Jason Altmire

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. I was struck in hearing my Pennsylvania colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), I believe the highest ranking military officer ever elected to Congress; and so much of the rhetoric that revolved around the discussion that this House had on Iraq was, you guys don't have any experience, you don't know what you are talking about. All you want to do is tie the hands of the generals on the ground, and you need to leave this up to the experts. What we have heard tonight is an expert, one of the military's foremost military experts that we are fortunate to have not only in this House of Representatives, but in our freshman class with us. We heard a strategy for success, and we heard someone who has been there and seen it firsthand. What struck me was the fact that the President has probably had these discussions, and he has probably had people come to him and offer solutions. Maybe not the identical solutions that Admiral Sestak has, but differences of opinion. And the problem is, this administration has not shown a willingness to listen to differences of opinion. I talked about it earlier. Generals are reassigned if they come in with a difference of opinion. Public opinion certainly doesn't matter. The facts on the ground certainly don't matter. I was watching earlier, and I don't know if you had the opportunity to walk through some of the facts of what is going on on the ground in Iraq right now. We hear a lot of things on TV about, is the surge working, is it not working. I will let my colleagues decide. In November of 2003, the number of insurgents in Iraq was 5,000. That is a pretty high number. In March of 2007, the most recent month for which data is available, there were 70,000 insurgents in Iraq as estimated by the Brookings Institution. So 5,000, 4 years ago; 70,000, today. The number of multifatality bombings in May of 2004 was 9; in May of 2007, last month, it was 42. To me that does not indicate that we are making progress or there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And the numbers of people killed, both civilian and American servicemen, we talked about that earlier, it is exponentially more now. Clearly, we need a new direction, and we need people like Admiral Sestak, like anyone who is willing to take a hard look at this and offer an alternative solution, like the Iraq Study Group. This is a group of experts who got together, spent a great deal of time studying this issue, making very thoughtful recommendations to the American people, to the White House, and they were promptly disregarded. Not only were they disregarded, but the course of action that they recommended, diplomacy with the other actors in the region, a training force rather than an offensive force, these are things that we are going in the exact opposite direction. We didn't just discard it, we have gone opposite to what they recommended. I would say once again that this discussion is healthy. We have four of us here that have opinions, and there are a lot of opinions, and that is the way it should be. I would agree with the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) that I hope the same type of discussion is taking place on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Lou Falconi. Lou was born and raised in Farrell, Pennsylvania, a small steel town located in my district. After Lou attended college and served a tour of duty in Vietnam, he returned home to Farrell and began what would become a long and successful career as a teacher and a football coach. Named as the Farrell High School head football coach in 1980, Lou spent the next 27 years raising the spirits of Farrell residents through his team's excellence on the field. Lou compiled a career record of 210 wins versus 91 losses and 6 ties. Under Lou's leadership, the Farrell Steelers won two PIAA Class A State Championships, four WPIAL Championships, and a District 10 title. Lou was named Coach of the Year three times by the Pennsylvania Scholastic Football Coaches Associated and was recognized as Conference Coach of the Year eight times by his coaching peers. On June 19th, 2007, Lou received the ultimate reward for his distinguished career--an induction into the Pennsylvania Scholastic Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame. I want to commend Lou for his commitment to the community of Farrell both in the classroom and on the football field and congratulate him on this well deserved achievement.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brittany Hulings, who has been selected as a 2007 Presidential Scholar. Ms. Hulings lives in Sewickley Hills, Pennsylvania and recently graduated from Quaker Valley High School. She is an exemplary citizen and a wonderful example of what our students are capable of achieving. Since 1964, the Presidential Scholars program has honored the nation's most distinguished graduating high school seniors. Applicants are judged based on their performance in the classroom, their commitment to the ideals of service and their aptitude for leadership. Recipients must excel in all of these areas. Earning this recognition is so competitive that of the over 3 million seniors who graduated this year, only 141 were chosen as Presidential Scholars. In addition to her excellent academic record, Ms. Hulings has distinguished herself as a student athlete. Due to both her scholastic achievements and her skills as a golfer, she was selected as the Pittsburgh First Tees Scholar for 2007, and she also earned the Pritchett Young Ventures Scholarship. She also boasts a proven record of service, having been active in the state YMCA. I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize Ms. Hulings's exceptional achievement of becoming a Presidential Scholar. Additionally, I would also like to recognize Ms. Hulings's parents, teachers, coaches and other role models, whom I am sure played a significant role in molding such a remarkable young woman.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the faculty and staff of Pine-Richland Middle School in Gibsonia, Pennsylvania. Pine- Richland Middle School was recently given the extraordinary honor of being designated as a School to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, a distinction bestowed upon only 34 middle schools nationwide this year. In order to become recognized as a School to Watch, middle schools must meet rigorous criteria set forth by the National Forum. To comply with these standards, schools must not only promote academic excellence among their students, but also provide adolescents with an environment that is sensitive to and supportive of their particular developmental needs. Additionally, schools must ensure that their resources are used equitably to assist and challenge students at all levels of achievement. By earning recognition as a School to Watch, Pine-Richland Middle School has demonstrated its commitment to providing the best possible education to every one of its students. I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize the talented faculty and staff who earned this award. Every day, they dedicate themselves to the task of producing enlightened students and virtuous citizens. I commend them for their work and wish them continued success.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, President Bush said this week that there are important differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending, and he's right, because for 6 years, President Bush joined with Republicans that led this Congress on the most fiscally irresponsible budget policies in the history of the Nation. They turned the record surpluses of the 1990s into the record deficits we face today, and while they ran up those record deficits, inconceivably they cut medical research. They cut Head Start, they cut clean water programs, and they cut health care for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget balances the budget within 5 years, and our appropriations bills comply with pay-as-you-go scoring. We passed Homeland Security and Military Construction and Veterans appropriations bills last week, and this week we'll pass an Energy and Water bill that includes renewable fuel and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the President's right; we do have different priorities on Federal spending.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Zero. That is correct.

Mr. ALTMIRE. It means we as the Congress are doing the same thing the American people have to do in their own home. Checkbooks, you have to have money on one side of the ledger if you want to spend it on another. That is something this Congress has not done.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Zero times in 12 years. Now, interestingly, you'd say, well, it must be difficult to do then. Maybe it's not often that we're able to do this. Does the gentlewoman from Florida wish to venture a guess on the last time that the budgets were all completed on time and the appropriations were completed by October 1 in their entirety?

Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman and Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I did want to make clear, just for anyone who is watching this debate, that all of these bills that the President is threatening to veto over spending are compliant with pay-as-you-go policy. That is critical.

Mr. ALTMIRE. That is 30somethingDems@mail.house.gov.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. Same to you. I had a wonderful Father's Day with my two children, and I'm happy to be back on this Monday night. And I did want to add some levity to the evening, because people watch late night television. We're here; it's after 11:00. And the gentleman perfectly set me up by talking about the President's radio address. So I wanted to read a quote from the President's radio address that, for those that know history and for those that don't, I'm going to remind them of some of the history. They're going to find this quote to be quite entertaining. And this is the President's radio address. ``In the weeks ahead, my administration will continue pushing for earmark reform and holding the line on Federal spending. The American people do not want a return to the days of tax and spend policies. They expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.'' Now, certainly, we don't disagree with that statement, but for those that understand the history of this administration, they can understand why some of us might be amused to hear the President saying such a thing, because I would remind my colleagues, if they need reminding, that prior to President Bush taking office, the 4 years immediately before his term, his first term, we had had 4 consecutive years of budget surplus, surpluses that were forecast as far as the eye can see. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office scored the 10-year projection of surplus at over $5 trillion of surplus. So President Bush comes into office, there's every reason to expect these surpluses are going to continue. Well, what have we seen in the 6-plus years that this President has been this office? Well, we've seen six consecutive budget deficits, deficits that before the Democrats retook control of Congress, were forecast as far as the eye can see. And this has been the biggest spending administration in over the past 6 years before this year, the biggest spending Congresses in the history of this country. So for the President to get on the radio and come before audiences and lecture the Democrats on fiscal responsibility, and I would re-read that last statement on what he says the American people expect, ``They expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.'' Well, over the course of that 6 years, the President added $3.5 trillion to the national debt. Now, keep in mind what I said earlier, that the projection before he took office was, over the 10-year period, we would have over $5 trillion in surplus. But, instead, in just 6 years, he had an $8 trillion turnaround, from $5 trillion on the plus side to $3 trillion on the deficit side. And I would suggest, if you had said to an economist going into that term, figure out a way that this is possible, how can a President, using economic policy, working with the Republican-controlled Congress, have a $8 trillion swing from surplus to deficit, most economists would have said, oh, that's impossible. You can't possibly mismanage the economy in such a way that you could have that poor of an outcome. Well, unfortunately, we have. So here, again, to have this President lecture this Congress on fiscal responsibility is simply inconsistent with the facts. He also references earmarks in the appropriations process. And we do have Ms. Wasserman Schultz here, a member of the Appropriations Committee. And I know she will have something to say about this as well. But I wanted to remind my colleagues about the history of the 12 years that the Republicans were in control of this House, from 1995 through 2006. Well, for that 12-year period, the 12 budget cycles that we had, I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to venture a guess, how many times in those 12 years do you think the Republican Congress finished the appropriations process on time? How many times were all the appropriations bills completed by October 1, which, under statute, is the beginning of the fiscal year? The gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. ALTMIRE. On our very first day in Congress, it was this Congress that reinstated the pay-as-you-go. As a result, all of these appropriations bills that the President is threatening to veto, for the first time in 6 years, these appropriations bills are compliant with PAYGO. They say simply, as I said, you have to have money on one side to pay for it on the other. If you want to increase spending, or decrease revenue, for that matter, you have to find an offset to pay for it on the other side of the ledger. That is what the President is talking about vetoing. Specific to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we passed last week, I just wanted to talk a little bit about immigration. Boy, we hear a lot about immigration, around the country on talk radio. I am sure each of you in your Florida districts hear about it. I can promise you in my Western Pennsylvania district, I hear more about immigration than I hear about any other issue, and there is not even a close second. It is an important issue. It is an issue for a lot of people that we have illegal immigrants coming across the border. And for anyone who is talking about this Homeland Security bill that is concerned about that issue, I want to tell you that in this bill we have money for fencing. The speaker before us had his prop out where he was showing about building a fence along the border. This bill has money to build the fence. This bill has money for new technologies for detection of immigrants, illegal immigrants coming across the borders. This bill has increased border agents and security agents that are able to enforce our laws, 3,000 new border agents along our southern border with Mexico. It has new detention beds. We have a catch-and-release program where we don't have the capacity to hold on to folks that we are catching on the southern border, so we simply release them. This bill has money to stop that practice with new border agents and new detention beds. So for anyone that is watching this debate that is concerned about immigration and thinks we need to secure the boarders, we agree, and we passed a bill to make that happen. That is the bill the President is threatening to veto. We also have port and aviation security measures. We have a situation where as a result of 9/11 we have to be very concerned about our aviation security, certainly, and our port security. We have money in this bill to increase our security on both of those. That is what the President is threatening to veto. We have increased the money available for first responders. The President cut by 55 percent firefighter funding. So anyone who is concerned about firefighters, can you think of a more worthy commitment for our Federal spending priorities than the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single day here at home to keep us safe and are doing it on a voluntary basis through the fire department? The President cut that funding by 55 percent in his budget. Well, we restored that, because our priorities say that we should find that money, and through pay-as-you-go we did find the money to pay for that. But we put that money back in for our firefighters and our police, our first responders. Lastly, before I turn it over to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, who can speak as a member of the Appropriations Committee, this is so important. This bill ensures our tax dollars are spent wisely with the requirement for competitive bidding on contracts. Now, anyone who has followed what happened in the Homeland Security arena over the past several years, and certainly that includes Katrina and the fiasco that took place with the no-bid contracts thereafter along the Gulf Coast, knows how important it is to ensure that our tax dollars are spent in a responsible and fiscally rational way. We do that through the requirement that we do competitive bidding on contracts which has been in very short supply over the past 6 years. So that is what is in this bill. We secure our borders. We put money into detection and prevention and detention of illegal immigrants. We secure our aviation, our airplanes and our airports. We secure our ports. We put money in for first responders. That is what the Homeland Security bill does, and that is what the President is threatening to veto.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I just want to remind our colleagues who are with us tonight and watching us tonight that this is about preventing the Democrats from a legislative victory. It is not about the budget because this is compliant with pay-as-you-go rules. I was amused in listening to the gentlewoman from Florida when I thought about what one of the major Republican Presidential candidates said recently, ``The Democrats don't understand terrorism.'' The gentlewoman went through a very lengthy list of things that we have done here in the first 6 months on homeland security and on terrorism, and the fact that the President is threatening to veto many of those initiatives. I would ask the question rhetorically, who among us, the Democrats or Republicans, don't understand terrorism? I think we are the ones putting forward initiative after initiative after initiative compliant with PAYGO rules to prevent terrorist attacks, as much as it is possible to do that, and to address these issues in a way that has not been done. It has languished for years. The 9/11 Commission recommendations were put forward in 2003. Here we are 4 years later. September 11 took place nearly 6 years ago. We still have not implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and that is indefensible. I would just say to anyone who says it is the Democrats who don't understand terrorism to take a look at the list that the gentlewoman has put forward that we have done in only 6 months after these initiatives have languished year after year. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, for more information, if they would like to learn, of course you can go to Speaker.gov/30something, or there is now a link on the Speaker's Web site to the 30-something Working Group of which the three of us are members as well as Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ryan and others. So that site is www.speaker.gov, click on the 30-something icon and you can learn more about the issues and see the charts, even the gentleman's Velcro chart which is now missing.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Right. In the 1994 year, the Democratic Congress, the last year the Democrats controlled Congress, the Democrats were able to complete all the budget bills, all the appropriations bills on time. The last time it has happened. Then we had 12 years of Republican rule in this Congress, in this House, and we had 12 consecutive years where the appropriations bills were not completed on time. So it should be no surprise to any of my colleagues and other outside observers that the Republicans are not anxious to see the Democrats come back into power and right away pass all 12 appropriations bills in a timely fashion. So I was not surprised, and I suspect others were not surprised, to see the extraordinary delaying tactics that we saw take place in this House last week, with continual and repeated procedural motions, motions to rise. And those of us that sat here at 2 o'clock in the morning on that night, we realized that this was not about substance. This was not about policy. This was merely about denying the Democrats a legislative victory because the last thing those on the other side would want is for us to come in and right away pass the appropriations bills on time, which hasn't happened since 12 years ago when we last controlled Congress. And, lastly, the President mentions earmarks. His quote again: ``In the weeks ahead, my administration will continue pushing for earmark reform.'' Well, what has been the history of earmarks under the Republican Congress? Let's go back to that 12-year period, and I know the gentlewoman knows the answer; so I will spare you the question this time. In 1994, that last year that the Democrats controlled Congress, there were 4,000 earmarks, approximately, in all the spending bills combined for $26 billion. That is what they represented. Now, that sounds like a lot and it is a lot. It is a lot of earmarks and it is a lot of money. Well, let's compare that to last year, the last year the Republicans controlled Congress. These were the people, you recall, that last week were decrying the use of earmarks and talking about how unfair it was how the Democrats were approaching it, and we have a President now who says he is going to continue pushing for earmark reform, ``continue'' being the operative word there. Well, when you hear the word ``continue,'' let's thing think about what happened last year. Now, recall in 1994, 4,000 earmarks, $26 billion. Last year, 2006, 16,000 earmarks, unprecedented, the highest in the history of the country, $64 billion of earmarks, compared to $26 billion in 1994. So here again, please spare us the lecture about fiscal responsibility and accountability in the appropriations process and certainly as it pertains to earmarks. We have had, over the past 6 years of this administration and over the past 12 years of Republican leadership in this Congress, the biggest-spending Congress and administration in the history of the country. They spent more money, they ran up bigger deficits, they used more earmarks for more money than any Congress and any administration in the history of the country. So please forgive me if I view with skepticism some of the President's comments over the weekend. And at this time I will now turn it over to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. ALTMIRE. They came into place in the 1990 budget agreement.

Mr. ALTMIRE. They were allowed to expire, and that led to the record deficits of the past 6 years that I talked about earlier.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I can understand why there would be some confusion on the other side about why we would need to move these appropriations bills in a timely manner because, yes, the fiscal year starts October 1. So what is the urgency, I'm hearing. I can understand why there is a lack of recognition of the urgency because in the 12 years, Mr. Chairman, that the Republican Party controlled this House, they were able to complete all the appropriations bills on time exactly zero times. They were unable to do it any time in the 12 years they controlled this House. So, yes, I understand there is some confusion about the process and why it is important to get these bills out on time. If anyone is interested, the last time that all the appropriations bills were completed on time was 1994, which perhaps, by coincidence, was the last time the Democrats controlled the process in this House. So we do understand the urgency of getting these bills done on time; and we do understand that October 1 is going to be here and we need to complete work on these bills. Certainly, what has happened in the House the last couple of days, and I would expect is going to happen over the remaining course of the week, and perhaps months, does not bode well for our ability to do that because we are facing a lot of obstruction. I think it would be instructive to talk about what is actually in this bill rather than talk about the procedural gimmickry which is going on to prevent us from passing this bill. The bipartisan Homeland Security Appropriations bill provides critical funding to improve the Nation's homeland security and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which have languished for more than 4 years now. One of the first things we did in the first hours of this House was to vote to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This bill moves us in that direction; it enables us to do that with the funding that is required. I don't think that is something that should wait any longer. We have already waited 4 years from those recommendations. We have waited almost 6 years since 9/11 to see this take place. This legislation strengthens border security. I hear a lot of talk about border security and immigration. This bill provides emergency first responders with additional training and equipment, and improves aviation and port security, all important aspects of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We talk about immigration reform. This bill makes border security the top priority by devoting substantial resources to secure our borders not only against potential terrorists, but also to help stop the growing flood of illegal immigrants entering our country each and every day, totaling more than 12 million at this time. In this bill, we invest in our Nation's most pressing security needs by hiring 3,000 additional border security agents. That's what we are talking about, we are going to secure the borders. We include $1 billion for fencing. I think that is as important to people on the other side of the aisle as it is to people on our side of the aisle. I don't know why they're delaying this; that $1 billion goes to fencing infrastructure and technology along the U.S.-Mexican border. We commit $2.1 billion to illegal immigrant detention and removal. We hear about this ``catch and release'' program as part of the immigration debate. This bill stakes a step in solving that problem. We are in the process of debating that. Let's get it done. Let's stop all the delaying tactics. Let's get this bill done. This bill provides $550 million in State homeland security grants which are used to hire, train, retain and equip emergency first responders. Is there anyone in this House who doesn't think that's an important priority that we should make a priority and get this bill through the legislative process? This bill increases funding for firefighter assistance grants. Unfortunately, the President recommended a 55 percent reduction. We put that money back in because I don't know that we can come up with any more important segment of our society than our firefighters, the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day here at home to keep us safe. We improve aviation security by doubling the amount of cargo screening on passenger aircraft, another key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. So these are not things that should be delayed. We invest in port security by providing $400 million in grants to improve critical port facilities and infrastructure. And this Homeland Security Appropriations bill includes strong oversight measures to ensure careful spending of taxpayer dollars. I want you all to hear that: It eliminates the wasteful, no-bid contracts that have led to billions of dollars in losses.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is give our brave men and women who respond to emergencies the tools and resources they need to protect our communities. I can think of no better way to show the American people that we are committed to this. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Reclaiming my time, that has not been the case. The House has not completed its work. These bills were not finished and implemented by October 1.

Mr. ALTMIRE. The last time they were implemented on time was 1994.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, after years of neglect, this House is finally going to take up a VA funding bill that honors our commitment to our Nation's veterans. In contrast to the chronic underfunding that the VA has seen in recent years, this bill that we are going to talk about today has the largest increase in VA health care spending in the 77-year history of the program. And for the first time, this bill exceeds the recommended funding level of the service organizations, the American Legion and the VFW. Democrats continue to demonstrate our commitment that no group should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to make Federal funding decisions. This bill will help us clear up the 400,000-case backlog at the VA. It is going to help us avoid issues like what happened at Walter Reed, and it will give our veterans the care that they earned and the care that they deserve.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ALTMIRE

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 354 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) to recognize the year 2007 as the official 50th anniversary celebration of Lake Sidney Lanier. Congress first authorized the construction of Buford Dam in 1946 as one project in a comprehensive plan to develop our Nation's water resources for the purposes of national defense, power production, flood control, navigation, and water supply. The first groundbreaking for construction occurred on March 1, 1950, and on June 17, 1957, the first hydropower was produced by the generators of the dam. Today, Lake Lanier provides power production, flood control, water supply, navigation, fish and wildlife management, and recreational activities to members of the surrounding communities and businesses. This week in June is a suitable time to recognize Lake Lanier's contributions to the area and accomplishments. As summer heat begins to spread across the Nation, both water supply and cooling water recreational activities are on many minds. More than 60 percent of the population of the State of Georgia relies on water stored in Lake Lanier or down the Chattahoochee River. Similarly, properties around the lake and down the river rely on its banks and dam for flood control. Nearly 8 million visitors come annually to appreciate the scenery and leisure opportunities provided by the lake. In fact, Lake Lanier holds the title of the most-visited Army Corps lake in the entire country. Facilities include 10 marinas and 57 parks for swimming, boating, fishing and picnicking. In 1996, Lake Lanier hosted the paddling and rowing competitions for the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. And several years ago, the Marine Trade Association of Metro Atlanta found that Lake Lanier has an economic impact of $5.5 billion. I urge my colleagues to join with me and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) in supporting House Resolution 354 to honor the impacts, accomplishments and continuing success of Lake Lanier on its 50th anniversary. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 354) to recognize the year 2007 as the official 50th anniversary celebration of the beginnings of marinas, power production, recreation, and boating on Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia.