Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be very much against the interest of rural America. There is no community in this country that will have a decent economic future if they cannot be competitive by being attached to modern technology, and that certainly includes broadband.

The gentleman has mentioned the economic recovery package and the funds that have been appropriated there, and he has made much of the fact that that money has not gone out. We are only 4 months into a program that is supposed to last 30 months, and so I urge the gentleman to wait a few months to see what happens on that project. I think you will see money moving out.

The only other point I would make is this: If you think there is too much money for broadband in the budget, the worst place in the world to take it out of is the USDA. When this program was first proposed in the stimulus package, the Obama administration proposed putting all of the money in the Commerce Department. People like me objected because we know the history of rural America. We understand why REAs had to be created to go into rural areas because the big power companies wouldn't bother, because they couldn't make enough money going into rural areas. It's the same score now. Your big companies don't want to go into rural areas without subsidy on broadband. The fact is you can trust the Agriculture Department to focus

much more on the needs of rural America than you can the Commerce Department. That's why we put the additional money in. And to take $400 million out of the Agriculture Department now would be a major mistake if you care about the future economic health of rural America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the House of Representatives who has been intimately involved with the area of biomedical research and health care, to draw the attention of the Congress and the nation to the 20th anniversary of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a national resource for molecular biology information located at the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH).

I am reminded at this time of our late distinguished colleague Claude Pepper who, in 1987, introduced H.R. 393, a bill to establish a National Center for Biotechnology Information. As he eloquently described it, the Center would deal ``with nothing less than the mystery of human life and the unfolding scroll of knowledge, seeking to penetrate that mystery, which is life itself.'' A quick study, Claude early on concluded there was a growing need to fit together the pieces of the genetic puzzle so as to benefit humankind. Although the term biotechnology was relatively new at that time, there was clear evidence that the whole biotechnology information infrastructure was overloaded and there was an urgent need for developing a central repository for storing and sharing the data resulting from the explosive growth of research in molecular biology. The information-handling organization envisioned in the bill, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, became a reality with the signing by President Reagan of the Health Omnibus Extension Act (P.L. 100-607) on November 4, 1988.

I remember well those early years when a group of Nobel Laureates appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and laid out a vision that revolutionized our understanding of biology and genomics. Chairman Bill Natcher and those of us on the subcommittee enthusiastically supported the Genome Project. Its magnitude was nothing short of President Kennedy's vision of landing a man on the moon for it launched a grand national challenge of utmost importance to human health. NIH Director James Wyngaarden testified that year that we had sequencing data on less than one-tenth of one percent of the human genome. He said then that while the pace of biology research was rapidly accelerating, the ability to analyze and share information was severely constrained and that if we were going to understand the disease process we would need new and better information approaches. Clearly, the organization defined in Claude's bill fit that need and so the Appropriations Committee readily provided the necessary funding for

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. The gentleman's motion to instruct includes a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in existing law and not considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, that's a very interesting speech. I wish it had something to do with anything in this amendment. Let me simply read the amendment.

On page 22, line 8 and on page 22, line 14 and on page 32, line 21 and on page 32, line 22, it says, Insert: Increased by $1 million. Decreased by $1 million.

That's all the amendment says. So what does it do? Do you know what it does? It don't do nothing. All it does is give one of our friends on that side of the aisle a chance to talk about an issue.

I want to congratulate him. That's the least destructive thing they've done today. I simply want to say that, if this amendment passes, there is no way it can be interpreted by the implementing agency to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue that the gentleman just talked about, because the amendment has no effect on it.

Mr. Speaker, we've sat here for 8 hours and have gone through this elaborate charade today. Other committees have brought veterans to town to talk about the problems of veterans. They've brought little kids to town to talk about the problems of children's hospitals.

That comment says more about you than it says about anything I say.

We've brought American citizens to town to appear at hearing after hearing today about their real life, human problems. Instead, we've watched the other side of the aisle walk around in circles in this well, changing their votes on paper ballots, pretending that they're doing something useful for the country.

I am going to accept this amendment because, as I said, it don't do nothing to nobody or for nobody. As I said, that's the least destructive thing you've managed to do today. Congratulations. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 2847, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want to get into this subject yet again, but I guess we have to.

I would like to put in perspective why we are here under these circumstances. As everyone in this Chamber understands, we have, for the last 4 months, been dealing with a national economic emergency, and an absolute crisis in terms of the war in the Middle East, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So this Chamber has been hugely occupied for 4 months.

And now, finally, after finishing our major economic leftovers from the previous year, we're now turning to the appropriations bill. The hard fact is that everyone says they want appropriation bills to be finished individually, not collectively, in an omnibus. And yet, we only have 6 weeks to accomplish that. We have to pass 12 major appropriation bills in 6 weeks and still leave enough time on the calendar to deal with health care, to deal with climate change, to deal with the military authorization bill, and several other crucial issues.

So Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, and I, went to our friends on the Republican side of the aisle, went to both the minority leader and the ranking member of the committee, and asked whether or not we could reach agreement that would enable us to meet that schedule. And we pointed out that the schedule that we have set requires that we set aside no more than about 8 or 9 hours to debate each of the bills with all of the amendments thereto.

We were told that they did not believe that they could participate in that kind of a tight schedule. So then we tried to proceed anyway.

We asked Members to prefile amendments so that every Member of this House would know what they were expected to vote on. We confronted the fact that 127 amendments were filed. That will take at least 23 or 24 hours, just to debate those amendments. And that blows the entire schedule for the entire 6 weeks.

One Member today said, ``Well, what's wrong if it takes 40 hours to pass this bill?'' The fact is that that would be one-third of the time remaining on the schedule for all 12 appropriation bills.

We've got an obligation to get our work done. And so what Mr. Hoyer and I did was even offer the minority leader the opportunity, in a compressed number of amendments, to select their own amendments, any amendments they wanted. But they did not want to be limited in number or time. I don't fault them for it. I'm simply stating facts.

Now, we have one misunderstanding around here. We have the impression that somehow appropriation bills have always been considered in open rules. The fact is, I have a sheet here which shows 25 previous occasions where appropriations have been continued under structured or modified, or even closed rules. And this is only when Republicans were in control. This does not count the more than a dozen times under Democratic control, when we had significantly limited rules for appropriation bills, including the Foreign Operations bill, D.C., the Defense Bill, Interior and the Legislative Appropriations bill.

So I simply state this, not to get into a perennial argument, but to make clear we have tried every way we can to involve the minority. We've asked

them several times if they could participate in a compressed schedule.

I don't think that it's necessary to debate all of these bills for 40 hours. But we are giving--there are going to be 33 amendments offered to this bill under the rule, and only nine of them are Democratic amendments. The rest are Republican amendments. I think that's treating the minority especially fairly.

Sure.

Let me take back my time. Let me simply say that this is the third year that we've been in this situation where we've been filibustered by amendment, and we recognize a filibuster by amendment when we see it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I think, on this side of the aisle, the committee certainly agrees with the gentleman's assertions, and we would be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I just want to take this occasion to express my sympathy to the gentleman on his loss this evening. I'm not talking about anything that happened here on the floor, but I understand he was a victim in a 15-10 drubbing of the Republicans in the congressional baseball game by the Democrats. And I understand that despite the fact that the gentleman hit a triple, alas it was in a losing cause. We know how you feel. We've felt it many times in the last decade.

Yes.

Surely.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to express my concern about the ability of this House to get its crucial work done under the circumstances in which we're operating.

As I think every Member of the House understands, President Obama inherited an economic crisis and a foreign policy mess, and so the Congress

first had to turn our attention to dealing with that economic crisis, and we finally got that out of the way in the form of the Recovery Act. We then had to finish all of last year's domestic appropriation bills, which took a considerable amount of time, and then we had to turn to the supplemental appropriation bill which we will be debating later today to finish funding the Middle Eastern war efforts for the remainder of the fiscal year, because the previous administration had a practice of only asking for funding for that endeavor 6 months at a time.

And now we are trying to bring up the first of 12 appropriation bills. And in order to stay on schedule so we can do the people's business by the end of the fiscal year, we need to deal with all 12 of those bills in the next 6 weeks. I think that means that we have a problem.

In fiscal '03 there were no amendments offered to this bill. In fiscal '04 there were 10 amendments offered by Republicans and 6 by Democrats. In fiscal '05 there were 19 amendments offered by Republicans and 11 by Democrats. In fiscal '06 the number increased to 19 and 27, and in '07 we had 38 amendments offered by Republicans and 37 offered by Democrats. Today, we have had filed on this bill 127 amendments.

Now, in the schedule that I announced last week for appropriation bills, we announced a schedule that would allow us to finish all of these appropriation bills by the August recess, provided that we were able to stick to that schedule. That schedule allocates about 7 to 8 hours of debate on all amendments on average for each bill.

The problem that I see here with this bill is that we already have amendments filed that will take at least 23 hours, and even if amendments are considered out of order, it still takes 10 minutes or so to dispose of each of those amendments.

So last week the majority leader and I met with my friend, the ranking member of the committee, and the minority leader, asking whether or not it would be possible to reach agreement on time and on the number of amendments offered so that we could finish this bill along the schedule that we had outlined; and at that time, the prospect did not seem too promising, if I can be polite about it.

And I would simply like to ask my friend from California at this point, before we get into this bill, whether, in light of the time squeeze that we have, whether the gentleman would be in a position to agree to a proposition that would, in fact, limit the number and the time of amendments to that amount of, or to that number and to that amount of time, that would enable us to cut that 23 hours down to about 7 or 8 hours?

And I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Well, I thank the gentleman for his frankness. I regret the content of his response, but I do appreciate the fact that he is forthright and honest in laying out what the prospects would be.

And Mr. Speaker, I think that that presents a dilemma to the House, because we want to finish our business, and I would point out that the schedule that we've set out can be adhered to only if we can work out reasonable time limits with each of these bills.

And I would point out that what we're trying to do with that schedule is to allow ample time for discussion of these appropriation bills and also still leave time on the calendar to deal with the crucial issues of health care, of climate change and the military authorization bill, among others.

So I think at this point the House has a problem. And I hope that we will face up to it forthrightly, because I think we do have an obligation to try to get the people's business done on time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 545, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last of last year's business. We have a huge amount of work that we have to do before the August recess. We have to pass all 12 appropriation bills, we have to make time on the schedule for health care reform, for the military authorization bill, and for historic climate change legislation. I just think we ought to get on with it.

I think everybody understands what is in this bill, and the sooner we can get on with it, the sooner we can get on with this year's business.

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 include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2346.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would simply note in light of the gentleman's comments on the IMF that in 1999, the last time we voted on it, the IMF funding was attached to the Transportation bill and 162 Republicans voted for it. They didn't seem to have any problem at that time. I find it interesting that today, with a different President, they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have the right to close, and we have only one remaining speaker.

I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I noted at the beginning of the debate, this item represents last year's left-over business. It is the last item of last year's left-over business.

We have been mired in a war for over 7 years. The President previous to this one has continually minimized the cost of that war by financing it on the installment plan. Instead of providing a full estimate of a yearly cost for the war, he would ask to fund that war in 6-month increments. And when he left office, there was still one 6-month increment left to go that was not yet paid for left over from his watch. And so this bill today, in the process of supporting the President's policies of trying to wind down that war, is providing the remaining funding for this fiscal year to help accomplish that.

In addition, this new President is trying to change the way that that war has been breaking in Afghanistan, and by necessity, Pakistan, which is integrally tied to the Afghanistan situation. And what he is trying to do is, through a combination of military action, political action, and diplomacy, he is trying to change the mix and gradually extricate ourselves from that conflict and stabilize that region politically in the process. I doubt that that will succeed. But this President, having inherited a God awful mess both at home and abroad, has a right to try to fix this situation. That's what the American people, in part, elected him to do. And so this bill provides the financing to do that.

And, yes, it added some other items that were not in the bill when it left the House. It did add funding for the IMF, about which our friends on the other side of the aisle roundly complain. But I would point out, in 1999, the last time I believe that we voted on this, the majority party then, our friends on the other side of the aisle, added IMF funding to the Transportation bill and 162 Republicans voted for it. I find it interesting that today, with a new President, they decline to provide that support.

We also added something else. The GI bill education proposal that the Congress passed last year, had one remaining gap which needed to be filled. That legislation said that if you served your country in the military a sufficient length of time, you could then obtain education benefits; and if you did not use them yourself, you could convert them to the use of your spouse or your children. This bill closes a gap because the one thing that that bill did not do last year was to enable a combat veteran who was killed in combat to make that same transfer of education benefits to a spouse or children. This bill provides that expanded benefit for our fighting men and women. It was not in the bill when it left the House. It is now. If you vote against this bill, that's one of the provisions you will be voting against.

We also have additional money for military hospitals that the administration did not request. We have additional help for the auto industry. I didn't think that was a Federal offense to try to provide some assistance to that industry. And, yes, we have a significant amount of additional funding for pandemic flu. Now, we tried to put that money initially in the original economic recovery package. We did put it in when the bill left the House. It

went to the Senate and we were laughed at. People said, ``Oh, what does the flu have to do with the economy and with jobs?'' Well, Mexico found out when they had to shut down their entire economy for 2 weeks because of the turmoil in that country with the flu. It is now estimated that as many as one-third of Americans will be hit by that flu. This bill has billions of additional dollars to try and meet that challenge. And I would submit to you that the average American family has a greater chance of being hit by that flu than it does to be hit by any terrorist presently ensconced in Guantanamo.

Now, we are also told that the IMF funding is bad because it borrows money in order to give to other countries. You know, this is a tough reality; we have to participate in the world. And when the world economy becomes shaky, we have a responsibility to ourselves to try to stabilize that world economic situation. That is one of the roles that the IMF tries to play. It certainly does it imperfectly--and I've had many arguments with them in the past--but to say that our contribution to the IMF does not benefit us is to be ignorant of history and to be ignorant of how the world economy works.

The fact is that we created the IMF after World War II. Why? Because we saw what led up to World War II. We saw the world's financial system collapse in the thirties. As a result, in Germany, Hitler came to power and 50 million people died. We would kind of like to avoid that this time. And so what we're trying to do is to provide the President with all the tools he needs internationally to defend our economic stability and to stabilize the economy of our trading partners because our economy does not function and we do not create sufficient jobs in this economy unless we help create economic conditions in other countries so they can buy our goods. That's why we do it. It's called enlightened self-interest.

In addition, it has been suggested that somehow money that we appropriate to the IMF is going to go to Iran. Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Iran has not had a loan from the IMF since 1962. And under this legislation, the United States representative at the IMF is required to oppose any loan or assistance to countries such as Iran that have been designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The United States can effectively block loans that it opposes. We've got by far the largest block of votes of any single member. And I doubt very seriously that the IMF is going to approve any loan that we don't approve of.

One other thing. We've been told that somehow the President is endangering national security because he has not allowed the Congress to pass the Lieberman amendment with respect to the release of those pictures. The fact is the President sent to the conferees a letter and made quite clear that he will do everything in his power to prevent the use of those pictures. I want to quote one paragraph from his letter:

``I deeply appreciate all you have done to help with the efforts to secure funding for the troops and assure you I will continue to take every legal and administrative remedy available to me to ensure that DOD detainee photographs are not released. Should a legislative solution prove necessary, I am committed to work with the Congress to enact legislation that achieves the objectives we all share.''

Now, each of us can nitpick or object to certain specifics in this bill, but the great thing about democracy is that after we've had a chance to state our first preferences and fight for what we believe in, in the end we also have an obligation to reach consensus and move on. That's what this bill tries to do. It must be finished before we can move on to finish the rest of our appropriation bills and to get to the other huge items on the agenda, including health care and climate change.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16JN09.011

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio for the purpose of colloquy.

Let me thank the gentlelady for her comments on this issue and her steadfast advocacy on behalf of those who are suffering during this economic downturn.

The bill we're considering today continues the process of rebuilding the FBI's mortgage fraud capability by adding 50 new agents and $25 million to the white-collar crime program. We look forward to working with the gentlelady to monitor the FBI's progress on mortgage fraud investigations and to ensure as we move through the conference that the Bureau is appropriately resourced and staffed to address a problem of this magnitude.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until 11:59 p.m. on June 12, 2009, to file a conference report on H.R. 2346, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until 11:59 p.m. on June 12, 2009, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I don't particularly care how people vote on this motion. Motions to instruct conferees are notorious, and they have been for many years, for simply being a device by which we either make political statements around here or express first preferences. I don't really have any objection to either. I think it's a legitimate thing to do in a legislative body.

I intend to vote ``no'' on the amendment, but I don't have any problem with any Member who decides that there are certain pieces of this motion that they would like to send a message to the conferees on. And so, as far as I'm concerned, people can vote any way they want.

Sure.

I think that would be a very good idea. It would give us more time to do our real work, which is to prepare for the conference this afternoon.

I thank the gentleman for his very wise comments.

Let me simply say that I don't have any objection to several provisions in this motion. I do have to say one thing, however. The effect of this motion would be to substantially increase the likely amount of money approved by the conference for the Defense Department, and to substantially reduce the amount of money provided for the State Department.

I have always had difficulty understanding why people are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to wage war but are resistant to spending a tiny amount in comparison in order to prevent war or to extricate ourselves from war. In fact, the conference report that is likely to come back will probably exceed the numbers in this motion for bringing State Department personnel more immediately into Iraq, into Afghanistan and into Pakistan. We are trying to convert that operation from, essentially, a military operation to a much more balanced operation, which includes much greater effort on the diplomatic side to extricate ourselves from that war. That requires money. It requires facilities. As many military experts have said, you cannot win this if you just deal with it militarily.

So, with that one point, I would simply say, Madam Speaker, that I would reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman is ready to close.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Just one briefly, myself.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I had not wanted to take a lot of time here today, but I am moved to take a couple of minutes to respond to a couple of things that I've heard on the floor today.

We have heard several lectures about the President's fiscal policy and about his economic policy and about his international economic policy. I find it kind of difficult to take economic lectures from the same folks who have driven this country's economy into the ditch.

The President has inherited a very dicey situation both internationally and domestically. It is always hard in life to clean up other people's messes. It is especially hard to do that when you have the responsibilities as heavy as those that weigh on the shoulders of the President of the United States.

I don't understand why he should be expected to take lectures from the people who helped put the economy into the ditch or, for that matter, to take lectures from the same people who brought us the most unnecessary war in America's history, the people who took $6 trillion in projected budget surpluses and turned them into the largest deficits in the history of the Republic, the people who are now sniping at virtually everything that the President does to try to deal with both his international challenges and his domestic challenges.

I don't think anybody wants to see any of those prisoners at Guantanamo ``released'' into the United States. I do think we have a legitimate question about where they should be tried and about where they should be imprisoned after they are found guilty. Because we wanted to have more specific answers from the administration on that score, this committee has already removed all of the money that could be used to close Guantanamo until we do get a specific plan from the administration.

Having said that, I would suggest that the average American family is much more in danger of being hit by the flu pandemic than they are of actually being hit by any person who would be imprisoned in a maximum security prison here in the United States. I, frankly, would be kind of interested to see some of those terrorists exposed to the wonderful ``charms'' of some of our prison inmates in our own prisons. I don't think they would like the experience very much; but nonetheless, that is not what is at issue here.

What is at issue is simply whether or not we will go about our business of going to conference and of producing a supplemental appropriation bill that will meet the basic needs of our troops and that will meet our basic diplomatic necessities as well. That's why I think there is a problem with this motion.

This motion, by the time it sets aside money for military construction and defense, would not leave us with enough money on the table to respond sufficiently to the pandemic flu problem. It would not leave us with enough money on the table to deal with the necessity to provide assistance to Mexico in order to deal with the drug problem there, which is certainly a national security threat to us, and it certainly would not leave us with sufficient funds to strengthen and buttress our political and diplomatic activities in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. It would not leave us with enough money, for instance, to fully fund the funding for the new Embassy in Pakistan, which is desperately needed given the fact that we just had a bombing in Peshawar of the Pearl Hotel where most of the American diplomats stayed. We need to protect diplomats just as much as we need to protect soldiers. That's what the conference will try to do if we can ever get to it.

So I would simply say, Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, I intend to vote against this motion, but I am not going to be particularly bothered if other people want to vote for it because they supported one piece or another of this proposal. I, myself, would probably support two of the provisions in here but not all of them. So Members are certainly free to vote however they prefer. This is a place where we like to state our first preferences as often as possible, but sooner or later, we have to compromise. That means most of us, including the ranking member and the Chair, will not be able to get all of the first preferences that we would prefer.

So, if the gentleman is prepared to close, I will yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 434, I call up the bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may insert extraneous and tabular material on H.R. 2346.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have a new President who has inherited a war he is trying to end. This bill tries to help him do that. We have no real alternative but to support it. I urge support for the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey),

the chairwoman of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Let me simply say that public health at all levels must continue to respond to this current outbreak and the increasing number of U.S. and worldwide cases, but also prepare for the potential of increased severity or for a new, novel strain to emerge. This bill will give HHS the funds needed to develop and purchase vaccines and replenish and expand Federal and State stockpiles of antiviral drugs and other necessary medical supplies, such as masks, ventilators, delivery devices, and other items.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader.

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

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont.

Let me simply say that, representing a lot of dairy farmers myself, and being a former cosponsor of the milk program, I obviously would like to see additional help provided to them. The Appropriations Committee is not the committee of jurisdiction. So we would need to work out something with the White House and the proper authorizing committee. But we are open to any reasonable suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker, myself. And I have the right to close. I would suggest the gentleman go through his speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old story about a second baseman for the old New York Giants, Eddie Stanky. Leo Durocher was the manager of the club. And during spring training, Durocher was hitting ground balls to the infield, and Stanky dropped two in a row. And so Durocher said, Kid, give me the glove. I will show you how it is done. So he went out to second base, and the very first ball hit to him Durocher dropped. And he turned to Stanky and said, Hey, kid, you got second base so screwed up, nobody can play. That is pretty much the situation that we face with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

And this bill spends $97 billion because we're in a mess. After 9/11, the Bush administration went after al Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan. That was a perfectly understandable response. They hit us and we tried to hit them back. But then the administration diverted their attention and their resources to a tragically wrong-headed war in Iraq, a country with no connection to 9/11.

Seven years later, 33,000 American casualties later, more than 4,000 American deaths later, we now have a new President who has a commitment to try to end American combat in Iraq. He's also confronted with the mess in Afghanistan, which is made much worse because of the diversion of attention that should have been focused on that country over the past 7 years. And that job is made even more difficult because of the impact of events in Pakistan on Afghanistan.

Now, the President cannot wave a magic wand and end that war. He has inherited what I consider to be the worst foreign policy mess from his predecessor in the history of the country, a three-country regional mess. Now, he has decided that he will try to refashion our efforts in Afghanistan to give us a better chance to stabilize the situation. I hope I'm wrong, but I am forced to say that I significantly agree with the gentleman from California. I have a profound doubt that he can succeed, not because of any problem with his policy but because I am dubious that there are the tools available in that region for us to succeed using any policy. The tools we have to rely on for want of any others are the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Afghanistan. And I feel that they are both hugely unreliable reeds to lean upon, which is why I think that in that region we are unfortunately in an Eddie Stanky situation, because those governments are corrupt, they are weak, they are chaotic, they appear to lack the focus and cohesion and effectiveness to turn the countries around.

Nonetheless, it's clear to me that there is a consensus to try to do something to stabilize the situation. If we're going to go down that road, I want the President to get everything that he asked for and then some to maximize his chances for success. And that is what this bill does. I frankly have very little faith that it will work.

I came here in 1969, 3 months after Richard Nixon became President. I was vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War. But Nixon correctly pointed out that he had inherited that war from his Democratic predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. And so I thought, well, it's reasonable for him to ask for some measure of time to see whether he could move the policy forward. So I decided to give him a year before I started speaking out against the war, and that's what I did. I'm pretty much in the same situation today, and that's why this bill contains the following language.

It says: ``Because the stability and security of the region is tied more to the capacity and conduct of the Afghan and Pakistani Governments and to the resolve of both societies than it is to the policies of the United States, the President shall submit a report to Congress not later than the date of submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget, assessing whether the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are, or are not, demonstrating the necessary commitment, capability, conduct, and unity of purpose to warrant the continuation of the President's policy. The President, on the basis of information gathered and coordinated by the NSC, shall advise the Congress on how the

assessment requires, or does not require, changes to that policy. The measures used to evaluate the Afghan and Pakistani Governments' record of concrete performance shall include the following standards of performance:

``Number one, level of political consensus and unity of purpose across ethnic, tribal, religious, and party affiliations to confront the political and security challenges facing the region.

``Two, level of government corruption and action taken to eliminate it.

``Three, performance of the respective security forces in developing a counterinsurgency capability, conducting counterinsurgency operations, and establishing population security.

``Four, performance of the respective intelligence agencies in cooperating with the United States on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations and in purging themselves of policies, programs, and personnel that provide material support to extremist networks that target U.S. troops or undermine U.S. objectives in the region.

``Five, ability of the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to effectively control the territory within their respective borders.''

So there are no deadlines, no conditions, no timelines. But there are very clear measurements against which we should be able to judge the performance of the Afghanistan and Pakistani Governments. I believe that if this policy fails, it will not fail because of any lack of imagination or effort on the part of this administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 5 minutes.

If that policy fails, in my judgment it will fail because of the failure of the two governments in the region to do what's necessary to save their own countries.

I hope I can come here a year from now when we are evaluating the President's policy and evaluating the performance of those two governments. I hope I can say my judgment was wrong, these countries have performed far better than we expected. But only time will tell. I think we have no choice but to give the President a shot. It's a miserable situation that he has inherited, and he does not have a good hand to play.

Having said that, I also want to note that, in addition to dealing with this problem, we deal with a number of other problems in this bill. We deal, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) indicated, with the need to renew our ability to provide farm loans. We deal with the need for additional food aid around the world. We deal with the need to add $500 million to the President's request to deal with the pandemic flu problem that could be facing us. We've had over 11,000 layoffs of public health officials at the State and local level, and that is not going to stand us in good stead if we have to deal with the flu pandemic, so we're trying to fill those holes.

So let me simply close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this is a bill that I have very little confidence in, but I have a responsibility as committee chairman to move the process forward. I think we have a responsibility to give the new President, who did not get us into this mess, the best possible opportunity to get us out of it. So that's what this bill attempts to do. I make no apology for it. I urge support for it.

I want to thank the staff especially for their work, especially led by Beverly Pheto of the central office and the staff members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the hard work done by the Appropriation subcommittee Chairs and ranking members and other members of the committee as well. I appreciate the frustration of each and every Member of this House.

This is a no-win bill no matter how you vote on it. It's a mess. And let's hope that with God's help we can get out of it in a reasonably decent time.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many a lecture from the other side of the aisle about spending levels, but this proposal would add $3 billion to the spending levels in this bill, and it would eliminate a rescission that saves us money, a rescission that's been endorsed by Secretary Gates.

It also takes $200 million out of the global financial crisis fund, which is the last thing we ought to do at a time when we have a worldwide financial crisis that is threatening our own economy as well as others around the world.

Thirdly, it eliminates the Pakistani counterinsurgency fund for next year, which has already been endorsed by Secretary Gates.

And lastly, with respect to Mexico, it purports to add $200 million to deal with drug problems in Mexico. The bill already contains $400 million directly for aid to Mexico, plus another $350 million in the Department of Defense.

And I would point out that in the stimulus bill, which virtually every Member on that side of the aisle voted against just a few short weeks ago, we provided an over $700 million increase to deal with our border problems. All in all, between the omnibus and the stimulus, we already raised funding for that by 10 percent.

So I would suggest this is a financial double game and that we turn down the motion.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2346, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous and tabular material on H.J. Res. 38.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, this proposition simply keeps the government open until midnight on Wednesday so we can complete our business. I urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I don't know how many of us remember the old song, ``Shine on Harvest Moon.'' I'm reminded this morning more of ``Whine on Harvest Moon'' when I hear some of the complaints lodged about budget practices by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I also am tempted to ask where on Earth is Herbert Hoover, but then I come to the realization, which is obvious, that he is alive and well, and resides in the House Republican caucus.

I find it strange to be lectured by folks on that side of the aisle, the folks who did such a ``brilliant'' job of running this institution and in running this economy and in running this country for the last 8 years. I find it interesting to be lectured on fiscal responsibility by people who borrowed $1.2 trillion in order to pay for tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, all on borrowed money. I find it interesting to be lectured by people who managed to borrow almost $1 trillion so far to fund what I regard as the most avoidable and dumbest war in American history, in Iraq, who paid for the whole war on the cuff. I find it ironic to be lectured about earmarks by the party that spent twice as much money on earmarks as we are spending since we took over and reformed the earmarking process. I also find it interesting to be lectured about economics by the folks who presided over a government which, in the words of FDR, was frozen in the ice of its own indifference while 90 percent of all of the income growth in this country in the past 8 years went into the pockets of the wealthiest 10 percent of people in our society, leaving everybody else to struggle for table scraps.

So I do find all of that interesting, but I don't find it particularly productive, and I think we ought to get back, not to what we don't like or do like about what has happened in this institution, but I think we ought to focus instead on what is happening outside this institution to average Americans all over the country.

As has been noted several times this morning, the recent figures out of the Labor Department now indicate that unemployment has now risen above 8 percent. We're told by the most reputable economists in the country that it's liable to rise above 10 percent or even significantly worse. We see almost 700,000 new workers who are unemployed today in comparison to last month. We have lost 3 million jobs since the Democratic Party in the House tried to produce the first economic stimulus bill, modest though it was, in September of last year.

We are now debating a bill which is $20 billion for education, for health care, for science, and the like, which is $20 billion above the budget request made by President Bush last year. That sounds like a lot of money until you compare it to the $200 billion that this economy has already lost because of its shrinkage just in the last 3 months of last year, and that $20 billion in increased government funding looks mighty small in comparison to the $200 billion more that we expect to have seen the economy shrink by in the first 3 months of this year, leaving a total hole in the economy for just that 6-month period of $400 billion.

We are trying in this bill to provide the funding, which was the base for the stimulus bill that we passed just 3 weeks ago in this place, and they are intimately related to each other. This is an integral part of what we did in the stimulus package, which is supported by the American people in the most recent polls by well over 60 percent of the American public. They understand, when the economy is contracting at a record rate, squeezing millions of Americans out of the circle of prosperity, that we've got to respond to try to reinflate that economy again, and so this bill plays a small but crucial role in doing that.

Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should just do a full year's CR. Well, if you do, you will come in virtually, identically, very close, at least, to President Bush's budget request for these programs. I don't think in a time of near economic collapse that we want to do that.

I don't believe that we want to eliminate the funds in this bill that are meant to deal with the Social Security/

disability backlog. I don't believe that we want to see the Federal Housing Administration cease to have the ability to issue mortgage insurance in April, as would be the case if we simply provided funding at the level that our friends want us to provide under their motion to recommit. I don't believe that we should follow a course of action which would mean that we could provide no new targeted vouchers for disabled and homeless veterans. I don't believe that we should eliminate the $37 million that we have in this bill to enhance enforcement, oversight and investor protections at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Neither do I believe that we ought to cut these programs to the level supported and requested by President Bush last year. If we did that, we would be cutting the Job Corps by $46 million. We would be eliminating the employment service grants. We would be cutting senior jobs programs by $172 million. We would be eliminating vocational education. We would be terminating the Community Services Block Grant program and so many others.

So I think the point is obvious. We really have operating here two different parties with two different visions for the future of this country, and we believe that when the private sector is essentially collapsing, as it is right now, that the government has an opportunity to step in and do what it can through fiscal policy and through supporting crucial programs, such as contained in the omnibus bill, so that we can counter the economic destruction that's going on in the private sector of the economy. That is what this bill tries to do.

If Members are more comfortable with the idea that we should simply glide along, do nothing and stick to the way we did things last year, be my guest. I don't think that's going to help the economy very much. I don't think it's going to impress the American people very much.

So I would urge the rejection of the motion to recommit when it's offered, and I would urge the passage of this resolution. In the end, the passage of this resolution is necessary in order to keep the government open, and that's what we ought to do today by passing this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the motion, and I urge passage of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I detest the word ``blame,'' and I don't want to use it in these circumstances. I don't want to say that we're here today because I blame President Bush for our differences on these bills. I would prefer to put it another way:

The President simply proposed budgets for the domestic appropriations which would have cut the Job Corps by $50 million. It would have eliminated the employment service by $103 million. It would have eliminated senior jobs programs. It would have eliminated vocational education. It would have eliminated Perkins, SEOG and LEAP student aid programs. It would have funded highway infrastructure $800 million below the level guaranteed in the authorization bill. It would have cut airport modernization grants by 22 percent. It would have eliminated the Community Service Block Grant Program. It would have cut health care access programs by $1 billion. It would have cut low-income heating assistance by $570 million.

Outside of that, it was a terrific budget. So we simply had a stark disagreement with the White House. We simply had a difference of opinion.

The President said he would not sign these domestic bills unless we accepted his level of cuts. We said, ``Sorry, but that's not the way the budget process works. We're supposed to be able to proceed, and so long as we confine the spending to the amount limited in the budget resolution, we're supposed to be able to proceed. That amount was some $20 billion at variance from President Bush's budget.'' So we offered to the White House to at least split the difference. We offered to sit down and to negotiate and to split the difference right down the middle. The White House declined. So we said, okay, if that's the case, we're simply going to wait, take our chances on the election and hope that we elect somebody to the White House who will negotiate like an adult. Now that is what has happened.

So we bring this bill here today. It essentially does two things: It provides the base funding for programs that are funded in the recovery act, without which the additional recovery funding could not succeed. Example, of the operating budget for the Social Security Administration. Example, the other half of the 50 percent that we need to keep our promises on Pell Grants. Example, the $40 billion we need to keep our commitments on highway construction.

The omnibus also funds numerous critical programs not funded in the recovery act. We only touched about 20 to 25 percent of government accounts in providing funding in the recovery act. The other 75 percent of government did not receive any additional funds in that recovery act, and so we simply provided those funds in this bill. That is what we are doing.

With respect to earmarks, I would simply say that the process that we're following today is far more transparent than it was in the so- called ``good old days.'' In the ``good old days,'' subcommittee Chairs would come to the floor. They would pretend that there were not earmarks in these bills, and then they would call up the agency and say, ``Hey, boys. I want you to do A, B, C, D, E, and F,'' and they would do A, B, C, D, E, and F totally hidden from public view.

Instead, today, you may not like the fact that Congress participates on an equal constitutional footing, but the fact is, under the process today, every single earmark that is out there has to be identified by name. It is on the Web, and people can examine them to see whether they think they're deserving or not.

Now, from a standpoint of personal convenience, as chairman of the committee, I would much prefer that there would not be earmarks because then I wouldn't have to spend so much time in a hassle about them, but the fact is they represent the hole in the donut. Earmarks today are less than 1 percent of all of the funds in this bill. As a percentage of Federal spending, we have cut earmarks in half in this bill. I think that's doing pretty well. There are some people in this place who think that because Duke Cunningham fouled the nest with his corrupt practices that somehow we should eliminate all earmarks. With all due respect, that's like saying, because somebody gets drunk behind the wheel of a car, you ought to abolish the automobile.

The fact is, without the earmarking process, the White House and its anonymous bureaucrats would make every single spending decision in government. So, if you're a well-connected corporation and you've got some buddies in the Pentagon, you can sit down on the inside and work out sweetheart deals, and nobody will ever be the wiser. Earmarking may have its problems like any other human endeavor, but at least it's out in the open. You can measure it. There is a degree of accountability that never existed before we proceeded with these reforms. I am proud of those reforms, and every Member of this body who voted for them on both sides of the aisle should be proud, too.

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one misunderstanding on the endangered species proposal.

All this language does is to give the Secretary, the new Secretary, 60 days to re-examine the rule that was a midnight change in the rule.

I'd like to finish my statement on this first, if I could.

All this does is give the Secretary 60 days to reconsider the rule and decide whether to go forward or not. This was a rule that was promulgated by the administration as they were going out the door after the election. And I have no idea what I think is the right public policy. I do not have any objection, however, to the new Secretary taking a look at it before he commits the country to a change in direction.

Now I'd be happy to yield.

I understand. I only have 1 minute.

I only have 30 seconds.

My point is I understand they began the rule a long time ago, but they did not promulgate it until after the election and all this does-- this does not reverse the rule; it simply gives the new administration the latitude to determine whether they should go ahead or not. It leaves the situation in neutral, and I think that's a fair thing to do.

Sure.

I think the regular process would have been for the administration not to promulgate a new rule after the election when they were no longer accountable.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out that our friends in the right-to-life community have made their concerns clear. They have asked this committee to retain virtually all of the limitations on abortions that have been in previous appropriations. The committee has done so in 19 of 20 items. That's a pretty good batting average I would suggest.

The only change that has been made with respect to abortion is the change with respect to the United Nations Population Fund. And here we retained all current law restrictions on family planning funds in China, which means UNFPA programs in China will not be funded. The bill does make some adjustments that allow certain expenditures for maternal health programs, including ensuring safe childbirth and emergency obstetrics care. The new provision does not in any way change current law restrictions on funding of UNFPA contra programs in China. I personally detest the Chinese programs and I agree with the gentleman's observations about the Chinese programs, but the adjustments simply allow this agency to proceed in 100 other countries.