Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, because of unusual circumstances, I would choose at the floor well to yield control of the time to the former chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young of Florida.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding me this time and rise simply to say that one of the most important things for all of us to recognize on both sides of the aisle is that the American public is absolutely sick and tired of seeing us doing purely partisan battle in the name of serving the public.

Over the years, if there's an arena where we have come together in a totally nonpartisan way, it has been in support of our veterans. To hear my friend, my colleague from Texas, this evening painting veterans affairs programs in partisan terms, as though this is a partisan political game, would cause our colleague Sonny Montgomery to turn over in his grave. Absolutely he would find this style unacceptable.

Our veteran service organizations know an awful lot better than we do how important it is that we strike a nonpartisan tone. In this arena we have the opportunity to come together, Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of the American people. I urge us to get back to that pattern that says this is not a partisan game. We all, Democrats and Republicans, support our veterans. The record has already been laid out that will make that very, very clear to anybody who would but take the time to read it.

Above and beyond that, Madam Speaker, it is very likely that this package will be vetoed by the President, largely because the President is trying to strike a tone which says you don't solve every problem that faces the American public by way of simply throwing money at those problems. There are those who think that government is the only solution and the only way to get to an end is by throwing mud at the wall and hoping some will stick.

In the arena that involves fundamental and basic research leading to better health care for all Americans, when we played a nonpartisan role, we have gotten very, very positive results. I think the public recognizes that the sooner we can get this House to come together and bring our people together, the more progress we are going to make. It's long past due that we recognize that we do our best work by going to the subcommittee level and setting aside partisan politics, knowing full well that our Appropriation Committee works extremely well with the give-and-take and compromise that happens at the subcommittee level. Some way this year in this House we have gotten away from this. If we continue on this pattern, I predict that we are going to destroy the Appropriations Committee as we know it.

Now, one more thing. The President will veto this bill. I predict his veto will be sustained. Then this House will come back and hopefully in a nonpartisan way, I say to my friend from Texas, in a nonpartisan way pass a bill that reflects all of our support for America's veterans.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss what appears to be one of the most highly unusual decisions made by the leadership of the House by way of combining the Labor, Health and Human Services bill with Military Construction, VA, and all those programs that relate to veterans, and the DOD bills into one package to be sent to the President.

It is my understanding that included in this package may be disaster funding relief that could affect wildfires in the West. There may be other popular items that the majority may attempt to air-drop into conference. In theory, the bill itself is supposed to focus upon health care for our citizens across the country, labor programs and education programs, not defense, not veterans programming or other related programs. This package would exclude any DOD bridged supplemental funding for our troops.

Last year, a bipartisan group of Members demanded that the administration send a full-year supplemental

request for activities related to the global war on terror. Now that the administration has provided the full-year request, the House and Senate leadership have refused to provide this critical funding for our troops who are serving in harm's way.

Additionally, instead of moving the Labor-HHS bill, the DOD bill and the MilCon-VA bills through the process by regular order and holding separate conferences, this omnibus package would be carried as part of the Labor-HHS bill.

Frankly, as I talk to my colleagues who know the appropriations process around this place pretty well, they can't quite believe why we're doing this. For each of these bills passed the House separately and individually, they've got programs that are highly supported. There is little doubt that regular order would work if the leadership would allow it to work.

Let me be clear on this. The President has already indicated that he will sign a freestanding MilCon bill, and he will sign a freestanding Defense bill. Especially it's important to note that the MilCon bill includes funding for veterans as well, with a commitment for his signature. By not moving these bills individually, the majority is using our veterans as well as our troops essentially as political pawns.

Yesterday, I had a conversation with the President's Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten. He clearly indicated that if this package makes its way to the White House, it will be vetoed by the President in this form. Apparently the President delivered a similar message to our Members and the press at the White House yesterday morning.

Personally, I think it's outrageous that the majority is proceeding in this way with funding for our troops and our veterans simply to try to push through a 10-plus billion dollar increase in the Labor and Health and Human Services programs. To me, this is nothing more than essentially, at least some would describe it as political blackmail, as well as a poke in the eye to our troops, our veterans, our Members, as well as our President.

To the Democrat majority who conceived this misbegotten, ill- conceived legislative strategy, let me say this: You are not only making a mockery of the legislative process, you are intentionally undermining a strong bipartisan desire to fund our troops, provide medical care for those troops, as well as provide funding for our veterans. This approach is kind of like the SCHIP package on steroids. And I believe that it, too, will fail.

I do not intend to sign the conference report or vote for it when it reaches the floor. I will also be supporting the President's veto, should he decide to veto this package. Clearly, this is in excess, and it's a fundamental violation of what I think should be the tradition of the appropriations process.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just might mention that

during the time that the chairman and I have worked together in the Appropriations Committee, we have talked many a time about process where we both happen to think it is very important. But the fact is that all three of these bills, the Defense bill, the MILCON and veterans bill, indeed, Labor-HHS, all passed this House separately. We could carry these bills in regular order. It is frankly a sham to suggest that it is a requirement to bring these packages together.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Obey, I know that you speak on the floor a lot more than I do, and I appreciate the talent with which you do it. But in the meantime, we are talking about regular order, trying to change the appropriations process so it makes sense, not destroy our committee. I would suggest we are on a pathway to destroy this committee.

What I am suggesting, Mr. Obey, is that there are, in this place even, there are people who sometimes use data and statistics for their purposes versus other purposes. This is our committee and I would hope we would run it in regular order.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Republican leader of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to be calling upon my colleague, who is the ranking member of the MilCon-VA bill in just a second. But I wanted to mention it is very interesting to see my colleague, the chairman, to use statistics and data for his own purposes.

We have, over the last 12 years, had nine omnibus appropriations bills, and where those bills were put together in packages, I objected to that procedure all along the line. But, as a matter of fact, as a matter of fact, negotiations had taken place on the part of both sides of the aisle, and the President signed those bills. He didn't suggest he would be vetoing those bills.

Data can be used for one's purpose, but we ought to be accurate and recognize that facts are facts.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the ranking member of the MilCon-VA bill.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Veterans Committee, Steve Buyer.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

Not on this portion, no.

Madam Speaker, I would speak just for a moment by way of saying that I think in many ways we have demonstrated if we

are not careful with our rhetoric, we can undermine the opportunity we have for bipartisan consideration of very important work in the House.

One of the most positive experiences I have had as a member of the Appropriations Committee has been to sit in that subcommittee that deals with Labor-HHS. I have been very, very impressed with the amount of nonpartisan, bipartisan support for fundamental research, for example. Earlier it was suggested that there is not that base of support. It is when we get this partisan confrontation on the floor that polarizes us that we tend to become confused about the real work that is positively done within our subcommittees.

Madam Speaker, I must say I would hope that we can do all that we possibly can to try to bring both sides together relative to those research items that I feel have such high priority.

Beyond that, I'm going to be later raising a question by way of a motion to instruct conferees that would suggest that the Labor-HHS bill ought to be dealt with by itself. Where the members of that subcommittee worked so hard and have such expertise in this arena to set their work out and complicate it with VA-HUD over issues that relate to veterans is absolutely undermining the appropriations process.

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Madam Speaker, I can't help but mention that the preceding discussion must be very enlightening to Americans across the country who may be interested in what we have to say here. It's always been my personal belief that the vast percentage of problems that we face as a people have very little to really do with partisan politics if we can get people together at the subcommittee level to really talk with each other about finding solutions, but clearly, clearly, Madam Speaker, it has to be apparent to almost everybody who had listened today that one side of the aisle in this body seems to believe that the only solution to every problem around is to throw more money at it. That clearly is not the case. Many a solution is found by way of people working together, not just throwing money at some wall.

Madam Speaker, in this motion to instruct conferees, I really repeat the point that the subcommittee members who work within the Labor-HHS community have great expertise in the programs within this arena. They spend a lot of energy and time applying themselves to that work.

Today we're in a process where we're going to tie that piece of work to a combination of two other bills. It's totally unnecessary. The Defense bill passed the House by very sizeable bipartisan numbers. Indeed, the MilCon-VA bill did the same. To suggest that we can't go forward with Labor-HHS as a separate product, I think this is a very unhealthy reflection on the work of that subcommittee.

This motion says the conference can only conference the Labor-HHS bill. They cannot consider adding Defense, MilCon-VA, or other matters outside the scope of the Labor-HHS conference. The Members who serve on the Labor-HHS subcommittee should be making decisions in an open conference regarding the disposition of programs and funding levels in that bill, not other appropriations bills related to the troops, veterans, or other items outside the scope of that conference.

Members serve on subcommittees and have the expertise I suggest because they work within those subcommittees. The people on Labor-HHS, very talented in their work, spend relatively

little of their time in the Defense arena, as well as the arena that deals with MilCon and veterans.

To air-drop Defense appropriations conference reports and the MilCon- VA bill into this process is absolutely unprecedented, in my view, and is a disservice to our Appropriations Committee.

Politicizing these bills and circumventing the normal practice of this and other committees does nothing more than undermine the American people's faith in their government.

Let's move beyond purely partisan politics and send the President a freestanding Labor-HHS bill, as well as individual Defense and MilCon- VA appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think maybe there are two or three.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to Judge Carter of Texas, a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Labor and Education Committee, Buck McKeon from California.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I would yield to my colleague from Florida, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Bill Young, for as much time as he may consume.

I have one additional speaker to close.

Yes, sir.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, Jim Walsh of New York.

Madam 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 very much appreciate my colleague's yielding me the time.

I will not use anywhere near 10 minutes. But let me say that my colleagues have already expressed their support for the phenomenal work that has taken place over the recent years as we have learned from past tragedies like this. The law enforcement officials, local government, the State people with the Forestry Service in California, and the U.S. Forestry Service have been truly phenomenal. We have learned an awful lot. But I would mention two things.

The first is that in terms of managing our forests, we usually find our way very quickly to develop those dollars that are necessary following a fire to respond to the immediate tragedy. Those dollars seem to flow almost upon our call. The dollars that, on the other hand, are much more difficult are those that involve managing the forest long term. It is so important that we recognize that the U.S. Forestry Service does all that they can, but they know

full well that the great difficulty of getting the money for managing that which makes up the ground fire that can destroy a forest, literally can obliterate this territory when we are looking, must be a part of our Federal responsibility.

There is little doubt that we will overcome this tragedy. Hundreds and hundreds of homes lost in my own district in and around Lake Arrowhead, California, tragedies for each of those families. But I would say beyond remembering that we must find the money for managing the forests. We also should talk to our constituents about the fact that when faced with a fire tragedy, the first thing that all of our people should do is to respond to those warnings that suggest, when they are called to evacuate, to evacuate. One life lost is too many, and the danger of attempting to overcome a fire near your home, indeed, is a critical decision. I would urge all of our citizens who are faced with this difficulty to respond to those calls for evacuation.

With that, I appreciate very much my colleagues' response to our tragedy and I appreciate very much their help.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I believe under the rules, in consultation with the minority, that the majority does control the calendar; is that correct?

Parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the calendar? That is a parliamentary inquiry. The legislative calendar.

By what?

Right, by a majority decision, which means essentially the Speaker's office, but nonetheless, that's interpretation.

Presuming that what you said is correct, that majority decision can set this bill when they wish to, including the middle of October, if they wish to; is that correct?

I think it is. It is asking about process and the procedure of the House.

I beg your pardon. I don't do this very often.

I think it is very important, Madam Speaker, that this parliamentary inquiry be, at the least, responded to partially.

I am about to do that. It is very clear to you, Madam Speaker, I am sure, and anybody listening, that the leadership wants to delay this until October 15 for political purposes, and they are partisanizing this for no reason.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee often talks about thoughts and wisdom of Archie the cockroach, but today I am reminded of the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.''

It was 1 year ago that the House passed the first of several continuing resolutions to ensure the continuation of government-funded programs in the new fiscal year.

My friend, David Obey, came to the floor as the ranking member during the debate to criticize Republicans in the House and the Senate for their failure to pass the annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the breakdown of the budget process and vowed that things would be different under a Democrat majority.

We are now 4 days away from the end of the 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 am a mere struggling committee ranking member.

At this time last year, we had sent President Bush two appropriations conference reports. This year, not one appropriations conference meeting has taken place between the two bodies, even though there are bills available.

When we passed the first CR last year, my hope was it would provide strong motivation for Congress to complete its work in regular order. I was hopeful that our colleagues in the Senate would complete their work so we could send to the White House the remaining individual conference reports before the end of our legislative session.

I come to the floor today with the same hopeful expectation that the Senate will soon complete its work. But, based on recent history, I'm not holding my breath.

My appropriations colleague, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, could not have been a better partner as we attempted to bring regular order to the appropriations process. Unfortunately, Chairman Cochran was poorly served by his own leadership.

The breakdown of regular order in the last Congress, indeed the failure to get our bills done, was placed squarely at the feet of the former Senate majority leader who failed to schedule floor time for the consideration of appropriations bills. One year later, the failure of the appropriations process can be laid squarely at the feet of the present Senate majority leader.

The House has passed each of its spending bills; and, while I believe these bills spend too much, the House Appropriations Committee has kept its word by completing its work.

During my tenure as chairman, the Appropriations Committee was strongly committed to bringing to the floor individual conference reports for each and every bill. I did not then support, and do not now support, an omnibus spending bill in any form. But that is exactly the direction in which the Democrat majority is now moving.

I am convinced that moving bills individually is the only way for us to control government spending. Lacking regular order, there is a tendency for spending on the remaining bills to grow out of control. That challenge is particularly acute this year with the Democrat majority writing and passing spending bills that exceed the President's budget request by about $23 billion.

We are today passing a CR that continues for the next 6 weeks Federal programs under the terms and conditions established in the 2007 fiscal year resolution.

In 6 weeks, I am afraid we will be here once again to pass yet another continuing resolution, and that will lead us well into the free-spending holiday season.

My colleagues, we are moving ever closer to a massive year-end omnibus spending bill. That course of action would be an admission of failure on the part of this Congress.

At this moment, there is still time for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on spending. There is still time for the House and the Senate to complete its work in regular order. There is still time to pass and send to the White House individual conference reports. But we must act now.

I would like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past continuing resolution debate: ``This continuing resolution is a monument to institutional failure. This Congress is failing to meet even the most basic and minimal expectations that the country has for it by way of doing our routine business. This is governing in a pitiful way,'' Mr. Obey said, ``and I wish that I could say something more positive about it, but, indeed, I cannot.''

Mr. Speaker, and I would say, ``Madam Speaker,'' if I could find the gentlelady on the floor, ``Madam Speaker, this is deja vu all over again.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to know if Mr. Obey wanted to continue speaking or I can yield back my time. I'm ready to yield back the balance of my time. I just wondered if you were ready to yield more time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this simple motion is to recommend or recommit. It is a sense of the Congress resolution that recognizes the service of General David Petraeus as well as all other members of our Armed Forces. It expresses our appreciation for his personal sacrifices and those of his family as well as the sacrifices of those who served in the Armed Forces and their families.

Further, this sense of the Congress resolution condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the unfair personal attacks made by the advocacy group, MoveOn.org, on the character, integrity and professionalism of General David Patraeus. Such unwarranted attacks should be strongly condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike in the House.

I strongly urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

I appreciate very much my colleague yielding me this time. Very much I appreciate their making this effort to recognize and remember those people who lost their lives on 9/11 6 years ago.

I couldn't help, as I listened to the discussion today, to remember ironically that the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations was meeting, with full membership from both sides of the aisle, just downstairs from the Chamber.

At the time the plane crashed in Pennsylvania in that open lot, with us was John Murtha of Pennsylvania. It was in his district where that plane crashed. The irony, as many know but I cannot help to mention it, that John Murtha is the chairman of the subcommittee at this very moment. At the time, we together recognized that the most important work of the Appropriations Committee perhaps takes place in that committee room, the Defense Subcommittee room.

And in this circumstance, when that plane crashed, which indeed likely was headed for the Capitol, that's the best speculation, if the Pennsylvania crash had hit the Capitol, we might very well have lost that entire committee. There are ironies in all of this.

As we remember those who lost their lives, let us remember the threat of terror to our very way of life is taking place around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to extend my support for the fiscal year 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill, as recommended by Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young, is a clean bill. It is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill.

This bill provides almost $460 billion for our Nation's defense, an increase of $39.7 billion over the fiscal year 2007 appropriations. It funds the country's priorities during a period where we find ourselves developing a force structure for the future and carrying out a Global War on Terrorism. The bill provides balance with support for development and deployment of near-term capabilities, while investing in the future through robust science and technology efforts. In particular, the bill:

Continues the establishment of a strong missile defense against the threats of our adversaries;

Furthers the revitalization of our human intelligence efforts, a critical capability lost in the 90's, while maintaining our technical intelligence assets;

Focuses the evolution of tomorrow's blue water navy;

Grows the force structure necessary to meet the operational demands and reduce the burdens carried by our military families;

Addresses the health care needs of our soldiers; and,

Does all of these things while providing the necessary resources to train and equip today's forces that are currently in harm's way.

I believe, however, that it may be more important to appreciate what this bill doesn't do rather than what it actually does.

This bill doesn't bog us down in the useless exercise of academic debate on issues better discussed elsewhere.

It doesn't step into the authorizations world with misguided attempts to solve issues associated with topics like Iraq or detainee policy.

And, most importantly, it doesn't delay providing our men and women in uniform our unqualified support and the resources they need to complete their mission successfully. I strongly urge my colleagues to preserve this quality of the bill before us today.

Over the years that I have been privileged to serve on the Appropriations committee, we have made every effort to leave partisan politics at the door. We have teamed up in a bipartisan fashion to do what is best for the country. This bill follows that longstanding, time-honored tradition.

For us to get our work done--for us to be successful--it must remain that way. National security demands that this bill focus on the needs of our troops. In its current form, this bill does that.

National security also demands that Congress move swiftly. The House is doing its part and I would urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us in moving this bill--and others--quickly.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the swift adoption of this Defense Appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is most interesting that we would have this discussion this evening. It is not my intention to spend a lot of time on this, but, nonetheless, last year we had a discussion about another project entirely near the Marine base, and I asked the gentleman if he had ever been to the Marine barracks in Washington, D.C., and he had not.

In this case to even suggest that there isn't an interest in education within the families that make up our services across the country and the world causes me almost to smile if it wasn't so painful to think that he didn't understand how important this could be to military families.

This program involves a model center, developing methods for attracting and training, developing teachers and otherwise, to encourage young people to be involved in math and science. It has now affected literally tens of thousands of students all across the country. It has had a tremendous impact upon military families who are interested in these programs. It has attracted NASA, playing a major role in the fundamental center of the success of this educational effort. Retired employees from companies like JPL volunteer time to help in this effort because it is having an effect upon science education all across America, including literally, literally, hundreds, if not thousands, of student in Arizona alone.

Last year we had this discussion. I don't want to take a lot of time, only to say that after the discussion, 50 of my colleagues decided to vote against this program and well over 300 of my friends, our colleagues, thought it was a worthwhile effort. It is indeed one of the models for attracting kids of military families dramatically to math and science across the country, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's recommendation.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I would be happy to yield to my chairman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Young is exactly correct.

I don't stand to take credit for all kinds of extra earmarks. But as long as we are talking about it, the gentleman has heard the Predator mentioned a number of times. I think the gentleman knows that the bureaucrats don't necessarily have all the answers, whether those bureaucrats happen to be in the Education Department or they happen to be in the military.

Back when we were looking at the Predator, the idea of an unmanned aerial vehicle, it was pretty clear that the Air Force was much more interested in programs where planes were flown by men than in new ideas. The Predator came along, an unmanned aerial vehicle concept, and I had to take credit, my goodness, credit that year when this became implemented for some $40 million of an earmark to advance the RDT&E, the research and development. If that $40 million had not been appropriated, Predator would not have been available in Bosnia.

Now, since then Predator has gone forward and done many a thing, and I suppose I should be taking credit for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks. But in the meantime, the military does not have all the answers to all the ideas, and, indeed, neither does the Department of Education.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Upon examination of this program, the last time we discussed this a year ago and took the Members' time in a very late

evening, approximately 50 of your colleagues joined in your concern about this program.

It is a fabulous program, using the money very well, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, before going to the business at hand, let me say to my colleagues that that moment of silence earlier was something that each of us should take home with us in our hearts this evening. That which has happened in Minnesota is an obvious tragedy to the people affected, those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and, indeed, those we don't know about.

In turn, it is a reflection of the reality that across the country we have infrastructure exactly like that in Minnesota that we should all try to raise in terms of the priority of our attention. Indeed, that kind of crisis will come again, and we need to pay attention to it soon.

Mr. Speaker, with that, this motion to recommit would send the bill back to the committee and report the bill back promptly with an amendment that prohibits any funds in this act from being used to employ a person who is not authorized to be employed in this country and prohibits funds from being used for rental housing assistance to a person who is not authorized to receive such assistance.

There is nothing, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing dilatory about this motion. This is not a political piece of chicanery. It only requires that funds in this act be implemented in accordance with the current law and to ensure that sufficient diligence be employed by the USDA and its partners to ensure that these current requirements are followed.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to be allocating funds and subsidizing individuals who are not in our country legally.

Similar amendments have been adopted in several appropriations bills passed by the House this year. Had there been regular order on this bill, I am sure they would have been adopted on this bill as well, that is, those individuals who would suggest that we should not have people who are not legally in this country being subsidized.

Now, you are going to hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle that this will kill the bill. That is absolutely not the case. As has been demonstrated by their actions today, they can go to committee, pass these amendments, and then waive procedural issues to bring this bill back to the floor tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``aye'' on this motion to recommit.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman from the Rules Committee raising these very, very important questions.

Our membership should know, and I think the American public will want to know, that one of the reasons to have a meeting in the dead of the night to make changes in this package is because this package, in the name of helping children, is designed to do much more than that. As a matter of fact, the SCHIP program, in its original form, was an excellent program, working very well to help children who are uninsured, on the margin of poverty.

The design of this bill is to expand that program into eventually all children and pushing them off of private health care, et cetera. The real plan here is to set the stage for a movement of the next gigantic step in the direction of what should be called ``Hillary Care,'' national socialized medicine. Literally, that's what they're about.

The program has been working very well. It does need some additional funding. These States do not need the opportunity to expand these programs not just to illegals but to children who presently, in high percentages, are already in private health care systems. Their design is obviously a design that goes way beyond the stated purpose for this bill.

I appreciate my colleague yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this matter, but the rhetoric has gotten my attention enough that I thought I should share with the American people as well as my colleagues my early experience in public affairs.

I will never forget running for a school board, and people were talking about the Federal Government's beginning to get involved in education. I remember saying to those people, let us be very, very careful about going to Uncle Sam to finance our schools when traditionally that is the highest of State responsibilities, and they cooperate with local districts to provide for our schools and control them.

Uncle Sam then gave only 10 cents on the dollar for education, and those who gave the 10 cents wanted to tell us more and more what to do in our local school districts.

All these years later, I must say it's like 50 years later, we continue to want to tell people what to do in their local schools, and we're now giving them 90 cents on the dollar. Those who are talking about free gifts for people who are providing for educational activities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, eventually the folks who are sending their children for school, one way they will pay for that education, one way or another. For you could, in those days, I'm not sure what the figure is now, but in those days you could take every family that made $100,000 or more, and anything above that $100,000, tax it 100 percent, and you could run the government for 30 days.

The people are not stupid. They know, as you're playing games with them suggesting, oh, Uncle Sam has a free lunch here some way, the folks that you're talking to are having to pay the bills in the final analysis regardless, because all those rich people, you tax them 100 percent, and they will not run your government more than 30 or 60 days. And who pays for the rest of it?

Another point that is very important, in my view, the rhetoric that suggests that the Federal Government should do everything centers around the reality that the Federal Government has a responsibility to provide for the national defense, make an effort to provide security and freedom in the world, and then make sure our local government and our State governments are healthy. They are not healthy if you so discourage industry that they leave the country in order to be able to get their work done and produce the products that we need. Those rich oil companies that you're talking about, they're leaving the country. The light bulbs we were talking about earlier, they're all made in China. It's about time we recognize that Uncle Sam does not have every answer.

I'm going to vote ``no'' on this bill, in spite of what the gentleman from California said earlier. I have the privilege of being the ranking member on the committee, but I'm going to be voting ``no'' because it is about $2 billion over the President's budget request, and the agencies around know they don't need as much money as you folks want to spend on them.

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

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

Madam Speaker, the motion I have at the desk is a motion to recommit to recognize the fact that right now this country faces a crisis on its borders.

Illegal immigration not only affects those of us who represent States on the border, it is a pervasive problem across the country. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed the House earlier this summer included significant increases for more Border Patrol agents and other border protection efforts.

The homeland security bill represents an important piece of our immigration enforcement system, but it does not fund all of it. It is this bill that funds prosecution and incarceration of the most violent criminal aliens, such as drug dealers, human traffickers and gang members. It is this bill that provides critical assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies that are on the front lines of the immigration problem.

As we increase our border enforcement efforts in the Department of Homeland Security, we must make sure that the Department of Justice has the funds it needs to fully prosecute and incarcerate all of the criminal aliens arrested by the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, until the Federal Government is able to secure its borders, we must provide our local governments with sufficient resources to reimburse them while they protect our communities.

Because my colleague from California, David Dreier, former chairman of our Rules Committee, has been most involved in this issue and is on the point of our attempting to find a solution in California, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Dreier to round out this discussion.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I won't use any more time, I appreciate very much Mr. Dreier's assistance in this matter. I urge very strongly that all Members vote ``aye'' on this motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I asked for time simply to have a discussion with Mr. Turner, if I might, regarding his amendment.

Mr. Turner, in ancient history I had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee, and during those early years I was very, very concerned with what was happening within the total housing programming, what happens to the money as it flows to communities, et cetera. The focus then was upon section 8 housing. I will never forget my trip to New Orleans to try to see what was happening with money we sent there over a lot of years to the Housing Authority. I met with the Inspector General in the offices of the FBI to discuss what I had seen and some of my concerns. The FBI guy who was there listening to our conversation was heard to say, Congressman, if you really want to get a handle on this, I would suggest that one of the things that you might do is put enough money into the Inspector General's office so you can have a full-time inspector general here in New Orleans, for this fellow flew in from Houston to talk with you today.

I heard a while ago that there had been added monies to the Inspector General's office since Katrina. I have no idea what that means in terms of the real volume, et cetera, but I do perceive that there is an ongoing problem across the country.

So this discussion, or my reason to talk with you, is I admire very much what you're about. I would hope also, as you go about it, that you work very closely with the chairman and ranking member about finding another source of money. The issue is a very important one, but I'm not certain just how well off the Inspector General is.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, let me say that it is my intention to support the gentleman's amendment. I would urge the chairman to consider doing the same as we search for an offset somewhere else. But in the meantime, the issue is a critical issue. It is spreading across the country like wildfire. We are going to see an awful lot more of this challenge, not less of this. So I appreciate the gentleman's effort.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on any of these earmarks, but the discussion that has gone on between the chairman and the gentleman from Arizona I was listening to upstairs, and it struck me that there needed to be some addition to this discussion.

The suggestion that earmarks exploded as of the time the control of the Congress changed in 1995 and began to expand, et cetera, et cetera, is accurate, accurate, but for reasons entirely different than the gentleman from Arizona either realizes or understands.

It is a fact that the other party controlled the Congress for 40 years, and over all those years their chairmen, their subcommittee chairmen, their very high-ranking Members around here with years and years of power had developed very solid relationships with the second and third level in the various agencies around this town. And there weren't earmarks; there were phone marks. Key staff and otherwise were instructed to call those second- and third-tier people within the agencies and let them know what they thought the priorities should be. There wasn't a need for legislative earmarks because phone marks had a very significant impact upon the process. And we tend to ignore that reality.

When the majority did change, the new majority found that that second and third level of bureaucracy weren't nearly as responsive to people with Rs after their name, or Republicans, and thus they began giving some specific direction as to what their priorities were, thus the term called ``earmarks.''

Further, I think the gentleman does his party a disservice by suggesting that this was our fault. The reality is that even the earmarks where they are represent in the neighborhood of 1 percent of all the discretionary spending available in the appropriations process, and that while the Constitution says that appropriations should begin in the House of Representatives, to suggest that Members having ideas as to what priorities ought to be and even putting it in legislation is wrong, it seems to me, in connection with that, the gentleman is wrong.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Indeed, this territory was a part of my district for some time, and the people are incredibly wonderful people. They reflect the best of the American West. And there is no doubt that they are the best and they are there in the West in no small part because of the mule.

I must say that the gentleman is making a very, very important point. It is a long, long ways away from somebody else's district to become an expert in terms of a subject like this. It causes me just to smile, and so I intend to help the gentleman if I possibly can by voting ``no'' on this amendment.

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

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank my friend from California for representing the people of Inyo County so well since I had to leave them in the last redistricting. I intend to support your position.

Is that Ronald Reagan on a mule?

Could it possibly be? Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill requires HUD to rescind $1.3 billion in the funds that the Congress provided in 2007 or prior years. Frankly, HUD cannot meet this rescission without doing great harm to the most vulnerable of our population, those low- income individuals who are elderly, low-income, disabled persons and homeless families and individuals. As much as 40 percent of the homeless population in this country, Mr. Speaker, as much as 40 percent, are veterans.

Congress has always provided the section 8 program with full funding, knowing that if not all the funds were used, they would be recaptured and rescinded and used by the Congress for other high priority programs. However, this bill states categorically that if funds for the section 8 program are more than actually get used by the Public Housing Authority, they may not be recaptured or rescinded, even though they are clearly in excess.

Let me quote the report accompanying this bill: ``The Department is not permitted to recapture these reserves for the rescission.''

Just where is the Department expected to go to get these funds? The answer is very simple and very unfortunate. They would, first and foremost, eliminate funding for the construction of facilities that provide assisted living for low-income elderly persons, for low-income disabled individuals and homeless shelters, as well as other permanent housing for the homeless.

Let me repeat, other permanent housing for the homeless, as much as 40 percent of the homeless population are veterans.

These funds are not in excess. Quite to the contrary, they are very much in use. But construction programs spend out slowly and so the funds are there waiting to be applied towards various stages of construction. Unlike the section 8 funds, these funds would never be in excess. They are simply in the pipeline, fully obligated or committed to specific projects and ready for use.

So when HUD takes these funds, it means that facilities for these vulnerable groups will be eliminated. HUD has no other choices since there are no other programs with this much money still available from 2007 or prior years.

Mr. Speaker, however you look at it, this is a very bad outcome and every measure must be taken to prevent cutting programs that serve the most vulnerable, especially programs that serve the homeless veterans. My motion to recommit does just that. It protects those programs from being slashed as sacrificial lambs to a new policy that says excess voucher funds are more important than building facilities to house the elderly and disabled and homeless, especially homeless veterans.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the former chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee and a tireless advocate for housing programs that serve vulnerable populations.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise for two reasons.

First, this has been a long and very difficult bill on the floor. I think the House should recognize the fabulous work of both Mr. Obey of Wisconsin and my colleague from New York (Mr. Walsh). They endured all this. Congratulations for a good job.

Further, I believe we ought to extend our appreciation to the Chairwoman who has done a wonderful job and a fair job in the process, Mrs. Tauscher of California.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form I am.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk's reading essentially explained what my motion to recommit is all about. Essentially for the House's better understanding, we provide simply discretionary flexibility to school districts to use funding in these titles to make certain that they know well the backgrounds of those people who will be working with and around children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Porter) because he spent a good deal of time in this arena, and his district is adjacent to mine in the beautiful downtown Nevada. We understand some of the same difficulties we are facing.

Mr. Speaker, Jon Porter said it all. I urge your positive vote on this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it untoward for me or someone to ask for unanimous consent that this vote be a 2-minute vote rather than a more extended vote?

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