Steve Womack

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Rob Woodall for yielding. When I was a kid, I couldn't wait for Saturday morning. Saturday morning in our house, my brothers and sisters, we would get up, and we couldn't wait to watch our favorite cartoons. Now, decades later, here I am again, on the floor of the House of Representatives, watching a cartoon about the only outcome this debate is going to have today: one of entertainment value, nothing substantive. The chairman of the Rules Committee called this a five-alarm fire. Now that the Democratic Convention has concluded and the Republican Convention is about to begin, we have a catastrophe. It is not going to build infrastructure. It is not going to give aid to people suffering from the pandemic. It is not going to fund the government by October 1. It is not going to become law. Just like the previous attempts, my friends on the other side of the aisle have had to derail a duly-elected President. This, too, will fail. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, born from the people, the work of Congress is an integral part of our Nation. Or is it? Judging from the legislation that is before us right now, I am not so sure. But tracing back to the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, 9/11, and many others, the House's business has never ceased, even in the toughest times in our country, and it should not cease today. But instead of working safely, bringing back Members to the House, Speaker Pelosi has decided to pursue proxy voting. Senators are back at work. Our military is on point right now defending our country in all corners of the world. Doctors, nurses, grocery workers, truck drivers, delivery personnel, they are showing up every day. They are not shirking from their duty. Shouldn't the House lead by example? New House procedures might very well be necessary, but any change to the centuries-old rules that could fundamentally alter this institution should never be done without bipartisan support. And we are not seeing that. This proposal runs counter to the Constitution, and it marginalizes, in my strong opinion, Mr. Speaker, the lawmaking process. We need transparency, accountability, not procedures that further centralize the decision-making of our country into the hands of a select few. We must get back to regular order, and this is not the path back to regular order.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say before I get to the contents of my remarks, not lost on me is the work that Mr. Cole is doing today as a Rules Committee member and managing the debate that we just had, managing this debate with Appropriations. He is a real iron man today, and I just want to publicly thank him for the longstanding work that he is doing in support of our work here today. Mr. Speaker, here we are in the people's House debating nothing more than a real partisan grab bag, and it is an expensive one. What we see as a crisis, Mr. Speaker, the other side sees as an opportunity to exert leverage: no collaboration, no transparency, no Republican input. They can't even wait until the trillions of dollars we have already spent is completely out the door before coming back for more. Why? Because this is not about a response to the coronavirus; it is about implementing an agenda. Many of the items in this bill were already part of the liberal agenda before we could even say ``coronavirus.'' What does the federalizing of elections have to do with COVID-19? What does the SALT deduction that has been a source of contention with the other side have to do with COVID-19? How about forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt? How did that get in the conversation with our response to coronavirus? The Postal Service bailout, multiemployer pensions--are you kidding me? Mr. Speaker, the people deserve better. This bill is not going anywhere, and they know it and we know it. It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that the conversations that are taking place today on this floor about this bill are being done behind a mask because no one can argue this with a straight face.

Mr. WOMACK. As I was saying, it is appropriate that we are having this conversation, in many respects, behind a mask, because there is nobody on this floor today who can argue with a straight face that many of the provisions in this bill that we are debating right now are related to coronavirus or have any sense of congressional urgency.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to the people we serve, and the moment is now to mitigate the damage to our people and our economy. For those who question the price tag, for those who question certain features in the bill, think of the images we have all seen that are unprecedented in our lifetimes: the senior citizen only able to see family members through a window; worse yet, Americans dying alone; the frontline medical professionals fighting an invisible disease, risking their very lives to bring hope to a frightened public; the businessman fighting to stay solvent, to keep a workforce, and to live to see another day; the scientists and engineers desperately searching for an answer. Who among us can question the crisis we are in and the needs of the people we serve? By midday today, Mr. Speaker, let us be remembered for taking the actions necessary to put aside our politics and deliver to the American people.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of David Glass. David was born in 1935 and grew up in Mountain View, Missouri. He joined the U.S. Army after high school and then earned a degree at Missouri State. He started a career in business, eventually making his way to Arkansas. He was hired by the famous Sam Walton in 1976 as the chief financial officer for Walmart, a young discount retailer at the time. Nobody knew then that his hiring would transform the company. An entrepreneur in his own right, David helped further unleash the potential of the organization. Under his leadership, Walmart grew exponentially and transformed from a rural chain into the international business we all know today. After succeeding Sam Walton as the chief executive officer of the company, he led the building of supercenters, introduced the sale of grocery items, helped develop automated distribution centers, and increased international acquisitions and operations. He advanced the company into the future while maintaining the founding principles of his predecessor, Sam Walton. He would never admit it, but much of the success of Walmart and the growth of our region is a reflection of the work of David Glass. His business expertise was rivaled only by his love of baseball. He famously helped keep the Kansas City Royals franchise from leaving Kansas City in 1993. Under his ownership, the team saw two American League pennants and a World Series trophy in 2015. His passion for the sport, the team, and the city helped bring success on the field. Whether in Arkansas or Kansas City, the contributions of David Glass will long be remembered. I had the privilege of knowing him, not only as an accomplished businessman and a novel thinker, but as a friend. I hope you will join me in celebrating his life, in praying for his wife, Ruth, and his children, Dan, Don, Dayna, and their families during the time of his passing. Recognizing the Life and Legacy of Forrest Wood

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of a legend in Arkansas business, the founder of Ranger Boats, the late Forrest Wood. Forrest was born in Flippin, Arkansas, in 1932, and his life reflected everything the Natural State has to offer. As a pioneer with a love for the outdoors, Forrest spent his time raising cattle and acting as a guide on Bull Shoals Lake, the White River, the Buffalo River, and Crooked Creek. He became known throughout the region as an elite fishing guide. He eventually leveraged his skills on the water to create a float trip business, and in 1968, he began building lake boats. That year, he built six boats. Named after the Army Rangers and the Texas Rangers, Forrest Woods' Ranger Boats quickly became a household name in America. He soon went from producing 6 to 600, and his novel concept became the modern bass boat that we know today. Forrest's ingenuity and vision transformed the boating and fishing industry across our Nation. No one I know has loved or served Arkansas' great outdoors more than Forrest Wood. Whether as an entrepreneur, instructor, or former chairman of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, he was committed to ensuring people enjoy the outdoors for generations to come. He will forever be remembered as a legend in the fishing industry, and I believe his biggest asset was his redeeming personality. A loyal friend, mentor, and dedicated family man, his genuine smile and caring nature will be sorely missed. Mr. Speaker, as he is laid to rest this week, I ask that we keep his wife, Nina, and the entire Wood family in our prayers.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this moment. Mr. Speaker, years from now, history books will tell of this day. It will tell of a purely partisan effort to remove the President of the United States, an effort not built on a high crime or misdemeanor, not on a process in keeping with the high American standard of due process and equal treatment. This effort is rooted only in the governing party's hatred of a man elected President of the United States. Members on the other side of the aisle have been in pursuit of this moment since 2016. They are consumed by it. Earlier in this debate, one of our colleagues referred to our President as a ``domestic enemy.'' Our Founders warned us about this day. That is why our Nation has entrusted the future of the country with the outcome of elections, not the will of a party filled with contempt for a duly elected President. My hope is that, when historians write about this day, it is not written in the context of a nation that lost its way because its elected Members chose hateful partisanship over the sacred oath that has protected this great Republic since its founding.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life, service, and sacrifice of a hero from the Third District of the great State of Arkansas, Fayetteville Police Officer Stephen Carr. On Saturday, December 7, Officer Carr was preparing to begin another shift of keeping his community safe when he was cowardly ambushed and executed, most likely because of the uniform he wore. We have lost one of our finest law enforcement officers, someone who dedicated his life to serving Arkansas and defending others. Officer Carr made it his mission to make our State a safer place for everyone. Officer Carr served as a protector, promoted peace and justice, and demonstrated the valor and integrity that the uniform embodies. Our hearts are broken as we grieve this unthinkable loss. Today, we vow never to forget his memory and pledge to honor his life of service forever. I join all of Arkansas this morning in the mourning of the loss of Officer Stephen Carr. Our prayers are with his family, his loved ones, and the Fayetteville Police Department. I also recognize Corporal Seay Floyd and Officer Natalie Eucce, who immediately engaged and eliminated the suspect. Our police deserve our deepest respect and gratitude. While they know the risks they face are greater than ever, they refuse to shy away from their mission to protect and serve. Stephen Carr was a native of The Woodlands, Texas. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague Representative Kevin Brady would have been on this floor this morning to offer his condolences to the family, a family that he knew personally, but because of a markup in the Ways and Means Committee, he is unable to be on the floor with me this morning. Mr. Speaker, if it please the House, I would like to ask for a moment of silence for Officer Carr, who will be laid to rest tomorrow, and, in fact, for all of our heroes who have faced the end of watch.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for yielding and for her leadership. I, too, am concerned about the direction we are heading in this continuing resolution, but I have another reason, Mr. Speaker. This CR includes a provision that has a significant budgetary impact. I am frustrated that the amendment I filed with the Rules Committee last night was not made in order to address it. My amendment would have offset $76 billion in mandatory spending increases from repealing a rescission of funds in the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act, a transportation bill. This provision, Mr. Speaker, would have a significant impact on mandatory spending, which everybody in this Chamber knows is driving the Nation's deficits and debt. Let me be clear: The amendment would have allowed for the highway funding to take place but simply called for it to be paid for. Now, I don't think that is asking too much, to ask for increases in spending, given the fact that we will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year on top of the $23 trillion debt, to just simply pay for the excesses. The House should have had an opportunity to consider whether to offset the funding in a fiscally responsible manner, in my opinion. I find it troubling that we were not given that opportunity. That is one thing. The manner in which the CR was assembled doesn't provide a great deal of hope that we will enact a full-year defense spending bill, which the military so desperately needs right now. I share the concerns of the distinguished majority leader. Mr. Speaker, I am not optimistic that we will conclude all of these other funding bills before the expiration of the next CR. The difference is going to be that it is going to be the 20th of December. It is going to be right before Christmas, and we will do whatever we can to get out of town to go celebrate the holidays. The majority leader says if that happens, he will be mad. My recommendation to him is to prepare to be mad. I know how this place works. Mr. Speaker, is it not apparent to the discerning people of America and specifically to the people in this Chamber that this is a flawed and broken process and that we need to fix it?

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, we need to fix it. I spent last year with the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey, as co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform. We got really close on some good ideas that would fundamentally change the way we do our Article I responsibility, but we left all that at the altar. What more evidence do we need to show that this process is flawed, that it is broken and needs to be fixed? I am frustrated. The American people are frustrated. Nobody paying attention to this process conducts their business or their personal finances the way this body does, the legislative body of the most incredible country ever known to humankind. Yet the question today is: Will we just kick the can down the road to right before Christmas in hopes that this Congress is going to have some epiphany that we have to do the work that we have been trying to do for the last 7 weeks? We are 7 weeks into the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, I had breakfast this morning with the Secretary of the Army, and here is what he said: Eventually, we will give you the money, our men and women in uniform. The problem is that we can't give you the time back. That time is running through the clock, so I am frustrated. I am prepared to vote ``no,'' and I am prepared to continue to work as long as it takes to make sure that we do our work on time and not kick the can down the road.

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, to no surprise of my friend from Oregon. Let me help him a little bit with how I give opposition in context. As the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me just to consider how we are going to get soybeans out of Arkansas as the sole limiting factor on how we budget. It is important, it is important to my producers, but at the end of the day, we are $23 trillion in debt. The deficit this year, to add to that $23 trillion, is expected to approach $1 trillion. H.R. 2440 would disrupt the recently enacted budget agreement. Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that we did months of negotiation on some agreement to keep the government open and operating. This body established discretionary spending caps for the next 2 years with the passage of the bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. The bill before us today breaches that law; it increases that deficit. So my question is: What was the point of us going through that arduous process of negotiating a bipartisan, bicameral agreement with the President so that, just 3 months later, we could shoot a $10 billion hole in it? This bill would increase the deficit by up to $10 billion, which I believe is unacceptable, given our fiscal condition. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual deficit this year will be $1 trillion, adding to the already $23 trillion in debt. Now, let me be clear. I acknowledge that there are structural budgetary challenges associated with the harbor maintenance trust fund. They need to be fixed. I think everyone agrees that this is not fair that our shippers are required to pay a tax for harbor maintenance but then the funds can't be spent on the very service they are supposed to provide. That, we can agree on. The work that is done on our ports is critical to both American jobs and the economy. We need to fix the flaws in the maintenance trust fund to ensure this essential work can be done; however, this bill is not the answer. It is not a long-term solution. It is just a quick fix. I would like to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to assess not only the harbor maintenance trust fund, but also all government trust funds to evaluate their funding mechanisms to ensure they make sense and operate as intended. H.R. 2440 is merely an effort to spend more money without offsets, bust the caps, resulting in an increase to the deficit of about $10 billion. There is also a determined opposition in the United States Senate. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Enzi and I have released the following joint statement in opposition to H.R. 2440. It reads: The bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased spending caps for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, was enacted less than 3 months ago. Instead of prioritizing additional funding for harbor maintenance activities under this agreement, H.R. 2440 would further increase spending by as much as $10 billion over the next 2 years. This approach is irresponsible. It would not provide a lasting solution. With annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion for the foreseeable future, Congress should be focused on reducing the deficit rather than increasing it. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2440 is fiscally irresponsible, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, in our process, it is not as simple as ``just spend the money.'' It has to go through a process. We call it the appropriations process, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware of it, having served on the Appropriations Committee. Here is the deal: The budget agreement is indifferent as to the source of that money, whether it is a harbor maintenance trust fund issue or whether it is spending that is borrowed from China or from the international bond market. It is indifferent to it. It goes through the same process. This blows a $10 billion hole in the deficit that is just 3 months away from the agreement that we had 3 months ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), my friend and my colleague on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, with the numbers we are facing--trillion- dollar deficits and $23 trillion in debt--what is another $10 billion? Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Congress needs to start making the tough decisions. The responsibility is at our feet. It is in Article I of the Constitution, that same Constitution we all took an oath to in January. And I am not talking about tough decisions regarding the harbor maintenance trust fund by itself. I am talking about a lot of programs, all programs, mandatory spending programs. And an inconvenient truth, Mr. Speaker, is this: As a percentage of our economy, mandatory spending is going higher. Discretionary spending, the money we are talking about today, is getting lower. I wish my friend from Oregon would bring the same passion to the floor that he brings on the harbor maintenance trust fund to actually righting the ship on spending in the country as a whole to include solutions to the mandatory spending programs that continue to skyrocket totally unchecked by the Congress. I want more money for education. I want more money for science and healthcare. And I want more money for harbor maintenance. I have backlogs in my own district. But it needs to be prioritized. This discussion should have taken place 3 months ago. In fact, it did. There were other issues addressed in the negotiation for the budget caps that we operate under today. May I remind my friend from Oregon that we had a long talk about the Census. It made it in. We discussed harbor maintenance. We discussed VA MISSION, Mr. Speaker, and that was in excess of $20 billion. But, somehow, we were able to get it beneath the caps. At the end of the day, only one of those negotiating topics actually made it into the discussion. So now here we are, expected to relitigate the other cap adjustments. What other types of spending will folks want to give special privilege to? Proponents are saying we don't get what we want so let's just bust the caps. That is a dangerous precedent. It should never be considered in the same context as overseas contingency and disaster spending, which we all know operate above the caps. It would behoove us to take note of organizations that have expertise in the state of our Nation's fiscal well-being and their opinion. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National Taxpayers Union that says, among other things, in urging a ``no'' vote on the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act, the Congress of the United States should be asking for healthier trust funds, not weakening those trust funds. National Taxpayers Union, Washington, DC, October 28, 2019. NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 2440, the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act. This legislation would lead to higher federal spending, exempt the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from discretionary caps, and potentially draw down the $9 billion surplus in the HMTF. Lawmakers should oppose this proposal, and pursue legislation that strengthens caps on discretionary spending rather than weakening them. H.R. 2440 would add the HMTF to a special, narrow group of spending categories that are exempt from Budget Control Act (BCA) caps. Currently, that list is limited to emergency and overseas contingency operations (OCO) spending, disaster relief, continuing disability reviews and redeterminations, health care fraud and abuse control, reemployment services and eligibility assessments, and wildfire suppression. Despite the pending expiration of BCA caps on discretionary spending, the bill's supporters have failed to make the case that HMTF belongs in the same category of exempt spending as disaster relief and OCO. CBO has scored H.R. 2440 as having no impact on direct spending, revenues, or the deficit, but this is a misleading analysis. As NTU Foundation pointed out in June, the sponsors of the legislation ``wrote that it would provide for an additional $34 billion in funds for harbors. Despite the obvious motivation to use HMTF as a vehicle for spending hikes, CBO's zero score reflects a myopic reading of the bill.'' This intention is also made clear in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report on H.R. 2440, which states, ``[t]his change would enable the investment of approximately $34 billion over the next decade from the HMTF for the intended purpose of maintaining Federally-authorized harbors.'' Policymakers should want strong surpluses in taxpayer- backed trust funds. At a time when the Social Security and Medicare Part A trust funds are facing insolvency, Congress should not be passing legislation that strains one of America's healthier trust funds. If lawmakers want to spend a higher portion of HMTF' s annual revenues, they should do so by having harbor maintenance needs compete with other priorities considered by Congress each year, rather than carving out a caps exemption for HMTF. Passing this legislation will only encourage special interests to seek additional exemptions for their priorities. NTU strongly urges Representatives to oppose H.R. 2440 in its current form. Roll call votes on H.R. 2440 will be included in our annual Rating of Congress and a ``NO'' vote will be considered the pro-taxpayer position.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an old saying, and my dad, who grew up on a Yellow County, Arkansas, farm says it to me often. He says: Son, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. Mr. Speaker, if we pass H.R. 2440, we will have added yet another shovel full of deficit to our Nation's fiscal situation. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WOMACK

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the most fundamental duties of Congress is to fund the government. I am pleased that, after months of uncertainty, a budget agreement has been reached, thanks to the work of the President, his Cabinet, and the Congress. This 2-year funding deal ends the threat of sequestration and continues to improve our military strength. It doubles down on our commitment to serving and protecting the American people by enhancing the United States' defense capabilities and ensuring our courageous troops have the resources they need to deter, fight, and win. It wasn't that long ago, Mr. Speaker, that our military was in the midst of a readiness crisis. It would be irresponsible, in my strong opinion, to retreat back to that point. This deal helps us prevent that. The legislation averts a $71 billion cut to defense that would have taken place early next year, absent an agreement. Mr. Speaker, I am a 30-year veteran of the Arkansas National Guard, one deployment under my belt. I chair the Board of Visitors at the United States Military Academy at West Point, and I recognize the rise of the threat facing us around the globe. I also understand the devastation a sequester would cause. It is not something that we can allow to happen, and I have seen the numbers floating around about what Congress is about to do. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. The sequester numbers that would have taken place if this Congress didn't act were never going to happen. Anybody who suggests that we were going to cut $71 billion from national defense is not being intellectually honest. We were not going to allow that to happen. Mr. Speaker, this bill also takes the chaos that would ensue following another government shutdown off the table. Nobody in this room likes continuing resolutions or big omnibus packages. We take those off the table. Now, I will be honest. This is not a perfect deal. It is not the bill I would have written if I were just a Congress of one. No compromise in any serious negotiation where there are two competing sides will ever result in a perfect outcome. But it does allow us to move forward with a measure of stability for our economy. Again, I highlight that these negotiations brought forward an important agreement in which there will be no poison pills in the funding bills for this year or next and a concerted effort to strive toward no shutdowns and no large omnibus packages. Any compromise involves hard choices. I don't know of a committee in the Congress, in the House of Representatives, that has to make more hard choices than the people who gather around that Committee on Appropriations markup room. For our distinguished chairwoman, Nita Lowey, and all of my fellow appropriators who have a lot of requests, there are never enough resources to meet all of them, but we have to make some very hard choices. Then, let's not forget the real and practical impact of our current debt and the deficits that add to that debt. We need to put America back on a responsible fiscal path. While I support the progress we have made in this bill, I feel strongly that Congress must address the looming crisis of our debt for our children and our grandchildren. But here is an inconvenient truth: Total discretionary spending, when I came to Congress, was almost $1.3 trillion. That was what we spent on the discretionary budget of the U.S. Government. That is the part of government that most people identify with. Next year, under this caps agreement, discretionary spending is going to be just under $1.4 trillion. That is not much of an increase over a 10-year period. To put it in perspective, discretionary spending was 9 percent of GDP when I came to Congress. It is down to 6 percent now. If you look at the CBO report that we highlighted earlier this year, CBO says--their words--as a percentage of the economy, discretionary spending is going down, and mandatory spending continues to skyrocket. The year before I came to Congress, mandatory spending was 61 percent of the Federal budget. Today, it is about 70 percent of the Federal budget. Mandatory spending is putting intense pressure on a lot of programs on the discretionary side that a lot of America relies on. I think we have to fix that. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know this, Mr. Speaker. I know one of the answers is that we have to get back to regular order. I can't say it any clearer. We haven't done the budget process that is enshrined in the 1974 Budget Act since I have been in Congress. In fact, most people in Congress look at how we do things now--CRs, omnis, shutdowns, those kinds of things--as normal. It is anything but normal. I know my friend, Mr. Yarmuth, and I worked very hard, as did Mrs. Lowey, on the Joint Select Committee on Budget Process Reform last year. We got close. We made a few recommendations. We couldn't quite meet the threshold for reporting, but we took a stab at it. I hope we can elevate that discussion in the 116th Congress and have some success doing that. Today, we are here to vote on a bipartisan bill, a bill that has been carefully negotiated over weeks with competing interests. The administration has been involved, with Mr. Mnuchin representing the President, and the four corners of leadership. Not the most ideal way to come up with an answer or a solution, but it is what we have today. Mr. Speaker, with all the things that we have in front of us, let's take the chaos off the table, and let's pass this deal. Then, maybe-- maybe--we can elevate the conversation to talk about the real drivers of the deficit and the debt in this country when we come back and as we move into the remainder of this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Fort Worth, Texas (Ms. Granger), the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee and a former mayor. I believe mayors have a pretty good idea of what it takes to get things done when there are competing interests.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Corona, California (Mr. Calvert), who is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee that funds the national defense of this country.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, on occasion it is important to reach out to the rural areas of our country for wisdom, and we are going to reach out to west Texas, near Clarendon, Texas. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my friend, the Republican lead on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A constant theme on our side has been that of national security, a reason why we should support the agreement that has been hammered out between the administration and the four corners of leadership in the House and the Senate, and I stand by that. We have had speakers from the House Armed Services Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee and so on, and it is an important reason because of how much money it commands of Federal taxpayer money to actually protect, secure, and defend the United States of America. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the discussions, one of the debates we are not having is about the true drivers of the deficit and the debt, and that is a conversation that I would like to introduce in these proceedings today. I brought a chart with me. As I was preparing my remarks today, I got to thinking: What were the numbers back in 2010 when I first sought office in the House of Representatives versus what we are talking about today? So we have a snapshot in time of 2010 and a snapshot in time of what we are debating today. Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to this chart because, in 2010, discretionary spending, which is the spending that most of us kind of relate to the Federal Government, everything from keeping the lights on at this Capitol to paying for the men and women who are downrange defending our freedoms, was a little over $1.2 trillion in 2010. The number that we are debating today and that others have been critical of is just under $1.4 trillion. It is $1.37 trillion. It represents an increase of $114 billion in 10 years. Most people would probably say that, given 10 years--we had a couple of years there where we had trouble with our economy--a percentage increase like that might be within reason. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to direct your attention to the mandatory side of the spending. It has come up a couple of times in our discussion today, the true driver of the deficit and the debt. When I came to Congress in 2011, the 2016 number was $2.1 trillion. Today, not part of this discussion, mandatory spending is just under $3.3 trillion. Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of almost $1.2 trillion in 10 years. We are not having that discussion today. I am reminded of the old Bronx-born bank robber, Willie Sutton, Mr. Speaker, who when captured, legend has it, was asked, ``Why do you rob banks?'' He said, ``Because that's where the money is.'' If we are going to have a meaningful discussion, a constructive discussion about how we put the balance sheet of the U.S. Government back in order, we cannot have an intellectually honest conversation if we are ignoring the bottom line here. In 10 years, mandatory spending has grown 10 times the rate of discretionary spending, yet we are not talking about that today. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that when this is all finished, and we pass this bill and put our country on a pretty solid budgetary framework for the next couple of years, that maybe we can sit down to talk about the true drivers of the deficit and the debt. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to read from a book that we are all very familiar with, the Constitution of the United States, for just a moment. One of my concerns about what we are doing today, though I support the outcome, is written in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: ``The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'' Article I, Section 8, it lays it out pretty simply that the Congress of the United States has the power of the purse. While I support what we are doing today because I recognize the importance of getting chaos and uncertainty off the table for the reasons already stated in this debate, I am disappointed that the agreement was hammered out by basically four people, four plus one, the administration and four Members of the Congress referenced in Article I, Section 8. That is our job. The only meaningful debate that has happened over discretionary spending in this country happened only in this Chamber during the debates on appropriations that Mr. Hoyer referred to earlier. We have had those discussions. I don't agree with everything in those appropriations bills. I never have. But at least we have had that debate on the floor of the House. They have not had that debate on the floor of the Senate. Here we are today, relying on an agreement hammered out by leaders of both parties in both Chambers with a representative from the administration. To me, Mr. Speaker, that flies in the face of what Article I, Section 8 says it should be like. Again, I hope and pray that, over time, once we put this issue behind us, realizing that mandatory spending is growing at 10 times the rate of discretionary spending, the very fight that we are having today on this floor, maybe we can get back to regular order, do some legitimate budget process reform so Members like John Yarmuth and myself can work together jointly to produce budgets, engage in debates on the floor of the people's House, and arrive at outcomes that probably we are all going to agree has stuff in it we like and stuff in it we don't like. That is the way the Framers intended this Chamber to be. I am hopeful that we will get there eventually. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.