Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we at least for now appear to be returning to regular order on appropriations bills as we deal with this emergency supplemental that is before us. However, I must confess to being disappointed at the turn this final product has taken in recent days as compared to where we began with our original House-passed bill. The majority has chosen to go to the high-dollar level for every account in this conference report, except as it relates to the primary purpose of the legislation, the critical troop funding in the Department of Defense and Military Construction accounts.

My understanding of the final conference agreement is that it cuts the House level for DOD and MilCon by $4.6 billion. More disconcerting is that the final package includes $5 billion for IMF funding that was not a part of the original House package. This $5 billion for foreign aid will secure a whopping $108 billion in loans.

Mr. Speaker, I must say, this is such an important message and important piece of legislation, I think it is important that our constituents, as well as our colleagues, pay careful attention to this debate.

In essence, in this package the IMF is funded at a level almost $30 billion more than what is provided for our troops, which supposedly was what this bill was all about. What began as a troop funding bill has become a means of fulfilling the President's promise to provide more IMF funding, or foreign aid, for international bailouts.

If that isn't bad enough, the conference agreement also includes $1 billion in emergency spending for the Cash for Clunkers program that was not a part of either the House or the Senate package, nor was it requested by the President.

I understand the conferees have dropped the Graham-Lieberman-McCain language relating to the release of detainee photos. The conferees have also significantly watered down language relating to the release or transfer of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This is an issue that is and will continue to be of great concern to many of us, as well as the American people.

Just last week, the President approved having a Guantanamo detainee transferred to New York City and ordered the release and transfer of four Uyghers to Bermuda. The President appears to be racing to move these detainees to their new homes before Congress can act substantively on the issue of closing Guantanamo.

During last week's conference meeting, Mr. Young, Ms. Granger and I offered several amendments. The first, offered by Ms. Granger, sought approval of the Senate provision prohibiting the release of detainee photos. The second motion, offered by Mr. Young, insisted upon the higher House funding level for DOD and MilCon spending in this conference agreement. And the third motion, which I offered, insisted upon agreeing to section 202(a) and section 315 of the Senate bill prohibiting the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees. All three amendments were defeated in a party-line vote by the House conferees.

As I prepare to close, let me make one additional point. Much has been made about the total cost of this emergency supplemental. I note for the record that the final conference agreement is $106 billion, which is $14 billion more than the President's request, $9 billion more than the House-passed bill, and $15 billion more than the Senate-passed level.

Again, we have increased funding for everything in this bill except for the troops. Arguments about maintaining some level of fiscal responsibility certainly ring hollow when we lard up a troop funding bill with taxpayer dollars to support foreign aid for hostile governments and cash for cars past their prime. This is a troubling pattern that is being repeated in many of our funding bills this year.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that a process that began in a spirit of bipartisanship has concluded in such a partisan manner. We began as a united, bipartisan House seeking to support our troops, but have ended this process by appeasing the very Members who opposed this emergency funding in the first place.

I strongly support our troops, but cannot and will not support an international bailout for hostile regimes disguised as a troop funding bill.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the finest whip Virginia has ever produced.

I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) a member of the Defense Subcommittee of Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, could I please check and see how much time there is on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Tom Cole, one of the fabulous new members on our side of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 Michigan (Mr. McCotter), a member of our leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I must mention I have only got one speaker remaining, so I would like to inquire of my colleague from Wisconsin just the status of his circumstances: You would be the person to close?

I will have to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I have one additional speaker.

As long as you're giving me all of this flexibility, just let me mention that, as we began this process on this bill, both my chairman and I were very pleased by the fact that there was broadly based bipartisan support for giving the kind of assistance to our troops that is fundamental to our success in the Middle East. To have that package now come back from conference in the shape of being a bill that has reduced the President's request for troop funding by approximately $4.7 billion and, in turn, has a cost factor of some $5 billion for the IMF is most disconcerting to this Member.

I may have two additional speakers since my colleague here is standing.

I would be happy to yield.

The gentleman is asking a very, very important question, and I will try to be straightforward in my response. This is a conference report in which both the House and the Senate have come together. The gentleman has raised his concerns about water in central California at a level that has gotten almost the entire country's attention. Indeed, if there were any way I could amend this package to help you solve this problem, the desperate need to get those pumps going to get water to our crops and the farmlands in Central Valley, I would do so. But, unfortunately, in this case, I am unable to help, but stand ready to try.

Sure.

As we go through with our hearings, I might mention in just a few days ahead we will be discussing agriculture problems and challenges to funding for programs for the 2010 year. Indeed, one way or another, we are going to do everything we can to help the gentleman. So I very much appreciate his inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I do have one additional speaker, and I am very proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following in regard to H.R. 2847:

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis

Project Name: San Bernardino County Sheriff Scientific Investigations

Account: COPS-Tech

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Bernardino County, CA

Address of Requesting Entity: San Bernardino County, 655 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415

Amount: $500,000

Description of Request: The funds requested will be used to help the Sheriff's Department purchase equipment for the Crime Analysis Unit, including a Blood Alcohol Analysis System, Polarized Light Microscopes for Controlled Substance Analysis, Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectrometer and a Skeletal Remains Predictive Profiling Research Program. San Bernardino County is the largest County in the United States, making law enforcement investigations a challenge. These equipment upgrades will help make investigations more efficient and effective.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: City of San Bernardino Project Phoenix Neighborhood Initiative

Account: OJP-Byrne

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of San Bernardino

Address of Requesting Entity: 300 North ``D'' Street, San Bernardino,

Offered By: Mr. Lewis of California

Amendment No. 118: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

``Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to implement Executive Order 13492, issued January

22, 2009, titled ``Review and Disposition of Individuals

Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of

Detention Facilities''.''

Offered By: Mr. Lewis of California

Amendment No. 119: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

``Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to implement Executive Order 13492 issued January 22,

2009, titled ``Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained

at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention

Facilities''.''

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin my remarks by saying that I'm pleased that until last week, we appeared to be following regular order by actually having an open meeting of House and Senate conferees.

As I and the vast majority of Republicans have suggested several times through this process, we want this troop funding bill to be an up-and-down vote and, ideally, a bipartisan vote.

I want to commend my colleagues, Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha, for producing a bill that accurately reflected the real needs and priorities of the troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the House-passed bill wasn't perfect, it did garner bipartisan support, including that of 168 Republican Members.

Unfortunately, what I'm hearing and reading about, the final ``deal'' that was struck between Chairman Obey and Senator Inouye leads me to believe that the final package will not enjoy the same bipartisan support. As reported, the deal struck by the two Appropriations chairmen would do the following:

First, cut over $4.6 billion from Defense and MilCon from the House- passed levels.

Further, it would increase foreign operations funding by $5.2 billion over the House-passed levels, and $2.6 billion over the Senate-passed bill.

Further, it would include $5 billion in funding for the IMF to secure a whopping $108 billion of loans; in essence, the IMF would be funded at levels some $30 billion above the troop funding level. So we have troop funding, on the one hand, that has been reduced, and we've got a sizable expansion of foreign aid.

Further, the bill includes $1 billion of new spending for what we have been calling ``Cash for Clunkers'' on the floor. That amount was not in the bill as it passed the House either.

Now, let me shift gears and briefly explain the motion before us. It's a straightforward motion that insists on the House funding levels of $84.5 billion for the defense and military construction portions of the supplemental.

Further, it also insists on the lower top line for overall funding levels of $91.3 billion contained in the Senate-passed bill for the entire supplemental.

Further, it requires the text of the conference agreement be available in an electronic, downloadable and searchable form for 48 hours prior to consideration by the House. This language is identical to the motion unanimously adopted and subsequently ignored by my friends in the majority

when considering our massive stimulus bill.

Finally, this motion insists on the Senate position regarding prohibition on the release of detainee photos sponsored by Senators Graham and Lieberman.

Clearly, the focus of this supplemental funding bill should be on the troops, not IMF, not foreign aid funding, not Cash for Clunkers, or just using the emergency circumstances to buy down fiscal year 2010 spending.

Madam Speaker, I urge the adoption of the motion.

I reserve my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

In view of your delightful mood today, we could probably bypass all this discussion and, as you've said, expedite the schedule. I do want to recognize my friend, Mr. Lungren, but if you want to, you know----

You've got the floor, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from California, Dan Lungren, for 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 2 minutes.

Will the gentleman yield?

I very much appreciate the point that the gentleman is making. It's an important one. The issue, per se, has almost been denied by the other side when we had these discussions in committee and otherwise.

It should be known by your public and my public that four of these people were released to Bermuda just this morning, we've learned. Now, that's a British entity. But, indeed, what's next? Our territories? And indeed further, we know that Ghailani was sent to New York for trial. So these people, very dangerous people, could be in serial released in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I would be glad to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, it's my intention to yield to Mr. Frelinghuysen, but I would like to make this point to the Speaker as well as to the Members: the words just spoken were the words of the former Attorney General of California, Dan Lungren. I would suggest that all of us read them with care in the Congressional Record.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to my colleague Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the committee, Jack Kingston.

Madam Speaker, I am glad to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Missouri, Roy Blunt.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of my colleague: Do you have any additional speakers?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I, for one, am looking forward to a number of celebrations. One of those celebrations that I hope to very much participate in in the near future will involve the gentlelady who happens to be the Speaker at this moment.

But having talked about celebrations, I think it would be most interesting when we reach the point where the leadership on the other side of the aisle, including my own committee, would stop presuming that every problem in the world can easily be set aside because you can blame the past President about this. As I remember, I think we had a vote in the House in which there was broadly based bipartisan support, for example, for the incursion of Iraq in support of the then- President.

I must say we have had a lot of conversation about items that are not directly in this bill today having to do with Guantanamo. If I'm not mistaken, that issue would not be before us if the current President had not decided that he was going, and publicly committed, to his closing of Guantanamo. That's creating this horrendous problem.

Setting all that aside as I close, Madam Speaker, the bill before us or the item before us is an item that involves the conference that's about to take place between the Senate and the House having to do with the supplemental funding that was designed originally to give support for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and, indeed, a very bipartisan support here in the House.

My consternation is that it appears as though we've set aside that bipartisan support for the convenience of the leadership and, indeed, will have a conference with the Senate that involves two things: a significant reduction of about $5 billion in the money available to support our troops; and, above and beyond that, for all intents and purposes, about that sum of money is transferred for foreign aid, for funding for IMF, for providing access to all kinds of countries who are not friendly to the United States by way of funding that would be supported by our taxpayers.

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

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present

and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I appreciate my colleague from California yielding me this time.

I frankly had hoped that we would be bringing this bill to the floor today, the supplemental, following the traditional pattern of appropriations processes with an open rule so that we could come together and discuss some of these very key issues together in a positive way. And as the ranking member of the Rules Committee said, make what is a very good and bipartisan effort significantly better by addressing a few key issues that indeed are of great concern to the American people.

I would specifically like to mention that the gentleman from Colorado suggested that this is the last supplemental. I am sure that you have watched the House for all of the years you have been here, and I know that you are absolutely convinced that this will be the last supplemental, but I wouldn't want to suggest that others would perhaps consider that to be a bit naive.

But in the meantime, I was most intrigued by another discussion I had with the gentleman in the Rules Committee when we were talking about Guantanamo. Indeed, Guantanamo is an issue that will become of greater and greater concern to the American public as we go forward from here.

The rule does self-enact a proposal by the chairman of the full committee that addresses Guantanamo. There are a number of things it does not, however, address in its language form. And, indeed, an open rule would have allowed us to have discussion of the very thoughtful work done by our Members in the full committee. Those Members' products were rejected on a partisan vote in the appropriations process, unfortunately, and we should have a chance to address them here on the floor.

I would like to share a few things that the chairman's amendment that is in the rule does not do. The rule includes language from Mr. Obey that, among other things, does not require the administration to conduct a risk assessment of the dangers of releasing Guantanamo detainees into American communities.

It does not require any notification, including the Congress, Governors, State legislators, or local communities, as to when and where detainees will be released outright to the general public after October 1, 2009, and on and on I could go from there.

I was very fascinated by the gentleman from Colorado's reaction. He said that is what our prison system is about. After all, we in Colorado have some serious people in prison; for example, the Unabomber. Well, I would suggest to the gentleman from Colorado, those criminals who are housed in Colorado and other States who are domestics who violated our law in a variety of ways--the Unabomber being a nut case, for example-- do not reflect the intensity and commitment of al Qaeda-trained terrorists who absolutely have dedicated their lives to trying to destroy our way of life. Those people in the hundreds potentially being released without any notification to the American public or to our governors and local legislators--it is unacceptable, unacceptable that we follow that path. And because of that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the PQ and a ``no'' vote also on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members of the Appropriations Committee began the process of writing this legislation, I was hopeful that the House would return to its traditional approach to considering appropriations bills under an open rule on the House floor. Unfortunately, that is not the case today.

There are Members of both political parties who have thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments that ought to receive the consideration of the full House. An open rule would ensure that each and every Member has the right and the opportunity to make a good bill even better. But Members on both sides are once again being denied this precious right.

There is one exception to this rule, however. To cover itself politically on a highly sensitive national security issue, the majority leadership has included an amendment offered by my chairman, David Obey, that is self-executed into the rule on this bill. However, the Obey amendment only pays lip service to protecting our citizens from the release of known terrorists from Guantanamo into the United States.

Mr. Wolf, who is perhaps the most knowledgeable Member of the House on this issue, offered an amendment in the full committee last week which was defeated on a straight party-line vote. Yesterday, Mr. Wolf testified on his amendment at the Rules Committee and he was denied the opportunity to even offer his amendment today on the floor.

I don't say this lightly, but on this issue the majority leadership of the House appears to be more sensitive to the rights of known terrorists than the rights of duly elected Members of this body. What a shameful exercise this has become.

House Members were initially led to believe that this legislation would be kept at the President's original level of $84 billion to fund only the critical needs of the global war on terrorism. As presented today, however, this legislation has grown to $96.7 billion since it was submitted to the Congress 5 weeks ago.

The Members know that we face many crises around the world deserving our attention and thoughtful deliberation. It was President Kennedy who a generation ago reminded us that, when written in Chinese, the word ``crises'' is composed of two characters: one represents danger; the other represents opportunity.

If there is any doubt about what we are doing, let us be mindful that the supplemental provides the necessary resources for our soldiers and civilians to wage a successful battle on multiple fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. We know that the Taliban is now increasingly emboldened and the situation on the ground in Pakistan is, at best, fragile.

Closer to our shores, the potential closure of Guantanamo has become a symbol of best intentions colliding head-on with political reality. Chairman Obey's decision to withhold funding for Guantanamo is the clearest indication to date that the Obama administration still has no plausible plan to deal with this complex national security issue.

The President owes it to the American people and this Congress to provide a detailed plan for the potential

relocation of detainees prior to any funds being appropriated for this purpose and prior to any detainees being transferred to our shores.

As presently written, the legislation does absolutely nothing to prevent the release of detainees from Guantanamo into the United States, into our neighborhoods and communities, after October 1 of this year. These detainees, many of them well-known terrorists, trained by al Qaeda, would be released with no security risk assessment or even the prior notification of Members of Congress.

Congressman Wolf and Congressman Tiahrt each had amendments addressing this critical national security issue, and both were denied the opportunity to offer their amendments on the floor. As a result, it is now only a matter of time before known terrorists will be brought to the United States on a permanent basis.

Today, it is less clear, not more clear, what rights they will be afforded when they arrive and under what judicial system they will be tried. And, indeed, in many ways we will be treating them as though they were citizens of the United States.

The insistence of the majority leadership to consider this legislation under a closed rule is disappointing because the bulk of this emergency supplemental was put together with very serious bipartisan cooperation. It is one of the rare instances in recent times when Republicans and Democrats have largely set aside partisan differences to do what is best for our country and what is best for our troops.

I am deeply concerned about legitimate national security questions taking a back seat to political partisanship. But we must pass this legislation, even in its presently flawed form, to ensure that funds continue to flow to support our efforts to bring peace and stability around the world. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

I yield the gentleman another minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Brown-Waite).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire the time on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the Republican conference chairman, Mike Pence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker besides myself. I yield 1 minute to the

gentleman from California, the gentleman who knows more about Afghanistan, I believe, than any other Member of the House, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected the fact that I have one more speaker besides Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins) 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, as we close down this discussion, I want to take just a moment to, one more time, express both the chairman's and my deep appreciation for the very fine work that is done by our staff on both sides of the aisle, especially in this case, the defense subcommittee staff, but beyond that the leadership of the staff from the full committee as well.

Mr. Speaker, we have all noticed by way of the media in the last several weeks that it is one thing to kind of wallow in rhetoric of the campaign trail when one is running for national office. It is an entirely different thing when you are elected President of the United States and then have to implement the policies that some of that rhetoric may affect. The recent discussion regarding intelligence, secure papers, should they be revealed or made public or not made public, is evidence that the President, our President Obama, is learning that reality very quickly.

In the Guantanamo circumstance, the rhetoric said, We should close Guantanamo. I would suggest that as the President moves forward and really learns about these people who are largely trained by al Qaeda, who are committed to jihad and the destruction of our way of life, long before a plan comes forward, I'm sure the rhetoric will be considerably different, or the implementation will be considerably different than the rhetoric. From there, this bill is a bill that reflects largely funding for our national defense, great work done between both sides of the aisle regarding the needs of our military. Because of that, this bill must go to the President's desk. And I urge our Members to give an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Lewis of California

Amendment No. 3: In title I, in the item relating to

``Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund''--

(1) in the account heading, insert ``Capability'' after

``Counterinsurgency'';

(2) in the matter preceding the first proviso, insert

``Capability'' after ``Counterinsurgency'';

(3) in the first proviso, after ``law'', insert the

following: ``for the purpose of allowing the Commander,

United States Central Command, or the designee of the

Secretary of Defense'';

(4) in the first proviso, after ``capability of

Pakistan's'', insert ``military, Frontier Corps,'';

(5) in the third proviso, strike ``other non-intelligence

related''; and

(6) strike the last two provisos.

In chapter 10 of title II, strike the item relating to

``Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund''.

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

One of the advantages of having spent a little time around the House of Representatives besides your hair turning gray is that I'm now the senior Republican Member of the delegation and thereby have the privilege of carrying this resolution on behalf of the Members of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce H. Con. Res. 101 to accept the statue of Ronald Reagan from the people of California for placement in the United States Capitol.

This bill authorizes the State of California to use the Rotunda of the Capitol on June 3, 2009, for a presentation ceremony. The Architect of the Capitol shall display the statue in the Rotunda. The current statue of Thomas Starr King will be relocated to a suitable place in Sacramento, California.

I am honored to have both known and worked with Ronald Reagan both when he was Governor and, of course, as President of the United States. One of the great leaders of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan. His contributions on behalf of freedom around the world are unparalleled since the end of World War II. There is no more Cold War. There is no more Berlin Wall. There is no worldwide threat of Communist dictatorship because of the leadership of President Ronald Reagan.

When the history of our time is written, the accomplishments of President Reagan will shine out. He made America the land of opportunity once again and brought the breath of freedom to millions of people around the world who had spent decades under the yoke of tyranny.

His memory will live on among all the free and loving people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, a statue of Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Capitol is a fitting tribute to one of the most significant leaders of our time. I urge swift passage of H. Con. Res. 101.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, it's only fitting that we begin consideration of the Democrat budget resolution on April 1st. Like April Fool's Day itself, this budget is full of mischief and sleight of hand that will have Uncle Sam dipping his fingers into your pocket as if your wallet was his very own personal ATM.

The President's budget request proposes huge spending increases now with only intentionally vague promises to make hard choices to cut spending in the future. All of this spending is couched in the same soothing rhetoric we heard during the stimulus debate--while kicking the can down the road on many tough decisions.

As Daniel Hannan, a Member of the European Parliament, said in remarks last week, ``Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this House if your actions matched your words. The truth is you have run out of our money.''

While the House majority portrays their spending plan as a reduction from the President's request, the fact is this budget resolution represents more spending, more taxes, and more debt. The only proposed cuts in this plan are within the area of national defense, an ill- advised course of action as our country continues to engage in the Global War on Terror.

Since Democrats assumed control of Congress, they have proposed increases of at least nine percent each year for non-defense discretionary programs. For next year, they propose yet another 11 percent increase and a 27 percent boost over the next five years.

The proposed surge of federal spending represents the largest non-war government expansion since the New Deal. Domestic discretionary spending--including the spending in the stimulus package--has been hiked over 80 percent since just last year. As a result, Washington will run a budget deficit of 12.3 percent of GDP, by far the largest since World War II.

Some in the majority will justify this out-of-control spending as a necessary, temporary response to a recession. But there's nothing temporary about it. After harshly criticizing budget deficits under President Bush--which averaged $300 billion annually--President Obama has proposed a budget that would run deficits through the roof for a generation or more.

Three expected developments--the end of the recession, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and the phase-out of temporary stimulus spending-- would by themselves cut the deficit in half by 2013.

The President's budget shows deficits averaging $600 billion a year even after the economy recovers from the recession and even after our troops come home from Iraq. That's not good enough. Between 2008 and 2013, the budget will add $5.7 trillion, or $48,000 per household, in new government debt. The annual interest alone would equal nearly the entire U.S. defense budget by the year 2019.

On top of this mountain of debt, consider the unsustainable costs of paying Social Security and Medicare benefits to 77 million retiring Baby Boomers.

Without real reform, the result is likely to be devastating tax increases for decades to come.

These higher debt levels will accelerate an increase in interest rates. Higher interest rates will slow down the economic recovery by making it more expensive for businesses to invest and more difficult for families to afford homes and auto loans. This isn't economic, recovery, this is economic madness.

To quote again from Daniel Hannan from the European Parliament, ``You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.''

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

I guess you all know that we didn't have to be here today debating yet another extension of a continuing resolution and we certainly didn't have to wait until the fiscal year was almost half over to complete a package of spending bills addressing funding for 2009. And yet here we are, 157 days into the new fiscal year, passing another short-term CR while our work on 2009 bills remains unfinished. Unfinished. What a shame. Madam Speaker, what a shame.

Had the Appropriations Committee been allowed by the Democrat leadership to do its work this year, we could have easily passed each of the 12 spending bills. Each of the bills would have benefited from Members offering ideas, debate. We actually do have talented Members on both sides of the aisle at the subcommittee level, not allowed to participate in the process.

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, liberal or conservative, your rights as a duly elected Member of this body have been belittled by a majority leadership that believes absolute power flows from the top.

Members should have had the opportunity to do what they were elected to do, shape legislation and make sure that their own voices and the voices of their people are heard. Instead, virtually every Member of the House has been shut out of the process of writing this massive $410 billion spending bill that will govern how taxpayer dollars are spent for the remainder of this year.

The sad irony is that while the House passes another CR that keeps the government running, the Senate is doing what the House could only dream of doing, offering and debating amendments to the omnibus bill. It is no wonder so many Members of the House aspire to serve in the Senate. The Senate is the only place left in the U.S. Congress where legislation is still considered under a reasonably open process.

The Senate has wisely observed what the House has failed to recognize: Not one of the nine bills in the omnibus spending package was ever debated or considered in the House or the Senate. Six of the nine bills in the omnibus were never debated or considered by the full House Appropriations Committee. Senators are doing the right thing by attempting to improve this legislation, which is busting at the seams with too much spending.

The Senate's action last night sends an unmistakable signal that spending fatigue has finally set in. Certainly not in the House, but in the Senate spending fatigue has finally set in. Senators from both parties recognize what the House leadership failed to observe, that the spending in the omnibus is excessive and goes far beyond what our public believes is reasonable and responsible.

Omnibus funding represents a $32 billion or 8 percent increase over last year for the very same agencies and programs. This represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since President Carter served in 1978.

There is a storm brewing out there in the hinterlands, fueled by the public's disdain over the free-for-all spending of the Congress. Hundreds of billions of dollars directed to the stimulus package, Wall Street, auto makers, and the line of folks with their hands out continue to grow. Where does the spending end, Madam Speaker?

It has been said completing the omnibus is merely completing last year's unfinished business. But what a wasted opportunity it is to demonstrate to the American people that this Congress and this administration ``gets it,'' and that we are ready to roll up our sleeves and address government spending going forward. Again, where does the spending end?

The Members of the House have had enough of the ``my way or the highway'' legislative process that has governed the formulation of the omnibus, the stimulus package and every supplemental bill passed over the last couple of years, and I believe the majority of our Members have had it with the proliferation of spending that will come to define the 111th Congress under this majority.

Madam Speaker, each of us recognizes that extending a CR one more time is an admission of our failure to complete our work on time. It will surely pass, but let's not lose sight that this is simply doing our work in the worst possible way. Again, it didn't have to be this way.

In closing, Madam Speaker, let me say that I don't believe this is Chairman Obey's fault. While we may disagree over policy and funding levels, we both believe that it is time to get our appropriations process back on track. I look forward to working with the chairman this year and I am hopeful that together we can embrace an open process that allows for the full participation of the Members on both sides of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the Republican Conference chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, my classmate, Dan Burton.

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

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I must say that, as I rise to at least close my side of this discussion, I know that my chairman has to be very, very frustrated to find ourselves this far into the next fiscal year's work, finally passing 9 out of 12 of our appropriations bills from last year, I mean, all lumped into a big package, none of which have had any hearings on the full committee.

The Appropriations Committee members, Democrats and Republicans, presume themselves to have some individual expertise, but we never call upon them. We certainly wouldn't want to call on their fine staff to provide the sort of input that would reflect the finest of the Congress.

I must say, I'm working very hard with my chairman to get us back on regular order for the 2010 appropriations bills that are going to be ahead of us. We're actually going to have subcommittee hearings, Madam Speaker. We actually are probably going to have full committee hearings. We're going to call upon Democrat Members to provide some input regarding what the details are of their bills. Interesting process to get back to that regular order.

But having said that, Madam Speaker, we've taken much too much time and, because of that, I'm very happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I certainly am, Madam Speaker.

Golly, Madam Speaker, I had really hoped we could read that entire thing, but on the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want to interfere with this speedy process we're going through.

Madam Speaker, I do have a motion to recommit at the desk. I must say that, following that very small bill as described by my chairman, which is only $410 billion on top of $800 billion, it's a shame we can't quite spend enough of the folks' money.

My chairman refers often to one who appears to be his favorite President, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who clearly, for all of us, demonstrated that throwing money at problems to try to solve them was not the answer to those problems.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, going back to my motion to recommit, today we find ourselves in a difficult situation where we must vote on a CR to allow the government to operate while we wait for the Senate to pass this flawed omnibus appropriations bill.

The quandary we face today is a symptom of the larger problem. When Congress engages in regular order where we consider and pass individual appropriations bills on time and under an open process, these massive omnibus bills and continuing resolutions are just simply not needed. However, we are between a rock and a hard place, and this motion to recommit is the best solution to that.

Instead of punting for yet another few days, this motion takes care of the problem now by providing funding for the rest of the fiscal year at an adequate and restrained level while we consider the other huge packages that are coming forth from this leadership. This motion to recommit extends the current funding levels for all government agencies and programs with certain exceptions.

I must mention as I talk about the exceptions: The other side, but particularly my chairman, loves to talk about cuts from cuts. The public should understand that those cuts really are talking about cuts from wished-for increases in spending from the previous fiscal year. In about 90 percent of the cases, that is the case.

These exceptions include law enforcement programs in our package like the DEA, the FBI, U.S. Attorneys, the Judiciary, and the detention programs such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which helps local communities with the costs associated with the incarceration of illegal aliens. These programs will receive limited and necessary increases to maintain public safety. This motion also allows the Pell Grant increase approved in the enacted stimulus bill to move forward into next year.

Madam Speaker, a year-long continuing resolution with these exceptions is the best option. It will maintain critical government services at a

sufficient level while saving the taxpayers between $15 billion and $18 billion compared with our Democratic leadership's 2009 spending plan. It is time to move forward with the work of this new Congress and, once and for all, close out 2009 and its appropriations process. This motion will allow us to do this immediately and responsibly and without massive spending increases that the taxpayers cannot afford.

As we begin the work of the 2010 appropriations process, it is my hope and, I believe, the commitment from my leader that we can work together in a bipartisan way to complete our annual work on time and under regular order. That is even with subcommittee hearings--my goodness--and with full committee hearings. This includes asking the Democrat and Republican members of the Appropriations Committee to participate individually, even talking to their staffs once in a while in a professional way. That would be, indeed, a wonderful change to return to regular order.

So, with that, Madam Speaker, I appreciate your accepting my motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following in regards to H.R. 1105.

Project Name: Banning Family Health Center.

Account: HRSA--Health facilities and services.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Inland Behavioral and Health Services, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1963 North `E' Street, San Bernardino,

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting the following: in regards to H.R. 1105.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Joshua Tree National Park Visitor's Center

Account: National Park Service, Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Twentynine Palms

Address of Requesting Entity: 6136 Adobe Road, Twentynine Palms, California 92277

Description of Request: The Joshua Tree National Park Visitors Center annually hosts nearly one and a half million visitors in a cramped, obsolete facility where it is impossible to display the cultural history of the area, provide needed community and informational services, or even provide appropriate information to visitors to the Park. These funds would allow for an improvement and expansion of the Center to provide the space to display the fabled Campbell Collection of Native American artifacts, as well as a wide array of other objects of interest to both the visiting public and to researchers.

Amount: $300,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Joshua Basin Water District Recharge

Account: EPA State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Joshua Basin Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 61750 Chollita Road, Joshua Tree, California 92252

Description of Request: Joshua Basin Water District needs to develop a recharge system to import water from the California State Water Project to avoid overdraft conditions and septic system contamination of the aquifer. This project is an important component of a regional water management plan and over $2 million has already been committed locally. The system of underground storage facilities would accept and store water from the State Project in years when surpluses are available. There are currently no other recharge projects on going in the Joshua Tree basin.

Amount: $300,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Water System Infrastructure Improvements

Account: EPA, State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Big Bear Lake Department of Water and Power

Address of Requesting Entity: 41972 Garstin Drive, Big Bear Lake, California 92315

Description of Request: This project would provide improved water pressure at peak demand periods and improved water quality resulting from the replacement of steel pipes with PVC. Although the City of Big Bear is located in an area prone to wildfires, much of its water supply infrastructure is unable to even meet minimum requirements for fire flow. Engineering studies have identified 181,800 feet of pipeline that must be replaced to meet current standards.

Amount: $500,000.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Desert Hot Springs

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mission Springs Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 66575 2nd Street, Desert Hot Springs, California 92240

Description of Request: This project will construct a municipal wastewater collection and treatment system that will eliminate individual wastewater disposal systems that overlie the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs aquifers. To accomplish this, the district needs to replace roughly 4000 individual sewage disposal systems that lie in a very concentrated area over the primary inflow of the groundwater that supplies nearly 400,000 people.

Amount: $478,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Hi-Desert Wastewater Collection and Reuse Account: Bureau of Reclamation, Water and Related Resources

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Hi-Desert Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 55439 29 Palms Hwy, Yucca Valley, CA 92284

Description of Request: The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner. The Hi-Desert Wastewater Collection and Reuse Facility will protect the groundwater quality in the area and provide reclaimed

water to be used directly for irrigation and commercial purposes that are normally supplied by potable water. Using reclaimed water to meet non-potable demand will off set the demands for potable water.

Amount: $1,000,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Seven Oaks Water Quality and Conservation

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District

Address of Requesting Entity: 300 East Vanderbilt Way, San Bernardino, California 92408

Description of Request: The rains of the winter of 2005 demonstrated beyond question that water conservation at Seven Oaks Dam can provide a major supplemental source of water for an increasingly water starved region. Unfortunately, by holding water behind the dam the water is degraded so far as to be unusable. Work is being done to determine the appropriate method to improve water quality while continuing to conserve behind the dam.

Amount: $1,500,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Project Name: Santa Ana River and Tributaries

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, General Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Yucaipa

Address of Requesting Entity: 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California 92399

Description of Request: This project will study the feasibility of a flood control project in Yucaipa, California. This community is located just north of Interstate-10, a major transportation hub that is threatened by 100-year level flooding. The study will look at the viability of detention basins, flood channels, and habitat to reduce the threat downstream.

Amount: $268,000

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis

H.R. 1105 The Omnibus Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009

Project Name: Space Radiation Health Research Program

Account: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Loma Linda University Medical Center

Address of Requesting Entity: 11175 Campus Street, Loma Linda, CA 92354

Description of Request: Provide $2,800,000.00 to conduct investigations that clarify the space environment and how it will affect personnel and equipment. Funding will continue the implementation of the radioisotope laboratory for handling radioisotopes and tagging selected molecules for PET scanning and molecular imaging. This project will also enhance on-going core research activities including radiation protection, radioprotectants, and other site specific protection, immune interactions, nanodosimetry to explore radiation interactions on the DNA level, and other on-going joint research initiatives. This research will give support for on- going core activities in both the histology laboratory and in the imaging laboratories.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the rule has allowed for 90 minutes of debate on this $800 billion package; is that correct?

It is my understanding that many Members who wish to debate this matter, thereby, will not be allowed time because of the limited time. I further understand that I am not allowed to ask for an extension of time under the rule; is that correct?

Then let me further say it is my understanding that an extension of time, which would be the request, can only be made by the gentleman from Wisconsin; is that correct?

You are forcing me to do that which we really should not have to do.

I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin will respond, but I would ask unanimous consent that we extend debate time by 1 hour.

Then let me ask the gentleman from Wisconsin: Would you consider such a request?

I believe the gentleman could initiate it by unanimous consent, and he has the authority for that. I urge the gentleman to do so. All of our people want more time.

I very much appreciate the Speaker for his time.

Mr. Speaker, in just a short while, the House will be voting on the President's $790 billion economic stimulus package. It is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever considered by this legislative body in its more than 200 years. I will be voting ``no'' on this legislation. Over the next few minutes, I would like to share my concerns about this bill as it is currently written.

The President, whom I respect a great deal, is a fine salesman. But as I have said on more than one occasion, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that this stimulus package does more to promote the growth of the Federal Government than it does to create jobs or to stimulate our economy. The fact is there are 104 government programs in this legislation that are being permanently expanded.

This includes 31 new government programs and permanent expansions to 73 existing programs. Taxpayers will pay for these programs well into the future. Of the total funding in this package, $190 billion--or 61 percent--is devoted to increasing the size of government. Only $122 billion--or 39 percent--is for a temporary one-time infusion of money into 98 Federal programs to stimulate the economy.

Again, these are the facts.

The interest on this new spending alone will cost no less than $350 billion. And, if all of the new spending in this bill is carried forward in the future years, Federal nondefense budgets will have to increase by at least 42 percent each year. One more time, these are the facts.

My colleagues, is there anyone in Congress who really believes that this spending can be sustained?

Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to Washington spending taxpayers' money, a trillion has become the new million.

So how did we get to this point today?

Two nights ago, the President's chief of staff came to Capitol Hill under the cover of darkness and presented the framework of a final deal to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The only negotiation that took place occurred in the middle of the night in several back rooms of the U.S. Capitol between the White House and these two leaders.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of spending in this legislation, and yet not one member of the House Appropriations Committee--not even Chairman Obey--was in sight when the final deal was cut.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of tax provisions in this legislation, and yet not one member of the House Ways and Means committee--not even Chairman Rangel--was in sight when the final deal was cut.

The purpose of a conference committee is to negotiate differences between competing versions of the House and Senate bills. Amendments are usually offered, debated, and considered. But there were no negotiations between Republicans and Democrats at Wednesday's conference. The negotiations had taken place the night before.

Outside of the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader Reid, no one in the Congress has any idea what is really in this legislation. It was filed in the House as it was negotiated--in the darkness of night. And it became available to Members and the public on a Web site at 12:30 a.m. this morning, less than 12 hours ago.

This is precisely why every single Member present on Tuesday, more than 400 Members of the House, voted to have the conference report available 48 hours before House consideration. But the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader are clearly afraid that the more Members and taxpayers learn about this bill, the more Members will walk away from it.

The House should not vote on the largest spending bill in the history of the United States when no one on either side of the aisle has any real idea of what's in it. There is no doubt that urgent action is needed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Had the President and congressional leaders focused and put their attention on the real need for job creation, with an emphasis on infrastructure jobs, this package would be sailing through the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who would support reasonable transportation and infrastructure projects as well as reasonable tax reform, but that is not what is before us today.

In the end, funding for roads, highways, flood control measures, and other job creating infrastructure projects were downsized in order to increase the size and scope of government programs.

Mr. Speaker, that's not stimulus. That's not job creation, and it certainly isn't what the country needs or deserves.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Hal Rogers, the gentleman from Kentucky, and the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that gets the vast percentage of increase in spending in this bill, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield $8.8 billion to the gentleman from Tennessee for 1 minute. That's the cost of the minute I'm yielding him on this bill, to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the partner of our chairman, Mr. Obey, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady fighting for jobs in Michigan, Candice Miller, for 1 minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the newest Member of the House, Aaron Schock of Illinois.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just received official scoring of the $792 billion bill at 12:04 p.m. Unfortunately, we didn't receive

this critical information until one-third of our very limited debate time was over.

While portions of the bill were scored by CBO earlier, in the case of the appropriations section, 40 percent of this entire package, the Members have not had the benefit of knowing what effects this bill would have. Now that we have this information, let me tell you what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concedes.

In the case of the more than $311 billion in spending, CBO estimates that less than half of this spending will occur over the next 2 years, the time frame that many economists say such spending must occur to have the stimulative effect.

CBO estimates that only 11 percent of the money will spend out this year. It begs the question why has the majority decided to include this in this bill rather than through the regular appropriations process? Why have they decided to create 33 new programs and permanently expand 73 programs?

By growing the Federal Government now in this bill, the majority knows that they have a much better chance of permanently increasing government.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I believe I have two.

I have been told, since the Speaker wants to close, then our leader ought to precede her, we will have three.

Could I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

I have one speaker remaining.

Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to call upon my last speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that according to the Congressional Budget Office, only 11 percent of the appropriations in this bill will be spent by the end of 2009; 47 percent would be spent by fiscal year 2010; 53 percent would not be spent until after October of 2011.

It is my pleasure to call upon, for 1 minute, the Republican leader of the House, John Boehner.

Assuming that you're the last speaker, I'm ready to yield back the balance of my time, and I do yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reestablish 30 seconds of my time to speak out of order.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that all of us appreciate Members and staff who are willing to work around here. There's no Member in the House who puts in more energy and time and hours than my friend, Chairman Obey. I do not necessarily have to agree with everything that he might suggest, but in the meantime, you certainly cannot discount his commitment to this effort.

And to the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent endless nights, weekends and otherwise trying to evaluate and work through this package and help each other where we can, I want them all to know that they have our thanks, the entire House's thanks, for that effort.

I'd be happy to yield.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.