I thank the chairman. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning as we continue to consider the fiscal year 2010 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. First, I'm frustrated by my role here today. Instead of being able to…
I thank the chairman. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning as we continue to consider the fiscal year 2010 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill.
First, I'm frustrated by my role here today. Instead of being able to perform my duties as a ranking member as I've done in the past, my role requires that I protest the way debate is suppressed on this bill. It is necessary, but not something that I relish.
Usually the role of the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, as well as the authorizing committees, is to present the views of the minority and to work with the majority in crafting a bill that combines the best ideas of both sides of the aisle. We do this through the amendment process. As the ranking member, I have not always agreed with what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed, but I always defended their right to offer their amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank Chairman Obey for reaching out to me during the drafting of this bill. He is a passionate advocate for many of the programs funded in this bill, and he has clearly put a great deal of thought into this bill before us. I also want to credit him for trying to put together a bill that Members could support by including many national priorities; yet, due to the wholly unsustainable allocation on top of an already unsustainable allocation in the stimulus bill for these agencies, we could not agree on the final product.
I also want to thank the staff for their dedication to this important bill, on the majority side, Cheryl Smith, Susan Quantius, Nicole Kunko, Stephen Steigleder, Albert Lee, Mike Gentilly, Amy Battaglia and Devon Klein; on my side, Stephanie Myers, Steve Crane, of course AmyClaire Brusch from my personal office staff.
One of the most important duties of this House, as directed by article I, section 9 of the Constitution, is to determine the financial obligations of the Federal Government, the power of the purse, as we say. This is, indeed, what we are here to do today, with the Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations bill. Yet instead of being able to have a healthy discussion, as the Founders intended with this representative body, Members, both Republican and Democrat, I note, are shut out of the process and only permitted to speak for a short time without the ability to offer alternatives.
Several of my colleagues and I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration on the floor today. I think they are substantive amendments that deal with the public policy issues our constituents sent us here to debate. Even though they met the requirements for consideration on an appropriations act, the Democrat leadership decided to report a gag rule that severely limits our ability to offer them.
When we first started down this road to ruin with respect to the autocratic rules that govern debates on appropriations bills, we were told that these rules were required because Republicans were ``filibustering by amendment'' and because we would not commit to time limits. We knew at the time that those arguments were mere fig leaves, and over the past few weeks, the evidence has become crystal clear.
We were told that we had to finish our work quickly, so time agreements were essential. Next, we were told that we had done nothing to limit our amendments. Strangely, when we were in the majority, we didn't limit amendments to appropriations bills. Why? Because we believed then, as we do now, that Members have not only the right, but the constitutional responsibility, to represent their constituents.
Even so, while we were stating our continued concern about the restrictive rules by which we have been forced to abide for this bill, we reached out in good faith. Instead of offering upwards towards 50 amendments, House Republicans, in good faith, limited the amendments request. This year, there were fewer Republican amendments offered on this very substantial bill than were offered under an open rule just a few years ago.
Republicans offered 12--only 12--amendments. Did some of those amendments pose potentially difficult votes for Democrats? I guess so.
We had an amendment by Mr. Carter and Mr. Burton, which would have been in order under an open rule, to prohibit the Democrats from killing the largest student loan program in operation today. Is it permitted to be offered today? No.
We had an amendment by Mr. Lewis, the ranking Republican of the Appropriations Committee, again in order under the standing rules of the House if we were operating under the procedures that allowed the American people full representation. The amendment would have prohibited the Secretary of Health and Human Services from starting a government-run health insurance plan. The amendment was ruled by the Parliamentarians to be permissible under the standing House rules. Is Mr. Lewis going to offer his amendment today? No. Why not? The Democrats don't want to vote on socialized medicine, probably because their leadership and their constituents don't agree how they should vote.
As ranking Republican on this subcommittee, I had an amendment that would have done nothing other than codify the nonbinding language the majority included in the so-called stimulus bill with respect to using comparative effectiveness research as an excuse to ration health care. Was I permitted to offer it? No.
As I travel through the State of Kansas and talk to the people who sent me here, it is clear that most Kansans, and I think most Americans, are wondering if this Congress and this administration understand the long-term ramifications of the massive spending spree we've been on since January. The stimulus bill we passed spent nearly $800 billion, money we don't have. When you add the interest that we'll have to pay to the Chinese who buy our debt, the cost is going to exceed $1 trillion.
And what do we have to show for that exercise? Unemployment has hit 9.5 percent nationwide and is expected to rise above 10 percent. Some States are already well over 10 percent unemployment. If this is recovery, then it is a ``jobless recovery.'' Well, who does that help?
We have massive amounts of money spent on programs, many funded by the agencies in this bill that are maybe good in the long term but have absolutely nothing to do with bringing this country out of the economic crisis we're facing today. What it did do is create a mountain of spending that will hit next year and create the cliff effect.
At the time, the President and the Democrats in the majority claimed this was one-time spending that would drop off after 2011. I'd like to believe that's true, because if it isn't, this bill will cost about $220 billion, or $60 billion above where we are today, which is about a 40 percent increase.
I suppose that would be okay if we had an extra $60 billion laying around in the Treasury, although I'd prefer to give it back to those who worked so hard to earn it. But the fact is, we do not have this money. It is borrowed. It is borrowed from the American people. It is borrowed from their future earnings, and it is borrowed from foreign governments like China.
Next week we will consider the health reform bill that looks like it's going to cost well over $1 trillion, and it is full of provisions that instruct the Congressional Budget Office to overlook the spending.
We had a budget submitted to us by the White House this year that, for the first time, exceeded $3.5 billion in total spending. The White House is apparently so worried about letting the American people know how much of their money is being spent that they have delayed the traditional midyear budget review, which is expected to show a historic deficit. It's delayed until next month when Congress has left Washington and while many Americans are on vacation--well, those that can afford it this year, anyway.
I want to make clear to the American people what exactly we are voting on here today. It's $163 billion in discretionary allocation and an $11 billion increase from fiscal year 2009, but that is about a 7 percent increase. But the true cost to the American taxpayer has to include the $126 billion that was allocated for those agencies in the stimulus act. So, in reality, these agencies have grown by $135.3 billion, or a 93 percent increase over 2 years, 93 percent.
My colleagues and I were prepared, as is historically done in this body, to offer amendments to hold the spending to levels we can afford, even move from
some of the overfunded programs to the underfunded programs, such as special education, but as I have noted, we are prohibited by the Democrat leadership from doing so today.
In addition to the excessive spending in the bill, we have several other concerns. First and foremost, though the distinguished chairman has told us in committee that this bill has nothing to do with the health care reform bill the Democrat majority is crafting, the committee report for this bill that they are crafting includes language that tells a different story.
It acknowledges that this bill is setting the foundation for the implementation of health care reform, and it also acknowledges the stimulus does, as I argued then, ``the committee continues the investments begun in the Recovery Act to expand the capacity of the health care system to handle the increased demand that will come from health care reform.''
So, indeed, it is important for us to talk about health care reform proposals, how they will impact these agencies and, more importantly, how they will impact the American people. I do not think that there is a Member of this body who denies the importance of reforming our health care system. We have serious problems with regard to cost and access and rationing, even to a point where choice and quality will also be threatened.
My biggest concern with the Democrat proposals as intended is the rationing of health care. The Obama administration has begun to set the framework for rationing health care with comparative effectiveness research. Who is going to be affected most by this rationing and by using comparative effectiveness to do so. Unfortunately, it is those with the most to lose. Though they deny this program is intended to make coverage decisions based on cost, the government already does in Medicare and Medicaid and in TRICARE.
Forcing us into a public plan that rations health care is not what the American people want. What they need and want is medical decisions made by patients and their physicians, not unelected government bureaucrats. Congressional Democrats are actively campaigning for a nationalized health care proposal that includes more than $800 billion in new tax increases. It's estimated that this plan will result in 4.7 million workers losing their jobs as a result of tax hikes on business.
Under the President's government-run health care plan, businesses will face further operating costs, jobs will be cut and, worst of all, Americans will be left with fewer choices and lower-quality health care. Having seen the failed results of the administration's so-called economic stimulus plan, the last thing Americans need is to have Democrat leaders nationalizing our health care system.
Reforms to the health care system are needed and Republicans have offered to work with the Democrats in creating a bipartisan solution. But so far our efforts have been ignored by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. We have offered a plan to promote new jobs to enhance the growth in our economy that does not strangle the already faltering economy. Most importantly, any health care plan should offer Americans freedom through expanded access and increased quality.
My colleagues and I tried to offer amendments today that would have prevented the Department of Health and Human Services from using our tax dollars to implement policies that would ration care, that would have prevented a burden on small businesses and threaten jobs, that would have prevented an advisory board accountable to no one that determines health care payment policies, or that would have prevented Americans from being forced into a public plan instead of their private insurance.
These are extremely important protections that HHS is already moving towards doing, and more, with the stimulus funds as well as expected funds for next year. I assure the chairman and his leadership that our intent is not to be obstructionists, or to be dilatory. However we believe it is important to preserve the integrity of this body and have a full and open discussion on the funding levels in this bill.
Therefore, it was important for me to take time to explain at length to the American people why there is scant debate on this bill. We are not being silent. We're simply being gagged. In closing, I believe there is a better way to provide services included in this bill. I believe there are commonsense ways to provide health care to all Americans without rationing and without the cost of Americans losing their jobs. There's a way that increases access and keeps patients and doctors in control in health care. And I believe there's a way to rebuild our economy without borrowing money to do it.
But today we won't have access to these solutions. That debate, those votes were prevented by the majority. Because of that, the American people will suffer.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.
I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of how much time is left?
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is also a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, apparently, the gentleman from Ohio has overlooked the fact that every spending bill that has made it to the President's desk since 2007 has been originated by the Democrat- controlled House. So I would like to correct that.
May I inquire as to how much time remains in this debate?
I will yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes there is convenient memory loss about what
has happened in the economy recently. Since 2007, the House Appropriations Committee, as well as the full House, have been controlled by Democratic leadership. The bills that were voted for in the bailout last year were voted for by the current President, then- Senator Obama. So, to think that the economic woes of today were imposed upon the Democratic-controlled House by Republicans is a stretch of even the wildest imagination. To assume that the Republicans in the House controlled the Supreme Court at any time in the history of this country is a stretch of the imagination.
The bill before us today, when added with the stimulus bill, is a 93 percent increase in spending. It's a tremendous amount of money, and it's money that is not designed to bring jobs back to America but merely to continue existing programs and even to create new programs that have not gone through the hearing process, the process of developing, of changing and of molding these programs, so that they are fully productive for the American people, whether it's in health care or in education or in labor.
So I think that it's important for us to realize that this bill has a lot of money which is money we don't have, excessive money, and it should have had the opportunity, through the amendment process, to be brought back to levels that we can afford, to levels that would not have imposed an excessive amount of borrowing for the American people, because that borrowing leads to requirements for not only ourselves but for future Americans, who work hard for their money, to then pay money for programs that have already existed in the past.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would say that this process has been, I think, restricted in an unnecessary fashion, and because of that, there are many people who will not be able to support this legislation.
I want to, once again, acknowledge that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has spent a lot of time and a lot of effort, and has looked deeply into the details of this bill. I think that this bill is an encompassment of his passion for serving, and he has done a very good job on the details and on the work that he has put into this bill. I want to acknowledge that publicly and thank him for that effort. I wish that the spending levels were less so that I could also join with him in supporting this measure, but I will not be able to do so.
In the future, as we move forward, I hope that, next year, we bring the spending levels to an area that is acceptable and that continues these very necessary programs, because much of this bill is work that needs to be done in America. I am looking forward to working with the chairman on this bill next year to, hopefully, achieve those levels.
With that being said, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to the chairman's amendment in substance, but I am opposed to the amendment in process.
The amendment incorporates nine separate stand-alone amendments offered by Democrat Members of this body, thus ensuring that those Members would not have to go to the Rules Committee and plead just to have a perfectly legitimate amendment proposed on the floor.
It incorporates no Republican amendments. If I heard the chairman correctly this morning, there are 10 that could have been included, but were not.
Looking through the list of what's in the chairman's amendment, there is Career Pathways Innovation Fund for $5 million with an offset. There's a health resources and service administration with a $1 million offset. Going through the list, there's really not much that brings out any controversy. They could have stood alone. There perhaps is one that would not have been legitimate standing alone, which would include a prohibition to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs are Energy Star qualified or have a Federal energy management program designation. I think that one is probably protected under the rule.
But let me tell you what was not included because these amendments were not made in order. What was not included was a commonsense amendment to use technology to reduce unemployment insurance, improper and fraudulent payments.
What was not included was an amendment to prohibit the Department of Education from shutting down the largest student loan program that exists today.
What was not in order was an amendment to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from setting up any kind of rationed health care system.
What was not included was an amendment to prevent the government from nationalizing our health care system.
What was not included was an amendment to prevent the government
from imposing a costly health care mandate on small businesses which, if it had been permitted to be considered and if it had passed, would have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs.
What was not included was an amendment to ensure that the only entity setting up Medicare reimbursement rates is the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, not any other government agency or bureaucracy.
What is not included was a shift to add $1 billion to special education for new, never-before-tried programs.
What was not included was an amendment before us that would have addressed other issues that are important.
But what is in the amendment that is before us is systematically what's wrong with the process, and it disenfranchises the American people. So, therefore, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) felt it necessary to mention me as responsible for the increase in AIDS in the District of Columbia. This is a personal attack. Rarely do we see such a personal attack on the floor of the House.
He did it because he believes I'm responsible since I had the amendment that did restrict needles in the District of Columbia. Apparently, he felt like I was down there forcing people with AIDS to have relations, forcing drug abusers to take drugs. I just think it's very much a problem when we start being so personal in this attack.
He overlooks the fact that these people really need help overcoming the use of illegal drugs. That they're dependent on a lifestyle that only leads to destruction, and that I personally don't want to be part of that destruction. Many people in America feel like it's unnecessary.
He also overlooks the fact that many people who have studied long term the effect of the needles program believe it doesn't work. In Baltimore, where they followed the same drug abusers through the process, when they had access to the needles program, 90 percent of the people had a bloodborne illness.
I would consider 90 percent negative a failure. Now other people may think when 90 percent of the people attract a bloodborne illness like Hepatitis A or B or HIV positive or AIDS itself, that that would be a success. But to me, personally it's not.
I regret that I was brought into this personally and that I was personally attacked about this because I didn't force people to use illegal drugs, I didn't force people to have relationships with those who are positive in AIDS.
I think it's sad that when we personally found needles on school property in the area where needles were distributed before the restriction, that it's
sad we can't even protect the children of D.C. from being exposed to this type of activity.
I won't yield. I'm very pleased that the chairman of this committee has tried to allow areas of this country around schools, around places to be vacant of these systems. I think there's some good things in this bill about it, but I don't think the overall program has been successful.
I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, this is really a pretty straightforward amendment, but I want to put it in perspective. This bill is a 7 percent increase over last year's funding. The gentleman from Virginia is merely asking for a half of a percent reduction in something that is already increased by 7 percent. When you include what was allocated in the stimulus bill for these very same agencies, it is a 93 percent increase. So when you look at it in total, we are merely scratching the surface by having some common sense brought into the amount of money being spent.
Now, this doesn't eliminate any programs. This doesn't put anybody in a hardship. This simply says that rather than having 93 percent in total increase for this funding, that we are going to reduce it by a total of $11.15 billion. Now, this is $11.15 billion that we will not have to borrow and that our children will not have to pay back. This is money that we will not be obligated to return to the people in China.
So this is a commonsense amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
I am.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that this, Mr. Speaker, takes the amendments that were not made in order by the rule en masse. It's very similar to what the manager did by, in aggregate, considering amendments, and I would ask that the Chair allow this vote up or down on the amendments that were not made in order by the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
I still am opposed to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline). He's the ranking Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.
The motion is simple. It adds $1 billion for special education with offsets from an equal amount on other agencies. Americans are compassionate people. We want every American to climb the ladder of success, even if we have to provide the less fortunate with an escalator.
Almost 35 years ago when the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act, or IDEA as we refer to it, when it was enacted, the Federal Government mandated that our schools educate all children, even those with severe mental and physical disabilities. During the floor debate, it was clear the Federal Government was committed to pay 40 percent of the costs needed to educate a special-needs child. Today, however, we are falling short of that promise. Now, our good intentions have turned into bad consequences.
The Federal Government's mandate has undermined the public school system's ability to adequately meet the needs of the special children. This is not acceptable for either the children who need special education or those without disabilities who watch their education programs cut in order to fund IDEA.
Educating every child is the right thing to do, and I am proud that we are doing it today. Yet, IDEA has placed an extreme financial burden on our public schools, forcing school districts to rob Peter to pay Paul.
But we can fix this problem, this shortfall. By fully funding IDEA, we can put an end to this practice, helping all children reach their full potential.
I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying we only
take money from new programs or we continue programs that exist at a lower level than we have today to replace it with a higher priority program, IDEA, which meets the needs of our special-needs students, and also this will help preserve the ability to educate those who are not physically and mentally challenged in a better fashion. So I would urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.