Floor Statements

I very much appreciate my colleague yielding.

Madam Speaker, I think the entire public knows that America has had in place for a long time one of the finest health care delivery systems in the world. It's the envy of many.

That is not to say that it's perfect. That's not to say that we don't have major challenges like preexisting conditions and like questions of portability. But, indeed, if the people who put in place a health care plan last year had had their way, they absolutely would have taken the next step; that is, to have a centralized, government-run health care system. That's the pattern of their future.

At this moment, Great Britain, which had such a thing in place for some time, is attempting to back off of their system and have more relationships between physicians and their patients. Indeed, they are doing that because their system does not work.

It's very important that we not allow the former majority to take their next step; that is, to have government-run health care. With that, yesterday, we passed a repeal that will take us to conference with the Senate, and, in turn, today we are beginning the process of reexamining where we have been to make certain that we put in place health care that is positive for all Americans, not health care that's run by the IRS.

Madam Speaker, our health care system is the envy of much of the world. That does not mean it is perfect.

There is no question we must resolve major challenges such as pre- existing conditions, portability and cost. But we can deal with these by breaking down barriers between States, liability reform and tax incentives. We certainly do not need IRS-enforced mandates.

Despite the loud and clear protests of the American people, the Democrat leadership of the House and Senate rammed through a job- destroying health care act last year. It created a large and costly new government bureaucracy that gets between doctors and patients. The law includes hundreds of new burdensome taxes, regulations, and mandates on businesses and individuals.

There is no doubt in my mind that supporters of this massive bill would have passed a government-run single payer system if they could have gotten away with it. What they did pass was a first step towards total government run healthcare. The same kind of healthcare system that Great Britain is trying to abandon, because it doesn't work.

We must stop America from going down the path of a government-run, single-payer healthcare system.

Yesterday the House acted on our promise to repeal Obamacare, and today we must vote to start the process of replacing it with common sense, affordable solutions.

Madam Speaker, I would like to join today with my friend and colleague Congressman Buck McKeon in a memoriam to Anna Sugi, a community leader and pioneering advocate for women's health issues in her hometown of Apple Valley, California. Ms. Sugi passed away Dec. 16, but will be long-remembered by her friends and supporters.

A native of Brindisi, Italy, Anna Sugi came to Apple Valley in 1982, when her husband Ron Sugi was stationed at the former George Air Force Base in California's High Desert region.

After an education in health care, Anna Sugi took a job as an office clerk in a local medical office. Over 20 years, she worked her way up to become the chief administrative officer of Choice Medical Group, a High Desert medical provider that has specialized in women's health. Under her leadership, the group established a Health and Wellness Center in 2008, focusing on helping women through the process of aging.

Working to expand health outreach efforts to the all members of the community, Anna Sugi in 2000 founded the Today's Woman Expo. The first events drew a few hundred people for information on preventive health care and providing tools to help women improve their lives and physical well-being.

The event has grown tremendously, serving more than 2,000 women annually in the past few years. They are provided free breast exams, career counseling and an expanding range of services. Today's Woman is now a non-profit foundation that provides health screenings throughout the year and raises funds for scholarships and grants to High Desert women.

Beyond her pioneering work with the Expo, Anna Sugi has served on the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee and is a 13-year member of Rotary International Victorville Chapter. She has worked with High Desert Resources Network on programs to fight childhood obesity. She was honored in 2009 by the Victorville Daily Press as one of the area's Most Inspiring Women.

Even as she became a leader in bringing women's health care to the entire community, Anna Sugi waged her own quiet battle against breast cancer. Yet she continued working hard on expanding women's health services until dying peacefully at age 50. In addition to her legacy of service, Ms. Sugi leaves a personal legacy in her children, Mark and Michelle, who will both graduate from UCLA Medical School in June and plan to continue her work in community health.

Madam Speaker, Anna Sugi was respected and loved throughout the High Desert region. A group of physicians have already raised $35,000 for the Anna Sugi Endowment Fund to provide scholarships for needy students. I ask my colleagues to join Congressman McKeon and me in offering condolences to her family, and in praising the life and legacy of this community leader.

I, too, will be brief.

Madam Speaker, Christmas is almost here, and we are no closer to having a budget for this fiscal year--that began in October--we are no closer than we were last Christmas regarding that work. As Mr. Obey would say, I have minimum high regard for the process that has led us to this moment.

The House managed to pass just two appropriations bills this year. I understand the Senate passed none, I heard earlier. The remaining 10 bills never even received full committee consideration. The House has dithered away the year on insignificant suspension bills. We have named hundreds of post offices and praised every sports team in America. But the House has failed in completing its essential work, the work we were elected to do, that is, passing a budget for the new fiscal year.

This isn't exactly how any of us envisioned we would be wrapping up our legislative business this year; but with

the hour growing late, it appears that we are limping into the new year with another short-term CR. And that is the best that we can do under these circumstances.

I do want to commend our colleagues in the Senate for making the right decision and resisting the temptation to vote for a legislative Christmas tree, widely known as the 12-bill omnibus. This holiday turkey which had grown to nearly 2,000 pages, with a price tag of $1.1 trillion, simply collapsed under its own weight. The last thing the American people wanted for Christmas was yet another trillion dollars of government spending. So today we are passing a CR that allows the essential operations of government to continue into the new year when the real work of writing fiscally prudent spending bills can begin.

That work will be guided by our new committee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, who will be my only speaker this evening, besides myself, and Hal's full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, Norman Dicks. I want to wish them both well as they take on their new responsibilities.

While David Obey and I have not agreed on very much this year, let me also pause for a second to express my appreciation to David and wish him and his wife, Joan, good health and happiness as they pursue new opportunities outside of the Congress.

And in the most direct and sincere way, let me say that David Obey is passionate about the things that he's passionate about. I don't agree with him on many policy issues, but I do want you to know this, David, the country and both of our great parties need an awful lot more people with the kind of passion display. And if we had that we'd get our work done in an entirely different fashion.

Before closing, let me make two other brief comments. As frustrating as this year has been for me, I know it's been an even more frustrating year for the highly professional House Appropriations Committee. Our committee is blessed with hardworking, dedicated people who receive very little credit for the fine work they do. They are asked to sacrifice time away from family and friends, and do so willingly, working day and night and weekends and even holidays. For that, and for so much more, I want to express my personal thanks to both the majority and the minority staff of our committee. They are deserving of the appreciation of the entire House. And I wish the entire House was here to express that to them by way of their applause.

But let me also take just a moment to thank my own staff director sitting beside me, Jeff Shockey, who will be leaving the committee to pursue other opportunities after assisting Chairman Rogers and his staff with transition. Jeff is well known and highly respected by every member of the Appropriations Committee, our leadership, and the Members of the House. The committee's loss is indeed a loss for the entire House. Jeff is one of the finest individuals with whom I've worked for over 15 years, and I ask the House to join me in wishing him well. Many don't realize that some 15 years ago Jeff actually began with us as an intern and has worked his way pretty close to the top, and he hasn't broken too many bones on the way.

Madam Speaker, let me close by wishing our colleagues and staff on both sides of the aisle a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have only one speaker, but I am very happy to yield all the time he might consume to Hal Rogers, the chairman-elect of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I had indicated I had no additional speakers, but with this display of love and affection this evening, my colleague, Tom Cole from Oklahoma, just had to come down for a couple of minutes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to express my deep appreciation for the service of David Obey.

I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use any of my time to speak, except to express my appreciation for the sentiments of the gentleman from Washington about our mailing our votes across the country.

In the meantime, I do not intend to call for a vote on the CR. We are going to have to vote on a couple of suspensions, I gather.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's rare, indeed, that I have the opportunity to watch my chairman speaking from the well, and it almost diverted me a bit. The minor adjustments in this package that cause him to be so unhappy only amount to some, like, $33 billion. Actually, if both of us dislike it so much, Mr. Obey, and if we both voted ``no,'' maybe we could bring the turkey down and start all over again.

But in the meantime, let's not dwell too long, Mr. Speaker. We are now 9 weeks past the beginning of the new fiscal year, and Congress has yet to enact a single appropriations bill. Out of 12 total for 2011, two have passed the House while 10 bills have never even been considered by the full committee. As a result of this historic breakdown of regular order, the House will soon be considering what many people are describing as a full year continuing resolution, to keep the government operating through the end of the current fiscal year. Truth be told, it's more of a CR rolled into an omnibus spending bill because of the adjusted spending levels, the $33 billion that I was talking about, and the many extraneous policy provisions that are being added to the package as well.

It's worth noting that none of these spending adjustments or changes in policy were ever debated or considered by the Appropriations Committee or the House this year. Like so many other items added to bills in the Democrats' era of closed rules, new program funding levels and legislative riders just somehow magically appear in bill after bill, and particularly in this bill.

For the record, I remain adamantly opposed to extending this CR for the balance of the fiscal year at Democrats' current levels, which are too high, or at the inflated levels proposed in this package. Rather than simply keeping the government running, this bill picks winners and losers among agencies and programs across the government by moving some, I suggested, $30-plus billion for all kinds of programs. None of it, by the way, for defense.

Not surprisingly, Labor and Health and Human Service programs are among the biggest winners in this package, receiving an almost $7 billion net increase over fiscal year 2010. The State-Foreign Operations bill also receives a $2 billion increase over the current year's levels. By comparison, this CR omnibus provides $513 billion in base defense spending, which is over $18 billion below the department's request. It is also over $11 billion below the level the Defense Subcommittee reported out back in July.

While I freely admit that all spending, including defense, must be on the table as we look to rein in this historic set of deficits, we must proceed smartly and wisely, especially when our troops are engaged in the battlefield. Ultimately, this approach is neither. It shortchanges our troops at a time when we should be supporting them. At a time when we should be supporting our troops, this bill uses defense funding as a piggy bank for the majority's domestic priorities.

Additionally, this legislation triples the time for which the Department of Interior has to approve exploration plans for offshore operators, extending the timeline from some 30 days to 90 days and essentially codifying the de facto moratorium offshore operators have been operating under for months.

This significant policy change, done without debate or a single committee or House vote, has far-reaching implications relating to both existing and future oil and gas leases.

Simply put, this is a Christmas tree bill that provides more spending for the majority's many domestic priorities before their time in the majority comes to an end in early January.

I am encouraging our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about excessive spending to oppose any effort to extend the CR beyond February. That would allow the new Republican majority to complete the unfinished FY 2011 appropriations bills at the FY 2008 levels and save taxpayers some $100 billion. This would be the clearest signal the House could send to the American people that we got the message in November and are deadly serious about cutting spending.

Even as the House prepares to consider the CR/omnibus, the House and Senate majority are finalizing the details of a 12 bill, $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill. The Senate faces a 60-vote hurdle to pass that omnibus bill; but if they succeed, it will fall on the House Democrats to pass it, and they will have to do it without a single Republican vote, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, none of us believe we should shut down the government, but I cannot and will not support the CR/omnibus because it simply spends too much and contains unnecessary and extraneous legislative riders. If we pass a CR, we should pass a clean CR funded at the FY 2008 levels and demonstrate our commitment to cutting spending.

Mr. Speaker, just perchance the Senate is not able to get those 60 votes, this could be the last time that my chairman, Mr. Obey, and I are on the floor together, and as we do that, I wanted to recognize especially my staff director, Jeff Shockey, for the fabulous job he has done working for us over these years.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the House did what I suggested, that is to do a CR to the end of February, I would be introducing the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) as the new Appropriations chairman of the House. In the meantime, I am privileged to yield the gentleman 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have three or four more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to join today with my friend and colleague Congressman Buck McKeon in paying tribute to Mary Scarpa, the former mayor of Adelanto, California, who helped that small desert city grow and prosper over two decades of public service.

Mary Scarpa arrived in California's Mojave Desert in 1968 with her husband John, joining their lifelong friends from the U.S. Air Force, Patricia and Herbert Chamberlaine. They moved to Adelanto, a then tiny city in the shadow of George Air Force Base, where Herbert Chamberlaine was stationed.

Within two years, Mary Scarpa and Patricia Chamberlaine began their community involvement by helping organize the incorporation of the city of Adelanto. They founded the Adelanto Independent newspaper to watch over civic affairs. Mary Scarpa joined the city's planning commission in 1971, and was elected to the City Council in 1981. She served on the council for the next 16 years, including four years as Mayor. For many of those years, she was joined on the civic body by her friend Pat Chamberlaine.

The city of Adelanto had just 2,100 residents when Mary Scarpa was elected to the council. It had few amenities and almost no business base other than the Air Force Base. Today, the city has industrial parks, housing tracts and its own minor league baseball stadium--and a population approaching 30,000. Mary Scarpa is credited for much of the progress.

At 83, Mary Scarpa is still involved in community activities through her work with the Community Food Closet charitable pantry and through organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Read Across America program in the local schools. She has attended nearly every game of the minor league High Desert Mavericks at the baseball stadium she helped bring to the city.

Madam Speaker, the city of Adelanto and the Adelanto Chamber of Commerce are honoring Mary Scarpa as one of the founders and civic leaders of the city. Please join Congressman McKeon and me in congratulating Mary on her long years of public service, and wishing her well in her future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, by any definition, this year's appropriations process has been a complete and utter failure. We are now 5 weeks past the beginning of the new fiscal year and Congress has yet to enact a single appropriations bill. Out of 12 total bills, two have passed the House, while 10 bills were never even considered by the full committee.

Even more astonishing, Mr. Speaker, is this fact: During all of 2010, the full appropriations committee met just once--in July--and that meeting occurred almost a full year since the last time the committee met--in July of 2009.

This record is all the more striking when you consider the fact that the House has spent week after week, month after month considering hundreds of insignificant bills, while ignoring the substantive work required of the Congress to pass a Federal budget.

Today, the House is considering a 2-week extension of the current continuing resolution. Chairman Obey and the Democrat leadership are hoping that 2 weeks will be enough time to muster enough Democratic votes to pass a massive 12-bill package, loaded with earmarks, with a price tag exceeding $1.1 trillion. If they succeed, House Democrats will pass an omnibus without a single Republican vote.

Democratic staff in the House and the Senate began negotiations on the omnibus spending bill after Members of Congress left Washington in October. Realizing that these negotiations excluded input from the elected Members of Congress, and recognizing the likelihood that these negotiations would lead to yet another massive trillion-dollar government spending bill, I directed my staff not to engage in these negotiations. While Democratic staff was focused on additional ways to spend money, Republican staffers on the committee were working to identify spending cuts.

As I have made clear time and time again, I am strongly, unequivocally opposed to any potential omnibus spending bill the Democratic leadership may be planning to bring to the House floor before the end of the year. Likewise, I remain adamantly opposed to extending the CR for the balance of the fiscal year to current spending levels, which are, frankly, too darn high. I am encouraging my leadership and each of my colleagues who are concerned about excessive spending to oppose any effort to pass an omnibus or extend the CR beyond February.

Voters have made it abundantly clear that they want Congress to cut spending, starting today. There is no better place to begin this process than by returning to the U.S. Treasury unobligated funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, one of the most costly and ineffective bills in modern history. For this very reason, I introduced legislation on November 15 to immediately rescind billions of dollars of unspent stimulus funding and immediately applying those dollars to the deficit. I am hopeful that rescinding this funding will be among the first orders of business in the 112th Congress.

This commitment to cut spending will also consist of rescinding previously appropriated dollars passed under the current Democratic majority as well as dramatically scaling back funding proposed by the President in his final 2 years in office.

I believe we ought to extend the CR until February, allowing the House Republicans the opportunity to begin putting our Nation's fiscal house in order by completing the FY 11 appropriations bills at an FY 2008 level or below, and saving taxpayers at least $100 billion. It would be the clearest signal the House could send to the American people that we got the message and take seriously their commitment to cutting spending.

Should the Democratic leadership muster the votes to pass an omnibus in its last-gasp effort to spend yet another trillion-plus dollars, every penny above and beyond the 2008 levels will be on the chopping block come January. Or put another way, if House Democrats use their last 4 weeks in power to spend another $1.1 trillion, House Republicans will rescind every penny above and beyond the 2008 levels when the new Congress convenes.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should have shut down the government, but I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable levels of spending established last year. At a

time of historic deficits, record debt, and 10 percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. Let's start cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, today. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

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

I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I had planned to deliver a 10- minute oration outlining my concerns about this CR before us. However, given the late hour, I'll simply say that I believe it spends too much by continuing funding at least year's levels.

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the words of my friend and yours, Will Rogers, whose statue stands outside the door of the House Chamber. He said, ``Never miss a good chance to shut up.''

Mr. Speaker, by any definition, this year's appropriations process has been a complete and utter failure. The current fiscal year ends tomorrow and to date, only two spending bills have cleared the full Appropriations Committee and passed the House. In two of the last four years under Democrat control, Congress has failed to enact a single appropriations bill by the beginning of the new fiscal year.

It is now certain that any further consideration of the ten unfinished spending bills is unlikely this year, leaving a massive, end-of-the-year omnibus bill as the most likely course of action following the November elections.

The omnibus would be the latest in a long list of big money bills passed by this Congress--on top of health care reform, Stimulus, TARP, and too many bailouts to mention by name--over the loud objections of House Republicans. Taken together, these costly measures have cemented this legislative session's reputation as the most expensive in our country's history.

According to CNN, this Democrat-controlled Congress has committed our country to at least $11 trillion in bailout spending alone over the last 2 years. Let me repeat that: Over eleven trillion dollars in new bailout spending in just two years paid for by the American taxpayer.

It is this spending by this Administration and this Democrat controlled Congress that has resulted in historic deficits and record levels of debt. Add to this spending the potential cost of cap and trade legislation, more costly regulations on small businesses, and the prospect of higher taxes on all Americans at the end of this year, it's no wonder that our country is facing 10 percent unemployment.

This is the most pro-spending, pro-regulation, anti-small business Congress in memory. What company or small business wants to hire anyone in this environment?

This record is all the more striking when you consider the fact that the House has spent week after week, month after month, considering hundreds of insignificant bills while ignoring the substantive work required of Congress each year to pass a federal budget.

This Continuing Resolution would have been the Democrat majority's last hope of telling voters that they're listening to the public's concern about out-of-control spending--and yet, one more time, they have turned a deaf ear. If voters need any additional motivation to go to the polls in November, this Democrat-controlled Congress has certainly provided it.

While I recognize the need to keep the government running in the absence of any spending bills being enacted, I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable and unrestrained levels of spending established last year. Republicans have, and will continue, to advocate for lower spending that is nearly $100 billion below the current level set by Chairman Obey and the White House.

We should pass a bill that includes these reductions while maintaining the essential functions of government until Congress completes this year's budget. This CR as presently written fails that critical test.

In closing, I want to applaud the Senate for resisting the temptation to add a variety of legislative items and billions in additional spending requested by the Obama White House. At a time of extreme spending fatigue, it's simply unacceptable to use a must-pass CR as a legislative vehicle for more wasteful federal spending or completing an array of unfinished political business before the election.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we should shut down the government. But voters are telling Congress that Uncle Sam needs a diet. At a time of historic deficits, record debt, and 10 percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. There's no question that we can keep government running and spend far less of the voters' money than we're presently spending.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding. I thank not only the gentleman for yielding, but the chairman as well, for their cooperative working relationship with me. On the other hand, Madam Speaker, it really pains me to have to be here today and comment on this emergency bill.

Securing our borders, thwarting ruthless drug cartels, and enforcing immigration laws should unquestionably be among our highest priorities. But why are we here today, with only seven weeks remaining in this fiscal year, debating a supplemental that CBO says will not take effect until next year? So we are going to solve a problem for 2010 that can't even begin to be enforced until next year. This bill will have to go back to the Senate because of the way it is structured.

Meanwhile, there is no plan to complete the vital FY 2011 Homeland Security and Defense appropriations bills. The chairman mentioned that the homeland bill had been marked up, et cetera, but it will not be in the full committee, no chance to amend it on the floor, et cetera. It is business as usual.

This bill is only on the floor today to allow the Democratic majority to claim that they care about border security. It won't go into effect soon. It won't solve our border problems, and it makes a mockery of our annual appropriations process, where these problems should be handled.

Even the bill's $600 million worth of new spending is paid for with questionable tactics. Avoiding cuts to wasteful government spending, the Democratic majority is penalizing businesses with increased fees. How are de facto tax increases going to increase jobs and help our economy? And we will be paying for these so-called emergency funds for some time because they will result in increased operating costs for future years as well.

Madam Speaker, with the drug war continuing to escalate along the Southwest border and the States clamoring for help, and with the cost of illegal immigration, the American people expect real solutions from Congress. Instead, we have another round of throwing money at problems with no real understanding of how we are going to get out of this mess.

We should have already completed fiscal year 2011 appropriation bills for homeland security and defense, as has been suggested, and taken care of these problems in an orderly and rational way. Instead, we are left with haphazard schemes that seem more like political cover than real budget solutions to our security. This is not the way the Congress should get its work done.

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

States across America have as their number one responsibility the education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow. That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy.

Why are we talking with each other here today? We should be meeting with our constituents, holding town hall meetings, and listening to what's on the hearts and minds of our voters. The folks in my district have made their concerns very clear. They're saying, ``Jerry, tell those big spending politicians in Washington to stop spending our money.'' But the Democrat majority is so addicted to spending that they have called Congress back just to vote on yet another multibillion- dollar bailout.

I'm left scratching my head, because in the past few months this Congress has done virtually none of the work that the voters sent us here to do. We haven't passed a budget, we haven't funded defense and homeland security. We made our troops wait months before passing funds to support their fight against international terrorism.

The majority leadership calls the bill before us a major accomplishment. They hope it will please teachers' unions and inspire the Democratic base 2 months before the November election. I believe most voters will see it for what it is, further evidence that this Congress has a spending problem. To the voters, the 111th Congress will go down in history as the bailout Congress. The Congress has already spent $75 billion in stimulus dollars to help States with education. That was supposed to be a one-time, temporary bailout, approved by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

I am very proud of the fact that three of my four children are teachers. They work very hard to provide quality education in the classroom. They know that schools should be run by parents, teachers, and local communities. The more we approve these bailouts, the more the Federal Government takes over that role.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my Democrat colleagues say that this legislation is quote, ``fully paid for.'' On the other hand, the bill spends the entire $26 billion in just 2 years, while the offsets take place over 10 years. The so-called offsets in this legislation are produced by almost a $10 billion increase in taxes, $13.4 billion in reductions in two programs that are popular with Democrat leaders. That is the food stamp program and renewable energy projects. Some Democrat leaders have already pledged to restore funding to these programs. Some of these so-called cuts could be eliminated as soon as November in a lame duck session.

Mr. Speaker, beware of a lame duck session called by this Congress. I want to emphasize this again to my colleagues. The voters do not want us to throw more money at our Nation's problems, yet that is exactly what this bill does. It's time, Mr. Speaker, to put Uncle Sam on a diet and put an end to the congressional spending spree.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the former chairman of the Education Committee, now the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to our former chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

I very much appreciate my colleague yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start my remarks by paying tribute to one of the great staff members we have around here. Dena Baron wants us to get through quickly, for she's just about ready to give delivery to her second child. And for those who are curious about all of that, Dena is planning to deliver us a baby girl.

I very much want to express, Mr. Chairman, my appreciation and thanks to Chairman Olver and Ranking Member Latham for their efforts in producing this legislation. While they may not agree on the overall spending level for this bill, they have worked together in a bipartisan fashion. While they have real policy differences, Chairman Olver and Mr. Latham know that it's in the best interest of the House and the American public to get this bill done.

Yesterday's passage of the MILCON-VA bill marked the second latest date in the last 15 years that the House passed its first regular appropriations bill. The only other year in recent history with a more dismal record was 2

years ago when MILCON-VA was the first--and only--appropriations bill brought to the floor--on August 1.

Astonishing that we are now 2 months away from beginning the new fiscal year, and only a day away from the 6-week August congressional recess, and we are only now considering the second of 12 annual spending bills.

So far this year, 11 of the 12 funding bills have been marked up in subcommittee. And yet, only two of the 12 bills have been considered by the full Appropriations Committee. Those two bills, the bill we passed yesterday and the bill we're considering today, are likely to be the only bills passed by the House this year.

The full Appropriations Committee was scheduled to mark up the Agriculture and Homeland Security bills 2 days ago. As members of the committee began to enter the room for those markups at 3 p.m., the session was abruptly postponed, and as of this moment, there's been no explanation.

Let me state the obvious as clearly as I can. This year's appropriations process has been a complete and utter failure. Members of both sides of the aisle have voiced frustration for months about the committee's inability to get its work done. Traditionally, June and July are the months we're debating and passing our spending bills. Not this year, Mr. Chairman. Not this year.

As Mr. Wolf pointed out last night, this has become the ``Suspension Congress.'' This year, the Appropriations Committee--once known as the ``Workhorse Committee''--has done virtually nothing. The House itself has done very little in the way of substantive work, instead debating frivolous bills on the suspension calendar. Week after week, the majority leader has given away Friday legislative sessions because the Democrat majority refuses to move appropriations bills, and because there was no other legislative work to keep Members in town.

It's also worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that on the very rare occasion when our appropriations bills are brought to the floor, they are brought up under a closed rule to stifle debate on issues that the Democratic majority would prefer to ignore until after the election.

All Members, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, have a legitimate right to offer and debate amendments under the longstanding traditional open rule process governing appropriations bills. This includes those amendments that would strike what Members believe to be excessive levels of spending.

Had Republicans been afforded the opportunity to offer amendments under open rules, there's little doubt that much of our effort would be geared towards reducing spending. It was just last week that Democratic members of the Appropriations Committee rejected a Republican amendment in full committee that would have pared back overall discretionary spending this year by $31 billion from Chairman Obey's generous allocation, and $39 billion from the President's request.

In addition, Republicans have offered amendments in committee this year to reduce spending by over $70 billion. Each and every amendment to reduce the rate of growth of spending has been defeated on a party- line vote. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues have not offered a single vote in support of those cuts.

According to the OMB Mid-Session Budget Review, the annual budget deficit is projected to reach a record of $1.47 trillion this year. As a percentage of the economy, it's the largest deficit since World War II. With the Federal Government now borrowing 41 cents on every dollar it spends, and with spending continuing at record levels, it appears that there's little relief in sight.

Indeed, the Obama Administration is conceding that these large deficits are here to stay. According to the President's own numbers, the national debt, which was at $5.8 trillion at the end of 2008, will soar to $18.5 trillion by the end of this decade.

These future deficits are driven almost entirely by rising levels of government spending. I know there's a tendency among some of my friends to blame President Bush for everything, but the fact is that President Obama's budget would push inflation-adjusted Federal spending over $36,000 per household by the year 2020. This is $12,000 above the level per-household that existed under President Bush. Even President Obama's enormous $3 trillion tax increase proposal won't stop this spending from pushing the national debt to even more dangerous levels.

With the mid-session budget review, the Obama White House has now confirmed what committee Republicans have been saying all year: That the Democrat majority's agenda of runaway spending, surging taxes, and soaring budget deficits is leading to historic deficits and record levels of debt. The only way out of this deficit and debt nightmare is to curb Uncle Sam's appetite for spending. We simply must do something about the rising tide of red ink before we're overcome by it. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how many more shocking budget projections we need before you join us in saying enough is enough?

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.

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

Madam Speaker, our first job as Members of Congress is to support our troops, the men and women who are in harm's way protecting our country. It has been 6 months since the President sent the supplemental funding request to the Congress. The package we're considering today is, ironically, the very same clean emergency spending package the Senate approved on May 27, precisely 2 months ago. The delay in passing this legislation was caused by one thing and only one thing: the House Democratic leadership majority's continuing and unwavering appetite for spending.

The Senate passed its clean version of the supplemental in May and sent it to the House for speedy approval. Instead of quickly passing it and sending it to the President's desk, however, House Democrats spent weeks negotiating with themselves over just how much nonemergency spending could be placed on the backs of our troops.

Senate Democrats and the White House sent strong signals that adding billions in domestic nonemergency spending would further delay funding for our troops as well as critical disaster assistance to areas of our country in desperate need, but that advice was ignored by the House majority. Fortunately, the Senate, last week, wisely rejected the House majority's effort to piggyback tens of billions of dollars of additional spending onto the package. The Senate has sent back to the House the very same clean emergency supplemental it sent 2 months ago. Today, the House must do the right thing and approve this funding. We cannot afford to wait another minute to get this long overdue package to the President.

I applaud the Senate for rejecting billions of dollars of nonemergency spending placed on the backs of the troops. Let's support our men and women in uniform, support disaster assistance for areas of the country in great need, and pass this spending bill.

I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our leader on the Homeland Security subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our leader on the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California, Buck McKeon.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield 2 minutes, by way of a colloquy, to my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Defense, the gentleman from Washington, Norm Dicks.

Will the gentleman yield?

I very much appreciate the leadership that my colleague is providing on the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations. He knows very clearly that Secretary Gates is faced with his back against the wall. We've got to deliver this supplemental now. And I applaud very much his leadership in connection with this effort. I thank the gentleman.

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

In closing, I want to one more time express my deep appreciation for the Senate, of all things, for rejecting billions of dollars of nonemergency spending placed on the backs of our troops. Let's support our men and women in uniform, support disaster assistance for areas of the country in need, and pass this spending bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing welcome news that House leaders may accept a clean supplemental appropriations bill if it is sent back from the Senate. I introduced a House version of that bill last week. If we had voted it out then, it would be on the President's desk right now.

The Army and Marine Corps operating accounts are about to run into the red. Without these supplemental funds, the Pentagon will begin cutbacks--reduced training, delayed equipment purchases, possibly even delayed pay for our soldiers and marines.

By passing this clean supplemental, we can avert that dangerous situation. We can provide disaster relief funds to the areas that need it. We can avoid adding tens of billions of dollars to the Federal deficit that would have come from add-ons passed by this House 2 weeks ago.

I urge my colleagues, please pass a clean supplemental bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making a personal observation. This evening we are embarking upon the most irresponsible, convoluted legislative exercise I have seen in my many years in this body. My dear friend and former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the late Senator Robert Byrd, would be embarrassed by this process, or the lack of process, because it greatly diminishes the integrity of this Congress he loved so dearly. I can

hear Senator Byrd's voice clear as day. ``Shame, shame,'' he would say.

It was 35 days ago that the full Appropriations Committee was scheduled to mark up the fiscal year 2010 emergency supplemental before us. Republicans and Democrats alike had a number of amendments they planned to offer to make the package a better piece of legislation. But, for reasons that remain a mystery to everyone, that markup was abruptly canceled 3 hours before it was to occur. Tonight, the House is considering legislation written by Chairman Obey and the majority leadership with absolutely no input from rank-and-file Members on either side of the aisle.

The only legislation we should be considering today is a clean emergency supplemental funding bill to provide critical funding for our troops; foreign assistance and economic support for Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan and Iraq, should be included; FEMA disaster assistance; oil spill cleanup assistance; and relief for Haiti. Many other funding and policy items could easily be addressed through our regular order spending bills.

Just hours ago we were sent a package of six different amendments and two resolutions, totaling 153 pages. Included in that package were efforts to cut off troop funding, a timetable for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, billions in additional spending on domestic programs, a variety of complex legal settlements piggybacked into a billion-dollar summer youth program, and a deem-and-scheme resolution that proposes spending $31 billion more in discretionary spending in FY 2011 than was spent in FY 2010. It's worth noting that only in Washington could Chairman Obey and Chairman Spratt characterize this $31 billion increase as a cut.

I am deeply concerned about the impact these amendments could have on our ability to approve a bill for the President's signature prior to the Fourth of July recess. The failure of this body to approve critical funds for our troops before the Fourth of July would send absolutely the wrong message to our men and women in uniform, and delay needed money for other emergency needs.

Further, this inaction would force our commanders to begin making budget decisions that could compromise our military readiness. It would also signal to our enemies a lack of resolve that could undermine our mission in several very dangerous areas of the world.

The fact that we are sitting here in July without this spending bill passed and signed into law is, frankly, astonishing to me. The President submitted his request in February of this year. The Senate passed its war funding measure on May 27, and indicated that it was ready to conference the bill with the House. The House never marked up this supplemental or had an opportunity to amend it in any way. And yet, here we are 35 days and tens of billions of dollars of spending later, and we still have not approved funding for our troops.

Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a long-term budget outlook. CBO noted that our national debt equaled 40 percent of our country's economic input in 2008. By the end of this year, the Federal debt will represent 62 percent of our national economy. That's a 22 percent increase in the level of debt in just 2 years. The additional unrequested nontroop-related spending the House is considering today would drive that debt even higher.

I recognize there are tremendous political pressures that come to bear on majority Members when it comes to opposing measures sponsored by their own party. Today my request to the Members of the majority is quite simple: Please think long and hard about the consequences of supporting anything beyond the clean Senate supplemental spending bill.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

I urge my colleagues on both sides, particularly my friends in the majority who are truly concerned about the ever-escalating rates of growth of spending, to reject these amendments and reject this Fourth of July spending spree. Let's support our troops, pass a clean version of the supplemental on a broad, bipartisan basis, and get this package to the Commander in Chief. Our men and women in harm's way deserve no less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to our leader of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of my colleagues, especially those on the majority side of the aisle, to make note of the fact that this is the President's supplemental request. This amendment adds almost $17 billion in new domestic spending to a critical war funding and disaster assistance bill, most of which was never formally requested by the Commander in Chief and none of which is included in the Senate-passed bill. These bloated domestic spending add-ons include those that either are unnecessary spending or should be considered as part of the regular fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.

For example, the amendment includes language under the Teacher Jobs Fund that singles out Texas by requiring that Texas maintain a higher level of State support for elementary and secondary education and higher education spending than any other State. It adds $4.95 billion for Pell Grants that would normally be and should be funded in the fiscal year 2011 Labor, Health, and Human Services bill, as has been the practice in previous years.

There is $538 million to game the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process by forward-funding certain activities now with fiscal year 2010 funds, thereby freeing up money to spend on other activities in 2011. This includes giving the IRS an additional $245 million now to ramp up its enforcement.

I rise to oppose the Lee amendment to essentially cut off the funding for our troops in Afghanistan.

I am very proud to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, our leader on the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Bill Young.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, the chairman of the House authorizing committee on national security or defense.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to Ike Skelton's partner, the gentleman from California, Buck McKeon, who is the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by reminding the Members that this supplemental originally was sent to us by our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

I understand the concerns about the war in Afghanistan. I have similar concerns, especially following the recent turmoil regarding command changes. But I also have full faith and confidence in our brave and selfless men and women fighting over there.

The President knows that war is tough and a dirty business. But our forces, although tired, are eager for the opportunity to succeed and more than capable of doing so.

I have in my hand a Statement of Administration Policy from our Commander in Chief, Barack Obama. In it, his advisers suggest, if this amendment is a part of the bill, that they will be recommending to the President that he veto this bill.

Indeed, it is time for us to recognize that the war on terror is very real. The challenge in Afghanistan is supported by the President because he recognizes it's very real, and it's one of the bases of operation for their activities. In fact, I believe that we have to let conditions on the ground dictate the process, as General Petraeus just testified this week, even if those conditions require forces to stay past the President's July 11 withdrawal date.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey, Rodney Frelinghuysen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for the Members to one more time remind themselves, ourselves, that this is the President's supplemental and it is designed to provide needed funding for our troops who are representing our interests and fighting for freedom in Afghanistan.

I think it is very important that this amendment goes on to restrict year 2011 funds from being used in a manner inconsistent with a July 2011 troop withdrawal unless expressly provided for and by a joint resolution of the Congress. The President of the United States has indicated in his policy administration statement coming from his chief advisers that if the amendments we have been considering this evening are a part of this bill, those chief advisers will recommend to the President that he veto this funding measure.

It is very apparent that the other body tomorrow is leaving town, if they haven't already left town. Indeed, amendments to this bill will cause this bill to involve a considerable delay for funding for our troops almost regardless. As I argued under the previous administration, we should not tie the President's hands while he is executing his duties as Commander in Chief, perhaps the most solemn of the Commander in Chief's responsibilities. This amendment would do just that.

Further, just this week the President's new commanding general testified that the July 11th date is not a race for the exits. Rather, that date will begin a condition-based process. He further left open the option of recommending changes or delays in the current plan.

The amendment further attempts to encumber future year funds, which is not only impractical, but the conditions on which those funds would be encumbered are questionable.

Honestly, I fail to see the logic in attempting to fence future year funds, and I can't help but wonder why try to do this now when the fiscal year 2011 process is working its way through the committee. The war on terror, Mr. Speaker, continues to be very real. Our troops certainly understand it, even if our majority leadership does not understand it.

Of course, I want our troops home as quickly as possible, but tying the hands of the Commander in Chief and the commanders executing the war is irresponsible and dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill, H.R. 4899, with the Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised there was an objection to that recommendation. After all, we are just trying to find some way to get the President's original recommendations up here so that the Commander in Chief can support our troops so that they can come home as quickly as possible. In Afghanistan, whether we believe it or not, the war on al Qaeda involves our future freedom, and certainly it would have a significant impact upon peace in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; so I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I think you know that as a result of your interpreting existing policy relative to the unanimous consent requests on three different occasions in an effort to get the original package here before the body so they could vote up or down on H.R. 4899, I know that I could speak for my own leadership, they certainly would agree to this unanimous consent request. It would appear the leadership on the other side, perhaps of the committee, I can't speak for the Speaker, of course, but apparently the other side does not want us to have that package before the body.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical for us to remind ourselves continually in the weeks and months ahead, the war on terror is very real. America has been challenged at home and continues to be challenged abroad. The men and women that our Commander in Chief have chosen to send to Afghanistan are in need for supplemental funding. To have us essentially water down those proposals by way of the amendments that have been before us is absolutely unbelievable to me. If the public could only know what the people's body is doing tonight to not just our people here at home but our people overseas as well, I believe they'd essentially make a decision that they ought to change the entire Congress.

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

Madam Speaker, I join my colleague Ken Calvert to pay tribute to Chester Reed, a hard-working, highly valued employee of the United States Postal Service. Chester will soon retire after 37 years as a forklift operator in the Postal Service's facility in Redlands, CA.

One item I should note: Chester is 95 years old, making him the oldest of the Postal Service's 596,000 career employees.

Joining the plant in 1973, this Ohio native and proud Riverside, CA resident started a career of service that was marked by never arriving late, never using a day of sick leave, and regularly working 12-hour days while volunteering to work more. His enthusiastic spirit has made him a favorite among his colleagues.

Chester knows something about longevity. He was married for over 60 years. Prior to his time with the Postal Service, Chester served 25 years in the Air Force where he retired as a sergeant. He attributes his durability to his faith, no junk food, not much meat, and an onion sandwich every day.

Chester cites his time with the Postal Service as the best job he's ever had. Throughout his nearly four decades with the Postal Service, Chester represented the highest values Federal employees want to provide: courtesy, commitment, and a dedication to public service.

Retirement is something to be celebrated and enjoyed. It is not the end of a career, but rather the beginning of a new adventure. Chester has his sights set on world travel and pursuing his hobby of hang gliding. Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join Rep. Calvert and me in sending our best wishes to Chester Reed.