Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is unsustainable. With an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, a growing mountain of debt, and unemployment hovering near 10 percent,…
Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is unsustainable. With an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion, a growing mountain of debt, and unemployment hovering near 10 percent, it's clear that we must change our course now or face catastrophic consequences in the very near future.
My colleagues, the simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet. The single greatest challenge of this Congress and our best hope for lasting recovery lies in curbing Uncle Sam's appetite for spending. It's time to cut up the government's credit card and live within our means starting right now, today.
Just two nights ago, Congress passed a $1 trillion health care bill that was opposed by every Republican House member and 39 Democrat House members. Never before in our Nation's history has such historic legislation been passed by one party over such widespread bipartisan opposition. Now, here we are again preparing to vote on yet another huge spending bill that was crafted without any transparency or bipartisan involvement.
Most Members would agree that providing relief to Americans suffering from natural disasters is a responsible and worthy use of taxpayer dollars. Most Members would also agree we don't need to load up a disaster bill with hundreds of millions of dollars on a summer youth program--especially when there is already $1.4 billion in the jobs pipeline.
It's worth noting that the $600 million for a summer youths job program is being offset by various rescissions in unused funding from the stimulus bill and other past spending bills.
But my underlying question is this: If there is $1.4 billion already in the pipeline for a Department of Labor jobs program, why can't we return the rescinded $600 million dollars back to the Treasury for deficit reduction? Why must my Democrat friends continue to spend and spend and spend and spend?
At the beginning of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee consisted of 60 members--37 Democrats and 23 Republicans. It's worth noting, however, that my chairman has made it a habit to write his bills and completely bypass the Democrat and Republican members of the committee. Do not for one minute believe that this legislation reflects the work of the House Appropriations Committee or even the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, because it does not. To my knowledge, this bill has had no input from any members other than the chairman himself. There's been no markup, no amendments, and no potential offsets debated or even discussed by the committee.
Like the trillion-dollar stimulus package and the subsequent ``son of stimulus'' passed by the House prior to Christmas, this legislation will pass without any opportunity for a Member to amend it. With billions and billions of stimulus funding still unspent, there is no reason why the entire emergency relief portion of this legislation cannot be entirely paid for or be used to begin paying down that $1.6 trillion deficit for the year.
Mr. Obey has argued that Republicans didn't ``pay for'' disasters when we were in charge. On that point, he is correct. However, when Republicans were the majority party, annual deficits were not $1.6 trillion as they are today, and we didn't have hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary funding sloshing around in Federal coffers. Surely we can cut $5.1 billion in unspent stimulus funding to pay for the FEMA spending involved here. We shouldn't continue to spend money we don't have.
Mr. Speaker, we can agree to disagree on the cause of our economic troubles, but the fact remains that we cannot spend our way into economic health. Until the Congress curbs its appetite for spending, our economy will continue to suffer.
With that said, I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to insist, especially after Sunday's budget-busting vote on health care, that we fully offset the entire cost of this legislation so we do not further burden future generations with even more debt.
I will close, as I began, with this comment: The simple truth is that Uncle Sam needs a diet.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I simply rise, in part, to respond to the comments of my colleague. I think it's important for us to know that we do have quite a history of supplemental funding and what we do with emergency spending.
As the chairman suggests, there has been a lot of funny business that has gone on, but I thought the Members ought to know that from fiscal year 1989 through fiscal year 2006 there have been 36 multiagency supplemental appropriations bills that have been considered by the Congress, and most of them have been enacted into law. Of those, only seven were never considered by our Appropriations Committee and this one was not considered by our Appropriations Committee. It was introduced almost at midnight, the very day we dealt with that trillion-dollar deficit package that was before us. Those seven that bypassed the committee I could easily go through in detail, but essentially they were dealing with the natural disasters that related to hurricanes in Florida and the disaster that impacted Louisiana and the like. Emergencies, indeed, but the committee was bypassed for those emergencies.
It seems to me that it's about time that we took up supplementals like this, instead of being written at the last minute, be handled in regular order, be considered by the committee, be available to the members for not only reading but for amending, and it has become a consistent pattern that we are not doing that. We are bypassing our committee as though the committee or subcommittees might as well not exist.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague from North Carolina. He's a regular order kind of guy, and he chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee. I've only been complaining about the way we're handling the process.
My chairman so far has not brought a single supplement to the floor under an open rule. And you can deal with these things with an open rule reasonably on the floor. But, ideally, you deal with them in committee, have a chance for amendments and otherwise.
We just don't bring supplementals to the committee for discussion. So far there have been--my colleague should know this--so far there have been $800 billion in spending numbers that Members didn't get a chance to have any input upon.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
Mr. Speaker, these will be my closing comments on the bill.
I would like to say to the Members, my chairman, my colleagues, that I am very empathetic to their description of the way we have handled FEMA funding in the past. I indeed agree that, in the vast percentage of cases, that money ought to not be subject to offset requirements. The emergency rule is there for appropriate reasons.
The only reason for raising this in a procedural way today is because of the reality that while we have disaster after disaster out there, we have never had quite a disaster like this huge deficit of this year, $1.6 trillion, and projecting out to the future there is no end. And eventually the public knows the economy can't stand it, and they are suggesting that we try to help them out of this disaster that is ahead of us.
So it is indeed important for us to realize that in spite of the fact that there is a huge amount of money in the stimulus package that is yet unspent that might be used for some of these offsets, we need to seriously get on track of reducing spending and undermining that growing deficit so the public can at least have some sense that we are trying to effect the crisis that is beyond our horizon.
I plan, after we are through here, to offer a motion to recommit on this bill in order to adopt the amendment I presented in the Rules Committee on Monday. The motion is simple. It cuts unnecessary money from the flawed $1 trillion stimulus to pay for the $5.1 billion FEMA spending provided in Mr. Obey's bill. The balance of the questions, we have discussed earlier.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
I am.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
Mr. Speaker, as I suggested earlier, the bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to our already astronomical debt.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the bill before us today is considered to be a general appropriations bill, and under the rules of the House, general appropriations bills are privileged and are to be considered in the Committee on Appropriations or sent to the Committee on Appropriations prior to consideration on the House floor.
I have expressed my concern about the lack of regular order, the number of supplementals and appropriations bills that are not being heard in committee or subcommittee. I won't repeat all of those concerns, except to say that we are on this disastrous pathway because of our totally ignoring the need to make sense out of our national deficit and get a handle on spending.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for consideration of my motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.