Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Ms. Pingree from Maine, for the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we find ourselves back on the House floor with yet another closed rule. In fact, we haven't seen a single open rule during this entire 111th Congress. I never thought that I would see that, Madam Speaker, an entire Congress pass without a single open rule.

Just 3 hours ago, the Rules Committee was meeting on the underlying legislation before us today. This is the fifth rule since the election that will deny the minority the basic right even to a motion to recommit; in other words, one alternative piece of legislation which, when we were in the majority, we wrote into the rules that the minority would have that right. And since the election last month, this majority has brought five, with this piece of legislation, five bills to the floor with a rule denying even that right to the minority--a motion to recommit.

The underlying legislation repealing the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is important and should be considered carefully and thoroughly by all Members of this House. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, when I spoke on this issue on this House floor in May of this year, I said and I reiterate what I said at that time: Sexual preference should not even be a point of reference when judging individuals.

This is an important issue. Unfortunately, the congressional majority has not even held a hearing in the Armed Services Committee since the Pentagon released their findings of this recent survey. Members of the House on both sides of the aisle support our men and women in uniform. Ensuring the best equipment, improving quality of life for soldiers and their families, and doing everything we can to increase pay are issues of the utmost importance.

For 48 consecutive years, Congress has provided the necessary oversight by passing the Defense authorization bill always in a bipartisan manner. This record of effective congressional review is in jeopardy as we proceed along with what could be the final week of this Congress. I think the majority continues to give insufficient seriousness to even important issues such as this by closing the process.

The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not a policy decision to be taken lightly. The Defense Department, at the urging of Congress, spent 10 months collecting and analyzing survey responses from the men and women in our Armed Forces. I believe that analysis, nearly 15,000 pages in length, including the direct comments of our troops, should be the most important factor in considering this legislation, in considering how we vote on this legislation.

The Department of Defense released the results of their survey on November 30, just over 2 weeks ago. Now the majority is asking Congress to move forward in a manner that denies the committees of jurisdiction any review, that denies input from the membership of this House, that takes the product of the Speaker and the author of the legislation and forces the House to vote on it without any ability to offer alternatives, not even a motion to recommit.

I think we do a disservice to this body when we do not debate and deliberate with transparency. That lack of transparency has been standard procedure for the past 4 years. Obviously, we should not expect this congressional majority to change in its final weeks, but that will change in the next Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, with regard to this point of process, which I think is important, I think it is appropriate to point out the facts.

The majority is bringing this legislation to the floor by using another bill as a shell. The other bill is the Small Business Innovation Research Reauthorization bill, which has extraordinary bipartisan support. So the rule before us now strikes that legislation, which is job growth legislation--again, supported overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion in this House. It strikes that, and it inserts into that shell this legislation, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation is not germane to the underlying legislation, so it is anything but regular order.

The House Armed Services Committee has absolutely no jurisdiction over that Small Business bill which the majority is using as a shell to move this legislation out of regular order in order to prohibit transparency, even a motion to recommit. The majority has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to eliminate transparency, to void regular order and to take steps totally out of regular order as it is doing again today.

So I think this is important to put on the record because this legislation, which by the way is important, as I said before, I think deserves to be

treated with respect, consideration, and the membership of this House I think deserves to be listened to, to be heard on legislation, especially legislation which evidently is important, like the one we are discussing today.

I wanted to put that on the record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank my friend from Maine for her courtesy and all who have come to the floor to debate this rule, and I reiterate, I think it's an important piece of legislation. I'm sorry that it was brought forth in an unnecessarily closed manner. I think the legislation deserves more respect, and I think especially the membership of this House deserves more respect.

I have, again, gratitude for all of my colleagues, and I thank them for having participated in this debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time.

I also thank him for his gracious words. He, in the short period of time that he has been here, has already left a mark with his thoughtfulness and his hard work, and really his conscience and compassion. He has left a mark on this Congress. And I know his constituents must be, and will continue to be, very proud to have sent him here because they have already seen the kind of Member of Congress that Jared Polis is. So I thank him for those kind words.

And I share with him the view that we have been able to work on some projects together, and my hope that we will be able to work in the future. And really my almost certainty that we will be able to work together in the future on important projects as well.

Mr. Speaker, as this, the 111th Congress, proceeds, it's in its final days evidently. The rule before us provides for expedited same day consideration for all legislation brought forward until December 18, and extends suspension authority for that period. It's really martial law rule because it closes down the process, does not allow Members of Congress to review legislation, to really know what legislation that will be considered is about. And in an historically unprecedented manner, it sets 11 days for this expedited consideration of legislation without necessarily showing legislation to colleagues before consideration.

The congressional majority and the Speaker have not fulfilled their 2006 campaign pledge to have, and I quote, ``The most honest, the most open, and the most ethical Congress in history.'' It was indeed needed reform at that time. But as we now know, it failed to materialize.

This majority admits, Mr. Speaker, with the rule before us today, it admits that it doesn't even pretend to care about fair process and transparency and the rights of the minority any more. The congressional majority feels no need to allow the public and all of our colleagues to read legislation before the House votes. The language before us allows bills to be considered the same day that they are ushered through the Rules Committee. The majority cares little for the ability of Members to have input in the form of amendments to vital, must-pass legislation that we will consider in the next days and weeks.

I think it's important to note, though I think it's unfortunate, that the House of Representatives has not considered even one open rule this Congress. And that would have been certainly something that I would not have expected. In my 18 years here, I have never seen this before, and did not expect it. This House has not considered even one open rule this Congress.

Now, we've come to expect that from the current majority. And so it's to be expected that the majority will have more martial law rules like the one before us in the days ahead. I think it's appropriate, I think it's good news that the Republicans, that we have made a pledge that I am confident will be kept. I am happy to report that very soon there will be significant and impactful course correction in the House of Representatives. The Members will be able to read legislation before they cast votes. Open rules will make a triumphant return to the House floor. All Representatives in this House will be able to contribute to the legislative process, bringing forth a chorus of ideas that have been suppressed during the last two Congresses. So that's good news. And that is one of the good things about renewal in politics and the democratic process.

Again I thank Mr. Polis for his courtesy, for his friendship, and all of my colleagues. As I said a few weeks ago, these have been an extraordinary 18 years, Mr. Speaker, the honor of my life. This is the Congress of the greatest Nation in the world. And it's a miracle. The United States of America is a miracle of freedom. And so as I leave this House, again I thank all of my colleagues for the honor of being able to have been able to serve with them, for the honor of having been able to serve with them, both those who have helped me, who have agreed with me and the causes that I have fought, and those who have opposed me. It's been an honor to serve with all of them.

At this point we have no further speakers, and so, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and to let this House return to openness a few weeks ahead of schedule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank my friend.

I think it's unfortunate the way that the majority leadership has treated this issue when, Mr. Speaker, you see that after bringing the stimulus and the cap-and-trade and the health care legislation and all of the political capital that the President and this majority leadership had has been exhausted; and after receiving that defeat at the polls, after all that they bring this legislation to the floor.

I think the process is most unfortunate. And the way in which they have handled this legislation, Mr. Speaker, shows the lack of interest that they have had in it. That doesn't negate, however, the fact that the legislation is extremely important. If there is anything that distinguishes the United States of America--I think in an appropriate and in an admirable way--it is that we are a meritocracy. You stand or you fall in the United States of America based on your own decisions, not the decisions of your parents or your grandparents or their grandparents. Your decisions determine your reputation in the United States of America.

So what we are dealing with in this legislation is who we are dealing with, number one, the kind of immigration that we work day in and day out to try to attract and retain in the United States, college-educated people who have become so after extraordinary hard work.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, after thinking about what we are trying to do, it all boils down to the decisions. I referred previously to the fact that the United States is distinguished by the fact that the American people stand or fall based on our own decisions. What are the decisions that those students who we're dealing with in this legislation have made in their lives? They didn't make the decision to come to the United States out of status. The only decisions that they have made in their lives have been to work hard, to study hard, to make our communities proud. This legislation seeks to give them an opportunity to make their situation regular, normal so that they can contribute even more to the greatness of this Nation.

At the end of the day, despite the unfortunate process, we cannot stop thinking about who we are dealing with in this legislation. That is why I have been, for a decade, a sponsor or cosponsor of this legislation, and that is why I am proud to support it this evening. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, we have seen the issue of the Western Sahara receive a great deal of coverage in the world press. Unfortunately, the press coverage has often been biased; in

fact, I've seen cynical attempts at purposeful disinformation.

I think it's important that we remember history. Let's not forget that while the Sahara was under Spanish colonial rule, only Morocco laid claim to that territory as its own. The Kingdom of Morocco repeatedly claimed the Western Sahara and demanded the end of Spanish colonial rule. It was only when Morocco's efforts at recovering the Sahara from Spanish colonialism under the leadership of King Hassan II began to be seen as making serious progress in the 1970s that the so- called Polisario Front came into being. Then, as now, the so-called Polisario group is financed by Algeria and is propped up by Castro's Communist dictatorship in Cuba.

Why is it important to understand this? Because in Morocco, our ally in North Africa in the struggle against international terrorism, the issue of the Sahara is the decisive issue. The reality of Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara enjoys the support of the entire population of Morocco, including the Sahara itself. In other words, the issue of the Sahara is the sine qua non, the necessary ingredient for stability and peace in that country of strategic importance in North Africa, our friend and ally, Morocco.

King Mohammed VI and his negotiating team have demonstrated great courage and patience in dealing with this critical issue so closely tied to the security of the entire region. Let us never forget that a make-believe, an illusory, a fake microstate in Northern Africa would be led by a Castro-Cuban-formed political class which would constitute a minority of the population even within the fake microstate, but would control it through Castro-style repression. Let us never forget that such a microstate would serve as a focal point of regional instability and destabilization, as well as an exporter of terrorism.

For over a decade, Mr. Speaker, Morocco has agreed to grant a genuine and profound autonomy to the Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty in order to reach a realistic and definitive solution to this problem, but Algeria and the so-called Polisario continue to insist on the creation of a fake microstate.

Majorities in this Congress comprising both Republicans and Democrats have spoken clearly in support of our ally Morocco's position on this critical issue in letters we have sent, first to President Bush, and then to President Obama. The United States, during both administrations and with the strong leadership of Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of State Clinton, has agreed with the position expressed by the overwhelming majority of this Congress.

The future of America's struggle against international terrorism and the stability of Northern Africa require that the Government and the Congress of the United States continue to stand firmly and clearly with our friend and ally, the Kingdom of Morocco.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time.

First, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I don't know if I will have the privilege again of speaking on this floor while you're presiding, and I want to thank you for your service and especially for your friendship.

And to Mr. McGovern, I thank him for his kind words. I said a few days ago in some remarks here on the floor that this is a great honor of being a Member of Congress of the United States I will never forget, and for the rest of my days, I will feel that honor. And I thanked all of my colleagues, those who have helped me during the years here and the many battles that I've been involved in, and those who have opposed me. And so I think it's appropriate to point to the example of the graciousness demonstrated by Mr. McGovern. We've had very strong debates on this floor, and yet, he demonstrated that graciousness once again today. I thank him for his words, and as I did the other day, I thank all of my colleagues, those who have agreed with me and those who have opposed me, for the great honor of having been able to serve along with them here in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing the issue of the effect of the debt on the economic reality of the American people, and as a matter of fact as this Congress starts reaching an end, I think it's appropriate to bring forth the fact to remind our colleagues that this is going to be, I believe, the first Congress where we have not seen even one open rule. So we stand here today with another piece of legislation being brought to the floor with no amendments allowed by the Rules Committee and, in this case, a product from the Senate before us that has had absolutely no input from Members of the House.

I think that all of us in this House, certainly an overwhelming majority of the membership of the House, would support--I certainly do--the continuation and reauthorization of reduced and free school food programs. The bill before us unfortunately does not improve upon the current situation in that regard.

In fact, the bipartisan National Governors Association has outlined several problems that they have with this underlying legislation, and I was reading some hours ago their objections. Governors Ritter of Colorado and Rell of Connecticut highlighted new certification and monitoring mandates that will be forced on States by this legislation in order for the States to be able to continue their important participation in these programs.

Actually, I was disturbed to learn from the bipartisan National Governors Association that the underlying legislation sets a federally mandated minimum price that school districts must pay for meals. In the past, if a school district negotiated lower food costs, that was considered applying smart business practices by the school districts. But no longer. With a mandatory minimum, school districts are now going to have to pay more for their food programs, which of course will be passed along to middle class families in the form of higher meal costs.

So I think, in reality, what we are seeing in this legislation is a tax increase on working families. Unfortunately, a substitute that was brought forth in the Rules Committee by the minority, by Ranking Member Kline, which would have reauthorized these important programs, was not allowed to be offered. That substitute amendment would have extended and strengthened the existing important programs but would have avoided the new mandates on States and communities.

There is another issue, Mr. Speaker, that I think is important to bring out. In order to pay for the new programs in this legislation, the congressional majority decided to use previously appropriated funding intended for the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp funds were provided under the so-called stimulus legislation, so it's as though the majority is admitting that taxpayer dollars were incorrectly spent, and they are now using those stimulus funds to pay for these programs.

The stimulus bill was not subject to the so-called PAYGO requirements because the majority labeled it as ``emergency spending.'' Under the rules of the House, emergency spending cannot be used as a PAYGO offset for future spending because it was never originally offset. As a result, the rule that we are debating must again waive the important PAYGO requirements.

Now, I know it's difficult to follow. I was trying to understand it in the Rules Committee last night. But the end result is that this bill is paid for by funds that are borrowed by the Federal Government. So I guess we could say that we are voting to provide our children with nutritious school lunches which will be paid to foreign entities in the future, with interest, foreign entities from which we are borrowing funds, thus adding to our national debt and imposing new fees on families.

By the way, we could have reauthorized these programs without adding to our national debt and imposing new fees on families. Adding to our national debt in that way and imposing new fees on families is not the solution to improving the Nation's school meal programs at a time when, obviously, many are struggling.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Lee), who is the author of the proposal that we will be discussing subsequently, the YouCut proposal.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out I think it's important to clarify that if our proposal today, the YouCut proposal, to eliminate for the taxpayer unnecessary spending on paperwork, if that's adopted it would not negate in any way consideration of the underlying bill on the lunch programs.

At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe it's fitting that those of us on this side of the aisle are bringing forward another proposal, a YouCut proposal that's been voted on and recommended to this House by a significant number of our constituents. They continue to sound the alarm on government spending, and we must, this Congress must finally listen.

To date, participants in Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative have voted to cut over $180 billion in spending. This week, those participating have voted for a proposal by Congressman Lee of New York, who we heard from before, to end the unnecessary printing of congressional bills and resolutions.

I think it's appropriate that we finally acknowledge the existence of the Internet, and that much unnecessary spending is taking place through the printing of documents. That was appropriate and logical in the past, but not after the development of many new technologies.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have a vote on Congressman Lee's proposal. And again, I remind my colleagues that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation that we have been debating today.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of a friend who passed away just a few days ago, a larger than life personality, a generous and extraordinary man, Leopoldo Cifuentes.

Scion of a distinguished Cuban family, his grandfather purchased the famed Partagas cigar factory in 1875. The Cifuentes family symbolizes Cuban tobacco and cigars, the best in the world. And Leopoldo Cifuentes symbolized his remarkable family.

When the Cuban Communist tyranny confiscated all businesses in Cuba in 1960, including the tobacco business of the Cifuentes family, young Leo came to the United States of America, a country he loved and admired deeply. He married Dagmar Hidalgo Nunez, an extraordinary woman, in 1962.

That year Leopoldo Cifuentes volunteered to join the United States Army. Years later, he received an honorable discharge and the commendation of the then Army Secretary Cyrus Vance. Leo and Dagmar subsequently moved to Spain, where much of their extended family resided. Their children, Leopoldo, Jr., and Mayte, were born there. As Leopoldo and Dagmar's family grew, so did Leo's business success. But he never stopped loving the United States of America, nor the country of his birth, Cuba. Leopoldo Cifuentes, along with his son Leo Jr., and his nephew Rafael, have been bulwarks in the fight for Cuba's freedom.

Madam Speaker, just this last July, when I visited Spain to meet with recently arrived former Cuban political prisoners, Leo, Leo Jr., and Rafa helped me to lend a hand to our heroes, the just-released-from- the-gulag former political prisoners. And that's typical of their generosity and their patriotism.

I send my deepest condolences to Dagmar, Mayte, Leo Jr., Rafa, and the entire wonderful family of Leopoldo Cifuentes. I will never forget him.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave Congress at the end of this session with a sense of duty fulfilled, having given my all to the people of the 21st District of Florida, who have honored me by electing me and reelecting me to nine terms in Congress.

I feel deep satisfaction not only in the achievements of my term of service, such as the codification into law of the U.S. embargo on the Cuban tyranny, requiring the liberation of all political prisoners without exceptions, and the scheduling of free and fair multiparty elections in Cuba before the President of the United States can lift U.S. sanctions; or the Nicaraguan adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which granted legal residency in the United States to hundreds of thousands of our Central American brothers and sisters who were previously facing deportation. My most profound satisfaction comes from having given my all, each and every day, to my constituents.

I, as a private citizen, will work to help the freedom fighters inside Cuba who are resisting the brutality of the Castro tyranny with ultimate courage and patriotism. They are my heroes. As Cuban political prisoner Angel Moya wrote from his dungeon in the Castro-Cuban gulag a few days ago: ``My spirit is the same; it is full of joy because I am in prison for fighting for the dignity and rights of the Cuban people. I am ready to continue resisting--physically, morally, and spiritually.'' Mr. Speaker, I will continue to do all in my power to help in the struggle for the freedom of Cuba.

This country, the United States of America, is a miracle--a miracle of generosity of spirit, a miracle of freedom, of human dignity, and opportunity. May God forever preserve and protect this great land and people. For the rest of my days I will feel deeply honored to have been a Member of the Congress of the United States of America.

To all of my colleagues, those who have helped me and those who have opposed me, thank you. Thank you for the honor of having been able to serve along with you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the majority brings to the floor another closed rule denying the minority, denying all Members, the right to offer amendments, in this case, to three very important bills. Despite debating over 130 rules bringing legislation to the floor of this Congress, we have yet to see one open rule. We have before us a closed rule, as I said before, Mr. Speaker, bringing three important pieces of legislation to the floor:

The 9/11 Health and Compensation legislation. It is important that we honor the police and firefighters, the first responders and volunteers also, that served New York and, really, our entire country in the aftermath of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.

Those brave men and women deserve to be treated fairly, and their families as well. Unfortunately, as noble as this bill is, it is paid for by increased taxes on companies located in the United States that are employing American workers. Many of us believe that at a time of high unemployment and really evident economic stagnation, our country should not allow the majority to raise taxes.

With regard to the currency legislation, it is meant, Mr. Speaker, to provide leverage to the administration, to the President, in what is America's ongoing work to achieve a proper valuation of the Chinese regime's currency. Despite the best efforts of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, and others, the PRC regime has given no indication that they are willing to advance efforts to create a level playing field, and that is not acceptable.

The distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, has included changes in the legislation meant to make the bill compliant with WTO regulations. But, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the bill is about sending a message to the PRC regime, a message of American unity, and it is important, it is very important at this time. I think the legislation will move us closer to correcting an obvious unacceptable situation which the PRC regime insists on maintaining, but they need to be clearly informed that they are wrong.

With regard to the intelligence authorization, this is the third time in this Congress that legislation has been brought to the House floor. The most recent delay was the result of a disagreement between the Speaker and the administration, and that has caused a significant delay, about an 8 month delay.

But the third time doesn't seem to be the charm for the majority to allow an open process to consider this legislation that is very important to our national security. One Republican amendment was allowed during the first consideration of the legislation; four Republican amendments the second time, while 26 majority amendments were made in order; and now we are facing a closed rule, no amendments.

The underlying bill contains changes that were negotiated with no House Republican input. The collaboration of one Republican Senator led the majority to declare that this is a bipartisan bill. That is not serious.

Despite the Speaker's insistence on delaying the legislation, the delay has resulted in little tangible change to the requirement to notify leaders of this body in the Intelligence committees. Instead, the administration under the bill retains authority to decide on its own which Members of Congress receive those vital briefings.

The legislation also removes the prohibition on using intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo to the United States, and it excludes a bipartisan amendment that would prohibit the granting of Miranda rights to foreign terrorists captured overseas.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the majority wishes to rush to the exit to be back in their districts campaigning, but we should not pass a bill that hurts the intelligence community in the process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the great leader from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the great young leader from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of consideration of legislation last week that I referred to as ``Junior TARP,'' where the majority added another $30 billion to the Nation's debt, I think it seems fitting that we, Republicans, are bringing forward another YouCut proposal, voted on and recommended to this House by the American people. The people really are sounding an alarm, and we have to change course. We must focus on reducing the size of government and not continuing programs that dig our fiscal hole deeper and deeper, and this process is going to require bipartisanship. Certainly I hope

that the Nation can witness bipartisanship soon, but we're not seeing it yet, and that's worrisome.

Over the last week, participants in Republican Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting spending. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut over $150 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to end the TARP program.

I was surprised to learn that TARP is still scheduled to spend billions of dollars in the next years. We must take action to end TARP now.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on Congressman Paulsen's bill on ending TARP. I would like to remind the membership that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration on the underlying legislation before us today.

Let me take a minute, at this point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to a point of personal privilege. This may be the last rule that I come to the floor to debate because, in January, as you know, I will be leaving Congress. And it has been an extraordinary honor to be a Member of the United States Congress for 18 years, to represent an honorable and hardworking constituency.

I will leave Congress in January with a sense of duty fulfilled, Mr. Speaker, with infinite love and admiration for the most generous and noble Nation in history, the United States of America, and with profound gratitude to my wonderful staff for their hard work and their loyalty in representing our constituents and the Nation, and of gratitude to all of my colleagues for the honor of having been able to serve with them.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time, as I ask my friend Mr. Arcuri if he has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the majority, Mr. Speaker, brings forth another closed rule, denying the minority the right to offer amendments to what many colleagues contend is a flawed product from the Senate.

At the Rules Committee meeting yesterday, I was struck by a quote, a statement, made by the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee:

This is $30 billion. It's not $300 billion. It's not $3 trillion.

That is precisely the problem with the majority party. They have already spent all the money available. Once you pass an almost $1 trillion stimulus package that does not stimulate economic growth, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee is correct that $30 billion doesn't seem like such a big deal, but it is for the overburdened people of the United States of America.

The underlying legislation establishes a $30 billion fund managed by the Treasury Department in an effort to increase lending from small banks to small businesses. The majority claims that this fund will move quickly to inject capital into the marketplace.

What we have today before us is junior TARP, Mr. Speaker. It's kind of a rehash of the 700-or-so-billion-dollar fund that was also supposed to make credit available for businesses. I was proud to oppose TARP then, and I am proud to oppose junior TARP today.

We on the minority side, the Republicans, believe that lowering taxes on small businesses would do far more to help create jobs and lead us out of this recession. One hundred days from today, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire and every American taxpayer will see tax increases at exactly the wrong time. Instead of taking clear, concrete action to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, the majority brings us junior TARP today.

There is a hidden provision, by the way, in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that makes even worse the antibusiness provisions in the health care legislation that this Congress passed previously. Pursuant to the health care law, small businesses are required to file a form 1099 with the IRS for every business and every individual to which they make payments of at least $600. That is a significant burden on all businesses, especially on small businesses. It's important to note that even the administration has recently backed changes to that provision in their health care law. So Americans might expect legislation to come before us to assist small businesses to get out from under that onerous provision, but the underlying legislation goes completely in the wrong direction, in the other direction.

This Congress can do better. But the Rules Committee will not allow any Member to offer any amendments under this closed rule to improve this legislation. We should defeat this rule and allow the House to proceed through regular order and allow Members to bring forth any and all ideas to provide meaningful help for our struggling small businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my friend from Maine for her courtesy and her management of this rule.

I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend the rule and allow a vote on the legislation introduced by Congresswoman Lummis.

In this debate, when the underlying legislation is adding another $30 billion to our Nation's debt, I think it's fitting that the minority is bringing forward another YouCut proposal.

The American people are sounding the alarm that we have to change course. We have to focus on reducing the size of government, not create new programs that dig our fiscal hole deeper and deeper. That is going to require bipartisanship, which I hope to see soon, but we're not seeing it yet. And really, that's worrisome.

Over the last week, participants in the minority whip's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut over $120 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut Federal staffing levels to 2008. The legislation that we would be able to vote on if the previous question is defeated would exempt agencies that are critical to national security. It's no coincidence that while the administration and this Congress increase Federal spending by trillions of dollars, we see Washington, D.C. thrive, but the people in the congressional district that I've been honored to represent for 18 years continue to hurt as Americans throughout the Nation are hurting. We believe that we have to return the function of job creation to the private sector.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on Congresswoman Lummis's bill on cutting Federal staffing. And again, I remind Members that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation before us today.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the author of the legislation that we would be able to consider if the previous question is defeated, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maine and all who have participated in this debate. I again seek a ``no'' vote, and I seek a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Miami-Dade College on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Since opening its doors in 1960, it has served as an exemplary institution of higher learning for the residents of Miami- Dade County. A leader among Florida's institutions, it became the first integrated junior college giving students of all races and ethnicities the opportunity to seek a higher education. Since implementing these policies, it has maintained its commitment to diversity, boasting a student population hailing from 178 countries.

Miami-Dade College's diversity extends to its broad areas of studies offering more than 300 major areas of study and a variety of degrees. Offering students associate, bachelor's degrees, and short term certificates, the Miami-Dade College has the largest enrollment of any college or university in the United States, and has awarded more associate degrees than any other college.

Miami-Dade College also stands out by offering an affordable, comprehensive, education to individuals of all incomes as well as backgrounds. Thirty-nine percent of its student body, lives below the Federal poverty level and 61 are defined as low income. Speaking to Miami-Dade College's commitment to students in low-income families, it currently receives the highest number of Pell Grant awards. South Florida, which, I am honored to represent, owes a debt to Miami-Dade College for providing quality affordable education to our community. It is an honor to represent Miami-Dade College and again I congratulate it on its 50th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to take a minute first to thank Cesar Gonzalez. He is my rules associate, general counsel, legislative director. This is the last rule we are going to be working on together. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who is aware of Cesar's talent, has made what I consider a very wise decision in hiring Cesar as his chief of staff. So we are not going to be working on rules together, but we will always be friends. And I am deeply grateful for his friendship and for the extraordinary assistance that he has given to me and our office and our constituents during all of the time that he has honored us by working with us. So Cesar, thank you.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the majority brought to this floor the first fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. I know it's almost August, but that's the case. The first appropriations bill was brought to the floor yesterday by the majority. And they brought it forth under a restrictive process that blocks Members on both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments. And today the majority continues that process, that unfortunate process, with yet another restrictive rule, this time on the second appropriations bill that they are bringing to the floor, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. And they bring it forth with a rule that allows 24 of the 108 amendments that were submitted to be debated. That's 22 percent of the amendments submitted.

As you know, Madam Speaker, that used to not be the case. Always throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules. And you know, Madam Speaker, we have been here for some years now, sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work.

So the way that for centuries we've worked out that process, Congress has worked out that process, is that, you know, the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the floor, after a while, after days, they come together with a unanimous consent agreement and they limit debate. The Congress, we limit debate by unanimous consent. That's the way it's worked out. You know, you don't close the process at the beginning--at least we didn't before. Starting last year, this majority decided to, however. And that's unfortunate.

Now, under the traditional process that was followed since the beginning

of the Republic, no one from the majority leadership or the Rules Committee got to pick and choose what amendments the House could debate on appropriations bills as long as they were germane. In other words, as long as they were connected, the issue was connected to the bill at hand.

Now, that's what an open rule is, an open process. And as I say, it's been the tradition of the Congress of the United States to debate appropriations bills under an open process, under open rules. I outline what an open rule is because it's been so long since the House has considered an open rule. And I am sorry for our new Members, because they have never experienced an open rule. But that's why I outlined what an open rule process is.

The last time we saw one on an appropriations bill was July 31, 2007, almost exactly 3 years ago to the day. Even on that bill the majority then came back and closed the process. But at least they initially came to the floor with an open rule 3 years ago on an appropriations bill.

For a nonappropriations bill, February 8, 2007, the month after they took the majority. That was their last open rule, the last open rule that this majority permitted to the Membership in this Congress. You know, that's sad. But especially it's unnecessary. But there is extraordinary power in the majority, obviously, and our friends on the majority side are showing us every day. They exercise that power. You know, it's a record that no one should be proud of, but it is the legacy of this majority.

Now, what is the reason for the majority to use such a restrictive process? Last year they told us that it was to curb the consideration of amendments in order to move the process forward in a timely manner because they wanted to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, but they didn't. We still had an omnibus appropriations bill and it was 2 weeks before Christmas.

As I said last year, as I said yesterday, as I say now, this process is unjust and it's unnecessary. It was a mistake last year. It was a mistake yesterday. It's a mistake today. It's a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia, my classmate--it's amazing how the years have passed--John Linder.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the great leader from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

It's my privilege, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the leader from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my dear friend from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

I thank my friend from New York once again for his courtesy. I think this has been a good debate.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report titled ``Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis.'' The report sounded an alarm on the Federal Government's out- of-control debt and the consequences if we fail to address the debt. It said, ``Growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.'' And we are seeing in other countries in the world that this is not a theoretical problem. I mean, this is a very serious, practical problem that can devastate countries and truly hurt people. And so we have to realize that as a Nation we have to change course. I know that is going to require bipartisanship, and I hope that we see it soon, but we're not seeing it yet, and it's very worrisome. On the contrary, the path we are on is, as the Congressional Budget Office has said, not supportable.

So one way to help reign in Federal spending--and of course none of this is going to be pleasant, but it's necessary, and I know that action that's required is approaching because it is necessary--but one way is to cut spending that is not absolutely necessary, that can be considered wasteful.

Over the last week, participants in Minority Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut $120 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. That program allows eligible taxpayers to receive a portion of their earned income tax throughout the year in their paychecks. There was a recent audit of the program that found that 80 percent of the recipients did not comply with at least one program requirement, another 20 percent had invalid Social Security numbers and thus may not have been eligible for the credit, and 40 percent failed to file the annual tax return required to reconcile the credit. Suffice it to say that, as a result, the program is susceptible to waste and abuse, and cutting it would save more than $1 billion.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on that issue, on cutting the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. I would like to remind the membership that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation before us today, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Each year Congress undertakes its duty to fund the government through what is commonly known as the appropriations process. The appropriations process usually begins with the consideration of a budget. The budget sets the parameters of congressional spending for the upcoming year, allowing the Appropriations Committee to begin assembling the 12 appropriations bills.

But for the first time since the Congressional Budget Act was passed in 1974, the House of Representatives has failed to even vote on a budget because of what some suspect may be an attempt by the majority to protect their Members from a vote that would increase what are already record budget deficits.

Yet the dysfunction does not end with the majority's abandonment of one of the most basic duties of governing. It continues today with the consideration of the first appropriations bill, the Fiscal Year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. It says, ``No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law; and a regular statement of account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.''

The Congress' constitutional obligation under Article I, section 9, clause 7 has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations process. That process allows every Member of the House to propose any amendments--any amendments that are germane--to the 12 appropriations bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here, and I know for decades and decades and generations before.

Yet, last year the majority decided to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills. I came to the floor to oppose that procedure last year, and I stated that I felt that the majority's decision to block debate on amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle was unnecessary and it was unfair, unjust. I thought it was a mistake. I said the majority would come to regret that mistake.

Today, on the very first appropriations bill of this year, the majority has once again decided to close down the appropriations process, and that's unfortunate. Last year we were told that the majority was taking this unprecedented step in order to move the appropriations bills to the Senate so that Congress could avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. What happened was just the opposite. Despite the fact that the Military Construction-VA bill did in fact pass both the House and the Senate, the Democratic leadership never allowed the bill to go to conference, and instead that MILCON-VA appropriations bill was wrapped up in an omnibus appropriations bill-- contrary to the reasoning that had been given by the majority.

So what is this year's reason? I believe that it is so that the majority can again use a restrictive process on appropriations bills so the leadership, the majority leadership, has the ability to pick and choose which amendments the House will consider.

Although I strenuously disagree with the manner in which the majority leadership has decided to close the appropriations process once again, and in this case it has allowed only 14 out of 35 amendments, I do wish to congratulate my friends, Chairman Chet Edwards, Ranking Member Zach Wamp and Mr. Crenshaw for their bipartisan work on the underlying legislation that is undoubtedly very important.

We owe our military veterans and their families an extraordinary debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifices as a people, not just as a Congress. I think we have to ensure that our veterans and their families, who bear sacrifices and hardships as well, receive all the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled and that they deserve.

The underlying legislation that has been agreed to, it has been drafted in a fair and bipartisan manner, provides crucial funding for military construction and for housing, for quality-of-life projects for our troops and their families.

The legislation includes a total of $141.1 billion in both mandatory and discretionary funding for these agencies. Of this, approximately $120 billion is dedicated to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to keep the Nation safe, supporting our servicemembers on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they come home.

The Pentagon recognized two important projects to south Florida, which were included in the President's budget and received funding in the underlying legislation. This legislation provides $41 million to construct a permanent headquarters for Special Operations Command South. Currently Special Operations Command South is headquartered at Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. Headquarters personnel are supported by temporary, leased trailers. The trailers were not intended to support the headquarters mission beyond 3 years, and they require significant repairs for continued use.

The project in this legislation will consist of a command and control building with a secure compartmentalized information facility, sensitive items storage, standby generator, and general purpose administrative areas. It will include anti-terrorism measures to protect military personnel stationed there and will be able to withstand--and this is very important--a category 5 hurricane. And, Mr. Speaker, as you know in Homestead, we had a category 5 hurricane the year I was elected to Congress. Hopefully we won't see that again. But it's important that this facility be able to withstand such force.

I am pleased that this legislation also includes funding for construction of a new commissary to be located at the Southern Command Headquarters in Doral, in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Construction of this commissary will greatly benefit the over 13,000 military personnel and retirees within 20 miles of SOUTHCOM and the thousands more beyond. It will greatly reduce the high cost of living in south Florida for these men and women, and it will improve their quality of life.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a brilliant new Member of this House from Hawaii (Mr. Djou).

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

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