Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis D. Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 976 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have been here before. This is the same point of order that has been raised against almost every appropriations measure during this Congress, and each time it is used to discuss something other than its intended purpose.

I would want to respond to my good colleague from Arizona that I, too, share concerns about the earmarking process, and I encourage him to become a cosponsor on the fair elections bill. As we have in Maine, public financing takes away much of the scrutiny around the link between campaign contributions and earmarks.

But once again, this particular debate is about delaying consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether. I hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion.

This rule provides for enactment of legislation to fund our Nation's defense. The brave men and women who serve in the military, particularly those who are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, deserve a swift enactment of this legislation.

This legislation that we will take up later today will also divert TARP money to programs that create and save jobs across the country. We do this by investing $75 billion of TARP money into highways, transit, school renovation, hiring teachers, police, firefighters, supporting our small businesses, funding job training, and affordable housing. And for those hardest hit by the recession, this bill also provides emergency relief by extending programs like unemployment benefits, COBRA, FMAP, our health care funding for the State, and the child care tax credit.

Those who oppose this measure can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this critical legislation today.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this and the other important items covered by this rule.

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

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 976.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 976 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, House Joint Resolution 64, H.R. 4314, and the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847.

For the Senate amendment to H.R. 3326, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment, provides 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and waives

all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XI.

The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 64 under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4314 under a closed rule. It provides for 1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and it waives all points of order against provisions in the bill.

For the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the rule makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment. It provides 1 hour of debate on the motion controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that in the engrossment of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 2920 as passed by the House.

The rule also provides that measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

The rule waives the requirement of a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee for the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.

The rule provides that the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations may insert in the Congressional Record explanatory materials on the Senate amendments and the motions regarding H.R. 3326 and H.R. 2847.

The rule provides that, on any legislative day before January 12, 2010, the Speaker may dispense with organizational or legislative business.

The rule provides that, before January 12, 2010, the Chair may declare the House adjourned.

The rule provides for pro forma sessions until the House adjourns sine die.

And finally, the rule provides that, on any legislative day of the first session of the 111th Congress, the Speaker may declare the House adjourned.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows the House to consider the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010, which is the last appropriations bill for this fiscal year.

The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 provides over $363 billion towards protecting our troops abroad and taking better care of their families at home. To help protect our troops, this bill provides increased funding for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund and for the procurement of new Humvees and of new heavy and medium tactical vehicles. This is particularly important given the casualty rate and the difficulties our soldiers are experiencing in Afghanistan.

H.R. 3326 increases pay for all servicemembers by 3.4 percent, and it fully funds the requested end strength levels for active reserve and selected reserve personnel. The bill provides over $29 billion for top- of-the-line medical care, including $120 million for traumatic brain injury and psychological health, and it increases funding for the wounded, the ill and injured warrior programs.

The conference agreement also includes over $472 million for family advocacy programs, and it fully funds the family support and yellow ribbon programs. The bill also includes $20 million for the Army National Guard family assistance centers and reintegration programs; but this bill cannot provide for the common defense without a common effort.

In my home State of Maine, there are men and women who work every day to help in this effort. The funding in this bill would have been wasted if it weren't for the efforts of the welders, designers, and metal workers of the Bath Ironworks; of the skilled factory workers and assembly men at Vintech in Biddeford, Maine; of the world-class machinists and engineers at Pratt and Whitney in North Berwick; or of the dedicated laborers and nuclear engineers at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

This is a clear example of why the bills before us today are so interconnected. Our economic security and our national security are inextricably linked, and our economic security is still in dire straits.

Madam Speaker, if you were sitting at a boardroom table on Wall Street today, you might hear the employees with Goldman Sachs discussing their $1 billion in profits or bonuses or you might hear employees of Citibank discussing raises for their top executives. You might also hear that the stock market has gone up 60 percent since the spring. You might even hear terms like ``economic recovery'' or ``rebound.'' So, if you are sitting at that boardroom table on Wall Street, you might think that the economy has fully bounced back and that we are out of the woods. You may start to believe that there is nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

Yet, if you were at a kitchen table on Main Street in my home State of Maine, you would hear a very different story. Rather than talk of large profits, you would hear families discussing a savings account that has all but disappeared. Instead of listening to talk of raises or bonuses, you would hear families debating cutbacks on food or cutbacks on health care. Instead of hearing phrases like ``economic recovery'' or ``rebound,'' you would hear terms like ``high unemployment'' and ``mounting debt.''

For the big banks on Wall Street, the economic recovery may be at hand, but for the millions of unemployed workers and for the thousands of small businesses that are struggling to get by, the economic recovery is still a long way off. In my State and all across the country, there are millions of Americans who want to get back to work, but they need us to lend the same helping hand that we gave to Wall Street in its time of need.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today allows for the consideration of the Jobs for Main Street Act, which will move us down that road. This legislation invests in our Nation's infrastructure, and it puts more Americans back to work by providing $48 billion to rebuild and repair our national transportation system. This investment provides a measurable return, not only by creating and preserving jobs but by literally building the foundation for a long-term economic recovery. This bill will also preserve the jobs of teachers, of police officers, and of firefighters. For those who have already lost their jobs, the Jobs Act extends unemployment benefits for 2 months, and it maintains the current COBRA subsidy.

These programs--these investments, the economic lifelines--have a real impact. Just this week, I heard from a constituent of mine who said these words: Something needs to be done. There are less than 4 weeks left for my husband's unemployment. After that, we won't be able to pay the rent, and we will be out on the streets with a child under 2 years old. Every day, I wonder what is going to happen next, and I even have nightmares. You bail out these large banks which then only raise our interest rates and lower our credit lines--and for what? That doesn't help the little guy like us. Do something to help us.

Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity and we have the obligation to take the bailout money that was used as a lifeline to Wall Street and to give that money back to the American people and to those who have been hit the hardest by these tough economic times. The COBRA subsidy we passed this spring began expiring a few weeks ago. If we don't act now, it will completely disappear by January 1. In my State, full payment for COBRA uses up nearly 90 percent of the average unemployment benefits. That means out-of-work Mainers end up with only about $150 a month left after paying the full cost of their health insurance.

We need to act now, and we need to act fast to ensure that Main Street recovers. If we do not act, we will have only assured that Wall Street keeps

their bonuses while American families lose their benefits. We will have only watched Wall Street get rid of their debt while watching small businesses take on more.

Madam Speaker, we have already put more than enough into shoring up Wall Street. Now we need to focus on creating jobs for the average American that will rebuild our economy from the bottom up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Arcuri.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to one of my colleagues, I do want to mention one point of concern I have in the bill.

The conference agreement on H.R. 3326 is the first step towards cutting wasteful defense spending, but it is by no means perfect. It is no means the last step that we must take. The conference agreement provides $465 million for the development of an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This provision represents businesses as usual in Washington for providing funds for an engine that's already being built and already being built well.

There is no need to devote our precious Federal dollars to a wasteful alternative engine program at this time when Americans are struggling to find jobs to pay their medical bills and to put food on the table. Every defense bill that we spend wisely contributes to our national security, and every defense dollar that we waste hampers our economic security.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

I yield the gentlewoman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Madam Speaker, I rise to discuss at least one thing my colleague and friend from North Carolina mentioned. I'm a Northerner, so I can't claim to be an expert on crocodiles, but I assume that when you're talking about crocodile tears, you're talking about being insincere, and I want to say I receive letters from my constituents every day about the urgency of what we are doing today. And I have to say that like it or not, I cannot get through the pile of letters without crying tears for real. It's very, very difficult to think about the small businesses, laid-off individuals, individuals worrying about their jobs, what they're going through in my district and the urgency with which they view the actions that we are about to take today and the importance of moving on from this rule and getting to the actual debate.

I want to read one of them that is in front of me here before I yield a little time to my colleague from California.

This one says: ``My housemate and I were both laid off, me in September 08 and she in February 09. We have applied diligently for work in and around Portland with no luck. We had to cash in our meager 401(k)'s, and have been very thankful for the COBRA subsidy so that we could afford insurance during this most harsh of times. But our money is running out fast.

``As you know, the subsidy is about to expire, and we cannot afford the huge jump in premium. We cannot afford both the mortgage and the insurance. We cannot afford our prescriptions, and our health care will be at stake, as if things weren't bad enough. We will lose our home.

``PLEASE help push through the COBRA extension and continuation of the ARRA COBRA subsidy. It is an immediate fix for so many families who will surely gain employment over the next 6 months now that the economy has finally taken an upswing.''

Madam Speaker, those are the things that make us all cry real tears and make us want to pass this rule and go on to passing this legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is about investing in jobs. It is about investing in infrastructure, and it is about rebalancing our economy. So it's not just the big banks and Wall Street firms that benefit from an economic recovery. This bill is about helping the American family.

This week, a New York Times/CBS News poll surveyed unemployed Americans. Not surprisingly, they found that being unemployed takes a toll far beyond what can be measured in dollars and cents. Half of the people surveyed said they had begun to suffer from depression and anxiety, half said the recession has caused them to make major life changes, and nearly half said they have seen changes in their children's behavior that they know is a result of their difficult financial situation.

We are not just helping men and women who've lost their job, who have suffered from uncertainty, emotional pain, and indignation, but we are helping their families. We are helping their children. It is time for us to invest in the jobs and policies that will get the American Dream back on track and restore the promise of opportunity and prosperity for everyone.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 976 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the legislation, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(1).

Madam Speaker, approximately 68 years ago, in January of 1941, Sam Rayburn was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Just prior to his swearing in, he rose on the House floor and said the following:

``You have elevated me to a position, I must confess, that has been one of the ambitions of my lifetime. The House of Representatives has been my life and my love for this more than a quarter of a century. I love its traditions; I love its precedents; I love its dignity; I glory in the power of the House of Representatives. It is my highest hope and my unswerving aim to preserve, protect, and defend the rights, prerogatives, and the power of the House of Representatives.''

What a beautiful statement. You can't help but hear and feel the words of love that Speaker Rayburn felt for this House. As Speaker, he considered himself a custodian of its traditions, its precedents and, as he put it, its dignity.

You might ask why I tell this story, why I raise this point. It is because we are about to consider a bill that endorses and condones a practice that has placed a dark and ominous cloud over this institution. This practice, for lack of a better term, can be called circular fund-raising. It involves the awarding of earmarks, which are essentially no-bid contracts, in close proximity to the receipt of campaign contributions from the earmark recipients.

This legislation contains more than 500 earmarks where a private, for-profit company is the intended recipient. Let me repeat that. This legislation we are about to consider contains more than 500 earmarks, or no-bid contracts, directed to private companies. In many cases, the Members of the Congress securing these no-bid contracts have either received, or will soon receive after this legislation is enacted into law, large campaign contributions from the executives of these companies and/or the lobbyists that represent them.

By now my colleagues are well aware of the PMA scandal which was largely centered on the practice of circular fund-raising. Since news broke in February 2008 of the FBI's raid of the PMA offices, press reports and editorials from coast to coast have raised questions about the action of that firm and the integrity of this body, sowing public distrust and tarnishing the dignity of the House. Just listen to what is being said off the Hill and beyond the beltway.

ABC's news site, The Blotter, noted that PMA's ``operations--millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions back in earmarks for clients-- have made it, for many observers, the poster child for tacit `pay-to- play' politics in Washington.''

An editorial in The New York Times entitled, ``Political Animal 101'' referred to ``the relationship between campaign donors and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers'' as ``the ultimate in symbiotic survival'' and ``cynical influence trading.''

An article in The Kansas City Star noted that ``the earmark game gets a bit less baffling'' when taxpayers consider ``the campaign donors that grease political palms.''

The Columbus Dispatch summed it up when they noted, ``Congress has an abysmal public approval rating of 26 percent as of early November, and the smell of quid pro quo certainly doesn't help.''

The embarrassing coverage isn't just limited to domestic press. The Irish Times noted that ``U.S. Congressmen tread a fine line between legitimate political fund-raising and influence-peddling, between friendship with lobbyists and outright corruption.'' They go on, ``Now a leaked confidential report, prepared by the committee (on Ethics) in July and detailed in yesterday's Washington Post, has provided a rare glimpse into the cesspool of Capitol Hill politics.''

Madam Speaker, I have here that article referred to from The Washington Post dated October 30 of this year. It notes that seven Members who sit on the Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Defense, are ``under scrutiny by ethics investigators.'' The article notes that ``Together, the seven legislators have personally steered more than $200 million in earmarks to clients of the PMA Group in the past 2 years, and received more than $6.2 million in campaign contributions from PMA and its clients in the past decade.''

According to The Wall Street Journal, Members who sit on the Defense Subcommittee have this year alone ``received a total of $141,000 in campaign contributions from companies that received earmarks from the lawmakers.''

So here we are today, Madam Speaker, with a backdrop of investigations into the practice of circular fund-raising by the Justice Department and our own Ethics Committee, yet we are poised to pass a Defense appropriations bill that contains more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies.

In mid-January of 2010, we will see a quarterly report from the Office of Congressional Ethics that will shed light into their investigations. Thereafter, it is likely that our own Ethics Committee will have to provide additional notice of their actions related to the PMA scandal.

If the future is anything like the past, additional scandals will spring from the earmarks that we approve

today. We are surely, as the poet said, ``traipsing down a flower- strewn path unpricked by thorns of reason.''

I should note that circular fund-raising is not a partisan issue; both parties engage in it. The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike. But it is fair to ask, what about the dignity of this body? Are we appropriately concerned that the words ``pay-to-play,'' ``quid pro quo,'' ``swamp'' and ``cesspool'' are increasingly routine in articles describing the appropriations process? Should we have no standard higher than whether the abuse of the process rises to the level of an indictable offense?

One thing is clear: The practice of circular fund-raising will someday end. The question is, who will end it? Will it take us, in our own initiative, to clean our own House, or will we wait for the Justice Department to launch more investigations and take further action?

My own hope is that those who find themselves in leadership positions today will summon the dormant custodial spirit of those who have protected and defended this wonderful institution long before we arrived in this Chamber. We owe it to them to correct the process that led to this flawed piece of legislation before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I am accused of using a procedural measure to bring up earmarks again. Let me tell you why I'm doing that. I'm doing that because this year, for the first time in the history of this institution, every appropriations bill that came to the floor-- including this one, including the Defense appropriations bill--came under a structured or closed rule with only certain amendments being offered. That's the first time in the history of this institution where every appropriations bill has come to the floor in that manner.

And so individuals like myself and others were only allowed to offer the amendments that the other side wanted us to offer, the ones that they said we could offer rather than the ones that we ourselves would choose. I was fortunate in that I got 10 of the 550-some amendments I offered on this bill. I offered that many because that's how many no- bid contracts for private companies are contained in the bill, and I thought that they deserved some scrutiny.

I wish that the Appropriations Committee was vetting these earmarks; given this, it's clear that they're not. This is one of hundreds of articles out there. There is a cloud hanging over this institution because of prior Defense bills, and this is going to end up the same way. We are guaranteeing that there will be scandal that springs from earmarks approved in this bill because they haven't been appropriately vetted, and they haven't been because we weren't allowed an open rule for people to bring to the floor amendments that they wanted to offer.

I mentioned that I was fortunate in that I got 10 of them. Some of my colleagues offered multiple amendments on multiple appropriations bills throughout the year and weren't given the opportunity to offer any of them, not one. Here are Members across the country wanting to represent their constituents, and through the entire appropriations process, 12 bills this year, weren't given the opportunity to offer one amendment because we have the equivalent of martial law on appropriations bills.

And why? Because we were told we had to get it done so we wouldn't do any omnibus bills at the end of the year. Well, here we are, we just approved a massive omnibus bill last week, and we're here today because the Defense bill was held just so that we could tag on additional items that people who wouldn't want to vote for them anyway would have to because it's a Defense bill. That's just no way to conduct business. This institution deserves better than this. It deserves better than to have a bill that has more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies of which articles have been written and will be written, making a cloud hang over this body.

As I mentioned, this isn't a partisan issue. This isn't where one party is in the right and one party is in the wrong. We are both doing this, and we shouldn't. And it will come back to haunt us as surely as other practices have in the past.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I had hoped that the gentleman would rise and explain what he just explained.

Now, I will gladly yield to him to explain why this would only apply to earmarks by House Members alone and why the competition requirements don't apply to earmarks that are jointly requested by a House and Senate Member. If we're hanging our hat on language that requires that these earmarks be subject to competition, then surely we would extend it to anything that had our name on it, but we're not.

My understanding is that the language only applies to those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member, and that if you have a Senate Member on your earmark request, then it is not subject to competition. The language just explained does not apply to it. So you can't have it both ways.

Now, I will argue that it doesn't matter anyway, because right now if you talk to the Department of Defense, and I have, we've held meetings in my office with the procurement officials, and we've asked them, How does this work when these earmarks come over? Are they subject to competition? They said, Yes, we follow the rules. Yet when you ask them to do a cursory examination or a full-fledged examination of those earmarks that were requested in prior years, you will find an uncanny alignment, as you might expect, between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmarks in the end.

So you can say until you're blue in the face we're going to subject these to full and open competition. The Department of Defense already says that. And these articles that I already talked about, these scandals that are currently underway are under a policy where the Department of Defense already says we subject these to full and open competition. But let me tell you, if an earmark comes over from a Member of Congress, particularly from those on the Appropriations Committee--and I should explain that the majority of these earmarks, a disproportionate number, are from the powerful Members on the Appropriations Committee--believe me, those procurement officials at the Department of Defense take that into account. They know who butters their bread, and they know that they'd better award this contract to the intended recipient or they might not get funded the next year. If that's not the case, why have we seen so much an uncanny alignment between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmark in the first place?

So, first, again let me say if we're hanging our hat on the language that says these are subject to competition, then why wouldn't we apply it to every earmark that is contained in this bill? It doesn't apply to Senate earmarks, nor does it apply to earmarks requested by both Senate and House Members. So are we saying, well, we're going to subject some to competition and that means something, but these others, yes, it's okay if there are no-bid contracts? That simply doesn't work.

I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence here.

This is important, and I would ask the gentleman and would yield to him to respond, is it your understanding, then, that this language, this new competition language, applies to Senate earmarks as well as earmarks requested by both House and Senate Members?

I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say if that is the case, that is in conflict with the agreement that we understand to be in effect.

The agreement we understand to be in effect and what I was told is that only those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member has the language that applies to competition. If it is an earmark requested by both a House and a Senate Member, then it does not apply this year, and supposedly it will next year, although obviously there are no guarantees. We can't bind a future session. And that if it is a Senate earmark, they didn't agree to this at all. That's what we understand. If there is some difference there, then please let's have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee explain it.

But, again, the question here is if that language is so important, then why wouldn't we apply it across the board?

And doesn't it strike everybody a little bit funny that you have an earmark that, when a Member requests it from the Appropriations Committee, they say this earmark of this amount, $500,000, $2 million, $2.5 million, whatever, is to go to this company at this address? It's that specific. It goes to that company at that address.

Now, the Appropriations Committee will say we're just providing a look-see, and so the Department of Defense can say, well, we didn't know that that company existed but now we do, and we're doing nothing more than simply giving them a look-see and giving them a chance to see which companies those are. I think that doesn't quite pass the laugh test.

Yes, I will.

I thank the gentleman for explaining my motives.

But in truth what I would like to see is no more earmarks in the defense bill because when you have an earmark, you don't have full and open competition. What I'm talking about is I would not like to see no- bid contracts for private companies in the defense bill. When you have that, I don't know how in the world you can say we have full and open competition.

Like I say, I don't believe that that language means much at all, but to the extent that you believe it does mean something, then at least you should apply it across the board, not just to earmarks sought by Members of the House solely but those earmarks that are requested by Senate Members as well. How can we say with a straight face that, hey, we're doing things right because we're applying that competition language to us, but all you have to do is to get a Senate Member to request it along with you and then you don't have to subject it to full and open competition. It simply doesn't make sense, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence and I appreciate this discussion.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my colleague from Maine for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 is intended to provide equipment and technology for our troops. Our country's greatest treasure lies in the bravery, in the dedication, and in the ability of or servicemen and -women. These courageous individuals protect our freedoms every day.

We thank them, and we thank their families for their support, dedication, and sacrifice.

This bill provides top-of-the-line medical care for our troops, including funding for traumatic brain injury and psychological health. This bill provides funding for wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers as well as for cancer research. This bill provides our military with a pay increase, and it continues efforts to end the practice of stop loss--compensating troops for every month their terms of service will be involuntarily extended in 2010. This bill includes funding to provide support for our country's military families who sacrifice every day on behalf of our Nation and to whom we owe a great debt. This bill provides our troops with first-class military equipment and readiness training, ensuring they are fully prepared to successfully perform their missions.

However, while this bill contains funding for several important and necessary initiatives, I would be remiss if I did not mention my disappointment in the overall funding levels when compared to the increases we have seen throughout the appropriations season this year. While the bill does receive, roughly, a 4.5 percent increase over last year, this increase is not comparable to nondefense appropriations bills we have voted on this year, which average a 12 percent increase in funding levels. As we have noted before, the Federal Government is the only unit of government to provide for our national security.

These represent the wrong priorities of the Democrats, who are in charge of the Congress, and of the Obama administration. Increasing spending for domestic priorities by double digits while, in comparison, shortchanging national defense represents a dangerous, wrongheaded policy that does not rightly prioritize the security of our Nation.

Thus, while I am pleased that several items in this bill are being funded in order to provide our troops with the tools, training, and medical services they need and deserve, I am disappointed that, after increasing the funding levels for domestic appropriations bills by an average of 12 percent, the Democrats in control decided only to increase our defense spending by 4.5 percent--less than half--for the coming year.

This is the last appropriations bill, and that is because it has been held in order for the majority to put into it things that are not related, which I will be discussing a bit more, but the substance of the DOD appropriations bill is not the source of my concern.

The extent of the closed rule before us today allows for the consideration of a variety of additional legislation that has been cobbled together without committee consideration. As my colleagues have said before, our colleagues across the aisle have gone to great lengths to shut down debate. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule so the bill can be returned to the committee and can be brought back under regular order.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my very distinguished colleague from Texas, one of only five CPAs in the House, Mr. Conaway.

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, I now would like to yield to a third colleague from Texas (Mr. Culberson), who has come to speak against this rule, one of the most fiscally conservative Members of the House, such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, the West continues to be well-represented here. I now yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, having a charge of misspeaking is very serious. I would like, therefore, to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to speak again on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I want to say thank you to our colleague from Arizona for his very valuable input on the issue of earmarks, and say that I join him in opposing all earmarks in any of our bills until we fix this broken system. And I think what we need is a study of how these specific earmarks then get awarded, since there seems to be open competition. And I would welcome the majority to institute such a study and just see how open the competition is.

I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Iowa (Mr. King).

Madam Speaker, you know, I'm sitting here listening to the crocodile tears, particularly of my colleague from Maine who spoke earlier about the many people in her district who want to have jobs. And it is the very policies that she and her party have passed in this session of Congress that have caused those people to lose their jobs. What we need to do is let the American people keep their money. Their money. It is not the government's money. It is the hard-earned money of those who work in this country.

And let me point out, even President Obama has said, and I'm going to quote, November 18, 2009: It is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that can actually lead to a double dip recession.

But what are we doing today? Adding to the debt, with the support of the President. Do they think the American people are not paying attention? To the contrary, more than ever, the American people are paying attention to what's going on in this Congress, and they have spoken in many, many ways. They have spoken through the polls, they have spoken through election polls in terms of where they're voting, and they're telling us every day this is not what they want this Congress to be doing.

They also are aware of the fact that this Congress is breaking every promise that it made before the majority was elected. And I want to say, with apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning and her sonnet No. 43, how many ways can we count the promises that have been broken? Many, many ways. Too many ways to talk about today.

But let me give some examples--one from Majority Leader Hoyer:

``I think that is a very important pursuit. Our committees and Members are served on both sides of the aisle by pursuing regular order. Regular order gives to everybody the opportunity to participate in the process in a fashion which will effect, in my opinion, the most consensus and best product.''

Again, a letter to Majority Leader Hoyer from members of the Democrat Blue Dog and New Democratic Caucuses which said:

``Committees must function thoroughly and inclusively, and cooperation must ensue between the parties and the Houses to ensure that our legislative tactics enable rather than impede progress. In general, we must engender an atmosphere that allows partisan games to cease and collaboration to succeed. We look forward to working with you to restore this institution.''

And what are we getting? Just the opposite. Even Speaker Pelosi endorsed the idea of regular order with her spokesperson stating at the time:

``The Speaker prefers to consider legislation in regular order and the committees of jurisdiction held hearings and markups on the current economic recovery bill. In a few cases, because of urgent financial crises, the leadership agreed to use expedited procedures.''

Lest we forget, promises Democrats made in their 2006 document entitled A New Direction for America, which promised that:

``Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups with appropriate referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 24 hours to examine a bill prior to consideration at the subcommittee level.''

And we've pointed out it's barely been 12 hours since this bill, the bill underlying this rule, was presented.

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

As Mr. Dreier pointed out earlier, this is the first Congress in the history of this country that has not allowed that.

``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor consideration. Rules governing for debate must be reported before 10 p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''

We can go on and on and on about promises broken. The President said bills would be available for 72 hours. The President promised he would post bills 5 days before signing them. He said he would read every bill line for line, and he said there would be no earmarks. He would veto bills with earmarks.

This is a bill with 1,700 earmarks. Is he going to veto the bill? I doubt it.

So here we have one promise after another that's broken. How can the American people believe anything that is said by the other side after this?

Again, they're paying attention. I know they're paying attention, and I believe that there will be consequences to the fact that these promises have been broken.

Madam Speaker, I will enter into the Record a letter written by Republicans, 173 of us, to Speaker Pelosi on December 11, 2009, asking that we not continue this practice.

Washington, DC,

December 11, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, The Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: We write today to express our strong

opposition to reports that the Democrat Majority is

considering attaching unrelated and extremely controversial

proposals, such as an increase in the public debt limit, to

the Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. We object

to maneuvers to use our troops as leverage to enact proposals

that the Majority either cannot pass on their own or for

which they wish to avoid directly voting on and we will

oppose a Defense Appropriations package that includes such

provisions.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pattern developing this

year of using legislation that supports our men and women in

uniform to pass other contentious proposals that are

extraneous to our troops. We should supply those who risk

their lives for our country with the resources they need

without conditions and without using them to accomplish other

legislative goals. House Republicans stand ready to help the

Majority enact a defense bill that meets the needs of our

troops, but we will not assist your effort to use the troops

to enact an increase in our national debt limit so as to

finance the irresponsible spending policies of your party.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out it's not the role of Federal Government to provide jobs. It's not our job to take money from some and give to others, to try to make them dependent on the government.

I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to defeat the previous question so an amendment can be added to the rule. The amendment to the rule will provide for separate consideration of House Resolution 554, a resolution to require that legislation and conference reports be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to consideration by the House, and does not affect the bill made in order by the rule.

I will insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 905) recognizing the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis D. Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution honors Louis D. Brandeis, one of America's greatest jurists and legal minds, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of his retirement from the United States Supreme Court.

In any listing of great Supreme Court justices, Brandeis would have to be among one of the top three. Among his lasting accomplishments, he has greatly influenced constitutional jurisprudence, especially in the areas of labor relations, free speech, right to privacy, and women's suffrage.

Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky, to Jewish parents who had emigrated from Europe, having come from Bohemia after the Bohemian Revolution trying to create Bohemia as an independent state in the 1850s.

After graduating from Harvard Law School at age 20 with the highest grade average in the college's history, he embarked on a legal career in which he devoted so much of his time and energy to important social justice causes--often pro bono--that he became widely known as ``the people's lawyer.'' Indeed, he pioneered the pro bono legal tradition. In a ranking of lawyers in America, he would have to rank among the top 10, independent of his 23-year service on the United States Supreme Court. He was allowed to enter Harvard Law School even though he wasn't a high school graduate, and he graduated prior to the requisite age of 21 and he was given his degree by special resolution.

His significant contributions are so numerous that it would be impossible to discuss them all, but I will mention a few. In 1890, he and his law partner, Samuel Warren, published an article in the Harvard Law Review entitled The Right to Privacy, which is credited with creating the foundation for that right in American constitutional law. Brandeis felt one of the most significant parts of the American experience was people's right to be left alone and that's where the right to privacy came into his thinking as he expressed it in his law work.

He took on the life insurance industry and J.P. Morgan's railroad monopoly. He was a leading advocate for stronger labor protections. He was a strong advocate for States having the opportunity to go into new endeavors and said that the States were the laboratories of democracy; that we had a number of States--today 50, less when he was serving on the Supreme Court--but that each had the opportunity to try some particular new idea and see if it worked so the other States could rely on the work of that State to see whether it should expand and be used throughout the country.

The laboratories of democracy were important as States, such as California, looked at medical marijuana and the other States could then learn, and that spread throughout 12 or 13 other States, but there was an opportunity to learn, rather than doing it all at one time and seeing if one policy fit the whole Nation. He was a chief economic adviser to President Woodrow Wilson, and helped develop the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. In 1916 President Wilson nominated him for the Supreme Court. He became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, where he continued his work on great legal issues and left a lasting legacy in American jurisprudence.

Unfortunately, in his confirmation hearing, anti-Semitism was one of the issues that came about and was raised in the Senate. But our country overcame that, and he became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice.

Through this resolution we recognize and celebrate the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Brandeis from the United States Supreme Court, and remember, with deep gratitude, his many contributions to our Nation's life and to the founding also of the State of Israel.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as many minutes as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) needs. Mr. Yarmuth is the genesis of this particular resolution. He hails from the same city that Justice Brandeis did and brings this to memorialize this man's great talents.

I appreciate Mr. Yarmuth bringing this resolution and his comments. I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Justice Brandeis had a great impact on this country, not only as a jurist, as we've mentioned, but as a lawyer. And one of his innovations was something called the Brandeis Brief, where not only were precedents used to make an argument but social data, factual data about changes in society to support the Court's positions.

Brandeis was not alive at the time of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, one of the great decisions of our Supreme Court, but it was a Brandeis Brief argument that was used to win that case, for there was little law on the subject that was favorable, but there was much social analysis and facts that helped the Court make its decision that separate, in fact, was not equal, and that we needed a change in this country that we had in 1954 that we're continuing to experience today.

Justice Brandeis had many quotes which were of great significance, one of which is inscribed in the walls of Congress, I think just beneath this Chamber on the first floor. If you look up towards the ceiling, The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. That quote, which is inscribed on the walls of Congress, is one that I've long thought about, and people making arguments that sometimes are well meant but they take away from the rights that people should have in this country and freedoms.

Brandeis also said we can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we can't have both. And that thought permeates much of what we debate in this Congress today and see as the differences in wealth grow greater and greater.

Indeed, Georgia O'Keeffe, one of my favorite painters, and Warren Zevon, one of my favorite songwriters, singers and friends, would appreciate this resolution today, for the right to be alone, the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man, was something Louis Brandeis espoused, as did O'Keeffe and Zevon. Justice Brandeis said the most political office is that of a private citizen. And I think we should all remember that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 905, which recognizes the 70th anniversary of the retirement of Justice Louis Brandeis from the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no doubt he was a brilliant man, and he believed the law was best served as a vehicle to correct injustices, rather than a gateway to make money.

Justice Brandeis was born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1856, the son of Jewish immigrants from Prague, now in the Czech Republic. He excelled in the public schools of his hometown and later studied in Germany. He grew up in a refined and engaged household in which history, politics, and culture were discussed regularly at the dinner table. I might add that one of his early influences was his uncle, Lewis Dembitz, who I'm proud to note attended the Republican Party Convention in 1860 that nominated Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States.

He enrolled in Harvard Law School at age 19, studied so hard that his eyesight failed. Rather than quit school, he paid fellow students to read his textbooks out loud so he could memorize their content. He graduated with the highest grade point average in the history of Harvard Law School at that time. He was best known for his work as a lawyer and justice, and while he eventually earned good money practicing law, he devoted most of his professional life to public causes.

He argued cases and wrote treatises on privacy, labor relations and antitrust matters, and he assisted the Wilson administration in crafting the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Trade Commission. He served on the Supreme Court for 23 years and issued seminal opinions on many of the subjects that consumed him as a lawyer.

And yes, he did believe in States being the laboratories of democracy. I enjoyed the gentleman's comments of reference to my home State of California and, I might say, rather than choose the subject he chose as an example of California being one of those laboratories, I would suggest Proposition 13, or perhaps three strikes and you're out, as guiding lights to the rest of the Nation as to how we ought to organize ourselves. Unfortunately, my home State has forgotten some of those messages in the recent past.

Mr. Speaker, Justice Brandeis was not without his critics, but this is not the time nor the place to air old grievances. Rather, we're here to honor a man, and so I would use somebody else as a reference point, William O. Douglas, who described Justice Brandeis as being ``dangerous because he was incorruptible.''

I urge the Members to support H. Res. 905.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It is interesting that we have heard of Justice Brandeis' commitment to the First Amendment. One can only wonder what he would think of the current state of interpretation of the First Amendment where, unfortunately, it appears that we give greater protection to nude dancing than we do to political speech.

One would hope that the Supreme Court, as we anticipate its decision in the most recent challenge to aspects of McCain-Feingold, might listen to some of the interpretations and wisdom of Louis Brandeis with respect to the essence of the First Amendment.

One would hope that we would, once again, regain the notion that protection of political speech is at the forefront of the First Amendment, not an afterthought to the First Amendment, and that when we have gone so far as to have someone representing the Solicitor General of the United States, responding to a question in the Supreme Court, saying in response to the question, So, the law would give you the right to ban books if they said what is contained in the script of the movie that the FEC believes it has the right to stop during the period of time before an election, the response from the representative of the executive branch was, yes. If we have come so far that banning books is seen as something allowed under the First Amendment because of the pursuit of purity in political campaigns, then we have lost sight of the First Amendment as understood and expressed by Louis Brandeis.

And so I would hope that as we look forward to the end of this year that we could look forward to a Supreme Court that comes to its senses and understands the essence of the First Amendment.

Once again, I would urge my colleagues to unanimously support this recognition on the 70th anniversary of the retirement from the Supreme Court of Louis Brandeis.

I yield back the balance of my time.