[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 93 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7027-H7033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2918, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 559 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 559

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2918) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; (2) the amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by Representative McCarthy of New York or her 
     designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI, shall be considered as read, shall be separately 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
     contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions 
     providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate during 
     the month of July.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from 
North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2918, 
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2010, under a structured 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act provides $3.7 
billion for key investments in the legislative branch, not including 
Senate-related items for fiscal year 2010, including funding for the 
Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Government Printing Office, the Capitol Police, and the Open World 
Program.
  This bill provides a pragmatic and fiscally responsible approach to 
funding our legislative branch. Actually, spending is increased only by 
7 percent, less than half of the 15 percent increase requested.
  The funding provided in this legislation will help us do our jobs 
better and faster. It increases funding for the Congressional Budget 
Office by $1 million, making it easier for Members to obtain PAYGO 
analysis of their proposals, a vital service, given our need for 
responsible government spending.
  This bill also allocates funds for a complete overhaul of the House 
of Representatives' antiquated voting system, which, after 33 years of 
good use, has become increasingly unreliable.
  Further, this measure increases the Members Representational 
Allowance to ensure that we're able to adequately serve our districts, 
and increases our funding of standing and select committees by 3 
percent to accommodate the increased legislative and oversight workload 
typically seen in the second session.
  These funds will provide us with the resources necessary to carry out 
the

[[Page H7028]]

sweeping legislative initiatives of President Obama and Democrats in 
Congress and to better retain our most experienced and talented staff.
  In addition, this bill will also help protect and preserve the 
Capitol complex, both from physical decay, and from the security risks 
it obviously faces in this post-9/11 world.
  It includes $60 million to establish a Historic Buildings 
Revitalization Trust Fund in order to more evenly spread out the cost 
of large-scale historic building projects within the Capitol complex, 
including the repair of the iconic Capitol dome and the revitalization 
of the 100-year-old Cannon House Building.
  It also provides an increase in funding of 6 percent for the Capitol 
Police--and if I had my way, that would be more--who work day and night 
to ensure that the U.S. Capitol complex is secure for not only Members 
of Congress, but for our staffs and the millions of visitors that come 
through each year.
  Finally, this appropriations bill helps make the work of the 
legislative branch more accessible to people throughout our Nation and 
across the globe.
  I'm encouraged through this bill. The Appropriations Committee has 
helped to ensure that all visitors touring the U.S. Capitol have equal 
and adequate access, whether they be part of a tour led by our talented 
CVC tour guides or by our hardworking staff and interns.
  Additionally, this bill increases funding by $40 million for the 
Library of Congress, an institution which not only provides a vital 
resource to Congress, but also preserves a universal collection of 
knowledge, history, and creativity for current and future generations.
  $15 million of these funds will help modernize the Library's 
information technology infrastructure to make the library and its 
unique resources more widely available to Congress and the broader 
public.
  Mr. Speaker, this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill strikes a 
pragmatic balance between the growing demands upon this Congress and 
the legislative branch, and the economic realities this Nation is 
facing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding 
time for us to discuss the rule.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have a situation here that partly was demonstrated yesterday in 
terms of the Republican concern on how we are going to do business in 
the House. Yesterday the Democrats made in order only one amendment 
which had been offered to this rule. Twenty total amendments were 
submitted, 14 by Republicans, four by Democrats, and two that were 
bipartisan. Two years ago, they made three of 23 amendments in order, 
which is three times as many as now.
  Last year we didn't even consider appropriations bills on the floor, 
so maybe an argument could be made that that was even worse. And even 
though the Democrats were in charge last year, they blame Republicans 
for the fact that we couldn't deal with the appropriations bills on the 
floor and the fact that there was a Republican President.
  But, in 2006, the last year Republicans were in the majority, we made 
all seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order. That's 
the way it should be. We should be debating these bills on the floor.
  Earlier, our colleague from Michigan implied that requiring debate 
and voting on issues before the House is dysfunctional. It is exactly 
what the people of this country have sent us here for. They want us to 
take positions on these issues and not hide behind them.
  We keep wondering what the Democrats are afraid of. Why do they not 
want amendments on the floor? They have a majority, a fairly large 
majority, but they refuse to debate these issues.
  I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague 
from Nevada, Mr. Heller.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill, which proposes a $300 million increase over last year 
for the operations of this House. That's a 6.3 increase at a time most 
Americans' budgets are shrinking. $51 million of this increase goes to 
Members Representational Allowances, or the MRA, which we all use for 
operating our offices and keeping in touch with our constituents.
  Now, I'll be the first to tell you that my office could use an MRA 
increase. My district is 105,000 square miles. I fly several hundred 
thousand miles every year, I probably drive another 50,000 miles in my 
district. Traveling my largely rural district and staying in touch with 
thousands of Nevadans takes a significant amount of MRA funds. But I am 
always mindful of the fact that MRA funds are simply taxpayer dollars 
by another name, and I have a responsibility to use those funds wisely.

                              {time}  0930

  Many of my constituents and many of yours are making due with less 
than they had last year. As public servants, we have a responsibility 
to make similar sacrifices. Some counties in my district are facing 15 
percent unemployment. Statewide unemployment is hovering around 11 
percent, well above the national average of 9 percent. Nevada's current 
unemployment level is at the highest rate of joblessness since they 
began keeping track, or keeping record, in 1976. Our State budget 
crisis led the Nevada legislature to cut back services some 20 percent. 
Meanwhile, Nevada has been hit the hardest by the wave of foreclosures 
sweeping the United States.
  Those lucky enough to have jobs are also making tough decisions. Moms 
and dads across the country are sitting around their kitchen tables, 
deciding what must be cut from their family budgets to ensure they can 
pay their bills and feed their children as the cost of living continues 
to skyrocket. Meanwhile, as a whole, our Nation faces an $11 trillion 
debt.
  Last night, in spite of irresponsible journalism this morning by the 
Politico to the contrary, I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee 
that would simply retain the fiscal year 2009 funding level for the 
MRA. This amendment is simple. I believe it shows the Americans, who 
are figuring out their family budgets at their kitchen tables this 
morning, that they are not alone and that someone in Congress 
understands that these difficult times call for shared sacrifice.
  We who have been given the honor of serving in this body must be part 
of the sacrifice, and that should start here in our offices, and it 
should start now. Unfortunately, my amendment was rejected by the Rules 
Committee.
  I urge this body to reject this restrictive rule so that my amendment 
can come to the House floor. Give this Congress a chance to lead by 
example with commonsense fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), with 
whom I serve on the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to speak about technology 
assessment as a tool for our legislative work. This bill funds the 
tools that allow us to do our best on behalf of the 300 million 
Americans.
  Every issue that comes before us, virtually every issue, has some 
aspect of science and technology. Yet this Congress has not brought 
great credit to ourselves for our ability to deal with science and 
technology issues or to recognize emerging trends or the implications 
of technology. Fortunately, we do not have to reinvent a tool to help 
us in this.
  Four decades ago, Congress created the Office of Technology 
Assessment, a congressional support agency with a professional staff. 
It produced reports that were noteworthy for their factual bases, for 
their balanced and impartial presentations, for their nonpartisan 
framing, and for their forward-looking perspectives. The OTA, as it was 
known, functioned well for 25 years.
  It produced reports on such topics as retiring old cars, a program to 
save gasoline and to reduce emissions. That was in 1992. There were 
reports about bringing health care online, about electronic 
surveillance in the digital age, about impacts of antibiotic-resistant 
bacteria, and on and on. The OTA study of Alzheimer's, ``Losing a 
Million Minds,'' became the bible for Alzheimer's policy in America. 
The OTA

[[Page H7029]]

study on Social Security computer systems resulted in changes, saving 
hundreds of millions of dollars. The OTA study on synfuels resulted in 
policy changes, saving far more money than was ever spent on the Office 
of Technology Assessment, itself. The OTA study on the use of genetic 
testing in the workplace, as a tool of discrimination and bias, laid 
the groundwork for the excellent legislation that Representative 
Slaughter, the Chair of the Rules Committee, developed in the Genetic 
Nondiscrimination Act. An OTA report on the electronic delivery of 
Federal services led to the Food Stamp Fraud Reduction Act, and on and 
on.
  In a fit of budget cutting, OTA's work was stopped 14 years ago with 
the explanation that the work could be obtained elsewhere--from other 
government agencies, from other congressional agencies, from interest 
groups, from universities, from our friends back home, from some other 
sources. Well, we've done the experiment. It didn't work. We have not 
gotten what OTA provided in the 14 years since OTA stopped operations.
  Stopping OTA's functioning was a stupendous act of false economy. We 
have not gotten the equivalent, useful, relevant work--not from think 
tanks, not from interest groups, not from our universities, and not 
from our friends back home. A former Member of Congress described 
stopping the funding for OTA as a congressional self-imposed lobotomy.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to provide ourselves this useful 
tool. Yet the rule before us today does not allow the funding of this 
agency. It could have been done. It could have been done for a 
pittance. When OTA was fully functioning, it was far less than a 
percent of the budget of the legislative branch.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. If I may finish a point here.
  So what are we missing?
  Well, let me postulate that, if OTA had been functioning in recent 
years, we could have expected helpful, relevant reports on preparing 
for global pandemics. Congress might well have required that there be 
communications in mines, such as in the Sago Mine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional minute 
in the hopes that he will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida at some 
point.
  Mr. HOLT. We might have had communications in the mines, such as the 
Sago Mine, that would have allowed the miners to get out alive. I 
expect that we would have had better legislation dealing with corn-
based ethanol. Through OTA studies, I believe that we would have 
recognized the overdependence of the financial sector on mathematical 
models.
  We are missing out on a lot, Mr. Speaker. In my exasperation, I 
wonder why in the world Congress would deprive itself of this useful 
tool. I've decided that the very reason we need OTA--our discomfort 
with matters scientific and technological. Our inability to deal with 
such things is exactly what makes it difficult for us to recognize that 
we need it. I regret I have no time renaming to yield to the gentlelady 
for Florida.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we do need to fund adequately our offices; the 
Capitol Police, for whom I have the greatest respect; and the Library 
of Congress, a real jewel for our country. As my colleague from Nevada 
said, American families are hurting, and we have been increasing 
spending by 16 percent in this area over the past 2 years. Here are the 
problems that we are facing in this country right now, which the 
American people are beginning to truly understand.
  We will have a $2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009. The second 
tranche of the TARP was allowed to be spent, which was $350 billion. 
The stimulus package, which was H.R. 1, was $787 billion, which was 
really over $1 trillion with the debt cost. There was the omnibus bill, 
which was $409 billion. That was the bill that funded appropriations 
for this year, which the Democrats said they couldn't pass last year in 
individual appropriations bills even though they were in charge of the 
Congress. The budget increased total spending to $4 trillion in 2009, 
or 28 percent of the GDP, the highest Federal spending as a percentage 
of the GDP since World War II. Now we have this additional increase 
which they're asking for.
  Federal spending is out of control. We have got to put a stop to this 
somewhere. The day before yesterday, Republicans offered 94 amendments 
in the Rules Committee, which were designed to cut Federal spending, 
but we couldn't deal with that. The Democrats cut off debate because 
they said it was going to take too much time to deal with this. 
Apparently, Democrats can't spend the American people's money fast 
enough. Republicans think it's time that Congress started practicing 
fiscal discipline. This is a good place to start.
  I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague 
from Iowa, Mr. King.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding to me and for her stalwart representation on the 
Rules Committee of her constituents and of all Americans.
  It is a difficult place to serve when you find yourself outvoted 
almost 2-1 and when you're back in a corner of a room, up on the third 
floor, where the press seldom goes, where the cameras almost never are, 
where behaviors that are not consistent with the balance of the 
committees on this Hill are common, and where the rights and the 
franchises of the elected Members of this Congress are diminished 
significantly by the most recent behaviors, over the last 2\1/2\ years, 
of the Rules Committee. This is where this Congress is controlled.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. I rise in opposition to rule after 
rule that comes out of that little room up there on the third floor. 
For example, there was the previous bill, Justice appropriations, the 
one that the gentlelady mentioned. Out of all of the amendments that 
were offered, Republicans, I believe, were offering 94 amendments. I 
recall that the Rules Committee wrote a rule. It was unprecedented. It 
wasn't an open rule for appropriations the way we thought we might get 
back to.
  Even though Democrats were afraid to have appropriations votes in 
2008, we did have some in 2007. We have always fought this through. 
We'll stay late at night if we need to. Leadership can get together if 
it gets too long and if we can't get our business done, and we can 
negotiate unanimous consent agreements. That didn't happen. I've been 
what I thought was a victim of negotiated unanimous consent agreements 
that were struck quickly, where the bargain was met before we really 
got a chance to catch up with what it all was, but that was at least 
leadership coming together, compromising, negotiating and agreeing.
  This was the Rules Committee, I suspect directed from above, that had 
written a modified open rule that required us all to print our 
amendments into the Record. Once those amendments were printed, then, 
of course, the other side of the aisle had the opportunity to read 
through all of the amendments and to understand the strategy of the 
Republicans. Then, having written the rule to produce a certain result, 
they decided it probably would not produce the result that they'd 
intended, so they shut down debate after the very first Republican 
amendment, 20-some minutes into that debate, and they went back to the 
Rules Committee.
  I sat there until nearly 1 o'clock in the morning with a number of my 
colleagues who had offered constructive amendments, amendments that 
were designed to perfect this legislation. I saw Member after Member 
have to ask the Rules Committee, Will you please make my amendment in 
order so that my constituents can be heard? They didn't say it, but it 
was also so that the American people could understand the shenanigans 
that had been going on here. We were afraid to say that because they 
were afraid that their amendments wouldn't be made in order. I watched 
that parade in front of the Rules Committee, and I will tell you it's 
unprecedented that Members of Congress are reduced to having to beg, in 
a little room on the third floor, to be heard.
  Each of us has a franchise: \1/435\ of the United States of America 
is embodied in each one of us. Speaker Pelosi said--I believe the date 
was June 14, 2006--that every Member has a right to be heard and, on a 
different date, that

[[Page H7030]]

this would be the most open Congress in history.

                              {time}  0945

  Well, it's anything but that. It's becoming more and more closed--
even to the point where we lose the right to offer a motion to rise or 
adjourn, the right to offer an amendment on an appropriations bill.
  And so I had offered six amendments up there. I didn't ask the Rules 
Committee to make my amendments in order; they had already made my 
amendments in order. Every single one of them complied with the rule 
that was written and had been made in order. But when the majority 
understood that they were going to have to take some votes, some 
tougher votes on some subject matter that they had been ducking from, 
then they changed the rules.
  I just said, Keep your word. You set the standards to begin with. We 
all met those standards. And then you made our amendments in order. We 
shouldn't have had to do that. It should have been an open rule to 
allow any Member to offer an amendment down here at the well unless 
that title of the bill had passed. That's the standard that's here. 
That's what the Founding Fathers imagined and envisioned. But we get 
anything but that.
  And so, this Congress doesn't get to debate on important topics. We 
have to have a motion to recommit in order to discuss the issue of 
giving Miranda rights to enemy combatants in foreign continents. That's 
what it takes. And that little window will be closed, too, if it makes 
the majority uncomfortable.
  We don't get to debate on the very critical national security issue, 
Mr. Speaker, of the Speaker of the House declaring the CIA to be a 
group of felonious liars and having lied to the Congress of the United 
States of America and then stated that she's going up to receive 
briefings after this.
  The United States of America's national security has got to be put at 
risk when the person third in line for the Presidency declares our 
intelligence community to be lying to Congress. Decisions get made, on 
this floor, in committee, behind the scenes--sometimes by staff--based 
upon the allegations made by the Speaker. The staff wants to please the 
Speaker. The Speaker is ducking this issue. We need to have a vote, and 
I offered an amendment to get a vote on the CIA. We aren't going to get 
that vote because the Rules Committee shut it down.
  I offered an amendment that would also clean up some of this--
amendment No. 2 increases and decreases standing committee by $1 
million--so that we can broadcast the activities in the Rules 
Committee. When you go into a committee and you realize that you're 
sitting in front of a camera, it causes people to have a little better 
demeanor, and the decisions are there accountable to the public and 
some of that actually ends up on YouTube. But the Rules Committee 
doesn't have that. The room is too small and it's too secret what goes 
on up there.
  We need a big room for the Rules Committee because that's where the 
decisions are made in the United States Congress today, Mr. Speaker. So 
I offered an amendment to do that.
  As I moved through this process--and by the way, not only the 
criticism of the intelligence community came from the Speaker but now 
she's taken on the Congressional Budget Office and said, Well, no, 
they're the most pessimistic group that there are. We always 
overestimate things that work against us.
  Well, if you challenge the integrity of the Congressional Budget 
Office, it isn't long before you have intimidation of the Congressional 
Budget Office. When you challenge the CIA and you control their purse 
strings, it isn't long before you have intimidation of the CIA. You 
don't get the same information if you have a trust relationship going 
on.
  And by the way, the legislation, the appropriation that passed last 
night was managed by an appropriations subcommittee chair that by all 
the news reports is under investigation, and he received the gavel from 
the Speaker of the House. She knew he was under investigation, and 2 
years ago he recused himself from the discussions. But we've not heard 
any announcement as to that investigation being lifted or any of the 
subpoenas that may have been served have been withdrawn or that had 
been shut down. There was no announcement whatsoever.
  How can we have confidence in this Congress if the Speaker declares 
the intelligence community to be lying to Congress, if the Rules 
Committee shuts down the debate, if this House is recessed in the 
middle of important business, if an impeachment of a judge is shut down 
so you can go raise money, or if the chairman of the subcommittee who 
is managing the funding for the FBI, is being investigated by the FBI? 
This Congress has a long way to go to get where they're going.
  I would just conclude with this, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to paraphrase 
Joe Welch, Let us not assassinate this process further. You've done 
enough. Have you no sense of decency at long last? Have you no sense of 
decency left?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, after that speaker, I find it 
necessary to correct him with regard to a portion of his screed.
  Please know that in the process that he referenced one of our 
Members, who is a subcommittee Chair of Appropriations, the committee 
Chair, Mr. Obey, handled the matter, when the Member referred to by the 
previous speaker recused himself. And on the floor, when the matter was 
brought here, the committee Chair handled that matter.
  Now, I heard that gentleman talk about shenanigans. Let me tell you 
something, Mr. Speaker. What happened in the House of Representatives 
yesterday--and I've only been here 17 years--but the dean of the House 
of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, was down here this morning for a 1-
minute and spoke of the disgrace that took place yesterday. And someone 
would come in here and talk about shenanigans? What was that yesterday? 
How could we possibly have gotten about the business of dealing with 
the Nation's business when repeatedly what we saw was people coming in 
here delaying the process?
  I have been here 17 years. We cast 54 votes yesterday. We spent more 
time casting votes on nonsense than we did on any substance that was 
being sought.
  Now enough already. People have a right to their views. They have a 
right to their political shots. But the Rules Committee operates this 
body. And if they want the business of the American people done, then 
they wouldn't conduct the kind of shenanigans that they conducted 
yesterday.
  I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chairwoman of the Legislative 
Branch Subcommittee, which I thought was what we were here to talk 
about.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you to the gentleman from Florida, my 
good friend, Mr. Hastings. I appreciate that.
  It is important that we get back to the business at hand, and I 
simply wanted to address the gentleman from New Jersey's remark about 
the Office of Technology Assessment, which is an important agency of 
the legislative branch that remains authorized in the U.S. statutes, 
but that currently does not receive funding. Especially given the age 
of technology and the advent of scientific progress that we are in the 
21st century, I think it is incredibly important that we begin to 
reestablish or explore reestablishing that legislative branch agency, 
and I look forward to working with the gentleman and with my colleague, 
Mr. Aderholt, the ranking member, and Mr. Wamp and a number of other 
bipartisan members that are interested in doing that over the course of 
the next year.
  Mr. HOLT. Would the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLT. I appreciate the gentlelady's use of the word 
``bipartisan.'' In fact, the amendment that we had hoped would be made 
in order today was brought forward by three Republicans and me, a 
Democrat.
  This is an agency that would benefit all in Congress. It has the 
support of many on both sides of the aisle.
  I thank the gentlelady.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Reclaiming my time, just to point out for the 
Members, we do have $2.5 million that we have carried in the 
legislative branch bills for the last 2 fiscal years. It is there in 
the GAO for technology

[[Page H7031]]

assessments. But we do recognize that the gentleman and many other 
Members on both sides of the aisle believe that it would be far better 
and more effective if we conduct those assessments with a staffed 
agency of experts and bring in the expertise that the Congress 
currently lacks.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to our colleague from 
Arizona, Mr. Flake.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I, too, went to the Rules Committee to testify last night to try to 
have an amendment ruled in order, an amendment that was germane; there 
was no problem with its relevance to the bill. It was not dilatory, it 
wasn't seeking to delay anything. It was to address a very real problem 
that we have.
  The problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that we have, that we know 
of, a number of investigations from the Justice Department going on 
right now examining the relationship between earmarks and campaign 
contributions. They're looking at the process of circular fundraising 
where Members of Congress will secure earmarks, or in other words, no-
bid contracts for their campaign contributors. The money goes out, 
taxpayer money, campaign money comes back in.
  Now, whether we want to admit it or not, the Justice Department is 
looking at this. We can talk until we're blue in the face, say there is 
no quid pro quo here. We're giving earmarks to those that we think need 
them. These no-bid contracts are going to companies that really need 
them. And whether or not they turned around and individuals from that 
organization or the lobbyists that represent them, if they contribute 
tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars back to my 
campaign committee, that's okay because it's not a quid pro quo. 
Whether we say that until we're blue in the face doesn't change the 
fact that the Justice Department seems to feel differently, and they're 
conducting investigations.
  Now I think we do feel differently because just a few weeks ago, we 
authorized or instructed our own Ethics Committee to reveal whether or 
not they were conducting an investigation that essentially looks into 
the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. They have 
since indicated that they are.
  So now we have the Justice Department looking into the relationship 
between earmarks and campaign contributions. We have our own Ethics 
Committee looking into that relationship, and yet we have, Mr. Speaker, 
our own Ethics Committee still issuing guidance to the Members of this 
body that campaign contributions do not constitute financial interest. 
In other words, whether or not you can contribute or give an earmark to 
a company, that company's executives and their lobbyists can turn 
around and give you campaign contributions the next day or the day 
before. That's okay according to guidance coming from our own Ethics 
Committee--the same Ethics Committee that is investigating the 
relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.
  The purpose of the Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that 
the dignity of this House is maintained, that we rise above it all, 
that we have a standard that is perhaps higher than perhaps others 
have. We should have a standard that's higher than whether or not 
Members can be indicted or convicted over behavior that takes place 
here. Yet, we're allowing the Ethics Committee to issue guidance that 
says, It's okay. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.
  What this amendment would have done is said that no money could be 
spent in the bill to implement that guidance. I can't think of many 
more pressing issues in this House than that. It's germane. There is no 
reason that it couldn't be brought up and be part of the amendments 
that were offered today, but the Rules Committee said ``no'' for no 
other reason than they didn't want to stop the practice.
  We have come to rely on earmarking to raise money around here. That's 
the bottom line. And we can't continue it if we're going to uphold the 
dignity of this body.
  Mr. Speaker, at some point we will decouple the relationship between 
earmarks and campaign contributions. We have to. I just hope that we do 
it sooner rather than later and not have to wait to uphold the dignity 
of this body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend 
from North Carolina if she has any additional speakers. I will be our 
last speaker.
  Ms. FOXX. We do have additional speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I now would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather 
Community, North Carolina, for yielding me the time, and I appreciate 
her service on the House Rules Committee.
  It is absolutely true. We could move the appropriations process 
through the House of Representatives much more easily if the minority 
party didn't exist. If we weren't here creating what my friend from 
Fort Lauderdale has called ``shenanigans'' or using terms like that, we 
could move this process along very easily.

                              {time}  1000

  Unfortunately, the minority party, the group that represents almost 
half the American people, is being treated as if they don't exist. And 
this rule is a perfect example of just that, Mr. Speaker.
  I know that people are saying that yesterday was a history-making day 
because there were more recorded votes on the floor of the House than 
have ever been held in modern history. But the real history that was 
made yesterday was the fact that we saw the volume that was put forward 
in the 108th Congress by the now-Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. 
Slaughter, described as the ``death of deliberative democracy,'' 
actually implemented here for the first time in the 220-year history of 
the United States of America. For the first time ever we saw a process 
begun which is in fact creating a scenario where the majority is 
ignoring the minority and doing what the American people do not want.
  I do not believe that the American people want us to continue down 
the road towards a dramatic increase in Federal spending. People want 
to get the economy back on track, people want to make sure that their 
jobs aren't lost, but they're really wondering whether or not the way 
to do that is to have a huge increase in Federal spending, and yet 
that's exactly what is happening. And this rule is a perfect example of 
that.
  Now, I was harshly criticized by Members of the now-majority when I 
had the privilege of chairing the House Rules Committee. But I will 
tell you the last time that I chaired the House Rules Committee there 
were seven amendments to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bills 
submitted to the Rules Committee, and I was pleased that I could make 
every single one of those in order. Every single amendment that was 
submitted was made in order. And as has been pointed out, 20 amendments 
were submitted to the Rules Committee for the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations bill, and only one amendment was made in order. And 
guess what, Mr. Speaker? Not one single amendment was made in order 
that would do what the American people want us to do and, that is, to 
reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government.
  A 16 percent increase in the level of spending under this Legislative 
Branch Appropriations bill--and we all recognize that the need for 
Capitol Police and staff and oversight of the executive branch are all 
critically important things--but our colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun) 
offered an amendment that would simply provide a one-half of 1 percent 
reduction--one-half of 1 percent reduction--and yet the majority chose 
not to make even that amendment in order. Yes, there were larger 
proposals for cuts. And we know there is a tendency on this bill--
that's why we've had a bipartisan agreement that this is the one of the 
12 appropriations bills that we do have a structured rule on--but with 
a 16 percent increase in the bill, to not allow the House to work its 
will and have a chance for even a one-half of 1 percent reduction in 
that rate of growth, that's not what the American people want. That's 
not what the American people want.

[[Page H7032]]

  And so the death of deliberative democracy was the history that was 
made yesterday, Mr. Speaker, because this is, in fact, the first time 
that this kind action has been taken and, unfortunately, it has begun a 
pattern. It's begun a pattern.
  As I listened to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King) refer to the fact 
that he was victimized by the bipartisan leadership when we in fact had 
said to him that we wanted to come to a time agreement on consideration 
of appropriations bills, it is evidence that we can at the leadership 
level--maybe not every rank-and-file Member--but that the leadership 
level worked together.
  That is why I am very happy to see my very good friend from 
Wisconsin, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, 
here. And I would ask my friend, the distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, whether or not he believes that 
we could in fact come to some kind of agreement if we were to proceed 
with the appropriations process under an open rule. And I would be 
happy to yield to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Mr. Obey, if he would engage with me on this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. The gentleman's time has expired, but I can 
answer what he asked, and I can also tell him I don't have time to 
yield.
  We began in the Rules Committee with me asking the previous speaker 
whether or not his side had offered a time agreement. He looked at me 
as if I was talking about something that was foreign.
  What I knew, and what I believe the leadership knew on both sides of 
the aisle, was that for a protracted period of time the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the majority leader have 
been meeting with their counterparts in the minority with reference to 
time agreements.
  Now, I sat here when that bill began its debate and the first 
question out of Mr. Obey's mouth to Mr. Lewis, the distinguished 
ranking member of the committee, the first question out of his mouth 
was whether or not they were going to be able to get a time agreement, 
and Mr. Lewis' reply was that he could not give that assurance. So for 
somebody to come down here and talk about whether or not the Democrats 
tried to get a time agreement and then to spend time yesterday agreeing 
on nothing and accepting no more than foolishness on the House of 
Representatives, whether it was history making or not, is just plain 
absurdity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
ranking member from California, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I would like to yield to my friend from Florida to say to him that 
what I was proposing that bill-by-bill we begin with a process, as has 
been done for the decades that I've been privileged to serve here, and 
make an attempt to work together to bring about some kind of agreement. 
No attempt was made to do that. The request was unprecedented in that 
it was a sweeping request made at the beginning of the appropriations 
process before we had even come to the floor and started working on 
this.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend to respond to that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Most assuredly.
  I would ask that you and I look at the Record when these proceedings 
conclude. And I can assure you that what Mr. OBEY asked Mr. Lewis was 
whether or not they could get a time agreement. I was sitting here----
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, 
having participated in this process in the past, agreements are worked 
out, as Mr. King said, between the two leaderships. And if we begin 
with the work of an appropriations bill and Members are in fact 
offering dilatory amendments, there is an effort made at the leadership 
level to bring about an agreement at that time. The notion of trying to 
impose that constraint before the process has even begun is wrong and 
it is unprecedented and it has been part of what has killed 
deliberative democracy under the leadership of this majority.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I have been told that 
when he was ranking member, Mr. Obey would never agree to a time 
agreement before a consideration of a bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end of the time of debate on 
this rule. I think we have had some very important issues brought 
forward by my distinguished colleagues who have come to share this 
debate this morning.
  This is a bad rule because it does not allow for amendments to be 
offered on the floor for people to work their will here.
  I do want to correct a couple of things that were said earlier this 
morning by my colleagues in terms of uninsured Americans. I think we 
have to do this every single time it's brought up.
  My distinguished colleague from Florida said this earlier: there are 
47 million uninsured Americans. There are not. Despite those claims--
and I am quoting from ``Crisis of the Uninsured: 2008'' by the National 
Center for Policy Analysis--we have 12 million illegal aliens here. We 
have 14 million uninsured adults and children who are qualified for 
programs but have not enrolled. We have 18 million people who are 
uninsured who live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 who 
could afford it. We have 18 million who are uninsured, but most of them 
are healthy and don't need it. Eighty-five percent of U.S. residents 
are privately insured and enrolled in a government health program. 
Therefore, 95 percent of U.S. residents have health coverage or access 
to it, and the remaining 5 percent live in households that earn less 
than $50,000 annually. That is about 7 million people.
  I am getting so tired of hearing these misstatements made all the 
time. It's day after day after day that we keep getting these figures 
put out that are wrong.
  But let's go back to this bill and to what's in this bill that we 
find really egregious. I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the rule and ``no'' on the bill because we have in here $9 million 
for the Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund. That's just one of the 
items that's in here that we don't need to be funding. It would be 
great to be able to have better relations with young people in other 
countries who come here; but, again, the American people are hurting.
  The Republicans are on the side of the American people who are 
hurting here. We want to slow down the spending. There is a statement 
that came out yesterday about the difficulty we're having in selling 
bonds and the amount that we're selling. We are going into debt greater 
and greater in this country, and yet the Democrats seem to see no end 
to spending. They can't spend the American people's money fast enough.
  There is money in here to do studies on demonstration projects to 
save energy. You know what? I look around this place every night; we 
can save lots of money on energy by just turning out the lights. The 
lights are left on all over the Capitol complex. We don't need to spend 
millions of dollars on studying what we can do to save energy. Just use 
common sense and cut down on the use of the energy that we have now. 
We're going to be wasting a huge amount of money.
  Yesterday, the Treasury announced a record $104 billion worth of bond 
auctions for next week, part of its Herculean efforts to finance the 
rescue of the world's largest economy. This was in the news today. It 
will exceed the previous record of $101 billion set in auctions that 
took place in the last week of April.
  We are spending our country more and more into debt. And why are we 
pushing things through? Why are we not allowing amendments? Because the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee says we have to stick to his 
timetable. And yet, since the beginning of May, what have we dealt with 
here? We've had over 101 suspension bills, things like recognizing the 
Winston Churchill Memorial Library in Fulton, Missouri, as American's 
National Churchill Museum. Really important work----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page H7033]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 13\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I shall not use all that time, but I do 
yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. Speaker, I've heard so much revisionist history put forward here, 
not the least of which just came from the distinguished colleague of 
mine from North Carolina, with reference to previous periods having to 
do with whether or not the minority requested time agreements.
  One thing I've done since I've been in the House of Representatives 
is spend a lot of time on the floor of the House of Representatives. 
And that isn't looking to cause any praise to be directed to me. It 
became, over time, a part of my responsibilities that I assigned to 
myself to kind of know what was going on in this institution.
  During that same period of time when Mr. Obey was the ranking member 
of the Appropriations Committee, I have been on this floor when Mr. 
Obey has requested time agreements when a bill is in progress and have 
participated in the discussions regarding it when the majority said no. 
So to come here and say that you always allowed for time agreements is 
just simply not the case.
  The other thing that is ignored is the fact that the majority and the 
minority meet with regularity. I rather suspect that what's going on 
here, with nobody having said a word to me about it, is that there has 
been a little bit of a strategy by my friends on the other side to 
ensure, among other things, that they will slow down the process and 
that we will not be able to get the business of the people done. The 
greatest evidence of that was the transpiration of events here 
yesterday.
  Now, another gentleman here spoke, my friend from Iowa, with 
reference to the Rules Committee being upstairs in a small place. 
That's where it was when I got here, that's where it is now, and I 
rather suspect when he and I leave, that's where it will be. But to 
suggest that the media does not cover the Rules Committee evidently 
ignores the fact that everything that we say is transcribed by these 
people that are reporters, who we overwork and abuse well on into 
nights when we could have been saving taxpayers money by letting them 
get about their business and all of the staff related around here that 
this legislative branch is about. All of what we do is recorded.

                              {time}  1015

  In addition to that, no reporter is refused to be there, and C-SPAN 
often chooses to cover the Rules Committee dependent upon whether or 
not there is a matter of substance that they would want to cover.
  Now, my friends on the other side have had 12 years of rulemaking. I 
served on the Rules Committee in the minority a lot of that time. 
During that period of time, you didn't regulate financial services. You 
didn't provide a sensible health care plan. You didn't give our 
children what was needed. You said what you were going to do is leave 
no child behind. And you did not only leave children behind; in certain 
places in this country you lost them and couldn't find them. Our parks, 
our environment deteriorated and were plundered and abused and used in 
a way that was beyond the pale, and yet we come in here and talk about 
spending.
  What would you say to all of the people that work in a bank that got 
saved? They're Americans. What would you say to all of the people in 
the financial services and on Wall Street that found themselves 
employed? They're Americans. What would you say to the automobile 
industry employees and their directors that have their limited jobs 
saved and too many gone because of mistakes that were made by 
government and industry? What would you say to those working people? 
They're Americans.
  You're telling me that when we spend money, we are not spending that 
money in a way that's helping America. What do you say to your 
communities like mine that are finding themselves in the position of 
having to cut services with regularity and it usually starts with the 
poor and the disabled? They're Americans.
  And somewhere along the line, I would ask you the question, what 
would you have this President that's been in office now nearly 5 months 
not do? Would you have him not do health care? Would you have him not 
do anything about climate change? Would you have him not do anything 
about the fact that you didn't regulate the industries that needed to 
be regulated appropriately during the time that you were in the 
majority?
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are here on provides for 
consideration of the legislative branch appropriations. We've heard the 
measures, and all will be able to see that this bill provides a 
pragmatic and fiscally responsible approach to funding this legislative 
branch.
  Footnote right there: the fine young people that work with us. When I 
came here I was permitted, as every Member, to have 18 full-time 
staffers, and I haven't always had 18 full-time staffers. But from 1992 
until now, it's been that many staffers with an increase in the 
workload. Now, some of you all don't pay these young people well enough 
and you know it, and you need to pay attention to that. And if you do 
get an increase, give it to the children that work with you and you 
might have a better-run office.
  The funding provided in this legislation will help us do our jobs 
better, faster, and it increases funding for the Congressional Budget 
Office that we continue to use, rightly so. Particularly, the pay-goers 
need their analysis done.
  Mr. Speaker, I will stop now by saying that this appropriations bill 
helps make the work of the legislative branch more accessible to people 
throughout our Nation and the globe. I'm encouraged that through the 
bill, the Appropriations Committee has helped to ensure that all 
visitors touring this Capitol have equal and adequate access to this 
facility.
  With that in mind, I just urge my friends to remember that while they 
are making up their history, there are some of us that remember it 
well, and I can assure you that the things that I have said can be 
documented from that record.
  I would hope that we would know that this bill honors our history and 
prepares us for the future. It invests in the preservation and 
protection of the Capitol complex and makes more efficient, more 
accessible the opportunities for the people that we serve.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that remarks in debate 
are properly directed to the Chair and not to others in the second 
person.
  The question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________