[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 185 (Thursday, December 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H14450-H14461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3288, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2010

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 961 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 961

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes. The conference report shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the conference 
     report to its adoption without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to recommit.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I will raise a point of order against H. Res. 
961 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution carries a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the conference report, which includes a waiver 
of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation 
of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates Section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule. The 
gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. After that debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not so much out 
of a concern for unfunded mandates, but again, it's about the only 
opportunity we have to stand up and talk about the process by which 
this conference report is being brought to the floor.
  We all remember that earlier this year we had something unprecedented 
happen. We have never in the history of the Republic ever had every 
appropriation bill come to the floor under a closed rule where Members 
from both sides of the aisle were denied the ability to offer 
amendments.
  Now, until a decade or two ago, appropriation bills typically came to 
the floor without even going through the Rules Committee at all. It 
would simply come under an open rule, and amendments would be disposed 
of on the floor and there would be open debate.
  A couple of decades ago, we started to go to the Rules Committee, but 
only to set overall parameters. It was still an open rule, and any 
Member could offer any amendment to strike funding or move funding 
around within the bill as long as it was germane. But this year we were 
told by the majority that we had to rush this legislation through, 
these appropriation bills.
  Remember, the main reason Congress is here is because of the power of 
the purse. It's article 1: to dispose of funding legislation, to fund 
the agencies of the Federal Government. So that is the important reason 
we're here.
  But we were told we had to rush that through and had to do it under 
what amounts to a form of legislative martial law where every 
appropriation bill this year, every one, came to the floor under a 
closed rule. Members were denied the ability to offer the amendments 
they wanted to offer. They could only offer the amendments that the 
Rules Committee saw fit for them to offer.
  Over 1,000 amendments were offered. Just 12 percent of those 
amendments were actually allowed onto the House floor. Now, I was 
fortunate to have a number of those amendments allowed. Some of my 
colleagues came to the floor or came to the Rules Committee over and 
over again with multiple amendment requests on every bill, and in the 
entire year, not allowed one, not one amendment. We had several members 
not allowed one amendment the entire year because we had to rush these 
bills through for some unknown reason. We were told that we had to do 
this because we wanted to avoid an omnibus.
  Well, here we are with an omnibus. This is a bill that spends north 
of a

[[Page H14451]]

trillion dollars, one bill brought to the floor under one rule. And in 
it, let me tell you what's in it.

                              {time}  1030

  Let me just tell you what is in it. In it is more than 5,000 
earmarks.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I would.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate him for his remarks. Basically it's what 
I'm going to say when we begin the process here. But one of the 
arguments that has been propounded and was utilized up in the Rules 
Committee last night was that when we completed our work here in the 
House of Representatives, that it was our friends on the other side of 
the Capitol who did not comply with the kind of schedule that we had. 
And the fact is, it's important to remember that there are 58 Democrats 
and two Independents who organize with the Democrats in the United 
States Senate, giving them a total of 60 votes, and they have complete 
control. And so the notion of somehow saying, ``Well, we had to get our 
work done. We had intended to avoid an omnibus if we had been able to 
complete our work, but it's those guys over on the other side of the 
Capitol who failed to meet their responsibilities'' is a very, very 
specious and weak argument to make in light of the fact that they have 
control of everything now.
  And I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Arizona, but 
technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider 
this rule and ultimately the underlying conference report. In reality, 
it is about trying to block this report without any opportunity for 
debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the 
legislation itself. I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues 
will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its 
merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the 
conference report can vote against it on final passage. We must 
consider this rule, we must have a debate, and we must pass this 
legislation today.
  I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Here again, I'm claiming my time on the unfunded mandates 
point of order because it's about the only opportunity we've had. And 
all throughout this appropriations season, I did something similar 
because it was the only opportunity I got. I was offered so few 
opportunities to offer amendments to earmarks during this 
appropriations season.
  But let me just give you some of the examples of earmarks that are in 
this bill, just a couple of examples of the more than 5,000 earmarks 
that are stuffed into this legislation; again, earmarks that, for the 
most part, we were unable to challenge on the House floor because we 
weren't afforded the opportunity.
  We made a law in the past couple of years, and I'm glad we have, 
about transparency, to make sure that Members' names are next to the 
earmarks they request. But as important as transparency is, 
accountability must also be present. And without the ability of Members 
to challenge those earmarks, then transparency doesn't mean a whole 
lot. And we haven't had the ability to have accountability here.
  In this legislation, $125,000 goes for the defense procurement 
assistance program in southwestern Pennsylvania. Now, those who follow 
the appropriations process around here, particularly with Defense 
Appropriations, realize that southwestern Pennsylvania needs help with 
defense procurement like Arizona needs more cactus. This is a region 
that gets billions and billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to 
private companies, and yet we are appropriating here an earmark, a 
specifically designated earmark, for defense procurement assistance. 
Now, how ridiculous is that? Yet, it's in this legislation, and it was 
in the prior legislation that we dealt with under, as I said, the 
legislative equivalent of martial law earlier this year.
  There's $500,000 for the Botanical Research Institute of Texas to 
enhance its collections; $292,000 to eliminate slum and blight in 
Scranton, Pennsylvania; $700,000 for an arts pavilion in Mississippi; 
$300,000 for Carnegie Hall music and education programs in New York.
  Again, these may well be worthy programs. I'm not sure the Federal 
Government ought to be funding them. But, in any case, should any 
Member have the right to designate that portion of funding for his or 
her district without the ability of other Members to challenge it on 
the House floor? That is the question we have here.
  We went through a process the entire year where we were told we can't 
have open debate, we can't allow Members to challenge these earmarks on 
the House floor because we have to rush these bills through to avoid an 
omnibus. Here we are in December with an omnibus. We all knew we would 
be here.
  During the years 2006 to 2008 when the majority party was in the 
majority of Congress but the Republicans had the White House, we were 
told, ``Well, we could get these bills through in regular order were it 
not for the White House.'' Now, as the ranking member on the Rules 
Committee stated, the majority party is in control of the White House, 
has a huge majority here in the House and a 60-vote majority in the 
Senate, and still we are here with an omnibus. We knew we would be 
here. So you can only conclude that we rushed through this process 
during the entire year just to shield Members from uncomfortable votes 
to be forced to defend $250,000 for the Brooklyn Children's Museum or 
$600,000 for streetscape beautification in California and $250,000 for 
a farmer's market in Kentucky. If it weren't for that, why in the world 
did we have to shield Members from these uncomfortable votes?
  So, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted something different to come with 
this new majority in 2006. I wanted a transparent process with 
earmarks, wanted an accountable process with earmarks. But this year, I 
have to say, with the closed rules that have come on appropriations 
bills, we haven't had a more opaque year in a long, long time, and it 
doesn't speak well for this House. It doesn't speak well for our 
leadership to allow this kind of thing to happen, and particularly at a 
time when we have story after story after story in the newspapers 
about, particularly, problems with defense procurement, when you have 
no-bid contracts to private companies that are in legislation that we 
aren't allowed to challenge.
  I realize the Defense bill is not part of this legislation. That will 
come next week. But it will come again with one rule, no ability to 
amend and no ability to challenge. When that Defense bill came to the 
floor earlier this year, there were more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 
500 of which represented no-bid contracts to private companies. I 
offered more than 500 amendments to challenge some of those, and I was 
allowed just a tiny fraction of those. I think I was allowed 8 percent 
of the amendments that were offered, and so we are only allowed to 
challenge just a fraction of those no-bid contracts to private 
companies. And that, Mr. Speaker, is simply wrong.
  We cannot continue to do that in this House. We need to be above 
reproach here. And we can't have a process when you have no-bid 
contracts to private companies without the ability of Members of 
Congress to come to this floor and challenge those earmarks. When you 
have a process that shields those projects and those Members from any 
vetting or criticism or debate or anything else, we shouldn't be doing 
that, yet we are still doing it.
  With that, I urge to overturn this rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass 
this important piece of legislation today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Shall the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H14452]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 961.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 961 provides for the consideration of 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3288, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010. The rule waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against consideration. It provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read and, finally, it provides 
that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without 
intervention of any motion except 1 hour of debate and one motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here finishing up the fiscal year 2010 
appropriations bills. This consolidated appropriations bill is the 
product of many, many months of hard work. It contains six of the seven 
outstanding appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, in all candor, I must admit that I have a slightly 
different perspective on the appropriations process than I did 3 years 
ago. Then, in the minority, I questioned why the then-Republican 
majority wasn't able to finish their bills on time. I realize now that 
in many cases, finishing the bills in a timely fashion wasn't always 
the fault of the majority in the House but rather a result of the 
dysfunction in the Senate.
  Now, 3 years later, the situation is similar. We, this House, this 
Democratic majority, did our job. We passed every single bill in a 
timely way and we did so responsibly, and in many cases joined by many 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For example, the 
Homeland Security bill passed with 389 votes, including the support of 
my good friend from California.
  Now, despite our hard work to move this process forward, I am sure 
that the gentleman from San Dimas is going to protest about the process 
here, that this bill is made up of six bills, and I'm sure he will come 
up with some clever, colorful phrases to describe his feelings today, 
and we all look forward to that. But we are essentially reaffirming 
votes that have already been taken on issues that have already been 
previously debated and discussed.
  The chairmen and ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees 
deserve credit for their bills. There is critical funding included for 
roads and bridges; for rail projects; for greenhouse gas emissions; for 
public housing and other housing vouchers; for critical international 
aid programs like the response to global HIV/AIDS, poverty, food 
security, education, and international disaster assistance; for 
programs that prevent and prosecute violence against women and other 
justice programs; critical health programs including NIH funding, 
public health programs, programs addressing health professions 
workforce shortages, LIHEAP, Head Start, and other education programs. 
These bills are about priorities. They are about values. They show who 
we are as a Congress, and I stand by the values articulated in these 
bills.
  While some will complain that we are spending too much money, that 
these bills are too big, I look at it in a very different way. Mr. 
Speaker, I see these bills as an opportunity to reverse years of 
neglect: neglect to our roads and our bridges, neglect to our lower 
income neighbors and friends, neglect to our education system, and 
neglect to our veterans.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, this Democratic majority inherited a troubled 
country. Our Republican friends squandered budget surpluses. Their 
reverse Midas touch turned surpluses into deficits. They spent money 
like they were drunken sailors and yet never felt the responsibility to 
pay for their spending. They turned a blind eye to transgressions of 
Wall Street, allowing Main Street to feel the pain of Wall Street 
running wild.
  What did we start out with? We started out with, we inherited, a 
financial system on the brink of collapse, the worst recession since 
the Great Depression, two wars that weren't paid for, a broken health 
care system, and a 1950s energy policy. That was the gift from the Bush 
administration and a Republican majority in Congress. So there's been a 
lot to fix this year.
  Just look at some of the numbers, Mr. Speaker. Job growth under the 
current administration is reversing a long downward spiral that started 
under the last President. The stimulus plan is working as planned. We 
are making sound investments in helping Americans find good jobs and 
getting this economy moving again. The unemployment rate dropped last 
month and the efforts of this Congress are helping people afford a 
home, helping to breathe life back into our real estate economy. Even 
the TARP program is working better than expected. Confidence has been 
restored to Wall Street, and more than $200 billion will be returned to 
the government.
  So here we are, Mr. Speaker, digging out from the Bush economy, the 
Bush recession. It's time to get this done, but it's not going to 
happen overnight. It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs 
of the American people. Simply, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill we 
will consider today, and it deserves to be supported by every single 
Member of this body.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Worcester for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments, and it 
appears to me that no matter how colorful or creative I am that I 
probably won't be as persuasive with him as I hope I am with others in 
pointing to how absolutely ridiculous it is that we are here doing what 
we are doing with this. And this is really a challenge.
  I'm told that this weighs more than a baby, in fact. The child of the 
woman sitting right behind me says this weighs more than her baby. It 
is 2,500 pages that we have been given in this omnibus appropriations 
bill which we were promised would not be utilized as a process if we 
shut down all of the appropriations bills, which, if I could remind 
everyone, we did last summer.

                              {time}  1045

  Actually, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues' attention 
to today's date. Today is December 10. For those keeping track, we are 
now 71 days past the end of the fiscal year, 71 days overdue in 
completing work on our constitutionally mandated power of the purse.
  How far along in the process are we at this date, 71 days into the 
fiscal year? Well, five of the 12 appropriations bills have been 
enacted into law. With time quickly running out and over half of its 
work left undone, the Democratic majority has chosen to cram six of our 
remaining seven spending bills into this one massive half-trillion 
dollar bill.
  The underlying measure before us today spends $500 billion of the 
taxpayers' money on disparate issues and agencies, from the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development to the FBI to infrastructure to 
veterans programs.
  My friend is absolutely right. Of course, I supported the Homeland 
Security bill. It's one of the top priorities that we have. In fact, 
there's nothing more important than the security of the United States 
of America, so I supported that. But that doesn't mean that I'm 
supportive of taking it when it should have gone through the regular 
process, which is what the gentleman with whom you're speaking right 
now promised we were going to be able to do if we had this closed, 
structured process for considering appropriations bills, and yet here 
we are with this omnibus bill.
  They were kind enough, kind enough now, by virtue of having this as a 
conference report, to grant us an entire hour of debate for this 2,500-
page measure that's before us. Mr. Speaker, that works out to just 
about $7.5 billion for every minute of debate that we're going to be 
allowed on the bill, $7.5 billion.

[[Page H14453]]

  And I'm sure the American people will feel completely confident that 
1 hour to debate a $500 billion measure, half of the discretionary 
spending that we've got before us, is enough. Actually, an hour for 
oversight and accountability of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars at a 
time, Mr. Speaker, when virtually everyone I know is engaged in cutting 
back. They're engaged in cutting back spending. Why? Because of the 
economic downturn through which we're going.
  And what is it that has happened? We've seen an 85 percent increase 
in nondefense discretionary spending. An 85 percent increase at a time 
when families across this country are working very hard to figure out 
how they can make ends meet.
  Now, as I have said repeatedly throughout the appropriations process, 
legislating is not a pretty business. It's not unusual for our work on 
the Federal budget to extend beyond the close of the fiscal year. It's 
not unprecedented to consider several appropriations bills in one 
package. And it's happened under both political parties. The debate 
that takes place here on the House floor is often heated. That's the 
way it's supposed to be. The task, Mr. Speaker, of forging consensus 
and compromise in the face of competing views and priorities is all 
part of the legislative process.
  Furthermore, spending the taxpayers' money is a very, very enormous 
responsibility that we have. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution 
places that responsibility in our hands. It demands, it demands, Mr. 
Speaker, a great deal of deliberation, which is not always compatible 
with setting timetables. Deliberation, Mr. Speaker, is not always 
compatible with setting timetables. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, getting it 
right is more important than getting it done by September 30.
  In light of this, the fact that we have arrived at December 10, 71 
days after the end of the fiscal year, having completed only five of 
the 12 appropriations bills, is not surprising, based on what we've 
seen here, or even necessarily problematic.
  But there is far more to this story, Mr. Speaker. At the very outset 
of this process 6 months ago, the Democratic majority announced that 
they would be foregoing the messiness of real debate. And I'm very 
pleased that my friend from Wisconsin, the distinguished Chair of the 
committee, is here on the House floor. In their calculation, concluding 
by September 30 was more important than getting things done right. 
Rather than a lengthy, deliberative, accountable process, they chose to 
pursue a neat and tidy one that shut out real debate, shut out real 
debate, but did conclude on time for our work here in the House. 
Democrats and Republicans alike were denied the opportunity to 
participate. True to their word, they made the unprecedented move of 
closing down the entire appropriations process.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House who is a first-termer or 
they've been here as long as my friend Mr. Obey has been here--he's 
been here almost 200 years, I think. He's been here a long, long period 
of time. And he knows that never before, never before in the history of 
this Republic have we seen the process shut down as it was shut down 
last summer. We have had rank-and-file Members, again Democrats and 
Republicans--Mr. Speaker, this is not simply my attempt to stand up for 
Republicans. We've been standing up for Democrats who have been denied 
the opportunity to offer amendments as well, and it's very, very 
unfortunate.
  By endeavoring to take the messiness out of the legislative process, 
they took out the real debate, they took out the accountability, all in 
the name of a deadline, a deadline that came and went 71 days ago. 
Seventy-one days ago was when that deadline arrived, Mr. Speaker. And 
here we are scrambling to consider half of the entire discretionary 
budget in one single 2,500-page bill with one single hour of debate. As 
I said, that's $7.5 billion per minute of debate that's going to be 
allowed on this.
  Our traditional deliberative process is messy and lengthy and ugly 
for the sake of good results. The Democratic majority set out to 
sacrifice good results for the sake of expediency. What we have gotten 
is the worst of both worlds: neither timely nor deliberative action. 
Neither timely nor deliberative. And as we've seen time and again, bad 
process begets bad substance.
  It's no coincidence that the Democratic majority has been blocking 
all accountability of their spending practices. The deficit has 
skyrocketed to nearly $1.5 trillion. That's larger than the entire 
Federal budget was just a decade ago. And our national debt, as we all 
know, exceeded $12 trillion, and the unemployment rate is double digit 
at 10 percent.
  The fact that this outcome is not surprising does not make it any 
less grim. We can't go on recklessly spending money that we simply 
don't have, piling mountains of debt upon future generations. Unless 
and until this Democratic majority returns to regular order and open 
debate, the taxpayers will continue to see their hard-earned money 
spent unwisely and our country saddled with an ever-growing level of 
crippling debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we constantly hear the finger of 
blame. I was managing last night the rule for general debate on this 
massive 1,279-page bill that re-regulates virtually everything when it 
comes to the delivery of financial services, and I constantly heard the 
finger of blame being pointed at the Republicans.
  We need to remind ourselves that the Republicans have not been in 
control of the House of Representatives since 2006. Mr. Speaker, what 
that means is that we have gone through now 3 full years, 2007, 2008, 
and 2009, under a Democratic majority. So as we continue to hear this 
argument that somehow Republicans are to blame for all of these 
problems, it is a very, very specious one.
  I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the name of 
accountability, in the name of deliberation, and in the name of good 
results, to defeat this rule. We can do better.
  Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this Congress has a 
very tough job. We are digging ourselves out of the mess that Mr. Bush 
and his Republican allies created. Years and years of neglect. Years of 
ignoring the most important pressing problems facing our country.
  When President Obama got elected, he inherited a crumbling 
infrastructure in this country because of the years of neglect by the 
Republicans and by the Republican President. He inherited a country 
that had no solid plans for alternative or renewable or clean energy 
because of the neglect and the obstructionism on the other side. He 
inherited a country where the health and well-being of our citizens had 
been neglected for years and years and years. So what we are doing here 
and what these appropriations bills are responding to are the years of 
neglect.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman obviously didn't 
listen to the remarks that I just provided here reminding Members that 
while we continue to get the finger of blame pointed at us for the last 
3 years, this institution where the power of the purse exists, the 
people's House, has been in the control of the Democratic Party, not 
the Republican Party.
  Mr. McGOVERN. For 2 of those years, we had a Republican President who 
obstructed every single progressive, positive idea that came out of 
this Chamber. So this is the response to the neglect of the years of 
Republican rule, and we have to clean up this mess.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to respond to the gentleman's comments 
with a straight face. I really think we've had a big lesson in Alice in 
Wonderland reasoning here today.
  Let's simply let the facts speak for themselves. We presently have 
had five appropriation bills already signed by the President of the 
United States. In addition, the bill which we will consider today and 
which will be sent to the President will mean that we have sent six 
additional appropriation bills

[[Page H14454]]

to the White House. That means that during this session, we will have 
passed every single regular appropriation bill except the defense bill, 
which we expect to deal with next week. And we did that on top of 
having to deal with the most calamitous collapse of the economy in 75 
years, necessitating a whole round of legislative action to try to 
salvage the economy.
  The gentleman and several of his friends on that side of the aisle 
have continued to complain that we haven't gotten all of these bills 
done by the end of the fiscal year. Engaging how seriously we should 
take that----
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I will not.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to yield until I have finished my entire 
statement. The gentleman habitually asks people to yield in the middle 
of their statement. I'm going to complete my thoughts, and then I will 
be happy to yield.
  The fact is I think this House ought to compare our record this year 
with the record when the gentleman's party was in control. When we took 
control of this House 3 years ago, what did we find? We found that they 
had only been able to pass two appropriation bills.

                              {time}  1100

  They had not been able to pass a single appropriation bill that 
appropriated a dime for the domestic portion of the Federal budget. And 
they, in fact, left to the next Congress the necessity to pass all of 
those domestic appropriation bills. How, with that record, they can 
come forward on this floor and complain because we are 60 days late in 
their mind is a joke in my view.
  Let me cite some of the other records. So far this year, without this 
bill, we have passed more individual appropriation bills than has been 
done in five of the last seven years, and most of those years were 
under Republican control. In fiscal year 2003, Republican control, only 
two bills were enacted as freestanding measures; the rest were part of 
an omnibus. In fiscal year 2004, Republican control, six bills were 
enacted as freestanding measures; the rest were in an omnibus. Fiscal 
year 2005, Republican control, four bills were enacted as freestanding 
measures; the rest were put in an omnibus. And the story goes on and on 
and on.
  With respect to the amendment process, our friends on the other side 
of the aisle were able to offer 96 amendments in full committee, they 
offered 155 amendments on the floor, and in the conference, on this 
bill alone, they offered nine amendments. Significantly, their 
Republican counterparts in the Senate didn't offer any; they felt we 
had done a pretty good bipartisan job in producing these bills, and I 
do, too.
  The fact is, we have been subjected to obstruction by delay as the 
minority has apparently tried to turn the House of Representatives into 
the Senate through filibuster by amendment. We don't have a filibuster 
in the House rules, but they can achieve the same thing by tossing up 
countless amendments, many of which are not serious amendments.
  With respect to the cost of the bill, they make much of the fact that 
this bill costs significantly more than its counterparts last year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Let's walk through what those differences are. Would they 
suggest that we take out the $3.2 billion increase for veterans so that 
we can clean up the disability backlog? Would they suggest that there 
is something wrong with the fact that, in contrast to what happened 
when they were running the show, we chose to put $14.8 billion for war 
costs that were previously funded in a supplemental, we chose to put 
them in the regular bill so you didn't hide the cost in a regular bill?
  On infrastructure, as the gentleman pointed out, we've had collapsing 
infrastructure in this country. Would they suggest we remove the $10.8 
billion in additional infrastructure funding?
  On health, we are about to pass the most momentous health care 
changes in the history of the country. We have $6.3 billion of 
additional funding over last year to expand the capacity of the health 
care system to deal with the fact that 31 million more people are going 
to be using that health care system. Would they suggest that we take 
that money out?
  When you total up the cost for those items that I have just recited, 
the rest of the increase in the bill is $4.8 billion; that is equal to 
a 1 percent increase. I make no apology for that because, as the 
gentleman pointed out, we are trying to deal with years of neglect of 
our domestic economy. This is the bill that does that, and I make no 
apology for the fact that we bring it to the House today. And I make no 
apology for comparing our ability to deliver the goods before the end 
of this Congress in contrast to the inability of the other party to do 
that when they controlled the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, 
and I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with my very good friend.
  Let me say that obviously the appropriations process is a challenging 
and difficult and messy one, but I think that it's important to note a 
few things as we look at last summer.
  My friend will, I'm sure, acknowledge--and I would be happy to yield 
to him--that never before in the history of the Republic have we had 
the kind of structure put into place that prevented Members from 
offering amendments that we did through this appropriations process.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. OBEY. I would say never before have we had the kind of systematic 
obstruction on the part of the minority that we had either.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say 
that the problem we had was this: The first appropriation bill came 
forward, it was a total of 20 minutes of debate. Twenty minutes of 
debate took place, Mr. Speaker, and then all of a sudden the process 
was shut down and Mr. McGovern and I and our other Rules Committee 
colleagues were forced upstairs to take the first step towards shutting 
down the process. So let's say that this extraordinarily dilatory 
process lasted 20 minutes before we took the first step towards 
shutting this place down.
  The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is that as we talk about the 
sacrosanct September 30 end-of-fiscal-year date, that's only part of 
it. The only reason that we point that out, recognizing that under both 
Democrats and Republicans through a difficult appropriations process in 
the past, we have clearly had to go beyond that September 30 deadline 
for the end of the fiscal year. And the problem was that when we were 
told that we would not exceed that because we were shutting down the 
process. So, unfortunately, we lost both the opportunity for 
deliberation and this sacrosanct deadline that was constantly held up 
as the raison d'etre here for this kind of action.
  The third point is, as my friend, the distinguished Chair of the 
committee, went through the 95 amendments that were offered in 
committee, the 160 amendments that were made in order on the House 
floor for consideration, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the 
selection of those amendments in the hand of one individual Member of 
this institution--not those of us on the House Rules Committee. Yeah, 
we ultimately, with the majority vote in the House Rules Committee, saw 
our Democratic colleagues put the stamp of approval on it, but the 
decision of what amendments were made in order was made by one person, 
the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations. That's 
where the decisions were.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, under the historic tradition, the tradition of 
consideration of appropriations bills, knowing how sacrosanct article 
I, section 9 of the Constitution is, Members of the House had the 
chance, as Mr. Flake said in his remarks, to stand up and offer 
amendments. One of the things that we believe strongly about, with the 
85 percent increase that we have in nondefense discretionary spending; 
not those issues that the gentleman pointed to that we of course agree 
to in a bipartisan way--the national security of the United States of 
America--but in the multifarious other areas, there is a real desire 
for Members to stand up and have a chance to offer amendments that 
might be able to bring about, with a scalpel, some kind of spending 
reduction because we've gone through such huge increases. And so, Mr. 
Speaker, I have to say that it's very, very troubling to hear these 
kinds of arguments.

[[Page H14455]]

  Mr. Kirk, to whom I'm going to yield in just a moment, has the 2,500 
pages very, very gingerly propped up there on the lectern. At this 
time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes--which, based on the level of 
spending in this 2,500 page bill, will amount to $15 billion since 
we're spending $7.5 billion per minute--to my friend from Highland 
Park.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman.
  This bill totals 2,500 pages. Initial estimates show that it has 
5,000 earmarks, and these earmarks in this legislation stretch over 
several hundred pages. Now, any time Congress moves a 2,500-page 
appropriation bill on short notice, we should urge caution. This kind 
of spending may be in line with other spending of this Congress.
  This morning, Congressman Price and I released a list of the 11 worst 
spending items approved by the 111th Congress. Items included $1.9 
million for a water taxi to nowhere in Pleasure Beach, Connecticut, 
opposed by a local mayor there that said the reason why we never did 
this is there is no local support for this project. Or $578,000 to 
fight homelessness in Union, New York, a town that has reported no 
homeless citizens. HUD officials said, ``We hope and encourage these 
new grantees to develop creative strategies for this funding.''
  Now, remember, the Bureau of Public Debt reports that we must borrow 
$160 billion per week for the United States to service our current debt 
and add new IOUs. Forty-six cents of every dollar spent by this 
Congress is borrowed, and most of it from abroad.
  This bill has 5,000 earmarks over several hundred pages buried in 
this legislation. I do not think that it represents responsible 
management of Federal finances. The press reports indicate that the 
congressional leaders will soon approve adding $1.8 trillion to our 
national debt next year. They need to do this to fund 10,000 earmarks 
they've already approved--5,000 just in this legislation--that totals 
$446 billion in a 2,500-page bill, accelerating spending by $50 billion 
over last year alone. I think we should turn away from this kind of 
spending and enact a more frugal set of spending priorities.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of observations.
  First of all, the gentleman talked about earmarks. Under the 
Democratic leadership, earmarks have been curtailed significantly from 
where they were when the Republicans were in control of the Congress.
  Secondly, I guess it's good theatrics to hold up all the pages of the 
appropriations bills that are gathered there, but I should point out to 
my colleague that the Republican omnibus appropriations acts were 
longer in length than the one he has there. So what? I mean, has this 
debate become so shallow that it's all about the number of pages of the 
bill?
  The gentleman talked about responsibility. The responsibility that 
the Democratic majority has is to clean up the mess that the 
Republicans left us. The responsibility of the Democratic majority is 
to deal with the years and years of neglect on important programs 
ranging from transportation to health care to veterans affairs. That is 
what we are doing here.
  This is a debate about issues that matter to everyday people. These 
bills contain monies for roads and bridges, monies for our veterans, 
monies for our health care facilities. These are important matters, and 
that is what we should be debating.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman 
from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. 
Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with 
significant concerns about section 159 of the Transportation division 
of this legislation. It requires Amtrak to allow passengers to check 
their guns when riding the rails.
  It is no secret that rail systems are an attractive target for 
terrorists. In fact, in last year's attack in Mumbai, two terrorists 
executed a commando-style raid on a major railway station, gunning down 
150 innocent commuters. To date, we have been fortunate that no such 
attacks have occurred on U.S. soil, but with passage of this 
legislation, securing the Nation's railway systems becomes far more 
difficult.
  Section 159 requires Amtrak to allow passengers to travel with guns 
without checking them against a terrorist watch list. We all get 
checked against a terrorist watch list when we fly, regardless of 
whether we check firearms or not. How can we justify not using the 
terrorist watch list on people who travel the rail?
  Amtrak policy of prohibiting passengers from traveling with guns was 
established in response to 9/11. With this bill, Congress, in a heavy-
handed way, is interfering with Amtrak's security protocols without a 
single congressional hearing. This bill would abruptly undermine nearly 
a decade of conscientious efforts by Amtrak to enhance rail security 
and protect its passengers and employees. I am also concerned that it 
does not distinguish between checked baggage transported in a separate 
car and that which is loaded onto the same car as passengers.
  Section 159 also lacks safeguards to ensure that State and local gun 
laws are respected. Specifically, it is silent on the question of 
preemption, thereby implying that individuals can carry firearms into 
jurisdictions where it is unlawful to do so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I would like to also add that, last 
year, we spent more than twice as much money per passenger on aviation 
security as we did on rail security. Section 159 will undermine the 
security of Amtrak's passengers, employees, and infrastructure. I 
sincerely hope that we do not soon come to regret this hasty and 
unexamined passage.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from Mississippi--
and I know my friend from Florida is raising concerns about this as 
well--this underscores procedurally the challenge that we are facing 
when we have one individual making these kinds of decisions that should 
be made by Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives. 
When we listen to this argument put forward about spending and about 
the fact that this 2,500-page bill is theatrical, you bet. I mean, you 
bet, Mr. Speaker. It is theatrical to hold up a 2,500-page bill, but 
it's a way to graphically underscore what is taking place here.
  Now, my friend said that he is interested and concerned about the 
fact that everyday people have priorities on transportation and on a 
wide range of issues. National security is again, to me, priority 
number one. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in this 2,500-page bill, we have a 63 
percent increase in funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that everyday people who constantly, 
over the past year or two, have been focusing on trying to rein in 
their spending believe that a 63 percent increase on the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an appropriate utilization 
of this money. So that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we point to 
this.
  Now I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing, my good friend from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman from California for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear all of this talk about the past. If I remember a 
little bit of the past, recently, somebody ran on the idea of ``change 
you can believe in.''
  Is this the kind of change that people were talking about, to 
continue the same type of efforts in the House here that are so bad as 
far as what was in the past?
  I am very, very disturbed today that we bring a rule to the floor 5 
months after this bill has passed the floor of the House and 3 months 
after it has passed the Senate. Now, today, almost 3 months into the 
new fiscal year, we finally bring the Transportation-HUD bill to the 
floor. Why? Why wait? This bill has been done for months and months.
  The frustration, I think, that a lot of us have on both sides of the 
aisle is there is no reason that this bill should not have been 
completed other than for the fact that they wanted to use it as it is 
being used today, which is as a vehicle to carry other bills that maybe

[[Page H14456]]

could not stand on their own and because the work hasn't been done; but 
anyone who talks about some kind of delay tactic when you have an 80-
vote margin in the House and a supermajority in the Senate is simply 
beyond having any kind of rational argument today.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, a couple of days ago, I had a motion to 
instruct conferees--and this is why I think everyone should oppose this 
rule. I had a motion which said that we would have, as conferees on 
this bill, 72 hours to look at what is in those 2,500 pages which are 
being dumped on us today. We were given 30 minutes. When the bill was 
completed and we were in conference, we had gotten the opportunity for 
30 minutes, which is after the House had voted to give us 72 hours to 
study what is in that bill. Also, the House voted, and a sizable 
majority said, that we should take this bill by itself rather than have 
these other five bills added onto it. Again, totally ignored. So here 
we are today with almost a $500 billion bill which we had 30 minutes to 
look at.
  Just as one example of why it is important to have a chance to look 
at something like this, there was a provision airdropped that no one 
knew about. I asked about it in conference. No one knew the answer to 
it. It is one which is a huge safety issue on transportation.
  Airdropped into this conference report just before our conference 
convened was a special exemption for the State of Vermont to have 
98,000-pound trucks travel on interstate highways.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LATHAM. Now, maybe this is okay. Maybe it's fine. This is exactly 
why we should have time to look at it. I know there are a lot of States 
which would like to have their weights increased. Certainly, this is a 
safety issue in many parts of the country, so to have someone airdrop a 
provision of that importance into a bill like this is simply 
outrageous.
  There was no debate. No one knew a thing about it. Even the people 
who were in charge of the bill could not explain the provision when I 
asked, What is this under that section? Why is this language in there 
as it is? It had absolutely no debate. No one knew what it was.
  Please vote against this rule. Let's get a decent bill on the floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I've been here 17 years, 
and I really believe that you have got to stand for something or fall 
for everything.
  Today, as subcommittee Chair of Railroads, I am appalled that we are 
including language in this omnibus bill that allows people to carry 
guns on Amtrak. This is a failure of leadership on every single level. 
We are passing legislation that endangers the safety of 27 million 
passengers who ride Amtrak each year. This language was opposed by both 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Homeland 
Security Committee as well as opposed by numerous other Members. Yet we 
are forcing this unnecessary provision on millions of passengers and 
are jeopardizing homeland security for absolutely no reason.
  I have traveled the rail systems throughout the world. None of them 
allow guns on their systems. We are taking a dangerous step backwards 
and are stripping Amtrak of its ability to set security standards and 
to protect its customers and employees. There was a deadly terrorist 
attack in Russia just 2 weeks ago on a train. The same thing happened 
in Madrid, Spain, in Mumbai, India, and in London, England. Each attack 
has emphasized the importance of passenger rail security.
  These incidents also clearly demonstrate the fact that security in 
rail environments presents unique opportunities for terrorists. Trains 
are not like airplanes. You don't have metal detectors, and you don't 
have the TSA officials there or law enforcement officers processing 
passengers through these stations. We haven't provided Amtrak the 
resources to fully fund this operation, let alone the additional costs 
and manpower that will be needed to comply with this legislation.
  The traveling public deserves better. I am asking each Member to vote 
``no'' on this rule so we can come back and get a fair rule pertaining 
to the traveling public.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from 
Alpine, Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), I would simply say that I will give him 2 
minutes, which would total $15 billion of this measure based on the 
$7.5 billion per minute that it is costing us to do this.
  I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking new colleague from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is really bad government at its worst. I 
really do believe that in my heart of hearts. It seems to be a vehicle 
to drop in things that would never pass by themselves, and we are 
hearing that criticism on both sides of the aisle.
  It's 2,500 pages, and the gentleman from Massachusetts asks, Well, 
why is that important?
  It is important because we have been given just hours to try to 
review this. It is a physical impossibility to actually read and 
comprehend what is in this bill. I, for one, was elected as a freshman 
because I was critical of the Republicans and the Democrats. It is a 
shame that this bill and this rule are being pushed upon us without an 
opportunity to properly review it:
  2,500 pages. $446 billion in expenses. Nearly a 12 percent increase 
in spending year after year in the base spending. Over 5,000 earmarks 
that could never withstand the light of day if we had to vote on them 
and look at them one at a time, as my friend Mr. Flake has brought many 
times before this floor.
  Next week, there is going to be legislation moved forward to raise 
the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion. Let no person in this body try to 
kid themselves that they are concerned about the debt and the deficit 
when they have to continually raise the debt ceiling to try to clean 
things up. No. We continue to mortgage our future every time we are met 
with a challenge. The only thing I hear is we need billions and 
billions more.
  It is time for this Congress to make tough, difficult decisions and 
to limit the spending. That will help grow the economy. That is the 
responsible thing to do. That is what the American people asked us to 
do, but that is not what this body is doing. It is time for some 
personal responsibility here in the United States Congress. We should 
defeat this rule, and we should get serious about limiting the amount 
of expenditures that happen in the United States Congress.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just make a couple of 
observations.
  First of all, I should remind everybody that, when Bill Clinton left 
office, he left George Bush with a record surplus which President Bush 
and his Republican Congress squandered. We ended up going from record 
surpluses to record deficits and debts. That's just a fact. I 
understand the frustrations of my friends on the other side as their 
goal is to obstruct and to make sure we get nothing done here. That is 
what they think is the winning strategy--to basically get nothing done.
  They are failing in that because Congress is moving and is getting 
things done. We are beginning to turn this economy around, and we are 
responding to the needs and the desires of the American people. We are 
going to continue to do that in this bill. The inclusion of moneys for 
veterans, for our infrastructure, for health care, for job creation, 
and for worker training during this difficult economy is vital and 
important. We are going to get this done, and we are going to help the 
American people.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano).
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I am pleased 
to be able to comment on the Financial Services and General Government 
section of this bill, which provides for a total of $24.1 billion in 
discretionary appropriations. The agencies that this bill funds touch 
all of our lives, and the spending

[[Page H14457]]

has been carefully allocated to those programs where the American 
people will benefit the most.
  In an effort to rebuild the regulatory agencies that protect 
investors, consumers, and taxpayers, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission is given a 16 percent increase over fiscal year 2009 to $1.1 
billion. In addition, because we are committed to implementing 
important consumer protection legislation which was enacted in 2008, 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission receives $118 million, which is 
the full amount authorized, and a $13 million increase over last year.
  In this conference report, we also want to make sure that capital and 
other assistance gets to small businesses and disadvantaged 
communities, not just to large businesses and the wealthy. The Small 
Business Administration and the Community Development Financial 
Institutions Fund both received significant increases above fiscal year 
2009.
  The IRS is sufficiently funded to allow for the fair and effective 
collection of taxes, including resources to pursue wealthy individuals 
and businesses who avoid U.S. taxes by parking money in overseas tax 
havens. There is also more than the budget request for taxpayer 
services.
  The Federal Judiciary receives the funding that it needs to keep up 
with increased costs and responsibilities. We also provide a 2 percent 
pay adjustment in 2010 to our hardworking Federal workers.
  In this bill, we meet our obligations to the District of Columbia. I 
feel very strongly that Congress should not be overly involved in local 
affairs of the District of Columbia. Like any other citizens, D.C. 
residents should have the right to manage their local affairs on their 
own.

                              {time}  1130

  In this year's bill, with respect to both abortion funding and 
medical marijuana, we allowed the District of Columbia to make its own 
decisions, just like each of the 50 States. We also dropped some other 
outdated and unwarranted restrictions.
  I would like to thank Chairman Obey for his leadership, and my 
ranking member, Jo Ann Emerson, for her many contributions. I would 
also like to recognize our staff who have worked long hours to put 
together this conference report. In particular, I would like to mention 
David Reich, Bob Bonner, Lee Price, Ed O'Kane, Ariana Sarar and Alex 
Jabal from our majority staff, and Alice Hogans, Dena Baron and John 
Martens from our minority staff. On my personal staff I would like to 
thank Philip Schmidt, George Sullivan, Matt Alpert and Nadine Berg.
  I hope that you would support this bill. Very briefly, on the size of 
the bill, it's great theater to show that bill, but that's composed of 
bills that passed this House, some as far back as 6 months ago.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SERRANO. Those bills went through the committee process, the 
subcommittee process, the full committee process, the amendment process 
in committee, the amendment process on the floor. If anyone says that 
they haven't read that bill, it's because they didn't take time to read 
those five or six or seven bills that are included there which were 
passed about 6 months ago.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, with the somewhat 
unprecedented procedure utilizing the 2,500-page bill as the lectern, I 
am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chair of the 
Republican Conference, my friend from Columbus, Indiana, a self-
described favorite Hoosier of mine, my friend, Mr. Pence.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report before us 
today and the rule that we debate at this moment.
  It really is astonishing. At a time when American families are 
hurting, 10 percent unemployment, now comes before the Congress this 
massive piece of legislation. The numbers tell the tale--2,500 pages, 
nearly half a trillion dollars in spending, 5,000 earmarks on hundreds 
of pages. Now, I know my distinguished colleague on the other side says 
that the number of pages is a ``so what,'' and I defer to him. I don't 
think it's about the number of pages; I think it's about the size of 
the bill that will be offensive to millions of Americans.
  When you get down to the details here, Military Construction and 
Veterans funding gets a 5.2 percent increase; Commerce, Justice, 
Science gets 11.6 percent; Foreign Operations gets a 33 percent 
increase this year; Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 
gets a 23.5 percent increase--I feel like I ought to call for a drum 
roll here, Mr. Speaker--for a 12.2 percent increase in spending in a 
single year.
  As I told the President of the United States yesterday in the Cabinet 
Room, there is not a business in Muncie, Indiana, that's going to see a 
12 percent increase in its budget this year.
  Here in Washington D.C., proving just how out of touch this Nation's 
Capital is with the struggles that American families and small business 
and family farmers are facing, here it is, a 12 percent increase in 
Federal spending. And it's not just what is in this bill, it's what 
isn't in this bill.
  Gone is the ban on Federal funding of abortions in the District of 
Columbia. Gone is the ban on legalizing marijuana in our Nation's 
Capital. Gone is the ban on Federal funding for domestic partnership 
benefits. And eventually gone is the support for the D.C. Opportunity 
Scholarship Program, doing away with opportunities for a largely 
minority population to go to the school of their choice. Also, I might 
add, gone is any restriction on the use of Federal funds to enforce or 
implement the Fairness Doctrine.
  You know, the President said to us yesterday in the Cabinet Room that 
we needed to get back to fiscal discipline as a means of encouraging 
economic growth. I told him he could do one thing this week--veto this 
bill. Let's have level funding. Let's tell the American people that we 
get it in Washington D.C.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I appreciate the theatrics on the other side. I will remind 
them again that these bills have all gone through committee and have 
all been voted on in the House.
  I would also like to say to my colleagues, I am reminded of the old 
saying, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' My colleagues complain about 
earmarks. I don't have a count here, but my guess is that a good 
portion of those earmarks are Republican earmarks.
  I would say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there is increased 
spending in this bill for things like veterans, veterans' health. I 
mean, in this bill, there is money for military construction and family 
housing to support America's military forces and their families at home 
and overseas.
  There is money for Guard and Reserve. There is money for overseas 
contingency operations; money for Veterans Health Administration; for 
rural health. There is money here to deal with mental health challenges 
that so many of our veterans have to deal with, women's veterans 
programs, long-term care, assistance for homeless vets, medical and 
prosthetic research, medical facilities, VA construction programs. They 
go on and on and on.
  If my colleagues oppose that, fine. They can vote against the final 
passage of the bill. But I say that these are priorities for our 
country, and I am glad that the Appropriations Committee has put this 
in the bill. I am going to enthusiastically support final passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
good friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have to say, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said a 
while ago that they had to have what amounts to a legislative form of 
martial law during the consideration of these appropriation bills 
because many amendments were being brought forward. He said many were 
not serious amendments.
  I can only assume that he was referring to some of mine, because I 
had a lot of them. But let me tell you, we had more than 500 no-bid 
contracts going to private companies in the Defense bill

[[Page H14458]]

alone, and I had many amendments to examine those because, heaven 
knows, they weren't being examined in the Appropriations Committee 
sufficiently.
  We have had story after story and a cloud hanging over this body, 
investigations going on; the Ethics Committee has seen fit to 
investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign 
contributions. Yet we say that many of these amendments are not serious 
amendments.
  Who has to decide that? Why don't we let the body here decide and 
allow those to come to the floor.
  Also, the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned that we have to have 
this level of funding because of years and years of neglect. I would 
submit that we would do well to have a little more neglect on the 
taxpayers' behalf if what we are funding in this bill, and we are, is 
nearly $200,000 to renovate a building in Massachusetts to attract 
private capital investment; $700,000 for an arts pavilion in 
Mississippi. I think the taxpayers would be happy for a little more 
neglect by the Federal Government in this area.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers 
he has remaining?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am the lone remaining speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. At this point I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the 
lectern-in-front-of-him, bill-holding gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess at 5'6'' inches I am doing well simply to look 
over the 2,500-page bill that spends yet another half a trillion 
dollars of money we do not have. Since the Democrats have come to 
power, they have increased the deficit tenfold.
  We have our first trillion-dollar deficit, a budget plan to triple--
triple--the national debt in the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, every page 
of this behemoth spending bill represents an IOU to the Chinese to be 
paid for by our children and grandchildren. Every single page of this 
2,500-page, half-a-trillion-dollar bill crushes yet another job in 
America.
  Nobody is going to launch new jobs in America when they have to pay 
for this, Mr. Speaker. Our highest levels of spending, our highest 
levels of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats don't get it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, the 
30 seconds, to simply say that in the name of fairness, there are both 
Democrats and Republicans who are opposing this rule. Why? Because 
Democrats and Republicans have been shut out of this process.
  On the Republican side, Mr. Speaker, we believe that an 85 percent 
increase in nondefense discretionary spending is outrageous when the 
American people are struggling to make ends meet. Only the Federal 
Government, as my friend from Indiana said, would proceed with a 
dramatic increase in spending when businesses across this country are 
working to bring about reductions.
  There are shared priorities that we have on national defense; on 
transportation. But the notion of a 63 percent increase for the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or $375 million for the 
Clean Technology Fund is not the route to go.
  Defeat the previous question. Defeat this rule.
  Over the last few months, the American people have written and called 
their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town 
hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read 
bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people are upset 
after finding out the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a 
number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time 
to understand or really even to read the bills.
  For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called 
``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and-
trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances, 
much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our 
constituents are rightly upset.
  You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would not be an issue, as the 
distinguished Speaker is on record as saying in A New Direction for 
America, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and 
conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web 
site; yet, time and time again, the distinguished Speaker and majority 
leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.
  That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have signed a discharge 
petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and 
conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and the 
general public for 72 hours before they be brought to the House floor 
for a vote.
  That's why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider 
that legislation, H. Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues, 
Representatives Baird and Culberson.
  By voting no on the previous question, Members will still have an 
opportunity to debate and consider this conference report, but if the 
previous question is defeated, it will also allow for separate 
consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can vote 
on the conference report and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 
554.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the American people, indeed, are 
struggling, and they are struggling because of years of neglect by 
President Bush and the Republicans here in this Congress who have 
neglected, I think, the most important pressing priorities that 
everyday people face. What we are trying to do is clean up their mess, 
and this bill represents an increase in spending on important 
priorities that have been underfunded in the past, everything from 
infrastructure, because our infrastructure all over our country is 
crumbling because of neglect, to an increase in funding for veterans 
health and for veterans housing.
  I am proud of the priorities in these appropriations bills. We have 
appropriations bills that have a conscience, that actually respond to 
the needs of the American people. I understand, as I said before, the 
frustration of the other side, because what they would like is for us 
to get nothing done.
  But the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that this Democratic Congress is 
doing the opposite. Politico said, ``A Democratic Congress that is 
enjoying its greatest political and legislative success since at least 
the beginning of the Clinton administration and arguably since its 
legislative heyday in the mid-1960s.''
  We are moving forward on things like the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act to help keep people's jobs and create more jobs; the 
Cash for Clunkers bill which jump-started the U.S. auto industry and 
provided consumers with up to $4,500 to trade in an old vehicle for one 
with higher fuel efficiency. We have passed a bill to help families 
save their homes.
  We passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, tripling 
volunteerism opportunities to a quarter of a million people. We have 
passed health care for 11 million more children that without this bill 
would not have access to health care. The FDA regulation of tobacco, 
the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, the Omnibus Public 
Lands Management Act, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the 
military procurement reform bill, strengthening oversight of TARP, the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  I can go on and on and on, but this has been an activist Congress, 
responding to the needs of the American people, responding to those who 
are struggling or who are out of work, because they were neglected for 
so many years.
  We are trying to deal with our debt as well, trying to go back to 
what President Clinton established, a time of record surpluses. But 
when the Republicans came in, the first thing they did was pass tax 
cuts for wealthy people without paying for it. The rich got richer 
while the middle class got poorer.
  Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill before us represents, I think, the 
right priorities, the priorities of the American people.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned during 
debate

[[Page H14459]]

on the rule, I have strong objections to section 159 of the 
Transportation division of this bill.
  Over the last decade it has become abundantly clear that rail systems 
are key targets for terrorists.
  And the consequences have been devastating for many of our friends 
around the globe.
  In last year's attack in Mumbai, 2 terrorists executed a ``commando-
style'' raid on a major railway station, gunning down 150 innocent 
commuters.
  I am grateful that, thus far, Americans have been spared the horror 
of an attack on our domestic rail system.
  But approving section 159 is to act as though the terrible events in 
Madrid, Mumbai, and Russia could never happen here.
  Amtrak's ban on firearms was instituted in response to September 
11th, and re-evaluated after each major terrorist attack since.
  Section 159 interferes with Amtrak's carefully developed security 
protocols and exacerbates the vulnerability of railways without 
hearings or debate.
  Still, I would like to recognize Chairman Olver and Chairman Obey for 
reaching out to discuss my security concerns and potential changes to 
proposed language.
  Unfortunately, none of those concerns are addressed in the provision 
that is in the conference package.
  The bottom line is that it still forces Amtrak to allow passengers to 
transport guns as checked baggage without even the most basic 
safeguards.
  For example, section 159 does not distinguish between checked baggage 
transported in a separate car and that which is loaded onto passenger 
cars.
  Moreover, there is not even language that requires checked baggage to 
be secure.
  This means that guns and ammunition could be loaded onto the same 
cars as the passengers who are transporting them.
  As my colleague from Florida, Chairwoman Brown, stated earlier, it is 
absolutely critical for everyone to understand that checked baggage on 
a train is not the same as checked baggage on an airplane.
  What is even more puzzling is that section 159 requires Amtrak to 
allow passengers to travel with guns without checking their names 
against the terrorist watchlist.
  We all know that our names are checked against the watchlist when we 
fly, even if we don't check firearms.
  I do not understand how anyone can justify using the watchlist to 
protect air passengers but refusing to provide the same protection to 
rail passengers.
  This section also lacks safeguards to ensure that State and local gun 
laws are respected.
  Specifically, it fails to address preemption, with the implication 
that individuals may carry firearms into jurisdictions where it is 
unlawful to do so.
  Last year, we spent more than twice as much money per-passenger on 
aviation security as we did on passenger rail security.
  Still, Congress saw fit to cut Amtrak's security funding by 20 
percent for this year.
  And since section 159 creates new problems without providing any 
additional funding, Amtrak will now face more security obstacles with 
even fewer resources.
  Section 159 will reverse nearly a decade of conscientious efforts by 
Amtrak to protect its passengers, employees, and infrastructure--and I 
sincerely hope that we do not soon come to regret its hasty and 
unexamined passage.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives is 
considering H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010. This legislation contains six of the fiscal year 2010 
appropriations bills that have not yet been signed into law by the 
President. I commend my colleagues for gluing together this very 
complex measure that invests in important American priorities.
  I support a vast majority of this legislation, especially funds that 
have been directed toward veterans health care, military construction, 
public safety, health research, education, highways, and international 
diplomacy. But, I am terribly concerned about other aspects of the 
bill, namely its $1.1 trillion price tag as well as provisions that 
would allow federal funds to be used for needle exchange programs and 
for abortion services in the District of Columbia.
  While I cannot lend my support to H.R. 3288, I remain committed to 
working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues as we finish the 
fiscal year 2010 appropriations process and begin work on the bills for 
next year.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act. While there are many 
good provisions in this bill, I'm particularly pleased to see funding 
included in this legislation intended for a Biodegradable Lubricants 
Study which will reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil.
  In 2008, I successfully included language in the Passenger Rail 
Investment and Improvement Act which authorized a Biodegradable 
Lubricants Study to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil. 
This authorization language was included in the Railroad Safety 
Enhancement Act which was signed into law on October 16, 2008.
  In 2009, I was pleased to secure an additional $3 million in funding 
for the Railroad Research and Development Account in the Transportation 
HUD Appropriations Act. This additional $3 million in funding is 
intended to fund the Biodegradable Lubricants study authorized in 
Division B: Section 405 of the Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008, 
as well as other feasibility studies authorized in that bill.
  I was pleased to see that additional $3 million for Railroad Research 
and Development included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act. I was 
also pleased to see language in the Joint Explanatory Statement which 
specifies that Railroad Research and Development funding will go 
towards studies and research authorized in the Railroad Safety 
Enhancement Act of 2008. The Biodegradable Lubricants Study authorized 
in this legislation will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and 
reduce our national addiction to petroleum imports. If all industrial 
lubricants used annually in the U.S. could be replaced with biobased 
versions, over 2 billion gallons of petroleum per year would be 
replaced.
  In performing this study, the National Ag-Based Lubricants Center 
(NABL) at the University of Northern Iowa would be a perfect partner 
for the Federal Railroad Administration. NABL's expertise and resources 
in biobased lubricants is unmatched, and it is the only entity whose 
primary mission is the research and testing of agricultural-based 
lubricants. I thank the Conferees for including the $3 million in 
additional funding for the FRA's Railroad Research and Development 
account and I look forward to seeing the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act signed into law.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, although I intend to vote in favor of H.R. 
3288, the ``Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010,'' I do so with 
regret. This legislation contains a provision that affords the right of 
binding third-party arbitration to terminated automobile dealership 
franchises with Chrysler and General Motors (GM). Moreover, this 
provision governs the very nature of that arbitration, in effect 
dictating the criteria arbiters must take into account when deciding 
whether to cause an auto manufacturer to reinstate a particular dealer 
franchise. While I lament the painful cuts to dealerships both Chrysler 
and GM had to make in order to protect their viability and moreover 
disagree with the manner in which both companies pursued dealership 
rationalization, particularly with regard to Chrysler, I continue to 
maintain that statutorily mandated arbitration is at best a mistake 
and, rather frankly, unconstitutional. Chrysler's and GM's respective 
dealership cuts were approved in bankruptcy court, and undoing them ex 
post facto is tantamount to violation of due process, the spending and 
commerce clauses, and the bankruptcy clause's uniformity requirement.
  From an economic perspective, effectively causing Chrysler and GM to 
engage in thousands of arbitrations at significant legal cost will 
impede each company's ability to complete its restructuring plans. To 
add uncertainty to these companies' futures after taxpayers have 
invested $60 billion to finance their restructuring is quite simply 
irresponsible and, more broadly, potentially harmful to the country's 
overall economic recovery.
  I recognize the sincere efforts of my friend, Majority Leader Hoyer, 
to broker a compromise between dealers and automakers but cannot in 
good conscience remain silent on this matter, given the grave 
constitutional and economic defects of the arbitration provision in 
H.R. 3288. It remains my strong preference that disputes of this nature 
be resolved outside of statute.

[[Page H14460]]

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the conference 
report on H.R. 3288, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2010, I 
wanted to clarify the sponsorship of one congressionally-directed 
projects included in the report that has been attributed to me. 
Division A of the Conference Report, the Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations Act, includes $400,000 in funding for 
FH-24, Banks to Lowman. The Report mistakenly names me as the sponsor 
of this project. While this project is located in Idaho, I did not 
submit a request for this project, which is located in the first 
district. I appreciate the Committee's work in providing funding for 
important projects in Idaho, but in the interest of transparency, I 
wanted to clarify this for the record.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

             Amendment to H. Res. 961 Offered by Mr. Dreier

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 961, if 
ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on House Resolution 35.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 187, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 947]

                               YEAS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus

[[Page H14461]]


     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Costa
     Engel
     Heinrich
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Radanovich
     Sires
     Tanner
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1210

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO and Messrs. BOREN and McINTYRE changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 948]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--200

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Buyer
     Davis (TN)
     Higgins
     Mica
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Radanovich
     Sutton
     Watt
     Wittman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1219

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 948, I inserted my voting 
card to vote ``aye'' and my vote failed to register. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________