Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on October 12, 2011, the House took an important step in addressing the alarming number of unemployed veterans currently living within the United States by passing the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act.

Known as the VOW Act, this legislation will confront the rising unemployment problems that our veterans in the U.S. are facing by providing veterans of past eras with additional training benefits, ensuring all transitioning servicemembers have access to a transition assistance program, and by strengthening protections under USERRA for our National Guard and Reserve troops. As a father of three sons currently serving in the United States Army, I have a deep appreciation for the service our men and women in uniform have given to this country.

Additionally, one of my priorities when I came to Washington was to ensure that when our troops return home,

they have jobs and a strong economy to come to. This legislation is a great first step in fulfilling our responsibilities to all veterans who have sacrificed much on behalf of this Nation. With that in mind, I was proud to support the passage of the VOW Act.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I want to address an often overlooked but important part of breast cancer awareness.

One percent of all breast cancer patients are men. In 2010, almost 1,970 new male breast cancer cases were reported. Although the current survival rate for women diagnosed with breast cancer is about 87 percent, the rate for men drops to 79 percent. The discrepancy is because many men don't think breast cancer can affect them. As such, they are often diagnosed after the cancer has developed into more advanced stages.

One of my constituents in Florida's Fifth District, Herb Wagner, is a 6-year male breast cancer survivor. After his diagnosis in 2005, Herb and his family founded A Man's Pink. The goal of A Man's Pink is to bring awareness to male breast cancer.

Early detection is crucial in fighting any type of cancer, and men need to be reminded that breast cancer does not just affect women.

For more information on male breast cancer, I encourage folks to learn about A Man's Pink. In the meantime, anybody with concerns should contact their doctor.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 419. The rule provides for consideration of two separate but related bills: H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011; and H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

I'm proud to sponsor this rule, which provides for a modified open amendment process with a preprinting requirement. This modified open rule means that any Member, Republican or Democrat, with any germane amendment that complies with the other rules of the House will have the opportunity to debate that issue. It's another example of the Republican majority's continued commitment to openness and transparency.

Mr. Speaker, since coming to this body back in January, my priority has been to create an environment where American workers can prosper. In my home district, unemployment hovers around 13 percent. I don't doubt this sad statistic is part of the reason why Vice President Biden is in my district today, talking up the President's so-called American Jobs Act. Unfortunately for thousands of people looking for work in Florida's Fifth Congressional District, they can't afford for the President and Vice President to just keep talking about it. They need action, not promises. They need to actually break down the barriers that are preventing job creators and employers from creating new jobs.

Every week when I go home, I meet with small business owners to get their input on what they need to start hiring again. They always tell me the same three things: We need demand from customers; loans aren't as easy to come by as they were prior to the recession; and they have no idea what to expect from Washington, as it relates to regulation and taxes. Washington can't directly control the first two things but can absolutely take care of the third.

When we had a balanced budget amendment rally in Dade City, one of the small business owners stood up and said, what we need is certainty from the Federal Government. We need certainty what our taxes are going to be and what regulations are going to be. He talked about the fact that regulations change on a moment's notice based upon whims of the government. He used to plan 3 to 5 years out in regards to what their business plan was going to do, what their hiring process was going to be. Today, they're lucky if they can plan 90 days based upon the uncertainty. And so long as two-thirds of Americans in this country think that we're on the wrong track, they're going to stay hunkered down, waiting for signs that things are improving.

The American people need to believe that we're putting this economy back on track, back towards growth and prosperity, and you do that through leadership. There are currently 219 regulations under consideration. Each of those regulations separately will cost us $100 million. That's $21.9 billion in increased regulations on businesses today that are already crushed because they can't compete. What's more, there are 4,226 new regulations in the hopper. With that many regulations costing that much money hanging over their heads, how on Earth can we expect small businesses to actually create jobs?

Today in the House, we have the ability to address some of these executive rules, all promulgated by the EPA. Those rules, collectively known as Boiler MACT and Cement MACT, put thousands of jobs in my district in jeopardy. For the life of me, I can't understand how the Vice President can stand up in front of the citizens of Land O' Lakes, Florida, talking about job creation with a straight face when the Obama administration is actively pursuing regulations like Boiler MACT and Cement MACT.

In my district alone, the Cement MACT rule could cost up to 200 cement manufacturing jobs, not adding into the total of jobs that are going to be lost on the associated industries that move it, sell it, and use it. Additionally, numerous groups and industries have made it clear that Boiler MACT regulations will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars and will put many of their employees in the unemployment line. And yet our President ignores these regulations and keeps talking about doubling down with a second stimulus, following the failed first stimulus package. Well, here we are today, doing something to actually save jobs, not just talking about it.

One of the very first actions I took as a Member of Congress was to invite the EPA to come to my office and explain to me their finalized rules in respect to the Portland cement manufacturing that goes on in my district. They said to me, We understand it's not without challenge to the industry. I may not have been here long, but I know Washington doublespeak when I hear, Well, it's not without additional challenges to that industry.

It's not just the Cement MACT rule that's ``not without challenge,'' Mr. Speaker. My colleague, Mr. Hastings, wrote a letter to the EPA about 2 months ago, and I commend him for this letter. In it, he says, ``The Boiler MACT rule alone could impose tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands of facilities across the country.'' My colleague from Florida asked the EPA to consider a more flexible approach that ``could prevent severe job losses and billions of dollars in unnecessary regulatory costs.''

In Florida alone, Boiler MACT will affect at least 43 boilers, requiring $530 million in retrofits. I just heard from the Florida sugar industry, who estimates Boiler MACT for their compliance alone will cost $350 million and cost untold jobs. I've heard from the pulp and paper workers, who may need to lay off 87,000 workers if the Boiler MACT regulations go into place. I've heard from timber producers in my district that have recently been hurt because U.S. plywood producers have had to close because of lack of demand, and now they're fearful they may have to deal with the double whammy that Boiler MACT is going to do in regards to putting businesses out of work and close them down. It could crush one of the last outlets for their timber products.

Representative Hastings, in his letter to the EPA, said this: ``I believe that regulations can be crafted in a balanced way that sustains both the environment and jobs.'' I believe these bills, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681, meet that balance and makes that balancing possible.

These bills don't completely eliminate clean air emissions regulations for boilers, incinerators, or cement kilns, but what they do is require the agency to create regulations that actually take achievable science into account. They give the affected industry time to comply. In sum, they make the EPA think about the American workforce, Mr. Speaker; and in an environment where job creation is key, I don't see how we can't support that.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I love listening to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

We talk about what the EPA and what this rule and underlying legislation will do. What they fail to point out is that any Member, Democrat or Republican, as it relates to any issue that this rule and the underlying legislation will address, has the ability, has

the ability to submit an amendment, an amendment process that allows us, if the bill is flawed, in our estimation, to submit an amendment, bring it up for the House, have a debate on it, and let's talk about it.

There are ways to fix legislation, not just kill it. There are ways that we can do things as it relates to, you know, business. When we talk about the ability for these companies, I will tell you that I got a different flavor on it. Not from the EPA--of course they have their own take on what's going to work and isn't going to work--but I have heard from, actually, manufacturers that it will cost jobs. It will be to their advantage, if they want, to actually load up their stuff, put it on a truck and take it to Mexico where there are no air quality standards at all, none, and we'll breathe that air forever.

My good friend brought up about CutGo, and I really need to talk about that. First of all, H.R. 2681 and 2250 fully comply with the rules of the House, including CutGo.

The CBO cost estimates clearly state that neither of these bills affect direct spending. While it may actually force the EPA to revisit the rule, they have the staff to do it. It's not like it's a new mandate to them. It's not a new program. It meets within the majority leader's legislative protocols, including discretionary CutGo.

These bills do not authorize any new appropriations, which is one of the tests for discretionary CutGo. These bills do not create any new program or office. That's an additional test on discretionary CutGo. And rulemaking is a basic, basic function of federal agencies and particularly the EPA; so they certainly have the staff available to do it without additional costs. That's part of what their job is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues that this does not violate CutGo. Clearly on its face, as he said, making my point, this does not authorize any new spending, not a penny.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I thank my friend from Florida for that.

Mr. Speaker, the last Member that spoke talked about closing coal- fired electric plants. It is amazing that the President just last month put in abeyance an EPA rule as it related to just that issue. He put in abeyance that rule because he said that it was going to cost jobs at a time when we could least afford closing plants and cutting jobs. The President gets it, and I applaud him for doing just that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank my colleague from Florida for his eloquent words.

It is about America getting back on track. It is about America worrying about regulations that are going to kill jobs. As I mentioned earlier, the President is even concerned that overregulation by the EPA would do just that, kill jobs when we can least afford it.

If you look at this act, what we're talking about doing is not eliminating anything. It's about saying 15 months to get it together at the EPA, to look at it, and let's not kill jobs in America. It gives 5 years, then, for those businesses that I've met with that are more than willing to do their fair share to keep the air that we breathe and the water that we drink clean and pure.

I live in Florida. Mr. Hastings lives in Florida. We depend upon clean air and water in Florida just like many other States. So, Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Despite what President Obama and Vice President Biden would have you think--giving a bus tour and the Vice President's being in Land O' Lakes, Florida--speeches don't create jobs. For the President, it may be a joke to say shovel-ready jobs, you know, weren't as shovel ready as we thought with the first stimulus package, but the American people footed that bill, and it's no joke to them.

Mr. President and Mr. Vice President need to recognize the reality that H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681 recognize that jobs are not created in a vacuum, that government creates an environment in which job creators operate. Regulations like Boiler MACT and Cement MACT do nothing to encourage industry to invest in America. Instead, they force employers to shut their doors, move jobs overseas or just across the border to Mexico. They force us to lose our manufacturing base and import cement from countries like China.

I'm proud to play a part in rolling back this type of regulation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by supporting H. Res. 419 and the underlying bills, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to emphasize one more time that the Federal Government doesn't create jobs; it's small businesses and entrepreneurs. You just heard my friend talk about Gibson Guitar and vilify Gibson Guitar because they purchased wood from a foreign operator, an operator that violated a law of another country and brought that wood to America for Gibson Guitar, one of the oldest American producers of guitars today. Gibson Guitar employs people in America. Gibson Guitar has done things that may be reprehensible to some. Obviously to those who are employed by that company, it's not.

As we move along, you know, we need to remember what jobs are created by small manufacturers. What is the Federal Government supposed to do? This Federal Government not only raided Gibson Guitar, told them to close down their lines, laid people off from work--or hey, they have a better idea: Why don't you just move your operation to another country? That's what this administration's message is to manufacturers and the job creators in America. If you don't like it, just go ahead and move to another country. Take those jobs and give it to someone else other than Americans.

I think we are wrongheaded in our approach. We look at regulations as an end-all to everything, just not commonsense solutions. When we talk about creating jobs in America, I have gone across my district, and I ask the job creators, the small businesses: What can we do in D.C. to help you?

And they said: Mr. Congressman, just get out of our way. Allow us to do the things that we need to do to create jobs here in America.

I thank the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, for allowing me to speak.

I will be perfectly honest with you. There is a lot about this rule that I don't love but, quite frankly, we don't have much time left. We need to get something done and we need to get something done now. This rule provides us with the tools and the mechanisms that we need to get our jobs done and bring our economy and our country back from the brink of default.

Default is not an option. The underlying legislation, the Budget Control Act of 2011, saves us from default. Most of all, I support the Budget Control Act of 2011 because it means both Chambers of Congress must pass a balanced budget amendment before the President can raise the debt ceiling once again.

Do I like everything in the bill? No, I don't.

Does it do what the American people and the American economy need and deserve? Yes, it does. And that's why I support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, for allowing me to speak on this topic.

We have an obligation to ensure that government doesn't default on its debts for the first time in history. I've always said that America is a country that keeps her promises, and those promises include our debts. The Senate hasn't acted. The President hasn't acted. So today, the House is considering yet another solution to keep these promises. I'm not just talking about promises to our creditors. If we default, we break promises to our seniors, to our troops, and to our veterans. Such a scenario, in my view, is just totally unacceptable.

The Budget Control Act is a way forward. It's a down payment on serious spending reforms. It's cuts now, and it's more cuts in the future. Most importantly, it requires both chambers of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Future cuts and future spending caps are all well and good, but they don't hold our feet to the fire. We all know, if the Federal Government wants to spend money, they will do it. They've proven that time and time again. The Budget Control Act recognizes that we can't keep spending what we don't have, which is why it requires Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment.

It's a new promise to the American people--a promise that we are going to do better, a promise that we will only spend what we collect.

President Obama says he wants a balanced approach. What we want, what the American people want, is a balanced budget. The President has done plenty of telling us what he won't do. What President Obama hasn't told us is what he will do. What President Obama has are his speeches. Speeches aren't plans.

A plan is what we have here in front of us today. It's a good plan. Could it be better? All of us on this side of the aisle believe it could be. We passed a resolution of Cut, Cap, and Balance, but that died in the Senate. So, today, we are talking about what is going to move this country forward, what is going to set us up on a path of sustainable spending, not what we're currently living with, which is an addiction. We have a spending addiction in the United States.

A plan is what we have here in front of us today, and it's a new way forward. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that and move with us.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 42: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to establishing a manatee refuge in florida

Mr. Speaker, 49 States do it. Counties do it. Cities do it. Now it's time for the Federal Government to do it--to pass a balanced budget amendment. It is about passing a balanced budget amendment and getting this Nation back on track to meet our obligations, our spending obligations, but also to match it with what we bring in and collect in taxes and revenues.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for a balanced budget amendment.

I thank my fellow Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Georgia.

I rise in support of both the rule, H. Res. 355, and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2560.

Mr. Speaker, there's no way to get around it: Washington has a spending addiction. The unchecked, out-of-control spending has gone on for decades. Regardless of what party controlled the White House or Congress, Washington spent, spent, and spent some more. And although throughout his campaign President Obama promised a ``net spending cut,'' that hasn't happened. In fact, he's kept on spending and adding trillions of dollars to our debt, and that's why we're in the situation we are today, debating raising our debt ceiling once again.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to raise the debt ceiling. Instead, I want our Nation to get real with the spending and make some changes. H.R. 2560 isn't the easy choice, but it's the right choice, and that's why I'm cosponsor of this critical piece of legislation.

H.R. 2560 raises the debt ceiling, something I'm willing to say most of my Republican colleagues and I decidedly do not want to do. In return, though, H.R. 2560 implements spending cuts for this year and caps for the next 10 years.

But we all know statutory budget cuts from past Congresses don't mean an awful lot, which is why H.R. 2560 also calls for Congress to pass and send to the States a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment would really hold Washington's feet to the fire. It would mean the U.S. Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from spending more than it collects.

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. That's real action. It's the real change and accountability in government that America needs and deserves. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced budget amendment.

The President has yet to send to this body anything in writing. All we've received is a speech and rhetoric. We need to move this country forward. We need a balanced budget amendment. We need to pass H.R. 2560.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today because this country has a spending addiction. My 36-plus years in law enforcement told me that when someone has an addiction, you have to first address and admit that you have a problem.

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill that is coming up this week called Cut, Cap, and Balance. The important part of that bill is the balance part. This Nation needs a balanced budget amendment, just like 49 States that make up this great Union have a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a threat laid upon us that there will be a veto if we pass this. Mr. Speaker, unless we address our addiction to spending, we will never ever get to a point where the children that we have sitting in the audience, those that are sitting here that have children are never going to be able to pass on a greater opportunity to them, just like was passed on to me by my parents.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I was planning to offer my own amendment which would hold the President accountable to the War Powers Act with regard to his operation in Libya. My intention was to expose the President's clear violation of this important law. However, I was concerned some wording could have raised a point of order. That being said, I'm proud to cosponsor Mr. Kucinich's important amendment, which will completely cut off funds for this illegal war.

Mr. Chairman, on March 19, President Obama announced he had authorized U.S. military forces to conduct operations in Libya. Unfortunately, the President did this without receiving authorization from Congress even though he made sure to get the U.N.'s approval. By not being open and honest with Congress, he left Members in the dark and unsure of what our ultimate mission was. To this day, the President hasn't come to Congress to ask for formal approval.

Initially, when the President committed our military operations in Libya, he said it would be days, not months. Well, now we are definitely talking months because it is a little over a week we've been engaged in military operations in Libya for nearly 4 months. In an effort to escape his responsibility, to this day the President has refused to acknowledge that the U.S. is engaged in hostilities in Libya. That being said, those in the Pentagon seem to disagree with the President on this issue.

While the President has turned a blind eye to truth, the Department of Defense has decided to award imminent danger pay to servicemembers who fly over Libya and for those who serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of the shore. As of June 3, 93 percent of the cruise missiles, 66 percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships, and 50 percent of the planes used in NATO operations against Libya were by the United States of America.

Mr. Chair, firing a cruise missile at Libya qualifies as hostilities. In early June, it was estimated that Libya was already costing the American taxpayers over $700 million.

I have three sons that are currently in the military, and I will support our troops no matter where the President sends them. However, I cannot support Obama's decision to commit our military forces' operations without the required congressional authorization. That's why I cosponsored this amendment, the 2012 Department of Defense appropriations bill Kucinich amendment.

With that, I ask all my colleagues, all Members, to come down here on the House floor and to express support for this important amendment, to reclaim our Constitution, to reclaim the validity of this Congress as relates to committing troops to war.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 79: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Nugent

Amendment No. 78: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 320 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 320 and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2219, which appropriates funds for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012.

The rule is a truly open rule, one which provides for ample debate on the bill and gives Members of both the minority and the majority the opportunity to participate in debates. Any Member can submit an amendment to H.R. 2219 as long as it's germane, in keeping with the rules of the House.

As a member of the Rules Committee, I'm proud of the transparency, the openness, and the free-flowing debate that we've seen thus far in the 112th Congress, especially in the appropriations process. One way we can show our commitment to the change we promised the American people is by supporting open rules like this one. The underlying bill keeps our promise to bring an end to wasteful pet projects. In keeping with the House earmark ban, H.R. 2219 doesn't contain a single earmark.

Now, as a father of three sons all currently serving in the United States Army, this bill is of special importance to me. It's important to the Blue Star moms and dads whose kids have answered the call of duty and are serving their country in uniform. But this legislation isn't just important to the moms and dads and husbands and wives of the loved ones serving overseas. This legislation is important to all Americans. This appropriations bill ensures that the men and women in our Armed Forces are equipped with the tools and the resources they need to get the job done. It's a bill that ensures we can continue to go to bed at night and be safe and sound in our homes, knowing our troops are protecting our Nation and our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honor and privilege of visiting Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan during the last constituent work week. While there, I got to meet many military leaders, our allies, but, most importantly, our troops on the ground. I saw with my own eyes the equipment they're working with and the environment that they're working in. I saw what they had and heard about what they needed to get their jobs done. And this legislation is vital to giving our men and women in uniform the resources they need to perform their mission and, more importantly, to get them home safely.

Mr. Speaker, while I support our troops no matter where the President sends them, I also believe we need to focus on the wars we're already fighting. To that end, I'm sorry there aren't restrictions on using these funds in Libya. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks for not appropriating for further hostilities in that country. We can't stretch our resources so thin that we ultimately end up tying the hands of our troops.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to discuss the rule's commitment to budgetary transparency. The budget resolution adopted earlier this year included specifically delineated funds for operations related to the global war on terror. This fund is capped at $126 billion. The intent of the budget language was to preserve these funds specifically for the war on terror and to ensure that the money wasn't diverted for unrelated programs.

Previous majorities have used similar constructs for the exact same purpose. Additionally, in previous Congresses, the Budget Committee chairman was prepared to advise the Chair that in terms of spending levels, it is impermissible to use funding for the global war on terror to offset increases in spending elsewhere in this bill. The same is true this Congress. Section 2 of the rule codifies the budget resolution's intent and the past practices of this House. The rule prohibits funding for the global war on terror from being used to pay for operations of any other kind. This provides transparency and accountability as to exactly how much money is being spent on the global war on terror, rather than counting the funds as an off-budget emergency spending program.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and to vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I agree with a lot of what he said.

We talk about Pakistan, and I just came from there. We talk about the threat that the Taliban that are hiding in Pakistan pose to our troops in Afghanistan, and we talk about that every day. We talk about the inaction of the Pakistani military and the ISI in particularly rooting out those that are killing more U.S. troops in Afghanistan than anything else.

I would like to see more direct involvement as relates to Pakistan and their military on accountability issues that Mr. Hastings brought up, about the ability for us to make sure that if they're going to be allies in this fight against terrorism and particularly against the Taliban, that they truly are.

But in regards to this bill, the underlying legislation, this is $9 billion less than what the President of the United States requested for military DOD allocations this year, for 2012, $9 billion

less than the President's request. And some of it is to restock our National Guard and Reserve units that have been decimated over the years in regards to fighting wars in two different countries. It's about giving our troops a pay raise. It's about taking care of their medical needs and research in regards to providing medical care for those that are in the military. And guess what? That also then bleeds out into the civilian world in regards to those applications that are developed in the military.

It is about our core mission. The Constitution is clear about our core mission in regards to national defense. It talks specifically about this Nation and what this responsibility is of this Congress in regards to national defense.

I said earlier what does trouble me is that, in this, our chairman did a great job of not putting funding in to fund any more incursions into Libya, but it doesn't restrict it right now. And there's going to be discussion on Libya coming up later today.

But I've got to give credit to the chairman of the committee, of the subcommittee, in regards to appropriations that they really have crafted a piece of legislation that has bipartisan support in that committee. There's bipartisan support across the board in regards to where we need to go in regards to keeping this Nation safe against threats, known and unknown, in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

I know that since I've come to the House, I've gotten up here and talked time and time again about our government's core mission. There is no doubt there is nothing more central to the purpose of government than to provide for our Nation's defenses. It's in the Preamble of the Constitution: Provide for the common defense. It's in the oath we took when we were sworn into office to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

H.R. 2219 fulfills our constitutional duty to provide for our Nation's defense. Additionally, H. Res. 320 ensures that we will review this legislation completely in an open and transparent manner that all American people deserve to see.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.