Daniel Webster

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. WEBSTER. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. No. I am ready to close.

Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 357 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2553, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV. So far in the 112th Congress, three short-term extensions have been signed into law to allow for the continued aviation trust fund revenue collections and aviation program authority necessary to operate America's airports. The latest short-term extension expires this Friday, July 22. H.R. 2553 would extend the program for a little less than 2 months, until September 16. The bill maintains current funding levels for FAA, its employees, and airports around the country. The bill includes two simple Essential Air Service (EAS) reform provisions, one of which has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Both the House and Senate have passed separate versions of multiyear reauthorization bills, so this short-term extension will hopefully give the House and Senate the time needed to work out the differences between the two bills so we can stop kicking the can down the road. To say that, that is exactly what we are doing. For starters, this is the 21st extension of the FAA program since the last reauthorization. We have been at this exact juncture 20 other times. The last reauthorization, shepherded by Chairman Mica, was over 7\1/2\ years ago. That is a long time. Since September 30, 2007, the FAA has been operating on a series of short-term, stopgap extensions. Quite simply, it is time to stop doing this. It is too much. The safety of our airline passengers is something we ought to take into consideration and pass a necessary, meaningful and long-term FAA reauthorization. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has worked to provide us yet another short-term extension which will ensure the continued safety of airline passengers, with the hope that the Senate and the House can finally come to the table and realize a long-term reauthorization. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 357 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the people who might be watching this that we're talking about House Resolution 357, which is a rule that would allow us to reauthorize an extension of the Airport and Airway Extension Act, which is called H.R. 2553. That's our discussion. That's what we're talking about. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WEBSTER. In closing, I would like to address one thing about the change that's in this particular reauthorization, that of essential air service, which has basically become the government-funded corporate jet program. We've tried to reduce that. If you're a businessman and you live in a rural community, instead of being willing to drive an hour and a half to get on a plane at a medium- or small-sized hub, you're willing to have the government fund your airplane for you. It's basically a corporate member, somebody who has a business there. He gets on a jet, and to the tune of up to $3,720, we subsidize that. The taxpayers of this country subsidize that, so it's like a subsidized corporate jet. It's a sad thing. We want to reduce that. We'd like to do away with it, and a lot of us would like to do away with it altogether; but it would reduce that down to $1,000 instead of having to drive, maybe, an hour and a half to an airport. It's a sad thing. However, another sad thing is that we're here. I am sad about the fact that we're standing here on the floor once again to vote for another extension. I wish it had worked out. I wish we could get together, and I hope that happens in the next few weeks if we approve this. This extension is necessary to ensure continued safety for all who fly, be it for business or pleasure or for any other reason, in the American skies. I ask my colleagues to join me today and vote in favor of this rule and of passage of the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to address a couple of items: number one, the tax policy we've been talking about and how we could raise extra revenues. The tax policy we have today was given to us by the 111th Congress. I assume if they had wanted to change it, they would have when they had the majority. They didn't. They gave us the tax policy. We haven't gotten to that yet, but we will at some point in time. As far as the money we're using in this budget, it is a small decrease, but we have to do it. We're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar; $4.5 billion a day. We cannot afford it. If we were to increase the allocation in this particular bill, then we would actually be borrowing 100 percent of that allocation increase because we do not have the cash. So to me, we are here with a good bill. The rule certainly is a good rule. It's an open rule. It's the perfect opportunity for anybody that wants to change this bill to do so. However, the underlying bill is also a good bill. It's done very well. Just to give you a picture of what the minority said about it in their views that serve on the committee: ``We commend the chairmen, both the sub chair and the full chair, for their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities necessary to American competitiveness, and contributes to our national defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research and nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide us.'' There was a disagreement and that is over the allocation, but we simply cannot afford any more of an allocation for this than we have. The budget that was done is an excellent one under the circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, accountable, and transparent process. And the underlying bill went through regular order, including eight different subcommittee hearings. Several Democrat amendments were adopted on the committee level. It has provided an open rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer their ideas in open, honest debate. This vote is on the rule, which provides for an open, transparent process where the ideas and policies will rise and fall on the basis of their merit, not on their party affiliations. This is what the American people expect of their elected officials. It's an expectation that's being fulfilled by this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 337 provides for an open rule for consideration for H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority to participate in that debate. The rule places no limitations on the number of amendments that may be considered, as long as they comply with the rules of the House. This continues the Speaker's and the Rules chairman's desire and commitment to have transparency and openness, which was demanded by the American people. It's been a long time since we had this type of process, and it's great to have an open process. I think it helps with the partisanship that we have experienced. The underlying bill funds the Department of Energy, while also moving forward several ongoing construction and operation and maintenance efforts by the Corps of Engineers. It also provides $1.2 billion in emergency funding for the communities of the Midwest and South ravaged by tornadoes, storms, and floods earlier this year. $477 million is set aside for fossil energy research and development. Nearly three times the amount, $1.3 billion, is appropriated for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to ensure that we continue to move forward in developing next-generation power sources and fuels. Critical defense environmental cleanup efforts are funded at a total of $4.9 billion. This bill recognizes the importance of a long term nuclear waste disposal policy for the United States; $3.5 million is provided for nuclear waste disposal for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. Further, no funds in this bill will be used to shut down Yucca Mountain. Since 1983, taxpayers have spent over $15 billion for the construction of this facility, and this bill reasserts the sense of the body that Yucca Mountain is the future repository for nuclear waste. Is every program or project funded at the levels that we would like? Probably not. For example, long-awaited Federal funds for the Everglades effort in my home State of Florida are significantly pared back in this bill. I am sure almost every Member of this body could find some program, some project or effort that they would like to see plussed up. This is not a perfect world, however, and at the end of the day the funding levels in this bill represent only a 3.3 percent modest cut from last year. We have to scale back our spending. Appropriations in the last Congress accrued about $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. That's the largest ever. We borrow about $4.5 billion every day. And we just have to pare back. Will the cuts made in this bill alone right our Nation's fiscal ship? No, but it's a start. It moves the rudder; maybe a half a degree, but it does move the rudder to turn it around. The bill changes the way Washington has spent taxpayers' money in the past. For example, there are no earmarks in this bill. Also, because this bill is being considered in an open rule, any Member can offer an amendment to increase or decrease funding levels. Again, a 3.3 percent cut to the Department of Energy and Corps of Engineers budget will not solve all of our Nation's fiscal problems, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Given our current budget situation, the Appropriations Committee has worked diligently to provide us with a fiscally responsible bill that allows Congress to begin living within its means, just like American families and businesses are forced to do every day. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my colleague on the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER

Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority party to participate in that debate. The rule places no limitation on the number of amendments that may be considered as long as they comply with the House rules. Similar to the open rule that was passed yesterday on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the only differences are in section 2 of this rule: it does allow for a separate vote on a title addressing the Department of Veterans Affairs. In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce the so-called omnibus bill and give Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill. Part of the Speaker's and Rules Committee chairman's commitment is to have a more open and transparent process. In the end, that is what this does. This is an open rule that allows for debate and for amendments. I think every Member of the Congress was elected by a group of people in their district, citizens in their district, and they assumed that that Member would be able to come and debate and offer amendments to bills at will. Sometimes that is not the case, but it is the case this particular time. Every one of us who comes here, Republican or Democrat, liberal, moderate or conservative, comes with a desire of affecting public policy in a real way. The only way that can happen is when the process is more open and more honest and more transparent, and that is what this rule does for this particular bill. It has been a long time, yesterday being one of the first times, but a long time since we have considered an appropriation bill with an open rule. This bill has truly been, I would say, a bipartisan effort. It is one of the first times, and I am very delighted to present the underlying bill through this rule because it is such a bipartisan effort. Even the rule itself was adopted by unanimous consent by the Rules Committee, which is something I have not experienced in my first 5 months here. So that, too, is something very, very different. I think that is the way the process should work. I think we have got to work together. We have problems in this country, and they are deep problems. If we don't work together, we will never solve them. I think this may be a start of something that might be a little different than the way it has been. The Democrats on the Appropriations Committee said these things about this bill: the bill sufficiently funds critical military construction, family housing and quality-of-life improvements for our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The bill meets the needs of our military veteran communities for the coming year. That really states the purpose of this bill, and so to me, it has met the needs not only in the eyes of Democrats but also Republicans. Further, the care for our veterans and service men and women is not a partisan issue. It's not. It's proven out in this particular rule and this bill. I would like to stress that there are many programs funded at previous levels or above previous levels that have kept the promise made to our men and women in uniform. It increases the Veterans Affairs budget for things like veterans' benefits and health programs by $8.7 billion to $127.7 billion. It includes the full funding for VA compensation and benefits: education benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and housing programs. It contains $52 billion in advance funding for the VA. The same level passed in the House budget resolution for medical services, medical support, and compliance and medical facilities. This advance funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to their medical care needs regardless of where we stand in our annual appropriations process. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked to provide us with a fiscally responsible appropriations bill that promises to meet the needs of our military construction and our promises to the American veterans. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WEBSTER. Reclaiming my time, I will start where I left off. The vote on the rule, which provides an open and transparent process, which makes no limitations on amendments, where ideas and policies will rise and fall on their merits and their bases and debate and so forth, is an awesome opportunity for this House to speak its will, not just an up-or-down vote on one bill, but an up-or-down vote on amendment after amendment in order to perfect the bill. The clash of ideas is a good thing. And as we debate these ideas and we hear them on the floor of the House and then we have an opportunity to vote on them, it makes a good bill a better bill. This is what the American people expect from their elected officials. It is an expectation that is fulfilled by the rule and produced in the underlying bill. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill. For over two centuries, our U.S. military has protected America from both our enemies and the enemies of our friends. The valor and dignity and courage of our men and women in uniform remain strong. From Valley Forge to Desert Storm, from San Juan Hill to Operation Enduring Freedom, the fighting spirit of American soldiers shines throughout history. It is due to the lives selflessly lived and lost in defense of our country that we have the privilege to stand here today free and grateful. So thank you, veterans. And I, too, am glad that this happened just a few days after Memorial Day because it is a great way to remember the people that have given their lives for our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WEBSTER. I don't know.

Mr. WEBSTER. I do believe it's a good idea. And the reason I believe it's a good idea is because I think there was some angst about looking at a large package at one time, and this is just an opportunity to break it up. I don't think it changes anything. I think it gives us an opportunity to actually scrutinize in a better way.

Mr. WEBSTER. In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce so-called ``omnibus'' bills to a smaller, more understandable bill that gives Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill. I will tell you that I experienced the same thing. I used to be a leader of a group in Florida which was known as the House of Representatives. And as Speaker there, we did the same thing. It was the first time ever, and I always knew, a lot of people with questions, can you divide up the different appropriations and send them to a Senate who may have a smaller--yes, you can. And basically all we did was break up the conferences. The conferences stayed exactly the same. The Members were appointed, and two bills, let's say, instead of one were sent to a particular conference while the Senate added their one. And then they were combined at a later date and passed as a general appropriation act. So it can work, I promise you. I know it's new; I know it's different. You probably would question that there is something behind it----