[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12571-12585]
[From the U.S. 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:

[[Page 12572]]



                              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 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

[[Page 12573]]

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 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.
  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

[[Page 12574]]

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 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

[[Page 12575]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 12576]]

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 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

[[Page 12577]]

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.
  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).

[[Page 12578]]


  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 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

[[Page 12579]]

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 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. 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.

[[Page 12580]]

  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 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

[[Page 12581]]

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 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.

[[Page 12582]]

  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 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

[[Page 12583]]

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 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

[[Page 12584]]

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.
  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-

[[Page 12585]]

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 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.

                          ____________________