Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 2918.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I want to speak today once again concerning the really astounding, irresponsible, unjustified increases in spending we have seen in this Congress. I don't believe this Nation has ever seen anything like it in the non-defense area, and it is threatening this country's long-term financial health. So I am going to focus today on some of the appropriations bills considered in this Chamber as well as the next highway trust fund bailout, which is in the works.

I have some prepared charts, and my staff will bring those here in a minute, which will show the runup in appropriations spending we are seeing today, which is pretty much unprecedented in the history of this Congress.

Take for instance the agricultural appropriations over the past 8 years. They are dramatic. We passed that recently. Agricultural appropriations increases were 14.5 percent in this year's appropriations bill over last year's. That would double the agricultural budget in 5 years if we maintained those increases. That is a stunning number. The average increase in agriculture spending was 2.1 percent compounded over the 7-year period from 2003 to 2009. Yet we now jump up, in this time of unprecedented deficits and debt, to where we have a 14-percent increase. The 2.1-percent average we had from 2003 to 2009 was criticized by many as being excessive, but it was about the rate of inflation. As we know today, inflation is virtually nonexistent, and yet we end up with a 14-percent increase.

If you look at the Department of the Interior, those changes over the past 9 years are also dramatic. We just passed the Interior appropriations bill. Interior and EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, have now been put together. Their increases were 16.6 percent in over the previous year in the 2010 Senate bill.

This chart just shows in graphic detail how agricultural spending has gone. I know my colleague from Nebraska believes in agriculture, and I do, too, but this is one of the few times I have not been able to support an agriculture bill. We don't have the money to increase spending 14 percent.

President Bush, they said you spent too much on agriculture. We heard that a lot, didn't we, I say to Senator Nelson. But it was pretty frugal over the years. Here we have, in 2009, a 15 percent increase, and in 2010 a 14.5 percent increase in spending. Our debt today is so much greater than what we had in those years, it makes us wonder how did we get here.

If you look at Interior, as I just mentioned, we see the same thing. The Environmental Protection Agency has not always been a part of this funding mechanism, but we worked hard to try to make sure we are comparing apples to apples, and you see less than 1 percent in 2002, 5.6, 1.6, a minus 1.3, minus 4.0, then 16 percent this year. I couldn't vote for that. I do not think our colleagues are listening to their constituents back home. They know something is going awry up here. They think we are detached from reality. Doesn't this chart suggest that they are correct?

I will just mention the Environmental Protection Agency. Their increase this year is 33 percent. That would double EPA's funding in 2 to 3 years.

Let me add, these funding levels do not count the largest appropriations bill in the history of America, which we passed in February--wait a minute. I hear my wife right now: Jeff, would you quit saying ``we'' passed, when you voted against it? The Senate passed $800 billion. If you add the stimulus funding the Interior bill agencies received, that would add another $11 billion to their spending and take it to over a 50-percent increase.

So Interior got a lot of money out of the stimulus bill. This chart is not including the stimulus spending; this is baseline spending. So next year, they will want an increase again and it will be on a much higher baseline, a 16-percent higher baseline than the previous year.

I will get to this one next, the T-HUD appropriations, as we call it around here, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Since the Transportation-HUD bill has only been around for 3 years in this configuration, together, this is what we have been able to graph out for those two bills. The average of all discretionary appropriations increases for all appropriations bills that we have had, from 1995 to 2009, 15 years, averaged 5.2 percent compounded. So when you see a 23-percent increase this year in the fiscal year 2010 bill, that is over four times the 15-year average of appropriations for discretionary spending in our cup. At a 23-percent rate, spending on T- HUD would double every 3 to 4 years.

Next, let's look at Commerce-Justice-Science. Although CJS has also only been around for the past three years, we were able to reconstruct the funding levels for all agencies going back to FY2003. What we discovered was surprising. The average spending increases from 2003 to 2009 for CJS was 4.4 percent. However, this year we have a 12.3-percent increase in the baseline funding for the CJS bill. At that rate, spending in that CJS--Commerce-Justice-State spending would double every 6 years, and that doesn't include the $16.9 billion CJS accounts got from the stimulus legislation.

Finally, there is the State and Foreign Operations bill. The State and Foreign Operations has only been around together in this configuration for 3 years, and that is all we have been able to graph. However, we can once again compare it to the average of all appropriations increases for all the bills from 1995 to 2009, which I said was 5.2 percent.

So the 33-percent increase in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations bill is over six times the 15-year average increase for discretionary spending. At a 33-percent rate, the spending would double every 2 to 3 years, at a time of unprecedented deficits.

This week, we are going to have the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, our budget. It increases spending at a 5.9-percent rate compared to fiscal year 2009. That is four times the rate of inflation excluding food and energy, which, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 1.4 percent for the last 12 months. So, excluding food and energy, we have inflation at the rate of 1.4 percent, and we are funding our own selves in the legislative branch at a 6-percent increase. If you include the cost of food and energy--and there is some good news here: inflation has gone down, actually. We are in a period of deflation. It has gone down 1.5 percent when you figure that over the entire year, including food and energy prices, which have dropped considerably from the huge gasoline prices we remember not long ago. So if you add the stimulus and the supplemental funds from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 instead, you come up with an 8.2-percent increase.

So what is wrong with spending 23.2 percent or 16 percent more on these bills than last year, or on the average? The simplest way to put it is, we don't have the money. We are going to have to borrow money to do this spending. We borrow the money. It is not free money. We don't have the power just to spend money. When we go into debt, we borrow the money, and people buy Treasury bills and notes, and we use that money to pay the debt, the shortfall between what we spend and what we take in in taxes. We are going to have to borrow money from a lot of people, but China is our biggest loaner of money. Other countries lend as well.

Shortly after President Obama's inauguration, he released a budget entitled ``A New Era of Responsibility.'' Here are some quotes from his passage in that document:

Therefore, while our Budget will run deficits, we must

begin the process of making the tough choices necessary to

restore fiscal discipline, cut the deficit in half by the end

of my first term in office, and put our Nation on sound

fiscal footing.

That is a good statement. I just have to say that I am still looking to where those tough choices are going to be made. According to the Congressional Budget Office, our independent source of information, the President's budget doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10. This is the Congressional Budget Office. This is a nonpartisan group, although our Democratic majority on the Budget Committee, of which I am a member, has the votes to select the Director. Since the history of the founding of this Nation, we ran up a total debt, national debt, of $5.8 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's budget would double it in 5 years, by 2013, to $11.8 trillion, and in 2019 it would be $17.3 trillion, thus tripling the national debt in 10 years. I know people do not think that is true, but those are the numbers we have, and we are on track to get there. This does not include unprecedented increases in discretionary spending that we are seeing on the floor of the Senate. It also doesn't include health care. This number was scored before we talked about spending $1 trillion or more on health care additions.

I have to mention interest on the debt because the numbers are so large that people have difficulty comprehending them. People tell me that all the time: A trillion dollars, I have difficulty understanding how large that is.

What about interest? We know what it takes when you pay your mortgage interest or your credit card interest. You have to pay the underlying debt and then you pay the interest on top of that. Sometimes interest can put you in the poorhouse.

This year, 2009, the interest on our total national debt is $170 billion. That is a lot of money. Alabama's State budget, including education, is about $15 billion. We are about one-fiftieth of the Nation in size. Interest this year will be $170 billion, and it will go up dramatically. CBO scores the annual payment of the United States to people we owe money to at the end of 10 years, as almost $800 billion. If interest rates go up a little higher than they had projected, and many have projected interest rates will go up higher, particularly the Blue Chip Forecast, which is a highly respected group of economists who forecast various things, they forecast it would be $865 billion because they forecast a higher interest rate. And if we have what some people fear will occur, which is a surge in interest rates, as we had in the late 1970s because of our irresponsible spending, it could hit $1.29 trillion or $1,290 billion in interest.

So we spend about $40 billion a year on highways, we spend about $65 billion in this Congress on aid to education, and we are going to see from $170 billion to $800 billion or more we have to pay in interest? There is no free lunch. You can't borrow your way out of debt. When you spend money you do not have, you borrow it and you have to pay interest on it.

We have low interest rates today. That seduced some of our masters of the universe to say: Let's run up a little debt right now. Running up a little debt is one thing, but the interest rates are going to go up, as CBO projects. They are pretty low today because of the slow economy.

I am very concerned about this. What I am concerned about is our spending in these appropriations bills indicates we are oblivious to this. This is reality. I am not making this up. This is reality, and the American people intuitively understand it and they are really worried about it. I think they should be. We are the ones who seem to be not connected to reality.

The President also stated these words in his budget submission documents:

Then there are the years that come along once in a

generation, when we look at where the country has been and

recognize that we need a break from the troubled past, that

the problems we face demand that we begin charting a new

path. This is one of those years.

It does seem apparent that we are having a break with our past. We are definitely seeing increases in spending, the likes of which we have never seen before in our basic baseline appropriations bills. Even the deficits I have mentioned assume not a recession in the next 10 years but robust growth in the next few years and solid growth in the last 5 years. Basically, the projections on the deficit and the interest rate we are going to have to carry are greater.

And the deficits--let me share this with my colleagues. I get asked this at townhall meetings: Well, when do we pay back the debt? When do we pay it off? I am paying my mortgage. I pay principal and interest. When is the Federal Government going to pay back its debt? The answer is: We have no plan to do so. The only plan we have is to pay interest and increase the debt.

For example, this year the budget deficit has been estimated to be $1.8 trillion, the largest ever. Last year it was $450 billion. It is $1.8 trillion this year. The CBO forecasts that the lowest deficit, annual deficit, we will have in the next 10 years is over $600 billion.

How can you pay any debt down when the lowest deficit you are going to have is $600 billion? The best year they are projecting, we increase the debt by $600 billion. Indeed, what is even more troubling is in the outer years, years 8, 9, and 10, the deficit is growing. In the 10th year, they project that the deficit that will result from the President's spending policies would be over $1 trillion.

So there is no plan to pay this back. It is only a plan to increase the total debt, which inevitably increases the interest burden that is going to fall on our children and grandchildren. We are reaching into the future to pour money into today to satisfy our current needs because some say we are in a crisis and we have to get out of this crisis; let's just spend money.

We are using that as an excuse to increase our legislative branch spending, our interior spending, our agriculture spending that, at baseline level, is higher than anything we have ever done in recent memory. Let's hope the scenarios I mentioned do not happen. I think it is possible. I have a lot of confidence in the American people that somehow, some way their voice is going to be heard. There are going to be some changes in Washington. If we do not do it ourselves, they are liable

to send someone up here to replace us who will do it.

But it appears that some of our major creditors are taking note of the debt we are running up. Our creditors are looking at these numbers. They are not oblivious to what is going on. There is a special kind of Treasury Bond that we sell to get people to loan the government money called treasury inflation-protected securities or TIPS. Unlike regular bonds that would be at a certain interest rate and that could be devalued when inflation increases, TIPS adjust their value if inflation goes up. So if people with a lot of money looking at these numbers, are they betting that we will see inflation go up or are they expecting inflation to go down? It is pretty clear that they expect inflation to go up because investor interest in the TIPS is soaring.

The Dow Jones Newswires reported September 13 that prices on TIPS have risen 8.7 percent this year; whereas, the prices of regular Treasury bonds have shrunk by 2.6 percent.

Smart Money magazine reported September 23 that investors poured $8.5 billion into TIPS in the second quarter of this year alone, double the amount for the same period last year. The Wall Street Journal reported the same day that investors have poured $17 billion into TIPS so far this year; whereas, they purchased only $10 billion in TIPS all last year.

Meanwhile, the Chinese, who are some of our biggest creditors, with more than $800 billion in Treasury bonds, have expressed concerns about inflation here and have shown a corresponding interest in buying TIPS. According to the Wall Street Journal, they discussed TIPS at high-level talks in Washington at the end of July.

The United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled ``China Alarmed by U.S. Money Printing,'' on September 6, even quoted a top Chinese Communist Party official lecturing the United States on spending and then quoting Benjamin Franklin to the Americans.

He said: ``He who goes borrowing goes sorrowing.'' How ignominious is that, to be lectured on spending by Communists. Due to interest from both the Chinese and others, the spread in the interest rates between the 10-year TIPS and the regular 10-year Treasuries has grown from about zero--they both had about the same rate of interest at the beginning of this year--to nearly 2 percent.

That means one can get nearly a 2-percent better rate by buying regular Treasuries. But people still want TIPS. Why? Because they believe and are afraid that as the years go by, inflation is going to rise, and they will get more interest back by buying TIPS, even though it is 2 percent below the basic Treasury rate.

Meanwhile, the dollar is hovering at a 1-year low, partially because the Fed recently decided to have interest rates unchanged at basically zero percent, and decided to extend through March its timeframe for purchasing $1.25 trillion in mortgage securities and $200 billion in government agency debt.

The dollar has slid 6.2 percent this year on inflation fears, while gold has soared 15 percent. Gold goes up on inflation fears in the future.

Confidence in the dollar has sunk so low that the U.N. proposed replacing the dollar as the global reserve currency in its U.N. Conference on Trade and Development annual trade report, published September 7. China has also expressed interest in an alternative currency.

Not only that, because of all this borrowing, we are about to hit our $12.1 trillion debt limit, which was last raised when? Not too many months ago, when we passed the $800 billion stimulus package in February.

Our debt has increased by $1.1 trillion just since President Obama was inaugurated. The Treasury Department has been holding record auctions of Treasury bills and notes to keep up with the deficit and the debt.

Another aspect of the continuing resolution that we will be considering this week is yet another bailout of the Postal Service. This is the third Postal bailout in 8 years. The Post Office was supposed to be completely self-funding by now. But they still refuse or are unable to pay for their outyear benefits and expenses.

According to the Congressional Research Service, they face about $95 billion in total unfunded liabilities--$95 billion--which is why they are supposed to make payments that are being suspended by the continuing resolution. They are scheduled to make $5.1 billion in payments this year for the unfunded pension liabilities. But in this bill, we are letting them only pay $1.1 billion.

There is nothing free here. OK? We will let them not pay the full amount. Those payments are to make their benefits actuarially sound. This $4 billion in relief is in addition to the $7.1 billion that was provided in 2003 and the $1.5 billion that was provided in 2006.

CBO, our Congressional Budget Office, says this is costly because it shifts money from future accounts to current expenses. But if we keep doing this without structural reforms from the Postal Service, taxpayers will wind up on the hook for a good portion of those unfunded liabilities.

Why is the Post Office in such a financially poor position? In terms of efficiency, labor costs consume 80 percent of their revenue; whereas, UPS and FedEx spend 65 and 45 percent, respectively, on their labor costs.

The Postal Service is nearly insolvent despite not paying any taxes. They have to have some reform in the Postal Service. I am not going to go into detail now, but a recent Federal Times article pointed out some of the inefficiencies. We cannot continue this.

Let's turn to the highway trust fund. We are going to be asked to pass an extension of the trust fund spending. It struck me as perhaps coincidental that our highway trust fund keeps running out of money year after year after year. What is happening here? Why is it always running out of money? After all, the highway program is supposed to be funded by the gas tax and to be deficit neutral.

However, last year we were told we had to borrow $8 billion from people who loan us money, including China and Saudi Arabia and others, to replenish the highway fund. This year, we have already borrowed another $7 billion to fix the shortfall.

Although the bill before us this week does not borrow additional money from the Treasury, it also does nothing to address the constant deficit the trust fund faces. I am told the fund has been facing and will face a deficit of about $10 billion a year, which means this bill is just kicking the can down the road, and we are going to be asked for either another bailout or a tax hike in the future.

We cannot savage the highway budget. We have to maintain a reasonable spending level for our highway budget. But we have not been going about this responsibly. We are basically funding it by increasing our debt. That is no way to go.

Some make the point that people are driving less and they pay less gasoline taxes. There is some truth to that. But the most recent authorization bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, contained a timebomb in it that created the crisis we are in today.

It appears to have been written with the objective of drawing down the highway trust fund rapidly to zero and perhaps beyond. The previous highway bill had some safety mechanisms built into it to prevent declines in our revenue from bankrupting the trust fund. But the SAFETEA-LU weakened both of them, one known as revenue aligned budget authority and one known as the Byrd test, to the point that they are basically irrelevant today.

The combination of constantly increasing spending and disabled safety mechanisms to contain spending means that a crisis was almost inevitable. As early as April of 2006, the Congressional Budget Office was predicting significant negative balances in the outyears of Transportation spending. But did we take any action to confront that looming shortfall?

No, no action was taken either in the authorizing committees or the appropriations committees. The predictable gap between authorized spending and predictable revenue, a prediction that the highway trust fund will soon go bankrupt, which is where the balances hit zero and the timebomb goes off. Despite predictions from CBO that this would happen, to this day, no action has been taken by either the authorizers or appropriators to rein in spending or create the kind of revenues necessary to sustain the program.

Instead we are supposed to keep borrowing, borrowing, debt, debt, debt. The excuses we keep hearing to justify these bailouts is that the highway trust fund has been raided at various times in the past. But that is not accurate.

It is inaccurate. According to the GAO, an independent agency, the general fund paid for $39 billion in highway expenses from 1956 to 1996. Including interest, these payments were worth $164 billion. So it seems that at best, the highway trust fund isn't owed anything, and at worst, it perhaps actually owes money to the general fund. In fact, GAO determined in that report that as of 1998, if the highway trust fund had been forced to pay for all highway expenditures, it would have been in deficit $152 billion. We are not raiding the highway fund. We have been putting in extra money. Where did we get it? By borrowing more money and increasing our debt.

Those transfers didn't stop in 1997 either. Before the current series of bailouts began, Congress already provided for $31 billion in transfers over 10 years from the general fund to the highway trust fund as part of the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act.

As I mentioned before, we have before us this week a highway trust fund extension that does nothing to help with the constant deficit in the program except borrow more money to put into it. All it does is keep spending at levels we know we don't have the money to sustain. In fact, if we keep spending at the current levels, the highway trust fund will require $87 billion in bailouts from 2010 to 2019. I remember a few weeks ago, in a stunning vote, Senator Vitter from Louisiana offered a fine amendment. We were told that the stimulus package that had to be passed so quickly in February to save jobs was going to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and our highway programs, creating permanent improvements that would benefit the Nation for years to come.

Most people perhaps missed the fact that less than 4 percent of the $800 billion that was appropriated in February went to highways. Hundreds of billions of dollars of the stimulus bill have still not been spent. Senator Vitter said: We said we were going to use this money for highways. We are having a shortfall in the trust fund. It is going to cause serious repercussions in the transportation industry. Let's take the money and fix it on a more permanent basis, 18 months, 2 years, and take the money from the stimulus bill that hasn't been spent.

I voted with Senator Vitter, but the amendment was voted down, the effect of which was to say that the Senate prefers to borrow the money necessary to fix the highway trust fund and increase our debt rather than using the money we basically told the American people we were setting aside for highways. That was a very irresponsible vote. It spoke volumes. Basically, with few exceptions, the Democratic majority made up their minds how they wanted to handle this shortfall which was increasing the debt. They refused to consider taking it from the already appropriated stimulus package.

Unfortunately, CBO scores are not the clearest when it comes to these bailouts. I am not sure that is all CBO's fault or the Budget Committees'. One would think a bill that allows billions of dollars in additional deficit spending would score as much. But according to the CBO, highway spending is discretionary; therefore, what matters in terms of the deficit is what is appropriated not what is authorized. Of course, if we ask the appropriators, they will simply say they provide what is authorized. For fiscal 2010, the appropriators provided what they expected to be authorized by simply assuming that this extension of spending and eventual general fund transfer would happen. That is one of the reasons there was an incredible 23-percent increase in spending in the Senate-passed bill.

The committees are playing a shell game with taxpayer dollars. Somebody has to step up and start taking responsibility for the seriousness of the situation. If we look at how much transportation spending has increased over the last 10 years and where it is expected to go, the 2005 highway bill provided $286 billion in spending over 5 years and allowed spending to increase 23 percent over that 5-year period. The 2007 spending it provided represented a 92-percent spending increase from 1997; 10 years, almost double. I offered an amendment in 2005 to reduce that spending and fund it properly. It failed 84 to 16.

The House Transportation Committee apparently wants the next major reauthorization to spend $500 billion over the next 6 years. That is a per-year increase in spending of 46 percent.

One thing we are pretty unified on is that we need to adequately fund highways. I thought we had unanimous agreement that the stimulus bill would emphasize highways and bridges and roads and infrastructure, but it did not. But we still spent the money.

The reason we are not getting nearly as much jobs impact from this Federal stimulus package is too much of it is going to amorphous things that don't create positive benefits and jobs. Regardless, the number we show on this chart of the debt of the United States, projected to triple in 10 years, is unsustainable. Everybody says that, but when do we get serious? We are not getting serious in this year's budget. It is an unprecedented increase in spending.

The long-term budget the President submitted to us and what was essentially approved by this Congress shows it tripling in the next 10 years, based on what their projections are for spending. I am troubled by it. We have to keep talking about this. We need to listen to what the American people are telling us. If we do, we will be acting in a much more responsible way than we are today.

I yield the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Madam Speaker, the end of the fiscal year, as we all know, is just a few days away.

Despite this looming deadline, Congress has not completed action on a single appropriations bill. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: we have got within 5 days of the end of the fiscal year, and yet not one single appropriations bill has been completed by this Congress.

As a result, the Democratic majority is scrambling to accomplish two things, two things with this underlying bill that we have. The first is to buy more time to get our work done with the continuing resolution, which will keep the government operating for an additional 38 days beyond the September 30 expiration of the fiscal year. The second is to finally take the first step towards passing our appropriations conference reports.

Madam Speaker, which spending bill has the honor of being considered first? Which spending bill? Perhaps it's our Homeland Security appropriations bill, which funds our Border Patrol and other Federal agencies charged with protecting our States, cities, and ports from terrorist attacks. Or, perhaps, Madam Speaker it's the very, very important Defense appropriations spending bill, which would provide the funding for our troops.

In fact, the very first spending bill that the House is moving to send to the President is our Congress' own funding bill. The underlying Legislative Branch appropriations bill makes the Democratic majority's funding priorities very, very clear.

Madam Speaker, I describe this as the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. That's really what it is. We remember back in 1992, putting people first was President Clinton's campaign motto. We have now seen this Congress establish a new directive based on what we are doing on this appropriations bill, and that is we are putting Congress first.

As we look at this priority, it is very clear that the continuing resolution will allow for more time to take care of everything else. Now, some would say that we, as Republicans, are just belly-aching. I mentioned President Clinton and his campaign back in 1992 of putting people first, and this now the putting Congress first appropriations process.

Well, back in 1996 after President Clinton had been President for almost 4 years, he vetoed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill when a Republican Congress sent it as the second appropriations bill of that season. Madam Speaker, President Clinton said the following in his veto message: ``I believe that it would be inappropriate to fully fund regular funding for Congress and its offices while funding for most other activities of government remains incomplete, unresolved and uncertain. I don't think Congress should take care of its own business before it takes care of the people's business.''

Those are the words of President Clinton in his 1996 veto message when the second appropriations conference report sent to him was the Legislative Branch appropriations bill measure. He was right to veto that bill and President Obama would be right to do it now, Madam Speaker, following President Clinton's lead.

Unfortunately, even if the President wanted to veto this bill, there is a problem. A veto, as we all know, would shut down the government, something that no one wants. The Democratic majority has made sure that our offices don't have to worry about working within temporary funding; but our veterans, Homeland Security personnel, the fighting men and women will just have to make do.

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of what I am calling the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. Those who follow the work of the Congress know that continuing resolutions are not unusual, and we recognize that on this side of the aisle. The Federal budget is a very serious responsibility, and our work often, under either party, has extended throughout the fall.

What's different throughout this year is not the necessity of a continuing resolution. What's different, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the Democratic majority shut down debate on our appropriations bills, ostensibly for the sake of completing our spending bills on time.

They said that there was a schedule to keep. They said that there was no time for debate and deliberation while the clock was ticking. With regrets to the American people, we just cannot allow for scrutiny and accountability on the spending of taxpayer dollars because September 30 is fast approaching.

Now, as the fiscal year draws to a close, it would appear that the rights of Democrats and Republicans have been trampled on for the sake of a goal that has not come close to being achieved. Throughout June and July, as debate on bill after bill was shut down, we heard the drum beat of the impending deadline.

On June 10 our friend, whom I am happy to see here on the floor, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, announced his ``ambitious schedule'' saying that his time line would be unworkable as long as we had ``procedural cooperation.'' Of course, we very soon learned that procedural cooperation was a euphemism for closing down the debate.

Now, the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, on June 17 on the House floor, said that the Democratic majority was prepared to push forward at all costs to complete the appropriations process on time.

Again, we now know that those costs were the abandonment of what has been the 220-year history of the appropriations process, and that is open to debate and the rejection of amendments to be considered by Democrats and Republicans. On June 19, the distinguished majority leader reiterated this stance saying that the only way to get our work done is if we limit debate time.

Throughout the summer, the Democratic majority did just that. Every single appropriations bill was considered under a restrictive rule. Spending bills have been historically considered, as I said, under a full and open process that allows for all Members, not just committee Chairs or members of the leadership, but all Members of both parties to make their constituencies' voices heard in the Federal spending process. Yet the Democratic majority announced at the outset of this year's process that they were abandoning open debate for the sake of expediency.

Now, Madam Speaker, the Democratic majority did deliver on the issue of closing down debate for the appropriations process. What they haven't delivered on is the timely completion of our constitutional responsibility. They dismantled the open appropriations process, and, for what? So we could pass the ``putting Congress first'' bill and leaving the rest of our work to be completed at a later date.

We could call this just another broken promise in a never-ending string of broken promises by this Democratic majority; but this is bigger, this is bigger, Madam Speaker, than just broken promises. We have more than a trillion-dollar deficit, and the year isn't over yet. Our national debt has skyrocketed, skyrocketed to nearly unfathomable levels.

The American people are incredibly frustrated about our fiscal state and the crippling debt we have saddled on our future generations. Yet the Democratic majority has shut out accountability of their spending practices for the sake of a deadline that they didn't even try to keep. That's one of the reasons why we are here today, to extend the deadline on appropriations bills that were rammed through the House without the benefit of many thoughtful amendments from both Democrats and Republicans proposed by those who are deeply concerned about runaway spending.

Now, of course, our friends on the other side of the aisle will have great excuses, and they are excuses we have heard regularly from both sides. They will say that the House has done its work; they can't control what happens over in the other body; we can't control what those guys do on the other side of the Capitol. But when the Republicans were in the majority, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would regularly point out that we had control of both bodies of Congress and the White House. They would say that we were in control, and so we had to shoulder the responsibility.

Madam Speaker, when someone stands up and makes the argument we did our job in the House, but we can't, we can't control what those guys do over on the other side of the Capitol, remember what was regularly said, that when you have supermajority control of the Senate, and now with the appointment of Paul Kirk, the 60th seat is there in the Senate, when you have control of the White House and a large majority in the House of Representatives, one has to take responsibility.

Now, the situation is such that our friends must take the responsibility. With the impending appointment, as I said, we now have, we now have both Houses of Congress and the White House in complete control of the Democrats. Excuses about blaming the other body for having not done their work really are not acceptable.

Madam Speaker, not one of us, not one of us is interested in a government shutdown. But this bill makes two things very clear, first, that the Democratic majority is more concerned with padding its own budget for this institution than meeting the rest of the country's needs. Second, the concerns and input of the American people were stifled, we see now, for no good reason at all.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, let me say that I completely concur with the gentleman. He's actually making our arguments here about the priority of ensuring that our men and women who have sacrificed and fought on behalf of the cause of freedom do have access to quality health care, that we have the funding for those troops there. That is a very important priority. That's why we should be doing those appropriations bills first.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me respond to some of the remarks that have been made so far, Madam Speaker. First, I have to say that, in addressing the issue of ACORN, the gentleman from Worcester said that ACORN was the target of right-wing radio this week. The fact of the matter is there is a Justice Department investigation that, at this moment, is being undertaken to address this issue. So to argue that somehow this is just a product of right-wing radio is silly.

Of course. I'm happy to yield.

If I can reclaim my time, let me say that I was simply responding to the gentleman from Worcester, who was saying that somehow the ACORN concerns that have been raised are nothing but developed from right-wing radio, as he described it.

It is true that a number of very, very smart investigative journalists have come forward and brought to the forefront some of the most outrageous abuses of taxpayer dollars, and we have seen these reports carried on television. The gentleman mentioned Fox News. We've heard it reported on the radio.

I believe that it is a great service, as we see hardworking Americans, hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet, and that kind of abuse of their tax dollars is outrageous, as has been reported. That kind of abuse is outrageous.

Of course, I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman was not on the floor when Mr. McGovern began his opening statement. The gentleman did, in fact.

So now I will say both my friends from Massachusetts and New York are now saying that right-wing talk radio is somehow responsible for this, when, in fact, it has been some very shrewd investigative journalists. And we have seen talk radio and some of the cable television networks bring us to the forefront. Unfortunately, it's taken quite a while for the so-called mainstream media to begin the kind of coverage of ACORN that we are finally seeing.

Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say to my friend that the American people get it. They understand that ACORN is responsible for its own actions. They have seen what has taken place. It has been outrageous behavior. And the notion of somehow standing here and defending that when we are dealing with the funding bills themselves, the appropriations process, is just plain wrong.

Let me also say to my friend from Worcester managing this measure that he responded to my remarks by saying that he didn't want to have lectures given and he was tired of excuses being made. You know, the American people get it, too. The notion of pointing the finger of blame back and forth is not what they want.

Children make excuses and get slapped down by their parents. That has happened to me as a kid. It happens to everybody. And the idea of standing here saying, Well, we were lectured here and excuses are being made, so we somehow can continue to do what it is that we want to do. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that we didn't do things perfectly, but the fact of the matter is we didn't shut down the appropriations process. We did not shut down the appropriations process, denying Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to participate, as has been the case throughout the history of our country, and I think it's just plain wrong to do that. And the American people get that, too.

So we're not providing any lecturing. We're just saying regular order. The rules of the House should be followed, and they have been ignored consistently.

When one looks at the statements that have been made by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were critical of us when we were in the majority, it's incredible to see that they have taken and ramped up, ramped up the kind of behavior that they criticized on our part.

In fact, on the fiscal year 2000 measure, the fiscal year 2000 measure, as the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill was moving through, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the now chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, said, in talking about the Legislative Branch bill, This bill should not be passed until we know how deep the cuts that are being made contemplated for veterans, for education, for health care, and other areas of major responsibility to our people. Because, in the end, if this bill is one of the first out of the gate and signed into law before the other cuts are made, then the American people are really going to have a right to ask whether we are more concerned with taking care of ourselves than we are with taking care of their own problems.

Those are the words of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee today, who is utilizing the ``putting Congress first,'' the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, as the first measure for tying the continuing resolution to that. And I think that it's a very, very unfortunate thing.

When we had an exchange up in the Rules Committee, I asked the distinguished Chair, As we look at our priorities--homeland security, veterans, our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq and Afghanistan--and we have now chosen that the priority for passage is the funding for the Congress of the United States, the distinguished Chair's response was, Uh-huh. Right. She said, That's it.

And so here we are, putting Congress first, when the American people believe we should be focusing on our border security, the threat of terrorism, funding for our troops. Those should be the priorities that we have. And the notion of standing here, Madam Speaker, having subverted the opportunity for the American people, Democrats and Republicans alike, to be heard in this appropriations so that we could get everything done by September 30, when we failed to meet that, is just plain wrong.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I yielded repeatedly to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman for being so generous with the 15 seconds.

Let me just say that article 1 of the United States Constitution very clearly, with section 9, points to us as being responsible for funding. We have the power of the purse here, and the notion of saying that ACORN somehow has a right to U.S. taxpayer dollars is just plain wrong.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This has been a fascinating debate, and I know that we want to move to consideration of the measure. I hope that we'll be able to defeat the rule. As I listened to my friend from New York talk about ACORN, to follow the logic that the gentleman has put forward basically is saying that ACORN is an entitlement; ACORN is entitled to these taxpayer dollars. We don't believe that, Madam Speaker. We happen to believe that the outrageous reports that have come forward are very clear and the admissions that have been made by ACORN, and the changes that they are attempting to make now that this kind of behavior has come to light is very important.

So my friend from New York is criticizing the fact that this continuing resolution does not provide funding for ACORN, but only for 30 days. The continuing resolution is 30 days. Basically 30 days following September 30, the end of the fiscal year, funding goes right back up. So I guess his entitlement will be able to be continued.

The notion of somehow saying that the United States House of Representatives, which under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, is empowered with spending the taxpayer dollars, cannot cut off funding for ACORN, and for that reason, we're going to see the gentleman from New York voting against the continuing resolution is, to me, absolutely incomprehensible.

Madam Speaker, I've got to say that we've got a process here which is putting Congress first. My friend has just outlined the priorities. I guess I would inquire of him how often he gets calls from his constituents saying, Are you keeping the Capitol Complex safe so that you can move in and out of your office? That is not what the American people are concerned about. I recognize it's important to keep this great Capitol Complex safe, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass the Legislative Branch appropriation bill.

I'll tell you what I do believe. I believe that border security and dealing with the threat of terrorism by funding

Homeland Security and I believe that passing the Defense appropriation bill so that our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need through the appropriations process is more important right now, and the American people get that.

With that, if my colleague is prepared to close, Madam Speaker, I will simply say to my colleagues that this measure does, as I said, put Congress first, and we should not put Congress first, ahead of the priority spending for national security, which is priority number one. We continue to have statements made by our friends on the other side of the aisle, including the veto message from President Clinton in 1996. He vetoed a measure because we were passing the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for saying that there are many other priorities that should be ahead of it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can move ahead in a very, very responsible way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 12:30 recess be extended so that I may finish a statement.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on the Senate floor this morning, there has been some debate about one of the provisions in one of the proposals that will ultimately make up the health insurance reform bill, a bill that will finally make it more affordable to live a healthy life in America. I welcome such a debate. It is an important part of a democracy. It is how we do business in the Senate. I would like to take a little time to respond.

My Republican colleagues made two primary points this morning. The first is that they were upset that we are helping the hardest hit States in the country. It is hard to comprehend, but that is what they were saying. The second is, they were upset that we want to address an urgent national problem such as the health insurance crisis.

Let's talk about them one at a time. First, Republicans are upset that we are helping the hardest hit States. The specific section they mentioned would look at all States in the Union and see which are suffering the most in our troubled economy, which citizens are suffering the most from an unhealthy health care system, and make sure these States' Medicaid Programs get the support they need to make people's lives a little easier. The four States affected are Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the State where I was born, Nevada.

Were these four States selected at random? No. Were they just picked out of a hat in the Finance Committee? No. Were they chosen to intentionally exclude 46 other States? Of course not. These States are suffering more than most, and that is an understatement. Three of the four are the top three in unemployment, and as national legislators, we know our job is to help States in precisely that position.

First, Michigan. Time magazine this week: ``The Tragedy of Detroit.'' Look at this picture. I was in Detroit a few months ago. I am not an expert on Detroit. I have been there a few times, but I was stunned by the buildings

boarded up, the streets in distress. ``How a Great City Fell.'' That is what it says in Time magazine, a major feature article. Who can say that Michigan is not bleeding? Who can say its Medicaid Program doesn't need a hand? The cover of Time magazine shows a dilapidated city, dilapidated streets with debris covering the road and windows knocked out of abandoned buildings. It looks like a ghost town.

I am pulling for Detroit. I know I am going to upset everybody here, but I was glad they beat the Redskins. They have lost so many games in a row, they needed a lift. It is not going to hurt the Redskins to be on the losing side of playing the Detroit Lions. I am pulling for the Detroit Tigers. They are a game or two ahead, and they might make it to the playoffs. Detroit needs a little boost.

If we look at this cover--windows knocked out, debris covering the roads--it is like a ghost town. The cover reads: ``The Tragedy of Detroit.'' The State of Michigan is in trouble. Even Sports Illustrated put Detroit on its cover this past week and wrote about how the city is trying to cope with its unparalleled plight. The cover stories in both these national magazines tell the distressing tale of the largest city in our most populous States, a State where unemployment is more than 15 percent. Do Senators want to come here and say Michigan doesn't need a little shot in the arm? That is higher than any State in the country. That is why we are supporting Michigan's Medicaid Program. That is what this legislation is all about in the Finance Committee that people complained about today.

Second, Oregon. Oregon's unemployment is more than 12 percent. In March the unemployment rate was 12.1 percent, and many economists said that was as bad as it could possibly get. Guess what. It got worse. Not only did the unemployment rate rise, but the rate of underemployed people in Oregon, those looking for full-time jobs who can only find part-time work, went up also. Together the unemployed and the underemployed in the great State of Oregon is almost 23 percent. Yet people are coming to the Senate floor saying Oregon doesn't deserve this little shot in the arm they get from Medicaid. Almost a quarter of the people in that State cannot find the work they want. That is why we are supporting Oregon's Medicaid Program.

Third, Rhode Island. Unemployment in that State is 12.8 percent. It has been hit very hard by job losses, foreclosures, and evictions. In fact, last month a record number of Rhode Island residents sought emergency shelter. At no month in the 219-year history of that State did more citizens seek emergency shelter than in August of this year. That is tragic, and that is why we are supporting Rhode Island's Medicaid Program. People should be embarrassed to come and complain about trying to help Michigan and trying to help Rhode Island with their Medicaid Programs.

Let's talk about Nevada. We have talked about Michigan, we have talked about Oregon, and we have talked about Rhode Island. Let's talk about my State, I repeat, where I was born, a State that was on a financial uptick for more than two decades. Well, there is not a single State in the Nation now that has felt the full force of the foreclosure crisis like Nevada. We have led the Nation in foreclosures for 31 months in a row. Let people come and complain about trying to help Medicaid recipients in Nevada.

In the nationwide housing crisis that has been both a cause and an effect of the global economic crisis, Nevada has been hit the hardest. We lead. It is nothing we are proud of, but it is true. On top of that, our unemployment rate is more than 13 percent. The people of Nevada are hurting, and I make absolutely no apologies, none, for helping people in my State and our Nation who are hurting the most.

Let me repeat, Mr. President, I make absolutely no apologies for helping Michigan, Rhode Island, Oregon, and my State of Nevada. That is why we are supporting Nevada's Medicaid Program.

In fact, that is what our entire health care debate is all about: helping those who are hurting. That is what our jobs are all about-- yours, Mr. President, and mine--looking out for our constituents who give us the incomparable honor of representing them and serving their interests.

I said this before, but it bears repeating: The price of living a healthy life in America is simply unaffordable with many people. Those with health insurance are at the whim of insurance companies that look out only for their bottom line and drop patients left and right, even when they need coverage the most.

Those without health insurance are forced to file foreclosure, go into bankruptcy, or simply succumb to curable diseases because of exorbitant costs and abusive policies. Those fortunate enough to have health insurance are already paying a hidden tax to cover those who do not. Surely, that is no way for the wealthiest and greatest Nation in the history of the world to treat its citizens. We should not do that. We have to do better.

I said I wanted to comment on two points my Republican colleagues made on the floor this morning. I have done one. The second is their objection to how this bill is moving through the Senate. They are complaining it is moving too fast. That is a subject for a Jay Leno comedy spot.

Since May 2008, the Senate Finance Committee has held 20 roundtables, summits, and hearings on their proposal for fixing our health care system. They are complaining the process is going too slowly?

If I told you the Senate Finance Committee held more than 50 meetings on their proposal for fixing our health insurance system--including more than a dozen member meetings, hundreds of hours of negotiations with the bipartisan group of six members of that committee--we have watched that on national television over the last several months--well, you could be excused, I guess, for thinking the other side is complaining that this process is moving too slowly.

If I told you the Senate Finance Committee is adding to that number as we speak, since it is now in its second week of marking up their proposal for fixing our health insurance system, you might assume the complaints are that the process should be sped up.

I could go on, Mr. President. If I told you when the HELP Committee drafted its own proposal to fix our health care system, it held 14 bipartisan roundtables, 13 bipartisan committee hearings, and 20 bipartisan walk-throughs, you might think they are complaining that this process is going too slowly. Hard to comprehend.

If I told you that committee accepted more than 160 Republican amendments on the HELP bill, you might say the same.

If I told you we have known our health care system is headed for disaster since Harry Truman was President, you might think the complaint is that we are taking too much time.

But here is the surprise: Republicans think this process is going too fast, not that it is moving too slowly. We have talked about all these hearings. Republican Senators are on the record saying they will vote against health insurance reform, even though they admit they do not need to read the bill to draw that conclusion. Pretty good. But it is just another excuse.

They have all these diversions. They come up with them: death panels, frightening people who are old in America, which is absolutely untruthful. Not a scintilla of evidence that is true. Then they came up with one: All these Democrats want to do is give insurance to illegal immigrants. Absolutely false. And there are many other red herrings they have thrown up along the way. It is just more evidence that for some on the other side there will never be a good time for health care reform--never. It is just more proof they want to defend the status quo, refuse to take care of their suffering and struggling constituents, and ignore the will of the American people. Their accusations are false, their complaints are disingenuous, and their rhetoric is dangerous.

Under the Republicans' plan, insurance companies can deny you coverage for a preexisting condition, because you are getting old or you are a woman. Under their plan, insurance companies can take away your coverage when you need it the most. They want the status quo. That is what that is.

Under our plan, if you like what you have, you can keep it, but if you do

not, there will be affordable choices for you that cannot be taken away. We will protect Medicare, we will not raise taxes on the middle class, and we will not add a dime to the deficit.

Mr. President, debates are great. But the reason--my being a trial lawyer--you have a judge determining what happens in a trial is because the judge makes sure what takes place is honest from both parties. Here we do not have that kind of a judge. So people can come to the floor and make the most false accusations, and it is up to us to explain to the American people whether what they are saying is true. Just because someone comes to this floor and says something, it does not mean it is true. And the complaint of my friends on the other side of the aisle about Michigan and Rhode Island and Oregon and Nevada getting special consideration is false.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to put the Senate in recess at this time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 772 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. The bill before us today includes not only the fy 2010 Legislative Branch appropriations bill but, more importantly, a continuing resolution to keep the government operating for the next 6 weeks.

With a few important exceptions, the continuing resolution provides level funding. In other words, the bill maintains funding levels passed at the 2009 appropriations process levels.

One of those exceptions is in the vital area of veterans health care, which receives an increase in this bill. The VA estimates that it will treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2010, including more than 419,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That number represents an increase of 56,000 more patients than in 2009.

To ensure that the VA can provide our veterans the care that they need and that they deserve, the bill increases the funding for VA health by $3.85 billion. I would encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle who wish to provide this needed increase in veterans health care to support the bill.

To address the right-wing talk radio target of the week, no funds in this bill may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations.

In terms of process, Madam Speaker, none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal.

Here in the House, we have completed our work of passing all of the appropriations bills, and I want to commend Chairman Obey and his colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their efforts and all of their hard work.

Unfortunately, it seems that these days that you need 60 votes in the Senate to agree that the sun came up this morning. The Senate has not yet passed all of its bills, and this continuing resolution is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I don't think we need any lectures by Members of the other side about process. If I recall, when they were in charge here, continuing resolutions were a regular part of the process. If I recall correctly, their last year in power they did a short-term CR. That means they got nothing done and dumped all of their appropriations work on the incoming Democratic Congress, which was a daunting task, to deal with 2 years of appropriations. They had their chance, and I think that they messed it up.

The fact is that the bill before us, the conference report before us, is the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which is an important appropriations bill. All appropriations bills are important. I don't think it does anybody any good to diminish the importance of this.

This is important and it needs to be passed. I fully expect that the other appropriations bills will be conferenced, and we will be dealing with more and more conference reports in the coming weeks.

But, look, what we need to do here, Madam Speaker, is not only pass a conference report for the Legislative Branch Appropriations, but we also need to pass a continuing resolution which includes an increase in veterans' health care.

We have thousands and thousands of young men and women who we have sent to Iraq and who we have sent to Afghanistan. They deserve a first- class health care system when they return. All veterans do. They have served our country with great distinction. They not only deserve the best health care, but they have earned it. There is an increase in this CR for veterans' health.

I'm happy to yield.

I reclaim my time.

I thank the gentleman for agreeing with me, and hopefully we will have a unanimous vote on this, because there should be no disagreement on that. Again, in this continuing resolution, I will repeat to my colleagues, there is an increase in funding for veterans' health.

I think we should move forward. Get this conference report done. There will be more conference reports down the road. This is not an easy process. I think I've come to learn that the House of Representatives does not control the United States Senate. I wish we did. We would get a lot more done. But that's not the way our system works.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, so nobody is confused here--and I appreciate the opinion of the gentleman from New York, but so nobody is confused here--the bill before us, there are no funds in this bill that may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. None.

We can talk about this all we want, but the facts are the facts, and there's no money in this bill for ACORN.

The gentleman earlier talked about shutdowns of the process. What I recall is when the Republicans were in charge, they shut down the government in 1995. We all know the adverse impacts of that.

For the record, I want to make clear to people that the Legislative Branch appropriation bill does not include Members' salaries. So this notion that we're somehow padding our pockets here is a little bit off the mark. The fact of the matter is, included in the Legislative Branch appropriation bill are moneys to help fund CBO so that it will be easier for Members to obtain PAYGO analyses of their proposals. We're all talking about the need to be more conscious of our debt and our deficit. That's one way to do it.

The other thing is that in this bill is money to protect the people who come and visit the United States Capitol. In this conference report, there are moneys that ensure that the Capitol Complex is as secure and as safe as possible, providing a 7 percent increase in funding for the Capitol Police, covering all mandatory spending and maintaining FY09 force levels. The bottom line here is that the men and women who protect us in the Capitol Police deserve more gratitude than they're getting the way this Legislative Branch appropriation bill is being described.

This is an important bill. All appropriations bills are important. We're going to hopefully pass all of our appropriations bills and not do what my friends on the other side did when they were in power, and that is just pass it off to another year. I think that we should move forward on this.

Again, in the continuing resolution there is an increase in funding for veterans health care. I think that is important. We owe our veterans more, quite frankly, than we are giving them. I hope that all my colleagues will support not only the rule but the final passage of this conference report.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman described this debate as fascinating. I would describe it as kind of bizarre. The Legislative Branch bill that President Clinton threatened to veto, if I remember correctly, the gentleman from California voted for. And I will stress again that there is no money in this bill for ACORN, none, or its affiliates or its subsidiaries. Huge majorities in both the House and the Senate are on record as opposing funding ACORN. This notion that somehow when the CR runs out that the money for ACORN is going to go up, I don't get that. There will either be another CR or we will have passed relevant appropriation bills that will continue the prohibition. So that is kind of a nutty debate, and it is not relevant to this bill because this bill bans Federal funding for ACORN.

The other thing that I will say is that all appropriations bills are important, and we are going to get to all of them. But I think it is wrong to diminish the Legislative Branch appropriation bill, and I think it's wrong to kind of brush aside the importance of funding for the Capitol Police. We have had members of the Capitol Police lose their lives in the line of duty, protecting not only us but protecting our constituents who come here. They deserve to be supported, and they deserve to be thanked. This bill does that.

Again, I will remind my colleagues that in the CR there is an increase in funding for veterans health. Now if you don't want to fund the Capitol Police and you don't want to increase funding for veterans health, then vote against the rule and vote against the final passage of the bill. But I think the vast majority of our constituents are saying, This is a no-brainer. Move this forward. Continue your business. Continue to work on the other appropriations bills, and get your work done. And we are going to do that.

Let me finally say again in support of Chairman Obey and the members of the Appropriations Committee, they did all of their work in this House. Every single one of the appropriation bills has been passed. It is now up to the Senate to pass their bills, and then we will conference them and bring them back here for a final vote.

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to this rule, and I want to briefly explain the amendment. The amendment will provide for adoption of an enrollment resolution that corrects a technical error made by the Senate in the continuing resolution. After the Senate struck a section in the continuing resolution, internal cross-references in the conference report became incorrect. This mistake could block contracting authority for any surface transportation programs, a result that I am certain that no Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, would support. The enrollment resolution corrects the cross-references.

I hope all my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the amendment, the rule and the previous question.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 191, a correcting resolution; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise today to present the conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2010.

I will start by thanking the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Murkowski, for her help throughout the process of completing the bill. We worked very well together, and the result is a true bipartisan product.

I also thank Chairman Inouye and Vice-Chairman Cochran for their support and direction this year as well.

At the request of the full committee, a clean, 1-month continuing resolution has been attached to this conference report.

I believe the bill we have before us today is a good one. This bill will allow the legislative branch to continue to operate and move forward during the next year.

When Senator Murkowski and I began our hearings this year, we both agreed we should lead by example in the legislative branch--being good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. Fiscal year 2010 would be a year of ``must haves'' versus a year of ``nice to haves.'' With one notable, important, and understandable exception, I think we have been successful.

The final conference report contains $50 million for the renovation of the Cannon House Office Building. The conferees included this funding at the request of the House. As a matter of comity, the House and Senate defer to the other body on funding decisions related to their side of the Chamber. The $50 million for the Cannon Building Historical Fund accounts for most of the new overall spending above the cost-of-living increases in our bill.

The conference report before us today totals $4.65 billion, which is $156 million, or 3.5 percent, over fiscal year 2009, $386 million below the budget request.

The bill provides $926 million for the operations of the Senate, which is $31 million, or 3.4 percent, above fiscal year 2009, and $83 million below the request. I am happy to say we were able to reduce the Senate funding by $8 million from the Senate-passed bill. In addition, $1.37 billion is included for the operations of the House in fiscal year 2010.

The bill also provides $328 million for the Capitol Police, which is $22 million, or 7 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This amount fully funds the current onboard strength of 1,799 officers and provides for an additional five civilian employees to assist with the implementation of the radio project. Congress made the decision earlier this year to move forward with this long-overdue project. So now it is critical that the Capitol Police has the personnel it needs to bring this project in successfully--on time and on budget. No excuses.

The Library of Congress is funded at $643 million, an increase of $36 million, or 6 percent, above current year, including full funding requested for the Library's information technology upgrades, which is a top priority of Dr. Billington.

The conference agreement includes $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol. Setting aside the $50 million for the renovation of the Cannon House Building, this mark represents a $22 million, or 4 percent, overall increase for the Architect of the Capitol. The bill includes a very good balance of energy reduction, deferred facilities maintenance, and code compliance projects within the funding provided.

The Government Accountability Office is funded at $557 million, an increase of $26 million, or 5 percent, above fiscal year 2009. This funding supports additional staff to assist GAO in carrying out its vital role in the oversight of the Federal Government.

The Government Printing Office is funded at $147 million, an increase of $7 million, or 5 percent, above current year. This increase provides funding for several of GPO's high-priority information technology projects and much needed repairs to the elevator system of the GPO building.

The conferees included $45 million for the Congressional Budget Office, which is an increase of $1 million above fiscal year 2009. This will provide CBO with the support it needs to fulfill its mission serving Congress.

The Office of Compliance is funded at $4.4 million, which is $305,000, or 7 percent, over current year.

Finally, the conference report includes $12 million for the Open World Leadership Fund. This represents a decrease of $2 million below current year and $2.5 million below the Senate-passed fiscal year 2010 level.

Mr. President, in closing, I thank the staff members who have assisted us throughout this process. First, from Senator Murkowski's staff, I thank Carrie Apostolou and Sarah Wilson for their hard work on this bill. From my staff, I thank Nancy Olkewicz, Kate Howard, and Teri Curtin for their assistance in producing this important legislation.

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.