A resolution supporting the goals and ideals of "National Campus Safety Awareness Month."

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I'm

embarrassed by this omnibus spending bill and the process that created it. Even as the President talks about the need to put our economic house in order, this House continues to spend and spend and spend and spend. Clearly, the Congress has lost its way.

Not one of the nine spending bills in this omnibus was ever considered by the full committee. Six of the nine bills in this package were never considered by the full Appropriations Committee. One more time we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars with no debate, no amendments, no Member input. Yes, clearly, this Congress has lost its way.

It's now standard operating procedure that only a handful of Members in leadership are actually involved in writing significant legislation. This has been true with every supplemental spending package the House has considered over the last 2 years. This was true in the development of the $789 billion stimulus package passed by the House just 2 weeks ago. And, that is true once again today.

Under this rule just adopted, Members have 1 hour to debate $410 billion in spending, with no opportunity for amendments. That equates to nearly $7 billion for every minute of debate. Sadly, the vast majority of our Members will have no voice whatsoever in crafting this measure.

The fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill contains funding for nine of the 12 regular appropriations bills, a total of $410 billion. The new fiscal year began on October 1 and today, nearly 5 months later, we're jamming the work that should have been done last year into one massive, last- minute, ``take-it-or-leave-it'' spending bill.

The spending in this legislation represents a $32 billion, or 8 percent increase over last year for the very same agencies and programs. With the exception of the spending boost after the September 11 attacks, this represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since 1978.

At the very time when our economy is forcing families to make do with less, Congress has embarked on the largest spending spree in our country's history. When combined with the three appropriations bills that were signed into law in September, this enacted fiscal year 2009 budget will become our country's very first trillion dollar discretionary budget.

It comes as no surprise that the $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains funding for many of the same government programs that received funding in the $789 billion stimulus package. Stimulus funding for these nine spending bills totals $270 billion. When added together, the combined fiscal year 2009 funding for government programs in both bills is $680 billion--an increase of $301 billion, or an 80 percent increase over just last year.

The real surprise is not the unfettered spending but the complete and utter failure of Congress to encourage any fiscal discipline whatsoever. At a time when American families are cutting unnecessary spending to weather the economic downturn, Congress should be doing the same thing. Instead, the premise of Pay-Go, or ``pay as we go'' is being replaced by the promise Go-Spend under this majority.

This delirious pace of government spending goes well beyond what most people would consider reasonable, let alone responsible. An 8 percent-- or a $32 billion--increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable. Balance is what we should strive for, providing enough money to allow the agencies to carry out their primary missions and to achieve real results. Our public has grown weary of Congress' simply throwing money at every problem in this country. Spending fatigue has set in.

Mr. Speaker, as I commit to working constructively with David Obey this year, I encourage the majority leadership to pursue regular order that is inclusive of all Members so our work can once again reflect the bipartisan voices of this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

I yield to the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I don't remember a time in the years that I've been in Congress that I've used a chart. I hope you can see this, but I can't see it very well.

Charts are interesting things. The most interesting part of them is that the numbers change all the time. But I thought it would be very appropriate to follow on to the comments that Mr. Kingston had made.

This package before us is a reflection of what has to be the worst possible year for the Congress in terms of their willingness to just throw the people's money at almost any problem around as though that is the solution.

I've described this as the first--hopefully the only--trillion dollar-plus discretionary budget in the history of the Congress. Indeed, in every category of spending--the 08 year, the 09 year, adding on to it the omnibus package, the $800 billion package that just passed--we have radically increased and adjusted that which will be going on in government not just in the fiscal year ahead of us, but setting a new stage for spending that I believe could lead to destroying the dollar as we know it.

If you just look at these categories. Here's in the area that has to do with energy and water. In that package, we have approximately--if I can read this thing properly--$30.9 billion in 08. In the 09 year, combined with the omnibus, that package goes up to $77.6 billion. That is a 151-percent increase in spending in this category of national funding, 08 to 09.

Most outrageous is the subcommittee that is chaired by the chairman of our full committee, my colleague and friend from beautiful downtown Wisconsin. In the 08 fiscal year, the Labor, Health and Human Services bill spent $144.8 billion. That's not trillion or million. It's billion dollars.

When you combine both the 09 spending year with the omnibus, the total in these categories of spending runs to $276.6 billion; a 91 percent increase over the 08 year. Think about that. A 91 percent increase in the largest discretionary package in all of our spending outside of national defense. Absolutely, it's clear to anybody who could think about it.

We're raising the bar, the foundation point for spending across the board in the Federal Government; and as we do so, we put pressure on spending across the board every year subsequent to the 09 year.

So year in, year out, we're going to be breaking the bank by way of additional spending.

If the public is concerned about its Federal Government--especially the tax-paying public who are legitimately working for a living--if they're worried about it, they will take a look at this chart. We'll be glad to make it available. It's time that we got a handle on just throwing money or mud at the wall--taxpayers' money, if you will.

This trillion-dollar package is a reflection of the Congress not doing its work. I come to the well with this chart simply to urge everybody who is listening to recognize that it's time that we send a message to the people's House: Enough is enough. We've got to get a handle on this or we're going to destroy our economy.

Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has stopped doing its work by way of regular order, that is, having hearings in the subcommittee, hearings in the full committee, coming here and having open rules. Instead, we're passing trillion-dollar packages with no input from the Members of the people's House, thereby no input for the citizens out there who pay our bill in the first place.

With that, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this package and urge you to help us make sense out of the way the system is working.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time there is on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very unusual circumstance for me to do this, but addressing my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, personally, let me say that you've heard a lot from me about the fact that I am disconcerted about the way we got here, but nonetheless, this omnibus process has been a long and difficult one in development. And you are to be congratulated for the effort you put into this not only recently, but much of last year, and I have every respect for that effort.

But having said that, I was joined by all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were in attendance at the President's address last evening. President Obama demonstrated to all of us, as well as the public, his immense capability as a public communicator. In many, many ways he said exactly the kinds of things we need to be discussing with each other if we're going to get America back on track.

President Obama urged all of us to reach out in as much bipartisanship, nonpartisanship as possible to make sure that we stimulate our economy, create jobs, leading America to a new opportunity in the years ahead. Following that, I would have hoped that the work of the House would reflect that very spirit; but, indeed, I mentioned earlier the omnibus package of some $800 billion that was just passed a couple of weeks ago, a bill that went forward with very, very little Member input, virtually no subcommittee work within the Appropriations Committee, a single hearing within the full committee, coming to the floor with no significant possibility of amendment, and yet we were literally one more time throwing the people's money in suggestion that we would solve problems that way. That was just 2 weeks ago.

And then we came to the President's address just last night. And here we are, the day after that, spending another $410 billion by way of this omnibus package that absolutely is a reflection of the worst of the way the House ought to be working.

When we take nine bills from last year, put it in a single package, having no serious Member input, no subcommittee work, almost no Member of the House having an opportunity to provide amendments, et cetera, it is the worst reflection of the way this House ought to be working. Indeed, if we continue on this pathway, we won't just in the first couple of months of this session be spending $1\1/2\ trillion of the public's money; we will be setting the stage for undermining our economy for the years to come. I'm afraid unless the public gets the message clearly enough that they send a clear voice by way of their communication with their membership, we won't change this pattern. And, indeed, the destiny of the country will be dramatically affected by such misdirection.

I urge the Members to express their view regarding this by way of voting ``no'' on the package before us.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The point that the chairman is making is a very, very important point. We do have a constitutional responsibility to spend the people's money by way of appropriations. Over the years there has been a tendency to concede all of that authority to an administration, Democrat or Republican, and people get up here and harangue about our exercising that constitutional charge that we have. The chairman is making a very important point. Years and years ago, literally every subcommittee chairman, as the chairman said earlier, pretty much dictated what went on in the whole budget. There was very little individual Member input. And the administration had an exchange over time. We ceded so much of our authority, it is very much a time for us to begin to reconsider this recent history, and I appreciate the point the chairman is making.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 184, I call up the bill

(H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I think we've already debated this issue extensively. This bill is needed to fill in the gaps left in the existing budget for this year. It is the last of yesterday's business so that we can move ahead to deal with the President's expected new budget. I would urge support for the package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 1105.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, for the last year and a half, this committee has been taking every reasonable action to ensure transparency in the earmarking process.

As an article in today's Roll Call says, ``The disclosure system implemented in the 110th Congress now allows for all of these Members' earmarks to be located with a simple search of the online version of the bill, allowing for more transparency than ever.''

One aspect of the transparency process is to list the names of every Member requesting an earmark. It has come to our attention that a small number of earmarks with multiple sponsors inadvertently omitted some Members' names--a simple staff error. To ensure full and complete transparency, I am entering into the Record the additional names that should be attached to those requests. These are not new projects. We are simply adding additional Members' names who should be listed as sponsors or as cosponsors.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25FE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25FE09.002

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

I yield an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I really hate to take the time, but I do think in light of all that's been said that one last time I need to put in context what it is we're doing with this bill.

As I indicated earlier, last year we finished our international bills, but we reached an impasse with then President Bush because the President insisted that he would only sign appropriation bills that fit within his budget recommendations. Those budget recommendations were some $20 billion short of what the Congress determined when it passed the budget resolution that we needed to provide for those programs. If we had simply acquiesced in President Bush's programs, we would have cut the Job Corps, we would have eliminated Employment Service grants, we would have cut senior jobs by $172 million, we would have eliminated vocational education programs, we would have eliminated three student aid programs including the Perkins loan program, we would have funded the highway infrastructure at $800 million below the level guaranteed in the authorization, we would have cut airport modernization grants by 22 percent, we would have eliminated Community Service Block Grants, and we would have cut Low Income Home Energy Assistance by $570 million, and we would have cut health care access programs by $1 billion. As I said many times on this floor, I have never had anybody come up to me at home and say, ``Obey, why don't you guys in Congress get your act together and cut cancer research?'' And yet that's what the previous President and the previous Republican-controlled Congress did over a 2-year period. They cut over 900 medical research grants out of the National Institutes for Health. We objected to that and said, no, we didn't think that ought to happen.

So we then offered the President a compromise. I called the White House budget office, and I said, look, why don't we at least just split the difference between these bills so we can get something done on the domestic side of the ledger? They said no. At that point we had a choice. We could acquiesce in these reductions or we could say, no, we're going to bet on the outcome of the election. We did. Mr. Obama won. We now have a White House which is firm in its beliefs but also one that recognizes that people have to compromise to get things done.

This is now a compromise package brought to the House. This has been worked out at the staff level between Republicans and Democrats alike in both the Senate and the House. And the Senate minority leader, Senator McConnell, while I suspect he will vote against this package, urged us to take it up 3 weeks ago because he indicated it had been fully vetted by both sides, by both parties, and he said in his estimate he thought it would pass with an overwhelming vote. We shall see.

But I want to explain two other things about this bill, what this bill really does. And it's been suggested that this bill is not at all coordinated with the stimulus package we passed last week. Absolutely false. This omnibus bill does two things: It provides base funding for the programs funded in the Recovery Act without which those additional recovery funds would not be useful. Example: the Social Security Administration. While the Recovery Act provides $1 billion to the Social Security Administration to replace its computer center and to process increased disability retirement requests, this bill provides $10.5 billion for Social Security operating budgets. It doesn't do any good to have a computer center if you don't have an operating budget. This bill provides the other half of the funding that's needed to make our promises on Pell grants to students around the country a reality.

The recovery bill in the area of highways provided $27.5 billion for additional highway construction. This bill provides $40.7 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The recovery bill was built with this package in mind.

The second thing this bill does is to provide basic funding for all kinds of programs that were not increased by the recovery package. Three-quarters of the accounts in the Federal Government did not receive an additional dime in that recovery package. This bill takes care of the base funding for those programs.

Now, we hear some concerns expressed from the other side of the aisle about the number of earmarks in the bill. Give me a break. The last time that our party controlled the House of Representatives, we had, for instance, in the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill, depending upon how you define them, either zero earmarks or nine. When the Republicans lost control of the Congress, they were providing over three thousand earmarks in that subcommittee bill. That's the story, I mean as a practical matter. The other side didn't just let the cat out of the bag when it came to earmarks; they let out the whole blessed zoo. So now we have tried to reform that process, at the same time being respectful for Congress's right to determine how funding is directed in the budget. So we have a good many earmarks in this bill. Those earmarks represent congressional decisions about where dollars ought to be spent.

I would point out virtually every agency Secretary has far more in discretionary funds than the Congress has to distribute in earmarks. In fact, virtually every dollar in Secretary discretionary funds is nothing but funds that are reserved for administration earmarks or the functional equivalent thereof.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point. We have heard a lot of concern expressed today on the other side of the aisle about the deficits that are being mounted by this bill in conjunction with the stimulus bill. Let me point out I have heard seven different times Members on that side of the aisle refer to the fact that this is a $400 billion bill. It is not. It is a $410 billion bill. But $390 billion of that represents requests on the part of the Bush administration. So let's keep that in perspective.

Secondly, I really don't want to have to take lectures from those who supported the idea that we should borrow $1.2 trillion in order to provide tax cuts over the past years, the lion's share of tax cuts going to the very wealthiest people in this society. I don't want to hear lectures from people who essentially provided what will eventually be $2 trillion in costs for the Iraqi war.

A number of us tried to assure that at least half of the money that we provided to Iraq in economic aid would be in the form of loans, because Iraq has a lot of oil and sooner or later is going to be a rich country and we wanted to see the American taxpayers reimbursed for some of the costs of building schools, building roads and all the rest in Iraq. No, we couldn't get the votes to do that.

But now we face a serious problem in our own country, not in Iraq, but in our own country. And so, yes, in combination of this bill with the stimulus package, or the recovery package, as it's known, there is an awful lot of money being spent. I make no apology for that, because we are trying to fill what is going to be a $3 trillion hole in the economy because of the rising unemployment numbers.

I want to use this chart for what I hope will be the last time. This chart demonstrates what is likely to happen in the economy if we do nothing. The red bars indicate what estimates are in the economic community, what estimates are of what will happen to unemployment rates if we do nothing. These red bars indicate that by the end of next year, the economics profession largely expects us to have unemployment around 11 percent, perhaps even higher. The blue bars represent what we hope will happen if the government passes a $750 billion economic recovery package.

As you can see, unemployment, even under that scenario, is expected to rise through the remainder of this year before it begins to turn down next year. What we have tried to do is simply shave off the worst, most extreme effects of this recession. That's what we have tried to do with the stimulus package.

So what we have really had here today is a regurgitation of the debate that occurred 2 weeks ago on that stimulus package. But the fact is that if you take that stimulus package and add it to this package today, you are still only talking about a package of $1.2 trillion to counter what is supposed to be a $3 trillion hole. I would submit that it is very easy to imagine that we will, in fact, be back here asking for even more by way of countercyclical funding to counter the deep slide that we see in our recession.

Poll after poll demonstrates that you have close to 70 percent of the American people who agree with what President Obama is trying to do in passing the package to produce this moderating effect on what will otherwise be the most serious recession since the thirties.

So I make no apology for the fact that instead of providing billions of dollars for economic recovery in Iraq, we are not trying to provide a good amount of money to provide economic recovery here at home. I thought that's what our job was, to primarily concentrate on the needs on the home front.

I would point out one other thing in closing. For all of us who have talked and told our constituents that at a time of extreme economic distress at home, Members of Congress should not be getting a pay raise next year, if you want to assure that that, in fact, happens and that we deny that pay raise for the coming year, then you must vote ``yes'' on this bill, because without this bill you do not have the limiting language that was inserted in this bill by the rule that was passed earlier today.

With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, when it comes to health care, Democrats and Republicans all agree that we need and we want health care reform. Having practiced medicine for over two decades in Wyoming, I know that doing nothing is simply not an option. But let me tell you from experience that the devil is always in the details. We must be careful, we must be thoughtful, and we must be deliberate about the changes we make.

Health care is a very complex and intensely personal issue. It deserves a serious, open, and transparent national debate. Any changes Congress makes are going to impact millions and millions of American families. These are people of our Nation; these are not nameless or faceless statistics; these are husbands, mothers, neighbors; these are our wives, our friends, and our coworkers; these Americans are our children--the Nation's most precious resources.

We must act, but still at issue is whether Congress will act without sacrificing our health care system's greatest strengths. And what are those strengths? The freedom to choose your own doctor, the freedom to choose the hospital you want, and the freedom to choose the health care plan that fits you and fits your family's needs.

I travel home to Wyoming every weekend. I was there yesterday. One of the top issues I hear about is health care. The people of Wyoming are concerned about the cost of their health care. Many families worry they will lose the health care coverage they currently have. Still others can't afford health insurance at all. This is what is wrong with the current health care system. This is what we need to fix. Wyoming families want to purchase health insurance coverage at an affordable price. They do not want to be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. They do not want to lose coverage if they change jobs. But most of all, these families do not want Washington telling them--do not want Washington telling them--whom they have to see for their medical care. Everyone should have the freedom to choose the doctor, the hospital, and the health care plan they want. No Washington bureaucrat should ever be allowed to deny that right.

Some in Congress continue focusing solely on government solutions. They want Washington, in its enduring wisdom, to take over health care. Some in Congress want to create a government-run health care plan. Their plan creates a government-run insurance model that could limit patient choice, eliminate personal freedoms, and decrease the quality of care. What starts out as one option could quickly lead to being the only option.

We all know how this happens. Unlike regular health insurance, government health plans have unlimited access to taxpayer money. They can use the money to temporarily subsidize the cost of services, but ultimately someone must pay for the care.

According to the Lewin Group, 119 million Americans would lose the private coverage they currently have if we have a government-run system. I know some in the Senate and the administration keep saying: If you like your insurance coverage, you will get to keep it. The Lewin Group's data proves otherwise. Their study shows that businesses will face a situation where it is cheaper for them to insure their employees through the government-run plan, so employers will then transfer their workers from the private insurance that they currently have--and that they may like--to this new Washington-run government plan. So where is the personal choice? At this point, the individual has no option. The government-run plan is their option, it is their plan, unless that person changes jobs to an employer who is willing or can afford to offer private coverage. So what happened to the ``If I like my health insurance plan offered by my employer, I will be able to keep it''? Well, that promise is out the window.

Some say we can create safeguards that will ensure a level playing field between private insurance and a government-run plan. Well, as a doctor, I can tell you from personal experience that the government will never, ever compete on a level playing field with private business. Washington will never let its health care plan go bankrupt. Never. It will lose money, it will hide costs, and ultimately taxpayers will pay the difference. Private plans will not enjoy this same kind of support. That is exactly how the heavy hand of government can drive out competition.

So how does government compete with private business? Well, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana summed it up pretty well. He said: ``The government competes with private business the way an alligator competes with a duck.''

Supporters of the government-run Washington takeover of health care say the plan will keep costs low. How? By paying hospitals, doctors, nurses, home health agencies, hospice providers, and long-term care facilities less than private insurers pay. This should sound familiar. This is what already happens with Medicare and Medicaid. Any participating Medicare or Medicaid provider will tell you that today, right now, doctors and hospitals have to shift costs onto private insurers just to keep their doors open. The cost shift is to make up the difference between what a procedure costs and what the government is willing to pay for it. That is what they call cost shifting. We see it every day.

A government-run plan will not encourage competition; it will take away your access to private health insurance. The private plans millions of Americans have today--the program they like, the one they want to keep--will be gone. The only choice remaining will be the government plan.

So what does this all mean to someone who is listening in--to the patient? Well, it means politicians will be making health care decisions, not patients making those decisions with their doctors. It means Washington bureaucrats will be deciding whether you can have the hip or the knee procedure you need. It means the government will be saying you cannot have lifesaving medical treatment because it is too expensive or because you are too old. It means Washington will be restricting your and your child's access to the most advanced medical testing equipment. It means testing delays, it means diagnosis delays, and it means treatment delays. Delayed care is denied care, and we do not want that in America.

Take a close look at what is going on in Canada right now. Last year, in Calgary, ophthalmologists--eye doctors--had no waiting lists for people needing cataract surgery. Then Alberta's cash-strapped government made a decision to arbitrarily lower the number of cataract operations it would pay for. They arbitrarily said: We are going to pay for 2,000 fewer cataract operations this year in Alberta than we did last year. So what did that mean for the people there? Well, many patients now have to wait a year for treatment--a year. Why? Well, the cutbacks forced surgeons to cancel all of the operations they had scheduled on people with moderately severe cataract conditions. So now they only book the most severe cases. Ophthalmologists are now concentrating their efforts only on the patients who are about to go blind--not the people who have a hard time seeing, the people about to go blind.

Patients living in Alberta have to almost be going blind to get cataract

surgery. Is that the kind of medical care we want for Americans? Absolutely not. America should strive to offer its citizens the highest quality, most timely health care services in the world. That means Americans should not have to wait weeks at a time for tests and treatments they need. It means no one should be denied health care services because of government limits or government restrictions. It means no government bureaucrat should interfere in the doctor-patient relationship.

Currently, the Senate HELP Committee has been debating a reform plan that has been put forth by Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told us--first, it told us the Kennedy-Dodd plan increases spending by more than $1.3 trillion in the first 10 years. Once it is fully operational, the 10-year fee would be closer to $2.6 trillion. The number was staggering. People cried ``sticker shock.'' What did they do? They tweaked it around a little bit and came out with a new estimate.

They are just guessing. Even more disturbing is the plan is incomplete. The Congressional Budget Office still has additional policies to score to come up with a pricetag. Clearly, this estimate does not reflect the bill's true cost because they left out Medicaid, something they have been forcing onto the States, and Governors all around the country have been crushed by these Medicaid-increased fees and increased expenses.

Ten years and trillions of dollars later, the Congressional Budget Office also tells us this plan only reduces the number of people who do not have insurance by 17 million. That leaves over 30 million Americans still without health insurance, and they are spending $1 trillion.

Finally, the Congressional Budget Office indicates that about 15 million people would actually lose the insurance they have now, be forced off of their employer-paid-for insurance under this trillion- dollar plan.

To me, this Kennedy-Dodd plan suffers from what I call the three Cs: it costs too much, it covers too few, and it causes too many people who already have insurance to lose the coverage they have.

Some in Congress believe unless we completely dismantle the current health care system and build it up in the image of big government, then reform, they say, is simply not worth doing. I disagree. Americans do not want the same government bureaucracy that has given us the Department of Motor Vehicles controlling our medical decisions. Americans don't want increased bureaucratic hassles, we don't want long waits, and we don't want restrictions on our medical care.

What we need is a serious, transparent health care debate. That is what Americans want. They want us to listen to their ideas, their concerns, their suggestions. The only way they can give us their ideas, concerns, and specifically their suggestions about a health care bill is if they actually get to read the bill.

Whether we should reform our health care system is no longer in question. Americans have answered with a resounding yes, and they don't want to continue to wait. They want simple, practical, affordable changes now: Changes such as prohibiting the use of preexisting condition clauses, changes such as allowing people to take their health insurance with them when they switch jobs. Madam President, you have a young family; I have a young family. Our children are going to have seven or eight jobs over the course of their lifetimes. They will need to take their insurance with them. We need to have changes such as offering premium breaks for making healthy lifestyle choices, changes such as having the same tax breaks for people who buy their own insurance as big companies get when they pay for insurance for their employees--we need families to have those same tax breaks. We need changes such as allowing people to shop across State lines to look for better deals, keeping their costs down.

I want to continue to come forward with commonsense ideas. I want the majority in Congress to work with me and with members of my party on a bipartisan health reform plan. That is the need. That is the need the country is expecting us to address. That is what I would like to do. We cannot simply put government in charge of health care and put bureaucrats in between patients and their doctors.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I hope everyone had a good break. I can't say that I am glad to be back, but there are some important things to do. I start by calling up amendment No. 1370, which is at the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment is about the Capitol Visitor Center. Among other things, we all know the new Capitol Visitor Center, which is very beautiful, welcomes folks from all over the country and the world to the Capitol. It includes interesting and valuable museum-style exhibits about the history of the Capitol and Congress. Unfortunately, the way the Capitol Visitor Center has been built and the way the displays have been set up, it conspicuously ignores America's unique religious heritage and the role that heritage played in the founding of the Republic. Indeed, the original exhibits now there seem to suggest the Federal Government was the solution to all our problems and the fulfillment of all human aspirations, as if we were a government with a nation instead of the other way around. Even the national motto was misrepresented--as out of many, one.

My unanimous consent agreement will help correct the record as it is displayed at the Capitol Visitor Center. It will authorize the engraving of our true national motto, which is: In God we trust. It will also order the engraving of the Pledge of Allegiance with its reference to one Nation under God in a prominent position in the Capitol Visitor Center. From the beginning many of us were concerned about what looked like a historical whitewash of our Nation's faith heritage from the Capitol Visitor Center. I thank Senators Feinstein and Bennett for their support. I have a letter they both signed formalizing our agreement for the historical corrections in my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I also want to make a point about the unfortunate expense associated with these design corrections. I regret these funds must be spent. That the historical whitewash of the original design contained these inaccuracies was unfortunate, certainly. But the $150,000 this project will cost is less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the cost of the Capitol Visitor Center. Anyone interested in finding offsets can count on my support in identifying waste in the underlying bill that is funding Congress for next year. When these engravings are completed and when we can welcome God back into the Capitol Visitor Center, visitors to the Capitol will see a fairer and more historically accurate depiction of the all-important relationship between faith and freedom in America.

I understand the majority is prepared to accept the amendment by a voice vote or unanimous consent.

Madam President, I have another amendment I have been informed the majority plans to block consideration of, which is No. 1367 regarding transparency at the Federal Reserve. I wish nonetheless to take a few moments to discuss it.

The unelected central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, enjoys a monopoly over the flow of our money and credit but has never been completely transparent and accountable to Congress since its creation in 1913. Since 1913, our dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its purchasing power. My amendment is called the Federal Reserve sunshine amendment. It is modeled after legislation sponsored by Representative Ron Paul of Texas in the House and our colleague Senator Sanders of Vermont in the Senate. This amendment amends section 714 of title 31 of the United States Code to remove existing restrictions on how the Government Accountability Office can audit the Federal Reserve. With these limitations gone, the Fed's discount window operation, funding facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks and governments would all be finally open to congressional oversight. The Government Accountability Office would be required to audit the Fed by the end of 2010 and to report its findings to Congress.

Every dollar created by the Fed has an effect on the value of the dollars in our pockets and bank accounts. We need to pay more attention to the effect of Washington decisions, whether fiscal policy made by Congress or monetary policy made by the Fed. They all are ultimately borne by the American people. The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis. Americans across the Nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone, exactly how much has been spent, and what collateral has been taken in return. That is why we see so much bipartisan support in the House, in Bernie Sanders and Jim DeMint being on the same side in the Senate. Inflation is a hidden tax. We, unfortunately, forget about it too often when we are debating spending bills in Congress.

Our fiscal actions, higher deficits, increased long-term debt, and entitlement obligations will necessarily need to be paid for by printing new money or borrowing more money from an increasingly skeptical world. Either option results in higher interest rates for consumers and a devaluing of the dollars they have already earned and saved. Allowing the Fed to operate our Nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation, and a lower quality of life for every American. Unfortunately, the majority has decided to use a procedural tactic to block a vote on this amendment by invoking something called rule XVI. This is a rule that prevents policy being added to spending bills. The majority claims we do not legislate on appropriations bills. Of course, that is false. In fact, there are already rule XVI violations in the bill we are trying to amend. We saw this majority airdrop the cash for clunkers program into the recent supplemental appropriations bill.

The majority may claim this amendment is not relevant to the underlying bill, but in fact there are already provisions in this bill related to Government Accountability Office audits, so this language is quite appropriate on this bill. The legislation has already received the support of more than one-half of the House of Representatives within a few short months of its introduction. It is time for the Senate to show its support.

I ask the majority leader again to allow a vote on amendment 1367 regarding a GAO audit of the Federal Reserve.

I call up amendment 1367.

Madam President, I regret the objection. Since the other side is arguing that rule XVI applies here, my amendment contains language to an existing GAO audit of the Federal

Reserve. Because it is legislative in nature--in other words, because it actually addresses the audit itself and not just the funds for the General Accountability Office--they say it is out of order. I have a parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(b) dealing with an existing GAO audit of the National Transportation Safety Board legislative?

I thank the Chair. Does it violate rule XVI?

So the Democrats are suggesting that it is somehow illegitimate for me to offer an amendment dealing with an existing GAO audit when they themselves have included language dealing with other audits that flatly violates rule XVI.

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is the language in section 1501(c) regarding a GAO audit of local educational agency spending legislative in nature and in violation of rule XVI?

I thank the Chair. What about section 1501(d) which repeals a GAO audit of the small business participation in the Alaska national pipeline; is that legislative in nature and does it violate rule XVI?

Madam President, I have a long list here for which I understand from the Parliamentarian the answers will continue to be yes. We have several provisions, obviously, dealing with the GAO and GAO audits in this bill. The other side cannot stand behind a rule they have flagrantly violated themselves.

There is an earmark in this bill for Nebraska. It is the only earmark in the bill.

I would ask the Chair, what about the provision in the Library of Congress section containing a $200,000 earmark for the Durham Museum in Omaha, NE? Is that a legislative item? And does it violate rule XVI?

Thank you, Madam President. Then, would it be accurate to say the provision contains legislative language that meets the definition of rule XVI, even though it is arguably germane to the House language?

Thank you, Madam President.

I think I have made my point, and I will not take this any further. Clearly, there is a double standard.

One of the most sought after amendments we have probably brought up in the House and the Senate since I have been here is an audit of the Federal Reserve. Everywhere I went last week people were thanking me for finally looking at what the Federal Reserve was doing and trying to let the American people know what is happening.

This is an audit that has broad support, and I would encourage my colleagues on the Democratic side to allow this amendment to be voted on. But, apparently, the other side has decided to challenge it with rule XVI, which they do not apply to their own language.

But as I said, Madam President, I have probably said enough and I thank you for your indulgence.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Just for clarification to the gentlewoman (Mrs. Emerson), the D.C. School Vouchers Program will remain in effect. It has been funded this year for $14 million. It remains in effect until June of 2010. It will then be up to the authorizing committee to speak to our committee as to what they want to do. It will also be up to the D.C. Government to tell us if they wish to continue the program. The program stays in effect until next June, and I think that will give us ample time to find out how everyone feels about the continuation of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Chairman Obey for yielding time so I can comment on the Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill. I'd also like to thank him for the hard work he has put into bringing this bill to the floor.

The Financial Services and General Government section of this bill provides important funding to ensure that the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the people, and increases resources to ensure the agencies under this section have increased resources to perform important oversight roles over the operation of our banks and of Wall Street.

The bill provides $22.7 billion in discretionary appropriations for programs within the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the General Services Administration, the Small Business Administration, and several smaller agencies. This bill directs funding to programs in these agencies where we believe money will be well spent and will benefit, for example, disadvantaged communities and small businesses.

The bill also directs funding toward agencies that have important roles in our efforts to promote economic recovery. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included nearly $6.9 billion for agencies in the Financial Services bill, including the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration. The bill we are considering today will provide these agencies with funding to enable them to fully implement important recovery activities, such as support to small businesses and making our Federal buildings and vehicles more energy efficient.

I also want to highlight briefly four important themes in the Financial Services bill--financial sector oversight, consumer protection, small business development, and election administration improvements.

With respect to financial sector oversight, the bill provides funding increases over last year's level and the previous administration's requests for Treasury's Departmental Offices, information systems, and Inspector General. While this bill doesn't directly fund the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, it funds the Office of the Secretary and other executive leadership offices at Treasury that have central responsibility in making policy decisions on TARP. These funds will help ensure that the remaining TARP money will be distributed in an open and fair manner.

Mr. Speaker, I also want the House to know that we have increased the budget for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This bill includes a $37 million increase over the FY 2008 level, and is above the funding recommendations of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. This is just a down payment toward restoring the ability of the SEC to vigorously oversee the financial markets, enforce securities law, and protect investors.

If I might take a moment to look ahead, this subcommittee will be taking a hard look at

those agencies that failed in their duty to protect our economy. Although they are under new leadership now, we will have important questions for them in how they conducted themselves, and what resources and changes are needed to ensure such a crisis does not occur again in the future.

Regarding consumer protection, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would receive $25.4 million above the FY 2008 level. These extra funds will be used to continue the effort we started in the last Congress to restore the Commission's ability to keep unsafe products, including unsafe imported products, out of the marketplace. Money is also available in the bill for the Commission to improve the safety of pools and spas to prevent tragedies involving child drowning.

Consumer protection is also important with respect to financial products such as mortgages and consumer loans. My subcommittee held a hearing last year that examined the problems relating to the subprime mortgage market and what the Treasury Department and the Federal Trade Commission could do to address this situation. Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which will receive $107 million in this bill, or $78.4 million above the previous administration's request, helps to expand the availability of credit, capital and financial services to underserved communities throughout the nation, including those particularly hard hit by the credit crisis. The Federal Trade Commission will also receive increased funding for investigation and enforcement in the financial services area, including subprime lending investigations.

This bill also does a great deal to support small businesses by including $612 million for the Small Business Administration. This includes $110 million for Small Business Development Centers, which is $13 million over the FY 2008 level. We also provide $22.5 million for microloans and technical assistance to the smallest companies.

In addition, the bill funds SBA programs that target disadvantaged and low-income communities and entrepreneurs, including the HUBZone program, the PRIME program, and the 7(j) program.

The fourth important theme is improving election administration. The Election Assistance Commission is a small agency that works on issues that are extraordinarily essential to the Nation and to voters' confidence that their votes are counted accurately. This bill includes $100 million for payments to States to help them meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as well as additional funding for research and testing of voting systems. This funding will help ensure that elections are fair, accessible, and accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services section of this bill also includes a number of policy provisions that will address some ongoing congressional concerns.

It includes, for example, a moratorium on new competitive sourcing-- also known as A-76--activities. The provision halts the previous administration's controversial and detrimental Federal workforce program so that the new Administration can consider and implement its own workforce policies.

The bill also contains a provision to prohibit funds from being used in support of the IRS private debt collection program. Under this very misguided and wasteful program, the IRS allows private contractors to collect unpaid taxes and to keep up to 24 percent of the tax revenue they bring in. This program should be terminated, and the prohibition on funds will help ensure that the IRS better redirects their resources elsewhere.

The Financial Services section also includes provisions to liberalize travel to Cuba for Americans who have family members living in that nation. There is no reason to place any restrictions on those who simply wish to visit their families that are still in Cuba. In addition, the bill contains provisions to facilitate trade with Cuba relating to agricultural and medical product sales.

This section of the bill also encourages our Federal Government to address an important Federal worker benefit issue that has already been successfully dealt with by about 10,000 private sector employers, including more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. We have included report language that clearly states that, ``OPM should consider taking steps to extend health care benefits to Federal employees' domestic partners.'' It is past time for our Federal Government to take a lead in providing this important employee benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services provisions of this bill include many important funding and policy choices that will improve the services our government agencies provide to our constituents as they pay taxes, purchase products, vote in elections, and start small businesses. I urge a yes vote on this bill.