The vetoed bill that we are being asked to consider today is nearly $10 billion over the President's budget request and $6 billion over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. It represents roughly half of the $22 billion the majority party in this Congress wants to spend over what the president requested.

When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith--a Democrat--presented his bill in 1994, it totaled $65 billion. If you had predicted in 1994 that the very same bill--which largely covers the same agencies today as it did then--would increase by $85 billion over the next 13 years, the Chairman of the full Committee--who happened to be David Obey--probably would not have believed it.

Let's put that into perspective. In 1994 the Defense bill spent $242 billion. The Defense bill signed just this week spends $459 billion. That is an 89 percent increase over thirteen years for a function that is quite clearly and constitutionally the primary responsibility of the Federal Government--defending our home, our citizens and our way of life against foreign threats. This bill contains a 130 percent increase since 1994--it has more than doubled in size!

By any objective standard--whether you are Jerry Lewis or David Obey--that is a healthy increase.

And today, the House is being asked to override the president's veto and spend nearly $10 billion more than was requested and $6 billion more than last year under the mistaken notion that throwing money at our nation's problems will cause them to fade away.

Under the mistaken notion that the Federal Government is the panacea--

That government health insurance is the answer for the uninsured;

That the judgment of bureaucrats in Washington who contribute only 9 cents of every dollar spent to educate our children is superior to the judgment of parents and local school districts who face very different circumstances across our country;

That job training is somehow the responsibility of the Federal Government rather than of schools, private employers and individuals.

I contend that government is not the long-term solution. While government offers safety net programs that I support, these programs are and should be short-term solutions to help our fellow citizens move toward self-sufficiency. These programs are meant to be a hand up, not a hand out.

As we move forward with consideration of these FY 2008 appropriations bills, Members of Congress ought to be aware that voting to override the president's vetoes on this and other appropriations bills--in short, voting to support this majority's spending spree--will increase the average annual burden on the individual taxpayer by roughly $3,000.

That is $3,000 that cannot be used to buy food, to save for college, to pay for health insurance, or, for that matter, to contribute to public television.

Finally, I must express my dismay at remarks made by the chairman of the committee with respect to the fate of member projects if this veto is sustained. I would hope that my colleagues do not take the bait on what I consider an inappropriate threat that suggests that members care more about pork than they do about bad fiscal policy.

I appreciate very much my colleague yielding, and I rise also to pay tribute to one of the great Americans who provided a level of leadership in terms of public policy in this House like few have and most would want to be.

Gus was a wonderful friend over time, and his best roommate, a guy by the name of Frank Baca served us in and around the Vatican for some years, a wonderful guy as well. They lived a short distance from our house. My bride and I used to walk in the park and run into Gus often. The conversations were about the House first, briefly, but then from there the fact that the best thing about this place, if we will let it, it is a place where people of great difference can become very dear and warm friends.

Gus Hawkins was one of the great Americans to ever serve in the Congress. While he has passed, it is a tribute to America that we can have men and women in the House of Representatives of the style and class of Gus Hawkins.

I appreciate my colleague yielding.

I appreciate very much my colleague yielding. And before making the remarks I have in mind, I want to extend my congratulations to the chairman and the ranking member for a very thoughtful effort to put together a very reasonable bill, while it is a bit over the funding levels of the President, and as a result of that I'll probably vote against it.

I had not planned to speak on this bill, for I had an understanding from the other side that maybe neither the chairman or the ranking member would spend too much time speaking.

I must say that some years ago it was my privilege to chair this subcommittee, and I took that responsibility very, very seriously. I know that the chairman of the committee has been very frustrated with me this year as I've suggested, more than one time, that the solution on the other side to every problem, it seems, is to throw more money at it.

And the chairman just was wringing his hands a bit about the section 8 funding in this bill and suggesting we certainly should be doing a better job.

Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, we absolutely should be doing a better job.

And back then, when I had a chance to chair this subcommittee, I spent some time with then-Secretary Henry, under a different administration than this one, and he and I went to section 8 housing circumstances and both wrung our hands with some frustration about the way many of those housing authorities are operating and the way they're using the money that we send out there to help the poorest of the poor have a chance for reasonable housing.

We found that there were some serious questions to be raised, and that led to a thing called the Housing Fraud Initiative. And we gave extra money to the Inspector General of the Housing Authority, and the Inspector General went around the country, and, indeed, found serious problems in any number of housing authorities about the way the money was being spent that supposedly was designed for the poorest of the poor.

It is not a fact that those housing authorities automatically respond in a way that would reflect the best use of our money. And if that's an illustration, indeed, the chairman has made my point. We don't solve problems by just throwing money, especially if we're not willing to follow the money and see if it's getting to the people we pretend to want to help in the first place.

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

In its present form, I am.

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

I appreciate the Speaker's help in this matter, but in the meantime, I appreciate my colleague yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the wheels have finally come off the appropriations process. One need only to look at the sorry state of affairs in which we find ourselves as we address these appropriations bills.

Earlier today, the House passed a Transportation-HUD appropriations conference report that is $3 billion over the budget request. The President has said he will veto this legislation.

Tomorrow the House will vote to sustain the President's veto on a bloated Labor-HHS bill that is $10 billion over the budget request. That will essentially send the bill back to the drawing board.

And if that is not enough, consider this. It is now 3 days after Veterans Day and there is still no sign of the majority moving to considered the MilCon-VA bill, a freestanding bill identical to the MilCon-VA conference report that was removed from the Labor-HHS conference report by a point of order in the Senate, by the way, in the other body.

That bill was introduced by Congressman Wicker this week. This legislation, which the President said he would sign, could be brought to the House floor today. It now appears that a Democrat majority has no intent of bringing this legislation to the floor before Thanksgiving.

The appropriations process this year has been reduced to what Shakespeare might refer to as ``a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.''

For all of the time and energy put into these bills this year by Members and our overworked, highly professional staff, the end result thus far is all sound and fury and very little to show for it.

That leads us to the legislation we are now considering, the so- called bridge fund. Frankly, that legislation is so ill-conceived and damaging to our troops, I hardly know where to begin.

First, let me say that we learned that this bill would be considered by the Rules Committee while we were waiting for the Rules Committee hearing on the THUD conference report to begin last night. I was given no notice whatsoever, nor was I provided any opportunity to testify. It is a sad state of affairs when the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee isn't even given the courtesy of paper notice

to testify on legislation as important as this. I can't imagine the wails and screaming I would have heard last year if the ranking member had been put in that position.

The House is being asked to consider a funding bill that reflects the priorities of Speaker Pelosi and a deeply divided, extremely left- leaning Democratic Caucus. It attempts to bridge these widening divisions over the war in Iraq through providing funding only on the condition that troops are withdrawn beginning 30 days after the bill's enactment.

Our troops are badly in need of funding to continue their mission, but this legislation ties the hands of our Commander in Chief during a time of war, places military decisions in the hands of the politicians, and micromanages our combatant commanders in whom we place the ultimate responsibility for prosecuting military actions.

If the majority's goal is to end the war or withdraw our troops, then that should be addressed in separate legislation. The majority cannot have it both ways, pretending on the one hand to support our troops while on the other hand undercutting our ability to prosecute their mission.

Men and women of good conscience can disagree about the war in Iraq, but on one thing we must all agree: Our men and women in uniform must continue to receive our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully.

By appeasing the wishes of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Democrat majority has chosen to place partisan politics above the lives and well-being of our troops in harm's way. This action is reckless and irresponsible. There is absolutely no reason why a clean bridge fund could not have been included within the DOD conference report which the President signed yesterday. Again, the Democrat majority chose to place politics ahead of our troops.

My colleagues, consider carefully the consequences of our actions here today. Passage of the bridge fund legislation in its present form will signal to the insurgents and terrorists that the United States doesn't have the political will to continue supporting the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will simply lay in wait until our troops are withdrawn. And with the collapse of this fragile democracy, our efforts, and the sacrifices of our troops, will have been for nothing.

There is no question that the President will veto this bill. In the meantime, our troops will face the uncertainty resulting from the majority's mixed signals and lack of a clear commitment.

I urge my colleagues to support our troops and oppose this legislation.

Would my colleague yield?