Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3170) making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 1 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does several things. First, it increases FY 2010 funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission by $4.9 million to its authorized level of $118,200,000. I thank my colleagues Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Rosa DeLauro for cosponsoring my amendment to increase funding for the CPSC. Recently enacted consumer protection legislation has increased the workload of the CPSC considerably. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was signed into law last August. This law sets strict limits on the amount of lead and chemicals that can be used in making children's products. The CPSC has faced many challenges in implementing the new law, and this additional funding will enable them to fully address workload needs.

This amendment incorporates an amendment first offered by my colleague Mr. Hastings to provide an additional $250,000 for the National Credit Union Administration's Community Development Revolving Loan Fund. This is a worthy program that provides loans and grants to credit unions that serve low-income communities with the goal of improving the quality of financial services provided to those communities.

This amendment also incorporates an amendment first offered by my colleague Mr. Cuellar to prohibit the use of funds for first-class travel for employees of agencies funded by the bill. I think it makes sense to prohibit first-class travel for Federal employees.

I will close by saying that this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. I would like to point out that the Appropriations Committee has been very supportive of FinCEN. The reported bill provides the administration's requested funding increase of $11.3 million, or 12.3 percent, including $10 million to begin upgrades of the Bank Secrecy Act database used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. We recognize the intent of the gentleman. We think it's a good amendment, and we accept it.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

First of all, I think it is important to realize that a lot of Members, especially--well, all Members from the other side will get up and make it sound as if the last few months have been the months that caused the economic crisis that we are in. The fact of life is that this President is trying to clean up the mess that was created during the last 8 years, because the prior President left this economy in pretty much good shape. It fell apart during these last 8 years. And we are trying to recover.

On this particular matter, the Council of Economic Advisers, or the CEA, was created in 1946 when the country faced a major economic crisis, just as we are doing today. At the end of the Second World War, many feared that the economy would sink back into depression with the phase-out of war spending. The Congress wanted to ensure that sound economic advice would be provided at the highest levels of the administration.

In the wake of a stock market bubble followed by a housing bubble that we have recently had, people have reason to worry about where the growth and jobs of the future will come from. We need the CEA to help the administration make better policy for the future.

Today, CEA has been involved in developing and evaluating the Recovery Act, health care options, energy and greenhouse gas policies, tax changes, job and training programs and other major economic challenges of our time.

As the administration develops policies in all these critical areas, the CEA brings solid, scientific evidence on the economic effects of alternative policies into the discussion. This is probably one of those times where we really need this kind of a Federal agency. And this is not the time to do away with it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is very easy for folks on the other side to say, let's not talk about the past administration. I agree. That is not my intention. In fact, our President has said on many occasions the past is the past. But if we keep coming up and making it sound like something happened January 20 until today that brought us to our knees economically, then it is my role, and everybody else's role on this side, just to clarify and to discuss a little history. And the history is the fact that this economy is in bad shape not for anything that has happened this year, but what happened in the past.

On this amendment, this is the wrong time to get rid of this. This is the wrong time to move against it. We need it more than ever. I hope that people will defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

How much time do we have on this side?

I would like to yield myself whatever time I may consume.

You know, when we buy a car, the first thing they tell us is to make sure we service that car regularly, change the parts that are necessary, oil it and keep it in good shape.

We have a democracy, and as the gentleman from New Jersey says, and as everyone knows, at the core of that democracy is the ability to vote and to have our votes counted properly. Yet what we are trying to do here today is to cut away, if you will, from that maintenance program, which is more than a maintenance program. What happened here in 2000 and in other places after 2000 was that the American people, regardless of the outcome of the election, were left with the understanding that something was wrong and that the greatest democracy on Earth was having a difficult time counting people's votes properly. And so HAVA was created.

HAVA is still in operation. HAVA is having moneys go out to communities. This is not the time to cut HAVA funds. On the contrary, this is the time to reinforce the core of our democracy by allocating the necessary funds. Give the States the opportunity to deal with the issue. Let the States deal with the issues back home that they have to as they meet the Federal requirements.

So I would oppose this amendment, and I would remind us that we don't pay that much attention to elections and how we run them because we have had this for so long in this society and this country that we take it for granted. But 2000 should tell us that we should never take it for granted again and that we should pay strict attention to it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

It's interesting that when we speak about debt we never bring up the debt that the last administration rang up through the Iraq war. That's got to be at least half a trillion dollars, if not more. And I'm still waiting to find the weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, if I may brag for a second, I've got the gentlewoman beat. I have four grandchildren. And I don't want to saddle them with any debt in the future. But I think that this bill speaks to another issue that deals with them, and that is their present, so that they don't continue to be ripped off by crooks on Wall Street.

And yet the gentlewoman's cut, for instance, would cut $51 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would slash 120 staff members who have been placed here now to go after the crooks on Wall Street and all the other folks that created a problem for my four grandchildren now.

And so, yes, it is important to talk about the future. But it's also important to talk about the present. And what I keep hearing from folks is that, in a desire to save money now, we should do nothing to go after those people who created, who created much of the problems that we are facing now.

Let me give you another example. The IRS--new enforcement initiatives would go unfunded, resulting in over $600 million in lost tax revenues.

In other words, your 5 percent cut, the gentlewoman's 5 percent cut, would take away funding that goes after my grandchildren? No. After their parents? No. They would go after the millionaires and the zillionaires who are parking money overseas and who are not paying their fair share of taxes. So you would cut, she would cut, the gentlewoman would cut people to go after this.

If this amendment passes, the Small Business Administration would not be able to meet the borrowing needs of small businesses. SBA lending, in its popular 7(a) loan program, which both sides support, would be reduced by $875 million. Many small businesses, and we hear so often on that side about how much they love small business people, many small businesses have turned to the SBA or loans as the credit markets have tightened up, making less credit available to small businesses in this economic downturn. What this amendment proposes, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The Federal courts would be impacted with a 5 percent reduction

across the board. One thousand full-time employees would be reduced from the Federal courts. On and on, absolutely, you were right. I have a list, but the list is not a list made up by staff or myself just for me to have something to say; it is the result of the impact of a 5 percent reduction. And so, it makes a lot of sense to say, in some cases, it scores a lot of points to say I want to cut the budget by 5 percent. But I think when you look at what we're talking about, you're hurting the very people we should protect.

So let me once again say, I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman has two grandchildren that she wants to protect in the future. I have four that I want to protect in the future, but I want to make sure that we protect them now by making sure they don't get ripped off again, or their parents, as we did the last couple of years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We always talk about the debt. The debt was as a result of the last administration. In fact, all of these bailout programs started while we had another President in office.

The fact of life is that we have to protect the present. We have to make sure the past doesn't come back. And this 5 percent cut would hurt the very agencies in this bill that are supposed to assure us of a better present and a better future.

I oppose the amendment and urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our colleagues and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield myself 1 minute.

It's amazing that we hear about oversight now. Yes, we do have oversight. It's funny how the other side never claimed oversight when the White House was having meetings determining what our energy policy should be between the White House and lobbyists and no Members of Congress were present, or when the White House and the administration knew that there was torture and other actions going on and nothing was being said.

The problem here is this may rise to a new legislative low because on these committees we respect the White House. When President Bush was in and this committee was in function, we let basically the White House have the staff members it said it needed, and now what we're trying to do here legislatively is to fire people at the White House. That's the wrong thing to do, and we should oppose it.

I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Rahall. He takes care of all Puerto Rico issues, so I'm very nice to him.

I object, Mr. Chairman.

I object.

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I also rise in opposition to how my Democrat colleagues continue to shut out Republican voices on the floor of the House of Representatives in virtually every committee here in the House.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have set an historic precedent by shutting down the amendment process once again today in order to accomplish legislative business during the appropriations process, and Republicans disagree with this. Madam Speaker, you will continue to hear of our opposition, and the American people will hear the same.

Chairman Obey has set an arbitrary time line to finish the financial year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every single Republican and Democrat chance to offer amendments on the House floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by my colleagues, and they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion.

What is this majority afraid of? Why won't they allow for an open and honest debate that has happened for hundreds of years in this body? Why won't we have open rules on appropriations bills?

Because of this historical new restrictive process, as part of my committee assignments, I had to go to the Rules Committee on Wednesday night just to offer three commonsense amendments. Not one was made in order for the debate today. Two dealt with allowing the same restrictions and opportunities for Federal Government employees and for private contractors.

In a time of record deficits by this Democrat Congress, Congress should find a better way to deal with the American taxpayer for the success of this country and for jobs. Instead, they chose to ignore these amendments and ideas.

My last amendment would have required this Obama administration to post any interaction or communication with General Motors as a public record. Since the American public was not consulted before the takeover of GM, they should at least be able to monitor now how their tax dollars are being spent.

Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing the Financial Services Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is my intent to focus on the huge increase in spending--no surprise--over last year's level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that have intruded into the private sector. It is my idea to talk about how

they will continue killing jobs and how we will continue having historic record deficits and to discuss the new Democrat priority of using TARP dividends for more housing handouts instead of using that money to be repaid to the taxpayer.

This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion, increase above the current year's spending levels, and that is excluding the massive stimulus funding. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently stated, Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal stability, in the long term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the budget is on an unsustainable path. This bill does not represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. With this legislation, Congress only further slows down and impedes our economic recovery, and it increases the financial burden placed on our children, grandchildren and on our future.

With the facade of fiscal sustainability, the Obama administration is posing sweeping financial reforms that will further stretch rather than help the banking industry. The Obama regulatory plan calls for large, interconnected companies to pay a heavy price by limiting companies from mixing banking and commerce. This potentially forces companies like General Electric to spin off its largely lending subsidiary, GE Capital, and turn it into a bank holding company with more regulations, less revenue and less loan capacity.

Once again, this is the Democratic plan to kill private sector jobs and to further encumber and harm economic recovery.

Madam Speaker, what kind of precedent is this administration and Congress setting by forcing regulation on successful businesses while completely avoiding responsibility and transparency in their own spending habits? The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what this Democrat majority is doing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office released a monthly budget review which states that the Federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion, and this was reached during the month of June. According to the CBO, that is $800 billion more than the deficit record through June 2008. The bottom line is that the United States is looking at a possible $2 trillion record deficit for this year alone, a long stretch from the group of people who talked about fiscal insanity just before the election. I think we know what the truth is. The Democratic Party is tax and spend. Especially at a time of deep economic recession, this Congress should be promoting pro-growth policies that reduce spending and increase jobs. Unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle consciously continue to tax, borrow and spend their way into record deficits. The CBO estimates that unemployment benefit spending is more than two-and-a-half times what it was at this point last year. The current unemployment rate is now over 9.5 percent, which is the highest level in 26 years, and their own budget estimates say it's going to rise.

Madam Speaker, with record deficits and growing job loss, you would think that this majority would want to bring the national debt down and try to curb spending. But nope, not going to happen. Not with what's on the floor again today. Last month Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank dropped a bill and held a hearing that would redesignate dividends from TARP funds to two housing slush funds. This would take the $6.2 billion in dividends paid back to the American people and would create a brand new spending program. It is unconscionable that any dividend received would be redistributed in new spending projects rather than returning it to the taxpayer. Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow and spend money that not only they do not have, but the American public knows that it comes out of jobs and economic recovery for this country.

Madam Speaker, how is this economy supposed to bounce back with this Democrat Congress forcing Americans to pay for a failed trillion-dollar stimulus package, a bailout for those who defaulted on their own mortgages, a bailout for those who abused their credit cards, a bailout for corporate America's bad decision making, a new national energy tax, and a possible $1.5 trillion health care package that will force 120 million Americans out of their current health care coverage? When does this malaise stop? Where are the jobs? Why are we spending more and more money simply to get more unemployment? Madam Speaker, it should be asked on the floor of this House, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that were promised by Speaker Pelosi? They evaporate again today.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I will continue to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we simply cannot tax, we cannot simply spend and borrow our way out of the country's economic recession that comes from the Democrats running the House, the Senate and the presidency. Madam Speaker, the misery index of this country continues to rise under the leadership of the Democratic Party, and rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending. Americans back home are tightening their belts, and the U.S. Congress should be doing the same. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question to amend the rule to allow for an open rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming down to talk about the muzzle that's been placed upon Members of this body by Speaker Pelosi. This muzzle affects not just Republicans but Democrats and millions of people's voices that might be heard on the floor of this House.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Concord Township, Ohio, (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado Springs, Mr. Lamborn.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that the Democratic Party owns the majority in this House. It has 60 Senators in the Senate, it has the President of the United States, and that is how they can get their own things done.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I appreciate the gentleman asking. Due to the limited time that I was allowed by the Rules Committee, I know that we have a lot of people, but we have at least three additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, just for the record, I think we are on even time about now that is left. Is that an indication, if I can engage with the gentleman, that he is through with his speakers?

I appreciate the engagement of the gentleman. We will go ahead and proceed and run through our speakers with an indication that he believes he is through at this time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Madam Speaker, this debate today, once again focuses on jobs, more spending by this Democrat majority, higher unemployment, more taxation, further government intrusion into the financial sector of this country. And we've heard about even some issues dealing with abortion that the gentleman, Mr. Stupak, brought to this floor, that the gentleman, Mr. Smith brought to this floor. So I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to do it right, to go back to what essentially has been 200 years worth of open rules on appropriations.

There's no question that this rule the majority brings forth today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority is setting every single day.

Madam Speaker, it's so sad because no new Member of this body in the last session or this session has ever seen an open rule. They're damaging bipartisanship in this body. It's sad.

I'll urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can allow a free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of Americans who've been gagged, not only by Speaker Pelosi, but the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and once again, a demand from the Republican Party where we want to know where are the jobs that were promised, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 644 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I oppose the gentleman's point of order. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, once again, this point of order is not about unfunded mandates. It's about TV broadcasting and about a whole variety of other things, but it's about delaying the bill that is under consideration and about, ultimately, stopping it. I hope my colleagues see through this attempt and will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule today, and we must pass this legislation.

I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but they did not speak to the point of order at all. So, Madam Speaker, again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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 644.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 644 provides for the consideration of H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. This is the first Financial Services Appropriations bill under a President who believes Wall Street actually needs someone to watch it. This bill provides the much needed resources for the Federal Government to improve our oversight of Wall Street while investing in small businesses on Main Street.

As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, we have worked with Chairman Frank to examine the causes of our recent economic downturn. There were many causes of it, but our findings conclude that a large factor of this downturn was misguided deregulation promoted in the financial markets.

Under the Bush administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission was underfunded. The SEC promoted a ``good old boy'' atmosphere that disregarded investor and taxpayer interests in favor of Wall Street wealth. Under the Bush administration, the SEC repeatedly turned a blind eye regarding fraud as they did with the warnings about Bernie Madoff. Also, the SEC knowingly helped build the house of cards that was the basis for this subprime mortgage bubble.

Under the Bush administration, big business just became too big to fail, and the whole house of cards came tumbling down. AIG, Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, WaMu, Wachovia, and other financial disasters could have been avoided if our Federal agencies had been given the resources to connect the dots, to look at the books and to take preventative measures.

This legislation increases funding for the SEC by 8 percent over last year. It provides funds for the SEC to hire 140 additional analysts to protect investors and taxpayers from nefarious corporate interests and schemes. Those 140 new analysts can monitor publicly traded companies and can restore trust for investors and taxpayers. This provision sends a clear message to Wall Street that your days of wine and roses are over. The bill also increases funding for the FTC to help consumers and to go after illegal credit card practices.

For my constituents back in Colorado, this bill provides a 38 percent increase in funding for the Small Business Administration. During an economic downturn, many individuals who have been laid off open small businesses where they can pursue their entrepreneurial dreams and can be their own bosses. This boost in funding will reinvigorate communities across the Nation at the precise time that we need it.

For the judicial branch, this bill provides the Federal judiciary the funds it needs to hire additional staff and judges. In particular, the past year has seen a 28 percent increase in the number of bankruptcies. This bill will provide for 142 more staff for Federal bankruptcy courts to put these businesses and individuals back on the road to recovery.

Finally, if there is one issue people in our districts will support in this bill, it is the reinstatement of auto dealer franchise agreements which were severed with little notice earlier this year. In my own district, hundreds of workers were put in jeopardy when GM and Chrysler terminated their dealerships--even long-time profitable franchises. At a time when too many Americans are unemployed, adding more workers to the unemployment rolls is the last thing our economy needs.

This bill is another step toward economic recovery, and I urge its adoption.

I now reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have to say that my friend from Texas and I couldn't disagree more about the causes of the troubles that exist today in our economy. The Republican administration under George Bush, prosecuting two wars, cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us, helped drive this country into the ditch. That, coupled with a penchant, a desire, a real effort to deregulate, unregulate and privatize led to failures all throughout Wall Street and the banking system, starting first with a $60 million Ponzi scheme conducted by Bernie Madoff, followed in part and at the same time by a $700 billion failure of Wall Street and financial institutions that had to be filled. President Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit as a result of the misguided policies of the Republican Party and the Bush administration.

With that, I will yield 3 minutes to my friend from Michigan, Mr. Bart Stupak.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Madam Speaker, before I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia,

I need to respond to my friend from Colorado, as well as the gentleman from Michigan who spoke earlier, and I'm looking at page 143, lines 8 through 12, section 812, which says: ``None of the Federal funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.''

Yes, for 15 seconds.

I thank my friend. I think the language is about as clear as it could be when it says ``none of the Federal funds appropriated.''

I will now yield 4 minutes to my friend from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the amount of time on each side.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

If I could, I would ask my friend from Texas how many more speakers he has. We don't have any others. And I will close.

Then I would reserve the balance of my time.

Yes. I don't have any other speakers. Somebody may come wandering in, and I may ask for your indulgence. But at this point, we don't have any speakers.

Madam Speaker, I will let the gentleman do a soliloquy. I am not going to enter into a colloquy.

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

First, to my friend from Oregon and his concern about the fairness doctrine, there is nothing in the bill that allows for the fairness doctrine. He was concerned about a smile that I had on my face because I remember when the gentleman brought the amendment last year and I supported his amendment. But there is nothing in the bill that provides for the fairness doctrine. And in effect, what he's trying to do is restrain something that doesn't exist. So that's point number one.

Point number two: to my friend from New Jersey, I respect his passion about abortion and his feelings about abortion. It is a very emotional and difficult discussion. But section 812 of the bill, at page 143, couldn't be more clear: None of the Federal funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered, or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

So to those two specific points, I wanted to make my comments.

As to my friend from Texas and his closing argument, it simply doesn't hold water. The administration that preceded the Obama administration, the administration of George Bush, drove this country into a fiscal ditch. And it's going to take everything that we have to get out of that ditch. The banking system almost collapsed. Jobs were lost. Plants were closed. Businesses were shuttered. Homes were foreclosed. And it is with great effort, great energy that we are trying to reverse what occurred because of the reckless actions of that administration.

Under this bill, there is more money invested in the Small Business Administration to encourage and build and strengthen our small businesses which have been hurt by this recession. But that is the engine that will ultimately drive this economy. We need to get small businesses back on their feet. That happens, in part, through this bill.

Secondly, we restore reasonable regulation to the marketplace, regulation that was denied and excluded under the prior administration. The Securities and Exchange Commission was, in effect, rendered neutral and neutered under the prior administration, exposing the country to gigantic Ponzi schemes like that conducted by Bernard Madoff.

We need to make sure that our Federal Trade Commission is fully funded so that it can protect consumers and businesses alike against unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Judiciary has to be staffed to handle all the bankruptcies that have occurred. The bill that is pending that we propose will assist the Federal Government in managing these affairs.

Finally, Mr. LaTourette's amendment concerning the auto dealers is an important portion of this bill, to give those who had franchises and were terminated improperly the right to get their franchise back and their dealerships open and going again, thereby saving jobs.

This is an important piece of legislation. This bill helps keep the government running, so providing the funds that exist in the bill is something that we must move forward on.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

I am pleased to rise in support of the Financial Services and General Government 2010 appropriations bill, which includes total funding of $24.150 billion.

This is a bill that we worked on cooperatively with our ranking member, Jo Ann Emerson, and I want to thank her for her work that she has put into this bill, for her friendship and her all around goodwill. We had helpful input from our subcommittee members and a productive full committee markup where all members had an opportunity to offer amendments and to have them debated and considered.

This is a bill that we, as a Congress, can be proud of. The agencies that this

bill funds touch the lives of all of us, and the funding is directed to those programs where we believe the American people will derive the most benefit.

You have had a chance to look at the bill and report and to see the specifics of how the money for the 2010 fiscal year have been allocated so, in the interest of time, I'm not going to present a lot of detail regarding each program and agency. Instead, I would like to briefly highlight the five important themes that were addressed throughout this bill.

The first of these is rebuilding the regulatory agencies designed to protect investors, consumers and taxpayers. A significant increase of $76 million above 2009 is provided for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is the agency that combats financial manipulation, fraud and deceptive practices. It has not been vigilant enough in executing these duties in the past few years. The increase provided will allow the SEC to hire approximately 140 new employees to strengthen their oversight capacity.

In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers in financial matters, will receive $33 million more than in 2009.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which plays an important safety role in our product decisions, will also receive increased funding.

Funding is strengthened for several of the Inspector General offices included in our bill that are charged with making sure that regulatory and financial agencies are doing what they're supposed to do.

With regard to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, the bill requires the Treasury Department to provide reports so that we know how Treasury is addressing those parts of the financial crisis over which it has been given oversight responsibilities.

A second major theme of the bill is to make sure capital and other assistance gets to small businesses and low-income communities, not just to large businesses and the wealthy. Funding increases are directed to the two key agencies which play important roles in this area. The Small Business Administration receives $236 million more than last year, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund receives $137 million more than in 2009.

Our third priority of supporting equitable and efficient administration of justice in the Federal courts is met by well-directed funding increases that allow our courts to keep up with the costs and growing workloads.

The fourth theme is to provide for fair and effective collection of taxes. Full funding is provided for the President's request for the IRS, which includes a substantial increase for tax enforcement to close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. We also help our taxpayers meet their responsibility by including resources for the IRS to provide assistance in person, over the phone, and on the IRS Web site.

Our final priority is to meet our obligations to the Nation's Capital City, Washington, D.C., by including payments to address high-priority needs. We reduce undue interference in local affairs by dropping numerous restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the Nation. For example, we dropped the prohibition on use of local D.C. tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same position as the 50 States by leaving that decision up to the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Beyond these five priority areas, our bill touches the lives of Americans in other ways as well. For example, we assist American farmers by clarifying language from last year's bill regarding trade with Cuba and the requirement for payment of ``cash in advance.'' We also provide increased funding for Drug-Free Communities coalitions who work to reduce problems of youth drug abuse in their neighborhoods and communities.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle who have made tremendous contributions to this process. All the staff, both majority and minority, have worked long hours with dedication, and I would like to extend my personal thanks.

So let me end by saying that I believe this is a good bill that merits your support. It directs funding to improve the services that our government agencies provide to our constituents as they invest their savings, purchase products, start small businesses and pay taxes. It addresses the needs of our courts and our Nation's Capital City. I would ask for your vote in favor of its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the full committee and the most famous Chicago Cubs fan in the Nation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I can certainly appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's frustrations, and he raises an important issue. I will work with the gentleman to ensure that the District of Columbia reviews security procedures at the New Beginning youth facility and works cooperatively with local leaders in the State of Maryland.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes now to a gentlewoman who, notwithstanding some of the things you see happening on this House floor, is really the only Representative from Washington, D.C., Ms. Norton.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who by the way was the strongest leading voice in having us put language in this bill that says that any TARP money has to be explained to the Congress on its use and all kinds of reports come back to Congress.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and also wish her, on behalf of the House, a happy birthday.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and leader, the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

Could I inquire as to how much time is available?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes for a colloquy to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I agree with the gentleman about the importance of protecting the integrity of the vote count. I was pleased to incorporate HAVA funding in the bill and language in the committee report stressing the importance of gathering information on voting system malfunctions, of making official paper ballots more accessible, and of verifying election results. I hope jurisdictions will use these funds to deploy the most accessible paper ballot voting systems and will audit their election results to ensure the integrity of our democracy.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

The gentleman is most welcome, and I look forward to working with him to make sure all States have the funding they need to implement these critical election protection measures.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the subcommittee and one of our great leaders.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, and I will assure him that I will do my best to work with my Senate colleagues in conference.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank all of the speakers who have participated today, but I think there is a clarification that needs to be made.

Many speakers have come to the House floor and have spoken about the abortion issue and have said that the American taxpayer is being asked in this bill to foot the bill for abortions. That is not correct, and that has to be made clear.

First of all, to me, the issue is whether or not the District of Columbia should be given the opportunity to govern its own affairs or whether Congress will continue to impose on D.C. its will. So, for many years, the folks in the District of Columbia have had to accept Congress' wishes for many test items and issues throughout the country. I believe that, in some cases--and with all due respect to my colleagues--they have imposed these provisions on the District of Columbia in many areas of gay marriage, of needle exchange programs, of abortion, and of gun issues so that they could go back home and say they had done something on that issue. Yes, they did, to the people of the District of Columbia--not to the people in their districts but to the people of the District of Columbia.

What this bill simply says is that local funds raised locally by the taxpayers of the District of Columbia can be used to provide abortion services. The ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion remains in place.

Let me repeat that. Federal funds going to the District of Columbia cannot be used to supply abortion services. What we've done is to say, local funds that you raise on your own from your own American citizen taxpayers can be used for those purposes. That should be clarified, and people should know the truth.

This bill is a good bill; and I hope that at the end of the day, people will vote for it. It covers many areas. I thank all my colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, since this is the first bill I'm managing on the floor as ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I'd like to say for the record how honored I am to have this position.

The economic challenges facing our Nation demand that the contents of the Financial Services Appropriations bill be deliberately laid out and carefully structured. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over a diverse group of agencies which regulate the financial and telecommunications industries, collect taxes and provide taxpayer assistance, support the operations of the White House, the Federal Judiciary, and the District of Columbia, manage Federal buildings and provide oversight of the Federal workforce.

I want to commend Chairman Serrano for his efforts in crafting the bill. It has been a real privilege and pleasure to work with him. And while we don't always agree, he has been very open to concerns and issues raised by Members on our side of the aisle. I thank the chairman for his commitment to bipartisanship and for listening to the minority views.

I also want to thank the majority staff who worked on this bill, including the Clerk, David Reich, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Lee Price, Andria Oliver, Ed O'Kane, Alex Jobal and Nadine Berg. I also have to commend the members of the minority staff. John Martens, Alice Hogans, Dena Baron, and my staff, Justin Rone and Jeffrey Connor, who have all been extremely dedicated to putting the best possible product forward from the subcommittee. On both sides, these staff members worked very hard for the committee and the American people, and I appreciate their efforts.

While I've been pleased to have a wonderful working relationship this year with Chairman Serrano, I am disappointed by the fact that we're not doing what our constituents have asked us to do, and that is to work together in a totally bipartisan way at the full committee level to make the lives of our constituents better.

For example, the rule for consideration of the bill limits debate to 17 amendments, and I believe that 97 were submitted to the Rules Committee. This rule, then, doesn't, the rule governing the debate here, did not display bipartisanship or regular order because we had colleagues who want today offer amendments about which they felt very strongly, saving taxpayer money by taking extra returned TARP money and putting it toward the deficit, people who felt very strongly about the D.C. public school systems, and the like. But it's troubling that they weren't able to offer their very substantive amendments, amendments which our constituents feel very strongly about.

I do urge my colleagues to support a process where every Member has the opportunity to have his or her voice heard on the floor of the House.

Now, let me turn to the bill before us today. The $24.15 billion allocation provided to the subcommittee is much too large. It's a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion increase above the current year, excluding stimulus funding. This allocation allows most agencies in the bill to be funded at or above the rate of inflation. I believe the resource requirements of the agencies funded in the bill can be met with a smaller allocation. Especially at a time when every household in America faces difficult budgetary choices, Congress must be diligent when spending the taxpayers' money. The Federal Government, in this bill, is growing at an incredible rate at a time when employers who I represent in the district have cut jobs, and when people are really hurting. They're making the tough choices, and we really should too, as an example to them.

The Congressional Budget Office concedes that, ``Under current law the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path--meaning that the Federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run.''

This bill primarily funds government agency operating accounts. It doesn't support programs or grants, and doesn't represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. In short, this bill

provides a 7-percent increase which goes straight to the bureaucracy's bottom line. We're not making the tough decisions the American people feel we should consider at a crucial time for our Nation's economy.

The administration's own budget documents state that the Federal debt held by the public will be 68.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2014. This is the highest percentage of Federal debt to GDP since 1950, the year that I was born.

That said, using the allocation provided to him, Chairman Serrano has done an outstanding job of crafting this bill. I'm grateful that the bill provides increases to critical programs such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Programs, and Tax Preparation Assistance Grants.

I also support the proposed reduction in the ONDCP's media campaign in order to provide additional resources to the Drug-Free Communities program and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.

I'm pleased the bill provides $74 million for D.C. education programs, including $42 million to D.C. public schools. My stepdaughter currently teaches in a District public school, and her reports, along with the Adequate Yearly Progress measurements, indicate dramatic improvements need to be made before every D.C. school is offering the opportunity that children in D.C. deserve.

In the meantime, this bill does not eliminate the Opportunity Scholarships program, but it does restrict the program to students already enrolled in it.

How can we limit educational opportunities for low-income students when we know the public school system is underperforming?

Regarding the General Services Administration, I am grateful that the chairman has included language directing a review of the GSA supply schedule. In just one example of the need for this review, the Department of Homeland Security has identified $42 million of savings over 5 years by no longer using the GSA to purchase office supplies. We want to try to improve the GSA supply procurement process so that this savings can be replicated throughout all government departments and agencies.

I also support the GSA construction and alteration projects funded in the bill. I don't usually have positive things to say about GSA construction and alteration accounts, but I will say that the chairman has done an excellent job in crafting the bill that funds justifiable projects.

I also want to thank the chairman for including language clarifying the congressional intent regarding the cash-in-advance policy in the sale of agricultural and medical supplies to Cuba. This clarification will help American producers expand their markets in a significant neighboring export market.

One area of the bill that I believe has received an excessive level of funding is payments under the Help America Vote Act. There is no question that we are obligated to provide for free and fair elections. It's a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard the electoral process. However, the administration justifiably proposed to cut this particular program to $50 million because the States aren't spending the funds that have been provided in the past years. The account contains a surplus of $186 million today. This bill needlessly adds $100 million to this underused account.

The Election Assistance Commission is waiting for the States to claim the 2008 and 2009 grant funds. Of the $115 million provided in fiscal year 2008, only $25 million has been claimed by the States. Of the fiscal year 2009 funds, $100 million, only $3 million has been paid to two States.

Another area of the bill that deeply concerns me is controversial changes to longstanding general provisions regarding the District of Columbia. I strongly oppose these changes. I do not believe that increasing the availability of abortions or medical marijuana will improve the quality of life in the District of Columbia.

As you see, Mr. Chairman, this bill is very controversial. Not only does the proposed bill spend more than $24 billion, but it proposed to change longstanding policies on which Members on both sides of the aisle have long agreed. This is why the bill should be considered in regular order.

We recognize that operating under an open rule is grueling, long, hard work, and we've done it that way for years and years, at least as long as I have been on this committee. At the same time, we believe that the responsible regular functioning of this institution is important, especially on spending measures that demand the full attention of the Congress because they have the full attention of the American people.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations regarding this bill and I'm disappointed that it's not being debated so that all Members could be heard, I would again like to thank Chairman Serrano for his openness and his friendship.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 3 minutes to a fellow subcommittee member and a very hardworking member from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette)

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

I now yield 3 minutes to a member of our subcommittee, Mr. Crenshaw from Florida.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman again for his graciousness and for his openness in working with me and with

the rest of the subcommittee on the minority side, and I look forward to continuing that relationship.

I yield back the balance of my time.