Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to both Chairman Obey and my ranking member, the gentleman from New York, for the cooperative spirit in which they worked to produce this bill, a very difficult bill in the final analysis. With that, I would like to say to Mr. Obey I very much appreciate his ongoing cooperation as we try to work on all the bills in the appropriations process this year to make some sense out of a very difficult year. I would also like to express my deep appreciation for the fabulous work done by the staff of this committee.

And having gone that far, Madam Chairman, let me say that the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies bill, Labor-HHS, 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.

In fact, House Republicans have shown the American people over the past 12 years that we recognize the importance of these programs. With history as our witness, we have demonstrated our commitment not in words but in action.

It should not be forgotten that it was House Republicans who demonstrated a commitment to fundamental research by doubling the budget of National Institutes for Health. It was House Republicans who bolstered the discretionary budget for the Department of Education by 72 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Even with our unquestionable dedication to the programs in this bill over the last 12 years, Republicans stand accused by the Democratic majority of shortchanging fundamental research, shortchanging education, and according to the rhetoric of the day, shortchanging our very future. This rhetoric diminishes all that we do as elected officials, and it does not serve the Congress or our country well.

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

I know that Chairman Obey feels very strongly about the Labor-H bill. He is now working two full-time jobs as chairman of the full committee and chairman of this subcommittee. He has also devoted one-half of the $20 billion or so increase over the President's budget request in the fiscal year 2008 302(b) allocation to the priorities contained in this bill.

The fiscal year 2008 Labor-H bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request and $6.6 billion over the fiscal year 2007 enacted level. Chairman Obey has said repeatedly that it is necessary

to increase the subcommittee allocation dramatically to make up for the past funding shortfalls. But I remind the chairman that these programs have grown by $85 billion over the last 13 years.

When Labor-HHS Chairman Neil Smith, a Democrat, presented his bill in 1994, total discretionary budget authority totaled $65 billion. If he had predicted in 1994 that this 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.

By any objective standard, whether you are Jerry Lewis or David Obey, $85 billion is a healthy increase, and today the committee is poised to spend an additional $10.2 billion under the mistaken notion that throwing money at our Nation's problems will cause them to fade away.

While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, a $10.2 billion increase is not without consequence, particularly when this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower priority and duplicative programs. For example, the committee-reported bill provides $420 million in 2-year advance appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most objective observers will agree that providing these resources may be nice to do, but it hardly measures up to providing health care services to the poorest of Americans in terms of its priority.

Furthermore, there are a host of programs in the bill that duplicate activities that are funded elsewhere, not just in this bill but in other appropriations bills as well. For example, this legislation continues three programs that deal with violence prevention; one in the Labor Department, another in the Department of Health and Human Services, the third in the Department of Education. There are additional programs within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice that serve exactly the same purpose. Little real oversight was conducted to ferret out unnecessary and wasteful spending on these duplicative programs.

Yet another example is the funding the bill provides within the Administration for Children and Families for community economic development. According to this very committee report, these funds are intended to support employment, training, and business development opportunities for low-income residents in poor communities. Services that are already provided by the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Economic Development Administration.

Surely the majority party could have met the very highest priority needs in this bill such as community health care centers or programs providing funding to educate youngsters living in poverty by eliminating duplicative programs or curtailing spending on lower priorities. Instead of making the tough choices between high- and low- priority programs or eliminating the duplication, this bill takes the easy way out: just spend more money.

The budget resolution adopted by the Democrat majority earlier this year and the appropriations bills that we are now considering spend some $23 billion more than the President requested. As we move forward with consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills, Members of Congress ought to be aware that the average additional burden on the individual taxpayer to finance the spending spree outlined in the majority's budget will amount to roughly $3,000 to the individual taxpayer, $3,000.

I know it is difficult for many Members to oppose substantial increases in these popular programs; however, I remind Chairman Obey and our colleagues that these increases are not without consequence.

Make no mistake about it. Excessive spending will force the American taxpayer to shoulder the burden of this extra spending. And if past is prologue, we will continue to pass this debt along to future generations.

As we complete consideration of our work this week, the House will have approved an additional $20.4 billion in spending above the President's budget request for the next year. This level is $36.4 billion above the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.

So where is the Appropriations Committee in terms of getting its work done this year? It is July 17 and the House has five bills left to complete. The Senate has yet to take any of its bills to the floor and likely will not this month. Based on the present pace in both bodies, I have grave concern about our ability to complete our work this year through the regular order process.

Chairman Obey is fond of pointing out that the process in the House this year has been delayed by having to complete action on the fiscal year 2007 bills. It is no surprise that he often fails to mention the role that the Senate played in this equation. The Senate failed to complete its work last year, and today history is repeating itself.

It is ironically unfortunate that the same type of legislative train wreck is likely to occur again this year. The scenario is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day. While it is only July, if past experience is any guide, a warning is in order. Once again the Senate is showing absolutely no inclination or ability towards moving appropriations bills, setting up the inevitable end-of-the-year omnibus strategy.

My colleagues, it has not yet been stated in so many words, but this is, or soon will become, the strategy to complete our work this year. And mark my words, not only will most of our appropriations bills end up in an omnibus, it will be a well-adorned Christmas tree filled with plenty of legislative goodies, perfectly timed to coincide with the holidays.

I want to be very clear about this, an omnibus is absolutely the wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It would inflate the budget deficit, reward bad behavior, and negate any semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent years.

Short of passing our conference reports individually, the best alternative would be to once again pass a clean year-long continuing resolution at the current rate of fiscal year 2007 levels, and without Member projects. That is, of course, an undesirable option. But if at the end of the process the House and the Senate cannot complete their work in a responsible fashion, passing a clean CR will be the best option remaining to complete this year's work.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am the named sponsor of this amendment that Mr. Flake refers to. Before I continue with any comments about the amendment per se, I would like to, if I could, have a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona.

Has the gentleman from Arizona spent very much time on Barracks Row, this new commercial center that you refer to?

Have you been to Barracks Row, had a meal there perhaps?

Have you been to the Marine barracks which are located on Barracks Row?

Have you ever attended the Silent March that takes place on Friday evenings at the Marine barracks?

You have not. I would suggest to the gentleman that probably one of the most important things that a Member of Congress should do is to go to the Marine barracks. On 13 Friday evenings annually, approximately 45,000 people enjoy absolutely the best of our Armed Forces displayed by the marches that take place on the Marine barracks on those Friday evenings, a phenomenal, phenomenal experience for those people who care about our Armed Forces, but also know the historic role that Washington, D.C. has played in terms of supporting and building our military.

8th Street is known as Barracks Row because of the Marine barracks. But over a number of years, indeed generations, Barracks Row, 8th Street, had deteriorated very, very significantly. The commercial values had all but been eliminated. And right in the heart of it was this fabulous headquarters of the National Marine Corps known as the Marine barracks.

It seemed to some of us some time ago that it was very logical to take advantage of that location and the Naval Yard's distance just to the south of it and indeed perhaps even create a Georgetown on Capitol Hill.

Over a number of years, with help on both sides of the aisle, the Congress has re-established Barracks Row as a phenomenal spot on Capitol Hill. Today, its commercial value has skyrocketed. It is having a phenomenal impact on the community. The allocation this year for continuing that process is approximately $500,000. We spend in this bill something like $650 million in our Capital Support funds overall. This is a minor piece of all of that.

Indeed, Georgetown on Capitol Hill is a very, very worthwhile project. It has been immensely successful. The return on the Federal investment that has taken place over the years is difficult to measure. But it is truly immeasurable in my mind's eye. The contribution it has made to the capital is a very significant one.

This amendment essentially would rifle shot at that very project. It is a project we all should, Members of the House, along with our staffs who work and live here, should be very proud as a result of this Federal expenditure.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Marine barracks are only a small piece of Barracks Row, as the gentleman has suggested. The plaza at the end of Plaza Row is one of the pieces that

needed to go together to make this truly a very successful venture on Capitol Hill on behalf of our responsibility to make certain that Capitol Hill, beyond just our presence here, is a successful and vibrant community.

There is absolutely no question that what has happened on 8th Street has been a phenomenal change in the region. It goes beyond the Marine barracks, all the way to the Naval base. I think Members know that not very far away, a new baseball stadium is in the process of being developed. It is going to be a phenomenal region, and this is only one small piece of it.

I know the gentleman spends most of his time in commercial ventures in Arizona. I would suggest he might want to go to 8th Street and take a look at the restaurants. I might even buy you a meal there. It would be a wonderful exposure to a fabulous piece of our Nation's capital, and the Congress can be proud of the contribution they have made here.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I simply want to say to the leader, I very much appreciate your taking the time to make those expressions. They've done a fabulous job on this bill, and it's an illustration of what can happen when we work so well together.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this motion to recommit is simple. It recommits the bill back to committee to make clear that the funding provided to the IRS in this bill is only available to administer, implement, and enforce existing tax laws.

The majority party's budget plan includes implementing the biggest tax

increase in history, and this motion would prevent that from taking place.

While the economy is not functioning perfectly, the indicators show that the economy is strong. GDP in 2006 was 3.4 percent above 2005.

Capital investment increased by 6.8 percent in 2006. Unemployment is at 4.6 percent. Tax receipts increased by 11.8 percent in fiscal year 2006, on top of fiscal year 2005's increase of 14.6 percent. So while Congress and the administration have lowered taxes, the economy has grown and the tax revenues have increased. Implementing new tax increases, as the majority party's budget proposes, will have a chilling effect on our economy and the American family as more of their hard-earned money comes to Washington.

While the deficit, which is estimated to be $244 billion in fiscal year 2007, is very troubling, tax collections are at an all-time high. Instead of increasing taxes to address the deficit and possibly reversing economic growth and further burdening the American family, I believe we must put more focus on controlling spending, both mandatory spending, and discretionary programs as well.

This motion will prohibit the IRS from implementing new taxes, protecting the American family and our economy.

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

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

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

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

I do so to yield to those who would like to continue this conversation. I'm glad to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

By way of me, certainly.

I yield, certainly.

I continue to yield.

Certainly. Happy to yield.

I'll be happy to continue to yield, but I'd like to take some time as well.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I find this conversation to be very interesting, and I noted that there is a tendency not to accept authorizing language in this instance because of a very specific problem, and because the authorizing committee has not acted. I, frankly, think there are a number of circumstances, including the next amendment that is even more significantly an authorizing problem that probably ought to be stricken as well. But if we are going to be consistent here, let's be consistent. And, indeed, I would be more than willing to join my colleague in communicating with the authorizing chairman in connection with this. But perhaps the time to draw a line is now and say we are not going to authorize in this bill and then see how they respond to us.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there are few Members of Congress who have more open territory than I do in my district. There is enough space there to put four eastern States easily and have room left over. I have rural schools and problems that very much reflect the concerns that have been expressed here.

But at the same time, I must say to the chairman and to the House, I was sitting in my office observing the discussion early when the Doolittle amendment was up. I was about to come to the floor because the chairman of the full committee was beginning a discussion regarding who taxes too much or too little, and who spends too much and too little, and we will have that conversation as we go forward. But that is what caused me to want to come to the floor.

In the meantime, Mr. Doolittle had a very specific problem that was going to be taken care of, and it was objected to because it was legislating on an appropriations bill. Because of that, I am going to be pretty tough on this. The reason I reserved in this case, even though it affects my own district, it is my intention to ask that the amendment be stricken.

I yield to the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I could.

I understand the point that the chairman is making, and I am very appreciative of it.

The bill, as you know, was slushed with an awful lot of money above and beyond what we anticipated. Before we got the last $3 billion we had a fine bill. It strikes me that as we were slushing, we might have put some money in this category if we were so concerned about it.

But in the meantime, there is little doubt that because of the need for consistency here, if we are going to be striking language in the fashion that I saw as I was sitting in my office, selectively, then it seems to me we ought to try to at least raise the flag of consistency, and it is my intention to do that here.

Point of Order

At your will, Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment in this case imparts direction, so I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, no issue in this bill is more important than our striving towards energy independence, and to discuss that by way of our motion to recommit, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), my colleague who is an expert on energy policy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the chairman and the ranking member for a fabulous product that is reflected in this bill. The Interior appropriations bill is, by tradition, one of the most bipartisan bills among all of the bills that our committee considers each year. The House is, indeed, fortunate that the work of this subcommittee this year falls to Chairman Norm Dicks and Ranking Member Todd Tiahrt. They are not only good friends, they are capable legislators who recognize the value of bipartisanship. Clearly they do not agree on each and every single piece of this bill relative to policy or funding; but nonetheless, when they disagree, they recognize the value of communication and sharing information.

What makes this relationship even more valuable is it also extends to the professional staff on both sides of the aisle. The working relationship of Chairman Dicks and Mr. Tiahrt, coupled with a reasonable allocation, could produce a very fine product.

In this instance, however, an excessive subcommittee allocation has thrown this bill out of balance. More money does not always guarantee a better bill. In this instance, in fact, just the opposite is true. This subcommittee allocation for this bill is $27.6 billion, a $1.9 billion increase over the President's budget request, and $1.2 billion increase over the enacted fiscal year 2007 Interior bill. This subcommittee allocation represents exactly the kind of unfettered spending that so closely identifies the differences of philosophies between House Republicans and House Democrats.

And who is going to pay for this increased spending? In fiscal year 2004, 50 percent of the total Federal tax burden was shouldered by the 65 million households earning between $24,000 and $65,000 a year. The vast majority of these taxes are being paid by individuals between the ages of 45 and 54, and with incomes between $55,000 and $77,000 a year. These are middle income families, many of them from the sandwich generation shouldering the financial burden of supporting both young children and aging parents.

Middle income families end up paying the bill for expanded government. The 302(b) allocation for this bill guarantees years of payments middle income families do not want it and cannot afford.

Mr. Chairman, the Interior bill has great potential of being a truly bipartisan bill. My hope is that Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt will work with their Senate counterparts in conference to fashion a conference report that the House can support and the President will sign.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chairman, to Zach Wamp, I want to express my feelings about your work on this bill in a couple of ways.

First, those of us on the committee who have watched this process go together, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp working together, frankly, seeing people develop a relationship in a job that involves the real business of the House. It is the bill that funds our appropriations process. While it's not the largest bill, it's very important to the fundamentals here.

But I have never been quite so impressed as I watched them working with our very fine professional staff, to see them also bring along Members of the Appropriations Committee addressing this bill in a very special way. I wish the entire House could have observed the Appropriations Committee as we discussed Emancipation Hall the other day.

Jesse Jackson was magnificent. The interplay between he and the chairwoman and Zach Wamp was worthy of the Appropriations Committee, but very much a reflection of the very best of this House. I couldn't have been prouder than I was observing that conversation within appropriators.

With that I want to congratulate you very much for this product. It's a tremendous reflection of our work.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I would like to recognize, if I can, Roy Blunt for whatever time he may consume. And I will ask to strike the last word to do so.

I'd like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Wolf and Madam Chairman, I can't tell you how much I respect the work that the two of you have done together, and to join on the floor with my friend Jessie Jackson in expressing support for this bill, indeed, is a privilege.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today to support H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2008.

I want to express my appreciation for the work of Mrs. Lowey as well as Mr. Wolf. They are a demonstration project of what we can do when we set partisanship aside and work together on behalf of really our responsibility to lead in this world.

This bill is the primary legislative vehicle through which Congress reviews the U.S. international affairs budget and influences our foreign policy. It provides a total of $34.243 billion including $10.76 billion for State Department operations, international broadcasting, and related agencies, and $23.62 billion for foreign assistance programs. The total is $2.95 billion over last year's level and $700 million less than the President's request.

This bill addresses critical issues such as the AIDS pandemic, Child Survival and Health programs, anti-narcotics programs, and our efforts in the global war on terror.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we realize what a critical role this bill plays in the well-being of the world and the security of our Nation. The United States is the last remaining superpower and the sole voice of freedom and democracy around the world. What we do in this bill saves the lives of countless numbers of people in nations that are less fortunate than ours. These funds stabilize fragile democracies around the globe and help our allies in the global war on terror.

Now, I know most Members feel they weren't elected to support international assistance programs. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am sure there are many Members who feel that the United States should dramatically reduce the amount of money we spend around the world and focus our resources on domestic priorities. This sort of isolationist point of view has no place in today's shrinking world. One needs only to look to Europe as an example of a once powerful and influential nation withdrew its resources from around the world and focused inward. What has since been termed as the ``French model'' resulted in massive inflation, high unemployment rates within the country, and severe internal crises. The United States should not follow the ``French model,'' a misguided path that essentially has caused the French to disappear as a powerful force in the world.

I remember as a young man attending UCLA I was fortunate to participate in a program that preceded the Peace Corps called Project India. As I joined other young students in traveling to villages around a country where poverty and ever-present caste systems were always visible, I was struck by the importance that personal freedom and opportunity have on the human condition, especially if you had the good fortune of being born in the United States of America.

Today, India has outlawed the caste system and is the largest democracy in the world, as well as our strong ally in the global war on terror. I am particularly pleased that in any congressional district there are large numbers of my constituents who are actively involved, advocating for increases in our international assistance program.

In recent meetings with the Results Group, with CARE, Bread for the World and others, I have noticed that more and more people are beginning to understand that they, too, have a role in our role for leadership in the world. Theirs are the voices from the grass roots, a perspective that we need as Americans to recognize that we must continue to lead in the world, for indeed, without our leadership, the poor of the world will suffer most.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this fabulous demonstration of work on both sides of the aisle together.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of the UCLA Athletic Program which recently won its 100th championship, making it the first Division I school to do so.

The UCLA men's tennis team won the first NCAA championship for the Bruins in 1950 and the last 57 years have been witness to an unprecedented record of success. These championships have not been confined to just a few sports. Some of the multiple championships include 19 men's volleyball, 16 men's tennis, 11 men's basketball, 10 women's softball, 8 championships for both men's track and field and men's water polo, and 5 championships for women's gymnastics, women's track and field, and women's water polo. The list of Bruin athletes who contributed to the school's history of victory is a roll call 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.

This record is not just the result of exceptional athletes. These championships also 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 students, alumni, and staff have been instrumental over the years in helping UCLA achieve 100 championships.

The 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.

On behalf of the UCLA graduates in the House, I congratulate the Women's Water Polo team for its most recent championship and I commend the Bruins for being the most accomplished athletic program in NCAA history.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, this motion involves bold direction to provide the funds necessary to fund all aspects of the security barrier needed to protect our borders. When I say ``all aspects,'' I mean fencing, tactical infrastructure and technology, any and all tools needed by the Department of Homeland Security to secure our porous borders. Under this motion, the funds in the bill would have to be allocated as necessary to meet the goals of the Secure Fence Act, which was passed by this body in the last Congress by a vote of 283- 138.

Before we can consider so-called immigration reform, we must get our priorities straight and secure our borders. DHS's Secure Border Initiative, or SBI, is working. In FY 2006, we ended the flawed practice of catch and release. In FY 2007, we reduced the apprehension of illegal immigrants along the border by almost 50 percent.

Let's take the next step in FY 2008 with the funding provided in this bill and ensure that border security is more than just a term politicians throw around, that it becomes a reality.

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

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

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

It was on February 5 that the President sent his emergency supplemental request to the Hill for our consideration. Today, Congress is poised to finally send the President a package that he can sign.

The days, weeks, and months that have passed since the supplemental request first arrived on the Hill have been long on politics and short on substance. The Speaker and the majority leadership have spent valuable time at our troops' expense taking symbolic votes for the purpose of placating the Out of Iraq Caucus.

No political party has a corner on virtue, but the Democrat majority's reluctance to act swiftly on funding our troops clearly calls into question its commitment to our men and women in uniform.

As a longtime Member of the Appropriations Committee, I cannot recall a time that legislation has come to the floor under the committee chairman's name that the committee chairman apparently plans to oppose, and yet that is exactly what is occurring today.

My colleague, Chairman Obey, has indicated that he, like most of his caucus, is going to oppose the piece of this emergency supplemental that supports our troops, and he is going to support the piece of this emergency supplemental that funds political pork. Perhaps my friend from Wisconsin would be more comfortable in replacing his name with mine as the chief sponsor of the troop-funding bill.

The funding package before us today contains $17 billion in unrequested Federal spending. While a small piece of this funding addresses legitimate needs, its designation as emergency spending serves only one purpose: to make headroom for even more Federal spending in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process.

I urge my colleagues to consider this: In the last week, four appropriations subcommittees have marked up bills for the coming fiscal year. Already, these four bills are $9.1 billion above the President's budget request and provide $21.8 billion above the 2007 enacted level. The committee has yet to mark up another eight bills. By the time the committee completes its work, it will propose over $20 billion in new spending beyond the President's request for next year. Between the emergency supplemental and the fiscal year 2008 bills, the Democrat majority has proposed spending an additional $37 billion.

I am deeply dismayed that this legislation was written without any consultation whatsoever with the minority. The Speaker's public pronouncement of a desire to work across the party lines, to say the least, runs hollow once again. What makes this more astounding is that Speaker Pelosi, Majority Hoyer and Mr. Clyburn, the distinguished majority whip, have been longtime members of the Appropriations Committee. They know that our committee process has historically been a bipartisan, or even, in its ideal form, a nonpartisan process. The majority party clearly made a decision early on not only to abandon our troops, but to abandon any semblance of bipartisanship in this process. That does not bode well for our remaining work this year.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the Obey amendment, providing critical funding to our troops, which I gather Mr. Obey is going to vote against, and strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment providing $17 billion in spending unrequested and unrelated, I would describe as pork, to hurricane relief or the global war on terror. I gather Mr. Obey is going to vote against supporting our troops in the first instance and for pork in the second.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Florida, the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Bill Young.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I can get Mr. Obey's attention, it is my understanding that, by considering the supplemental in this highly unorthodox way, that the majority's new rule related to earmarks does not apply to the two amendments that are under consideration today.

I'm happy to yield to my friend, Chairman Obey, if he'd like to respond.

It's my understanding that by considering the supplemental in this way, under this rather unorthodox way, the majority's new rule that's related to earmarks does not apply to the two amendments we're considering today.

Well, just out of curiosity, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Obey, I wonder if there are any earmarks in this massive package that went unidentified in the true spirit of that earmark disclosure rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I think now I can probably be much more generous than I ever would have been and am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that the Republican whip respond to what would only be described as a so far do-nothing Congress in connection with helping the troops; so I yield him 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, if today's actions by the House are any indication, it appears that the Out of Iraq Caucus within the Democratic majority is now running the legislative agenda of the Congress.

How else can one explain that the rule governing consideration of debate of funding of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan provides only two legislative options with regard to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The first, which we are now debating, is an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The second, which we will debate shortly, rations funding to our troops over a 60-day period. Both options are short- sighted, and they are also dangerous.

My colleagues, where did this bill come from?

I gather it was hastily written and introduced last night in an attempt to obtain votes for the Obey Iraq supplemental we will be considering a little later.

Indeed, the consideration of this withdrawal legislation is nothing more than an attempt by the Speaker and the majority leader to appease members of the Out of Iraq Caucus so they will support the second version offered by Chairman Obey.

Once again, the majority has brought legislation to the House floor under a closed rule without an opportunity for amendment or meaningful debate. Not only is this an abuse of the legislative process, it is an overt violation of the longstanding traditions of the House. The majority is making a mockery of the time-honored customs of this body. That, in and of itself, is shameful. It is the People's House and the people of our country who suffer when open debate is stifled in order to preordain a legislative outcome.

Fortunately, this legislation, which embraces surrender and defeat, will not pass today. Most Members of the House, both Republican and Democrats, have grave reservations about the manner in which this legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President and the commander in chief.

Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal. And Members are rightfully concerned about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field.

The last thing our country or our troops need is to have 535 Members of the House and Senators micromanaging the war in Iraq. Recent history reminds us that the enemy we face in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries that harbor terrorists, will stop at nothing to attack the United States and our allies. They view the consideration of this measure and the Obey bill we will consider shortly, as a sign of weakness.

Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are watching us closely, hoping this lack of resolve will prevail. We must not let that happen.

My colleagues, now is not the time for the United States to back down from its commitment to the war on terror. Now is not the time for America to signal retreat and surrender. Indeed, now is not the time for the House of Representatives to throw in the towel, wave the white flag or signal retreat and surrender in Iraq.

How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform? How could we walk away from them now? We must, we must support our troops. Our failure to learn the lessons of history, our failure to lead will result in devastating consequences, including an even greater loss of lives in the future.

It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the McGovern/Out of Iraq Caucus bill.

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

I ask unanimous consent to control the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my colleague, the gentleman from California, Duncan Hunter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, Will Rogers once said, ``If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.''

My colleagues, the majority now finds itself in a hole, and contrary to Will Rogers' advice, it continues to dig. Indeed, this ill conceived emergency supplemental is evidence of a majority party in complete disarray, unable to develop consensus on supporting American troops, and unwilling to work in a bipartisan manner with the minority and the President to develop a way forward.

This legislation rations funding to our troops over a 60-day period and dishonors the long-term sacrifice and service of our men and women in uniform. It is legislation that says to the troops, we support you conditionally today, but don't expect Congress to support you 2 months from now.

I ask my colleagues, is this the message Congress wants to send to our troops?

Is this the message we want to send to al Qaeda?

Is this the best a divided majority can do?

This legislation has caused me and others to question the majority's commitment to our troops. No political party has a corner on virtue, but the majority's reluctance to fully fund our troops clearly calls into question its commitment to our men and women in uniform.

It is no secret that Chairman Obey is a strong supporter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a program that receives broad bipartisan support. In recent years, Mr. Obey has supported advanced appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Is it an accident that Chairman Obey, who advocates funding Kermit the Frog and Clifford the Big Red Dog 2 years at a time, now wants to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 2 months at a time?

What does that say about the majority's commitment to our troops during a time of war?

Why is the majority setting our troops up for failure?

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we take funding our troops seriously and move beyond the gamesmanship and the partisanship on display today. Supporting our men and women in uniform is not a joke or a game. It is among the most important responsibilities each of us has as elected officials.

I was hopeful when the Speaker emerged from the White House last week signaling her willingness to work with Republicans and the President to craft a troop funding bill worthy of bipartisan support. Instead, Speaker Pelosi has chosen confrontation over cooperation and has demonstrated unwillingness to compromise.

Chairman Obey and his leadership have dramatically rewritten the Iraqi supplemental bill without any input from the minority, and unfortunately, the result will be the same as the last supplemental.

One more time it appears that the majority is more interested in appeasing the left than supporting our troops. One more time the House is being asked to consider a bill that is going nowhere fast. Even the Senate is opposed to this piecemeal approach to funding our troops. One more time, the House is preparing to approve a supplemental that the President will veto.

Today I am left scratching my head trying to determine which bill is worse, the one before us now or the one vetoed by the President last week.

Frankly, I believe the bill before us today is considerably worse than the measure vetoed last week. I will take a moment or two to explain why I think that. Under this proposal, the President is required to report by July 13 on the specific progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting 16 specific goals.

Once this report is received, only the chairman, only the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can introduce a joint resolution to release the funds. He is not required to introduce the joint resolution, and no other Member can do it.

Secondly, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is the one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months.

Further, this legislation includes a new reporting requirement that the President provide a detailed monthly accounting of the combat readiness status of Iraqi forces. The supplemental dictates that this report be made publicly available at the Department of Defense's Web site with a link to the detailed data. As a result, we will provide, not only to the public but also our enemies, the detailed readiness report and potential vulnerability of Iraqi security forces. We do not release this kind of information to our own troops. In fact, we keep it classified. Why would we ever mandate that the United States provide al Qaeda a blueprint for targeting Iraqi vulnerabilities?

Lastly, this supplemental includes a number of questionable legislative provisions otherwise known as earmarks, including a land transfer in Pennsylvania and a flood control earmark in New York.

Before closing, I want to express my profound disappointment over these emergency supplemental appropriations bills coming to the floor again under a closed rule. This is yet another violation of the longstanding tradition of the committee and the House.

Mr. Obey's first two bills as chairman, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution and the first Iraqi supplemental, were both considered under a closed rule. These will be the third and fourth appropriations bills under Mr. Obey's chairmanship brought to the floor with a closed rule. It is pretty obvious we do not have very much input from the general membership regarding these bills when they are on the floor.

I have spoken with Chairman Obey about this concern, and expressed my belief that these bills, and all other committee bills, should be considered in regular order under an open rule. I say these supplemental bills, because my friend, Chairman Obey, and his leadership have decided to split the ag, disaster, wild fire, rural schools and salmon relief funding into another bill that will be considered either later this evening or maybe even tomorrow.

Following consideration of both bills, the majority is apparently planning to wave a magic wand in a feat that would make even Houdini proud to merge them into one single package as it heads over to the other body.

Albert Einstein was correct when he said, and I quote, ``You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.''

The bottom line is this, the majority cannot have it both ways. The majority cannot say it supports the troops as it pulls the plug on funding. You either support the troops or you do not.

My colleagues, let us not signal that America is preparing to walk away. Let us not send the wrong message to America, to our troops, let alone to al Qaeda.

We must provide our full and unconditional support to our troops during this time of war. We must support our commanders in the field. We must support the President, our commander in chief.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piecemeal, ill- conceived approach to funding our troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the committee, Mr. Tiahrt.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

We have two speakers remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me repeat that one more time it appears that the majority is more interested in appeasing their left, that is the left in their caucus, than in supporting the troops.

One more time, the House is preparing to approve a supplemental that the President will veto in no small part because it tells our enemy we are ready to wave the white flag.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piecemeal, ill- conceived approach to funding our troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this very simple and straightforward motion to recommit.

Included within Mr. Obey's emergency supplemental proposal is legislative language that requires the President to report by July 13 on the specific progress the Iraqi Government has made in meeting 16 specific goals. Once this report is received, only the chairman of the Appropriations Committee can introduce a joint resolution of approval to release any additional funds to our troops in Iraq.

The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is not required to introduce the joint resolution of approval, and no other Member can do it. The authority that this gives the chairman of the committee to introduce or not introduce legislation is unprecedented.

Further, in an almost unprecedented move, this supplemental includes the rule under which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor. And under this rule, the only amendment made in order is one that mandates the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within 6 months.

Mr. Speaker, this legislative language sets dangerous precedents that should be of great concern to Members on both sides of the aisle.

My motion to recommit strikes this legislative language in section 1331, the so-called fence language, limiting the availability of funds for our troops. This ill-conceived language not only grants the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee extraordinary authority, but also preordains the rule by which the joint resolution will be brought to the floor.

I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.

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.