Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me time and for his very accurate history lesson. This is indeed New Jersey's version of Valley Forge.

At the outset I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Rob Bishop, for their work on my bill. In addition, I want to offer my appreciation to the chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall; and the ranking member, Doc Hastings, for bringing this legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated here this afternoon, H.R. 118 seeks to authorize the addition of 100 acres to Morristown National Historic Park in my congressional district in New Jersey. The Morristown National Historic Park, our Nation's oldest National Historic Park, has a rich historical significance beginning with Washington's encampment there in 1777, 1779, and 1780.

New Jersey was quite literally the crossroads of the American Revolution as America's struggle for independence was won and, yes, nearly lost there. During two critical winters of the war, Morristown served as the headquarters for General George Washington. To mark the area's impact on our Nation's history, Morristown National Historic Park was established by Congress in 1933.

Today, from time to time, property owners with land adjacent to the park offer their property in the form of a donation to the National Park Service. Due to an existing acreage ceiling, the park cannot accept these donations nor can it acquire any additional land.

My colleagues, Federal support for Morristown National Historic Park and the inclusion of additional lands that have significant historical background presents a unique opportunity for our government to express its commitment to preserving our past which may be threatened if these lands go unprotected.

I am also pleased that the committee adopted language proposed by Representative Bishop that land come from only willing donors or sellers, assuring that property rights are respected.

I believe our responsibility at the Federal level is to serve as a helping hand, one that works with the Department of the Interior to secure critical funding, and I do that on the Appropriations Committee, and provides authority to purchase and, yes, accept as donations parcels from willing sellers. This process will allow us to continue to respect and complement greater county, State, municipal, and private efforts already in place to protect these important resources.

I want to commend the cosponsors of this legislation, including the entire New Jersey congressional delegation, and members of the Committee on Natural Resources for recognizing the importance of this proposal. Additionally, I want to thank the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders in New Jersey and the local municipalities for their support.

With that said, I urge passage of my bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3961.

It goes without saying that I recognize that doctors are the backbone of Medicare and our health care system in general. As such, they must be compensated by the federal government in a manner that allows them to recover their expenses at the very least. I have been very supportive of providing doctors with a fair and equitable reimbursement for their services.

I recognize that an increasing number of physicians are finding it financially impossible to treat Medicare patients and another reduction in reimbursement levels would encourage more doctors to drop Medicare patients, endangering the health of the most vulnerable of our society--the frail elderly.

I have also been informed that nearly one-third of physicians in America are near or have actually achieved retirement age.

It would not take much in terms of lower reimbursements or additional bureaucratic red tape to encourage them to close their practices, further limiting access to quality health care for many older Americans.

I have supported Medicare fee ``fix'' legislation over the years. However, this bill is different. It is not ``paid for'' and presents another unnecessary blow to our embattled taxpayers and future generations of Americans.

Enough is enough! We have to stop spending borrowed federal dollars like there is no tomorrow!

As I stated earlier, I understand that we must prevent the Medicare physician reimbursement level from being slashed by a catastrophic 21 percent. But the $285 billion cost of this legislation can and must be offset.

I suggest that the unspent balance of the failed economic stimulus bill is a great place to start.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the very dedicated employees, volunteers, and graduates of The Seeing Eye in Morristown, New Jersey, on their 80 years of service.

Dorothy Harrison Eustis and Morris Frank had a dream to make the world completely accessible to the blind and visually impaired, and in 1929, The Seeing Eye was established to make their dream a reality. Since its inception, The Seeing Eye has enhanced the independence and self-confidence of the blind and visually impaired. The Seeing Eye pioneered the use of dogs to guide the blind, and today, the organization has successfully trained over 15,000 Seeing Eye dogs and matched them with more than 8,000 blind or visually impaired owners. Additionally, many area families have volunteered to rear generations of Seeing Eye puppies--nurturing them to accomplish their special destiny.

Twelve times every year, up to 24 visually impaired students from the United States and Canada come to Morristown to enter a twenty-seven day instructional program and are matched with a dog. The instruction includes traveling through high traffic and residential streets, shopping malls, and bus routes. Upon the completion of the program, the graduates are able to safely navigate their hometowns with the support of their Seeing Eye dogs. In fact, most every day on Morristown streets, The Seeing Eye trainers, students and their remarkable dogs can be seen training where pedestrians and drivers alike respect their presence. The Seeing Eye also provides follow-up care and even visit graduates' home to aid them in adjusting to their new accessibility to their environments.

Today, The Seeing Eye is a pioneer in canine genetics and medical research. It also advocates for the concerns of those with visual impairments--such as pedestrian safety and the dangers of quiet cars-- by working with legislators, writing letters on behalf of those experiencing discrimination, and researching technologies to make crosswalks safer.

Madam Speaker, for the past 80 years, The Seeing Eye has provided an unprecedented service to the blind and visually impaired community, and I hope it can continue its invaluable service for many years to come. I urge you, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues to join me in congratulating all of those involved with The Seeing Eye on its 80th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation because I have been listening to my constituents. Over the past several months, I have received over 13,000 letters, emails, faxes and calls from New Jersey families and employers. Unprecedented. I have listened to hundreds of residents in town hall meetings, retirement communities, nursing homes and senior clubs.

I have visited areas hospitals and businesses, large and small. I have met with medical societies, health providers, doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, home health aides, chiropractors, surgeons, all of them.

In each of these meetings, these men and women have expressed deep concern about the so-called health care reforms that have been sponsored by the House majority, the Pelosi bill, and most are opposed. They are worried about how this massive bill, over 1,900 pages long, will affect their doctor-patient relationship, their personal care, and their ability to afford their health insurance. And they are worried with good reason.

H.R. 3962 is a toxic-mixture of job-killing higher taxes, rampant new mandates on businesses and individuals of all ages and damaging Medicare cuts, combined with a government takeover of health care.

It demands opposition on so many grounds:

First, according to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 3962 will cost at least $1.2 trillion over the next ten years! This is mind- boggling, on top of earlier borrowing and deficits!

To pay for this massive new spending, Speaker Pelosi wants to raise taxes and cut Medicare that older Americans depend on each and every day.

My colleagues, we heard the grim news yesterday that unemployment currently is at a 26-year high--10.2 percent. (And we know it's actually higher.) And yet, this bill contains $735 billion in new taxes!

Using the formula developed by the chief White House economic advisor, 5.5 million Americans could lose their jobs as a result of enactment of the Pelosi Health Care bill.

$735 billion in new taxes.

Among the new taxes is a new ``surtax'' on high-income filers--many of whom are small business men and women.

While this tax is intended to target ``high-income'' individuals and couples, it is not indexed for inflation, meaning it will reach millions more New Jersey residents over time just like the Alternative Minimum Tax.

H.R. 3962 also includes taxes on individuals who do not purchase government-mandated health insurance.

Think about this! You do not make enough money to afford health insurance and this bill actually fines you! The end result: you still don't have coverage and you've been fined as well!

Young people will be particularly surprised that they will be subject to such a fine!

Mr. Speaker, as the Nation awaits consideration of Speaker Pelosi's health care bill, all 1,900 pages of it, we now learn from the Congressional Budget Office that its price tag has now climbed to $1.2 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion over 10 years, not the smaller amount that the supporters claim it will cost.

Over 13,000 of my New Jersey constituents have weighed in with me on health care reform, about 90 percent of whom worry that a government takeover would jeopardize their own private health insurance, and planned cuts to Medicare Advantage in the Pelosi bill for seniors, Medicare cuts for payments to doctors and hospitals, and their anger and anxiety rises even more.

Mr. Speaker, more Washington mandates, more taxes, and less control over their lives, people back home have a right to be very worried and angry.

Mr. Speaker, as the House majority debates with itself in secret on the future of health care, the American people are justified and worried about what is being discussed behind those closed doors.

As I always do, I have spent months listening to seniors across my district, and they are particularly concerned about how so-called ``reform'' will affect their Medicare and the medical care on which they rely every day.

Let me tell you, they are wise. They know that the so-called ``Medicare savings'' that are proposed to pay for the Speaker's $1 trillion reform bill sounds an awful lot like Medicare cuts to them. In fact, there are $500 billion in cuts to Medicare over 10 years in the bill, cuts that affect them, the doctors that treat them, and the hospitals who care for them.

Specifically, the majority plans to slash the Medicare Advantage program by more than $120 billion. Experts believe that nearly 3 million seniors will be thrown off Medicare Advantage and millions more will pay out-of-pocket expenses or face reduced benefits. We can't let this happen.

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Girl Scouts of America, I rise in support of H.R. 621, the Girl Scouts USA Commemorative Coin Act.

On March 12, 1912 Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low assembled 18 young girls from Savannah, Georgia, for a local Girl Scout meeting. Low assembled these girls for this first meeting with several goals in mind. She believed that all girls should be given the opportunity to develop, physically, mentally, and spiritually, while at the same time, bringing girls out of isolated home environments and into the open air. These original Girl Scouts hiked, went on camping trips, played basketball, learned how to tell time by the stars, and studied first aid.

Within a few short years Ms. Low's Girl Scouts idea would spread across the Nation. Today there are over 3.4 million Girl Scouts in the United States, and 236,000 troops or groups worldwide in more than 90 countries. The United States contains more than 50 million women who are Girl Scout alumnae. Girl Scouts became an American Institution on March 16, 1950 when it was officially chartered by the United States Congress.

Girl Scouts has a long and rich heritage within my Congressional district. The Morris Area Girl Scout Council was established in 1929 at their Jockey Hollow location in Mendham Township. In 2007 the Morris Area Girl Scout Council merged with two other northern New Jersey Councils to form the Girl Scouts of Northern New Jersey. Girl Scouts of Northern New Jersey has three offices including two within my Congressional District in Riverdale, and Randolph.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary achievements made by millions of Girl Scouts for nearly one hundred years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs from September 15, 2009 through October 15, 2009.

The earliest Spanish settlers arrived in the United States over 400 years ago. And since then, millions of Hispanic men and women have immigrated to the United States from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other Caribbean nations, as well as Central America, South America, and Spain. These brave men, women, and children have come in search of freedom, peace, and opportunity.

The U.S. Census Bureau currently lists Hispanic Americans as the largest ethnic minority within the entire United States with a population of 46,900,000 people, making up fifteen percent of our nation's total population. Hispanics also comprise the largest ethnic minority group in 20 States including my home State of New Jersey.

Hispanics are a vital cog to our economy and own over 2.5 million small businesses in the United States, which have generated more than $400 billion in revenue. Among these businesses, Latina-owned entities are growing quickly and are currently generating more than $45 billion in sales. Hispanic businesses are rapidly expanding growing 31% from between 1997 and 2002, over three times the national average during that period.

Within my own Congressional District, the Morris County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is a thriving group that has been recognized with distinction. Last year the Morris County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was recognized as the best medium Hispanic Chamber in our region, and for nearly thirty five years, the community has been served ably by the Morris County Organization for Hispanic Affairs.

Hispanic Americans have displayed great valor in warfare over the course of our nation's history fighting in every war in the history of the United States. There are over 1,100,000 Hispanic veterans of the United States Armed Forces, with forty-three of them winning the Medal of Honor, the highest military distinction in the United States.

Hispanic Americans have served our nation as dedicated public servants, holding positions at the highest level of government, including Cabinet Secretaries, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and Members of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, Hispanic Americans have contributed greatly to our country for hundreds of years, and are worthy of recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Hispanic Heritage Month.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of the Borough of Somerville, county of Somerset, New Jersey, as they celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the incorporation of their municipality.

Although the Borough of Somerville was not incorporated until April 16, 1909, its roots lie much deeper in American history. The town of Somerville was settled in 1683 by Dutch and English immigrants as part of Bridgewater Township. The town unwaveringly aided in the fight for the independence of our Nation, including housing General George Washington from December 1778 to June 1779 while the Continental Army was stationed at Camp Middlebrook.

Until the 1840s, Somerville was a sparsely populated agricultural community. However, with the completion of the rail line in the 1840s and the development of water power in the 1850s, Somerville rapidly developed. From the abundant red clay from which Somerville was built, brick making became one of the earliest industries.

Today, Somerville is an essential hub in central New Jersey, and the seat of county government, the Somerset Board of Chosen Freeholders. Its bustling yet quaint Main Street boasts numerous boutique specialty shops and a large variety of dining options. The borough also hosts many local recreational, cultural, and historical activities, including the annual Tour of Somerville bike race, the oldest bicycle race in the United States, and both the home of the historic Wallace House and Old Dutch Parsonage. Somerville has truly become a premiere destination for visitors.

The Borough of Somerville continues to grow and prosper. Currently, the borough is in the process of completing a large redevelopment project to include a new shopping center, town homes, and many other amenities on the grounds of the former borough landfill. The project is centered around the Somerville train station and envisioned as a transit village redevelopment.

Madam Speaker, for 100 years, Somerville has been a center for local commerce, not only the citizens of Somerville, but for all of New Jersey. Somerville is truly a unique and special part of New Jersey, and I ask you, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues to congratulate all residents of Somerville on their special centennial celebration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Long Valley Woman's Club in Morris County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 95th Anniversary this year.

Originally named the ``Home Bureau,'' The Long Valley Woman's Club was founded in 1914 by a group of twelve dedicated community leaders at the home of Mrs. Frank Castle, who served as their first president. The women met regularly for monthly ``Meet and Eat'' sessions, at which they would dine, while sharing recipes with each other.

The Long Valley Woman's Club eventually transformed into a service- based organization, providing valuable support for the community. Most notably, the Long Valley Woman's Club was responsible for providing the Washington Township Fire Company with its first alarm system, donating essential life-saving equipment to the local first aid squad, and contributing funds for the building of a hospital. The club also led the charge for establishing Washington Township's first free public library. The Long Valley Woman's Club has a long-standing tradition of providing clothing, food, and monetary donations to those in need, as well as scholarships and awards to hard-working young people in the community.

In 1930, the Long Valley Woman's Club was recognized for its outstanding volunteer services when it became a member of the New Jersey State Federation of Women's Clubs and the General Federation of Women's Clubs.

Madam Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Long Valley Woman's Club as they celebrate 95 dedicated years of serving our community.

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

I rise in support of the Energy and Water appropriations conference agreement for 2010. I would like to recognize Vice Chairman Pastor for his friendship and leadership--it has been a good working partnership-- and all members of the committee.

I would also like to thank all of the staff on both sides of the subcommittee as well as in my office and his for their dedication and hard work. On the majority side, Taunja Berquam, the Clerk Bob Sherman, Joe Levin, James

Windle, Casey Pearce, and Lauren Minto. On the minority side, Rob Blair and Kevin Jones. In my personal office, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and in Mr. Pastor's personal office, Rich Patrick. All of these individuals worked tirelessly to put together the product before us which meets the needs of every congressional district in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement totals $33.465 billion, which is $928 million below the President's request, and $167 million, or 0.6 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

However, the conference agreement was preceded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other emergency stimulus appropriations for the fiscal year 2009, which gave more than $58 billion in new money to the agencies under our jurisdiction. In fact, nearly 39 billion new dollars alone went to the Department of Energy.

So while the growth from the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriation to this conference report is minimal, the Department of Energy is going to have a difficult time spending and accounting for all of the new money it has received.

However, Mr. Speaker, in general, this conference agreement is reasonable and balanced.

I do want to highlight one area in which I have significant concerns: the future of nuclear power in this country and what happens when political science trumps sound science.

During the Republican motion to recommit the House Energy and Water bill, my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) spoke eloquently about the perils of following the President's plan to terminate our current nuclear waste management plant at Yucca Mountain. My biggest regret with this conference agreement is that we were unable to overcome Senator Reid's influence, and consequently, the disposal plan is barely on life support.

The amount of funding in this bill for continuing with the Yucca Mountain license application is now half of what is requested, further delaying the progress on the establishment of a national nuclear waste disposal site.

And what will the results be of this decision? Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is being stored on site at 121 locations across 39 States. These are our States; they're our constituents. I am sure this fuel is safe where it is today, but I know many of our constituents want it stored somewhere where the environment will not be affected and where the material will be kept safely.

The President's and the majority leader in the Senate's decision will ensure that the fuel stays where it is for at least 15 or 20 years with each site bearing all of the major costs and responsibilities for management and security of the waste material.

Second, their plan will rob our country of potential jobs and tax revenue. These jobs range from Ph.D.s in physics to pipe fitters, from welders to plumbers. Operating nuclear power plants can sustain 700 permanent jobs while new plants generate as many as 2,400 construction jobs.

Currently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has applications for 26 new plants. That's at least 60,000 jobs at stake. I don't understand how the President can push for an economic revitalization and reduce carbon emissions while gutting the single technology which will help accomplish both of those goals.

Our constituents need these jobs and the clean power source that they create.

Third, killing Yucca Mountain would bring billions of dollars of liability against the Federal Government, anywhere from $11 to $22 billion. This is money which the Federal Government owes industry because we have failed to live up to our responsibilities. We've signed contracts with these companies to take the waste off their hands. And because of the political arrangement between the White House and the Senate leader, we have failed, taxpayers and ratepayers must now carry that burden for the foreseeable future.

These are not empty threats or dire predictions. They are facts. Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had a vote that basically denies the go-ahead for the construction of new nuclear power plants because of the administration's plans to terminate Yucca Mountain.

Those 54,000 jobs I mentioned earlier are on hold. The nuclear waste in our districts is still there and not going anywhere. The billions of liability that our children will have to repay? Well, that's another few billion on top of our current $1.6 trillion deficit.

The one bright side of the conference agreement is that we were able to keep the license application alive, but just barely. Until the American public wakes up to the pitfalls of this political arrangement between the White House and the Senate leader, we will all have to bear the costs.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Vice Chairman Pastor for his leadership and friendship. Overall, this is a great conference agreement, and I intend to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of our committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I voted for the House Energy and Water bill. It was a good bipartisan compromise. It was my pleasure to work closely with the chairman, Mr. Pastor, as we put it together. I and many of my colleagues are increasingly concerned that we don't have the level of information that we need to make wise decisions on the legislation. Our jobs require that we read and fully understand complex pieces of legislation that we vote on, and that takes time.

It is for this reason that I am making this motion to instruct House conferees not to sign the final conference agreement until the text has been available to the conferees in an electronic, searchable and downloadable form at least 48 hours prior to conferees' approval.

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

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I rise in support of the resolution.

Eight years have now passed since tragedy struck our Nation. In lower Manhattan, the fields of Pennsylvania, and across the river at the Pentagon more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans lost their lives. The events of that day remain indelibly etched in our collective memory.

Of those lost, 700 of the victims came from New Jersey, many from my congressional district, and many more from New York, other States, and 80 nations. For those of who us had this tragedy hit so close to home, I know that each September 11 brings with it a great deal of sorrow. Later this week, all of us will have the honor of attending a number of 9/11 remembrances, especially in New Jersey, the home of so many good people who died, as well as to honor those who sought to save them, our first responders.

My constituents remember that day every day. That day dawned like most days in New Jersey, bright and clear; crowded train stations in the morning taking people across the Hudson to lower Manhattan, parking lots packed with cars as they are most mornings. That evening, however, the scene was far different; trains weren't full, cars remained unclaimed in parking lots, and many families were left wondering what had happened to their loved ones. A single day that changed how each of us would think for the rest of their lives.

At one of those small train stations in Chatham there is a tree at whose base is a plaque inscribed: ``We shall never forget our friends and neighbors who rode the rails with us that morning but did not return with us that night.'' That remarkable poignant quotation. We will never forget those victims. We will never forget those who sought to save them at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania, and in lower Manhattan. Their bravery will never be forgotten.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the amendment authored by our chairman. I don't quarrel with many of the provisions of the Murtha amendment. He's absolutely right on in most regards. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to remember one day, April 15, 1953. On that date is the last time a U.S. soldier, sailor or marine was killed by an attack from the air. It's nearly 60 years ago, during the Korean War.

Air dominance has been the game changer that has allowed our ground troops to execute their missions. We have air dominance today. Our job here is to make sure we have it tomorrow, and certainly the committee is going to do that. But air dominance is fragile and could slip away quickly. As we gather here today, the Russians are producing advanced fighter aircraft. We know that. The Chinese are apparently working to reverse engineer some of those advanced fighters for their own use, and we know certain countries are producing and selling very sophisticated air defense systems; more accurate, more lethal, more mobile, more difficult to neutralize than any systems our Air Force and Navy has ever faced. Hence, the need for the F-22.

The Air Force has 187 F-22 Raptors. It does not have 187 for combat deployment. We would like that to be the case. About 130 or so are ready, what we call combat coded with the full package, and they're ready for those missions. Approximately 60 are maintained, as I understand, for training and testing purposes.

And the question, of course, arises--and I support the F-25 Joint Strike Fighter. It's on its way, but when and how soon. The Joint Strike Fighter, as we know, is not the Raptor, doesn't have those capabilities. I think we need to keep the F-22 assembly line alive and warm. Once it's shut down, there is virtually no prospect that we can bring it back again. You can't flip the switch to bring the Raptor back into production.

So I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment. I respect the chairman's desire to sort of keep the line open, have spare parts, but I do oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its present form, I am.

The motion to recommit would restore funding originally included in the bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee for advanced procurement for 12 F-22 aircraft and allow the program to move forward. It would also provide an additional $100 million for the Army military personnel accounts. These increases are offset by cutting $400 million in unrequested funds for the Presidential helicopter, a troubled program that the President himself has proposed to eliminate.

My motion to recommit is consistent with the recently passed Defense authorization bill which recognized the continued vital need for the F- 22 by authorizing an additional F-22 aircraft and, at the same time, did not authorize additional funding for the President's helicopter.

Mr. Speaker, while much is made of the President's threatened veto of this bill over the F-22, the fact of the matter is the President has also threatened a veto over funding for the Presidential helicopter. While I appreciate the President has a role in this process, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power of the purse. I do not believe that we should simply take the President's budget proposal and rubber-stamp it.

In addition, my motion to recommit begins to fill a known funding shortfall in the Army military and personnel accounts that resulted from Secretary Gates' recent decision to increase the total Army end strength by 22,000 troops to support the administration's Afghanistan policy.

My motion would also leave intact the additional funds added in the Murtha amendment for four of the Air Force's unfunded priorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the Armed Services Committee, for the remaining time.

Please support the motion to recommit.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise in opposition to the rule but in support of the underlying Defense appropriations bill.

There is nothing more important than the safety and security of our Nation and our people. This underlying bill will provide our troops-- volunteers--the resources and tools they need that will allow them to continue their heroic work to protect us and our interests around the world. Even though I oppose this restrictive rule--and it's a restrictive rule--I will support the bill. But I wish we could have found some way to meet and improve on the President's request for the Department of Defense.

This bill falls $3.5 billion short of even President Obama's treading water budget. The world did not become a safer place in January. The signs are everywhere. North Korea is threatening conventional and nuclear war. Russia is becoming more belligerent. China is rapidly expanding its naval forces, cybercapabilities, and its space ambitions. Iran is working overtime on missile and nuclear capabilities, and yes, there are disturbing signs occurring in Africa, horrendous acts of violence in the name of religion. And yet we're cutting missile defense, halting the Army's modernization program, known as the Future Combat Systems, and refiguring it, and failing to provide enough money for more Navy ships and fifth-generation Air Force fighters.

This treading water approach to national security is very shortsighted. Mr. Speaker, I support reform of our military acquisition process. I support Secretary Gates' program to reexamine our national security priorities in light of new irregular challenges and the threats that are proliferating well beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I'm worried about our apparent obsession with this war-ism. Yes, we must focus our attention and resources and energy on Iraq and Afghanistan, but I urge my colleagues to make sure that we make enough investments today to ensure that we will be prepared to defend our interests against all threats in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, our Defense Subcommittee once again has been a model for bipartisan compromise and cooperation in the interest of national security. I want to thank Mr. Murtha and my ranking member, Mr. Young, who spoke earlier, for their hard work and that of staff.

But I urge defeat of this restrictive rule.