Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.

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

I guess you all know that we didn't have to be here today debating yet another extension of a continuing resolution and we certainly didn't have to wait until the fiscal year was almost half over to complete a package of spending bills addressing funding for 2009. And yet here we are, 157 days into the new fiscal year, passing another short-term CR while our work on 2009 bills remains unfinished. Unfinished. What a shame. Madam Speaker, what a shame.

Had the Appropriations Committee been allowed by the Democrat leadership to do its work this year, we could have easily passed each of the 12 spending bills. Each of the bills would have benefited from Members offering ideas, debate. We actually do have talented Members on both sides of the aisle at the subcommittee level, not allowed to participate in the process.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative, your rights as a duly elected Member of this body have been belittled by a majority leadership that believes absolute power flows from the top.

Members should have had the opportunity to do what they were elected to do, shape legislation and make sure that their own voices and the voices of their people are heard. Instead, virtually every Member of the House has been shut out of the process of writing this massive $410 billion spending bill that will govern how taxpayer dollars are spent for the remainder of this year.

The sad irony is that while the House passes another CR that keeps the government running, the Senate is doing what the House could only dream of doing, offering and debating amendments to the omnibus bill. It is no wonder so many Members of the House aspire to serve in the Senate. The Senate is the only place left in the U.S. Congress where legislation is still considered under a reasonably open process.

The Senate has wisely observed what the House has failed to recognize: Not one of the nine bills in the omnibus spending package was ever debated or considered in the House or the Senate. Six of the nine bills in the omnibus were never debated or considered by the full House Appropriations Committee. Senators are doing the right thing by attempting to improve this legislation, which is busting at the seams with too much spending.

The Senate's action last night sends an unmistakable signal that spending fatigue has finally set in. Certainly not in the House, but in the Senate spending fatigue has finally set in. Senators from both parties recognize what the House leadership failed to observe, that the spending in the omnibus is excessive and goes far beyond what our public believes is reasonable and responsible.

Omnibus funding represents a $32 billion or 8 percent increase over last year for the very same agencies and programs. This represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since President Carter served in 1978.

There is a storm brewing out there in the hinterlands, fueled by the public's disdain over the free-for-all spending of the Congress. Hundreds of billions of dollars directed to the stimulus package, Wall Street, auto makers, and the line of folks with their hands out continue to grow. Where does the spending end, Madam Speaker?

It has been said completing the omnibus is merely completing last year's unfinished business. But what a wasted opportunity it is to demonstrate to the American people that this Congress and this administration ``gets it,'' and that we are ready to roll up our sleeves and address government spending going forward. Again, where does the spending end?

The Members of the House have had enough of the ``my way or the highway'' legislative process that has governed the formulation of the omnibus, the stimulus package and every supplemental bill passed over the last couple of years, and I believe the majority of our Members have had it with the proliferation of spending that will come to define the 111th Congress under this majority.

Madam Speaker, each of us recognizes that extending a CR one more time is an admission of our failure to complete our work on time. It will surely pass, but let's not lose sight that this is simply doing our work in the worst possible way. Again, it didn't have to be this way.

In closing, Madam Speaker, let me say that I don't believe this is Chairman Obey's fault. While we may disagree over policy and funding levels, we both believe that it is time to get our appropriations process back on track. I look forward to working with the chairman this year and I am hopeful that together we can embrace an open process that allows for the full participation of the Members on both sides of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, my classmate, Dan Burton.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I must say that, as I rise to at least close my side of this discussion, I know that my chairman has to be very, very frustrated to find ourselves this far into the next fiscal year's work, finally passing 9 out of 12 of our appropriations bills from last year, I mean, all lumped into a big package, none of which have had any hearings on the full committee.

The Appropriations Committee members, Democrats and Republicans, presume themselves to have some individual expertise, but we never call upon them. We certainly wouldn't want to call on their fine staff to provide the sort of input that would reflect the finest of the Congress.

I must say, I'm working very hard with my chairman to get us back on regular order for the 2010 appropriations bills that are going to be ahead of us. We're actually going to have subcommittee hearings, Madam Speaker. We actually are probably going to have full committee hearings. We're going to call upon Democrat Members to provide some input regarding what the details are of their bills. Interesting process to get back to that regular order.

But having said that, Madam Speaker, we've taken much too much time and, because of that, I'm very happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I certainly am, Madam Speaker.

Golly, Madam Speaker, I had really hoped we could read that entire thing, but on the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with this speedy process we're going through.

Madam Speaker, I do have a motion to recommit at the desk. I must say that, following that very small bill as described by my chairman, which is only $410 billion on top of $800 billion, it's a shame we can't quite spend enough of the folks' money.

My chairman refers often to one who appears to be his favorite President, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who clearly, for all of us, demonstrated that throwing money at problems to try to solve them was not the answer to those problems.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, going back to my motion to recommit, today we find ourselves in a difficult situation where we must vote on a CR to allow the government to operate while we wait for the Senate to pass this flawed omnibus appropriations bill.

The quandary we face today is a symptom of the larger problem. When Congress engages in regular order where we consider and pass individual appropriations bills on time and under an open process, these massive omnibus bills and continuing resolutions are just simply not needed. However, we are between a rock and a hard place, and this motion to recommit is the best solution to that.

Instead of punting for yet another few days, this motion takes care of the problem now by providing funding for the rest of the fiscal year at an adequate and restrained level while we consider the other huge packages that are coming forth from this leadership. This motion to recommit extends the current funding levels for all government agencies and programs with certain exceptions.

I must mention as I talk about the exceptions: The other side, but particularly my chairman, loves to talk about cuts from cuts. The public should understand that those cuts really are talking about cuts from wished-for increases in spending from the previous fiscal year. In about 90 percent of the cases, that is the case.

These exceptions include law enforcement programs in our package like the DEA, the FBI, U.S. Attorneys, the Judiciary, and the detention programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which helps local communities with the costs associated with the incarceration of illegal aliens. These programs will receive limited and necessary increases to maintain public safety. This motion also allows the Pell Grant increase approved in the enacted stimulus bill to move forward into next year.

Madam Speaker, a year-long continuing resolution with these exceptions is the best option. It will maintain critical government services at a

sufficient level while saving the taxpayers between $15 billion and $18 billion compared with our Democratic leadership's 2009 spending plan. It is time to move forward with the work of this new Congress and, once and for all, close out 2009 and its appropriations process. This motion will allow us to do this immediately and responsibly and without massive spending increases that the taxpayers cannot afford.

As we begin the work of the 2010 appropriations process, it is my hope and, I believe, the commitment from my leader that we can work together in a bipartisan way to complete our annual work on time and under regular order. That is even with subcommittee hearings--my goodness--and with full committee hearings. This includes asking the Democrat and Republican members of the Appropriations Committee to participate individually, even talking to their staffs once in a while in a professional way. That would be, indeed, a wonderful change to return to regular order.

So, with that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate your accepting my motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous and tabular material on H.J. Res. 38.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, this proposition simply keeps the government open until midnight on Wednesday so we can complete our business. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I don't know how many of us remember the old song, ``Shine on Harvest Moon.'' I'm reminded this morning more of ``Whine on Harvest Moon'' when I hear some of the complaints lodged about budget practices by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I also am tempted to ask where on Earth is Herbert Hoover, but then I come to the realization, which is obvious, that he is alive and well, and resides in the House Republican caucus.

I find it strange to be lectured by folks on that side of the aisle, the folks who did such a ``brilliant'' job of running this institution and in running this economy and in running this country for the last 8 years. I find it interesting to be lectured on fiscal responsibility by people who borrowed $1.2 trillion in order to pay for tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, all on borrowed money. I find it interesting to be lectured by people who managed to borrow almost $1 trillion so far to fund what I regard as the most avoidable and dumbest war in American history, in Iraq, who paid for the whole war on the cuff. I find it ironic to be lectured about earmarks by the party that spent twice as much money on earmarks as we are spending since we took over and reformed the earmarking process. I also find it interesting to be lectured about economics by the folks who presided over a government which, in the words of FDR, was frozen in the ice of its own indifference while 90 percent of all of the income growth in this country in the past 8 years went into the pockets of the wealthiest 10 percent of people in our society, leaving everybody else to struggle for table scraps.

So I do find all of that interesting, but I don't find it particularly productive, and I think we ought to get back, not to what we don't like or do like about what has happened in this institution, but I think we ought to focus instead on what is happening outside this institution to average Americans all over the country.

As has been noted several times this morning, the recent figures out of the Labor Department now indicate that unemployment has now risen above 8 percent. We're told by the most reputable economists in the country that it's liable to rise above 10 percent or even significantly worse. We see almost 700,000 new workers who are unemployed today in comparison to last month. We have lost 3 million jobs since the Democratic Party in the House tried to produce the first economic stimulus bill, modest though it was, in September of last year.

We are now debating a bill which is $20 billion for education, for health care, for science, and the like, which is $20 billion above the budget request made by President Bush last year. That sounds like a lot of money until you compare it to the $200 billion that this economy has already lost because of its shrinkage just in the last 3 months of last year, and that $20 billion in increased government funding looks mighty small in comparison to the $200 billion more that we expect to have seen the economy shrink by in the first 3 months of this year, leaving a total hole in the economy for just that 6-month period of $400 billion.

We are trying in this bill to provide the funding, which was the base for the stimulus bill that we passed just 3 weeks ago in this place, and they are intimately related to each other. This is an integral part of what we did in the stimulus package, which is supported by the American people in the most recent polls by well over 60 percent of the American public. They understand, when the economy is contracting at a record rate, squeezing millions of Americans out of the circle of prosperity, that we've got to respond to try to reinflate that economy again, and so this bill plays a small but crucial role in doing that.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should just do a full year's CR. Well, if you do, you will come in virtually, identically, very close, at least, to President Bush's budget request for these programs. I don't think in a time of near economic collapse that we want to do that.

I don't believe that we want to eliminate the funds in this bill that are meant to deal with the Social Security/

disability backlog. I don't believe that we want to see the Federal Housing Administration cease to have the ability to issue mortgage insurance in April, as would be the case if we simply provided funding at the level that our friends want us to provide under their motion to recommit. I don't believe that we should follow a course of action which would mean that we could provide no new targeted vouchers for disabled and homeless veterans. I don't believe that we should eliminate the $37 million that we have in this bill to enhance enforcement, oversight and investor protections at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Neither do I believe that we ought to cut these programs to the level supported and requested by President Bush last year. If we did that, we would be cutting the Job Corps by $46 million. We would be eliminating the employment service grants. We would be cutting senior jobs programs by $172 million. We would be eliminating vocational education. We would be terminating the Community Services Block Grant program and so many others.

So I think the point is obvious. We really have operating here two different parties with two different visions for the future of this country, and we believe that when the private sector is essentially collapsing, as it is right now, that the government has an opportunity to step in and do what it can through fiscal policy and through supporting crucial programs, such as contained in the omnibus bill, so that we can counter the economic destruction that's going on in the private sector of the economy. That is what this bill tries to do.

If Members are more comfortable with the idea that we should simply glide along, do nothing and stick to the way we did things last year, be my guest. I don't think that's going to help the economy very much. I don't think it's going to impress the American people very much.

So I would urge the rejection of the motion to recommit when it's offered, and I would urge the passage of this resolution. In the end, the passage of this resolution is necessary in order to keep the government open, and that's what we ought to do today by passing this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the motion, and I urge passage of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I was not present for the following roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall No. 454, on H. Con. Res. 292, Supporting the goals and ideals of National

Aerospace Week, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 450, on H. Res. 1219, Expressing support for designation of September as National Child Awareness Month, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 449, on H. Con. Res. 126, Recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title VI international education programs within the Department of Education, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 448, on H. Res. 1472, Expressing support for designation of the week of September 13, 2010, as National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 372, on H.R. 5297, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 293, on H.R. 5330, To Amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to Extend the Operation of Such Act for a 5-Year Period Ending June 22, 2015, and for Other Purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 292, H.R. 1017, Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 291, H. Con. Res. 278, Expressing the Sense of Congress That a Grateful Nation Supports and Salutes Sons and Daughters in Touch on Its 20th Anniversary That is Being Held on Father's Day, 2010, at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, the District of Columbia, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 213, H. Res. 1271, Honoring the Life and Achievements of Rev. Benjamin Lawson Hooks, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 212, H. Res. 1257, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Financial Literacy Month, 2010, and for Other Purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 172, H. Res. 1205, Providing for Consideration of the Bill (H.R. 4849) to Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Provide Tax Incentives for Small Business Job Creation, Extend the Build America Bonds Program, Provide Other Infrastructure Job Creation Tax Incentives, and for Other Purposes (On Ordering the Previous Question), I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 153, On Approving the Journal, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 84, H. Res. 699, Expressing the Appreciation of Congress for the Service and Sacrifice of the Members of the 139th Airlift Wing, Air National Guard, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 50, H.R. 4238, To Designate the Facility of the United States Postal Service Located at 930 39th Avenue in Greeley, Colorado, As the ``W.D. Farr Post Office Building'', I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 49, H.R. 4425, To Designate the Facility of the United States Postal Service Located at 2-116th Street in North Troy, New York, As the ``Martin G. `Marty' Mahar Post Office'', I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 19, H. Res. 1003, Expressing Support for the Designation of January 10, 2010, Through January 16, 2010, As National Influenza Vaccination Week, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 18, H. Res. 1011, Recognizing the Importance of Cervical Health and of Detecting Cervical Cancer During Its Earliest Stages and Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 17, H. Res. 990, Expressing Support for Designation of January 2010 As ``National Mentoring Month'', I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 5, H.R. 3892, To Designate the Facility of the United States Postal Service Located at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, North Carolina, As the ``E.V. Wilkins Post Office'', I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 858, H. Res. 868, Honoring and Recognizing the Service and Achievements of Current and Former Female Members of the Armed Forces, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 381, H.R. 2847, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 109, H.J. Res. 38, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009, and for Other Purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall No. 108, H.J. Res. 38, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009, and for Other Purposes, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 107, On Approving the Journal, I would have voted ``aye.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have one option here because the government will shut down tomorrow by action of this Congress. And so our alternative is to keep the government operating, to defend our people in many ways, continue health care in many ways, to make sure that the services that are needed and available for our citizens remain so.

The Senate has already deemed the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to be passed. Why? Because they've gone home. They're not here.

I urge every Member to reject this motion to recommit. Why? Because it will be objected to by at least one Senator, and therefore, the government will shut down.

Pending before the Senate is an appropriation bill passed by this House to fund government and to apply the resources of our country to our country's priorities. The gentleman from California knows that we had to do that numerous times under his chairmanship. Sometimes we passed those bills in January, sometimes we passed them in February, having a very large number of bills because the regular order was not effected within the time frame set forth. He did not like that. I did not like it. We don't like it as a process. None of us like this process, and hopefully we will have the cooperation of both sides so that it is not affected again.

But we have pending in the Senate a bill, the omnibus bill, and let me read to you the quote of the Republican leader of the United States Senate:

``If we want to do a bill immediately, again, my recommendation is the omnibus appropriations bill.'' Hear me. This is Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader.

``These were nine bills that were not passed by October when they should have been passed.'' I agree with that.

``They are ready to go,'' he said. ``They've already been vetted by both sides,'' he said, ``would pass on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis,'' he said, ``and much of that spending, George''--he was speaking to George Stephanopoulos--``would be on things similar to what the President may be asking for in that package.''

He was accurate then; he's accurate now. But unfortunately, the Senate did not effect the passage of this bill in a timely fashion, although they have had it for a significant period of time.

And so the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is confronted with but one option because the option that is offered on the other side will not receive unanimous consent. And the Senate, as I said before, has gone home.

And so I say to all of my colleagues on our side of the aisle, we need to pass this motion, and we need to reject the motion to recommit. And responsibly, there is not another option.

So I ask all, on both sides of the aisle, to give us the opportunity to move forward, to keep the government open, and to continue the debate that the Senate apparently wants to continue to have. The minority does not have the votes in the Senate to do what they want to do. The majority will vote for the omnibus appropriations bill. This is not a question of whether the majority of the Senate is for it, it's a question of whether the minority will stop its passage.

We can be here Saturday and Sunday and Monday and heaven knows how long, but it will not change the fact that confronts us.

Reject this motion to recommit that will not be approved by the Senate, pass the short-term continuing resolution proposed by the chairman, and let us come back next week and work the will of this House and the Senate.

At a time when Americans are more concerned than ever before about the security of their job, about their next paycheck, about the strength of the American economy, at a time when everyone in Congress should be focused on protecting the American economy from sliding deeper into recession, the new majority in Congress is focused on spending more money and less time than any Congress in U.S. history.

These first 32 days that the new majority has been in control have been focused on, in many ways I'm reminded of what used to happen when a conquered city fell to a conquering army. The army was given 3 days to pillage.

This is like an unrestrained, absolutely unrestrained spending spree that we've never seen before in our history. We have, in these 32 days, the new majority in Congress has spent about $1.6 trillion, $800 billion in the stimulus package, $400 billion with this omnibus here in front of us, $350 billion with the additional TARP funds, at least $65 billion in the new SCHIP children's health insurance bill.

We are spending money we do not have. We're borrowing money to pay off borrowed money. It is as though the new majority were paying off America's mortgage with a credit card. And everyone in America understands that this defies common sense. It defies all reason. No one in their private life would engage in conduct like this. And we, at a time of economic peril for the Nation, should not engage in it in Congress.

We, in the minority, the fiscal conservatives, have not only fought as politely as thoughtfully and carefully as we can this spending, but today we're offering a clear choice to the Congress and the country. We fiscal conservatives are offering an alternative to freeze Federal spending for the remainder of the fiscal year with a continuing resolution. It's called freeze current spending. That's common sense. It's something everyone in America can understand, that at home, in our businesses, and certainly when it comes to protecting the Treasury of the United States of America, we must not spend more than we bring in.

We cannot spend more as a Nation than we bring in in revenue. We're already on a national credit card. And no matter who I talk to, in an E-town hall meeting last night, people back home who have never been involved in politics before

are paying attention closely to this debate. And today we fiscal conservatives in the minority are offering a very simple, clear choice.

Our alternative today, the motion to recommit, the vote that will be taken today, America, on the motion to recommit, a ``yes'' vote to recommit is a vote to keep spending flat for the rest of the fiscal year and exercise fiscal restraint. A ``no'' vote is to continue this unrestrained spending spree which will bankrupt our children.