[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 101 (Thursday, July 1, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5342-H5356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 4899,
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1500 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1500
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
4899) making emergency supplemental appropriations for
disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without
intervention of any point of order except those arising under
clause 10 of rule XXI, a
[[Page H5343]]
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the text with each of the five House
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendments and the
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour and 30 minutes as follows: 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; then 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative Lee
of California or her designee and an opponent; and then 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative
McGovern of Massachusetts or his designee and an opponent.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question except that the question of
adoption of the motion shall be divided among the five House
amendments. The first portion of the divided question shall
be considered as adopted. If the remaining portions of the
divided question fail of adoption, then the House shall be
considered to have rejected the motion and to have made no
disposition of the Senate amendment to the text.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of the motion specified in the first
section of this resolution--
(a) the Clerk shall engross the action of the House under
that section as a single amendment; and
(b) a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment
to the title shall be considered as adopted.
Sec. 3. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may
insert in the Congressional Record not later than July 3,
2010, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate
amendments and the motion specified in the first section of
this resolution.
Sec. 4. House Resolution 1493 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 5. Clause 10(a) of rule XXI is amended to read as
follows:
``(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it
shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, or conference report if the provisions of such
measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net
effect of increasing the on-budget deficit or reducing the
on-budget surplus for the period comprising either--
``(A) the current year, the budget year, and the four years
following that budget year; or
``(B) the current year, the budget year, and the nine years
following that budget year.
``(2) The effect of such measure on the deficit or surplus
shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
Committee on the Budget relative to baseline estimates
supplied by the Congressional Budget Office consistent with
section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and consistent with sections 3(4), 3(8),
and 4(c) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
``(3) For the purpose of this clause, the terms `budget
year,' `current year,' and `direct spending' have the
meanings specified in section 250 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, except that the term
`direct spending' shall also include provisions in
appropriation Acts that make outyear modifications to
substantive law as described in section 3(4)(C) of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, my very good
friend (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule
is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate
amendments to H.R. 4899 and makes in order a motion by the chair of the
Appropriations Committee to concur in the Senate amendments with the
five amendments printed in the Rules Committee report.
The rule waives all points of order against the motion except those
arising under clause 10 of rule 21.
The rule provides that the motion shall be debatable for 1 hour and
30 minutes as follows: 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee; then
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by Representative Lee of
California and an opponent; and then 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by Representative McGovern of Massachusetts and an opponent.
The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except that the question of
adoption of the motion shall be divided among the five House
amendments, with the first portion of the divided question considered
as adopted. If the remaining portions of the divided question fail of
adoption, then the House shall be considered to have made no
disposition of the Senate amendment to the text.
The chair of the Appropriations Committee may insert in the
Congressional Record not later than July 3, 2010, such material as he
may deem explanatory of the Senate amendments and the motion specified
in the first section of this resolution. The rule provides that House
Resolution 1493 is hereby adopted.
Finally, the rule amends the time periods in clause 10 of rule XXI to
align with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this rule. This is a difficult rule. It
is a difficult rule because it deals with an extraordinarily important
subject. This is an extraordinarily important rule. It is important to
every Member of this House, on either side of this House, of whatever
ideology they bring to this House. It is extraordinarily important to
the American people.
It deals, as I said, with the lives and welfare of our young people.
It deals with the security of this Nation. It deals with the safety of
our people. It deals with the objective of not only teaching our
children, but in eliminating terrorists who would put them at risk.
I rise in support of this rule because I think that the very
difficult line of trying to give every Member the opportunity to
reflect their point of view, which, of course, in a body of 435 people
is very difficult, but I think this rule attempts to do that.
We know that the fiscal course that we are on will ultimately lead to
bankruptcy unless we act to change it. That is why this rule also
projects fiscal discipline in the budget enforcement resolution that is
included within the ambit of this rule.
Whenever you hear someone blame our debt on this Congress' so-called
out-of-control spending, you can be sure they're more interested in
pointing fingers and scoring political points than solving problems.
That's especially true when you hear those complaints from those who
presided over a lot of debt. Some of us voted for a lot of debt along
with them, some of us did not.
In the long term, our structural deficit stems from the retirement of
the baby boomers and spiraling entitlement costs. It is therefore in
the budget resolution that we tip our hat in a favorable way to the
commission that has been established by the President. It's said that
we are hopeful that they will come up with substantive recommendations
that will get us from where we are to where we need to be--a return to
fiscal balance.
{time} 1750
It also says that our committees ought to look carefully at the ways
and means that we can save dollars, eliminate waste, and make more
effective use of the tax dollars--indeed, save tax dollars. The
American people want us to do that.
This budget enforcement resolution included in this rule will also
say that we will honor statutory PAYGO, that we will pay for what we
buy, that if this generation deems something an important priority for
us to purchase that we will pay for it so that our children and our
grandchildren will have the option of making their priorities and will
not have their priorities made for them by us.
In addition to this bill, it provides for the consideration of
domestic spending priorities, largely to save jobs. Particularly, we
have teachers in this country who are subject to layoffs because of the
severe recession that we have been involved in and because of the
precipitous falling of revenues to States, therefore putting the
education of our children at risk.
The administration asks for far more money than Mr. Obey has been
able to include. They also ask for it to be unpaid for, but if we are
going to be honest about PAYGO, we need to pay for
[[Page H5344]]
things. This bill will pay for the increase in teacher assistants. Mr.
Obey scrubbed all of the appropriation accounts and has come up with
sufficient dollars to do that. I think that is what the American public
wanted us to do, and that is what Mr. Obey has done. I congratulate him
for that.
This bill will provide for additional border security on our southern
border. We understand there is a crisis on the southern border. This
President has responded to it. This bill responds to it.
In addition, we provide, obviously, for FEMA money. FEMA is running
out of money. We have had a number of natural disasters around this
country, and FEMA has responded. This bill provides for the dollars
necessary for FEMA to have the resources to respond to those
emergencies.
This rule provides for an amendment which will provide money for
Haiti. It provides for other priorities of our country. Some will,
perhaps, disagree with those priorities, and others will agree with
them; but we will consider them on this floor.
I say to my friends that this rule provides for three options, as Mr.
McGovern, I think, will explain further, so I will not go deeply into
them.
There will be, perhaps, those who will say we ought not to fund the
effort in Afghanistan at all. They will have that option. There will
then be an option that says, no, we will appropriate this money, but we
need to limit it to extricating ourselves--drawing down our forces from
Afghanistan.
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Obey have another alternative which will provide
for the administration's providing us with information both in a
National Intelligence Estimate and in a plan for withdrawal. They will
expand upon that; but that gives, I think, almost everyone in this
House the opportunity to express their views as to what ought to be
done.
I urge my colleagues at this hour, on this, perhaps, last day of our
session before the July 4 break to approve this rule, which, I believe,
gives Members the options that they can be comfortable with in voting
``yes'' or ``no.'' I will urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and certainly
a ``yes'' vote on a number of pieces of this legislation. I will not
vote for every one of these amendments, but they ought to be made in
order.
I appreciate the work that Mr. McGovern has done. I appreciate the
work that Mr. Dreier has done. I want to thank them both. They may have
different views, but it is my understanding that this was brought to
the floor in a reasonable and considered way.
In closing, I want to thank David Obey. No one in this House works
harder. No one, frankly, is under more pressure than Mr. Obey.
Everybody in every State, every locality, every city and every person
who wants a road, a bridge or a public facility talks to Mr. Obey on a
regular basis. I know that Mr. Boehner and I, as the leaders, have a
lot of people talking to us when we come on this floor, but nobody
talks to anybody more than they talk to Mr. Obey. Mr. Obey has focused
on this, has worked on this, and has brought to the floor, I think, a
bill that we can be proud of, that we think will move America forward,
a bill that will help stop the loss of jobs, particularly in our
educational community. So I thank Mr. Obey for the leadership that he
has shown and for the commitment that he has made.
Now, I want to tell my friends on our side of the aisle that the
administration is not happy with some of the pay-fors which we are
committed to. The administration and our side of the aisle
overwhelmingly were for statutory PAYGO, saying that we would pay for
what we bought. The administration, understandably, has some
reservations about some of the offsets. However, nobody is ever happy
with all of the tough decisions that have to be made. So I would urge
my colleagues to pass this bill and to pass the amendment that Mr. Obey
will offer on domestic discretionary spending. I would ask us to send
this bill to the Senate.
I regret that the Senate has gone home. I am sorry that the Senate
has gone home. I am sorry the Senate is not available tonight or
tomorrow to consider this legislation. I understand that we have lost a
great Senator and a dear friend in Robert C. Byrd. I will be going
tomorrow to the memorial service for Senator Byrd, and then I will
return here. I would have returned ready for business, as I think we
should complete this piece of legislation, and I would have hoped that
that might have been the case.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I urge my
colleagues to let us move forward on this important piece of
legislation, not only for the safety and security of our troops, not
only for the effort to ensure that terrorists are hunted down and
defeated, but also to ensure that, here at home, we take care of the
people and that we pay for those who we take care of here at home. We
are not going to pay for the emergency that exists overseas, but this
is a good rule. The options are clear for all, and the effort that we
make here is important for our country and for our people.
I urge adoption of the rule. I urge adoption of the Obey amendment. I
urge the careful consideration of the other three amendments that will
be offered as well.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my good
friend from Worcester, my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. McGovern, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my friend's, the gentleman from
Maryland's, outline of this rule, but the fact of the matter is this is
one of the most convoluted rules that we have seen in a long, long
period of time.
I say that because, while my friend tried to make it sound as if this
rule were fashioned to ensure that every single Member of this
institution would have the opportunity to have a say, to play a role
and to ensure that the House is working its will, the fact of the
matter is it is a rule which is designed, I believe, in many ways to
deny what a majority of this House would like to do.
We all decry the fact that we still have men and women in Afghanistan
and in Iraq. We wish very much that the wars could come to an end and
that we could bring our troops home, and we all enthusiastically look
forward to doing that just as expeditiously as possible. Yet we know
that a request was made for $33.5 billion--this is a request that the
President made--to ensure that our men and women in uniform have
exactly what they need. The Secretary of Defense and other leaders in
our military have indicated that it is essential that they have this
before the 4th of July. When is the 4th of July? It is this coming
Sunday.
Now, last May 27, more than a month ago, the Senate took its action.
By a vote of 67-28, they voted in favor of this $33.5 billion in order
to ensure that our men and women in uniform have exactly what they
need.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in any way an advocate of our being a rubber
stamp or of our doing exactly what our friends in the other body
propose. That is why I wished very much, in the month before last, in
late May, that we had begun the process so that we would not be here on
the eve of the date at which time the Secretary of Defense had
indicated we must have this money.
With the action that this institution might consider taking, we are
jeopardizing the ability of our men and women in uniform to have
exactly what they need now. There is nothing that any of us does in our
jobs that is more painful than talking to the family members of those
who have lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan or in any place in the
world.
My friend from Worcester just talked about two of his constituents
who died in Afghanistan recently.
{time} 1800
We can on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, talk about these challenges.
We want to ensure that we never again have to call and talk to those
family members. That is why, as Mr. Hoyer said very eloquently in his
opening remarks, we want to ensure that we diminish the kind of threat
that exists for the United States of America and for our interests
around the world. That is the reason that we are there.
Now, the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules just a little
while ago upstairs talked about the fact or
[[Page H5345]]
implied in some way that we were imposing democracy on the people of
Afghanistan and it is something that they are not really interested in.
Well, the fact of the matter is, our colleague Mr. Price and I, along
with 18 other Members, have a commission which has expended time,
energy, resources and effort in 15 new and reemerging democracies
around the world, working to build their parliaments.
Mr. Speaker, one of our partner nations for the House Democracy
Partnership happens to be Afghanistan. And while there have been real
difficulties with democracy there, there have been difficulties and a
real struggle as they begin to plant the seeds of democracy, we have
been working closely with their parliament, and they are enthusiastic
about the process of moving ahead and, interestingly enough, modeling
themselves after much of what we have here in the House of
Representatives. So as we look at where it is that we are headed, we
have to ensure that those resources are there. We don't like the fact
that we have to do this, but it is essential.
Mr. Speaker, as we look at this rule, the rule is one which is, as I
said, very convoluted. We have dealt with war supplementals in the
past. My colleague Ms. Foxx upstairs in the Rules Committee talked
about the fact that consistently President Obama when he was a
candidate indicated that he would not be asking for any war
supplementals.
But I will say that when we have considered war supplementals in the
past, under the chairmanship of Jerry Lewis and in the work that we had
in the Rules Committee, every single war supplemental that we brought
forward came under an open amendment process. That is the way to allow
the House to work its will.
Now, we are where we are. We are where we are on the eve of
Independence Day and the time when the Secretary of Defense and other
military leaders have said it is essential for us to have the resources
that are necessary.
So what is it we should be doing? We should defeat this rule. We
should defeat this rule, go right back upstairs to the Rules Committee,
and come down here with a rule that will allow us to let the House work
its will and have an up-or-down vote, an up-or-down vote on whether or
not we accept this $33.5 billion request, along with a few other items
that are included in this measure, including funding for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, which, as Mr. Hoyer said, is desperately
needed. That is included in the measure that came over from the Senate.
And we should have an up-or-down vote and see what this House will do.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I believe fully that if we were
to have that up-or-down vote, that a bipartisan majority, a bipartisan
majority in this House would in fact vote to complete the work, ensure
that our men and women in uniform have all the resources that they need
to proceed, and then we will have done our job.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this
rule for numerous reasons, the most important of which at this moment
is to ensure that our men and women in uniform get what they need as
soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), a member of the
Rules Committee.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the $37 billion in this bill for
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I oppose this war funding, and I
believe that our presence in Afghanistan is not strengthening our
national security. Instead of spending this money on a war that doesn't
make us any safer, I believe we should be reducing the deficit and
investing here at home.
After the events of 9/11, the United States went to Afghanistan to
capture or kill Osama bin Laden and dismantle al Qaeda, not to occupy
the country or to build the Afghan government, a government that has
proven time and time again to be one of the most corrupt in the world.
June was the deadliest month for our U.S. military personnel since
the war began in 2002. And while the loss of one American servicemember
is tragic, the loss of over 1,000 brave Americans for a cause that
doesn't make America any safer is something we cannot tolerate.
Military and intelligence officials have said there are now only 50
to 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, which begs the question, why
do we need over 100,000 troops over there? Does the United States
really need 1,000 troops and $1 billion a year to fight each single
member of al Qaeda?
We are pursuing a failed strategy in that country and have somehow
confused nation building with fighting the war on terror. We have
watched too many times as our colleagues here on the other side of the
aisle and in the Senate vote not to extend unemployment benefits or
pass funding that would help keep firefighters and teachers on the job
because they said we can't afford it. Isn't it time to start asking
whether we can really afford a war that costs $7 billion a month? It is
time we really need to support our troops and deploy them from
Afghanistan.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to strip out the wasteful
and unnecessary funding in this bill. The American people and our brave
servicemembers deserve to know our intentions in Afghanistan. That is
why we need the administration to develop a timetable for withdrawal
immediately.
The American people want us to end this war, and it is time for us to
bring our men and women in uniform safely home.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to my friend
from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a rule, not a budget, really not a
budget enforcement system. We have a rule that will deem to the
Appropriations Committee $1.1 trillion to spend on discretionary
spending. This really is an unprecedented occurrence here on the House
floor, because what is happening is we are marking a moment for the
first time since the budget system was created in 1974 that dictated
how Congress does budgets.
For the first time since the 1974 Budget Act, the modern budgeting
system in Congress, the House isn't going to do a budget. The House is
not going to do a budget. They will call this rule budget enforcement,
but all it really is is giving up $1 trillion to the Appropriations
Committee to spend. No budget, no priorities, no restraints, just turn
the spending system on.
Now, the majority talks about PAYGO as their budget enforcement. With
all due respect, I think PAYGO is a sham, and whenever it is not
circumvented, whenever it is actually applied, it is usually used to
raise taxes on the American people.
Another problem, Mr. Speaker, is what they are talking about in this
rule is that the President's Fiscal Commission will assemble and bring
a recommendation in December, and that will serve as our budget this
year, or something to that effect. I am a member of the Fiscal
Commission. I hope that we actually do come up with some concrete
answers and some fiscal steps in the right direction.
But what is the Fiscal Commission? It is a commission appointed by
Executive order by the President of the United States. So in effect are
we saying that we are going to delegate the legislative branch's
authority and responsibility to budget the power of the purse to an
executive branch commission? Are we now simply saying that the
President will appoint people and they will write the budget? Whatever
happened to protecting the separation of powers? Whatever happened to
Congress actually doing its job? Whatever happened to actually passing
a budget?
So, what we have here is we have a very tough election year, I
suppose, and people don't want to do a budget. But they want to spend.
So, for the first time, for the first time since the 1974 Budget Act
was in place, the House isn't even doing a budget. We are going to
spend the money, but we are not going to account for it. We are not
going to prioritize.
So when you take a look at the budget we are living under, the one
that
[[Page H5346]]
passed last year, the first Obama budget, that is the budget that is
the incumbent budget. What does that budget do? It doubles our debt in
5 years and triples our debt in 10 years.
Our debt just hit the $13 trillion mark. We are watching Europe in
the throes of a debt crisis because they borrowed too much money, they
taxed too much, they slowed down their economies, and now they are in
crisis mode. Well, that is exactly what is going to happen here if we
don't get our fiscal house in order. That is exactly what the credit
markets are going to do to us if we don't show that we are serious
about our fiscal responsibilities.
So what is the primary responsibility of the legislative branch of
government? Budgeting. And what is this majority doing? They are not
budgeting. We are deeming. We are deeming $1.1 trillion so we can start
spending. Not budgeting; spending. No restraints, no priorities.
Spending.
Mr. Speaker, I really worry about this. I worry a lot about this,
because I worry we are sending all the signals--the wrong signals; the
wrong signals to the economy, to businesses, to the credit markets, to
entrepreneurs, that the Americans don't have their fiscal house in
order, that our government isn't functioning because it is not
budgeting. That is a shame.
We should reject this and get on to the business of actually
budgeting.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say when the Democrats were in the
minority, we as a party submitted a budget every single year. The
Republicans, to my knowledge, have not done that. Mr. Ryan, my
colleague and friend on the Budget Committee, did submit a budget under
his name, and perhaps if he wants to make that budget in order, I am
sure our leadership would love to have a debate on a budget that turns
Medicare and Social Security into a voucher system.
But the budget document that the Democrats have put forward would cap
discretionary spending at $1.2 trillion, which is $7 trillion less than
what President Obama proposed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the Lee
amendment to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan. There is a real
terrorist threat to our country, but that threat does not emanate from
Afghanistan. It emanates from al Qaeda, a stateless menace, a menace
that will organize and set up wherever we are not.
The ongoing and indefinite occupation in Afghanistan is not a
constructive step towards the battle against a terrorist threat to this
country. In fact, through the civilian casualties, we only increase the
pool of potential terrorists every day that we continue this
occupation.
I strongly support this concept of allowing our funds only to be used
for the orderly withdrawal of American troops from the country of
Afghanistan.
The mission, the challenge we have put before our men and women, is
nearly a difficult and impossible challenge: To try to build a cohesive
nation state out of a tribal nation, out of dealing with people in our
own employ who are of dubious moral character and continue to engage in
the opium and drug trade to finance their related activities.
There is a difference between the ongoing battles and insurgency in
Afghanistan and the terrorist threat to this Nation. We should spare no
expense in going after terrorists wherever they are, engaging in
aggressive intelligence-gathering operations and taking out the ability
of terrorists to train. But the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan is
not a constructive step to that end.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. POLIS. I rise today in support of the rule and in opposition to
the Obey amendment.
Funding for teachers and for education is my top priority here as a
Member of Congress. I am a cosponsor of a bill to provide $23 billion
in funding for teachers.
{time} 1815
It breaks my heart that we're only talking about $10 billion today.
But what is critical to achieve success--to find $10 billion, to find
$23 billion--is keeping those who advocate resources on the same page
as those who advocate reform. Resources and reform. That is the promise
of the Obama administration. That is the platform that I ran on. That
is what will transform millions of American lives to help break the
vicious cycle of poverty that holds too many families as slaves and
replace it with the virtuous cycle of opportunity and hope. Programs
like Race to the Top, programs like funding innovative new charter
schools, programs like innovative ways to fund teacher salaries. These
are the programs that are being cut by this proposed amendment.
I hope that the Secretary continues to work with us here in Congress
to find ways to pay for teachers' salaries, but we need to do so in a
way that doesn't have the threat of a Presidential veto and can garner
strong support in this body.
Funding teacher salaries is my top priority, and I would vote for
anything to do that. I don't feel that going after the reform aspects
of the President's education budget is a constructive way to build a
majority to be able to fund teacher salaries. So I hope that we will
continue that important work. And I personally will be voting against
the Obey amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to my good friend from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon), the
ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rules Committee ranking member,
Mr. Dreier, for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader pointed out that all of us are going
to have a chance to express our views. Some different views have been
expressed here this morning. But the way our system works after all of
our views are expressed, we have a Commander in Chief. The Commander in
Chief last year took 90 days to thoroughly study the effort in
Afghanistan. He made a decision. The decision was that we carry a
counterinsurgency war to make our security safe so that al Qaeda and
the Taliban cannot have a safe haven from which they could continue to
launch attacks on us. In carrying out that strategy, he placed General
McChrystal in charge of the troops and he approved 30,000 additional
troops for the area. He also requested that we send an additional $33
billion to support those troops.
Now we know about the tragedy with General McChrystal. We know that
his resignation was accepted. We know that the President nominated
General Petraeus to take his place. General Petraeus appeared before
the Senate last week and again reiterated the need for this money, as
Secretary Gates had the week before. He said that if we didn't get this
money, we had to start doing stupid things. General Petraeus was
unanimously confirmed by the Senate. He is on his way right now to
Kabul to take over this command. And we're here debating a rule that
will delay further the money that those troops need over there.
Sunday is the Fourth of July. George Washington on the 9th of July in
1776 was so impressed by that Declaration of Independence that he had
all of the Continental Army come to ranks and have that document read
to them. We're going to be reminded again of that Sunday, and how
important it is for us to follow our Commander in Chief and to give our
troops the things they need.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. McKEON. The letters that General Washington wrote to the
Congress, I wish we could have him here now and see the letter that he
would probably send us, accusing us of dithering while the troops are
out there putting their lives on the line.
I ask that we defeat this rule. It doesn't have to be that
complicated. We can defeat this rule and this afternoon turn it right
around, pass the bill that the Senate already passed, and
[[Page H5347]]
have the money on the way to the troops next week. I ask my colleagues
to please join me in defeating this rule and moving forward in that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and pursuant to it will
vote in strong support of the domestic funding portion of the
supplemental appropriation, but in reluctant acceptance of the war
funding, which appropriates some $37 billion to our efforts in
Afghanistan, most of it going to the troop surge that President Obama
announced in December of last year.
Concern about the well-being of our troops makes its difficult to
vote against supplemental war funding once the troops that funding is
meant to support have already been deployed. While a ``no'' vote on the
war supplemental has some appeal as a way of forcing reevaluation of
our current strategy, denying those funds could jeopardize the safety
of our troops. For me, that leaves little real choice in the matter.
However, that does not mean I am ready to acquiesce in a policy that
appears increasingly open-ended, while its cost in lives and resources
continues to mount. I am highly skeptical that an extra year and 30,000
additional troops will bring stability and effective governance in a
country that for 30 years has seen nothing but conflict and for
centuries has been known as the graveyard of empires. It is hard to
imagine that the Karzai government will rid itself of corruption and
become a reliable partner or that the Afghan forces will acquire a
sustainable level of competency any time soon. The elusive ``turning
point'' our policy seeks to achieve seems ever farther away.
Through it all, wear and tear on our troops has been unrelenting.
More than a thousand Americans have lost their lives in Afghanistan and
6,500 have been wounded in action. The toll of multiple tours and
unconventional combat has placed terrible stress on our soldiers,
resulting in a near epidemic of suicides among returning veterans. When
the burdens on our troops is this heavy, our policymakers must bear a
commensurate burden of proof to show that the sacrifice is in our
national interest and that the mission is meeting with success. In my
view, this burden of proof is not being met. For that reason, I believe
we should stick to the plan of bringing our troops home and beginning
that withdrawal no later than July of 2011.
That is why I will support the McGovern-Obey amendment that reaffirms
the President's timeline for withdrawal. The McGovern-Obey amendment
requires the President to submit a detailed plan for the safe, orderly,
and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including
a timeline for completion of that redeployment.
I am determined to fight terrorism. I wish I were confident that our
current strategy in Afghanistan was having the net effect of advancing
that goal. But I am not. I worry instead that as this 9-year war drags
on and on, it is bogging us down, sapping our strength, and distracting
us from other, more effective strategies for combating the terrorist
threat in that region and elsewhere in the world.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I will support our troops in this
supplemental but I will also continue to press for their withdrawal
from Afghanistan and for a meaningful discussion of exactly how that
can be accomplished in accordance with the timeline originally set by
the President.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
my very good friend from West Chester, Ohio, the very distinguished
Republican Leader, Mr. Boehner.
Mr. BOEHNER. I want to thank my colleague for yielding and say to my
colleagues that the President, on February 1, sent up a supplemental
spending request to fund our activities for our troops and the State
Department in Afghanistan. For 5 months, this Chamber has wallowed
around trying to find a way to bring this bill to the floor. And look
how we've done it.
We have a rule that provides for the consideration of the
supplemental that self-executes a lot of wasteful spending here in
Washington right into the rule itself. But if that isn't bad enough,
there are four amendments made in order. If any of those amendments
were to fail, it's as if the House has not even considered the bill.
It's as though this debate that we're having right now had never even
happened.
How could such a rule providing for the consideration of an important
supplemental spending bill have in there this escape clause that if we
don't get our way on all of these amendments, then this really didn't
happen? This is supposed to be the greatest legislative body in the
history of the world and we're treating it like a bunch of kids in a
sandbox. I, frankly, think it's disgraceful.
Beyond what the rule does in terms of the consideration of the bill,
it also deems the appropriation process to begin. And it outlines a
number. We've tried for several months to pass a budget here in the
House. But the budget resolution never reached the floor. There was
never a debate and never an effort to actually come to grips with a
fiscal crisis that's facing our country. And yet what are we going to
do? We're going to authorize over a trillion dollars worth of new
spending. No debate how to save money, no debate about the crisis that
we're facing. We're just going to keep the spending spree alive.
This scheme-and-deem process that's included in this rule should be
another reason that Members ought to think twice before they vote for
this budget and vote for this rule. But I've got to tell you the worst
thing that's going on here is that the Secretary of Defense has asked
for this money prior to July 4th because our troops in Afghanistan need
the resources in order to succeed in their mission. Not only are we
trying to pile all of this new spending on the backs of our troops, the
fact is that if this rule were to pass, it guarantees that this bill
will not get to the President before July 4th. If this rule passes,
which self-executes all of this extra spending into it, it will
automatically have to go to the United States Senate, where how long it
will be there, who knows. But all I can say is that the troops that are
out there fighting for the defense of our country, trying to preserve
the security for our country for today and tomorrow, are going to be
left wanting because of the political chicanery that's going on here in
this House. I think this is disgraceful. I really do.
I promised the President 2 months ago that if they brought a clean
supplemental spending bill to the floor of the House, I and my
Republican colleagues would be there to help the President pass it. He
heard me loud and clear. He looked at the Senate Republican leader and
said, Well, what do you think about this? He said, I'm with Boehner.
We promised the President we would help pass this bill. But, no,
there was never any reaching out, never any working together to try to
make sure that our troops had what they needed in a timely fashion. No,
the only way we can bring this bill up was to load it up with tens of
billions of dollars of new spending--just more stimulus spending that
hasn't worked over the last year and a half, and this additional
spending is just going to be thrown on the backs of our kids and
grandkids.
Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues tonight should do the right
thing. I think they should stand up and say ``no'' to this rule. Let's
say ``yes'' to a fairer process and to a process that will get our
troops the funds that they need in a timely fashion, which is now. If
we defeat this rule, you can bet that the supplemental spending bill,
without all these other add-ons, will be on the floor of this house.
And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I and my Republican colleagues
will gladly vote for a clean supplemental to support our troops.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, since the distinguished minority leader
raised the issue of our commitment to our troops, I should point out
for the record that when we debated and voted on the defense
authorization bill only a few weeks ago, only nine Republicans voted
for that bill. Because they thought the issue of gays in the military
was more important than supporting our troops and their families.
At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
[[Page H5348]]
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the base text of funding
the war originated in the Senate and that article I, section 7 of the
Constitution says: all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives.
Now, one of General McChrystal's top aides was quoted as saying, ``If
Americans started paying attention to this war, it would become even
less popular.'' The question is, when will Congress finally begin
paying attention to this war, which is being waged with our consent;
when will Congress realize that we've lost more than 1,200 troops too
many; that we've spent $300 billion too much; that the deaths of our
brave soldiers cannot be justified, that their service is sacred but
the mission is not; that the death of every innocent Afghan citizen is
a blot on our national conscience.
When will Congress cut off funding? When will the requirements of our
failing domestic economy of unemployment, factory closings, business
failures, foreclosures, loss of savings, bankruptcies, failing
infrastructure, and failing energy policy cause us to look homeward?
{time} 1830
Or should we cut social and economic programs to balance the budget
to pay for the war?
We went to war in Iraq based on lies. More than 1 million innocent
Iraqis have died. We've lost more than 4,000 of our troops. The long-
term cost will be close to $3 trillion.
Our presence in Afghanistan is an unmitigated disaster. The war is a
cesspool of corruption. Billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars are being
stuffed into suitcases and flown out of Kabul. The counterinsurgency
strategy is a failure. U.S. tax dollars are going to support warlords
who end up shooting at our troops. Security contractors bribe
insurgents to shoot at our troops to demonstrate the U.S. needs more
security services. Professional killers from Blackwater are now
contracted to guard our embassy in Afghanistan. Drug production has
skyrocketed during the U.S. occupation. U.S. tax dollars are going to
build villas in Dubai, and our country is falling apart with a failing
economy.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 15 minutes
left, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 17 minutes left.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 3\1/2\
minutes to my very good friend from Urbana, Illinois (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I
stand in opposition to this rule and in sincere but deep opposition to
this $63 billion massive spending bill, and particularly the war
spending component of the bill.
I speak, I believe, on the behalf of the hundreds of thousands of
brave men and women who serve America in the Middle East with neither a
defined objective nor the ability to assess victory or defeat; and on
behalf of families of our military personnel around the world who have
lost their fathers or their mothers or their sons or their daughters in
a valiant but shortsighted effort and battle that can never be won; and
on behalf of the American taxpayers who have seen more than $1 trillion
poured into an attempt to fight terror, where there is not even a
remote relationship to the welfare of the American people; and really,
also, on behalf of the innocent children who have had the misfortune to
simply be in the ever-changing line of fire and the vicinity of
terrorists who move effortlessly from Iraq to Somalia to Yemen to
Paraguay to Afghanistan like the Whack-a-Mole at the county fair in the
form of unconventional and ill-defined tribal warfare that 2,000 years
have taught us we simply cannot fight.
I think it was November of 1952, when I was about 6 years old, that
Charles Schultz and his Peanuts comic strip came out with the annual
saga where, every year, Charlie Brown comes up to the football, and
Lucy tells Charlie Brown year after year, ``Just one more time we'll
let you kick ball.'' And each year, she pulled the football out, only
to find Charlie Brown on his rear end.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, in this
somewhat stretched analogy, that a series of Commanders-in-Chief are
Lucy, and we're Charlie Brown, and the football is the illusive promise
of a goal that we simply cannot reach. We cannot force a culture to
accept our values, and we cannot impose Western democracy on a people
who don't understand or accept it and whose leadership is corrupt and
antidemocratic beyond repair. And we cannot continue to spend the
billions and, arguably, trillions of dollars of the hardworking men and
women in this country in a venture that has no objective, no end game,
and no proximate connection to the well-being of our Nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, we cannot afford
economically, we cannot afford militarily, and we cannot afford as a
people to pass this bill. This President who, frankly, won an election
based on his strong antiwar message, like many of his predecessors,
asked us one more time to spend a few more billion dollars--in this
case $38 billion--a few thousand more men and women in an effort to
kick the football just one more time. It simply isn't doable.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, that this
rule underlies a bill that the vast majority, I believe, of the
American people don't want. I represent a district in central Illinois,
and I think I speak in many ways for middle America. I voted for the
authorization of force in Iraq and, frankly, Afghanistan; and I
believe, like many of us, I may have questioned my vote. But I believe
that we're the greatest nation on Earth, thanks in large part to the
generations of fighting men and women who have given their lives to
this great cause and democracy and this great Nation of ours.
As we prepare to celebrate our independence in a few days, I think I
speak on behalf of the average American citizen who says, For what?
What is this money being expended for? Why are we doing it? And what's
the end game? And I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker and Members of
the House, that there is no end game, and I would respectfully ask that
this rule and the underlying bill be defeated.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will have an
opportunity to do something we have not been able to do, and that is to
debate the Afghan war and the direction that this war is taking and the
impact on our men and women on the front lines. I particularly want to
say to the families how much we appreciate the sacrifice that you've
made as these men and women stand on the front lines of Afghanistan.
But I think we're long overdue for a major debate that has to do with
that direction.
I support this underlying rule for the purpose of allowing us to have
this debate, but also that it provides, on the domestic spending,
crucial issues.
Pell Grants will be provided for in $4.95 billion; border security
that impacts the northern and southern border so that we can stand as
we do comprehensive immigration reform and assure the American people
that we will secure our boarders.
In the most catastrophic oil spill from the region that I come, the
tsunami of oil spills, we are taking care of the people by providing
$304 million for the gulf coast oil spill, including moneys for
unemployment assistance.
Then, coming from the region I belong to, as well, we had a tragedy
at Fort Hood, and we are now rebuilding the Fort Hood processing center
that saw a terrible loss of life because of terrorism.
FEMA disaster. This is the most vigorous season that you could have
ever imagined that is to be expected in hurricanes, and we know, among
other disasters, we'll have the money here.
But we're also going to say to the youth of America when we vote on
this, we're providing money for summer youth jobs, $1 billion in youth
jobs that we in the Congressional Black Caucus--and many Members joined
us--are fighting for. This is a crucial step forward. We're providing
for black farmers who have been discriminated against over the years.
And then, as I have indicated, we will have an opportunity to
question not the men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq, but to question
whether or not it is wise to focus on insurgents versus terrorists so
that we send men and
[[Page H5349]]
women into harm's way without a discerning goal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, when you begin to fight those
who are classified as your neighbors--and I don't use that term
loosely. The Taliban live in Afghanistan. And whenever you determine to
fight those individuals, it makes it very difficult to win this war.
Mr. CULBERSON. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The gentleman has his own time. I
appreciate it. I am concluding.
And finally, let me say that I offered an amendment to maintain NASA
human space exploration and the funding as it was. I look forward to
working with this Congress and the Democrats to make sure that happens.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Houston wouldn't yield; so I
will yield 30 seconds to my other friend from Houston, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. CULBERSON. And with my 30 seconds, I invite Ms. Jackson Lee to
refer to page 14 of this bill. She may not be aware that this
legislation gives control over Texas' education funding to the Federal
Government and, in fact, will force tax increases and spending
increases in Texas, and that this has never been done before for any
State in the Union. And I want to make sure that she is aware of this
provision that says that Texas cannot spend any less money on education
than we are spending in the fiscal year 2011, which is going to include
some stimulus money and result in tax increases for Texas, giving the
Federal Government control over Texas' education spending. Was she
aware of that?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
And let me publicly apologize to the gentleman. I was rushing. I
wanted to make sure I mentioned NASA. But let me say that, yes, I am
aware, and I am enthusiastic about that language. And I thank the
leadership for it because, in fact, it is celebrated and supported by
40-plus school districts in Texas to prevent the Governor of the State
of Texas from misusing education dollars, as they have been misused
before. This is money that will be effectively used for the
schoolchildren of the State of Texas. And I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to yield an additional 15 seconds to my
friend from Houston if she might yield to our other friend from
Houston, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CULBERSON. Is my colleague from Texas aware that this provision
strips the Texas Legislature and the people of Texas of the power to
make decisions at the State level?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what I'm aware of is
that this language is supported by at least 40 school districts that
support the money being able to come directly to them or not being used
if it is not used for education. Additionally, this language only
includes education funding not stimulus dollars. So it will not
artificially increase any costs to the taxpayers. The school districts
will benefit from the Governor having to use federal education dollars
for education.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friends that we are in the
midst of a debate on the war supplemental.
At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from
Howard, Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the rule.
We are supposed to be dealing with emergency spending. So I ask, what
is the emergency in section 4172? That section strips my district of an
Appalachian Development Highway System designation. I found out about
this 24 hours ago. This designation is a connection between
Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, and Interstate 80 in Clearville,
Pennsylvania. This highway stretch has been codified in law for over 12
years.
Mr. Speaker, this is hardly an emergency situation. The situation
with my district and this mysterious section 4172 is a clear indication
of what is wrong with this rule and the breakdown in the process here
in this House. It appears that ``emergency'' now just translates to a
``backroom deal.''
I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9\3/4\
minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 14 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of the rule. A
lot of people have put in a lot of work to organize this supplemental
in ways that many of us would have the opportunity to support.
I am focused on several aspects, but I am particularly focused on the
amendment that will be brought before us by Barbara Lee. Barbara Lee
has an amendment that basically would strip the funding that is
dedicated to the war in Afghanistan and redirect those funds so that we
can safely withdraw from an Army that has less and less support of the
American people.
And while I will not get into details about my support for that
amendment at this time--I will be speaking on it later--I wish to
congratulate the leadership and our Rules Committee members for the
hard work that they have put in in organizing the rule on the
supplemental. It has not been easy. There are a lot of concerns. There
are a lot of demands. We have a lot of needs that need to be addressed.
So while we are wrestling with addressing the needs of our domestic
community and our domestic concerns, we still have to be concerned
about the direction that the war is taking and what that means for the
future of this country. While we are bogged down in a serious deficit,
the moneys that we are spending on this war must be reconsidered in
ways that will eventually wind this war down and give us an opportunity
to focus on our domestic needs.
{time} 1845
So I would ask my colleagues to support the rule on this
supplemental.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a tireless worker on
the Rules Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, President Obama promised over and over during
his Presidential campaign that he would end the practice of funding the
wars with supplemental funding, as we are about to do today.
Then in February of 2009, during his first address to Congress, he
said, ``For 7 years we have been a Nation at war. No longer will we
hide its price.''
In other words, no more supplemental war funding bills.
Okay, fair enough.
Then in April 2009 President Obama requested $83 billion in
additional funding for the wars, saying, ``This is the last planned war
supplemental,'' in a letter to House Speaker Pelosi. He called for ``an
honest, more accurate and fiscally responsible estimate of Federal
spending'' after years of ``budget gimmicks and wasteful spending.''
Now his administration is requesting a $33 billion war funding
supplemental bill and calling its passage essential.
What gives? Is this a budget gimmick, or is it essential spending?
Mr. Speaker, this administration can't have it both ways. We need to
provide funding for our troops, and we need to do it expeditiously and
without billions of pork.
Unfortunately, because of the hypocrisy of this administration on
this issue, we're faced today with a supplemental funding bill that is
stuffed with unrelated spending that breaks another of the President's
promises.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I actually agree with the gentlelady in my disappointment that the
President has decided to submit a supplemental bill to fund this war in
Afghanistan. But I think it is not--it is a little bit, well, unfair
for her to criticize President Obama when President Bush
[[Page H5350]]
did this routinely. And we have spent over $1 trillion, $1 trillion on
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the vast majority of that money
is not paid for. It's all borrowed. We're not paying for it. Our kids
will pay for it and our grandkids and our great grandkids.
And, you know, so I find it also a little bit puzzling that we're
having this, we had this debate earlier today over the extension of
unemployment benefits for the millions of people who are unemployed in
this country due to this terrible economy. And my friends on the other
side of the aisle said, well, we can't afford it. We can't afford to
pay for it so we're going to deny these citizens who have fallen on
hard times the ability to get unemployment compensation.
Yet, when it comes to funneling money to the corrupt Karzai regime,
we're a bottomless pit. So I think all of us, Republicans and
Democrats, need to come together and figure out how to get this right.
And I hope that the gentlelady will join with me and my colleague,
Dave Obey, in supporting our amendment asking for the President to
develop a plan consistent with his statement that we will begin the
withdrawal of our forces in July of 2011.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule so that we
can get on to discussing an extremely important matter, not only the
domestic issues that will be included in this piece of legislation
which are absolutely essential. We do need to educate our kids. We do
need to provide for critical domestic policies.
I also want to get to the issue of the war, particularly the war in
Afghanistan, of which there will be some $30 billion allocated for that
war. I strongly oppose that appropriation.
The Lee amendments, the McGovern amendments, the Obey amendments all
come to grips with that and, in various ways, will cause us to get out
of that war.
We have to focus laser beam-like on al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean
that we have to engage in a counterinsurgency program in Afghanistan.
$30 billion. The Pentagon estimates that it's $875,000 per soldier in
Afghanistan. Roughly $87,000 is enough for a well-paid teacher in
America. That translates to 300,000 teachers. If we took that $30
billion and used it in America, we could employ 300,000 teachers.
We have to have a strong economy. We know that economy is in
desperate need of a well-educated workforce. Better to spend the money
here at home. Better to focus laser beam-like on al Qaeda wherever it
may be in this world, whether it's in Aden, whether it is in Saudi
Arabia or whether Sudan or Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not engage in
a terribly expensive counterinsurgency program in Afghanistan.
Some of us were around for the Vietnam War. And what this sounds like
is another Vietnam, a quagmire in which we will ultimately extract
ourselves with extraordinary loss of life and treasure. It's time to
stop it right now. So I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the rule and support
for the two amendments that we'll be dealing with.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend
from Lake Jackson, Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It's been
described rather vividly on this side of the aisle how messy this
process is, so I strongly oppose this.
Of course, I also strongly oppose the funding, especially for the
funding for the war. This is a war that I've objected to for a very
long time. This war is going badly. It's not a declared war. We don't
have a precise enemy. The Taliban is the spoken enemy, and yet the
Taliban are individuals who have never committed terrorism outside
their homeland. The Taliban is an outgrowth of the mujahadin, who we
were at one time allies with, along with Osama bin Laden. So it isn't a
very neat little war.
Here we are, we are the most powerful Nation in the world, the most
powerful army ever organized in the history of the world. And yet we
are fighting a war that essentially is not a war. We're fighting a war
against individuals that have no tanks, no planes, no ships, no modern
technology; and we're not doing well. There's something wrong. If it
were truly a war, a declared war and we knew who the enemy was, the war
would be over.
The fact that the war is not over after 9 years, it's draining us,
it's draining us of life and limb, it's draining us of funding. The
wars in the Middle East have drained trillions of dollars, and we are
suffering from a severe problem, a financial crisis here at home. So
it's time that we start looking abroad and looking at what we're trying
to maintain. We're in over 130 countries, 900 bases. It's
unsustainable.
It was brought to attention this past week that we were having
problems. If we were doing well in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be firing
our generals. We want to put the blame on the generals. If we change
the generals, everything is going to be okay.
But our generals are trained to fight wars. They're not trained to be
nation builders and social workers and policemen. So this is a war that
I see is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to win until we
change our policy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Houston,
Texas (Mr. Culberson), a hardworking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, one of the bedrock principles upon which
this government was created was to provide for the common defense. Yet
this Democrat majority was asked 5 months ago by the President to
provide funding for the war.
It's been 35 days since the United States Senate passed a
straightforward, simple funding bill for the war, which all of us on
the Republican side would have voted for without objection to support
our men and women in the field. Yet today we've only got 90 minutes of
debate for it.
The United States, the public, the American people have only seen
this bill since 11 this morning.
I serve on the Appropriations Committee, none of the Republican
members of this committee, none of the Republican staff members were
included in the drafting of this bill. The United States of America,
particularly our troops in the field, deserve far better than this.
Is it any wonder that the public does not trust the government? Is it
any wonder a tsunami is building that will sweep out this liberal
majority in November and elect a constitutional conservative majority
committed to fiscal responsibility, committed to preservation of our
Constitution, committed to preservation of the States' rights to
control something as fundamental as education spending?
On Page 14 of this bill, which no one saw until 11 today, the State
of Texas is stripped of its sovereign authority to control education
spending. It's given--for the first time in this Nation's history,
control over education spending in a sovereign State of the Union is
given to the Federal Government by an amendment no one saw until 11
today, that the liberal majority is prepared to vote for, which will
result in the destruction of the 10th Amendment sovereign power of the
people of Texas, in big tax increases and spending increases, because
this language says we can't spend any less than was spent in 2011, an
artificially high number that will include ``spendulus'' money, leading
to property tax increases, statewide tax increases in Texas.
Why aren't we simply funding our troops in the field?
This is why you'll lose the majority in November.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues here that my friends on the
Republican side of the aisle, with the exception of only nine, voted
against the Defense authorization bill just a few weeks ago, a bill
that provided a great deal of support for our troops and their
families. Why did they vote against it? They voted against it because
they were preoccupied with the social issue of gay marriage. Where were
they then when it came to supporting our troops and supporting their
families?
My friend talks about all of the great crises that we're facing, but
much of the crises that we're facing are as a result of some of the
actions that my
[[Page H5351]]
friends on the other side of the aisle took: two wars on borrowed
money; on top of that, tax cuts for the rich on borrowed money.
And now we have an economy that the President has inherited that
we're trying to dig ourselves out of, and we're going to do that. But I
think it's important to keep some of this in perspective.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we all hate the fact that we have to deal with this war
on terror. September 11, 2001, changed the lives of every single one of
us. And it is painful and, as I said earlier, the most difficult part
of our job is to call the families of loved ones who've paid the price
in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other spot in the world. And we all hope
and pray that we never, ever have to do it again.
We also recognize that we have to come together and ensure that our
men and women in uniform who are on the front line in this battle
against radical extremism have what they need.
Now, the American people are sick and tired of wasteful Federal
spending. But the American people also understand, Mr. Speaker, that
the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the
United States Constitution are, in fact, ``provide for the common
defense.''
Virtually everything else that we do, other than our Nation's
security, can be handled by individuals, by families, by churches and
synagogues and mosques, by counties, by cities, by States. But our
national security can only be handled by the Federal Government.
Now, the President of the United States has just issued what we refer
to by the acronym a SAP around here. It's a Statement of Administration
Policy. And while we sit here having a debate, which I think is very
important for us to have, the President has said that if we don't
provide him a clean bill that is independent of all these other
extraneous matters--and by the way, if they all don't pass, this bill
just dies and we have to start over again--he will veto it.
And so it is fascinating. We, as Republicans, and many thoughtful
Democrats, have stepped up to the plate and said that we will join with
the President to ensure that that $33.5 billion that is needed is there
for our men and women in uniform.
{time} 1900
We've heard from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services, who talked about the fact that just this week General
David Petraeus, Secretary Gates, and others have said we must have this
funding by July 4. This is Thursday evening, July 1. The request was
made in February. The Senate passed, by a 67-28 vote on May 27, this
bill, and here we are just 3 days before this time by which the
Secretary has said they need these resources.
And what is it we're doing? We're adding spending, we're shifting
some 10-mile stretch in Pennsylvania from one district to another. What
does that have to do with an emergency supplemental? And we're
increasing spending when the American people have said we need to bring
about responsible spending cuts.
We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We can do better. We can immediately,
after defeating this rule, go upstairs and bring down a rule that will
allow us to let Members of Congress who are opposed to providing that
$33.5 billion the opportunity to vote ``no,'' and those of us who want
to provide those resources for the troops to vote ``yes.''
And so, Mr. Speaker, let's vote ``no'' on this rule. Let's move ahead
right now. Let's do what we can to bring this war to an end so that our
men and women can come home just as quickly as possible. And the best
way to do that is to ensure that they have what it takes so that they
can be successful.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support of
this rule, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this rule. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that
this rule makes in order an amendment offered by myself, Mr. Obey and
Mr. Jones of North Carolina to require a meaningful exit strategy from
Afghanistan.
As we are being asked to consider tens of billions of dollars in
supplemental funding for the war, I believe that now is the time for us
to ask tough questions and demand straight answers. Of all the problems
that President Obama inherited from the Bush administration,
Afghanistan is the one that keeps getting more and more complicated.
In just the past few weeks, two brave young soldiers from Fall River,
Massachusetts, in my district, lost their lives in Afghanistan. So this
is a big deal, and we need to get it right.
Last December, President Obama told the American people that we would
begin to withdraw our forces next July. The American people deserve to
know if that plan is still in place and how we're going to get there.
Much has been made about General Stanley McChrystal's comments in
Rolling Stone magazine about the Nation's civilian leadership. But
there are other parts of that article that I find to be much more
disturbing. General McChrystal's chief of operations said that
Afghanistan, and I quote, ``is not going to look like a win, smell like
a win, or taste like a win. This is going to end in an argument.''
A senior adviser to General McChrystal said, and I quote again, ``If
Americans pulled back and started paying attention to this war, it
would become even less popular.'' A senior military official said this,
and I quote again, ``There's a possibility we could ask for another
surge of U.S. forces next summer if we see success here.''
Mr. Speaker, I voted in 2001 to go to war in Afghanistan, to hunt
down al Qaeda, and to eliminate their threat. And I would cast that
same vote today in a heartbeat. But what we are doing in Afghanistan
today is far beyond that original authorization. We are engaged in
extensive, expensive nation building in Afghanistan. And frankly, given
the level of unemployment and the severe economic situation we face in
the United States, I would rather do a little bit more nation building
here at home.
Some in this body have refused to support extending unemployment
benefits for out-of-work Americans because they say we cannot afford
it. We are told we can't afford to help States avoid laying off
teachers. We're told we can't afford to improve our roads and our
bridges or help more families afford a college education. We are told
we can't afford to prevent foreclosures or to improve child nutrition,
and now we are being asked to borrow another $33 billion for nation
building in Afghanistan?
We don't have the money to help American working families. But when
it comes to supporting a corrupt and incompetent Karzai government, we
are supposed to be a bottomless pit. You know, we talk a lot about the
deficit around here. We have borrowed $350 billion, added to the debt,
not paid for, for the war in Afghanistan. How are we supposed to
address the deficit if we don't know how many more billions of dollars
we are going to be spending in Afghanistan?
My colleagues, we all have a responsibility here. It's not just the
President's war. It's our war, too, like it or not. We voted to send
our sons and daughters to war. We voted repeatedly to send money to
support this war. We have a responsibility to ask the tough questions
and to do the right thing. So I urge all my colleagues to think long
and hard today about this critical issue. It is time for Congress to
step up to the plate and do its duty.
I hope my colleagues will support the Lee amendment. I hope they will
support the McGovern-Obey-Jones amendment. And I hope they will support
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the budget enforcement
resolution for fiscal year 2011, contained in this rule. This
resolution sets an overall limit of $1.121 trillion on discretionary
spending in next year's appropriations bills. This limit is well below
the comparable request made by the President for FY 2011 and $3 billion
below the resolution approved by the Senate Budget Committee.
One of the chief functions of a budget resolution is to cap the level
of discretionary spending for the forthcoming fiscal year. This
resolution serves that purpose, and permits the Appropriations
Committee to move forward with appropriation bills for fiscal year
2011.
The ``Pay-As-You-Go'' rule, PAYGO, passed previously, bars increases
in mandatory
[[Page H5352]]
spending and decreases in revenues, unless offset, so that they do not
add to the budget deficit. The current PAYGO system requires that the
authorizing committees meet the deficit-neutrality test for four time
periods: two for the House PAYGO rule and two for statutory PAYGO. This
resolution would align these time windows so that the requirements for
complying with House PAYGO and statutory PAYGO would be the same, and
makes other synchronizing changes--thus facilitating the consideration
of deficit-neutral bills.
While this resolution does not project the budget out over five
years, it does look to the future by assuring that the House will have
an opportunity to vote this year on longer-term budget proposals made
by the President's Fiscal Commission and approved by the Senate. This
resolution also sets an out-year goal for the budget: a budget in
primary balance (excluding net interest costs) in 2015.
The budget enforcement resolution reinforces the Commission's goal of
lowering the deficit to sustainable levels, and as mentioned, reaffirms
the House leadership's commitment to bring to a vote any of the
Commission's recommendations passed by the Senate.
In addition, this resolution--
instructs House committee chairs to submit recommendations for
eliminating wasteful spending in their committee jurisdiction; and
accommodates additional program integrity funds of $538 million in
2010 to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal budget.
When all of these elements are brought together, they form a complete
substitute, the functional equivalent of a budget resolution.
The budget enforcement resolution limits discretionary spending,
while the PAYGO rules limit mandatory spending and revenue reductions.
These are disciplines for the short run, while the Fiscal Commission
works out recommendations for the longer run.
The budget enforcement resolution is another of many steps Democrats
in the 111th Congress have taken to enforce fiscal responsibility, such
as enacting statutory PAYGO; reforming defense acquisition; and
insisting, successfully, that health care reform not add to the
deficit.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before
you today in support of H. Res. 1500, a rule providing for H.R. 4899,
the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.''--a bill that will help
create jobs for Americans and provide assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Haiti.
I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for their
leadership on this timely legislation. Clearly, this is an important
bill and must be only amended with items that are essential to provide
the necessary assistance this country so greatly needs.
H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people,
from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I
fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to
provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains
a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration,
which not only results in knowledge-building, but also in hundreds of
thousands of jobs throughout the nation.
Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriation is quite different from
any other supplemental appropriation that members of this body will
ever consider. This supplemental appropriations bill provides over
$37.47 billion to support our troops, over $24 billion to keep
teachers, firefighters and law enforcement personnel on the job while
states continue to recover from the recession; over $13 billion for
Vietnam veterans and survivors exposed to Agent Orange; $5.7 billion
for PELL; $2.8 billion for Haiti; $677 million border security; $275
million for the Gulf Coast oil spill including unemployment benefits
program and unemployment assistance related to the oil spill and an oil
spill relief employment program that are underway for the self-employed
businessman and women who were greatly impacted by the Gulf Coast oil
spill.
No price is too great to pay, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to doing
what is necessary to aid our country. This bill must only be amended
with key items that are critical to adequately address this nation's
needs. I am therefore, offering several amendments to H.R. 4899.
GULF OIL SPILL AMENDMENT
I am offering an amendment that would require the President to
appoint a research and development team to review and recommend new
technologies to prevent oil spills.
The response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill highlights
an unfortunate deficiency in our national infrastructure. Many people
have criticized the administration's response, and seeming willingness
to put those responsible for the mess in charge of the cleanup.
However, the sad fact is that the administration and Coast Guard had to
let the oil industry take a larger role in leading the cleanup than any
of us would like.
The problem is that the government does not have the tools necessary
to take full charge in a disaster like this. The oil industry does. It
is industry that has the equipment necessary to drill deep, deep below
the surface of the ocean. The Federal government has the best in
technology in many areas, but not in this one.
But as the events of the past two months have shown, the Federal
government needs those tools. Where the industry cannot or will not do
what is necessary to react quickly to incidents of their own creation,
the government must. And where the government has responsibility, it
must have the tools and technology to act effectively.
GULF OIL SPILL AMENDMENT
I am offering an additional amendment, for a team of experts. Leaders
from academia, research, government agencies, and even the oil industry
can review and recommend new technology that the government can use to
prevent and clean up spills, particularly in deep water, to prevent
them from doing nearly irreparable harm to our economy and our
environment.
My amendment would require the President to appoint an emergency oil
spill coordination team to respond to oil spills in this country.
One of the most disturbing questions raised in the public's mind as
they watched the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico unfold is ``Who is in
charge?'' For weeks it seemed as if there was no clear answer. For too
long, it seemed that BP, the entity responsible for the explosion and
oil slick, was in charge of the cleanup. This did nothing but diminish
public confidence in the response.
Now, of course, we know who is in charge, and Admiral Allen is doing
an admirable job. But it is extremely important that we establish,
ahead of time, a clear and definite answer to the question of who is in
charge. My Amendment will require the President to appoint an emergency
oil spill coordination team in case a tragedy like this ever occurs
again. The team shall consist of the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Interior, and chief
of the Army Corps of Engineers, the leaders of the agencies most
involved in tasks of this nature. The President shall also establish a
clear chain of command and decision making from this team.
We hope that an incident like this, a man made disaster of this
magnitude, will never, ever happen again. But in the event that it
does, we need to know who is in charge of the response, with no period
of unnecessary uncertainty.
BORDER SECURITY
``To provide $100 million to hire special agents and investigators at
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to help
investigate and track illegal firearms and help prevent the flow of
weapons across Border States.''
My amendment will provide $100 million to hire special agents and
investigators at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives to help investigate and track illegal firearms and help
prevent the flow of weapons across Border States.
The United States continues to fight the battle against the powerful
drug trafficking organizations that have plagued our sister cities just
across the border with violence. We have been fortunate thus far that
for the most part the violence has not spilled over into the United
States, but we cannot depend on being insulated forever. Instability
abroad is a danger to stability at home, and we have a vested interest
in helping our neighbors to the south wrest power away from the
criminal organizations that have threatened the safety of their
citizens, and brought drugs into our country.
One of the ways we can help them is by stemming the illegal flow of
weapons across our Border States and into Mexico. I fully support the
Second Amendment enshrined in our Constitution, but I do not believe we
can continue to allow criminals to buy semiautomatic and assault
weapons and other arms in the United States, only to use them to kill,
maim, corrupt and wreak havoc on the safety and security of our Mexican
neighbors. It hurts them and it hurts us. We must do everything we can
to stop this illegal arms traffic.
Fortunately, in stopping this illegal traffic we can also strengthen
our own safety and security in the United States. State and local law
enforcement officials and experts in academia have suggested that a
much needed increase in resources to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives will increase our ability to monitor and track
arms sales within the United States, helping us to prevent the illegal
flow of weapons south of the border into Mexico.
By increasing the investigative capacity and manpower of this agency,
we can better identify the straw buyers drug trafficking organizations
are increasingly utilizing to acquire weapons here legally, which they
then illegally transfer and transport into Mexico. Over 87 percent of
all traceable arms recovered by Mexican authorities have been traced to
the United States. We have here an enormous opportunity to help reduce
the power of the drug
[[Page H5353]]
trafficking organizations. While stemming the illegal flow of weapons
south is no panacea for reducing violence across our border, it is a
very important component of that process.
Strengthening the ATF will also help us to more effectively monitor
the approximately 6,700 federal firearm licensees, FFL, that exist
along the southern border. By monitoring these licensed sellers and
their gun sale records, it will be much simpler to track and trace
suspicious purchase patterns and buyers, weakening the drug trafficking
organizations' ability to acquire weapons in the United States. This is
of particular importance when many of the guns favored by the cartels
are those capable of loading armor piercing rounds destined for killing
Mexican law enforcement officials.
The appropriations in this amendment are only a small part of what
must be a larger strategy to increase security at the border and combat
the drug trafficking organizations. Many challenges remain unanswered,
including the ease with which individuals can illicitly acquire assault
weapons that present an enormous challenge to law enforcement and even
military officers in Mexico, and that weaken security in border cities
in Mexico. Nonetheless, increasing strategically targeted funding for
investigators and special ATF agents is a promising start to getting
our border under greater control and stopping the flow of weapons into
the hands of drug trafficking organizations.
BORDER SECURITY
To offer $500 million in grant assistance to state and local law
enforcement agencies to Border States within 100 miles of the Border
States and to cover salaries and expenses associated with border
enforcement for State and local officials.
I also offer an amendment of $500 million in grant assistance to
state and local law enforcement agencies to Border States within 100
miles of the Border States to purchase interoperable communications,
hire additional investigators, detectives and other law enforcement
personnel, and to cover salaries and expenses associated with border
enforcement for State and local officials.
Our Border States are frustrated and in need of targeted assistance.
In recent months I have attended a number of different hearings,
briefings and press conferences on immigration, combating the drug
trade, and improving the border, and in almost all instances I have
heard the same comment: Border States are frustrated. The deeply
misguided Arizona Law, SB1070 for example, is an expression of that
very frustration. Unless we want to see more of a backlash, we in the
federal government need to do more to help our Border States, vital to
securing our nation and upholding our immigration laws, do their job
right.
First of all, we need to do more than just provide ``boots on the
ground'' to help secure our borders. While deterrence is essential to
improving security, several members of the law enforcement community
have stressed the importance of providing more resources for
investigators and detectives, who can help to ferret out and dismantle
the criminal activities taking place on our borders.
Moreover, while federal agencies have improved their coordination,
communication within local and state authorities continues to be
problematic. Communication in disperse rural areas presents a
particular challenge. At a hearing on the Merida Initiative, I heard
the moving testimony of a rancher from rural Arizona, Mr. Bill
McDonald. He pointed out how a lack of resources and a rapid turnover
rate make communication extremely important, but extremely lacking.
These rural areas, and the people who live there, are in many cases the
most vulnerable to human traffickers and drug traffickers.
This Amendment will provide Border States with the much needed
support that they need in order to more effectively secure our borders
from threats, and ensure a safe and stable environment for our border
residents. The $500 million in grant assistance will provide for
additional personnel, particularly investigators and detectives crucial
to loosening the grip that criminal organizations have slowly tightened
on our borders. More robust, well funded, and well resourced law
enforcement systems are exactly what our Border States and residents
demand.
Moreover, this Amendment will provide funds specifically for
interoperable communications equipment that will improve security on
our borders. Along with a more robust and effective local law
enforcement effort, improved communications equipment and strategies
will aid in providing more effective coverage of our more vulnerable
rural areas, and ensure more effective protection of our vulnerable
border residents.
Finally, this Amendment is an important piece of what must be a
broader continued and tireless effort to secure our nation against ever
changing threats, and provide federal leadership on an issue that
continues to frustrate Border State residents and constituents nation-
wide. These appropriations to improve law enforcement efforts at the
border are only a small part of more comprehensive reforms to our
immigration system, reforms that the American people are crying out for
and that I sincerely hope my fellow members will stand behind. Thank
you Madame Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
DEFENSE AMENDMENT
To establish portability between states of individualized education
programs, and disability and therapeutic benefits of a dependent of a
member of the armed forces upon transfer of the member.
I offer an Amendment that will establish portability between states
of individualized education programs, and disability and therapeutic
benefits of a dependent of a member of the armed forces upon transfer
of the member.
Our armed forces and their family members are among the most valued
members of our society, custodians of our freedom and protectors of our
democracy. We must re-commit ourselves to serving them with the honor,
dignity and respect with which they serve their country.
An important part of anyone's quality of life is their family and
dependents. One of the ways in which we can serve the members of the
armed forces who sacrifice so much for our safety and our liberty is to
ensure that their families are taken care of, and to eliminate the
bureaucratic red tape involved in moving from one place to another.
Members of the armed forces often find themselves moving, and uprooting
their families and their lives. Again, my Amendment aims to facilitate
a fair and equitable process.
My Amendment would make the educational, disability and therapeutic
benefits of a child or dependent of a member of the armed forces
transferrable from one state to another. This will greatly facilitate
and simplify what is already a difficult, complicated and often painful
process for the men and women who put their lives on the line for our
country, and their families. Let us serve them, as they have served us.
NASA AMENDMENT
My Amendment would ensure: All managed funding for the National
Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) NASA Constellation programs
will be maintained through fiscal year 2015 with the assumption that
the Constellation program will continue: (2) U.S. human space flight
systems shall be lead by the U.S. government to ensure crew safety and
to ensure skill, capabilities and institutional knowledge attributable
to NASA and ISS can be retained by the U.S. for the appropriate time;
(3) strengthen partnerships between universities and NASA centers; and
(4) ensure a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization
shall be established.
The President's proposed FY 2011 budget eliminates funding for a
portion of the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew
Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.
Earlier this year, I introduced H. Res. 1150, ``Designating the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a national
security Interest and Asset,'' and stating findings that the
elimination of funding for the NASA Constellation program in the
President's proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security
concerns.
It is critical that managed funding for the NASA Constellation
programs is maintained through fiscal year 2015 as:
1. Elimination of the Constellation programs will present Homeland
security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and
Intelligence community of the United States;
2. Elimination of the Constellation programs will compromise the
effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the
strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence; and
3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to
maintaining thousands of American jobs and the U.S.'s leadership role
and technological edge as well as securing valuable knowledge that
improves national security, climate, and research in science and
medicine.
Eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of the Space Shuttle
will diminish the Nation's international leadership role and efforts to
advance scientific research in space. The United States will for the
first time, since its space program began, be without a human space
flight program.
Additionally, transferring funds from the Constellation program to
the development of commercial space programs to carry humans and crew
into space is taking a chance on an unproven quantity and is an
unnecessary and unreasonable risk this country must not take at this
time. It is more prudent to establish a protocol for commercial human
space flight utilization at this time.
It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up
to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today.
Our government has already invested literally years and billions of
dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and
not abandon them. Our country
[[Page H5354]]
can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense
of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future
generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life.
The retirement of the Space Shuttles this year will leave the United
States vulnerable and dependent upon Russia to put U.S. astronauts in
orbit without the Constellation program.
In May of last year when it became clear the U.S. had no one else to
turn to, Russia raised its prices from $48 to $51 million per launch
for each astronaut.
In addition, it is important for us to remember that the
Constellation program is not just about going to the moon, as the U.S.
has a commitment to the International Space Station (ISS). With the
Space Shuttles being retired this September, the Constellation is the
only system under development that will give NASA the future capability
to launch crews to and retrieve them from the ISS. Decreasing the use
of the International Space Station would impact the ability to sustain
its systems and physical infrastructure.
The Congress should recognize the policy outlined in section 501(a)
of the National Aeronautics and Space Authorization Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 16761(a), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted
capability for human space flight and operations in low-Earth orbit,
and beyond, as an essential element of national security and the
ability to ensure continued United States participation and leadership
in the exploration of space.
The human space flight program should be funded to continue use of
the International Space Station to support the agency and other
federal, commercial, and academic research and technology testing
needs. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety,
air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel
efficiency.
NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports has
improved decision making for natural resource management and emergency
response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland
security threats.
Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in
protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in
oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.
NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle,
and contribute to improving our ability to monitor water resources and
water quality from space. We must also protect the quality and safety
of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human
health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are
plausible threats against which we can better protect the United States
through NASA's research.
Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland
security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the
intelligence community of the United States. Elimination of the
Constellation program will also compromise the effectiveness of the
International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance
of space station research, and intelligence.
Continuation of NASA's human space flight program is crucial to
improving national security, studying climate change and its effects,
and research in science and medicine.
For the above reasons, it is my hope that my Colleagues will join me
in supporting efforts to maintain NASA's Constellation Program. It is
through balanced policies that promote economic growth that we will
continue to maintain our international leadership and technological
competitive edge, and gain valuable knowledge relating to the national
security of our nation.
summer jobs amendment
Making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and
summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 and for other
purposes.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Senate has proposed to strike out a
portion of the Act that is vital to supporting the career development
of our nation's youth. My amendment would reinstate the section of the
bill pertaining to ``Employment and Training Administration,'' which
appropriates $600 million dollars in grants to states to support summer
employment programs for youth.
The recent recession has affected various sectors, and unemployment
has been borne by many sectors of the economy, particularly in the
housing and banking sectors. The suffering that comes with a major
economic downturn has been felt not only by the adult population, but
by our youth as well, and they have been hindered in their efforts to
acquire summer employment as I speak. Statistics also demonstrate that
youth minority groups have been more affected than other groups of
young individuals. Data assembled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
indicates that in July 2009, 51.4 percent of young persons between the
ages of 16 and 24 were involved in some form of summer employment. This
was the lowest recorded rate since 1964. The youth unemployment rate,
at 18.5 percent, was also a record low since the onset of the Bureau's
statistical studies almost forty years ago. In comparison to a 4
percent rise in unemployment for white youth, 7 percent more African
Americans and 10 percent more Hispanics became unemployed between 2006
and 2009. These numbers are troubling, and indicate a need for
intervention on our part.
It is important that in our efforts to aid in the economic recovery
effort, we do not forget our young Americans. Their career development
is crucial to ensuring that whatever economic strides we make today
will be sustainable tomorrow. As such, we must ensure that we do not
neglect the hardships that have been inflicted upon them as a result of
the economic downturn. These funds will promote the intellectual
development of our youth, which, in turn, will promote a healthy and
innovative economy. Studies have also shown that such an initiative
could work to decrease the likelihood of criminal activity by young
individuals, who are less likely to engage in such activity when they
are involved in productive use of their time.
This amendment will provide an indispensable source of support for
our states to help them develop our youth. For these reasons, I urge my
Colleagues to support my amendment on summer youth jobs.
HAITI AMENDMENT
An amendment to require the Department of State to report on
contracting procurement in Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment to increase oversight over the contracting
process in Haiti. This amendment requires that the Department of State
prepare a report that describes how offers received in response to
solicitations for contracts to be carried out are evaluated.
As Haiti's neighbor, it is the responsibility of the U.S. to help
Haiti recover, and to build the capacity to militate against future
disasters. Yet, it must be done in a way that is transparent and
accountable.
Last month, I held a town hall meeting to link USAID and contractors
seeking to secure contracts to rebuild Haiti following the devastating
earthquake. Similar to contractors operating in Pakistan, these groups
were concerned that they were not able to access the contracts in a
transparent manner.
There are vast untapped human resources and potential in the United
States, and the people of Haiti are in need of our help. During these
economic times, it only makes sense to ensure that the hard working men
and women of the United States have an opportunity to contribute to
helping the people of Haiti rebuild their nation. USAID and the
American Red Cross will help open the door for our local businesses
including small, minority and women-owned and disadvantaged businesses
to participate in something great, at the same time strengthening our
own damaged economy.
Mr. Speaker, transparency is at the heart of an effective assistance
program, Again, I ask my Colleagues to allow this amendment to move
forward.
PAKISTAN AMENDMENT
Amendments to require the Department of State to report on
contracting procurement in Pakistan.
An amendment to increase oversight over the contracting process in
Pakistan. This amendment requires that the Department of State prepare
a report that describes how offers received in response to
solicitations for contracts to be carried out are evaluated.
A major focus of the President's policy review was the importance of
Pakistan to our efforts in Afghanistan, to regional stability, and to
our national security and foreign policy interests. There remains
mistrust between our two countries, but we see a critical window of
opportunity created by the recent transition to democratic, civilian
rule and the broad, sustained political support across Pakistan for
military operations against extremists. We seek to lead the
international community in helping Pakistan overcome the political,
economic, and security challenges that threaten its stability, and in
turn undermine regional stability. And we seek to build a long-term
partnership with Pakistan based on common interests, including
recognition that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose
location is known and whose intentions are clear.
As co-Chair of the Pakistan Caucus, I have met with dozens of groups
concerned about the future of Pakistan. Every single group has told me
that they are unable to access information about the contracting
process in Pakistan as it relates to the $1.5 billion authorized by the
Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill. This lack of transparency threatens to
undermine the tremendous progress we have made in Pakistan gaining the
trust of the people and the government. It is therefore crucial that my
Colleagues support an amendment that will work to alleviate those fears
and implement transparency measures as the cornerstone to our
assistance programs.
[[Page H5355]]
I thank you for consideration of H.R. 4899 for the Fiscal Year 2010
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule
allowing for consideration of House amendments to H.R. 4899, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act.
I believe that it is irresponsible of Congress to leave for the
Fourth of July recess without sending the Senate-passed supplemental
appropriations bill to the President's desk for signature. Insisting on
inclusion of additional spending above the Senate-passed supplemental
levels, with absolutely no assurances that the Senate is willing or
even able to pass this additional spending will do nothing but delay
vitally important emergency funding.
Swift approval of the supplemental is needed not only for the war
effort but also for areas of the United States, like North Dakota, who
have been hit hard by disasters and desperately need Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) disaster relief funding owed them. While I do
not take issue with the additional offset spending that is being
discussed, the current push to add it will result in Congress failing
to enact a supplemental for several weeks, with the strong possibility
of ending up right back where we began.
I am submitting, as a part of my statement, a copy of an editorial
that recently ran in the Bismarck Tribune titled ``Congress needs to
meet its responsibilities''. Congress' inability to complete even its
most basic business has the American people's patience running thin.
The delay in passing a supplemental appropriations bill endangers our
soldiers fighting overseas and is preventing critical aid from reaching
those who have been hit with disasters here at home. We must act today
to pass the Senate version of this bill and avoid further delays.
[June 30, 2010]
Congress Needs To Meet Its Responsibilities
Mor-Gran-Sou Electric, crippled by the Good Friday
snowstorm, qualified for financial disaster relief from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The damage to Mor-Gran-Sou poles and lines was extensive
and pricey, upwards of $30 million.
The feds agreed to pick up 75 percent of the cost. That's
what disaster relief programs are all about--financial help
when a natural disaster levels an area.
Except, the check isn't in the mail.
When the feds, when anyone, says they are going to do a
thing, they ought to do it--and do it in a timely fashion.
There's no excuse for FEMA, and really Congress, holding up
Mor-Gran-Sou.
And the phrase ``holding up'' isn't just a metaphor. While
waiting for FEMA, Mor-Gran-Sou has had to get a $30 million
line of credit, which even at 2.5 percent interest could cost
the co-op and its electric customers $1 million in interest
over a year.
The FEMA disaster funding was placed in the bill funding
the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One has nothing to do with the other. Lumping these funding
efforts together is just another political tool--like the
``Christmas tree'' building bills in the North Dakota
Legislature--for forcing lawmakers to vote in favor of
something they do not want in exchange for something they
need.
A congressman might not want to fund the war in Afghanistan
or Iraq, but if that congressman wants disaster relief, well
. . .
Congress has intentionally become a beast of complexity and
burden, in this case.
Legislation, rather than being a clean, well-written policy
or law with a single given purpose, has become
incomprehensible in language, sheer volume and related
programming, regulating and funding.
Yes, we live in a complex world and over simplification can
be dangerous, but that's not justification for the present
level of congressional chaos.
Congress has legislated FEMA's obligation in a natural
disaster. FEMA has deemed Mor-Gran-Sou's situation as
qualified for help.
Now Congress must follow through and provide funding to do
what it said FEMA would do.
In Washington, a million dollars in interest might not
amount to much, but on the far end of a power line in western
North Dakota, with 11,000 downed poles and 550 miles of
tangled line, it's a very big deal.
In people, follow-through of this kind, speaks to
character. The same goes for Congress and its members.
Our delegation needs to push hard to break this log jam.
Will it?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the
opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 4899--``Supplemental
Appropriations Act 2010.'' H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs
of the American people, from national security, housing, employment,
health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress
that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that
the United States remains a global leader in science and technology,
including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge-
building but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the
nation.
My amendment would ensure: all managed funding for the National
Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) NASA Constellation programs
will be maintained through fiscal year 2015 with the assumption that
the Constellation program will continue: (2) U.S. human space flight
systems shall be lead by the U.S. government to ensure crew safety and
to ensure skill, capabilities and institutional knowledge attributable
to NASA and ISS can be retained by the U.S. for the appropriate time;
(3) strengthen partnerships between universities and NASA centers; and
(4) ensure a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization
shall be established.
The President's proposed FY2011 budget eliminates funding for a
portion of the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew
Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.
Earlier this year, I introduced H. Res. 1150, ``Designating the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a national
security Interest and Asset,'' and stating findings that the
elimination of funding for the NASA Constellation program in the
President's proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security
concerns.
It is critical that managed funding for the NASA Constellation
programs is maintained through fiscal year 2015 as:
1. Elimination of the Constellation programs will present Homeland
Security implications for Cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and
Intelligence community of the United States;
2. Elimination of the Constellation programs will compromise the
effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the
strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence; and
3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to
maintaining thousands of American jobs and the U.S.'s leadership role
and technological edge as well as securing valuable knowledge that
improves national security, climate, and research in science and
medicine.
International Leadership and Technological Competitive Edge
Eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of the Space Shuttle
will diminish the nation's international leadership role and efforts to
advance scientific research in space. The United States will for the
first time, since its space program began, be without a human space
flight program.
Additionally, transferring funds from the Constellation program to
the development of commercial space programs to carry a human crew into
space is taking a chance on an unproven quantity and is an unnecessary
and unreasonable risk this country must not take at this time. It is
more prudent to establish a protocol for commercial human space flight
utilization at this time.
It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up
to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today.
Our government has already invested literally years and billions of
dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and
not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight
industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program,
which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology
that enhances our quality of life.
The retirement of the Space Shuttles this year will leave the United
States vulnerable and dependent upon Russia to put U.S. astronauts in
orbit without the Constellation program. In May of last year when it
became clear the U.S. had no one else to turn to, Russia raised its
prices from $48 to $51 million per launch for each astronaut.
In addition, it is important for us to remember that the
Constellation program is not just about going to the moon, as the U.S.
has a commitment to the International Space Station (ISS). With the
Space Shuttles being retired this September, the Constellation is the
only system under development that will give NASA the future capability
to launch crews to and retrieve them from the ISS. Decreasing the use
of the International Space Station would impact the ability to sustain
its systems and physical infrastructure.
National Security and Homeland Security
The Congress should recognize the policy outlined in section 501(a)
of the National Aeronautics and Space Authorization Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 16761(a), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted
capability for human space flight and operations in low-earth orbit,
and beyond, as an essential element of national security and the
ability to ensure continued United States participation and leadership
in the exploration of space.
The human space flight program should be funded to continue use of
the International Space Station to support the agency and other
Federal, commercial, and academic research and technology testing
needs. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety,
air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel
efficiency.
NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports has
improved decision making for natural resource management and
[[Page H5356]]
emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future
homeland security threats.
Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in
protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in
oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.
NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle,
and contribute to improving our ability to monitor water resources and
water quality from space. We must also protect the quality and safety
of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human
health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are
plausible threats against which we can better protect the United States
through NASA's research.
Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland
security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the
intelligence community of the United States. Elimination of the
Constellation program will also compromise the effectiveness of the
International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance
of space station research, and intelligence.
Continuation of NASA's human space flight program is crucial to
improving national security, studying climate change and its effects,
and research in science and medicine.
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, it is my hope that this committee will
join me in supporting efforts to maintain NASA's Constellation Program.
It is through balanced policies that promote economic growth that we
will continue to maintain our international leadership and
technological competitive edge, and gain valuable knowledge relating to
the national security of our nation. I look forward to working with all
of you to ensure that we preserve a robust human space flight program
in the United States.
Amendment to H.R. 4899
Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT CONTINUATION.
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall ensure that--
(1) all planned funding for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration's Constellation programs will be
maintained through fiscal year 2015 with the assumption that
the Constellation programs will continue;
(2) the Federal Government will lead United States human
space flight systems--
(A) to ensure crew safety; and
(B) to ensure that skills, capabilities, and institutional
knowledge attributable to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the International Space Station are
retained by the Federal Government for the appropriate time;
(3) partnerships between universities and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration's centers are
strengthened; and
(4) a protocol for commercial human space flight
utilization is established.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________