H.Res. 976

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 976, I call up the bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, this is the largest appropriations bill that we have ever handled. It was completely bipartisan. We never did anything without working together. It is basically the same bill we voted on before it went to the Senate but with a few minor changes. I am pleased to say that we made some conciliatory changes with the White House and also with the Senate. This, as a matter of fact, is $625 billion. The House passed $636 billion. It pays for first-class medical care for military personnel.

I have to say I don't usually talk on any one thing, but having been out at Bethesda in intensive care for 2 days, I have to endorse the money that we have spent on the care at Bethesda. They did a marvelous job, and I am so pleased about the way the money is being handled out there.

Medical research, of course, the committee under my leadership and under the leadership of Jerry Lewis and Bill Young, has always been in the forefront. There are peer-reviewed programs, which have turned out to be as good as any programs you will find any place. We are supporting military families, operations and maintenance, civilian workforce, and insourcing. We are trying to reduce the contractors, and we are struggling in doing that. The inspector of general oversight, we worked at that for 2 or 3 years. This bill includes the MRAP program and $526 million for situational awareness.

In other words, this is as good a bill as we could come up with given the amount of money that was apportioned to us.

The Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill puts troops first, ensuring their readiness, providing them with first class weapons and equipment, and ensuring the availability of care and support for their families.

The bill makes critical investments in the health, well-being and readiness of our armed forces; addressing issues raised by service members, their families, and Department of Defense officials in testimony before the Congress, and discovered through visits to military bases across the United States and overseas. The bill also reins in the use of contractors and begins to return inherently governmental functions to Department of Defense personnel.

For the first time since the beginning of operations in Iraq, this bill includes funding for Overseas Contingency Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq for the upcoming fiscal year; providing $128.3 billion to support current operations, and to meet the needs of our troops in the field and their families here at home. The bill does not address the President's new Afghanistan security strategy because the Administration has yet to request funding for that initiative.

[Bill total in billions]

2009 Total Enacted...............................................$625.3 President's Request...............................................640.1 House Passed......................................................636.3 Senate Passed.....................................................636.3 2010 Total Bill...................................................636.3

Military Personnel and Pay: The bill provides a 3.4 percent military pay increase, 0.5 percent above the request. The bill also includes $1 billion pursuant to an amended budget request in order to increase U.S. Army troop strength.

First Class Medical Care: The bill recommends a total of $29.2 billion for the Defense Health Program, $3 billion above fiscal year 2009 and $1 billion above the 2010 request. The increase includes $307 million above the request to provide for shortfalls in the TRICARE program. The bill also includes $300 million above the request for transportation infrastructure issues related to base closure.

To provide quality medical care for service members and their families, and address the serious financial challenges facing the Defense Health Program, the bill recommends the following funding:

HIV Research................................................$20,000,000 Wound Care Research..........................................13,000,000 Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health Research ($372m budget

+ $120m over budget)......................................120,000,000 Global HIV/AIDS Prevention...................................10,000,000 Peer-Reviewed Medical Research Program.......................50,000,000 Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research........................150,000,000 Peer-Reviewed Ovarian Cancer Research Program................18,750,000 Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program...............80,000,000

Supporting Military Families: The bill provides greater support for military families. The bill includes funding for quality child care, job training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to families that have experienced the separation and stress of war. The bill fully funds $472.4 million for Family Advocacy programs and fully funds Family Support and Yellow Ribbon programs.

Operation and Maintenance: The bill recommends $154 billion for operation and maintenance, an increase of $1.3 billion above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The recommendation includes funding above the budget request for the following items:

Hybrid Operations Readiness Training (Hybrid--DoD's new terminology for

full-spectrum training)...................................$43,000,000 Army Helicopter Readiness Training..........................142,000,000 Navy Aircraft Depot Maintenance..............................35,000,000 Environmental Restoration....................................32,500,000

The recommendation rebalances funding from preparing for Cold War-era types of conflicts to the highest priority readiness requirements for the hybrid operations that the military services will be facing for the foreseeable future. The bill also includes adjustments based on trends in DoD budget execution.

Civilian Workforce and In-Sourcing: The bill supports increased funding for DoD civilian personnel to in-source workload. The Department estimates that every position converted from contract to federal civilian saves on average $44,000 per year. Additionally, the bill includes general provisions to suspend further conversions by the Department of Defense from government functions to contractors.

The bill also includes $100 million, as requested, to fund further development and training for the DoD acquisition workforce.

Inspector General Oversight: the bill includes $288 million, $16 million above the request, for the Inspector General to hire additional investigators to ensure proper oversight of DoD acquisition and contracting.

Procurement Programs: The bill recommends $104.4 billion for procurement, an increase of $3.46 billion above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and a decrease of $816 million below the 2010 request. The bill includes:

$6.8 billion, the requested amount, for the procurement of 30 F-35 Lightning Aircraft, 16

Short Take-off and Vertical Landing variants for the Marine Corps, 4 Carrier variants for the Navy, and 10 conventional variants for the Air Force.

$465 million above the request to continue development and initial procurement of the Alternative Engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

$2.5 billion above the request for procurement of 10 additional C-17 aircraft.

The bill also includes:

$6.3 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund, an increase of $825 million above the request.

$526 million as requested for Situational Awareness upgrades to 353 Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

$498 million for the procurement of Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.

$613 million for the procurement of Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles.

$15 billion, $120 million above the request, for Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion and the National Defense Sealift Fund for the procurement of 7 Navy ships, including: one DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyer; one SSN-774 Attack Submarine; two Littoral Combat Ships; and one Intra-theater Connector Ship (joint high speed vessel to move personnel and equipment within theater).

Additionally, this funding provides for the final increments of funding for the CVN-78 Aircraft Carrier, the third DDG-1000 Guided Missile Destroyer, and the tenth LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock.

$30 million, not requested, for the shipbuilding loan guarantee program to assist in stimulating the domestic shipbuilding industry.

$1.5 billion for the procurement of 18 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Tactical aircraft, nine above the request.

$1.6 billion, the requested amount for 22 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft.

$2.7 billion for the procurement of 30 MV-22 and five CV-22 Osprey aircraft.

$950 million for National Guard and Reserve Equipment.

Research and Development: The bill recommends $80.5 billion for research and development, an increase of $17 million above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and a $2 billion increase over the fiscal year 2010 request. Major funding items include:

$4 billion for the continued development of the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, $430 million above the President's request.

$130 million for Presidential Helicopter, of which $100 million is for technology capture to recoup investments in research and development of the VH-71, an increase of $44.8 million above the request.

$306 million for the development of the Next Generation Aerial Refueling Aircraft.

$62 million for JSTARS re-engineering research and development, an increase of $46 million above the request.

$202 million for the Israeli Cooperative Program (Arrow). The recommendation is $82.8 million above the President's request.

$50.5 million, the President's request for Ballistic Missile Defense European Capability.

$2.2 billion for the continued development of the restructured Future Combat Systems Program.

$1.2 billion for the continued development of the P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft.

$387.5 million, the President's request, starting development of the replacement for the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine.

$526 million for the continued development of the DDG-1000 Guided Missile Destroyer.

Overseas Contingency Operations: The recommendation addresses a number of policy issues concerning operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including:

A general provision prohibiting the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq or Afghanistan;

A general provision prohibiting the torture of detainees held in U.S. custody;

The bill provides $1.2 billion, a reduction of $300 million from the request for the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) authority and fences $500 million pending a spending plan from the Department of Defense; and

Provides no funds for the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Naval base.

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

I thank the distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend from across the waters in Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and I applaud him for his extraordinary persistence and leadership in bringing to us this Jobs for Main Street Act. He has been consistent, persistent, forceful, vocal, and very laser beam-oriented on creating jobs.

Madam Speaker, in this Jobs for Main Street, $39 billion is allocated to additional transportation and infrastructure investment to create and sustain family-wage construction jobs and, at the same time, rebuilding the Nation's highways and bridges and wastewater treatment systems.

We extend in this provision the highway and highway safety and transit programs through September 30, 2010. There is $27.5 billion for highways, $8.4 billion for transit, as in the current Recovery Act. There is $800 million for Amtrak, $500 million for airports where an extraordinary success was achieved with nearly all of the airport projects being either completed or under contract on the job, improving our airport capacity. There is $1 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds to improve wastewater treatment facilities and to build new ones where they don't exist today. There is $715 million for the Corps of Engineers, and there is $100 million for ship construction to help our maritime interests.

We have a highly successful record on that portion of the stimulus that comes from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from which both Mr. Obey and the distinguished Republican leader are graduates.

There are 220,000 direct jobs on over 8,000 projects. There are 630,000 direct jobs and jobs in the supply chain, supplying asphalt, cement, pipe, concrete, and culverts for this program. There is $10 billion paid in payroll checks and $179 million in unemployment insurance compensation checks avoided, and there is $230 million in taxes paid to the Federal Government by those on these jobs, and there is more to come.

The results: There are 28,000 miles of highway pavement--improved, widened, expanded--underway right now. That is what we have achieved to this day, and we have more to come. There are 1,200 bridges restored, repaired, replaced, and with this addition in the Jobs for Main Street Act, we will have 56,000 miles of pavement rebuilt in the coming year. That will be 10,000 miles more than the entire Interstate Highway System just in this one bill.

That is an investment in America.

I assure my colleagues that this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will continue its vigorous oversight and accountability and transparency. Every month, every Member has received this report from our committee, a report with 14 categories of progress for each State under these key programs. You can track how many funds are associated with projects completed, how many projects are underway, the total job hours created and sustained, and the total payroll for hours created or sustained in every month for every State.

We are making this clear that we are accountable and that we are investing in America and that we will continue to do this under the Jobs for Main Street program.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2847, the ``Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010''.

This bill provides more than $39 billion of additional transportation and infrastructure investment to help create and sustain family-wage construction jobs and rebuild our Nation's infrastructure. The bill also extends the highway, highway safety, and public transit programs for the current fiscal year, through September 30, 2010.

One-half of the $75 billion provided by H.R. 2847 is dedicated to transportation infrastructure investment, including: $27.5 billion for highways, $8.4 billion for transit, $800 million for Amtrak, $500 million for airports, and $100 million for ship construction.

In addition, H.R. 2847 provides $11 billion for other infrastructure investment, including $1 billion for Clean Water State Revolving Funds and $715 million for Corps of Engineers infrastructure investments.

Each of these investments is paid for--we use the Wall Street bailout funds to rebuild Main Street.

These investments will build upon the investments already underway pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (Recovery Act), and will create and sustain more than 1 million good, family-wage jobs.

The transportation and infrastructure investments of the Recovery Act have already played a key role in putting Americans back to work. Federal agencies, States, and their local partners have demonstrated they can deliver transportation and infrastructure projects and create urgently needed employment in the tight timeframes set forth in the Recovery Act. This Act has already resulted in almost 7,900 highway and transit projects breaking ground as well as hundreds of thousands of workers getting off the bench and back on the job all across the Nation.

However, we have only begun to stem the tide of unemployment caused by the worst recession since the Great Depression. More than 1.7 million construction workers are out of work and the unemployment rate in construction is 19.4 percent--the highest unemployment rate of any industrial sector. In addition, the private sector construction market has collapsed. At a recent hearing of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the president of an asphalt supply company testified that, although historically his company has received one-half of its work from the private sector and one-half of its work from the public sector, 98.5 percent of his current business is public sector work.

To make matters worse, State budget crises are severely limiting States' ability to move fcrward with their own infrastructure programs or find matching funds for Federal transportation programs.

Although the critical investments made by the Recovery Act have stemmed the tide of unemployment in the construction industry, they have not been sufficient to completely counteract the loss of private sector and State investments.

Congress must act now to pass the ``Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010'', and build upon the successes of the Recovery Act.

The Jobs Act ``doubles down'' on the highway and transit investments of the Recovery Act and will immediately create and sustain jobs. The Jobs Act provides almost $36 billion for highway and transit investment and much of it can be, and will be, put to use within 90 days for ready-to-go projects.

According to a December 2009 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, survey of State Departments of Transportation, there are 7,497 ready-to-go highway and bridge projects, totaling $47.3 billion. Furthermore, according to a December 2009 American Public Transportation Association, APTA, survey, there are thousands of ready-to-go transit projects, totaling $15 billion.

In addition, Congress must also act now to extend the core Federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs. The long-term authorization for these programs, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009. Since then, these programs have been extended on a short-term basis at a funding level that is about $12 billion below the fiscal year 2009 authorized level. H.R. 3326, the fiscal year 2010 Defense appropriations bill, will provide an additional short-term extension of these programs, to February 28, 2010, but still at the reduced funding level.

H.R. 2847 includes the Surface Transportation Extension Act (STEA) of 2009, which extends the highway, highway safety, and transit programs through September 30, 2010, at the levels assumed in the FY 2010 budget resolution. This one-year extension will provide greater certainty for States in their transportation planning, and increase funding to nearly the FY 2009 authorized level.

STEA also includes provisions that will stabilize the Highway Trust Fund. Specifically, STEA restores to the Highway Trust Fund interest payments foregone on the Trust Fund's previous cash balances. Since 1998, the Trust Fund has been the only major Federal trust fund that does not accrue interest. The restoration of interest for this period, 1998-2009, results in transferring $14.7 billion to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund, and $4.8 billion to the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

In addition, STEA allows the Highway Trust Fund to accrue interest on all balances going forward, which will increase Trust Fund receipts by an estimated $500 million to $1 billion annually, in the near-term.

Finally, under STEA, the General Fund, rather than the Highway Trust Fund, will support longstanding fuel tax exemptions, such as those provided to State and local governments. Full refund payments will continue to be made from the General Fund, but the Highway Trust Fund will no longer bear the cost of these refunds. The end user will see no change in their process for obtaining a refund. This provision will increase Trust Fund revenues by about $1.7 billion annually, for a total of $9.8 billion over six years.

I regret that the Other Body was unable to complete action on a multi-year surface transportation bill this year. I urge the Senate to focus on the needs of the millions of Americans who are without jobs or who are in danger of losing their jobs, Americans who are struggling to provide for their families, and desperately need the jobs that would be created not only by the bill before us today, but also by a long- term authorization of surface transportation programs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2847, the ``Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010''.