Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

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, like many of my colleagues, I'm

embarrassed by this omnibus spending bill and the process that created it. Even as the President talks about the need to put our economic house in order, this House continues to spend and spend and spend and spend. Clearly, the Congress has lost its way.

Not one of the nine spending bills in this omnibus was ever considered by the full committee. Six of the nine bills in this package were never considered by the full Appropriations Committee. One more time we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars with no debate, no amendments, no Member input. Yes, clearly, this Congress has lost its way.

It's now standard operating procedure that only a handful of Members in leadership are actually involved in writing significant legislation. This has been true with every supplemental spending package the House has considered over the last 2 years. This was true in the development of the $789 billion stimulus package passed by the House just 2 weeks ago. And, that is true once again today.

Under this rule just adopted, Members have 1 hour to debate $410 billion in spending, with no opportunity for amendments. That equates to nearly $7 billion for every minute of debate. Sadly, the vast majority of our Members will have no voice whatsoever in crafting this measure.

The fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill contains funding for nine of the 12 regular appropriations bills, a total of $410 billion. The new fiscal year began on October 1 and today, nearly 5 months later, we're jamming the work that should have been done last year into one massive, last- minute, ``take-it-or-leave-it'' spending bill.

The spending in this legislation represents a $32 billion, or 8 percent increase over last year for the very same agencies and programs. With the exception of the spending boost after the September 11 attacks, this represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since 1978.

At the very time when our economy is forcing families to make do with less, Congress has embarked on the largest spending spree in our country's history. When combined with the three appropriations bills that were signed into law in September, this enacted fiscal year 2009 budget will become our country's very first trillion dollar discretionary budget.

It comes as no surprise that the $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains funding for many of the same government programs that received funding in the $789 billion stimulus package. Stimulus funding for these nine spending bills totals $270 billion. When added together, the combined fiscal year 2009 funding for government programs in both bills is $680 billion--an increase of $301 billion, or an 80 percent increase over just last year.

The real surprise is not the unfettered spending but the complete and utter failure of Congress to encourage any fiscal discipline whatsoever. At a time when American families are cutting unnecessary spending to weather the economic downturn, Congress should be doing the same thing. Instead, the premise of Pay-Go, or ``pay as we go'' is being replaced by the promise Go-Spend under this majority.

This delirious pace of government spending goes well beyond what most people would consider reasonable, let alone responsible. An 8 percent-- or a $32 billion--increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable. Balance is what we should strive for, providing enough money to allow the agencies to carry out their primary missions and to achieve real results. Our public has grown weary of Congress' simply throwing money at every problem in this country. Spending fatigue has set in.

Mr. Speaker, as I commit to working constructively with David Obey this year, I encourage the majority leadership to pursue regular order that is inclusive of all Members so our work can once again reflect the bipartisan voices of this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

I yield to the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I don't remember a time in the years that I've been in Congress that I've used a chart. I hope you can see this, but I can't see it very well.

Charts are interesting things. The most interesting part of them is that the numbers change all the time. But I thought it would be very appropriate to follow on to the comments that Mr. Kingston had made.

This package before us is a reflection of what has to be the worst possible year for the Congress in terms of their willingness to just throw the people's money at almost any problem around as though that is the solution.

I've described this as the first--hopefully the only--trillion dollar-plus discretionary budget in the history of the Congress. Indeed, in every category of spending--the 08 year, the 09 year, adding on to it the omnibus package, the $800 billion package that just passed--we have radically increased and adjusted that which will be going on in government not just in the fiscal year ahead of us, but setting a new stage for spending that I believe could lead to destroying the dollar as we know it.

If you just look at these categories. Here's in the area that has to do with energy and water. In that package, we have approximately--if I can read this thing properly--$30.9 billion in 08. In the 09 year, combined with the omnibus, that package goes up to $77.6 billion. That is a 151-percent increase in spending in this category of national funding, 08 to 09.

Most outrageous is the subcommittee that is chaired by the chairman of our full committee, my colleague and friend from beautiful downtown Wisconsin. In the 08 fiscal year, the Labor, Health and Human Services bill spent $144.8 billion. That's not trillion or million. It's billion dollars.

When you combine both the 09 spending year with the omnibus, the total in these categories of spending runs to $276.6 billion; a 91 percent increase over the 08 year. Think about that. A 91 percent increase in the largest discretionary package in all of our spending outside of national defense. Absolutely, it's clear to anybody who could think about it.

We're raising the bar, the foundation point for spending across the board in the Federal Government; and as we do so, we put pressure on spending across the board every year subsequent to the 09 year.

So year in, year out, we're going to be breaking the bank by way of additional spending.

If the public is concerned about its Federal Government--especially the tax-paying public who are legitimately working for a living--if they're worried about it, they will take a look at this chart. We'll be glad to make it available. It's time that we got a handle on just throwing money or mud at the wall--taxpayers' money, if you will.

This trillion-dollar package is a reflection of the Congress not doing its work. I come to the well with this chart simply to urge everybody who is listening to recognize that it's time that we send a message to the people's House: Enough is enough. We've got to get a handle on this or we're going to destroy our economy.

Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has stopped doing its work by way of regular order, that is, having hearings in the subcommittee, hearings in the full committee, coming here and having open rules. Instead, we're passing trillion-dollar packages with no input from the Members of the people's House, thereby no input for the citizens out there who pay our bill in the first place.

With that, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this package and urge you to help us make sense out of the way the system is working.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time there is on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very unusual circumstance for me to do this, but addressing my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, personally, let me say that you've heard a lot from me about the fact that I am disconcerted about the way we got here, but nonetheless, this omnibus process has been a long and difficult one in development. And you are to be congratulated for the effort you put into this not only recently, but much of last year, and I have every respect for that effort.

But having said that, I was joined by all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were in attendance at the President's address last evening. President Obama demonstrated to all of us, as well as the public, his immense capability as a public communicator. In many, many ways he said exactly the kinds of things we need to be discussing with each other if we're going to get America back on track.

President Obama urged all of us to reach out in as much bipartisanship, nonpartisanship as possible to make sure that we stimulate our economy, create jobs, leading America to a new opportunity in the years ahead. Following that, I would have hoped that the work of the House would reflect that very spirit; but, indeed, I mentioned earlier the omnibus package of some $800 billion that was just passed a couple of weeks ago, a bill that went forward with very, very little Member input, virtually no subcommittee work within the Appropriations Committee, a single hearing within the full committee, coming to the floor with no significant possibility of amendment, and yet we were literally one more time throwing the people's money in suggestion that we would solve problems that way. That was just 2 weeks ago.

And then we came to the President's address just last night. And here we are, the day after that, spending another $410 billion by way of this omnibus package that absolutely is a reflection of the worst of the way the House ought to be working.

When we take nine bills from last year, put it in a single package, having no serious Member input, no subcommittee work, almost no Member of the House having an opportunity to provide amendments, et cetera, it is the worst reflection of the way this House ought to be working. Indeed, if we continue on this pathway, we won't just in the first couple of months of this session be spending $1\1/2\ trillion of the public's money; we will be setting the stage for undermining our economy for the years to come. I'm afraid unless the public gets the message clearly enough that they send a clear voice by way of their communication with their membership, we won't change this pattern. And, indeed, the destiny of the country will be dramatically affected by such misdirection.

I urge the Members to express their view regarding this by way of voting ``no'' on the package before us.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The point that the chairman is making is a very, very important point. We do have a constitutional responsibility to spend the people's money by way of appropriations. Over the years there has been a tendency to concede all of that authority to an administration, Democrat or Republican, and people get up here and harangue about our exercising that constitutional charge that we have. The chairman is making a very important point. Years and years ago, literally every subcommittee chairman, as the chairman said earlier, pretty much dictated what went on in the whole budget. There was very little individual Member input. And the administration had an exchange over time. We ceded so much of our authority, it is very much a time for us to begin to reconsider this recent history, and I appreciate the point the chairman is making.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 184, I call up the bill

(H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I think we've already debated this issue extensively. This bill is needed to fill in the gaps left in the existing budget for this year. It is the last of yesterday's business so that we can move ahead to deal with the President's expected new budget. I would urge support for the package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 1105.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, for the last year and a half, this committee has been taking every reasonable action to ensure transparency in the earmarking process.

As an article in today's Roll Call says, ``The disclosure system implemented in the 110th Congress now allows for all of these Members' earmarks to be located with a simple search of the online version of the bill, allowing for more transparency than ever.''

One aspect of the transparency process is to list the names of every Member requesting an earmark. It has come to our attention that a small number of earmarks with multiple sponsors inadvertently omitted some Members' names--a simple staff error. To ensure full and complete transparency, I am entering into the Record the additional names that should be attached to those requests. These are not new projects. We are simply adding additional Members' names who should be listed as sponsors or as cosponsors.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25FE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25FE09.002

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

I yield an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really hate to take the time, but I do think in light of all that's been said that one last time I need to put in context what it is we're doing with this bill.

As I indicated earlier, last year we finished our international bills, but we reached an impasse with then President Bush because the President insisted that he would only sign appropriation bills that fit within his budget recommendations. Those budget recommendations were some $20 billion short of what the Congress determined when it passed the budget resolution that we needed to provide for those programs. If we had simply acquiesced in President Bush's programs, we would have cut the Job Corps, we would have eliminated Employment Service grants, we would have cut senior jobs by $172 million, we would have eliminated vocational education programs, we would have eliminated three student aid programs including the Perkins loan program, we would have funded the highway infrastructure at $800 million below the level guaranteed in the authorization, we would have cut airport modernization grants by 22 percent, we would have eliminated Community Service Block Grants, and we would have cut Low Income Home Energy Assistance by $570 million, and we would have cut health care access programs by $1 billion. As I said many times on this floor, I have never had anybody come up to me at home and say, ``Obey, why don't you guys in Congress get your act together and cut cancer research?'' And yet that's what the previous President and the previous Republican-controlled Congress did over a 2-year period. They cut over 900 medical research grants out of the National Institutes for Health. We objected to that and said, no, we didn't think that ought to happen.

So we then offered the President a compromise. I called the White House budget office, and I said, look, why don't we at least just split the difference between these bills so we can get something done on the domestic side of the ledger? They said no. At that point we had a choice. We could acquiesce in these reductions or we could say, no, we're going to bet on the outcome of the election. We did. Mr. Obama won. We now have a White House which is firm in its beliefs but also one that recognizes that people have to compromise to get things done.

This is now a compromise package brought to the House. This has been worked out at the staff level between Republicans and Democrats alike in both the Senate and the House. And the Senate minority leader, Senator McConnell, while I suspect he will vote against this package, urged us to take it up 3 weeks ago because he indicated it had been fully vetted by both sides, by both parties, and he said in his estimate he thought it would pass with an overwhelming vote. We shall see.

But I want to explain two other things about this bill, what this bill really does. And it's been suggested that this bill is not at all coordinated with the stimulus package we passed last week. Absolutely false. This omnibus bill does two things: It provides base funding for the programs funded in the Recovery Act without which those additional recovery funds would not be useful. Example: the Social Security Administration. While the Recovery Act provides $1 billion to the Social Security Administration to replace its computer center and to process increased disability retirement requests, this bill provides $10.5 billion for Social Security operating budgets. It doesn't do any good to have a computer center if you don't have an operating budget. This bill provides the other half of the funding that's needed to make our promises on Pell grants to students around the country a reality.

The recovery bill in the area of highways provided $27.5 billion for additional highway construction. This bill provides $40.7 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The recovery bill was built with this package in mind.

The second thing this bill does is to provide basic funding for all kinds of programs that were not increased by the recovery package. Three-quarters of the accounts in the Federal Government did not receive an additional dime in that recovery package. This bill takes care of the base funding for those programs.

Now, we hear some concerns expressed from the other side of the aisle about the number of earmarks in the bill. Give me a break. The last time that our party controlled the House of Representatives, we had, for instance, in the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill, depending upon how you define them, either zero earmarks or nine. When the Republicans lost control of the Congress, they were providing over three thousand earmarks in that subcommittee bill. That's the story, I mean as a practical matter. The other side didn't just let the cat out of the bag when it came to earmarks; they let out the whole blessed zoo. So now we have tried to reform that process, at the same time being respectful for Congress's right to determine how funding is directed in the budget. So we have a good many earmarks in this bill. Those earmarks represent congressional decisions about where dollars ought to be spent.

I would point out virtually every agency Secretary has far more in discretionary funds than the Congress has to distribute in earmarks. In fact, virtually every dollar in Secretary discretionary funds is nothing but funds that are reserved for administration earmarks or the functional equivalent thereof.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point. We have heard a lot of concern expressed today on the other side of the aisle about the deficits that are being mounted by this bill in conjunction with the stimulus bill. Let me point out I have heard seven different times Members on that side of the aisle refer to the fact that this is a $400 billion bill. It is not. It is a $410 billion bill. But $390 billion of that represents requests on the part of the Bush administration. So let's keep that in perspective.

Secondly, I really don't want to have to take lectures from those who supported the idea that we should borrow $1.2 trillion in order to provide tax cuts over the past years, the lion's share of tax cuts going to the very wealthiest people in this society. I don't want to hear lectures from people who essentially provided what will eventually be $2 trillion in costs for the Iraqi war.

A number of us tried to assure that at least half of the money that we provided to Iraq in economic aid would be in the form of loans, because Iraq has a lot of oil and sooner or later is going to be a rich country and we wanted to see the American taxpayers reimbursed for some of the costs of building schools, building roads and all the rest in Iraq. No, we couldn't get the votes to do that.

But now we face a serious problem in our own country, not in Iraq, but in our own country. And so, yes, in combination of this bill with the stimulus package, or the recovery package, as it's known, there is an awful lot of money being spent. I make no apology for that, because we are trying to fill what is going to be a $3 trillion hole in the economy because of the rising unemployment numbers.

I want to use this chart for what I hope will be the last time. This chart demonstrates what is likely to happen in the economy if we do nothing. The red bars indicate what estimates are in the economic community, what estimates are of what will happen to unemployment rates if we do nothing. These red bars indicate that by the end of next year, the economics profession largely expects us to have unemployment around 11 percent, perhaps even higher. The blue bars represent what we hope will happen if the government passes a $750 billion economic recovery package.

As you can see, unemployment, even under that scenario, is expected to rise through the remainder of this year before it begins to turn down next year. What we have tried to do is simply shave off the worst, most extreme effects of this recession. That's what we have tried to do with the stimulus package.

So what we have really had here today is a regurgitation of the debate that occurred 2 weeks ago on that stimulus package. But the fact is that if you take that stimulus package and add it to this package today, you are still only talking about a package of $1.2 trillion to counter what is supposed to be a $3 trillion hole. I would submit that it is very easy to imagine that we will, in fact, be back here asking for even more by way of countercyclical funding to counter the deep slide that we see in our recession.

Poll after poll demonstrates that you have close to 70 percent of the American people who agree with what President Obama is trying to do in passing the package to produce this moderating effect on what will otherwise be the most serious recession since the thirties.

So I make no apology for the fact that instead of providing billions of dollars for economic recovery in Iraq, we are not trying to provide a good amount of money to provide economic recovery here at home. I thought that's what our job was, to primarily concentrate on the needs on the home front.

I would point out one other thing in closing. For all of us who have talked and told our constituents that at a time of extreme economic distress at home, Members of Congress should not be getting a pay raise next year, if you want to assure that that, in fact, happens and that we deny that pay raise for the coming year, then you must vote ``yes'' on this bill, because without this bill you do not have the limiting language that was inserted in this bill by the rule that was passed earlier today.

With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.