Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Madam Speaker, the end of the fiscal year, as we all know, is just a few days away.

Despite this looming deadline, Congress has not completed action on a single appropriations bill. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: we have got within 5 days of the end of the fiscal year, and yet not one single appropriations bill has been completed by this Congress.

As a result, the Democratic majority is scrambling to accomplish two things, two things with this underlying bill that we have. The first is to buy more time to get our work done with the continuing resolution, which will keep the government operating for an additional 38 days beyond the September 30 expiration of the fiscal year. The second is to finally take the first step towards passing our appropriations conference reports.

Madam Speaker, which spending bill has the honor of being considered first? Which spending bill? Perhaps it's our Homeland Security appropriations bill, which funds our Border Patrol and other Federal agencies charged with protecting our States, cities, and ports from terrorist attacks. Or, perhaps, Madam Speaker it's the very, very important Defense appropriations spending bill, which would provide the funding for our troops.

In fact, the very first spending bill that the House is moving to send to the President is our Congress' own funding bill. The underlying Legislative Branch appropriations bill makes the Democratic majority's funding priorities very, very clear.

Madam Speaker, I describe this as the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. That's really what it is. We remember back in 1992, putting people first was President Clinton's campaign motto. We have now seen this Congress establish a new directive based on what we are doing on this appropriations bill, and that is we are putting Congress first.

As we look at this priority, it is very clear that the continuing resolution will allow for more time to take care of everything else. Now, some would say that we, as Republicans, are just belly-aching. I mentioned President Clinton and his campaign back in 1992 of putting people first, and this now the putting Congress first appropriations process.

Well, back in 1996 after President Clinton had been President for almost 4 years, he vetoed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill when a Republican Congress sent it as the second appropriations bill of that season. Madam Speaker, President Clinton said the following in his veto message: ``I believe that it would be inappropriate to fully fund regular funding for Congress and its offices while funding for most other activities of government remains incomplete, unresolved and uncertain. I don't think Congress should take care of its own business before it takes care of the people's business.''

Those are the words of President Clinton in his 1996 veto message when the second appropriations conference report sent to him was the Legislative Branch appropriations bill measure. He was right to veto that bill and President Obama would be right to do it now, Madam Speaker, following President Clinton's lead.

Unfortunately, even if the President wanted to veto this bill, there is a problem. A veto, as we all know, would shut down the government, something that no one wants. The Democratic majority has made sure that our offices don't have to worry about working within temporary funding; but our veterans, Homeland Security personnel, the fighting men and women will just have to make do.

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of what I am calling the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. Those who follow the work of the Congress know that continuing resolutions are not unusual, and we recognize that on this side of the aisle. The Federal budget is a very serious responsibility, and our work often, under either party, has extended throughout the fall.

What's different throughout this year is not the necessity of a continuing resolution. What's different, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the Democratic majority shut down debate on our appropriations bills, ostensibly for the sake of completing our spending bills on time.

They said that there was a schedule to keep. They said that there was no time for debate and deliberation while the clock was ticking. With regrets to the American people, we just cannot allow for scrutiny and accountability on the spending of taxpayer dollars because September 30 is fast approaching.

Now, as the fiscal year draws to a close, it would appear that the rights of Democrats and Republicans have been trampled on for the sake of a goal that has not come close to being achieved. Throughout June and July, as debate on bill after bill was shut down, we heard the drum beat of the impending deadline.

On June 10 our friend, whom I am happy to see here on the floor, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, announced his ``ambitious schedule'' saying that his time line would be unworkable as long as we had ``procedural cooperation.'' Of course, we very soon learned that procedural cooperation was a euphemism for closing down the debate.

Now, the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, on June 17 on the House floor, said that the Democratic majority was prepared to push forward at all costs to complete the appropriations process on time.

Again, we now know that those costs were the abandonment of what has been the 220-year history of the appropriations process, and that is open to debate and the rejection of amendments to be considered by Democrats and Republicans. On June 19, the distinguished majority leader reiterated this stance saying that the only way to get our work done is if we limit debate time.

Throughout the summer, the Democratic majority did just that. Every single appropriations bill was considered under a restrictive rule. Spending bills have been historically considered, as I said, under a full and open process that allows for all Members, not just committee Chairs or members of the leadership, but all Members of both parties to make their constituencies' voices heard in the Federal spending process. Yet the Democratic majority announced at the outset of this year's process that they were abandoning open debate for the sake of expediency.

Now, Madam Speaker, the Democratic majority did deliver on the issue of closing down debate for the appropriations process. What they haven't delivered on is the timely completion of our constitutional responsibility. They dismantled the open appropriations process, and, for what? So we could pass the ``putting Congress first'' bill and leaving the rest of our work to be completed at a later date.

We could call this just another broken promise in a never-ending string of broken promises by this Democratic majority; but this is bigger, this is bigger, Madam Speaker, than just broken promises. We have more than a trillion-dollar deficit, and the year isn't over yet. Our national debt has skyrocketed, skyrocketed to nearly unfathomable levels.

The American people are incredibly frustrated about our fiscal state and the crippling debt we have saddled on our future generations. Yet the Democratic majority has shut out accountability of their spending practices for the sake of a deadline that they didn't even try to keep. That's one of the reasons why we are here today, to extend the deadline on appropriations bills that were rammed through the House without the benefit of many thoughtful amendments from both Democrats and Republicans proposed by those who are deeply concerned about runaway spending.

Now, of course, our friends on the other side of the aisle will have great excuses, and they are excuses we have heard regularly from both sides. They will say that the House has done its work; they can't control what happens over in the other body; we can't control what those guys do on the other side of the Capitol. But when the Republicans were in the majority, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would regularly point out that we had control of both bodies of Congress and the White House. They would say that we were in control, and so we had to shoulder the responsibility.

Madam Speaker, when someone stands up and makes the argument we did our job in the House, but we can't, we can't control what those guys do over on the other side of the Capitol, remember what was regularly said, that when you have supermajority control of the Senate, and now with the appointment of Paul Kirk, the 60th seat is there in the Senate, when you have control of the White House and a large majority in the House of Representatives, one has to take responsibility.

Now, the situation is such that our friends must take the responsibility. With the impending appointment, as I said, we now have, we now have both Houses of Congress and the White House in complete control of the Democrats. Excuses about blaming the other body for having not done their work really are not acceptable.

Madam Speaker, not one of us, not one of us is interested in a government shutdown. But this bill makes two things very clear, first, that the Democratic majority is more concerned with padding its own budget for this institution than meeting the rest of the country's needs. Second, the concerns and input of the American people were stifled, we see now, for no good reason at all.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, let me say that I completely concur with the gentleman. He's actually making our arguments here about the priority of ensuring that our men and women who have sacrificed and fought on behalf of the cause of freedom do have access to quality health care, that we have the funding for those troops there. That is a very important priority. That's why we should be doing those appropriations bills first.

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

Let me respond to some of the remarks that have been made so far, Madam Speaker. First, I have to say that, in addressing the issue of ACORN, the gentleman from Worcester said that ACORN was the target of right-wing radio this week. The fact of the matter is there is a Justice Department investigation that, at this moment, is being undertaken to address this issue. So to argue that somehow this is just a product of right-wing radio is silly.

Of course. I'm happy to yield.

If I can reclaim my time, let me say that I was simply responding to the gentleman from Worcester, who was saying that somehow the ACORN concerns that have been raised are nothing but developed from right-wing radio, as he described it.

It is true that a number of very, very smart investigative journalists have come forward and brought to the forefront some of the most outrageous abuses of taxpayer dollars, and we have seen these reports carried on television. The gentleman mentioned Fox News. We've heard it reported on the radio.

I believe that it is a great service, as we see hardworking Americans, hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet, and that kind of abuse of their tax dollars is outrageous, as has been reported. That kind of abuse is outrageous.

Of course, I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman was not on the floor when Mr. McGovern began his opening statement. The gentleman did, in fact.

So now I will say both my friends from Massachusetts and New York are now saying that right-wing talk radio is somehow responsible for this, when, in fact, it has been some very shrewd investigative journalists. And we have seen talk radio and some of the cable television networks bring us to the forefront. Unfortunately, it's taken quite a while for the so-called mainstream media to begin the kind of coverage of ACORN that we are finally seeing.

Madam Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say to my friend that the American people get it. They understand that ACORN is responsible for its own actions. They have seen what has taken place. It has been outrageous behavior. And the notion of somehow standing here and defending that when we are dealing with the funding bills themselves, the appropriations process, is just plain wrong.

Let me also say to my friend from Worcester managing this measure that he responded to my remarks by saying that he didn't want to have lectures given and he was tired of excuses being made. You know, the American people get it, too. The notion of pointing the finger of blame back and forth is not what they want.

Children make excuses and get slapped down by their parents. That has happened to me as a kid. It happens to everybody. And the idea of standing here saying, Well, we were lectured here and excuses are being made, so we somehow can continue to do what it is that we want to do. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to tell you that we didn't do things perfectly, but the fact of the matter is we didn't shut down the appropriations process. We did not shut down the appropriations process, denying Democrats and Republicans the opportunity to participate, as has been the case throughout the history of our country, and I think it's just plain wrong to do that. And the American people get that, too.

So we're not providing any lecturing. We're just saying regular order. The rules of the House should be followed, and they have been ignored consistently.

When one looks at the statements that have been made by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were critical of us when we were in the majority, it's incredible to see that they have taken and ramped up, ramped up the kind of behavior that they criticized on our part.

In fact, on the fiscal year 2000 measure, the fiscal year 2000 measure, as the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill was moving through, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the now chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, said, in talking about the Legislative Branch bill, This bill should not be passed until we know how deep the cuts that are being made contemplated for veterans, for education, for health care, and other areas of major responsibility to our people. Because, in the end, if this bill is one of the first out of the gate and signed into law before the other cuts are made, then the American people are really going to have a right to ask whether we are more concerned with taking care of ourselves than we are with taking care of their own problems.

Those are the words of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee today, who is utilizing the ``putting Congress first,'' the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, as the first measure for tying the continuing resolution to that. And I think that it's a very, very unfortunate thing.

When we had an exchange up in the Rules Committee, I asked the distinguished Chair, As we look at our priorities--homeland security, veterans, our men and women in uniform who are in Iraq and Afghanistan--and we have now chosen that the priority for passage is the funding for the Congress of the United States, the distinguished Chair's response was, Uh-huh. Right. She said, That's it.

And so here we are, putting Congress first, when the American people believe we should be focusing on our border security, the threat of terrorism, funding for our troops. Those should be the priorities that we have. And the notion of standing here, Madam Speaker, having subverted the opportunity for the American people, Democrats and Republicans alike, to be heard in this appropriations so that we could get everything done by September 30, when we failed to meet that, is just plain wrong.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield? I yielded repeatedly to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman for being so generous with the 15 seconds.

Let me just say that article 1 of the United States Constitution very clearly, with section 9, points to us as being responsible for funding. We have the power of the purse here, and the notion of saying that ACORN somehow has a right to U.S. taxpayer dollars is just plain wrong.

I thank my friend for yielding.

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

This has been a fascinating debate, and I know that we want to move to consideration of the measure. I hope that we'll be able to defeat the rule. As I listened to my friend from New York talk about ACORN, to follow the logic that the gentleman has put forward basically is saying that ACORN is an entitlement; ACORN is entitled to these taxpayer dollars. We don't believe that, Madam Speaker. We happen to believe that the outrageous reports that have come forward are very clear and the admissions that have been made by ACORN, and the changes that they are attempting to make now that this kind of behavior has come to light is very important.

So my friend from New York is criticizing the fact that this continuing resolution does not provide funding for ACORN, but only for 30 days. The continuing resolution is 30 days. Basically 30 days following September 30, the end of the fiscal year, funding goes right back up. So I guess his entitlement will be able to be continued.

The notion of somehow saying that the United States House of Representatives, which under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, is empowered with spending the taxpayer dollars, cannot cut off funding for ACORN, and for that reason, we're going to see the gentleman from New York voting against the continuing resolution is, to me, absolutely incomprehensible.

Madam Speaker, I've got to say that we've got a process here which is putting Congress first. My friend has just outlined the priorities. I guess I would inquire of him how often he gets calls from his constituents saying, Are you keeping the Capitol Complex safe so that you can move in and out of your office? That is not what the American people are concerned about. I recognize it's important to keep this great Capitol Complex safe, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass the Legislative Branch appropriation bill.

I'll tell you what I do believe. I believe that border security and dealing with the threat of terrorism by funding

Homeland Security and I believe that passing the Defense appropriation bill so that our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need through the appropriations process is more important right now, and the American people get that.

With that, if my colleague is prepared to close, Madam Speaker, I will simply say to my colleagues that this measure does, as I said, put Congress first, and we should not put Congress first, ahead of the priority spending for national security, which is priority number one. We continue to have statements made by our friends on the other side of the aisle, including the veto message from President Clinton in 1996. He vetoed a measure because we were passing the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for saying that there are many other priorities that should be ahead of it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can move ahead in a very, very responsible way.

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 772 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 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 to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. I rise in strong support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. The bill before us today includes not only the fy 2010 Legislative Branch appropriations bill but, more importantly, a continuing resolution to keep the government operating for the next 6 weeks.

With a few important exceptions, the continuing resolution provides level funding. In other words, the bill maintains funding levels passed at the 2009 appropriations process levels.

One of those exceptions is in the vital area of veterans health care, which receives an increase in this bill. The VA estimates that it will treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2010, including more than 419,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. That number represents an increase of 56,000 more patients than in 2009.

To ensure that the VA can provide our veterans the care that they need and that they deserve, the bill increases the funding for VA health by $3.85 billion. I would encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle who wish to provide this needed increase in veterans health care to support the bill.

To address the right-wing talk radio target of the week, no funds in this bill may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations.

In terms of process, Madam Speaker, none of us on either side of the aisle are happy with continuing resolutions. They have been used for years under Democratic and Republican majorities, but they are clearly not ideal.

Here in the House, we have completed our work of passing all of the appropriations bills, and I want to commend Chairman Obey and his colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their efforts and all of their hard work.

Unfortunately, it seems that these days that you need 60 votes in the Senate to agree that the sun came up this morning. The Senate has not yet passed all of its bills, and this continuing resolution is necessary to ensure that vital programs continue to receive funding.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, I don't think we need any lectures by Members of the other side about process. If I recall, when they were in charge here, continuing resolutions were a regular part of the process. If I recall correctly, their last year in power they did a short-term CR. That means they got nothing done and dumped all of their appropriations work on the incoming Democratic Congress, which was a daunting task, to deal with 2 years of appropriations. They had their chance, and I think that they messed it up.

The fact is that the bill before us, the conference report before us, is the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which is an important appropriations bill. All appropriations bills are important. I don't think it does anybody any good to diminish the importance of this.

This is important and it needs to be passed. I fully expect that the other appropriations bills will be conferenced, and we will be dealing with more and more conference reports in the coming weeks.

But, look, what we need to do here, Madam Speaker, is not only pass a conference report for the Legislative Branch Appropriations, but we also need to pass a continuing resolution which includes an increase in veterans' health care.

We have thousands and thousands of young men and women who we have sent to Iraq and who we have sent to Afghanistan. They deserve a first- class health care system when they return. All veterans do. They have served our country with great distinction. They not only deserve the best health care, but they have earned it. There is an increase in this CR for veterans' health.

I'm happy to yield.

I reclaim my time.

I thank the gentleman for agreeing with me, and hopefully we will have a unanimous vote on this, because there should be no disagreement on that. Again, in this continuing resolution, I will repeat to my colleagues, there is an increase in funding for veterans' health.

I think we should move forward. Get this conference report done. There will be more conference reports down the road. This is not an easy process. I think I've come to learn that the House of Representatives does not control the United States Senate. I wish we did. We would get a lot more done. But that's not the way our system works.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, so nobody is confused here--and I appreciate the opinion of the gentleman from New York, but so nobody is confused here--the bill before us, there are no funds in this bill that may be provided to ACORN or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations. None.

We can talk about this all we want, but the facts are the facts, and there's no money in this bill for ACORN.

The gentleman earlier talked about shutdowns of the process. What I recall is when the Republicans were in charge, they shut down the government in 1995. We all know the adverse impacts of that.

For the record, I want to make clear to people that the Legislative Branch appropriation bill does not include Members' salaries. So this notion that we're somehow padding our pockets here is a little bit off the mark. The fact of the matter is, included in the Legislative Branch appropriation bill are moneys to help fund CBO so that it will be easier for Members to obtain PAYGO analyses of their proposals. We're all talking about the need to be more conscious of our debt and our deficit. That's one way to do it.

The other thing is that in this bill is money to protect the people who come and visit the United States Capitol. In this conference report, there are moneys that ensure that the Capitol Complex is as secure and as safe as possible, providing a 7 percent increase in funding for the Capitol Police, covering all mandatory spending and maintaining FY09 force levels. The bottom line here is that the men and women who protect us in the Capitol Police deserve more gratitude than they're getting the way this Legislative Branch appropriation bill is being described.

This is an important bill. All appropriations bills are important. We're going to hopefully pass all of our appropriations bills and not do what my friends on the other side did when they were in power, and that is just pass it off to another year. I think that we should move forward on this.

Again, in the continuing resolution there is an increase in funding for veterans health care. I think that is important. We owe our veterans more, quite frankly, than we are giving them. I hope that all my colleagues will support not only the rule but the final passage of this conference report.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman described this debate as fascinating. I would describe it as kind of bizarre. The Legislative Branch bill that President Clinton threatened to veto, if I remember correctly, the gentleman from California voted for. And I will stress again that there is no money in this bill for ACORN, none, or its affiliates or its subsidiaries. Huge majorities in both the House and the Senate are on record as opposing funding ACORN. This notion that somehow when the CR runs out that the money for ACORN is going to go up, I don't get that. There will either be another CR or we will have passed relevant appropriation bills that will continue the prohibition. So that is kind of a nutty debate, and it is not relevant to this bill because this bill bans Federal funding for ACORN.

The other thing that I will say is that all appropriations bills are important, and we are going to get to all of them. But I think it is wrong to diminish the Legislative Branch appropriation bill, and I think it's wrong to kind of brush aside the importance of funding for the Capitol Police. We have had members of the Capitol Police lose their lives in the line of duty, protecting not only us but protecting our constituents who come here. They deserve to be supported, and they deserve to be thanked. This bill does that.

Again, I will remind my colleagues that in the CR there is an increase in funding for veterans health. Now if you don't want to fund the Capitol Police and you don't want to increase funding for veterans health, then vote against the rule and vote against the final passage of the bill. But I think the vast majority of our constituents are saying, This is a no-brainer. Move this forward. Continue your business. Continue to work on the other appropriations bills, and get your work done. And we are going to do that.

Let me finally say again in support of Chairman Obey and the members of the Appropriations Committee, they did all of their work in this House. Every single one of the appropriation bills has been passed. It is now up to the Senate to pass their bills, and then we will conference them and bring them back here for a final vote.

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to this rule, and I want to briefly explain the amendment. The amendment will provide for adoption of an enrollment resolution that corrects a technical error made by the Senate in the continuing resolution. After the Senate struck a section in the continuing resolution, internal cross-references in the conference report became incorrect. This mistake could block contracting authority for any surface transportation programs, a result that I am certain that no Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, would support. The enrollment resolution corrects the cross-references.

I hope all my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on the amendment, the rule and the previous question.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McGovern

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 772, I call up the conference report on 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918.

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

Madam Speaker, the conference agreement which we present to the House today for the fiscal year 2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill authorizes a total of $4.6 billion for the operations of the House and the Senate and for the operating budgets of the legislative branch support agencies. The overall amount is $254 million above the 2009 enacted level and $500 million below the request. The net increase over the enacted level is 3.5 percent.

This is the first freestanding conference agreement for the Legislative Branch bill since 2005, and the first since I became Chair of the subcommittee. I am pleased to report that the agreement preserves all of the priorities of the House, and that the Legislative Branch bill is on time and under budget. Madam Speaker, this package was developed in full cooperation with the minority and represents a fully bipartisan agreement.

The principal responsibility of our subcommittee is to serve as stewards of the legislative branch, its institutions, and its employees. In fulfilling these goals, the 2010 Legislative Branch bill provides funding for the routine and recurring costs of paying our hardworking staff, maintaining and repairing the buildings in which we work here in Washington and in our districts, securing the Capitol complex from threats, and for the technologies which we depend on to communicate among ourselves and with our constituents.

Key investments in this category include $1.369 billion for the operations of the House. This includes basic pay and benefits for employees as well as a number of technology improvements, including funds to replace the aging electronic voting system in the House Chamber. It includes $328 million for the Capitol Police to protect the Capitol, the Members, and our visitors; $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol to support ongoing operational costs to the Capitol complex and to fund key initiatives to repair and upgrade these facilities; $643 million for the Library of Congress, which is an increase of $36 million over 2009, or 6 percent. This includes $15 million, as requested, to accelerate improvements in the Library's IT infrastructure, the Librarian's top priority for 2010.

Madam Speaker, this bill is about more than just maintaining the status quo; it includes a number of new investments intended to provide for the long-term health of the Congress, and especially for the House of Representatives. It includes important security funding to protect the employees, visitors, and the institution itself. Let's not forget that one of the planes piloted by terrorists on September 11, 2001, was purported to be headed for the Capitol. A few weeks ago, a brave Capitol Police Officer engaged in a shoot-out with an individual brandishing a gun. Last year, a bomb was found in a car confiscated by the Capitol Police in the underground garage of the Government Printing Office. The legislative branch budget may seem trivial and unimportant, but it funds the greatest democratic institutions in the world.

Madam Speaker, the Legislative Branch bill also funds our most important assets: the dedicated employees who staff our offices, committees, and support teams. We have endeavored to provide adequate funds for their compensation and benefits, but must do more if we are to continue to be able to recruit and retain the high-quality workforce which each Member depends upon. I am pleased that this conference agreement retains a House priority--funding for new childcare and tuition assistance programs which are currently being considered by the Committee on House Administration.

We also must take care of and preserve for future generations the grand buildings of the Capitol complex, many of which are aging and badly in need of repair. I am pleased that the conference agreement retains $50 million of the $60 million approved by the House in June to initiate a long-term effort to provide for the revitalization of the iconic buildings of the Capitol complex.

The new House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund will allow us to spread the cost of very expensive renewal projects, such as the 100-year-old Cannon House Office Building rehabilitation, evenly over the next decade. It allows the Congress to deal with these requirements in a more thoughtful and deliberate way. I am very proud that this bill steps up Congress' effort to deal with its aging infrastructure in a more forward-thinking manner.

Madam Speaker, this conference agreement also includes the fiscal year 2010 continuing resolution. I fully support this action. There are just 5 days until the start of the new fiscal year, and a continuing resolution is necessary to continue basic government services. It is a clean continuing resolution which follows the same pattern used in previous years, in particular, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution which was added to the Defense Appropriations bill by our friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority. The only differences that have been added above the current rate are important increased investments in veterans' health care and funding in preparation for the 2010 census.

Before concluding, Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank the minority, particularly my friend and ranking member, Mr. Aderholt from Alabama, for their very strong contributions to this conference agreement. I also want to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Vice Chairman Mike Honda, Representative Betty McCollum, Representative Tim Ryan, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, Representative Ciro Rodriguez, Representative Steven LaTourette, and Representative Tom Cole. They all made important contributions to this product, and I truly appreciate their friendship and their effort.

I also want to thank our staff for the work that they have done throughout the year. They have put in long hours and have been very helpful to the Members. This includes Mike Stephens, our subcommittee clerk; Liz Dawson, the minority clerk; Shalanda Young, who has just joined the subcommittee staff; Jenny Kisiah, from the minority; Dave Marroni; and Matt Glassman, from the Congressional Research Service. And I want to thank my own associate staff, Ian Rayder, and the associate staff of all the Members on the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this conference agreement to the House and urge the support of all Members.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to point out that with the greatest respect to the gentleman from Kentucky, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill before us being used as a vehicle for the continuing resolution was the most ready to go. There were no outstanding issues at all.

The gentleman from Wisconsin has just indicated a number of issues remaining on the Homeland Security bill. We are 5 days from the end of the fiscal year with an intervening weekend included in those 5 days. It is simply a matter of making sure that we are not shutting the government down.

I appreciate the good work of my colleague, Mr. Aderholt, and the members of the minority on getting this bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, in the best possible position to serve as a vehicle to keep the government open.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Alabama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well as the members of our subcommittee, for the good work that they have done on developing this Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

We have a good solid product to make sure that we can move the legislative branch institutions forward and to preserve the legacy of the Capitol complex and its institutions for future generations. We also are going to make sure that we keep the government running.

I am hopeful that my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle as well as on my side of the aisle, will vote for this bill. A vote against this bill would jeopardize the security and safety of our citizens. Shutting the government down is not a responsible action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, our principal obligation on this bill is simply to keep the government open. We've got enough problems in the economy right now without adding to people's uncertainty. We had concluded that the least disruptive way to do that and the way with the least delay was to attach this continuing resolution to the one appropriation bill that was ready to be conferenced, the Legislative Branch Appropriation bill.

This is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR. As far as funding levels are concerned, we are simply allowing agencies to continue fiscal 2009 levels, with three exceptions:

First, we are following the House's lead when it voted 388-32 to allow the postal service to cover a budget shortfall by postponing a payment intended to prefund its retiree health benefits;

Second, we're funding the census at a somewhat higher rate to allow it to ramp up activities so the 2010 census can proceed. The calendar is not going to change to suit congressional convenience;

Third, we are providing additional funding for the Veterans Health Administration. The VA expects to treat

over 6 million patients in 2010, including almost 420,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CR also extends a number of authorizations that would otherwise expire: transportation programs, child nutrition, stop-loss payments to our troops, E-Verify, and various other programs.

So, as I said, this is a relatively routine CR which keeps the government open for the next 30 days.

Outside of those items, we make no policy judgments. We change no existing policy except that, in accordance with the House vote last week, we also say no more funds for this 30-day period for ACORN. There have been some objections by the minority to this process. They claim it is procedurally outrageous because we are attaching the continuing resolution to a specific appropriations subcommittee bill. This is certainly not out of the ordinary.

In fact, in September of 2006, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they controlled this House, attached the continuing resolution to the defense bill. I have the roll call on that if anyone cares to take a look at it. If you do, you would find out there were only two Members of the other party who voted against it, and in the Senate, the vote was 100 to nothing in support of it.

So there is no difference in what we are doing today, but there is a difference in how we do it. We are up front with what we are doing. We included this action in the conference notes, and voted on it in the conference. That was certainly not the case in 2006 when the action of adding the CR was not flagged or noticed in any way during the conference or in the conference notes. I have a copy of those conference notes here if anyone wishes to see them. So the action that was taken then was simply taken after the fact in contrast to our doing it up front and in full view. So I believe that, in comparison to that, this action is, certainly, totally transparent.

Now I need to take this opportunity to note one other point: Until last night, we were not in a position to move other appropriations bills because of a dispute between the House and the Senate over how to deal with for-profit earmarks. As I think the membership knows, we have put in place in the last few years significant reforms to the earmark process. When we took over control of the Congress in 2007, we put in place a moratorium on earmarks for that year until we could reform the process and make it much less susceptible to wasting taxpayers' money. Since then, including this year's bills, we have cut the dollar amount of earmarks by 50 percent. We require every Member to request earmarks publicly, ending the practice of anonymous earmarks in the House, and to certify that they have no financial interest.

This year, we have gone one step further. Recognizing the potential for abuse in sole-source contracting, we have insisted that all House earmarks designated for for-profit entities must undergo a competitive bidding process. We still allow those entities to be named so we can help, for instance, small businesses get a foot in the door so that they can be noticed by Federal agencies, which all too often simply notice people with whom they are familiar in their inside processes, but we nonetheless require that those entities still submit a bid and compete in a fair competition.

The Senate did not do that this year, and up until last night, was objecting to even allowing the House to follow this policy. Last night, we reached an agreement that will allow us to proceed with House earmarks subject to that new policy.

There is still one small area of disagreement that remains. There are a small number of projects, approximately 5 percent, which have been included in both the House and Senate bills. Until last night, the other body was refusing to allow those to be competed. Under the agreement we reached this year and this year only, those projects will be dealt with according to Senate policy. Next year and thereafter, they will be managed by House policy. So they, too, will be subjected to competition next year.

We reached this agreement because the other body insisted that, because they had proceeded all year under their policies, it was too late to change the rules of the game for them. We recognize that changing policies at this point would be a procedural problem for the other body. We do appreciate their agreement that, starting next year, we can all agree on how to handle for-profit projects and that they will be handled in accordance with the House procedures.

This will enable us to now proceed to conference on a number of other appropriations bills which have been passed by the Senate: We have had a motion to go to conference on energy and water. We expect next week, after two small matters are resolved, to also be able to go to conference on the Agriculture bill. We hope that, within a week, we will be able to resolve a few remaining differences on the Homeland Security bill and to also go to conference on that and other bills as the Senate grinds through them in their processes.

So, having reported that to the House, I would simply urge an ``aye'' vote for the legislation before us, and would simply note that, given the calendar, a vote against this proposition would be a vote to shut down the government.

With that, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Madam Speaker, I would simply note, in light of the gentleman from Kentucky's comments, there are at least seven outstanding issues on homeland security that, to my knowledge, have yet to be resolved. One is the border fence. Another is the National Bio and Agricultural Defense Facility. There is an argument about where that's supposed to go. We have the Gitmo issue. We have immigration issues. We have FEMA.

If the gentleman wants to resolve those by agreeing with our position on each of them, I would be happy to see them go to conference right now.

The fact is that no one has suggested that they delay the Homeland Security bill in any manner whatsoever. We are noting that there are significant substantive differences. Under the rules of the body, we can't bring a conference bill back to this House until we've reached agreement on all of those differences.

So I think it's patently preposterous to suggest that this bill is being delayed in any way.

The only thing that is delaying it is honest disagreement and, until last night, the disagreement that we had with the Senate which precluded us from bringing up virtually any other bill. Thankfully, that is now gone.

No, I will not. The gentleman would not yield to me. I don't see any reason to yield to him.

Madam Speaker, what we just heard came from a Member of the then-majority party, which turned $6 trillion in inherited projected surpluses into a $2 trillion deficit. We heard that from a Member of the party that provided $2 trillion in tax cuts primarily aimed at the wealthiest people in the country, all paid for with borrowed money, from the same folks who gave us almost $1 trillion in spending on the most ill advised war in the country's history, also paid for with borrowed money.

They ran the country's economy into the ditch with record collapse of consumer spending and record collapse of unemployment. Then they are now complaining when Mr. Obama and the majority party are now trying to pull the country out of the ditch.

Someone else can take that seriously if they want, but I won't be one of them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to have had an opportunity to work this year with the chairman of this subcommittee, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And let me just echo what she was saying about all the staff that has helped on the majority and minority this year in putting this bill together. It is a good bill. We have worked very well together, all the subcommittee members on the minority and the majority side. So I am very happy to report that she has worked in a very open manner through this entire process, been very responsive to the concerns and input of all the members of the subcommittee.

We have worked very closely, and we have worked in a spirit of what I consider real bipartisanship for the needs of the legislative branch. I think it would be fair to say that Ms. Wasserman Schultz has actually gone beyond the call of duty to make sure that this has been a fair process, along with all of her staff on the majority side. So I again want to especially thank the majority and the minority staff for all their work in putting this together, because certainly they do great work in making sure that what we need is put before us.

Division A of this conference report represents the efforts of the conferees to bring back to the House an agreement which was comprised in a bipartisanship manner and continues the priorities of the House of Representatives. The conference provides a total of $4.656 billion, which is an increase of $155 million, or 3.4 percent, over fiscal year 2009.

Among the highlights of the agreement are:

$1.369 billion for the House of Representatives. This provides an appropriate level of funding for the Members' representational allowance;

$328.3 million for the Capitol Police. This amount supports the current level of 1,799 officers and completes the Library of Congress Police merger;

$602 million for the Architect of the Capitol. This includes a special emphasis on funding life safety and rehabilitation of critical infrastructure. Also, there is $50 million for a new House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund to more evenly spread out the cost of repairing and revitalizing the historic icon buildings such as the Cannon House Office Building.

Also included in the bill is $643 million for the Library of Congress. This amount includes $15 million to fund the first year of the Library's 5-year information technology initiative.

There is $147 million for the Government Printing Office. This amount includes $7.8 million to continue the development of the Federal Digital System.

Funds are also provided for additional workforce to meet the congressional demands for the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office.

Our conferees did their work and addressed many of the competing priorities and individual agency challenges that come with this particular piece of legislation. I know that the chairman of the committee, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, feels as I do, that it is nice to have this piece of legislation behind us so that we can move forward. We have been working on this legislation since the very first part of the year, and I know it will be a great birthday present for the chairman, as she celebrates her birthday this weekend, to have this bill behind us. But I am very thankful for the work that we have put in together.

That being said, I think it is important that I stress the point that I am disappointed that the process has brought us to where we are on this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill because it has turned out to be the vehicle for the continuing resolution. This is simply not a reasonable or responsible kind of governing that our constituents sent us here to Washington to do.

As the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I believe, of course, this bill is very important; but moving this bill forward first, even before Homeland Security and the security of the Nation, is not the proper way to prioritize funding or to meet the critical needs that face the American people.

Madam Speaker, we need a clean continuing resolution and a clean Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which is what this committee was prepared to do. And while I support the underlying bill and the underlying work that is in this bill, I regret that because of the attachment of the continuing resolution to this conference report I am unable to support this agreement in the House this morning.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking member of the full committee.

(Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who is the ranking member of the Homeland Security subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is a senior member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.