[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 137 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H9970-H9976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2918, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2010

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
772, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2918) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 772, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 24, 2009, at page H9924.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2918.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.

[[Page H9971]]

  Madam Speaker, the conference agreement which we present to the House 
today for the fiscal year 2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill 
authorizes a total of $4.6 billion for the operations of the House and 
the Senate and for the operating budgets of the legislative branch 
support agencies. The overall amount is $254 million above the 2009 
enacted level and $500 million below the request. The net increase over 
the enacted level is 3.5 percent.
  This is the first freestanding conference agreement for the 
Legislative Branch bill since 2005, and the first since I became Chair 
of the subcommittee. I am pleased to report that the agreement 
preserves all of the priorities of the House, and that the Legislative 
Branch bill is on time and under budget. Madam Speaker, this package 
was developed in full cooperation with the minority and represents a 
fully bipartisan agreement.
  The principal responsibility of our subcommittee is to serve as 
stewards of the legislative branch, its institutions, and its 
employees. In fulfilling these goals, the 2010 Legislative Branch bill 
provides funding for the routine and recurring costs of paying our 
hardworking staff, maintaining and repairing the buildings in which we 
work here in Washington and in our districts, securing the Capitol 
complex from threats, and for the technologies which we depend on to 
communicate among ourselves and with our constituents.
  Key investments in this category include $1.369 billion for the 
operations of the House. This includes basic pay and benefits for 
employees as well as a number of technology improvements, including 
funds to replace the aging electronic voting system in the House 
Chamber. It includes $328 million for the Capitol Police to protect the 
Capitol, the Members, and our visitors; $602 million for the Architect 
of the Capitol to support ongoing operational costs to the Capitol 
complex and to fund key initiatives to repair and upgrade these 
facilities; $643 million for the Library of Congress, which is an 
increase of $36 million over 2009, or 6 percent. This includes $15 
million, as requested, to accelerate improvements in the Library's IT 
infrastructure, the Librarian's top priority for 2010.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is about more than just maintaining the 
status quo; it includes a number of new investments intended to provide 
for the long-term health of the Congress, and especially for the House 
of Representatives. It includes important security funding to protect 
the employees, visitors, and the institution itself. Let's not forget 
that one of the planes piloted by terrorists on September 11, 2001, was 
purported to be headed for the Capitol. A few weeks ago, a brave 
Capitol Police Officer engaged in a shoot-out with an individual 
brandishing a gun. Last year, a bomb was found in a car confiscated by 
the Capitol Police in the underground garage of the Government Printing 
Office. The legislative branch budget may seem trivial and unimportant, 
but it funds the greatest democratic institutions in the world.
  Madam Speaker, the Legislative Branch bill also funds our most 
important assets: the dedicated employees who staff our offices, 
committees, and support teams. We have endeavored to provide adequate 
funds for their compensation and benefits, but must do more if we are 
to continue to be able to recruit and retain the high-quality workforce 
which each Member depends upon. I am pleased that this conference 
agreement retains a House priority--funding for new childcare and 
tuition assistance programs which are currently being considered by the 
Committee on House Administration.
  We also must take care of and preserve for future generations the 
grand buildings of the Capitol complex, many of which are aging and 
badly in need of repair. I am pleased that the conference agreement 
retains $50 million of the $60 million approved by the House in June to 
initiate a long-term effort to provide for the revitalization of the 
iconic buildings of the Capitol complex.
  The new House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund will allow 
us to spread the cost of very expensive renewal projects, such as the 
100-year-old Cannon House Office Building rehabilitation, evenly over 
the next decade. It allows the Congress to deal with these requirements 
in a more thoughtful and deliberate way. I am very proud that this bill 
steps up Congress' effort to deal with its aging infrastructure in a 
more forward-thinking manner.
  Madam Speaker, this conference agreement also includes the fiscal 
year 2010 continuing resolution. I fully support this action. There are 
just 5 days until the start of the new fiscal year, and a continuing 
resolution is necessary to continue basic government services. It is a 
clean continuing resolution which follows the same pattern used in 
previous years, in particular, the fiscal year 2007 continuing 
resolution which was added to the Defense Appropriations bill by our 
friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority. 
The only differences that have been added above the current rate are 
important increased investments in veterans' health care and funding in 
preparation for the 2010 census.

  Before concluding, Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank 
the minority, particularly my friend and ranking member, Mr. Aderholt 
from Alabama, for their very strong contributions to this conference 
agreement. I also want to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Vice 
Chairman Mike Honda, Representative Betty McCollum, Representative Tim 
Ryan, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, Representative Ciro 
Rodriguez, Representative Steven LaTourette, and Representative Tom 
Cole. They all made important contributions to this product, and I 
truly appreciate their friendship and their effort.
  I also want to thank our staff for the work that they have done 
throughout the year. They have put in long hours and have been very 
helpful to the Members. This includes Mike Stephens, our subcommittee 
clerk; Liz Dawson, the minority clerk; Shalanda Young, who has just 
joined the subcommittee staff; Jenny Kisiah, from the minority; Dave 
Marroni; and Matt Glassman, from the Congressional Research Service. 
And I want to thank my own associate staff, Ian Rayder, and the 
associate staff of all the Members on the subcommittee.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this conference agreement to 
the House and urge the support of all Members.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am privileged to have had an opportunity to work 
this year with the chairman of this subcommittee, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz. And let me just echo what she was saying about all the staff 
that has helped on the majority and minority this year in putting this 
bill together. It is a good bill. We have worked very well together, 
all the subcommittee members on the minority and the majority side. So 
I am very happy to report that she has worked in a very open manner 
through this entire process, been very responsive to the concerns and 
input of all the members of the subcommittee.
  We have worked very closely, and we have worked in a spirit of what I 
consider real bipartisanship for the needs of the legislative branch. I 
think it would be fair to say that Ms. Wasserman Schultz has actually 
gone beyond the call of duty to make sure that this has been a fair 
process, along with all of her staff on the majority side. So I again 
want to especially thank the majority and the minority staff for all 
their work in putting this together, because certainly they do great 
work in making sure that what we need is put before us.
  Division A of this conference report represents the efforts of the 
conferees to bring back to the House an agreement which was comprised 
in a bipartisanship manner and continues the priorities of the House of 
Representatives. The conference provides a total of $4.656 billion, 
which is an increase of $155 million, or 3.4 percent, over fiscal year 
2009.
  Among the highlights of the agreement are:
  $1.369 billion for the House of Representatives. This provides an 
appropriate level of funding for the Members' representational 
allowance;
  $328.3 million for the Capitol Police. This amount supports the 
current level of 1,799 officers and completes the Library of Congress 
Police merger;

[[Page H9972]]

  $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol. This includes a 
special emphasis on funding life safety and rehabilitation of critical 
infrastructure. Also, there is $50 million for a new House Historic 
Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund to more evenly spread out the cost 
of repairing and revitalizing the historic icon buildings such as the 
Cannon House Office Building.
  Also included in the bill is $643 million for the Library of 
Congress. This amount includes $15 million to fund the first year of 
the Library's 5-year information technology initiative.
  There is $147 million for the Government Printing Office. This amount 
includes $7.8 million to continue the development of the Federal 
Digital System.
  Funds are also provided for additional workforce to meet the 
congressional demands for the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Government Accountability Office.
  Our conferees did their work and addressed many of the competing 
priorities and individual agency challenges that come with this 
particular piece of legislation. I know that the chairman of the 
committee, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, feels as I do, that it is nice to 
have this piece of legislation behind us so that we can move forward. 
We have been working on this legislation since the very first part of 
the year, and I know it will be a great birthday present for the 
chairman, as she celebrates her birthday this weekend, to have this 
bill behind us. But I am very thankful for the work that we have put in 
together.
  That being said, I think it is important that I stress the point that 
I am disappointed that the process has brought us to where we are on 
this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill because it has turned out 
to be the vehicle for the continuing resolution. This is simply not a 
reasonable or responsible kind of governing that our constituents sent 
us here to Washington to do.
  As the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I 
believe, of course, this bill is very important; but moving this bill 
forward first, even before Homeland Security and the security of the 
Nation, is not the proper way to prioritize funding or to meet the 
critical needs that face the American people.
  Madam Speaker, we need a clean continuing resolution and a clean 
Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, which is what this committee 
was prepared to do. And while I support the underlying bill and the 
underlying work that is in this bill, I regret that because of the 
attachment of the continuing resolution to this conference report I am 
unable to support this agreement in the House this morning.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue 
to reserve.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the ranking 
member of the full committee.
  (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Aderholt.
  I want to congratulate both Ms. Wasserman Schultz and my colleague 
for a fabulous job on their bill working together.
  I know that the House realizes that I have serious reservations about 
some of the procedure involving this bill, but because of the fact that 
we discussed so much of that on the rule, I choose to submit the 
balance of my statement for the Record and revise and extend my 
remarks.
  Madam Speaker, the House finds itself in a peculiar place today. I'm 
probably not the only Member in this body surprised by the fact that 
the majority leadership is putting the budget for the Legislative 
Branch ahead of the budget for our homeland security, our veterans, and 
our national defense.
  Indeed, many Members on both sides of the aisle are scratching their 
heads over the fact that the Legislative Branch funding bill has been 
hijacked by adding to it a 4-week continuing resolution. The CR is 
necessary because of the absence of any approved spending bills for the 
fiscal year that begins less than a week from now.
  Attaching the CR to the Legislative Branch bill makes a mockery of 
the legislative process. It's not the CR that I object to but rather 
that it's being attached to legislation funding the internal operations 
of Congress rather than higher priority legislation that is ready to 
go.
  Members who are concerned about approving their staff's budget before 
approving budgets for our veterans, our troops, or the homeland are 
left with a dilemma of the leadership's making. House Members are faced 
with the Hobson's choice of either approving their own budget or 
shutting down the government. Nothing could be more cynical.
  To say the least, this is a most unusual precedent. The bipartisan 
staff of the Homeland Security subcommittee has been working day and 
night and weekends since August preparing its conference report. My 
understanding is that the Homeland Security conference report is ready 
to go. Any remaining issues can and should be resolved at an open 
conference involving Members and Senators. The whole point of convening 
a conference committee is to reconcile differences between the bodies.
  And yet, even as our law enforcement officials investigate a 
potential terrorist threat in New York City and Denver, the budget for 
protecting our homeland has been put on a shelf. How can this Congress 
possibly justify providing funds for its own use and give less priority 
to protecting our homeland? I don't get it.
  In this case, to put congressional staff salaries ahead of medical 
care for Veterans, ahead of funding for law enforcement and homeland 
security, ahead of funding for our troops--is a signal to me that this 
Congress has its priorities out of order.
  Lastly, it's astonishing to me that several commonsense amendments 
were defeated on straight party-line votes during yesterday's 
conference committee meeting. The distinction between the Republican 
and Democrat positions on these issues could not be clearer.
  House Republicans believe that the scandal-plagued organization known 
as ACORN should be denied funding through the next fiscal year because 
of recently disclosed efforts, caught on videotape, proposing the use 
of taxpayer dollars to support prostitution. Mr. Aderholt offered an 
amendment to deny ACORN funding for 1 year. Chairman Obey and his 
colleagues voted against the amendment.
  House Republicans believe that terrorists captured in the field 
should not be afforded the same rights as American citizens and 
therefore should not receive ``Miranda Rights.'' I joined with my 
colleagues to offer an amendment to deny terrorists these rights. 
Again, Chairman Obey and his colleagues voted against the amendment.
  House Republicans believe that TARP funds should not continue to be 
used to bail out banks and other financial institutions even after 
existing loans have been paid back to the government. Congressman Cole 
offered an amendment to stop TARP from becoming a permanent, reusable, 
$700 billion slush fund for private corporations. Again, Chairman Obey 
and his colleagues voted against the amendment.
  The priorities of this House majority leadership are clearly 
misplaced and out of the mainstream where most Americans work and live. 
I feel badly for Ms. Wasserman-Schultz and Mr. Aderholt, and their fine 
staff, for they have worked very well together this year. I want to 
commend both of them for their work and extend my sympathy for the 
shameful manner in which their conference report is being brought to 
the floor today.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, our principal obligation on this bill is simply to 
keep the government open. We've got enough problems in the economy 
right now without adding to people's uncertainty. We had concluded that 
the least disruptive way to do that and the way with the least delay 
was to attach this continuing resolution to the one appropriation bill 
that was ready to be conferenced, the Legislative Branch Appropriation 
bill.
  This is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR. As far as 
funding levels are concerned, we are simply allowing agencies to 
continue fiscal 2009 levels, with three exceptions:
  First, we are following the House's lead when it voted 388-32 to 
allow the postal service to cover a budget shortfall by postponing a 
payment intended to prefund its retiree health benefits;
  Second, we're funding the census at a somewhat higher rate to allow 
it to ramp up activities so the 2010 census can proceed. The calendar 
is not going to change to suit congressional convenience;
  Third, we are providing additional funding for the Veterans Health 
Administration. The VA expects to treat

[[Page H9973]]

over 6 million patients in 2010, including almost 420,000 veterans of 
Iraq and Afghanistan.

                              {time}  1045

  The CR also extends a number of authorizations that would otherwise 
expire: transportation programs, child nutrition, stop-loss payments to 
our troops, E-Verify, and various other programs.
  So, as I said, this is a relatively routine CR which keeps the 
government open for the next 30 days.
  Outside of those items, we make no policy judgments. We change no 
existing policy except that, in accordance with the House vote last 
week, we also say no more funds for this 30-day period for ACORN. There 
have been some objections by the minority to this process. They claim 
it is procedurally outrageous because we are attaching the continuing 
resolution to a specific appropriations subcommittee bill. This is 
certainly not out of the ordinary.
  In fact, in September of 2006, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, when they controlled this House, attached the continuing 
resolution to the defense bill. I have the roll call on that if anyone 
cares to take a look at it. If you do, you would find out there were 
only two Members of the other party who voted against it, and in the 
Senate, the vote was 100 to nothing in support of it.
  So there is no difference in what we are doing today, but there is a 
difference in how we do it. We are up front with what we are doing. We 
included this action in the conference notes, and voted on it in the 
conference. That was certainly not the case in 2006 when the action of 
adding the CR was not flagged or noticed in any way during the 
conference or in the conference notes. I have a copy of those 
conference notes here if anyone wishes to see them. So the action that 
was taken then was simply taken after the fact in contrast to our doing 
it up front and in full view. So I believe that, in comparison to that, 
this action is, certainly, totally transparent.
  Now I need to take this opportunity to note one other point: Until 
last night, we were not in a position to move other appropriations 
bills because of a dispute between the House and the Senate over how to 
deal with for-profit earmarks. As I think the membership knows, we have 
put in place in the last few years significant reforms to the earmark 
process. When we took over control of the Congress in 2007, we put in 
place a moratorium on earmarks for that year until we could reform the 
process and make it much less susceptible to wasting taxpayers' money. 
Since then, including this year's bills, we have cut the dollar amount 
of earmarks by 50 percent. We require every Member to request earmarks 
publicly, ending the practice of anonymous earmarks in the House, and 
to certify that they have no financial interest.
  This year, we have gone one step further. Recognizing the potential 
for abuse in sole-source contracting, we have insisted that all House 
earmarks designated for for-profit entities must undergo a competitive 
bidding process. We still allow those entities to be named so we can 
help, for instance, small businesses get a foot in the door so that 
they can be noticed by Federal agencies, which all too often simply 
notice people with whom they are familiar in their inside processes, 
but we nonetheless require that those entities still submit a bid and 
compete in a fair competition.
  The Senate did not do that this year, and up until last night, was 
objecting to even allowing the House to follow this policy. Last night, 
we reached an agreement that will allow us to proceed with House 
earmarks subject to that new policy.
  There is still one small area of disagreement that remains. There are 
a small number of projects, approximately 5 percent, which have been 
included in both the House and Senate bills. Until last night, the 
other body was refusing to allow those to be competed. Under the 
agreement we reached this year and this year only, those projects will 
be dealt with according to Senate policy. Next year and thereafter, 
they will be managed by House policy. So they, too, will be subjected 
to competition next year.
  We reached this agreement because the other body insisted that, 
because they had proceeded all year under their policies, it was too 
late to change the rules of the game for them. We recognize that 
changing policies at this point would be a procedural problem for the 
other body. We do appreciate their agreement that, starting next year, 
we can all agree on how to handle for-profit projects and that they 
will be handled in accordance with the House procedures.
  This will enable us to now proceed to conference on a number of other 
appropriations bills which have been passed by the Senate: We have had 
a motion to go to conference on energy and water. We expect next week, 
after two small matters are resolved, to also be able to go to 
conference on the Agriculture bill. We hope that, within a week, we 
will be able to resolve a few remaining differences on the Homeland 
Security bill and to also go to conference on that and other bills as 
the Senate grinds through them in their processes.
  So, having reported that to the House, I would simply urge an ``aye'' 
vote for the legislation before us, and would simply note that, given 
the calendar, a vote against this proposition would be a vote to shut 
down the government.
  With that, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who is the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I have no problem with the bill that is before us, the 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I think the chairman and the 
ranking member have done an excellent job with that bill.
  However, I have to register my objection to considering the funding 
bill for Congress and for putting off the bill that funds our homeland 
security and including it in the continuing resolution.
  For almost 7 years, we've had a near-perfect track record of getting 
the Homeland Security appropriations bill done before funding for the 
rest of the government. It has taken bipartisan wrangling and 
compromise, but we've always produced a bill that the President could 
sign almost unanimously before the other bills.
  Why? Because Congress considered the security of the Nation as 
paramount. This year should be no different.
  We've preconferenced the Homeland Security bill with our Senate 
counterparts. We could produce a bill for the President to sign in a 
matter of days. Yet the leadership says no. Include Homeland Security 
in a continuing resolution, and put it off. Instead, first pass funding 
for the Congress. Our pay is more important than defending our country.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Not at the moment. I will later.
  On June 24 of this year, the House wrapped up consideration of the 
Homeland Security bill, and passed it with 389 votes in this body. 
Three weeks later, the Senate passed their version of the bill with a 
near unanimous vote. So it has been more than 2 months since both bills 
were passed. Since August, staff has been diligently reconciling these 
two bills, reaching bicameral, bipartisan agreements. We could have 
produced a finished bill for this body to consider a month ago. Yet 
leadership refused to allow it to happen.
  So I stand here today very concerned, Madam Speaker. There is 
virtually no excuse to punt this vital security spending bill and to 
fund the Department of Homeland Security under a continuing resolution. 
Instead of actually doing our work and fulfilling the security needs of 
our Nation, we are placing a priority on Congress' own budget, putting 
Homeland Security spending on ice, taking the next few Mondays and 
Fridays off, and basically waiting around until October until we get 
further direction from on high.
  That is as indefensible, Madam Speaker, as it is dangerous. The 
security and safety of our citizens should be our number one priority. 
Look around you. We face complex cybersecurity challenges, emerging 
threats from overseas, terrorist cells operating

[[Page H9974]]

on our soil, and increasing violence along the southwest border, which 
is already claiming U.S. lives.
  The fiscal 2010 Homeland Security bill will infuse much needed 
increases to our efforts to bolster our border security, to track down 
illegal immigrants, to protect our critical infrastructure, to replace 
the aging Coast Guard fleet, and to improve the preparedness of our 
first responders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Why must our brave Homeland Security 
professionals wait while we bicker and delay here in the House? Real 
security demands commitment--commitment from this body and commitment 
from the Nation's leadership.
  I know my subcommittee chairman, David Price, and I are ready to 
finish the work of our bill, and we could do it in a matter of hours, 
if not days. So I am disgusted, Madam Speaker. I apologize for that, 
but I think we should reconsider the decision that has been made by 
leadership to put off funding for the Nation's homeland defense and, 
instead, to take up funding for this body.
  So I will have to vote ``no'' on the bill, although, I think the 
Legislative appropriations is okay.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply note, in light of the 
gentleman from Kentucky's comments, there are at least seven 
outstanding issues on homeland security that, to my knowledge, have yet 
to be resolved. One is the border fence. Another is the National Bio 
and Agricultural Defense Facility. There is an argument about where 
that's supposed to go. We have the Gitmo issue. We have immigration 
issues. We have FEMA.
  If the gentleman wants to resolve those by agreeing with our position 
on each of them, I would be happy to see them go to conference right 
now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. The fact is that no one has suggested that they delay the 
Homeland Security bill in any manner whatsoever. We are noting that 
there are significant substantive differences. Under the rules of the 
body, we can't bring a conference bill back to this House until we've 
reached agreement on all of those differences.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. So I think it's patently preposterous to suggest that this 
bill is being delayed in any way.
  The only thing that is delaying it is honest disagreement and, until 
last night, the disagreement that we had with the Senate which 
precluded us from bringing up virtually any other bill. Thankfully, 
that is now gone.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. The gentleman would not yield to me. I 
don't see any reason to yield to him.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, in response to the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, if the gentleman would have 
allowed the Homeland Security conference to proceed--I mean we passed 
these bills 2 months ago, the House and Senate. We've had 2 months. Yet 
the gentleman has not allowed conferees to be appointed to consider the 
Homeland Security bill. In the meantime, staff and Members have been 
working with our Senate counterparts. We are in agreement. There are no 
remaining issues. We're ready to go. Ready to go.

                              {time}  1100

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to 
point out that with the greatest respect to the gentleman from 
Kentucky, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill before us being 
used as a vehicle for the continuing resolution was the most ready to 
go. There were no outstanding issues at all.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin has just indicated a number of issues 
remaining on the Homeland Security bill. We are 5 days from the end of 
the fiscal year with an intervening weekend included in those 5 days. 
It is simply a matter of making sure that we are not shutting the 
government down.
  I appreciate the good work of my colleague, Mr. Aderholt, and the 
members of the minority on getting this bill, the Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill, in the best possible position to serve as a 
vehicle to keep the government open.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who is a senior member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we have a continuing resolution well hidden in a 
Legislative Branch conference report. Why are we voting on a continuing 
resolution, Madam Speaker? We are voting on a continuing resolution 
because this Congress and this President have spent too much money, and 
now they want more.
  Already this President and this Congress have passed into law a $1.1 
trillion stimulus plan which, by the way, since it was passed, we have 
had almost 3 million more join the unemployment ranks, the highest 
unemployment rate in almost a quarter of a century. But that stimulus 
plan weighed in at $9,746 per household.
  Next this Congress and this President signed into law, passed into 
law an omnibus costing $410 billion, $3,511 per household.
  The bailouts continue. Madam Speaker, another $30 billion for AIG, 
almost $30 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention $60 
billion for GM and Chrysler. The serial bailouts continue.
  What has all this spending brought us, Madam Speaker? It has brought 
us the Nation's first, first trillion-dollar deficit, and a deficit 
that increased 10 fold, 10 fold, in just 2 years.
  On top of this now the President and the Congress want a $3.6 
trillion budget and a trillion-dollar nationalized health care plan 
that we cannot afford, meaning that the national debt will triple, 
triple in the next 10 years.
  Madam Speaker, under this spending plan, we are borrowing 43 cents on 
the dollar, mainly from the Chinese, and sending the bill to our 
children. If the spending, if the borrowing, if the deficits do not 
stop, this will be a Congress that will ensure that it's just a matter 
of time before the Chinese initiate foreclosure proceedings on our 
Nation.
  We cannot let that stand.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, what we just heard came from a Member of the 
then-majority party, which turned $6 trillion in inherited projected 
surpluses into a $2 trillion deficit. We heard that from a Member of 
the party that provided $2 trillion in tax cuts primarily aimed at the 
wealthiest people in the country, all paid for with borrowed money, 
from the same folks who gave us almost $1 trillion in spending on the 
most ill advised war in the country's history, also paid for with 
borrowed money.
  They ran the country's economy into the ditch with record collapse of 
consumer spending and record collapse of unemployment. Then they are 
now complaining when Mr. Obama and the majority party are now trying to 
pull the country out of the ditch.
  Someone else can take that seriously if they want, but I won't be one 
of them.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), who is a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
taxpayers of the 19th Congressional District and all across America. 
They are angry, Madam Speaker, about the spending and the borrowing 
that's going on in Washington.
  At a time when they are cutting back to make ends meet, paying down 
their credit cards, saving more, working hard to provide for their 
families, they don't understand why their government isn't doing the 
same thing. They don't understand why the government is not only 
spending all of their tax dollars, but also borrowing almost 50 cents 
for every dollar that they spend.

[[Page H9975]]

  This bill before us increases spending for the legislative branch by 
5.7 percent. I don't know about other Members in the House, but I think 
it's pretty hard to explain to the taxpayers why we are increasing our 
budget by 5.7 percent and the American people are cutting their 
budgets.
  The only explanation I can think of is that Congress doesn't get it. 
Well, the American people get it. Like them, I don't understand why we 
are increasing the legislative branch budget when the deficit is going 
to hit $1.6 trillion this year, projected to be $1.3 trillion next 
year.
  This bill includes provisions to continue funding for programs as we 
complete the remaining annual spending bills, but I would advocate that 
Congress go ahead and finish the job that it started.
  The problem is that these annual spending bills are set forth to 
increase our spending by 8.9 percent this year. This spending increase 
would come on top of an 8.6 percent increase last year, a nearly $1 
trillion economic stimulus package, and a $700 billion financial 
bailout.
  Instead of passing bills to increase spending at a time when we have 
added $1 trillion to our national debt this year, Congress should, at a 
minimum, freeze spending at this level.
  Had we gone through normal order, I offered an amendment that would 
have frozen spending for the coming year and saved the American 
taxpayers $43 billion. It's a start, Madam Speaker.
  I urge members to vote against this bill.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the 
gentleman from Alabama and my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, as well as the members of our subcommittee, for the good work 
that they have done on developing this Legislative Branch 
appropriations bill.
  We have a good solid product to make sure that we can move the 
legislative branch institutions forward and to preserve the legacy of 
the Capitol complex and its institutions for future generations. We 
also are going to make sure that we keep the government running.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle 
as well as on my side of the aisle, will vote for this bill. A vote 
against this bill would jeopardize the security and safety of our 
citizens. Shutting the government down is not a responsible action.
  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, here we are on the Floor of the House 
again, with less than a week to go before the end of the fiscal year, 
and the majority is not prepared to send a single, finalized 
appropriation bill to the President for signature. Where is the change 
that was promised?
  In addition to the legislative bill before us today, we have four 
significant funding bills that have passed both the House and Senate, 
and are ready to go to conference or whatever we call conferences these 
days: Agriculture, Energy and Water, Homeland Security and 
Transportation/HUD. These are bills that contain important funding for 
all of our districts, including monies for new and important 
initiatives that might help the economy.
  Over the course of this FY-2010 funding cycle, the majority has run a 
process that has prevented spending bills from being perfected through 
the amendment process, primarily to avoid tough votes.
  That stunted process has allowed the funding bills to be rammed 
through the House. Yet, with closed Rules, an 80-seat majority in the 
House and a 20-seat majority in the other Body, the congressional 
leadership still cannot manage to move the appropriation bills. As my 
children used to say, ``what's wrong with this picture?''
  Ladies and gentlemen, I suggest that what is wrong with this picture 
is a continuation of what has been going on for the last several months 
and it is not about the last administration.
  Right now, we are: sitting on a 9.6% unemployment rate; struggling 
with CBO deficit projection numbers that are off the charts for the 
next several years; suffering the fiscal effects of a gross 
misallocation of Stimulus bill funds that mostly went to expanding 73 
existing government programs and adding 30 new ones for select 
constituencies; and procrastinating over a healthcare situation about 
which all agree something must be done, but which the majority refuses 
to consult the minority or produce a product.
  And today, the majority is determined to perpetuate this craziness 
with a ``cooked'' appropriation process to temporarily fund the 
government because the House and Senate cannot get their respective 
acts together.
  No wonder, we heard noisy demonstrations at town hall meetings and in 
Washington. Folks, the noise from outside the Washington Beltway is not 
just a response to the healthcare fiasco though that is certainly a 
part of it.
  The noise is part of a steadily growing response to what people 
rightly perceive to be those running the government in Washington not 
paying attention to their concerns and fears about spending and the 
paths we are taking.
  This continuing resolution exercise today is just one more example 
that the majority intends to keep ignoring those concerns.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2010, which will also allow 
for continuation of government functions through October 31, 2009.
  Through this spring and into the summer, the House has worked 
diligently to approve all 12 regular appropriation bills. Yet, our 
colleagues on the other side of the rotunda have not finished their 
work and so today we must approve continued funding for all government 
operations which are scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009. I hope 
that we will be able to reach agreement with our Senate colleagues and 
complete all regular appropriations bills and need no more continuing 
resolutions.
  I regret that the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill does not 
include funding for the revival of the Office of Technology Assessment, 
OTA. When OTA operated it provided Congress with assistance in 
identifying and assessing the consequences of science and technology in 
a very useful manner and timeframe.
  While I was unsuccessful this year reinstating funding for the OTA, I 
will continue to fight for the revival of OTA because it would 
strengthen Congress as an institution, elevate the discourse on matters 
affected by science and technology, and allow Members to more 
effectively carry out their duties as the people's representatives.
  Another point troubles me greatly. This bill contains in Section 163 
a provision to deny funding to ACORN or its allied organizations. I 
must note that a number of questions have been raised about the 
constitutionality of this section, and I share these concerns. Article 
I Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States is explicit that, 
``No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.'' Thus, it 
is unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation declaring an 
individual or a group guilty and sanctioning them without benefit of a 
trial. Without doubt, the revelations about ACORN presented on the 
internet and television recently are cause for concern and indicate 
possible illegality and misuse of funds. Reports on television, 
however, are not cause for Congress suddenly to become a part of the 
judicial branch of government and declare guilt and mete out punishment 
without any legal proceedings. The Congressional Research Service has 
been asked to look into this question, and concluded that a court would 
most likely ``find that it violates the prohibition against bills of 
attainder.''
  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Obey for his 
assistance, and Representative Wasserman Schultz of Florida and the 
members of the conference committee for their hard work in putting 
together this conference report. Included is a provision of great 
importance to the Postal Service, over 600,000 postal employees, and 
300 million postal customers, who are also our constituents. This 
conference report includes language from H.R. 22, the United States 
Postal Service Financial Relief Act of 2009, a bill reported out of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 10 and passed by the 
full House on September 15.
  This provision will allow the United States Postal Service to lower 
its 2009 payment into the retiree health benefits fund from $5.4 
billion to $1.4 billion. It does not provide any taxpayer funds to the 
Postal Service. The language was originally included in H.R. 22, a bill 
that has been properly vetted and amended by the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee. In line with calls for a more fiscally 
responsible government, the provision lowering the Postal Service 
payment does not score. For these reasons, the House passed H.R. 22 by 
an overwhelming margin of 388 to 32.
  The Postal Service faces an unprecedented crisis. Mail volume is 
projected to drop to 175 billion pieces in fiscal year 2009, from a 
high of nearly 213 billion pieces. The Postal Service anticipates a 
loss of more than $7 billion by end of fiscal year 2009. The losses 
were driven by the nationwide economic recession, diversion of mail to 
electronic alternatives, and also by the aggressive payment schedule 
for retiree health benefits required by the Postal Accountability and 
Enhancement Act. Its fiscal year 2008 payment total for current and 
future

[[Page H9976]]

retiree health benefits was roughly $7 billion. The Postal Service has 
paid $10 billion into the trust fund over the past 2 years. It suffered 
a combined loss of $7.9 billion over those 2 years. Without the onerous 
payments into the trust fund, the Postal Service would have made a net 
profit of more than $4 billion over that period.
  Reducing the size of the payment into the trust fund for 2009 will 
bring the postal payment closer to the $1.6 billion amount recommended 
by the Postal Service Inspector General, while permitting the Postal 
Service to survive the economic crisis. Many large companies in the 
private sector have also temporarily reduced pension and retiree 
benefit contributions in order to ride out similar, difficult financial 
circumstances.
  I would like to thank Representatives McHugh of New York and Davis of 
Illinois for introducing this bill and for their hard work and patience 
in navigating the bill through the House. Further, I would like to 
thank the House Democratic leadership and the Budget Committee for 
working with us to help advance the bill to the floor. Also, I would 
also like to recognize Chairman Lynch of Massachusetts for his 
leadership on the subcommittee and being a tireless advocate for the 
Postal Service and its employees. Additionally, I would like to thank 
the Gentlemen from California and Utah, Representatives Issa and 
Chaffetz, for their help in securing bipartisan support for H.R. 22.
  In the coming months, our committee will continue to provide close 
oversight of the Postal Service, including studying the business model 
of the Postal Service to help determine what longer-term changes may be 
necessary.
  I am confident that upon enactment of H.R. 22 the Postal Service will 
be able to meet its financial obligations for this year.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 772, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 190, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 739]

                               YEAS--217

     Abercrombie
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Massa
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Berry
     Blunt
     Capuano
     Clarke
     Culberson
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Graves
     Higgins
     Hill
     Israel
     Issa
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Loebsack
     Mica
     Nunes
     Poe (TX)
     Scott (GA)
     Speier
     Sullivan
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1133

  Mr. TAYLOR, Mrs. EMERSON, Messrs. GRIFFITH, TOWNS, ELLISON, Ms. 
SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 739 on 
Conference Report to H.R. 2918, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 739 on the 
Conference Report to H.R. 2918, I mistakenly recorded my vote as 
``nay'' when I should have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. CLARKE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 739, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 739. I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I submit to the Record 
the following remarks regarding my absence from a vote which occurred 
on September 25. I was in a meeting with constituents and unable to 
make the vote. Listed below is how I would have voted if I had been 
present.
  H.R. 2918--On Agreeing to the Conference Report for Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Act, FY 2010 (Roll no. 739)--``nay.''

                          ____________________