Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2918) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 559, I call up the bill (H.R. 2918), making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2918.

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

Madam Speaker and Members, I am very proud to present the fiscal year 2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill to the House.

The jurisdiction of this bill is incredibly important. We, as Members, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

It has been an incredible privilege and pleasure to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt). We have crafted a bipartisan bill and worked together every step of the way. And I just wanted to acknowledge him at the very outset to thank him for all of his good work and tell him what a pleasure he has been to work with.

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank, on behalf of, if I may, the House of Representatives, all of the staff that work not just for the House of Representatives, but for every legislative

branch agency because this bill is designed to support them. This bill is designed to make sure that they can do the work they need to do in order for us to be able to serve our constituents in the most effective way possible. So on behalf of the House of Representatives, if I may, both myself and Mr. Aderholt, we owe a tremendous debt to the true public servants that work here every single day on our behalf.

We, as Members of the House of Representatives, get quite a bit of the glory and the attention and the focus, but it is our staff, both the ones that work for us in our own Member offices, but also throughout this Chamber and across every legislative branch agency, that are toiling in the wilderness, so to speak, and are the unsung heroes that make the wheels of the legislative process turn, and we just can't thank them enough.

This is a bill that attempts to fulfill our responsibilities at two different levels. We really focused on two main tasks in the legislative branch bill. First, we have tried to provide the right balance of funding in a prudent way for each existing office, agency, and program so that we can support the day-to-day operations of the Congress.

The bill provides a total of $3.68 billion, which is an increase of $37 million, 6.8 percent above 2009 levels. A majority of those funds go to two of our greatest priorities within the bill: life safety issues, because, quite frankly, if we don't address the backlog of life safety and deferred maintenance that exist in all of our facilities, at some point we are not going to have the facilities to be able to work in. And the treasures of the facilities that we work in every single day is what our role is in the legislative branch. We must preserve them through the generations as they have been preserved for us to be able to work in today.

In addition, the bill, as is tradition, reserves funds, $1.025 million, for later action by the Senate on their issues to operate the Senate, and that is customary.

We have been able to provide for all mandatory cost increases and a limited number of program enhancements as well. In spite of the fact that we were able to do that, there were a number of things that we were unable to do because our focus during the markup of this bill was to fund the ``gotta haves,'' not the ``nice to haves.'' There are so many ``nice to haves'' that we could fund and that make sense and that would be appropriate, but we wanted to make sure that we crafted a frugal and fiscally responsible piece of legislation, which is why the bill, as written, is $281 million below the amount requested, which is a source of pride for all of the members of the committee.

Let me just summarize a few of the key amounts in the bill, Madam Speaker. The bill includes $1.4 billion for the operations of the House. This is an increase of $75 million, or 5.8 percent, over the 2009 enacted level, but $120 million below the amount requested. We have appropriated $660 million of this amount for the MRA.

Of interest to Members, and as was discussed during the rule, we also include within the budget an allocation for the Clerk of the House of $4.6 million to finally replace the antiquated 33-year-old voting system that we use here electronically in the Chamber so that we no longer have to have it held together by the duck tape that its inner workings are actually held together by.

$325.1 million is provided for the Capitol Police. That is sufficient to maintain their current officer strength. There was a request that we did not fund to increase the number of officers, the number or FTEs that they carry. It was felt that although the Capitol Police is working diligently towards getting their fiscal house in order--and Chief Morse is to be commended for that--they are not quite there yet. And adding to the strength of their force did not make sense, we felt, until they can make sure that they can get a handle on their overtime and get a handle on who is where in the Capitol Police structure.

$647.4 million is included for the Library of Congress. That is a 6.6 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The amount provided includes $22 million for the Library to fund their high- priority initiatives, which also includes $15 million for technology upgrades.

It also includes the full amount, Members will be interested to know, that was requested for the Copyright Office. There is a tremendous backlog in the Copyright Office, which the committee has added report language to address. We are very concerned about that backlog and are going to be pushing the Copyright Office to get a handle on it, as well as full funding for the Books for the Blind program.

The bill also includes $146.2 million for the Government Printing Office, which is a 4 percent increase.

Finally, the bill includes $558.8 million for the GAO. Obviously, they have some tremendously increased responsibilities. That is a 5.2 percent increase. We need to make sure that GAO has the ability to conduct the accountability responsibilities that they have and that they do such a good job doing.

Beyond the core funding for the day-to-day operations, Madam Speaker, of the Congress, we have largely focused on two long-term priorities as well. We are first taking a more aggressive approach to dealing with the backlog of deferred maintenance needs of our aging Capitol complex. As we have said, and I risk saying this on the House floor, this is not the sexiest of committees of the 12 Appropriations Committees, but it is one that is incredibly important in order for us to be able to preserve the institution and the facilities in the institution that we serve in. The bill includes funding for 23 high-priority projects that are requested by the Architect of the Capitol.

Beyond these immediate needs, however, the bill includes--and this is something that is a great source of pride for the members of the committee, and we want to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership on this--$60 million to establish a new Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. We have a number of major facilities projects coming up over the next few years, including the renewable of the Cannon House Office Building, which is 100 years old, as well as the restoration of the Capitol dome, which will cost in the range of $100 million. And that is not a hit that this budget can take on a year-to-year basis, so we are going to begin to bank funds that are in that trust fund and only allow the appropriation for those projects out of that trust fund.

In addition, we have tried to deal, most importantly, I think, with the challenge of retaining the best and brightest that have come to work for us in the House of Representatives. We are so fortunate to have young people who are brilliant and who put aside a lot of other opportunities to devote themselves to public service and come to work for us. But what happens is that, inevitably, because we are often not competitive in the benefits that we provide or the pay that we give them, we end up losing them. We train them, we get them ready, and we end up losing them down the road to other career alternatives.

We are committed to dealing with this retention problem in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, and we did several different things in order to be able to do that. We increased funding for the MRA accounts so that we can grow salaries. It is important that we be able to pay, not astronomical sums to our staff, but an appropriate amount of salary so that we can make sure we can hold on to the best and brightest that we are already able to attract.

It includes two additional benefits that are not currently provided that we felt were very important. We have been trying to get a sense from our employees what their needs are, and this bill anticipates two of those needs. We fund $3.5 million for a tuition reimbursement program for all House employees, and $1 million in child care benefits for our lower-income employees because making sure that we can take away the angst of not having quality child care or being able to afford quality child care is an important thing for us to be able to do for our valuable staff.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Lewis, the ranking member of the full committee, for your incredible cooperation. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with them. And I also want to thank both of our staffs, who really work so hard every day to make us look good. These bills are not crafted over night, Madam

Speaker, and there is painstaking effort and detail that goes into them, and so I want to thank Mike Stephens, the majority clerk, Dave Marroni, Matt Glassman, Liz Dawson, the minority clerk, Jenny Kisiah, Megan Medley, and Ian Rayder on my personal staff, each of whom have put in very long hours in support of this bill.

I urge all Members to support this fiscally responsible bill, which I again will remind you is millions of dollars below the request.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois.

I would not only be happy to work with you, I could not agree with either of you more on this very worthwhile endeavor. You are both to be commended for your effort to recognize that slave labor and their hands constructed the great building that we work in every single day, and subject to the authorization of the House Administration Committee, I look forward to working with you towards this goal.

I would be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds.

I would be happy to yield.

Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm very familiar with the outstanding human rights work undertaken by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and his colleagues on the commission. Last year I had the opportunity to participate in a commission hearing on combating sexual exploitation of children and strengthening international law enforcement cooperation. The commission is providing important leadership on this and many other issues at home and abroad, including among parliamentarians, through engagement by Mr. Hastings, a past president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and Senator Cardin, a vice president of the assembly and current Chair of the commission.

I can appreciate the dilemma faced by my colleagues on the commission and the difficulty of securing suitable space for such events and meetings. I am committed to working with the gentleman from Florida in finding a durable solution to this persistent problem. My understanding is that he has identified space in the CVC that might meet the commission's needs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Illinois. I am so glad that he raised the issue of staff-led tours during debate on this legislation. It is incredibly important, and it was an incredible source of frustration for me as we moved towards opening the CVC to note that it was possible that constituents of ours could come to the Capitol, take a tour, walk through this whole building, watch our proceedings in the gallery, and leave to go home, never having known or been able to identify who it is that represents them in the United States Congress.

Preserving staff-led tours is an incredibly important way for us to be able to do that. And quite frankly, just to promote staff-led tours to anyone who is interested in getting one, you can get a more unique and less homogenized tour. As good as the guide-led tours are, you can get a more tailored-to-your-State oriented tour from your Member of Congress. And I would encourage people who are interested in doing that to go through their own Member of Congress to book their reservation and get a tour of the Capitol from the person that represents you in Washington.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I have no additional speakers, but I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, it was a great privilege to work with the gentleman from Alabama and his staff. I look forward to continuing to work as we move the legislative branch appropriations bill through the conference process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding and for her very appropriate amendment.

It is really wonderful to see the progress that has been made on the Civil Rights Oral History Project. We did have language in our bill, preserving the possibility for providing the funding. I'm glad that we've been able to fast forward that opportunity. I look forward to continuing to work with her. I'm happy to accept the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit; although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Speaker, I do first think it is important to point out that technically the language in the motion to recommit does not specifically reduce the funding for any program at all. It simply reduces funding by $100,000 in this section of the bill. So I do think it is important to point out that the Wheels for Wellness program has not been specifically named in the motion to recommit for reduction.

That having been said, it is also important to point out that included in the report that accompanies the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, we did express our concern about the effectiveness of the program as it is currently constructed. There are very few bikes that have been checked out, and we do believe that there needs to be a more effective plan brought forward by the CAO to ensure that if the program is going to continue to exist into the future, that more bikes be checked out and that they have an effective plan for doing that.

We are looking forward to getting that report language back and to working towards the possibility of reestablishing the funds in this section of the bill, which is all that has occurred.

But with that understanding and in anticipation of receiving that report, and recognizing the good work of our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and his passionate commitment to ensuring that we get out of our cars and on to our bikes, because obviously that would reduce our carbon footprint and the carbon emissions, that is a worthwhile goal that the American people would greatly benefit from, with that, I would be glad to accept the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2918, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 559 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2010, under a structured rule.

Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act provides $3.7 billion for key investments in the legislative branch, not including Senate-related items for fiscal year 2010, including funding for the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Police, and the Open World Program.

This bill provides a pragmatic and fiscally responsible approach to funding our legislative branch. Actually, spending is increased only by 7 percent, less than half of the 15 percent increase requested.

The funding provided in this legislation will help us do our jobs better and faster. It increases funding for the Congressional Budget Office by $1 million, making it easier for Members to obtain PAYGO analysis of their proposals, a vital service, given our need for responsible government spending.

This bill also allocates funds for a complete overhaul of the House of Representatives' antiquated voting system, which, after 33 years of good use, has become increasingly unreliable.

Further, this measure increases the Members Representational Allowance to ensure that we're able to adequately serve our districts, and increases our funding of standing and select committees by 3 percent to accommodate the increased legislative and oversight workload typically seen in the second session.

These funds will provide us with the resources necessary to carry out the

sweeping legislative initiatives of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to better retain our most experienced and talented staff.

In addition, this bill will also help protect and preserve the Capitol complex, both from physical decay, and from the security risks it obviously faces in this post-9/11 world.

It includes $60 million to establish a Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund in order to more evenly spread out the cost of large-scale historic building projects within the Capitol complex, including the repair of the iconic Capitol dome and the revitalization of the 100-year-old Cannon House Building.

It also provides an increase in funding of 6 percent for the Capitol Police--and if I had my way, that would be more--who work day and night to ensure that the U.S. Capitol complex is secure for not only Members of Congress, but for our staffs and the millions of visitors that come through each year.

Finally, this appropriations bill helps make the work of the legislative branch more accessible to people throughout our Nation and across the globe.

I'm encouraged through this bill. The Appropriations Committee has helped to ensure that all visitors touring the U.S. Capitol have equal and adequate access, whether they be part of a tour led by our talented CVC tour guides or by our hardworking staff and interns.

Additionally, this bill increases funding by $40 million for the Library of Congress, an institution which not only provides a vital resource to Congress, but also preserves a universal collection of knowledge, history, and creativity for current and future generations.

$15 million of these funds will help modernize the Library's information technology infrastructure to make the library and its unique resources more widely available to Congress and the broader public.

Mr. Speaker, this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill strikes a pragmatic balance between the growing demands upon this Congress and the legislative branch, and the economic realities this Nation is facing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), with whom I serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute in the hopes that he will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida at some point.

Mr. Speaker, after that speaker, I find it necessary to correct him with regard to a portion of his screed.

Please know that in the process that he referenced one of our Members, who is a subcommittee Chair of Appropriations, the committee Chair, Mr. Obey, handled the matter, when the Member referred to by the previous speaker recused himself. And on the floor, when the matter was brought here, the committee Chair handled that matter.

Now, I heard that gentleman talk about shenanigans. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. What happened in the House of Representatives yesterday--and I've only been here 17 years--but the dean of the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, was down here this morning for a 1- minute and spoke of the disgrace that took place yesterday. And someone would come in here and talk about shenanigans? What was that yesterday? How could we possibly have gotten about the business of dealing with the Nation's business when repeatedly what we saw was people coming in here delaying the process?

I have been here 17 years. We cast 54 votes yesterday. We spent more time casting votes on nonsense than we did on any substance that was being sought.

Now enough already. People have a right to their views. They have a right to their political shots. But the Rules Committee operates this body. And if they want the business of the American people done, then they wouldn't conduct the kind of shenanigans that they conducted yesterday.

I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chairwoman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which I thought was what we were here to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend from North Carolina if she has any additional speakers. I will be our last speaker.

The gentleman's time has expired, but I can answer what he asked, and I can also tell him I don't have time to yield.

We began in the Rules Committee with me asking the previous speaker whether or not his side had offered a time agreement. He looked at me as if I was talking about something that was foreign.

What I knew, and what I believe the leadership knew on both sides of the aisle, was that for a protracted period of time the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the majority leader have been meeting with their counterparts in the minority with reference to time agreements.

Now, I sat here when that bill began its debate and the first question out of Mr. Obey's mouth to Mr. Lewis, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the first question out of his mouth was whether or not they were going to be able to get a time agreement, and Mr. Lewis' reply was that he could not give that assurance. So for somebody to come down here and talk about whether or not the Democrats tried to get a time agreement and then to spend time yesterday agreeing on nothing and accepting no more than foolishness on the House of Representatives, whether it was history making or not, is just plain absurdity.

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

Most assuredly.

I would ask that you and I look at the Record when these proceedings conclude. And I can assure you that what Mr. OBEY asked Mr. Lewis was whether or not they could get a time agreement. I was sitting here----

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

I shall not use all that time, but I do yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard so much revisionist history put forward here, not the least of which just came from the distinguished colleague of mine from North Carolina, with reference to previous periods having to do with whether or not the minority requested time agreements.

One thing I've done since I've been in the House of Representatives is spend a lot of time on the floor of the House of Representatives. And that isn't looking to cause any praise to be directed to me. It became, over time, a part of my responsibilities that I assigned to myself to kind of know what was going on in this institution.

During that same period of time when Mr. Obey was the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been on this floor when Mr. Obey has requested time agreements when a bill is in progress and have participated in the discussions regarding it when the majority said no. So to come here and say that you always allowed for time agreements is just simply not the case.

The other thing that is ignored is the fact that the majority and the minority meet with regularity. I rather suspect that what's going on here, with nobody having said a word to me about it, is that there has been a little bit of a strategy by my friends on the other side to ensure, among other things, that they will slow down the process and that we will not be able to get the business of the people done. The greatest evidence of that was the transpiration of events here yesterday.

Now, another gentleman here spoke, my friend from Iowa, with reference to the Rules Committee being upstairs in a small place. That's where it was when I got here, that's where it is now, and I rather suspect when he and I leave, that's where it will be. But to suggest that the media does not cover the Rules Committee evidently ignores the fact that everything that we say is transcribed by these people that are reporters, who we overwork and abuse well on into nights when we could have been saving taxpayers money by letting them get about their business and all of the staff related around here that this legislative branch is about. All of what we do is recorded.

In addition to that, no reporter is refused to be there, and C-SPAN often chooses to cover the Rules Committee dependent upon whether or not there is a matter of substance that they would want to cover.

Now, my friends on the other side have had 12 years of rulemaking. I served on the Rules Committee in the minority a lot of that time. During that period of time, you didn't regulate financial services. You didn't provide a sensible health care plan. You didn't give our children what was needed. You said what you were going to do is leave no child behind. And you did not only leave children behind; in certain places in this country you lost them and couldn't find them. Our parks, our environment deteriorated and were plundered and abused and used in a way that was beyond the pale, and yet we come in here and talk about spending.

What would you say to all of the people that work in a bank that got saved? They're Americans. What would you say to all of the people in the financial services and on Wall Street that found themselves employed? They're Americans. What would you say to the automobile industry employees and their directors that have their limited jobs saved and too many gone because of mistakes that were made by government and industry? What would you say to those working people? They're Americans.

You're telling me that when we spend money, we are not spending that money in a way that's helping America. What do you say to your communities like mine that are finding themselves in the position of having to cut services with regularity and it usually starts with the poor and the disabled? They're Americans.

And somewhere along the line, I would ask you the question, what would you have this President that's been in office now nearly 5 months not do? Would you have him not do health care? Would you have him not do anything about climate change? Would you have him not do anything about the fact that you didn't regulate the industries that needed to be regulated appropriately during the time that you were in the majority?

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are here on provides for consideration of the legislative branch appropriations. We've heard the measures, and all will be able to see that this bill provides a pragmatic and fiscally responsible approach to funding this legislative branch.

Footnote right there: the fine young people that work with us. When I came here I was permitted, as every Member, to have 18 full-time staffers, and I haven't always had 18 full-time staffers. But from 1992 until now, it's been that many staffers with an increase in the workload. Now, some of you all don't pay these young people well enough and you know it, and you need to pay attention to that. And if you do get an increase, give it to the children that work with you and you might have a better-run office.

The funding provided in this legislation will help us do our jobs better, faster, and it increases funding for the Congressional Budget Office that we continue to use, rightly so. Particularly, the pay-goers need their analysis done.

Mr. Speaker, I will stop now by saying that this appropriations bill helps make the work of the legislative branch more accessible to people throughout our Nation and the globe. I'm encouraged that through the bill, the Appropriations Committee has helped to ensure that all visitors touring this Capitol have equal and adequate access to this facility.

With that in mind, I just urge my friends to remember that while they are making up their history, there are some of us that remember it well, and I can assure you that the things that I have said can be documented from that record.

I would hope that we would know that this bill honors our history and prepares us for the future. It invests in the preservation and protection of the Capitol complex and makes more efficient, more accessible the opportunities for the people that we serve.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated

as President of the United States, and the outstanding public

debt of the United States stood at $10.627 trillion;

Whereas on January 20, 2009, in the President's Inaugural

Address, he stated, ``[T]hose of us who manage the public's

dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad

habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only

then can we restore the vital trust between a people and

their government.'';

Whereas on February 17, 2009, the President signed into

public law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009;

Whereas the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

included $575 billion of new spending and $212 billion of

revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of $787

billion;

Whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will cost an additional

$300 billion;

Whereas on February 26, 2009, the President unveiled his

budget blueprint for FY 2010;

Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes the

eleven highest annual deficits in U.S. history;

Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes to

increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by FY 2019, more

than doubling it from current levels;

Whereas on March 11, 2009, the President signed into public

law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 constitutes

nine of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009 which had

not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.1

billion more than the request of President Bush;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.0

billion more than simply extending the continuing resolution

for FY 2009;

Whereas on April 1, 2009, the House considered H. Con. Res.

85, Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010;

Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY

2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes the six highest annual

deficits in U.S. history;

Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY

2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes to increase the national debt

to $17.1 trillion over five years, $5.3 trillion more than

compared to the level on January 20, 2009;

Whereas Congressional Republicans produced an alternative

budget proposal for FY 2010 which spends $4.8 trillion less

than the Congressional Democrats' budget over 10 years;

Whereas the Republican Study Committee produced an

alternative budget proposal for FY 2010 which improves the

budget outlook in every single year, balances the budget by

FY 2019, and cuts the national debt by more than $6 trillion

compared to the President"s budget;

Whereas on April 20, 2009, attempting to respond to public

criticism, the President convened the first cabinet meeting

of his Administration and challenged his cabinet to cut a

collective $100 million in the next 90 days;

Whereas the challenge to cut a collective $100 million

represents just 1/40,000 of the Federal budget;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding Troubled Asset

Relief Program, or TARP, funds to banks stood at $197.6

billion;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to

AIG stood at $69.8 billion;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to

domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance units

stood at $80 billion;

Whereas on June 19, 2009, the outstanding public debt of

the United States was $11.409 trillion;

Whereas on June 19, 2009, each citizen's share of the

outstanding public debt of the United States came to

$37,236.88;

Whereas according to a New York Times/CBS News survey,

three-fifths of Americans (60 percent) do not think the

President has developed a clear plan for dealing with the

current budget deficit (New York Times/CBS News, Conducted

June 12-16, 2009, Survey of 895 Adults Nationwide);

Whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing

with runaway Federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal

restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process

in the House of Representatives;

Whereas before assuming control of the House of

Representatives in January 2007, Congressional Democrats were

committed to an open and transparent appropriations process;

Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats

entitled ``Democratic Declaration: Honest Leadership and Open

Government,'' page 2 states, ``Our goal is to restore

accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of

government.'';

Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats

entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' page 29 states,

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.'';

Whereas on November 21, 2006, The San Francisco Chronicle

reported, ``Speaker Pelosi pledged to restore `minority

rights' - including the right of Republicans to offer

amendments to bills on the floor . . . The principle of

civility and respect for minority participation in this House

is something that we promised the American people, she said.

`It's the right thing to do.' '' (``Pelosi's All Smiles

through a Rough House Transition,'' The San Francisco

Chronicle, November 21, 2006);

Whereas on December 6, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated,

``[We] promised the American people that we would have the

most honest and open government and we will.'';

Whereas on December 17, 2006, The Washington Post reported,

``After a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but

crippled efforts to deal with major national problems, Pelosi

is determined to try to return the House to what it was in an

earlier era - `where you debated ideas and listened to each

others arguments.' '' (``Pelosi's House Diplomacy,'' The

Washington Post, December 17, 2006);

Whereas on December 5, 2006, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

stated, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that

gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability

to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

(``Hoyer Says Dems' Plans Unruffled by Approps Logjam,''

CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006);

Whereas during debate on June 14, 2005, in the

Congressional Record on page H4410, Chairwoman Louise M.

Slaughter of the House Rules Committee stated, ``If we want

to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and

thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open

rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already

restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the

exception.'';

Whereas since January 2007, there has been a failure to

commit to an open and transparent process in the House of

Representatives;

Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64

total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than

in the previous Congress, 49, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10

total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than

in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill, 7.68, in

the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than in the

previous Congress, 9.22, under Republican control;

Whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent

process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with

runaway Federal spending reached its pinnacle in the House's

handling of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 contains $64.4

billion in discretionary spending, 11.6 percent more than

enacted in FY 2009;

Whereas on June 11, 2009, the House Rules Committee issued

an announcement stating that amendments for H.R. 2847, the

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010 must be pre-printed in the

Congressional Record by the close of business on June 15,

2009;

Whereas both Republicans and Democrats filed 127 amendments

in the Congressional Record for consideration on the House

floor;

Whereas on June 15, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 544, a rule with a pre-printing requirement

and unlimited pro forma amendments for purposes of debate;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, the House proceeded with one hour

of general debate, or one minute to vet each $1.07 billion in

H.R. 2847, in the Committee of the Whole;

Whereas after one hour of general debate the House

proceeded with amendment debate;

Whereas after just 22 minutes of amendment debate, or one

minute to vet each $3.02 billion in H.R. 2847, a motion that

the Committee rise was offered by Congressional Democrats;

Whereas the House agreed on a motion that the Committee

rise by a recorded vote of 179 Ayes to 124 Noes, with all

votes in the affirmative being cast by Democrats;

Whereas afterwards, the House Rules Committee convened a

special, untelevised meeting to dispense with further

proceedings on H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas on June 17, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 552, a new and restrictive structured rule

for H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas every House Republican and 27 House Democrats voted

against agreeing on H. Res. 552;

Whereas H. Res. 552 made in order just 23 amendments, with

a possibility for 10 more amendments, out of the 127

amendments originally filed;

Whereas H. Res. 552 severely curtailed pro forma amendments

for the purposes of debate;

Whereas the actions of Congressional Democrats to curtail

debate and the number of amendments offered to H.R. 2847, the

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010 effectively ended the process to

deal with runaway Federal spending in a positive and

responsible manner;

Whereas Congressional Democrats continue to curtail debate

and the number of amendments offered to appropriations bills;

Whereas on June 18, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 559, a restrictive structured rule for H.R.

2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H. Res. 559 made in order just one amendment out of

the 20 amendments originally filed;

Whereas on June 23, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 573, a restrictive structured rule for H.R.

2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,

2010;

Whereas H. Res. 573 made in order just 9 amendments, with a

possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 91 amendments

originally filed;

Whereas on June 24, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 578, a restrictive structured rule for H.R.

2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H. Res. 578 made in order just 8 amendments, with a

possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 105 amendments

originally filed; and

Whereas the actions taken have resulted in indignity being

visited upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved, That--

(1) the House of Representatives recommit itself to fiscal

restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway

Federal spending;

(2) the House of Representatives return to its best

traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process

without a pre-printing requirement; and

(3) the House Rules Committee shall report out open rules

for all general appropriations bills throughout the remainder

of the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding to me and for her stalwart representation on the Rules Committee of her constituents and of all Americans.

It is a difficult place to serve when you find yourself outvoted almost 2-1 and when you're back in a corner of a room, up on the third floor, where the press seldom goes, where the cameras almost never are, where behaviors that are not consistent with the balance of the committees on this Hill are common, and where the rights and the franchises of the elected Members of this Congress are diminished significantly by the most recent behaviors, over the last 2\1/2\ years, of the Rules Committee. This is where this Congress is controlled.

I rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition to rule after rule that comes out of that little room up there on the third floor. For example, there was the previous bill, Justice appropriations, the one that the gentlelady mentioned. Out of all of the amendments that were offered, Republicans, I believe, were offering 94 amendments. I recall that the Rules Committee wrote a rule. It was unprecedented. It wasn't an open rule for appropriations the way we thought we might get back to.

Even though Democrats were afraid to have appropriations votes in 2008, we did have some in 2007. We have always fought this through. We'll stay late at night if we need to. Leadership can get together if it gets too long and if we can't get our business done, and we can negotiate unanimous consent agreements. That didn't happen. I've been what I thought was a victim of negotiated unanimous consent agreements that were struck quickly, where the bargain was met before we really got a chance to catch up with what it all was, but that was at least leadership coming together, compromising, negotiating and agreeing.

This was the Rules Committee, I suspect directed from above, that had written a modified open rule that required us all to print our amendments into the Record. Once those amendments were printed, then, of course, the other side of the aisle had the opportunity to read through all of the amendments and to understand the strategy of the Republicans. Then, having written the rule to produce a certain result, they decided it probably would not produce the result that they'd intended, so they shut down debate after the very first Republican amendment, 20-some minutes into that debate, and they went back to the Rules Committee.

I sat there until nearly 1 o'clock in the morning with a number of my colleagues who had offered constructive amendments, amendments that were designed to perfect this legislation. I saw Member after Member have to ask the Rules Committee, Will you please make my amendment in order so that my constituents can be heard? They didn't say it, but it was also so that the American people could understand the shenanigans that had been going on here. We were afraid to say that because they were afraid that their amendments wouldn't be made in order. I watched that parade in front of the Rules Committee, and I will tell you it's unprecedented that Members of Congress are reduced to having to beg, in a little room on the third floor, to be heard.

Each of us has a franchise: \1/435\ of the United States of America is embodied in each one of us. Speaker Pelosi said--I believe the date was June 14, 2006--that every Member has a right to be heard and, on a different date, that

this would be the most open Congress in history.

Well, it's anything but that. It's becoming more and more closed-- even to the point where we lose the right to offer a motion to rise or adjourn, the right to offer an amendment on an appropriations bill.

And so I had offered six amendments up there. I didn't ask the Rules Committee to make my amendments in order; they had already made my amendments in order. Every single one of them complied with the rule that was written and had been made in order. But when the majority understood that they were going to have to take some votes, some tougher votes on some subject matter that they had been ducking from, then they changed the rules.

I just said, Keep your word. You set the standards to begin with. We all met those standards. And then you made our amendments in order. We shouldn't have had to do that. It should have been an open rule to allow any Member to offer an amendment down here at the well unless that title of the bill had passed. That's the standard that's here. That's what the Founding Fathers imagined and envisioned. But we get anything but that.

And so, this Congress doesn't get to debate on important topics. We have to have a motion to recommit in order to discuss the issue of giving Miranda rights to enemy combatants in foreign continents. That's what it takes. And that little window will be closed, too, if it makes the majority uncomfortable.

We don't get to debate on the very critical national security issue, Mr. Speaker, of the Speaker of the House declaring the CIA to be a group of felonious liars and having lied to the Congress of the United States of America and then stated that she's going up to receive briefings after this.

The United States of America's national security has got to be put at risk when the person third in line for the Presidency declares our intelligence community to be lying to Congress. Decisions get made, on this floor, in committee, behind the scenes--sometimes by staff--based upon the allegations made by the Speaker. The staff wants to please the Speaker. The Speaker is ducking this issue. We need to have a vote, and I offered an amendment to get a vote on the CIA. We aren't going to get that vote because the Rules Committee shut it down.

I offered an amendment that would also clean up some of this-- amendment No. 2 increases and decreases standing committee by $1 million--so that we can broadcast the activities in the Rules Committee. When you go into a committee and you realize that you're sitting in front of a camera, it causes people to have a little better demeanor, and the decisions are there accountable to the public and some of that actually ends up on YouTube. But the Rules Committee doesn't have that. The room is too small and it's too secret what goes on up there.

We need a big room for the Rules Committee because that's where the decisions are made in the United States Congress today, Mr. Speaker. So I offered an amendment to do that.

As I moved through this process--and by the way, not only the criticism of the intelligence community came from the Speaker but now she's taken on the Congressional Budget Office and said, Well, no, they're the most pessimistic group that there are. We always overestimate things that work against us.

Well, if you challenge the integrity of the Congressional Budget Office, it isn't long before you have intimidation of the Congressional Budget Office. When you challenge the CIA and you control their purse strings, it isn't long before you have intimidation of the CIA. You don't get the same information if you have a trust relationship going on.

And by the way, the legislation, the appropriation that passed last night was managed by an appropriations subcommittee chair that by all the news reports is under investigation, and he received the gavel from the Speaker of the House. She knew he was under investigation, and 2 years ago he recused himself from the discussions. But we've not heard any announcement as to that investigation being lifted or any of the subpoenas that may have been served have been withdrawn or that had been shut down. There was no announcement whatsoever.

How can we have confidence in this Congress if the Speaker declares the intelligence community to be lying to Congress, if the Rules Committee shuts down the debate, if this House is recessed in the middle of important business, if an impeachment of a judge is shut down so you can go raise money, or if the chairman of the subcommittee who is managing the funding for the FBI, is being investigated by the FBI? This Congress has a long way to go to get where they're going.

I would just conclude with this, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to paraphrase Joe Welch, Let us not assassinate this process further. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you no sense of decency left?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding time for us to discuss the rule.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have a situation here that partly was demonstrated yesterday in terms of the Republican concern on how we are going to do business in the House. Yesterday the Democrats made in order only one amendment which had been offered to this rule. Twenty total amendments were submitted, 14 by Republicans, four by Democrats, and two that were bipartisan. Two years ago, they made three of 23 amendments in order, which is three times as many as now.

Last year we didn't even consider appropriations bills on the floor, so maybe an argument could be made that that was even worse. And even though the Democrats were in charge last year, they blame Republicans for the fact that we couldn't deal with the appropriations bills on the floor and the fact that there was a Republican President.

But, in 2006, the last year Republicans were in the majority, we made all seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order. That's the way it should be. We should be debating these bills on the floor.

Earlier, our colleague from Michigan implied that requiring debate and voting on issues before the House is dysfunctional. It is exactly what the people of this country have sent us here for. They want us to take positions on these issues and not hide behind them.

We keep wondering what the Democrats are afraid of. Why do they not want amendments on the floor? They have a majority, a fairly large majority, but they refuse to debate these issues.

I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Heller.

Mr. Speaker, we do need to fund adequately our offices; the Capitol Police, for whom I have the greatest respect; and the Library of Congress, a real jewel for our country. As my colleague from Nevada said, American families are hurting, and we have been increasing spending by 16 percent in this area over the past 2 years. Here are the problems that we are facing in this country right now, which the American people are beginning to truly understand.

We will have a $2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009. The second tranche of the TARP was allowed to be spent, which was $350 billion. The stimulus package, which was H.R. 1, was $787 billion, which was really over $1 trillion with the debt cost. There was the omnibus bill, which was $409 billion. That was the bill that funded appropriations for this year, which the Democrats said they couldn't pass last year in individual appropriations bills even though they were in charge of the Congress. The budget increased total spending to $4 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of the GDP, the highest Federal spending as a percentage of the GDP since World War II. Now we have this additional increase which they're asking for.

Federal spending is out of control. We have got to put a stop to this somewhere. The day before yesterday, Republicans offered 94 amendments in the Rules Committee, which were designed to cut Federal spending, but we couldn't deal with that. The Democrats cut off debate because they said it was going to take too much time to deal with this. Apparently, Democrats can't spend the American people's money fast enough. Republicans think it's time that Congress started practicing fiscal discipline. This is a good place to start.

I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Iowa, Mr. King.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to our colleague from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

We do have additional speakers.

I now would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member from California, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I have been told that when he was ranking member, Mr. Obey would never agree to a time agreement before a consideration of a bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of the time of debate on this rule. I think we have had some very important issues brought forward by my distinguished colleagues who have come to share this debate this morning.

This is a bad rule because it does not allow for amendments to be offered on the floor for people to work their will here.

I do want to correct a couple of things that were said earlier this morning by my colleagues in terms of uninsured Americans. I think we have to do this every single time it's brought up.

My distinguished colleague from Florida said this earlier: there are 47 million uninsured Americans. There are not. Despite those claims-- and I am quoting from ``Crisis of the Uninsured: 2008'' by the National Center for Policy Analysis--we have 12 million illegal aliens here. We have 14 million uninsured adults and children who are qualified for programs but have not enrolled. We have 18 million people who are uninsured who live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 who could afford it. We have 18 million who are uninsured, but most of them are healthy and don't need it. Eighty-five percent of U.S. residents are privately insured and enrolled in a government health program. Therefore, 95 percent of U.S. residents have health coverage or access to it, and the remaining 5 percent live in households that earn less than $50,000 annually. That is about 7 million people.

I am getting so tired of hearing these misstatements made all the time. It's day after day after day that we keep getting these figures put out that are wrong.

But let's go back to this bill and to what's in this bill that we find really egregious. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill because we have in here $9 million for the Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund. That's just one of the items that's in here that we don't need to be funding. It would be great to be able to have better relations with young people in other countries who come here; but, again, the American people are hurting.

The Republicans are on the side of the American people who are hurting here. We want to slow down the spending. There is a statement that came out yesterday about the difficulty we're having in selling bonds and the amount that we're selling. We are going into debt greater and greater in this country, and yet the Democrats seem to see no end to spending. They can't spend the American people's money fast enough.

There is money in here to do studies on demonstration projects to save energy. You know what? I look around this place every night; we can save lots of money on energy by just turning out the lights. The lights are left on all over the Capitol complex. We don't need to spend millions of dollars on studying what we can do to save energy. Just use common sense and cut down on the use of the energy that we have now. We're going to be wasting a huge amount of money.

Yesterday, the Treasury announced a record $104 billion worth of bond auctions for next week, part of its Herculean efforts to finance the rescue of the world's largest economy. This was in the news today. It will exceed the previous record of $101 billion set in auctions that took place in the last week of April.

We are spending our country more and more into debt. And why are we pushing things through? Why are we not allowing amendments? Because the chairman of the Appropriations Committee says we have to stick to his timetable. And yet, since the beginning of May, what have we dealt with here? We've had over 101 suspension bills, things like recognizing the Winston Churchill Memorial Library in Fulton, Missouri, as American's National Churchill Museum. Really important work----

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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