National Public Notification of Environmental Hazards Act of 2009

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 184 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Once again, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using this procedural maneuver to try to prevent consideration of an important piece of legislation.

Technically, the point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. But we all know that it's really about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the merits of the legislation itself.

I oppose any effort to shut down debate in consideration of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important piece of legislation on its merits and not kill it on a procedural motion.

The underlying bill we are talking about represents the compilation of nine appropriations bills from last year. There is important funding in here for health care, for education, for transportation, to help move our economy forward. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage, but we must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I will say to the gentleman, as far as I know, there are no unfunded mandates in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion so we can consider the underlying bill, which is a compilation of nine appropriations bills, which really represents kind of a completion of last year's work. There is money in here for important transportation projects, for health care projects, for education projects, all very important to get our economy moving again.

I would also say that the earmark process has been much improved since the Democrats took control of the Congress. There is more transparency, as the gentleman conceded, and I think there is more scrutiny given to individual earmarks.

But let me just say one other thing. I believe in the integrity, in the character of every single person that serves in this Congress, and I believe the people, Republicans and Democrats, do the best they can for their constituents. And I really take exception when the character of individuals in this Congress is brought into question and somehow a vague allegation is out there that there is something sinister going on.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of these earmarks go to things like emergency rooms at hospitals, go to bridges to help rebuild infrastructure, go to help schools and to help kids get an education.

I would say to the gentleman if he is uncomfortable with this process, that he should know that 40 percent of the earmarks that are in these underlying bills are Republican earmarks. And so that old saying, ``Physician, heal thyself,'' I would suggest that he bring this up to members of his own conference.

But I believe that these bills represent the hard work of Republicans and Democrats. There are good things in these bills. We need to move forward on this. We can't delay. If we delay, I think it will have a negative impact on our economy.

So I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 184.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 184 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The rule provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also self- executes an amendment that blocks the automatic cost-of-living adjustment due to be provided to Members of Congress in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, represents the completion of last year's work. We are in this position today for one principal reason, George W. Bush failed to provide budgets that reflected the real needs of the American people. And his philosophy was essentially ``my way or the highway.''

If he had gotten his way last year, he would have cut energy efficiency, renewable energy and weatherization programs. He would have cut education by eliminating vocational education programs, slashing higher education programs, and cutting programs to help teachers and improve technology. He would have cut healthcare access programs, even as the number of uninsured Americans grew. He would have frozen biomedical research funding and cut the Centers for Disease Control. And he would have cut State and local law enforcement grants and job training, employment services and worker protections curing this economic crisis.

So today, our job is to fix things, to clean up the mess of the last administration, and to help the American people.

Last night, President Obama gave an incredible speech, and he promised to do things differently. He promised an honest accounting of our Nation's needs. That may not seem revolutionary, but it's a big and positive change from the past 8 years.

For the first time, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will actually be included in the budget. The costs won't be covered up or hidden. No more gimmicks. The American people will know the real costs of these wars.

We will anticipate and budget for Federal dollars in response to national disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes.

And President Obama, last night, pledged to cut the deficit in half by the year 2012, a promise to bring back fiscal responsibility. In short, there will be more truth-telling.

Mr. Speaker, we need to move forward, and I believe that we will. But first we need to dispense with last year's business.

Some of my friends on the other side complain that we shouldn't pass this omnibus bill today because it's too expensive. They complain that it will add to the deficit. It's interesting to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle worry out loud about the deficit. Where have they been for the last 8 years?

Facts are a stubborn thing, Mr. Speaker, and the facts speak for themselves. We are facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we have the biggest debt in the history of the United States of America. This is something we inherited from my friends on the other side of the aisle. So it is somewhat ironic that the very people who drove this economy into a ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need to do whatever possible to get this economy back on track and to help the American people. The policies of the past, the same old same old, they failed. I believe this President has the political will to do the right thing. I believe he will get the economy back on track and he will get our fiscal house in order. And I believe that this Congress will support him.

What is before us, to put it simply, is help for States, cities and towns and for average people. There's an increase over current levels of appropriations. This, combined with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, provides a lot of help to a lot of people.

This is not the bill, Mr. Speaker, that I would have written if it were solely up to me, and I don't believe it is the bill that Chairman Obey would have written if it was solely up to him. This bill reflects bipartisan negotiations and bipartisan compromises.

I want to see more money in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for roads and bridges, more money for international food aid and anti-hunger programs like the McGovern-Dole Program and Food for Peace, and more money to combat climate change. I want to see Pell Grants fully funded, and I want to make sure that all eligible children receive a meal during the summer months if they receive a meal during the school year.

But I'm glad that we have reversed the Bush cuts on domestic priorities. I'm proud of the increased funding for WIC in this bill, funding that will help low-income pregnant mothers and newborns receive the healthy food that they need. And I'm pleased that this bill provides a 19 percent increase for the Food and Drug Administration, funding that will be used for critical oversight of our Nation's food supply

so we don't have any more contamination scares like the recent peanut contamination cases that we've recently seen.

This bill also increases funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by providing $558 million above 2008 for a total of $11.5 billion. And this bill provides $550 million for the COPS program, a program critical to the safety of our cities and towns.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get this bill completed. We need to finish the job left over from the last Congress and turn the page, once and for all, on the last 8 years. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to defend George W. Bush's economic policies of the last 8 years. They can have at it. I think the American people want a change. That's what they voted for in this election. I would just like to show my colleagues:

This is a chart entitled ``Record Deterioration'' on the budgets under Republican administrations. You'll see that we get deeper into deficit spending under George Bush 1. Then the blue line represents Bill Clinton when, actually, we went into surplus. Then this red line that kind of goes after the charts represents the policies of George W. Bush. We are in a mess because of the reckless policies of the last 8 years, and we need to dig ourselves out of it.

I would also say to my friend that he says that there is no Republican input on this bill at all. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has seven earmarks in this bill. The gentleman from Florida, who is sitting next to him, has 24 earmarks. Forty percent of the earmarks in this bill is the Republicans'. How did they magically show up in this bill? The bottom line is there has been bipartisan cooperation and collaboration and negotiation on this bill, and we need to get this bill done because we need to move on.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. Obey).

I yield to the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Obey to respond to the last speaker, I would like to express my surprise that he would oppose a bill in which he has 30 earmarks in it.

At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 30 seconds.

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

I want to remind the previous speaker and some of my friends on the other side that they have been in charge for 8 years in the White House; 6 of those 8 years they've been in charge of the Congress. They can't blame this on Bill Clinton who, by the way, left the White House with a surplus.

This is the debt that has been accumulated during the Bush administration. The debt has doubled during this past administration. This is the legacy of their policy.

The election was about change. People have had it. People want investments, not in tax cuts for the wealthy, but they want investments in education----

No. At this point I will not.

They want investments in transportation, in education, and in the future of this country. But this is what they created. This is undeniable. This is what happened during the Bush years: a doubling of the debt. And that is a legacy that our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay for.

I give President Obama a great deal of credit in this tough economic crisis to not only understand that we need to invest in our people to help create jobs and to help get this economy back on the right track, but he also said last night very clearly that we are going to be fiscally responsible and we are going to cut the deficit in half in 4 years. That is a benchmark that he will be measured by, and I will tell you that I think that what he said last night was what the American people wanted to hear. It's why he won the election in November.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

I just remind the gentleman that the Republicans controlled Congress for 6 of the last 8 years.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say I am grateful to the gentleman for supporting the rule. I'm glad he agrees with us that in this tough economic time we should not go forward with a pay raise for Members of Congress. But I would simply point out that passing the rule in and of itself doesn't deny Members a pay raise. You

need to pass the rule and pass the bill; otherwise, it doesn't happen. So I would urge him maybe to rethink his position.

At this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Obey and the members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle and their staff for their tireless efforts in trying to put together a bill that will help the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. This is, as I said earlier, a completion of last year's work. Unfortunately, the White House refused to negotiate with the Congress. They showed an incredible amount of disrespect and indifference to what congressional leaders of both parties had to say, and it was their way or the highway, and so here we are. We're trying to wrap up last year's work in a way that will help the American people.

My colleague from Texas talks about that we should have a freeze on all spending. Well, given this economy, that kind of a policy would leave a lot of people in the cold. It will take some government investment to get us out of this ditch that we're in. And no matter how you want to look at it, the graphs and the charts are all the same, that these last 8 years this administration's policies, with the help of a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in charge of Congress, have driven this economy into a ditch, and we need to get out of this ditch.

Mr. Speaker, I should also tell my colleagues that this rule also prevents Members of Congress from receiving a pay raise, and every Member of this House has the opportunity to vote up or down on this rule. And a vote against this rule and I would say a vote against the bill is a vote for the congressional pay raise. So if you have said publicly that you oppose the congressional pay raise, that you would vote against an increase in your salary if you could, well, here's your chance. If you vote ``no'' on the rule and you vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, then you are voting to increase your pay. I think during these difficult economic times, that's the least this Congress can do, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this closed rule. And Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague and friend, has had a chance to sit here and blame George Bush for what was entirely this body's responsibility. I think that's an awkward position for anybody to be in, to blame the President of the United States for what we have done or what we will do.

The gentleman from Massachusetts quite plainly said that George Bush and Republicans tried to hide the real costs of the war and did not put it in fiscal terms to where it came out for the budget where we would all understand it and tried to hide it. Well, let me just say this, that we just passed an $800 billion plus emergency spending bill that did exactly the same thing that he was saying George Bush did, Republicans did, about not being honest about what the real facts of the case are, hiding the budget money.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we're here today to debate a bill that was ready to go last June, and people are blaming George Bush for our inability to get that on the floor. And I think that that's just not true.

The bottom line is that this body decided, through the Democrat leadership, that they didn't want to move the bill forward because there was an election. And if there had been an election where tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars more would be passed by this Congress, then the American people would have seen that. Instead, they waited until after the election.

So I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule, and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. Week after week my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze their massive spending bills on the floor of the House of Representatives, with no Republican input and no regular order, in this Congress.

This is the third time in a little over a month that I've managed a rule in this 111th Congress where my Democratic colleagues have had no hearings, no markups and allowed no amendments by Republicans. Senator Harry Reid yesterday was quoted as saying that he is going to allow Republicans and Democrats to offer amendments in the Senate. So why won't Speaker Pelosi allow Members of this House the same privilege?

In an effort to encourage the Democratic leadership to uphold their promise to the American people of being the most open, honest and ethical Congress, I think, and our Republican leadership believes, that we should hold hearings and be held accountable for what we do, including Republican feedback and amendments. In a letter dated the 5th of this month, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer were asked if they would immediately post the text of the omnibus and all of the earmark and spending projects included. Yet, once again, our friends, the Democrats, have posted the text of this massive spending bill, which holds nine of the remaining 12 appropriations bills, only a day and a half before the vote. And yet our letter states that ``in the midst of a severe recession, taxpayers should have a right to read and see each provision of this legislation.'' Taxpayers elected each and every one of us. We should be able to ``evaluate the merit of each dollar of government spending that their children and grandchildren will be required to fund.'' I think Americans deserve better.

Last week I had the opportunity, when I was back home for the break, to speak to many constituents back in Texas, and they are growing increasingly upset and concerned with the amount of massive spending that this Democratic majority is pursuing. Last week President Obama signed a $792 billion stimulus package into law that consisted of over $500 billion in new spending. This week, my friends and our colleagues, the Democrats, are at it again. Now we're discussing a $410 billion omnibus for a fiscal year that we're almost halfway through.

The legislation we're discussing today is actually an increase of 8.3 percent over the 2008 fiscal year funding, which is more than $32 billion. The omnibus appropriations bill contains funding for many of the same agencies and programs that just received funds in the stimulus bill.

Therefore, to uncover the true level of spending for these programs this year, the funding levels of both bills should and must be combined. The combined FY 2009 funding for agencies, including the omnibus and the stimulus, is $680 billion--$301 billion more than these programs received in 2008--for a combined 80 percent spending increase this year, an 80 percent increase in spending this year alone.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the President held a fiscal responsibility summit that was attended by Republicans and Democrats. How can the President take my Democrat colleagues seriously when they spend another $410 billion after the $792 billion stimulus? There is nothing fiscally responsible regarding designating $1.2 trillion in spending in just 2 weeks.

American families and small businesses are making sacrifices across this country and are cutting expenses due to tough economic times. Yet this Democratic majority continues to spend like there is no problem at all. Worse yet, we are taking a bill that was completely marked up last year and are assuming that those same needs are needed now.

Republicans welcome President Obama's call for fiscal responsibility, and we are willing to make the hard choices necessary to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington. Republican leadership has called for a spending freeze, and in a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, this past Monday, we did exactly that.

At a time of deficits, a freeze would allow the Federal Government to continue functioning at current levels, just like we have been doing for the past 6 months, while showing the commitment to the American people that we, as Members of Congress, are taking this crisis very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress must do better than this to prevent the enormous growth of Federal spending from encroaching on the family budgets of Americans. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation as it is currently drafted.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker and Majority Leader Hoyer: Many weeks ago,

you scheduled this week to consider the Fiscal Year 2009

omnibus spending bill. Now that you have announced that

consideration will be delayed until after the President's Day

recess, we remain troubled that the text of the bill has not

been made available to the public and are concerned about the

apparent precedent being established with massive spending

bills in the 111th Congress. We urge you to make the text of

the bill and explanatory statement available to all by

posting it on-line and heeding President Obama's call for

more transparency in government.

In the face of the highest deficit in our Nation's history,

the Majority has asked the American taxpayers to fund nearly

$1.5 trillion in new government spending in just four short

weeks. And yet now the Majority plans to spend hundreds of

billions more without yet sharing the content of the bill

with Republican Members or the public. In the midst of a

severe recession, taxpayers have a right to see each

provision of this legislation and evaluate the merit of each

dollar of government spending their children and

grandchildren are being required to fund.

Recent experience has demonstrated that transparency,

scrutiny, and regular order are essential tools for crafting

effective and prudent legislation. Vast spending bills that

have been rushed through the House. such as the so-called

``stimulus,'' were hastily considered without adequate input

from both sides of the aisle--and the American taxpayer is

worse off for it.

Without regular order and sufficient time to examine this

legislation how can the American people and Members of

Congress know where the $500 billion will be spent?

What will the funding increases be for the final six months

of fiscal year 2009? Sadly, if the Majority refuses to

release at least the text of the omnibus, none of these

questions will be answered before the House votes to add

hundreds of billions more to the deficit.

Again, we urge you to make the text of the omnibus spending

bill and explanatory statement available to the public

immediately, allowing all sides to judge the merit of each

taxpayer dollar spent.

Sincerely,

Representatives John Boehner; Mike Pence; Cathy McMorris

Rodgers; Pete Sessions; David Dreier; Eric Cantor;

Thaddeus McCotter; John Carter; Roy Blunt; Kevin

McCarthy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Miami and from the Rules Committee (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of Natural Resources, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a bright young member of the Republican Conference, Jeb Hensarling.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I would also remind the gentleman that for 6 of those 8 years, Republicans controlled this House of Representatives, and the economy was great because we didn't try and run the investor out on the terms of what's fair for the American people. Once we had tax increases yelled about every day on this floor of this House of Representatives, the investor got it.

So we've got a lot of fairness under the terms that my friends, the Democrats, wanted. And that is where it's called massive unemployment and economic chaos.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hamilton, New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I give the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Augusta, Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, Mr. Flake, had it right this morning when he said this bill is heavy, and it is. And this is the bill that we're getting ready to pass, hundreds of billions of more dollars that will be taken from the American people that we're borrowing this money.

Just last week, we passed a bill that was twice this size, all borrowed money. This is a bill that, by and large, was put together last June and ready to go. We are now 5 full months through the fiscal year, and yet we decided to go ahead and do the exact same bill in the remaining 7 months; 8 percent increase if we had 12 months, now we've got 7 months left. All borrowed time, all borrowed money off of a system that now, months later, is under greater distress.

The American family, the American taxpayer, American business, even investors to this great country, like China--as we've heard the gentleman, Mr. Kirk, talk about--the investors, people who will pay for this debt, are growing weary of bigger and bigger government, of more and more spending.

And I do recognize that we disagree with each other on the floor based upon party lines, but at some point there has to be a reality check. And the reality check is that, since we decided to wait almost half a year, why not cut it in half? Makes sense to me. Perhaps that's common sense; perhaps it's just political shenanigans. But, Mr. Speaker, here we are today with 7 months remaining and we're going to cram down an 8.5 percent increase.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The bill that we are talking about, again, is a large bill, $400 billion worth of spending, very few committee markups, committee hearings. We heard that they could not negotiate with the President because they didn't want to have to make tough decisions to fit within a box the package that would be, I think, best for the American people, $400 billion more worth of spending.

Borrowed money is difficult for the United States, and it's my hope that sometime during this process that my friends the Democrats are going through that they will recognize that borrowing money is a sad way to run the business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 184 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the conference report, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is against the bill because it may contain unfunded mandates. We have in this body a question of consideration where we shouldn't move ahead with a bill if it might contain unfunded mandates.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is we have no idea whether this contains unfunded mandates or not. I can't tell you definitively if it does, and here's why:

This is the bill. This is the bill that we received less than 48 hours ago. It contains, for example, roughly 9,000 earmarks. Now, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe in my time here--it's getting heavy. I'll put it down. In my time here in 8 years I don't think I have ever seen a bill, and I know that it didn't happen prior to my time here, where one single bill has contained this many earmarks, 9,000. And let me point out this is a combination of nine bills, only three of which went even through the Committee on Appropriations. The rest of them didn't even go through the full committee, just the subcommittee. We didn't have the ability to go to the floor and challenge any of these. That just wasn't available to us.

So here we are today with this stack that we just got less than 48 hours ago and we are told that we have to pile through and try to see if these 9,000 earmarks, which is part of a spending bill that spends $410 billion, to see if they're valid, to see if there is a Federal nexus, to see if there might be anything untoward. We don't know. None of us can actually go through that, and so we shouldn't proceed with consideration of this bill.

One way to look at it is that there are 9,000 earmarks in the bill. The way that we should look at it as well, and I don't know how many, nobody can tell me how many, but it's a safe bet to assume there are a few thousand, at least, no-bid contracts. These are earmarks that go to private companies that nobody else has a chance to bid on.

Now, one of the best lines I felt that the President used last night, and it was one of the greatest applause lines that we had and justifiably so, the President said we have had no-bid defense contracts with regard to Iraq, and we shouldn't. And the whole place erupted in applause. I myself stood up. We shouldn't do that. Yet in this piece of legislation, we have at least a few thousand no-bid contracts. No-bid contracts that are going to private companies whose executives and the lobbyists who represent them have contributed millions of dollars to Members in this body, the same Members who have requested those earmarks.

Now, one need not suggest that there is anything untoward in any of them only to suggest that somebody on the outside certainly thinks there is. There is one group, the PMA group, who makes a habit of requesting a lot of earmarks in bills. In fact, in the 2008 defense bill, they got $300 million in earmarks for their clients from this body. That same lobbying firm has clients receiving a dozen or so earmarks in this bill. These are earmarks to private companies. These are no-bid contracts that we are doing that we all stand up and applaud when the President says we shouldn't have no-bid contracts going to private companies, and yet in this piece of legislation we are going to consider today, unless we stop consideration, we're going to be approving thousands of no-bid contracts to private companies.

Now, can anybody in this body stand to tell me that that is right and proper? Are we upholding the dignity of the House and the decorum of the House by doing so? We know that there is an investigation going on right now of one of those firms that sought earmarks and received earmarks in this bill. A lobbying firm received several for their clients. Yet they remain in this piece of legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

The gentleman makes a point that we should discuss the merits of the bill. This point of order is raised against continuing because we don't know if there are unfunded mandates in the bill.

Again, I will yield to the gentleman if he can assure me that there are no unfunded mandates in this bill, if he can say that he has read this piece of legislation or that he knows that there are none, because I think that it's incumbent upon us.

I will yield to the gentleman if he can make that assurance.

Thank you. As far as I know, there might be, there may not be.

But I can tell you, when you have a bill this large that we got just 48 hours ago, we simply don't know.

Typically, several years ago, we were having problems, we had Members of this body who were indicted and were convicted and are now in jail for earmark abuse. We said at that time that we should have reform, we should have transparency. We got some transparency, and that's great, and I applaud the other side of the aisle for doing what they did to bring this about.

Transparency, sunlight always illuminates, but doesn't always disinfect, contrary to popular belief. You have to follow up transparency with something else.

Some may say we have a transparent process now because we got copies of 9,000 earmarks 48 hours in advance of considering the legislation, but I don't have the ability, nor does any Member of this body, to actually challenge any of the 9,000 earmarks contained in this legislation.

Typically, appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule, which allows Members of Congress to challenge specific earmarks. Are there one of these no-bid contracts, for example, that was lobbied for by the PMA group, a group that is now under Federal investigation that has since imploded just days after it was revealed they were under investigation?

Are some of these earmarks, perhaps, untoward? Many people would actually like to challenge that, have the author, have the one who secured the earmark come to the floor and defend that earmark: ``Here is why this company deserves a no-bid contract. Here is why I know, as a Member of Congress, that nobody else can provide the services that they can provide, and they deserve a no-bid contract. Here is why.'' We aren't allowed to do that, because this legislation is coming to the floor under a closed rule and no amendments like that are even offered. I can't challenge any earmarks in this legislation, nor can anybody in this body. It's one vote for the whole package.

We are better than that. The people who sent us here deserve better than that. This great institution deserves better than that. Let's not proceed with consideration of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, later today we will be considering a privileged resolution that is brought to the floor to ask the Ethics Committee to investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

We know, as I mentioned, that the Department of Justice is currently conducting that kind of investigation. Politico reported just a few days ago that several sources have said that the Department of Justice has been building a case based on earmarks and campaign contributions or investigating earmarks and campaign contributions.

Yet our own Ethics Committee guidelines state that earmarks that are received from those who we get a no-bid contract for are proper and not a problem.

My fear is that our own Ethics Committee here in the House has a different standard, a more lax standard than, perhaps, the Department of Justice has. And Members of Congress, who are securing earmarks or no-bid contracts for private companies, might be exposed more than they think they are.

And even if they aren't, upholding the dignity and decorum of this body dictates that we do something more here, that we actually have a process that is above reproach. And when you have investigations swirling out there over lobby firms and others, we aren't upholding the decorum and dignity of this body.

This resolution that we will consider later today is not a partisan resolution. No Member is mentioned. No party is mentioned. And before you vote to table this resolution, to kill it, please consider, don't we deserve better here?

Shouldn't we have a standard that's higher than indictment and conviction? Don't the people who sent us here deserve a little better than that?

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this totally closed rule. As the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, I especially object to a very dangerous policy rider that could seriously threaten new job creation and economic growth across our entire country.

Section 429 of this bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw, with no public notice and no public comment, two rules established during the Bush administration that ensure the listing of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is not transformed into a vast new expansion of government power to impose greenhouse gas emission regulations on economic activity across America.

Section 429 empowers the Interior Department or a Federal judge to limit potentially any carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emission in all 50 States using the polar bear and the Endangered Species Act as a regulatory vehicle.

We all want to protect the polar bear. As the Washington Post editorialized last year, ``Though the polar bear deserves protection, the Endangered Species Act is not the means, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is not the agency to arrest global warming.''

By wiping out this rule under 429, any increase in carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emission would be subject to a potential lawsuit on the grounds that the action must first require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate emissions.

What emits greenhouse gases? I will name a few examples, Mr. Speaker. It's building a new factory in Pennsylvania or a new school on an Indian reservation, it's farming and cattle ranching. Most all of the shovel-ready projects on the trillion-dollar stimulus bill would, in fact, be at risk.

Democrats know section 429 is extremely controversial so they slipped this into this massive spending bill behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, why the secrecy? The reason is obvious. Section 429 threatens the creation of new jobs in every State and can do real harm to our already troubled economy. This is a backdoor maneuver to warp the original purpose and intent of the Endangered Species Act to invent vast new climate change powers for the Federal Government to control economic activities.

Democrats claim section 429 is just an attempt to stop midnight rules completed at the end of the Bush administration. Yet, Mr. Speaker, these rules in the Bush administration were written in full compliance with the law. Democrats have written section 429 to say ``forget all the laws; forget public comment from the American people. We don't have to follow the laws. Just wipe these legal rules off the books that put jobs and our economy at risk.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to make note that last night the junior Democrat Senator from Alaska wrote to the Senate Democrat leadership expressing his deep concern and objections to this provision, the harm it could do to economic activity and that it should be removed from this legislation. That's exactly what we should be doing here today. And I ask my colleagues to support that action.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this measure, and I urge my colleagues to open up the omnibus appropriations bill to amendment.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, February 24, 2009.

Hon. Daniel Inouye,

Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Inouye: I write to express my serious concern

over Section 429 of the just-released House version of the

Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1005,

now being considered in the House of Representatives. This

section, which was included in the bill without any advance

notice, would provide significant new authority to the

Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to potentially overturn

two of the regulations the Bush Administration adopted under

the Endangered Species Act. One of the rules is the Polar

Bear Special 4(d) Rule, which has provided some much-needed

legal certainty to the application of the Endangered Species

Act to the North Slope of Alaska. The Secretary of the

Interior would have 60 days from the date of enactment of the

Omnibus Bill to withdraw or ``reissue'' the Special Rule for

the polar bear issued on December 10, 2008.

The language of Section 429 is attached. If Section 429 is

enacted as is, the Secretary would not have to comply with

any statutory or regulatory provision that would normally

affect such an action, including public notice or comments or

consultation requirements. Significantly, Section 429 also

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``reissue'' the

4(d) Rule for the Polar Bear. It is unclear what actions the

Secretary may take in reissuing the rule. While it is

possible that the Secretary would only be authorized to

reissue the Special 4(d) Rule as it was previously published,

under an alternative interpretation, the Secretary may be

able to issue a revised rule, with major changes, without

having to comply with the typical procedural requirements of

the Administrative Procedure Act or the Endangered Species

Act. The existing legislative history of the Omnibus Bill

does not explain how Congress intends the term ``reissue'' to

be interpreted. This lack of clarity will only cause more

legal uncertainty, in an area of law where litigation already

is rampant. Activities of numerous businesses operating in

Alaska, and of the Inupiat people of the North Slope, will be

caught in this void.

Additionally, there would be no ``incidental take''

protection if Section 429 is enacted and the polar bear 4(d)

Rule is withdrawn, without a similar Rule in its place.

Should the Secretary decide to withdraw the 4(d) Rule under

Section 429, the polar bear would remain listed as a

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Under

the Department of the Interior's regulations, the full range

of Section 9 prohibitions apply to all threatened species

unless a species is subject to its own Section 4(d) rule. As

such, the activities currently covered, and protected, by the

4(d) Rule would be at risk for incurring liability under the

Endangered Species Act, should a take of a polar bear occur.

This liability would extend even to minor, incidental impacts

on polar bears from otherwise entirely lawful activities.

This could endanger the public if a polar bear wanders onto a

North Slope playground or village. This liability risk will

remain until the Secretary promulgates new Section 4(d)

regulations for the polar bear. Under this section, the

protections built into the current 4(d) Rule could disappear

without a replacement 4(d) Rule in the works.

I see no valid public policy reason to inflict on the

people of the North Slope significant legal uncertainly and

potential liability under the ESA, by congressionally waiving

ordinary public notice and comment requirements that

routinely apply in virtually all other settings. The

inclusion of Section 429 is particularly disturbing in that

it effectively ``cherry-picks'' and exempts certain

regulations and has the effect of depriving the public of due

process. Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with

the substance of rules adopted by the prior administration,

this action sets a bad precedent. If the current

administration disagrees with a rule previously adopted,

there exists a process by which the rule can be reviewed and

the notice and participation rights so citizens respected.

Finally, the underlying policy goal at issue here--using the

Endangered Species Act to regulate climate change--is far too

important a matter to be decided without debate as a non-

germane portion of an appropriations bill.

I understand that the House may move to strike Section 429

as an extraneous rider. If the motion to strike is not

adopted, I respectfully request your assistance and

leadership in seeking to omit the language from a Senate

bill, or seeking to have the language omitted from any final

House-Senate agreement.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this

important matter.

Sincerely,

Mark Begich,

U.S. Senator.

Will the gentleman yield on that point?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Two points. The reason this ruling came about was because of the listing of the polar bear and that the Bush administration started this process, which is required by law----

Will the gentleman yield?

There's probably some disagreement on the rule. But why not go through the regular process to change the rule? You're doing it without any regular process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus Appropriations Act and the rule currently being debated in the House.

Division E of this bill provides $27.6 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. This is a modest increase of about 4\1/2\ percent over the 2008 funding level. These funds are critically needed to support the core activities of agencies which serve every American family and which benefit the taxpayers of this country. These agencies include the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Forest System. These land management agencies manage more than 600 million acres of publicly owned land and host more than 200 million visitors every year.

The bill also funds the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which provide education, law enforcement, and health services for 4

million Native Americans. It includes the money to support the staff of the Department of the Interior, which develops the offshore and land- based energy resources of this country. These energy-related programs generate over $20 billion of revenue for the Federal Treasury every year. It includes money for the EPA to support environmental protection activities in every congressional district affecting every single American family.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the question raised earlier as to why we need this omnibus money when we have just provided $11 billion for the agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week. The basic answer is the stimulus legislation provides funding for infrastructure projects at these agencies, in particular funding to address the longstanding and well-documented maintenance backlogs. The omnibus bill we are considering today supports the operational costs of these agencies.

The recovery bill pays to repair Indian schools. This bill pays for the teachers.

The recovery provides funds to fix dilapidated Indian hospitals and clinics and allows purchases of critically needed medical equipment. The omnibus bill pays for the doctors, dentists, and nurses.

The recovery bill will improve the roads, bridges, trails, and visitor services facilities of our parks, refuges, and forests. The omnibus bill pays for the park rangers who provide visitor services and for the law enforcement rangers who protect those visitors.

The recovery bill will repair, rehabilitate, and build new water and sewer systems in over 500 communities. The omnibus bill includes funding to support efforts to protect public health by enforcing laws and regulation to ensure our air is fresh, our water is safe, and that our families are not exposed to dangerous toxins.

I want to commend Chairman Obey for bringing this bill badly needed by the American people. These are important programs, and I appreciate his leadership on this bill and the staff of the committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus Appropriations Act currently being debated in the House.

Division E of this bill provides $27.6 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. This is a modest increase of about 4\1/2\ percent over the 2008 funding level. These funds are critically needed to support the core activities of agencies which serve every American family and which benefit the taxpayers of this country. These agencies include the National Park Service, the U.S. Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Forest system. These land management agencies manage more than 600 million acres of publicly owned land and host more than 200 million visitors every year. The bill also funds the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs which provide education, law enforcement, and health services for 4 million Native Americans. It includes the money to support the staff of the Department of the Interior which develops the off-shore and land-based energy resources of this country. These energy related programs generate over $20 billion of revenue for the Federal treasury every year. It includes money for the EPA to support environmental protection activities in every congressional district affecting every single American family.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the question raised earlier as to why we need this Omnibus bill when we have just provided $11 billion for these agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week. The basic answer is that the stimulus legislation provides funding for infrastructure projects at these agencies, in particular funding to address the long-standing and well documented maintenance backlogs. The Omnibus bill we are considering today supports the operational costs of these agencies.

The Recovery bill pays to repair Indian schools. This bill pays for the teachers.

The Recovery provides funds to fix dilapidated Indian hospitals and clinics and allow purchase of critically needed medical equipment. The Omnibus pays for the doctors, dentists, and nurses.

The Recovery bill will improve the roads, bridges, trails, and visitor services facilities of our parks, refuges, and forests. The Omnibus bill pays for the park rangers who provide visitor services and for the law enforcement rangers who protect those visitors.

The Recovery bill will repair, rehabilitate and build new water and sewer systems in over 500 communities. The Omnibus bill includes funding to support efforts to protect public health by enforcing laws and regulation to ensure our air is fresh, our water is safe, and that our families are not exposed to dangerous toxic wastes.

The Recovery bill will pay to improve border security by installing surveillance equipment and allowing purchase of better equipment for law enforcement personnel. But it is the Omnibus bill which pays for the refuge and park personnel who patrol the border areas which are overwhelmed by drug dealers and undocumented aliens. I toured this area last weekend on a Committee field visit and I can tell you these brave rangers and other law enforcement personnel face danger every day and desperately need the funding in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, a full-year Continuing Resolution will not adequately fund the operational costs of these agencies. Fixed costs average a little over 5 percent this year. If Congress simply extends the Continuing Resolution, agencies already suffering serious staffing shortfalls will have to further reduce staff. The Park Service will lose $161 million. The wildlife refuges will lose $29 million. The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service will lose $320 million. These cuts will have very serious consequences.

Let me give one very straightforward example of the impact of a full year Continuing Resolution. The Indian Health Service estimates that if they are forced to operate for the rest of the year under the Continuing Resolution that they will provide 2,800 fewer hospital admissions and 400,000 fewer outpatient visits. Screening for diabetes, cancer and other life threatening diseases will also be significantly reduced. These are very serious consequences.

Mr. Speaker, this bill we are considering today includes a very modest increase of 4.8 percent over the 2008 level for Interior and Environment programs. The recommendations have been developed through a fully bipartisan process. I urge adoption of the bill.