Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I know the gentleman has worked hard to try to perfect the language in this amendment; but as we see it, very clearly the gentleman's amendment scores at zero. So it would, in essence, not have the effect the gentleman is hoping to have on the WRP program, but it will cost $82 million in cuts. This is for a program that the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture cited for $159 million in overpayments over 5 years. So I am glad to see that mismanagement does not bother the gentleman from Minnesota, but it certainly bothers me and other Members of this body. Again, there is a technicality here that we have a problem with, as we have had some professional staff review this language over and over again. So I would ask the gentleman, since his amendment would not accomplish what he is trying to accomplish, if he would withdraw the amendment and perhaps seek a different remedy.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order and claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. The gentlewoman's time has expired, I realize, but just this comment that she is correct, that this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Congress, and I would encourage Members to address these concerns.

Mr. BONILLA. I would be happy to yield briefly.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman presents a good amendment, and we will be happy to offer support for him if the gentleman can submit his remarks and move the amendment to a vote.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like claim time in opposition, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This Congress was the first one in a generation last year to cut discretionary spending. The gentleman's amendment also does not do one thing to reduce spending in the bill. Yes, it would remove language for the particular project that the gentleman is referencing, but then that money would be reverted back to the Federal agency, to whatever office disseminates this money, and then it would be left to some career bureaucrat to make the decision. Now, there are a lot of professionals that work at that level, but I for the life of me could not understand why we would leave all of those decisions up to the Federal agencies. Let me also say that this bill, aside from the discretionary spending we cut last year as fiscal conservatives, we cut this bill almost $100 million from last year, and the ``earmarks'' that are being referenced in this debate only make up 2 percent of this bill. So for all the grandiose statements that are being made here about being a champion of fiscal conservatism, big deal. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would only briefly say again that a vote to support this amendment does not a single thing to cut spending in this bill and would just turn over all the decision-making process to a government agency. The Constitution calls for the House of Representatives to decide how funds are allocated, and I am a great believer in that. I urge all Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, again just for clarification, I would ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read so we understand which amendment is before us.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments remaining, with the exception of the last one, be read, just so we know which one we are dealing with, because we have a stack of papers we are looking at.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, the gentleman who is proposing this amendment somehow thinks that this is going to save money in the bill. Let me point out also, in addition to the remarks I made earlier about cutting discretionary spending and cutting this bill back this year, there have also been cuts in this bill where funding for the Member priorities are down $35 million or 8 percent from last year. So the effort to deal with fiscal conservatism is ongoing and continues from last year when we started cutting discretionary spending. We also terminate eight Federal programs for a savings of more than $4 million. So anyone who thinks that we are not concerned about fiscal conservatism can look at the facts and figures before them. And we understand that the media likes to talk about Member priorities, but I would suggest that anyone who is truly serious and is not looking for recognition would work on entitlement reform, which is where the vast majority of our government funds go to, and that would really make a big mark on cutting back on spending, not amendments such as this one that do not cut one penny out of this bill. And I hope our colleagues and the constituents that are watching this are not somehow fooled into thinking that this amendment cuts one penny out of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, Members come to the floor and offer amendments that have either substantive increases or decreases to appropriations bills. I use as an example a sincere Member from the State of Colorado, comes here every year with an amendment to cut spending that has a true impact on the bill. Whether he succeeds or not, there are votes held on that and honest debate is held. But, again, when amendments are presented in this form, there is no savings. Anyone who suggests that there is a savings in writing amendments like this is a fool, because they are not cutting a single penny from the appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, to begin the position of those opposed, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).