[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 5588-5601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1105, OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 184 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 184

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 158 is laid on the table.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 184 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains 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 the 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). 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 to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question 
of consideration.
  After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, this point of order is against the bill 
because it may contain unfunded mandates. We have in this body a 
question of consideration where we shouldn't move ahead with a bill if 
it might contain unfunded mandates.
  Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is we have no idea whether this 
contains unfunded mandates or not. I can't tell you definitively if it 
does, and here's why:
  This is the bill. This is the bill that we received less than 48 
hours ago. It contains, for example, roughly 9,000 earmarks. Now, 
somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe in my time 
here--it's getting heavy. I'll put it down. In my time here in 8 years 
I don't think I have ever seen a bill, and I know that it didn't happen 
prior to my time here, where one single bill has contained this many 
earmarks, 9,000. And let me point out this is a combination of nine 
bills, only three of which went even through the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rest of them didn't even go through the full 
committee, just the subcommittee. We didn't have the ability to go to 
the floor and challenge any of these. That just wasn't available to us.
  So here we are today with this stack that we just got less than 48 
hours ago and we are told that we have to pile through and try to see 
if these 9,000 earmarks, which is part of a spending bill that spends 
$410 billion, to see if they're valid, to see if there is a Federal 
nexus, to see if there might be anything untoward. We don't know. None 
of us can actually go through that, and so we shouldn't proceed with 
consideration of this bill.
  One way to look at it is that there are 9,000 earmarks in the bill. 
The way that we should look at it as well, and I don't know how many, 
nobody can tell me how many, but it's a safe bet to assume there are a 
few thousand, at least, no-bid contracts. These are earmarks that go to 
private companies that nobody else has a chance to bid on.
  Now, one of the best lines I felt that the President used last night, 
and it was one of the greatest applause lines that we had and 
justifiably so, the President said we have had no-bid defense contracts 
with regard to Iraq, and we shouldn't. And the whole place erupted in 
applause. I myself stood up. We shouldn't do that. Yet in this piece of 
legislation, we have at least a few thousand no-bid contracts. No-bid 
contracts that are going to private companies whose executives and the 
lobbyists who represent them have contributed millions of dollars to 
Members in this body, the same Members who have requested those 
earmarks.
  Now, one need not suggest that there is anything untoward in any of 
them only to suggest that somebody on the outside certainly thinks 
there is. There is one group, the PMA group, who makes a habit of 
requesting a lot of earmarks in bills. In fact, in the 2008 defense 
bill, they got $300 million in earmarks for their clients from this 
body. That same lobbying firm has clients receiving a dozen or so 
earmarks in this bill. These are earmarks to private companies. These 
are no-bid contracts that we are doing that we all stand up and applaud 
when the President says we shouldn't have no-bid contracts going to 
private companies, and yet in this piece of legislation we are going to 
consider today, unless we stop consideration, we're going to be 
approving thousands of no-bid contracts to private companies.
  Now, can anybody in this body stand to tell me that that is right and 
proper? Are we upholding the dignity of the House and the decorum of 
the House by doing so? We know that there is an investigation going on 
right now of one of those firms that sought earmarks and received 
earmarks in this bill. A lobbying firm received several for their 
clients. Yet they remain in this piece of legislation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are using this procedural maneuver to try to prevent consideration of 
an important piece of legislation.
  Technically, the point of order is about whether or not to consider 
this rule and ultimately the underlying bill. But we all know that it's 
really about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for 
debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the merits 
of the legislation itself.
  I oppose any effort to shut down debate in consideration of this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this 
important piece of legislation on its merits and not kill it on a 
procedural motion.

                              {time}  1145

  The underlying bill we are talking about represents the compilation 
of nine appropriations bills from last year. There is important funding 
in here for health care, for education, for transportation, to help 
move our economy forward. Those who oppose the bill

[[Page 5589]]

can vote against it on final passage, but we must consider this rule, 
and we must pass this legislation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, but, in the end, I will urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman makes a point that we should discuss the 
merits of the bill. This point of order is raised against continuing 
because we don't know if there are unfunded mandates in the bill.
  Again, I will yield to the gentleman if he can assure me that there 
are no unfunded mandates in this bill, if he can say that he has read 
this piece of legislation or that he knows that there are none, because 
I think that it's incumbent upon us.
  I will yield to the gentleman if he can make that assurance.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will say to the gentleman, as far as I know, there are no unfunded 
mandates in this bill.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. As far as I know, there might be, there may not 
be.
  But I can tell you, when you have a bill this large that we got just 
48 hours ago, we simply don't know.
  Typically, several years ago, we were having problems, we had Members 
of this body who were indicted and were convicted and are now in jail 
for earmark abuse. We said at that time that we should have reform, we 
should have transparency. We got some transparency, and that's great, 
and I applaud the other side of the aisle for doing what they did to 
bring this about.
  Transparency, sunlight always illuminates, but doesn't always 
disinfect, contrary to popular belief. You have to follow up 
transparency with something else.
  Some may say we have a transparent process now because we got copies 
of 9,000 earmarks 48 hours in advance of considering the legislation, 
but I don't have the ability, nor does any Member of this body, to 
actually challenge any of the 9,000 earmarks contained in this 
legislation.
  Typically, appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule, 
which allows Members of Congress to challenge specific earmarks. Are 
there one of these no-bid contracts, for example, that was lobbied for 
by the PMA group, a group that is now under Federal investigation that 
has since imploded just days after it was revealed they were under 
investigation?
  Are some of these earmarks, perhaps, untoward? Many people would 
actually like to challenge that, have the author, have the one who 
secured the earmark come to the floor and defend that earmark: ``Here 
is why this company deserves a no-bid contract. Here is why I know, as 
a Member of Congress, that nobody else can provide the services that 
they can provide, and they deserve a no-bid contract. Here is why.'' We 
aren't allowed to do that, because this legislation is coming to the 
floor under a closed rule and no amendments like that are even offered. 
I can't challenge any earmarks in this legislation, nor can anybody in 
this body. It's one vote for the whole package.
  We are better than that. The people who sent us here deserve better 
than that. This great institution deserves better than that. Let's not 
proceed with consideration of this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, later today we will be considering a 
privileged resolution that is brought to the floor to ask the Ethics 
Committee to investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign 
contributions.
  We know, as I mentioned, that the Department of Justice is currently 
conducting that kind of investigation. Politico reported just a few 
days ago that several sources have said that the Department of Justice 
has been building a case based on earmarks and campaign contributions 
or investigating earmarks and campaign contributions.
  Yet our own Ethics Committee guidelines state that earmarks that are 
received from those who we get a no-bid contract for are proper and not 
a problem.
  My fear is that our own Ethics Committee here in the House has a 
different standard, a more lax standard than, perhaps, the Department 
of Justice has. And Members of Congress, who are securing earmarks or 
no-bid contracts for private companies, might be exposed more than they 
think they are.
  And even if they aren't, upholding the dignity and decorum of this 
body dictates that we do something more here, that we actually have a 
process that is above reproach. And when you have investigations 
swirling out there over lobby firms and others, we aren't upholding the 
decorum and dignity of this body.
  This resolution that we will consider later today is not a partisan 
resolution. No Member is mentioned. No party is mentioned. And before 
you vote to table this resolution, to kill it, please consider, don't 
we deserve better here?
  Shouldn't we have a standard that's higher than indictment and 
conviction? Don't the people who sent us here deserve a little better 
than that?
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on this motion so we can consider the underlying bill, which is 
a compilation of nine appropriations bills, which really represents 
kind of a completion of last year's work. There is money in here for 
important transportation projects, for health care projects, for 
education projects, all very important to get our economy moving again.
  I would also say that the earmark process has been much improved 
since the Democrats took control of the Congress. There is more 
transparency, as the gentleman conceded, and I think there is more 
scrutiny given to individual earmarks.
  But let me just say one other thing. I believe in the integrity, in 
the character of every single person that serves in this Congress, and 
I believe the people, Republicans and Democrats, do the best they can 
for their constituents. And I really take exception when the character 
of individuals in this Congress is brought into question and somehow a 
vague allegation is out there that there is something sinister going 
on.
  The bottom line is that the vast majority of these earmarks go to 
things like emergency rooms at hospitals, go to bridges to help rebuild 
infrastructure, go to help schools and to help kids get an education.
  I would say to the gentleman if he is uncomfortable with this 
process, that he should know that 40 percent of the earmarks that are 
in these underlying bills are Republican earmarks. And so that old 
saying, ``Physician, heal thyself,'' I would suggest that he bring this 
up to members of his own conference.
  But I believe that these bills represent the hard work of Republicans 
and Democrats. There are good things in these bills. We need to move 
forward on this. We can't delay. If we delay, I think it will have a 
negative impact on our economy.
  So I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to 
consider so 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, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 5590]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 177, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 83]

                               YEAS--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     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)
     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)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     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
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     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
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barton (TX)
     Boehner
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cassidy
     Davis (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Lee (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Perriello
     Platts
     Rangel
     Rush
     Schwartz
     Sestak
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Van Hollen
     Wu

                              {time}  1217

  Messrs. CALVERT, McHENRY and SMITH of New Jersey changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HELLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 83, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             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 184.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 184 provides for the consideration 
of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. The rule provides 
1 hour of debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also self-
executes an amendment that blocks the automatic cost-of-living 
adjustment due to be provided to Members of Congress in 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, represents the completion of last year's 
work. We are in this position today for one principal reason, George W. 
Bush failed to provide budgets that reflected the real needs of the 
American people. And his philosophy was essentially ``my way or the 
highway.''
  If he had gotten his way last year, he would have cut energy 
efficiency, renewable energy and weatherization programs. He would have 
cut education by eliminating vocational education programs, slashing 
higher education programs, and cutting programs to help teachers and 
improve technology. He would have cut healthcare access programs, even 
as the number of uninsured Americans grew. He would have frozen 
biomedical research funding and cut the Centers for Disease Control. 
And he would have cut State and local law enforcement grants and job 
training, employment services and worker protections curing this 
economic crisis.
  So today, our job is to fix things, to clean up the mess of the last 
administration, and to help the American people.
  Last night, President Obama gave an incredible speech, and he 
promised to do things differently. He promised an honest accounting of 
our Nation's needs. That may not seem revolutionary, but it's a big and 
positive change from the past 8 years.
  For the first time, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
will actually be included in the budget. The costs won't be covered up 
or hidden. No more gimmicks. The American people will know the real 
costs of these wars.
  We will anticipate and budget for Federal dollars in response to 
national disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes.
  And President Obama, last night, pledged to cut the deficit in half 
by the year 2012, a promise to bring back fiscal responsibility. In 
short, there will be more truth-telling.

[[Page 5591]]

  Mr. Speaker, we need to move forward, and I believe that we will. But 
first we need to dispense with last year's business.
  Some of my friends on the other side complain that we shouldn't pass 
this omnibus bill today because it's too expensive. They complain that 
it will add to the deficit. It's interesting to hear my friends on the 
other side of the aisle worry out loud about the deficit. Where have 
they been for the last 8 years?
  Facts are a stubborn thing, Mr. Speaker, and the facts speak for 
themselves. We are facing the worst economic crisis since the Great 
Depression, and we have the biggest debt in the history of the United 
States of America. This is something we inherited from my friends on 
the other side of the aisle. So it is somewhat ironic that the very 
people who drove this economy into a ditch are now complaining about 
the size of the tow truck.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we need to do whatever possible to get 
this economy back on track and to help the American people. The 
policies of the past, the same old same old, they failed. I believe 
this President has the political will to do the right thing. I believe 
he will get the economy back on track and he will get our fiscal house 
in order. And I believe that this Congress will support him.
  What is before us, to put it simply, is help for States, cities and 
towns and for average people. There's an increase over current levels 
of appropriations. This, combined with the Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, provides a lot of help to a lot of people.
  This is not the bill, Mr. Speaker, that I would have written if it 
were solely up to me, and I don't believe it is the bill that Chairman 
Obey would have written if it was solely up to him. This bill reflects 
bipartisan negotiations and bipartisan compromises.
  I want to see more money in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for roads and 
bridges, more money for international food aid and anti-hunger programs 
like the McGovern-Dole Program and Food for Peace, and more money to 
combat climate change. I want to see Pell Grants fully funded, and I 
want to make sure that all eligible children receive a meal during the 
summer months if they receive a meal during the school year.
  But I'm glad that we have reversed the Bush cuts on domestic 
priorities. I'm proud of the increased funding for WIC in this bill, 
funding that will help low-income pregnant mothers and newborns receive 
the healthy food that they need. And I'm pleased that this bill 
provides a 19 percent increase for the Food and Drug Administration, 
funding that will be used for critical oversight of our Nation's food 
supply so we don't have any more contamination scares like the recent 
peanut contamination cases that we've recently seen.
  This bill also increases funding for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act by providing $558 million above 2008 for a 
total of $11.5 billion. And this bill provides $550 million for the 
COPS program, a program critical to the safety of our cities and towns.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to get this bill completed. We need to finish 
the job left over from the last Congress and turn the page, once and 
for all, on the last 8 years. I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this 
closed rule. And Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague and friend, has had a chance 
to sit here and blame George Bush for what was entirely this body's 
responsibility. I think that's an awkward position for anybody to be 
in, to blame the President of the United States for what we have done 
or what we will do.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts quite plainly said that George Bush 
and Republicans tried to hide the real costs of the war and did not put 
it in fiscal terms to where it came out for the budget where we would 
all understand it and tried to hide it. Well, let me just say this, 
that we just passed an $800 billion plus emergency spending bill that 
did exactly the same thing that he was saying George Bush did, 
Republicans did, about not being honest about what the real facts of 
the case are, hiding the budget money.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we're here today to debate a 
bill that was ready to go last June, and people are blaming George Bush 
for our inability to get that on the floor. And I think that that's 
just not true.
  The bottom line is that this body decided, through the Democrat 
leadership, that they didn't want to move the bill forward because 
there was an election. And if there had been an election where tens of 
billions, hundreds of billions of dollars more would be passed by this 
Congress, then the American people would have seen that. Instead, they 
waited until after the election.
  So I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule, 
and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. Week after week my 
friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze their 
massive spending bills on the floor of the House of Representatives, 
with no Republican input and no regular order, in this Congress.
  This is the third time in a little over a month that I've managed a 
rule in this 111th Congress where my Democratic colleagues have had no 
hearings, no markups and allowed no amendments by Republicans. Senator 
Harry Reid yesterday was quoted as saying that he is going to allow 
Republicans and Democrats to offer amendments in the Senate. So why 
won't Speaker Pelosi allow Members of this House the same privilege?
  In an effort to encourage the Democratic leadership to uphold their 
promise to the American people of being the most open, honest and 
ethical Congress, I think, and our Republican leadership believes, that 
we should hold hearings and be held accountable for what we do, 
including Republican feedback and amendments. In a letter dated the 5th 
of this month, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer were asked if 
they would immediately post the text of the omnibus and all of the 
earmark and spending projects included. Yet, once again, our friends, 
the Democrats, have posted the text of this massive spending bill, 
which holds nine of the remaining 12 appropriations bills, only a day 
and a half before the vote. And yet our letter states that ``in the 
midst of a severe recession, taxpayers should have a right to read and 
see each provision of this legislation.'' Taxpayers elected each and 
every one of us. We should be able to ``evaluate the merit of each 
dollar of government spending that their children and grandchildren 
will be required to fund.'' I think Americans deserve better.
  Last week I had the opportunity, when I was back home for the break, 
to speak to many constituents back in Texas, and they are growing 
increasingly upset and concerned with the amount of massive spending 
that this Democratic majority is pursuing. Last week President Obama 
signed a $792 billion stimulus package into law that consisted of over 
$500 billion in new spending. This week, my friends and our colleagues, 
the Democrats, are at it again. Now we're discussing a $410 billion 
omnibus for a fiscal year that we're almost halfway through.
  The legislation we're discussing today is actually an increase of 8.3 
percent over the 2008 fiscal year funding, which is more than $32 
billion. The omnibus appropriations bill contains funding for many of 
the same agencies and programs that just received funds in the stimulus 
bill.

                              {time}  1230

  Therefore, to uncover the true level of spending for these programs 
this year, the funding levels of both bills should and must be 
combined. The combined FY 2009 funding for agencies, including the 
omnibus and the stimulus, is $680 billion--$301 billion more than these 
programs received in 2008--for a combined 80 percent spending increase 
this year, an 80 percent increase in spending this year alone.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, the President held a fiscal responsibility 
summit that was attended by Republicans and Democrats. How can the 
President take my Democrat colleagues seriously when they spend another 
$410 billion

[[Page 5592]]

after the $792 billion stimulus? There is nothing fiscally responsible 
regarding designating $1.2 trillion in spending in just 2 weeks.
  American families and small businesses are making sacrifices across 
this country and are cutting expenses due to tough economic times. Yet 
this Democratic majority continues to spend like there is no problem at 
all. Worse yet, we are taking a bill that was completely marked up last 
year and are assuming that those same needs are needed now.
  Republicans welcome President Obama's call for fiscal responsibility, 
and we are willing to make the hard choices necessary to bring fiscal 
responsibility to Washington. Republican leadership has called for a 
spending freeze, and in a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader 
Hoyer, this past Monday, we did exactly that.
  At a time of deficits, a freeze would allow the Federal Government to 
continue functioning at current levels, just like we have been doing 
for the past 6 months, while showing the commitment to the American 
people that we, as Members of Congress, are taking this crisis very 
seriously.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress must do better than this to prevent the 
enormous growth of Federal spending from encroaching on the family 
budgets of Americans. I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation 
as it is currently drafted.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, February 5, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Madam Speaker and Majority Leader Hoyer: Many weeks ago, 
     you scheduled this week to consider the Fiscal Year 2009 
     omnibus spending bill. Now that you have announced that 
     consideration will be delayed until after the President's Day 
     recess, we remain troubled that the text of the bill has not 
     been made available to the public and are concerned about the 
     apparent precedent being established with massive spending 
     bills in the 111th Congress. We urge you to make the text of 
     the bill and explanatory statement available to all by 
     posting it on-line and heeding President Obama's call for 
     more transparency in government.
       In the face of the highest deficit in our Nation's history, 
     the Majority has asked the American taxpayers to fund nearly 
     $1.5 trillion in new government spending in just four short 
     weeks. And yet now the Majority plans to spend hundreds of 
     billions more without yet sharing the content of the bill 
     with Republican Members or the public. In the midst of a 
     severe recession, taxpayers have a right to see each 
     provision of this legislation and evaluate the merit of each 
     dollar of government spending their children and 
     grandchildren are being required to fund.
       Recent experience has demonstrated that transparency, 
     scrutiny, and regular order are essential tools for crafting 
     effective and prudent legislation. Vast spending bills that 
     have been rushed through the House. such as the so-called 
     ``stimulus,'' were hastily considered without adequate input 
     from both sides of the aisle--and the American taxpayer is 
     worse off for it.
       Without regular order and sufficient time to examine this 
     legislation how can the American people and Members of 
     Congress know where the $500 billion will be spent? What will 
     the funding increases be for the final six months of fiscal 
     year 2009? Sadly, if the Majority refuses to release at least 
     the text of the omnibus, none of these questions will be 
     answered before the House votes to add hundreds of billions 
     more to the deficit.
       Again, we urge you to make the text of the omnibus spending 
     bill and explanatory statement available to the public 
     immediately, allowing all sides to judge the merit of each 
     taxpayer dollar spent.
           Sincerely,
         Representatives John Boehner; Mike Pence; Cathy McMorris 
           Rodgers; Pete Sessions; David Dreier; Eric Cantor; 
           Thaddeus McCotter; John Carter; Roy Blunt; Kevin 
           McCarthy.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Madam Speaker and Majority Leader Hoyer: Last week the 
     House rushed through passage of a 1,073-page spending bill 
     with a total price tag of well over $1 trillion. Many of the 
     details of that legislation are still being revealed to the 
     public, given that no one had sufficient opportunity to read 
     the final bill before it was brought to the floor.
       Reports now indicate that this week the House will consider 
     a $410 billion omnibus spending bill to increase government 
     spending levels for the rest of Fiscal Year 2009. Once again, 
     Republicans have not seen this bill, and the American people 
     deserve to know how their tax dollars will be spent.
       Rather than hastily forcing another massive, partisan 
     spending bill through the House, we urge the Majority to 
     allow the House to consider a spending freeze.
       At a time of record deficits, a freeze would allow the 
     federal government to keep functioning at current spending 
     levels without requiring beleaguered taxpayers to pay for new 
     spending increases. Congress could ensure that essential 
     government functions are carried out without any cuts while 
     still protecting taxpayers from spending increases during a 
     time of economic hardship. Our nation now faces the highest 
     deficit in its history, and we are plunging further into 
     unchartered territory with the anticipated debt nearly 
     doubling previous record levels as a percentage of GDP.
       In light of welcomed press statements from Democrat 
     leadership expressing the need for fiscal restraint, we are 
     confident that you will agree with the merits of freezing 
     rather than increasing discretionary spending at this time.
           Sincerely,
     John Boehner,
       Republican Leader.
     Mike Pence,
       Conference Chairman.
     Eric Cantor,
       Republican Whip.
     Thaddeus McCotter,
       Conference Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to defend George W. 
Bush's economic policies of the last 8 years. They can have at it. I 
think the American people want a change. That's what they voted for in 
this election. I would just like to show my colleagues:
  This is a chart entitled ``Record Deterioration'' on the budgets 
under Republican administrations. You'll see that we get deeper into 
deficit spending under George Bush 1. Then the blue line represents 
Bill Clinton when, actually, we went into surplus. Then this red line 
that kind of goes after the charts represents the policies of George W. 
Bush. We are in a mess because of the reckless policies of the last 8 
years, and we need to dig ourselves out of it.
  I would also say to my friend that he says that there is no 
Republican input on this bill at all. Yet, as far as I can tell, he has 
seven earmarks in this bill. The gentleman from Florida, who is sitting 
next to him, has 24 earmarks. Forty percent of the earmarks in this 
bill is the Republicans'. How did they magically show up in this bill? 
The bottom line is there has been bipartisan cooperation and 
collaboration and negotiation on this bill, and we need to get this 
bill done because we need to move on.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee 
(Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 2009 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act. I thank Chairman Obey and his staff for their hard 
work and leadership on this legislation.
  This bill funds essential education, health care and renewable energy 
programs which, especially in these tough economic times, we cannot 
afford to let fall behind. In addition, by reducing funding for 
ineffective initiatives, this bill promotes efficiency and echos 
President Obama's call for fiscal responsibility last night.
  Many districts and States across the Nation will benefit greatly from 
this legislation. My district in Colorado is an excellent example. We 
are home to a significant science and technology presence--the Space 
Science Institute, Sun Microsystems, the Nation's first Smart Grid City 
of Boulder, Colorado, NOAA, NCAR, and NIST. This bill provides $394 
million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 
climate research and $819 million for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology to promote American scientific 
competitiveness.
  This bill will provide the resources to sustain important educational 
programs for America's young people. It increases funding to each of 
the four Head Start programs in my district, helping Colorado's low-
income kids achieve a competitive edge in their future learning, access 
to financial aid

[[Page 5593]]

and Pell Grants, making college increasingly important in this 
competitive economy more affordable.
  It also provides a much needed boost in the funding to support 
community health centers, which provide insured and uninsured 
Coloradans access to preventative and emergency health care.
  This bill increases funding for public lands such as the Rocky 
Mountain National Park and the Arapaho National Forest in Colorado that 
have been neglected for far too long.
  It provides the resources necessary for the Environmental Protection 
Agency's efforts to clean our air and water, and it funds important 
programs that address climate change and energy independence with 
substantial money invested in community programs and awareness.
  I didn't come to Congress to place blame for our problems or to 
bicker about partisan solutions. I came to Washington to be part of the 
solution and to create opportunity. If we want to protect the American 
dream for our communities and stabilize our economy, we need to support 
our core programs and services upon which we all rely. This bill is 
another important step in the right direction.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Miami and from the Rules Committee (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage 
Chairwoman Lowey of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Madam Chairwoman, President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget directs 
$20 million for Cuba under the Economic Support Fund. This funding is 
critical U.S. assistance to those working for democracy and independent 
civil society in Cuba. The House voted overwhelmingly to increase 
funding for this important program in fiscal year 2008. However, 
funding for Cuba was not specifically designated in the report attached 
to the omnibus appropriations bill.
  Can you clarify for the Congressional Record that it is the intent of 
the committee and of this Congress to provide $20 million in the 
underlying legislation for this important program?
  I yield to the chairwoman.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank Mr. Diaz-Balart, Ms. Wasserman Schultz 
and Mr. Sires for their leadership and interest in promoting democratic 
governance in Cuba.
  While the omnibus does not list funding levels for all programs 
requested by the administration, funding is assumed at the 
administration's request unless otherwise noted in the bill and the 
statement.
  I share the Member's concern of the lack of political freedom in 
Cuba, and want to assure them it is the intent of this committee to 
provide $20 million in the underlying legislation for this important 
program as requested in the President's budget submission.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I wish to 
thank the distinguished chairwoman and her staff for working with 
Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Albio Sires, Mario Diaz-
Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and myself.
  It is vital that this important program receives $20 million to fully 
implement activities that range from democratic activism to 
humanitarian assistance that directly support the Cuban people, not the 
dictatorship, with the chairwoman's assurance of this full funding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I detest the word ``blame,'' and I don't want 
to use it in these circumstances. I don't want to say that we're here 
today because I blame President Bush for our differences on these 
bills. I would prefer to put it another way:
  The President simply proposed budgets for the domestic appropriations 
which would have cut the Job Corps by $50 million. It would have 
eliminated the employment service by $103 million. It would have 
eliminated senior jobs programs. It would have eliminated vocational 
education. It would have eliminated Perkins, SEOG and LEAP student aid 
programs. It would have funded highway infrastructure $800 million 
below the level guaranteed in the authorization bill. It would have cut 
airport modernization grants by 22 percent. It would have eliminated 
the Community Service Block Grant Program. It would have cut health 
care access programs by $1 billion. It would have cut low-income 
heating assistance by $570 million.
  Outside of that, it was a terrific budget. So we simply had a stark 
disagreement with the White House. We simply had a difference of 
opinion.
  The President said he would not sign these domestic bills unless we 
accepted his level of cuts. We said, ``Sorry, but that's not the way 
the budget process works. We're supposed to be able to proceed, and so 
long as we confine the spending to the amount limited in the budget 
resolution, we're supposed to be able to proceed. That amount was some 
$20 billion at variance from President Bush's budget.'' So we offered 
to the White House to at least split the difference. We offered to sit 
down and to negotiate and to split the difference right down the 
middle. The White House declined. So we said, okay, if that's the case, 
we're simply going to wait, take our chances on the election and hope 
that we elect somebody to the White House who will negotiate like an 
adult. Now that is what has happened.
  So we bring this bill here today. It essentially does two things: It 
provides the base funding for programs that are funded in the recovery 
act, without which the additional recovery funding could not succeed. 
Example, of the operating budget for the Social Security 
Administration. Example, the other half of the 50 percent that we need 
to keep our promises on Pell Grants. Example, the $40 billion we need 
to keep our commitments on highway construction.
  The omnibus also funds numerous critical programs not funded in the 
recovery act. We only touched about 20 to 25 percent of government 
accounts in providing funding in the recovery act. The other 75 percent 
of government did not receive any additional funds in that recovery 
act, and so we simply provided those funds in this bill. That is what 
we are doing.
  With respect to earmarks, I would simply say that the process that 
we're following today is far more transparent than it was in the so-
called ``good old days.'' In the ``good old days,'' subcommittee Chairs 
would come to the floor. They would pretend that there were not 
earmarks in these bills, and then they would call up the agency and 
say, ``Hey, boys. I want you to do A, B, C, D, E, and F,'' and they 
would do A, B, C, D, E, and F totally hidden from public view.
  Instead, today, you may not like the fact that Congress participates 
on an equal constitutional footing, but the fact is, under the process 
today, every single earmark that is out there has to be identified by 
name. It is on the Web, and people can examine them to see whether they 
think they're deserving or not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Now, from a standpoint of personal convenience, as chairman 
of the committee, I would much prefer that there would not be earmarks 
because then I wouldn't have to spend so much time in a hassle about 
them, but the fact is they represent the hole in the donut. Earmarks 
today are less than 1 percent of all of the funds in this bill. As a 
percentage of Federal spending, we have cut earmarks in half in this 
bill. I think that's doing pretty well. There are some people in this 
place who think that because Duke Cunningham fouled the nest with his 
corrupt practices that somehow we should eliminate all earmarks. With 
all due respect, that's like saying, because somebody gets drunk behind 
the wheel of a car, you ought to abolish the automobile.
  The fact is, without the earmarking process, the White House and its 
anonymous bureaucrats would make every

[[Page 5594]]

single spending decision in government. So, if you're a well-connected 
corporation and you've got some buddies in the Pentagon, you can sit 
down on the inside and work out sweetheart deals, and nobody will ever 
be the wiser. Earmarking may have its problems like any other human 
endeavor, but at least it's out in the open. You can measure it. There 
is a degree of accountability that never existed before we proceeded 
with these reforms. I am proud of those reforms, and every Member of 
this body who voted for them on both sides of the aisle should be 
proud, too.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of Natural 
Resources, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this totally closed 
rule. As the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources 
Committee, I especially object to a very dangerous policy rider that 
could seriously threaten new job creation and economic growth across 
our entire country.

                              {time}  1245

  Section 429 of this bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to 
withdraw, with no public notice and no public comment, two rules 
established during the Bush administration that ensure the listing of 
the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act is not 
transformed into a vast new expansion of government power to impose 
greenhouse gas emission regulations on economic activity across 
America.
  Section 429 empowers the Interior Department or a Federal judge to 
limit potentially any carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emission 
in all 50 States using the polar bear and the Endangered Species Act as 
a regulatory vehicle.
  We all want to protect the polar bear. As the Washington Post 
editorialized last year, ``Though the polar bear deserves protection, 
the Endangered Species Act is not the means, and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is not the agency to arrest global warming.''
  By wiping out this rule under 429, any increase in carbon dioxide or 
greenhouse gas emission would be subject to a potential lawsuit on the 
grounds that the action must first require consultation with the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to mitigate emissions.
  What emits greenhouse gases? I will name a few examples, Mr. Speaker. 
It's building a new factory in Pennsylvania or a new school on an 
Indian reservation, it's farming and cattle ranching. Most all of the 
shovel-ready projects on the trillion-dollar stimulus bill would, in 
fact, be at risk.
  Democrats know section 429 is extremely controversial so they slipped 
this into this massive spending bill behind closed doors. Mr. Speaker, 
why the secrecy? The reason is obvious. Section 429 threatens the 
creation of new jobs in every State and can do real harm to our already 
troubled economy. This is a backdoor maneuver to warp the original 
purpose and intent of the Endangered Species Act to invent vast new 
climate change powers for the Federal Government to control economic 
activities.
  Democrats claim section 429 is just an attempt to stop midnight rules 
completed at the end of the Bush administration. Yet, Mr. Speaker, 
these rules in the Bush administration were written in full compliance 
with the law. Democrats have written section 429 to say ``forget all 
the laws; forget public comment from the American people. We don't have 
to follow the laws. Just wipe these legal rules off the books that put 
jobs and our economy at risk.''
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make note that last night the junior Democrat 
Senator from Alaska wrote to the Senate Democrat leadership expressing 
his deep concern and objections to this provision, the harm it could do 
to economic activity and that it should be removed from this 
legislation. That's exactly what we should be doing here today. And I 
ask my colleagues to support that action.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this measure, and I urge my 
colleagues to open up the omnibus appropriations bill to amendment.

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2009.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inouye: I write to express my serious concern 
     over Section 429 of the just-released House version of the 
     Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, H.R. 1005, 
     now being considered in the House of Representatives. This 
     section, which was included in the bill without any advance 
     notice, would provide significant new authority to the 
     Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to potentially overturn 
     two of the regulations the Bush Administration adopted under 
     the Endangered Species Act. One of the rules is the Polar 
     Bear Special 4(d) Rule, which has provided some much-needed 
     legal certainty to the application of the Endangered Species 
     Act to the North Slope of Alaska. The Secretary of the 
     Interior would have 60 days from the date of enactment of the 
     Omnibus Bill to withdraw or ``reissue'' the Special Rule for 
     the polar bear issued on December 10, 2008.
       The language of Section 429 is attached. If Section 429 is 
     enacted as is, the Secretary would not have to comply with 
     any statutory or regulatory provision that would normally 
     affect such an action, including public notice or comments or 
     consultation requirements. Significantly, Section 429 also 
     authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to ``reissue'' the 
     4(d) Rule for the Polar Bear. It is unclear what actions the 
     Secretary may take in reissuing the rule. While it is 
     possible that the Secretary would only be authorized to 
     reissue the Special 4(d) Rule as it was previously published, 
     under an alternative interpretation, the Secretary may be 
     able to issue a revised rule, with major changes, without 
     having to comply with the typical procedural requirements of 
     the Administrative Procedure Act or the Endangered Species 
     Act. The existing legislative history of the Omnibus Bill 
     does not explain how Congress intends the term ``reissue'' to 
     be interpreted. This lack of clarity will only cause more 
     legal uncertainty, in an area of law where litigation already 
     is rampant. Activities of numerous businesses operating in 
     Alaska, and of the Inupiat people of the North Slope, will be 
     caught in this void.
       Additionally, there would be no ``incidental take'' 
     protection if Section 429 is enacted and the polar bear 4(d) 
     Rule is withdrawn, without a similar Rule in its place. 
     Should the Secretary decide to withdraw the 4(d) Rule under 
     Section 429, the polar bear would remain listed as a 
     threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Under 
     the Department of the Interior's regulations, the full range 
     of Section 9 prohibitions apply to all threatened species 
     unless a species is subject to its own Section 4(d) rule. As 
     such, the activities currently covered, and protected, by the 
     4(d) Rule would be at risk for incurring liability under the 
     Endangered Species Act, should a take of a polar bear occur. 
     This liability would extend even to minor, incidental impacts 
     on polar bears from otherwise entirely lawful activities. 
     This could endanger the public if a polar bear wanders onto a 
     North Slope playground or village. This liability risk will 
     remain until the Secretary promulgates new Section 4(d) 
     regulations for the polar bear. Under this section, the 
     protections built into the current 4(d) Rule could disappear 
     without a replacement 4(d) Rule in the works.
       I see no valid public policy reason to inflict on the 
     people of the North Slope significant legal uncertainly and 
     potential liability under the ESA, by congressionally waiving 
     ordinary public notice and comment requirements that 
     routinely apply in virtually all other settings. The 
     inclusion of Section 429 is particularly disturbing in that 
     it effectively ``cherry-picks'' and exempts certain 
     regulations and has the effect of depriving the public of due 
     process. Irrespective of whether one agrees or disagrees with 
     the substance of rules adopted by the prior administration, 
     this action sets a bad precedent. If the current 
     administration disagrees with a rule previously adopted, 
     there exists a process by which the rule can be reviewed and 
     the notice and participation rights so citizens respected. 
     Finally, the underlying policy goal at issue here--using the 
     Endangered Species Act to regulate climate change--is far too 
     important a matter to be decided without debate as a non-
     germane portion of an appropriations bill.
       I understand that the House may move to strike Section 429 
     as an extraneous rider. If the motion to strike is not 
     adopted, I respectfully request your assistance and 
     leadership in seeking to omit the language from a Senate 
     bill, or seeking to have the language omitted from any final 
     House-Senate agreement.
       Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mark Begich,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Obey to respond to 
the last speaker, I would like to express my surprise that he would 
oppose a bill in which he has 30 earmarks in it.

[[Page 5595]]

  At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one misunderstanding on the 
endangered species proposal.
  All this language does is to give the Secretary, the new Secretary, 
60 days to re-examine the rule that was a midnight change in the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. OBEY. I'd like to finish my statement on this first, if I could.
  All this does is give the Secretary 60 days to reconsider the rule 
and decide whether to go forward or not. This was a rule that was 
promulgated by the administration as they were going out the door after 
the election. And I have no idea what I think is the right public 
policy. I do not have any objection, however, to the new Secretary 
taking a look at it before he commits the country to a change in 
direction.
  Now I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Two points. The reason this ruling came about was because of the 
listing of the polar bear and that the Bush administration started this 
process, which is required by law----
  Mr. OBEY. I understand. I only have 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. OBEY. I only have 30 seconds.
  My point is I understand they began the rule a long time ago, but 
they did not promulgate it until after the election and all this does--
this does not reverse the rule; it simply gives the new administration 
the latitude to determine whether they should go ahead or not. It 
leaves the situation in neutral, and I think that's a fair thing to do.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Sure.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. There's probably some disagreement on the 
rule. But why not go through the regular process to change the rule? 
You're doing it without any regular process.
  Mr. OBEY. I think the regular process would have been for the 
administration not to promulgate a new rule after the election when 
they were no longer accountable.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a bright young 
member of the Republican Conference, Jeb Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as our countrymen are hurting, as our unemployment news 
grows grim, what is the answer of the Democrat majority? They have 
brought us the largest single 1-year increase in the Federal deficit; 
they have brought us the largest deficit ever, $1.2 trillion, 8.3 
percent of our economy; they've brought us the largest government debt 
ever, a debt that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren. 
And today they bring the largest regular appropriations process in 
history to the floor totaling at $1 trillion.
  They have achieved, Mr. Speaker, a trifecta of trillions: a trillion 
dollars to stimulate government, a trillion dollars of Federal deficit, 
a trillion dollars for a regular appropriations bill.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is going to grow the government 8.3 percent. 
Washington can grow 8.3 percent, the Federal budget can grow 8.3 
percent. But the family budget, which has to pay for the Federal 
budget, only grew at 1.3 percent last year. So somehow Washington is 
entitled to almost a six-fold increase in their budget but working 
families are not?
  You know, I don't see it. I don't see it, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, something I do see is an old quote from Yogi Berra: ``It's deja 
vu all over again.''
  So now I'm seeing $3.13 billion for the 2010 census on top of the 
billion dollars that was given to the census in the so-called stimulus 
bill; $1.45 billion for Amtrak on top of the $1.3 billion Amtrak 
received in the stimulus bill. And the list goes on and on.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, this is more legislation designed to stimulate 
the government and not to stimulate the economy.
  Let me give you a quote from one of our Secretaries of Treasury. He 
said, ``We are spending more than we have ever spent before, and it 
does not work. We have never made good on our promises. After 8 years 
of this administration, we have just as much in unemployment as when we 
started, an enormous debt to boot.'' The Secretary of Treasury was 
Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of Treasury. Those words were spoken 
in 1939.
  And now we see the example of Japan. Mr. Speaker, you cannot spend 
and borrow your way into economic prosperity. They had nothing to show 
for what they did in Japan. Ten stimulus bills, but no jobs, no 
economic growth, and the largest per capita debt in the world. We 
should reject following the Japanese way.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to remind the previous speaker and some of my friends on the 
other side that they have been in charge for 8 years in the White 
House; 6 of those 8 years they've been in charge of the Congress. They 
can't blame this on Bill Clinton who, by the way, left the White House 
with a surplus.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. This is the debt that has been accumulated during the 
Bush administration. The debt has doubled during this past 
administration. This is the legacy of their policy.
  The election was about change. People have had it. People want 
investments, not in tax cuts for the wealthy, but they want investments 
in education----
  Mr. HENSARLING. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No. At this point I will not.
  They want investments in transportation, in education, and in the 
future of this country. But this is what they created. This is 
undeniable. This is what happened during the Bush years: a doubling of 
the debt. And that is a legacy that our kids and our grandkids are 
going to have to pay for.
  I give President Obama a great deal of credit in this tough economic 
crisis to not only understand that we need to invest in our people to 
help create jobs and to help get this economy back on the right track, 
but he also said last night very clearly that we are going to be 
fiscally responsible and we are going to cut the deficit in half in 4 
years. That is a benchmark that he will be measured by, and I will tell 
you that I think that what he said last night was what the American 
people wanted to hear. It's why he won the election in November.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding once again.
  And I was happy to see I could save the gentleman from Massachusetts 
the trouble of looking into his earmark books, as he will find none for 
me.
  I noticed that the gentleman from Massachusetts didn't deny any of 
the factual assertions. Since Democrats took control of the Congress, 
we have the single largest 1-year increase in the deficit. He didn't 
deny it. Go to CBO. You'll find the fact.
  We now have the largest deficit ever since Democrats took control of 
this Chamber. Go to CBO, you'll find out it's a fact. We have the 
largest government debt ever under Democrat control of this House. He 
did not deny the fact. I would also point out--since the gentleman has 
been in this body for quite some time--that it is Congress, it is 
Congress that passes budgets, not the White House, as much as he would 
like to blame all of this on the White House. It is Congress.
  And every year I've been here, Mr. Speaker, whenever the Republicans 
have presented a budget--and I haven't been ecstatic about each and 
every one--my friends on the other side of the aisle present a budget 
with even more spending that ultimately leads to

[[Page 5596]]

higher taxes on struggling families in America. That is the fact.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  I just remind the gentleman that the Republicans controlled Congress 
for 6 of the last 8 years.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would also remind the gentleman that for 
6 of those 8 years, Republicans controlled this House of 
Representatives, and the economy was great because we didn't try and 
run the investor out on the terms of what's fair for the American 
people. Once we had tax increases yelled about every day on this floor 
of this House of Representatives, the investor got it.
  So we've got a lot of fairness under the terms that my friends, the 
Democrats, wanted. And that is where it's called massive unemployment 
and economic chaos.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Hamilton, New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted two pro-
life, pro-child, pro-women amendments to the Rules Committee and asked 
that they be made in order. Regrettably, both were rejected.
  As a direct, absolutely predictable consequence of President Obama's 
abortion export order a few weeks ago nullifying the Mexico City 
policy, an Obama action that the Gallup poll found that 58 percent of 
the people oppose him, 35 percent support him--as a result of that 
order, there will be significantly more abortions worldwide, more dead 
babies, and more wounded women.
  Now the number of innocent children forced to die from dismemberment, 
decapitation, or chemical poisoning by abortion will increase 
significantly mostly in Africa and Latin America.
  The pro-abortion organizations who will divvy up the $545 million pot 
of U.S. taxpayer grant money contained in the bill have made it 
abundantly clear that they will aggressively promote, lobby, litigate, 
and perform abortions on demand in developing countries. My amendment 
would have prevented that.
  Flush with U.S. funding, foreign pro-abortion NGOs will be regarded 
in those countries as an extension of American values and mores. In 
your name and mine, and in the name of the American people pro-abortion 
organizations will unleash massive death, pain, sorrow, and destruction 
on babies, women, and families.

                              {time}  1300

  The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, would have preserved the Kemp-
Kasten anti-coercion amendment. That amendment, while it's in the bill, 
is actually gutted by language also in the bill that says that funds 
made available to the UNFPA shall be made available notwithstanding any 
other provision of law. So it's gutted. My amendment would strike the 
notwithstanding language and reiterate the anti-coercion text.
  The U.N. Population Fund, Mr. Speaker, has actively supported, 
comanaged and whitewashed the most pervasive crimes against women in 
human history, yet the omnibus Appropriations bill gives them $50 
million and a slap on the wrist.
  China's one-child-per-couple policy relies on pervasive coerced 
abortion, involuntary sterilization, ruinous fines in the amounts of up 
to 10 times the salary of both parents, imprisonment, job loss or 
demotion to achieve its quotas. In China today, with UNFPA enabling 
acquiescence and facilitation, brothers and sisters are illegal. 
Illegal kids--siblings! Women are told when and if they can have even 
the one child permitted by law. Unwed mothers, even if the baby is 
their first, are forcibly aborted.
  Women are severely harmed emotionally, psychologically and 
physically, yet for the past three decades the UNFPA has been China's 
chief apologist as well as program trainer, facilitator and funder.
  So, Mr. Speaker, how does Congress respond to the UNFPA's 
unconscionable complicity in China's crimes against Women? Do we demand 
reform, or the protection of Chinese women and children? Heck no. We 
gut the anti-coercion law and write a $50 million check to the UNFPA.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday I submitted two pro-life, pro-child, pro-women 
amendments to the Rules Committee and asked that they be made in order 
under the pending rule.
  Notwithstanding the fact that both the Mexico City Policy amendment 
and the Kemp-Kasten Anti-Coercion population control amendment have 
been fundamental foreign policy for the better part of two decades, the 
Democratic leadership chose to reject both, out of hand, precluding 
members so much as an up or down vote.
  As a direct, absolutely predictable consequence of President Obama's 
abortion export order a few weeks ago nullifying the Mexico City Policy 
the number of innocent children who will be forced to die from 
dismemberment, decapitation, or chemical poisoning by abortion will 
increase significantly, mostly in Africa and Latin America.
  According to a Gallup poll released earlier this month, overturning 
this pro-life policy was the least popular of the President's actions 
in his first week in office. In fact 58 percent of those polled opposed 
overturning the policy and only 35 percent supported funding groups 
that promote or provide abortion as a method of family planning.
  The pro-abortion organizations who will divvy up the $545 million pot 
of U.S. taxpayer grant money contained in the bill have made it 
abundantly clear that they will aggressively promote, lobby, litigate 
and perform abortion on demand in developing countries. My amendment 
prevents that.
  Flush with U.S. funds, foreign pro-abortion NGOs will be almost 
certainly regarded by people in foreign nations as extensions of 
American values and mores. Mr. Speaker, in your name and mine and in 
the name of the American people--pro-abortion organizations will 
unleash massive death, pain, sorrow and destruction on babies, women 
and families throughout the world.
  President Obama--the Abortion President--has put countless innocent 
children in harm's way, all while speechifying that he wants to reduce 
abortion.
  And please, let's not kid ourselves any longer. There is nothing 
whatsoever benign, kind or compassionate about abortion; it is violence 
against children and wounds women.
  The second amendment would have ensured that the Kemp-Kasten anti-
coercion proviso in the bill has meaning. On one page of the Omnibus, 
Kemp-Kasten is seemingly retained intact, only to be completely gutted 
by text which reads.

       Funds appropriated by this act for UNFPA''--$50 million--
     ``shall be made available to UNFPA notwithstanding any 
     provision of law . . . .

  The U.N. Population Fund has actively supported, co-managed, and 
white-washed the most pervasive crimes against women in human history.
  Yet this bill gives them $50 million and a slap on the wrist.
  China's one-child-per-couple policy relies on pervasive, coerced 
abortion, involuntary sterilization, ruinous fines in amounts up to 10 
times the salary of both parents, imprisonment, and job loss or 
demotion to achieve its quotas.
  In China today with UNFPA enabling China's barbaric government 
policy, brothers and sisters are illegal. Imagine, a government so 
hostile to siblings that it makes them enemies of the state--and dead.
  Women are told by Chinese family planning cadres when--and if--they 
can have even the one child permitted by law.
  Unwed mothers--even if the baby is her first--are forcibly aborted. 
No exception.
  Women are severely harmed emotionally, psychologically, and 
physically. Chinese women are violated by the state. The suicide rate 
for Chinese women--about 500 a day--far exceeds suicide anywhere else 
on earth.
  Then there are the missing girls--about 100 million--victims of sex 
selection abortions. This gendercide is a direct result of the China/
UNFPA one child policy.
  In 2008--the U.S. State Department found once again that the UNFPA 
violated the anti-coercion provision of Kemp-Kasten and reprogrammed 
all funding originally earmarked for the UNFPA to other maternal health 
care or family planning projects.
  Yet throughout the past three decades, the U.N. Population Fund has 
remained China's chief apologist, as well as program trainer, 
facilitator and funder.
  So, finally, Mr. Speaker, how does Congress respond to the UNFPA's 
unconscionable complicity in China's crimes against women? Do we demand 
reform and protection of Chinese women and children? Heck no. We gut

[[Page 5597]]

the anti-coercion law and write a $50 million check to the UNFPA.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out that our friends in 
the right-to-life community have made their concerns clear. They have 
asked this committee to retain virtually all of the limitations on 
abortions that have been in previous appropriations. The committee has 
done so in 19 of 20 items. That's a pretty good batting average I would 
suggest.
  The only change that has been made with respect to abortion is the 
change with respect to the United Nations Population Fund. And here we 
retained all current law restrictions on family planning funds in 
China, which means UNFPA programs in China will not be funded. The bill 
does make some adjustments that allow certain expenditures for maternal 
health programs, including ensuring safe childbirth and emergency 
obstetrics care. The new provision does not in any way change current 
law restrictions on funding of UNFPA contra programs in China. I 
personally detest the Chinese programs and I agree with the gentleman's 
observations about the Chinese programs, but the adjustments simply 
allow this agency to proceed in 100 other countries.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, as a Republican moderate, I rise in support 
of the rule, but against the bill that it governs.
  This rule would deny a pay raise to the Congress, and since Americans 
are not getting a raise, neither should we. But the ominous 
appropriations bill underlying this legislation is not responsible. It 
contains 9,000 earmarks, with no irony in the very same week as the 
Fiscal Responsibility Summit.
  The earmarks in support of projects come from Republicans and 
Democrats, but none of them face the time that we see. Earmarks, 
remember, are sole-source Federal grants given without competition, 
many for clients of entities who paid lobbyists to reach into our 
Treasury.
  Now, one set of earmarks in this legislation deserves particular 
scrutiny. The bill contains no less than a dozen earmarks for the 
clients of Paul Magliochetti and Associates, known as PMA. Agents from 
the FBI raided PMA 3 months ago, and yet I have seen, coming from 
Illinois, the signs of a Federal criminal investigation and know what 
they look like. And the signs are all there now that the Justice 
Department is moving to soon indict the leaders of PMA, but stunningly, 
this House is ready to approve no less than 12 PMA client earmarks in 
this bill, reaching into the taxpayers' Treasury for $8.7 million. It 
is simply not responsible to allow a soon to be criminally indicted 
lobbying firm to win funding--all borrowed money--in this bill.
  This bill also dramatically accelerates spending by the Federal 
Government. We have approved a $1 trillion stimulus bill; this is a 
$410 billion omnibus appropriation; and then we will take up a 
supplemental appropriation bill--all borrowed money. The legislation 
contains no analysis of the borrowing required to support this 
spending.
  The Bureau of the Public Debt reports that we will have to borrow 
$150 billion a week to support this spending.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I give the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. KIRK. We will have to borrow an additional $150 billion a week, 
the Bureau of Public Debt reports, to support this spending.
  Now, the number of lenders to the United States Government used to 
total 45; they are now less than 17. And our top lender is China, its 
government and central bank, that just announced that its lending to 
the United States will drop from $450 billion last year to just $150 
billion this year. Now, they've already lent us $1 trillion, and 
they're worried that we can't repay. Would you blame them?
  So I would hope, at a minimum, that when the conference meets on this 
legislation we delete the criminal earmarks, the 12 PMA earmarks, in 
conference. These leaders from PMA are likely going to jail, and their 
work should go unrewarded from our Treasury.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I am grateful to the 
gentleman for supporting the rule. I'm glad he agrees with us that in 
this tough economic time we should not go forward with a pay raise for 
Members of Congress. But I would simply point out that passing the rule 
in and of itself doesn't deny Members a pay raise. You need to pass the 
rule and pass the bill; otherwise, it doesn't happen. So I would urge 
him maybe to rethink his position.
  At this point, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the chairman and subcommittee 
chairman on the Appropriations Committee for doing such a great job 
crafting this legislation.
  Last night, President Obama said that a budget should be more than 
just a list of programs and dollar amounts, it's a document that should 
reflect our values as a Congress.
  I'm proud to support this rule and this omnibus bill as a reflection 
of my values. Allow me to briefly mention some of the programs that I'm 
proud to have worked with my colleagues to fund.
  I'm very pleased that we have additional money in here for public 
housing capital funds. We have many of our large public housing 
projects that are in great disrepair, and to have just a decent quality 
of life we needed to expand support for these public housing projects. 
There is money for section 8 tenant-based vouchers, money for section 8 
project-based vouchers, and then of course education and training.
  We have my beloved Head Start program. That is going to ensure that 
900,000 low-income children have access to high-quality preschool 
services, title I grants for low-income children, and money for 
dislocated workers.
  In health, we're going to give additional support to community health 
centers, health professions training, and Missing Alzheimer's Disease 
Patient Alert Program; and of course some assistance in international 
aid for HIV and AIDS; and a little money for Haiti--that's the poorest 
country in the Western Hemisphere.
  So I am very, very proud of this legislation, particularly in this 
time of economic crisis. It's vital that we continue to invest in our 
economy to keep our country strong.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Augusta, Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This rule is totally unfair, and it is a slap in the face to the 
American family. We are struggling all across America to try to make 
ends meet, but what are we doing here in Congress? We're growing the 
size of the Federal Government. The things that are included in this 
grows every one of these appropriations in whole by almost 8.5 percent, 
but the American public's budget isn't growing that much.
  I presented an amendment to this huge abomination here that would 
have cut discretionary spending--not military spending, not veteran 
spending, but discretionary spending--by 10 percent. My amendment was 
not held in order. I was trying to help the American people, but we're 
having this forced down our throats. This is just another continued 
rolling of a steam roll of socialism down the throats of the American 
people and it's going to destroy our economy.
  Just as an example of how grossly growing the Federal Government is, 
Labor HHS, with what is in this bill as well as what was in the 
nonstimulus bill just a couple of weeks ago, is growing by 91 percent 
just for that one department. Labor HHS approps is growing 91 percent. 
This is totally intolerable.
  Just last night, the President stood right there and said he wanted 
to cut

[[Page 5598]]

the deficit in half by the end of his 4-year term. We're not cutting 
the deficit, we're growing government, and it's going to increase the 
Federal debt. This is intolerable, and this rule should be rejected.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Allentown, Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I just rise today to express my disappointment 
with the fact that we are operating under a closed rule. I appreciate 
the fact that we are going to eliminate the pay raise, I think that's 
appropriate, and I commend everybody involved with that. We should not 
be getting a raise at a time like this.
  But ordinarily we operate under what's called an open rule so that we 
have the opportunity to offer amendments to appropriations measures, 
that is our custom. And I'm very disappointed that we're not allowed to 
do that.
  We all talk about bipartisanship, as we should, and we should try to 
work for bipartisan legislation. In fact, the President just the other 
day said something to the effect that the majority needs to be 
inclusive and the minority needs to be constructive. I agree. And in 
that spirit, I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee yesterday 
that would have limited the increase in spending in this legislation to 
the rate of inflation at 3.8 percent. It was rejected on a party line 
vote. I think it would have been most appropriate. Again, that 
amendment was substantive, it was constructive, and would have 
benefited the American taxpayer.
  I understand that we have an obligation to govern, that we must pass 
appropriations bills to fund the government; that is important and 
that's something we must do. But the fact that we're operating under 
this closed rule process, though, again, shuts so many people out of 
the process. It is unfair, it's unreasonable, it is not bipartisan, and 
I think we should heed President Obama's voice, that the minority 
should be constructive and the majority should be inclusive. And that 
is not what is occurring with respect to this Omnibus Appropriations 
Act.
  I am disappointed. And like others, I intend to vote for the rule 
because it will eliminate the pay raise, so that's a good thing; but 
again, we need to get back to regular order.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, Mr. Flake, had it right 
this morning when he said this bill is heavy, and it is. And this is 
the bill that we're getting ready to pass, hundreds of billions of more 
dollars that will be taken from the American people that we're 
borrowing this money.
  Just last week, we passed a bill that was twice this size, all 
borrowed money. This is a bill that, by and large, was put together 
last June and ready to go. We are now 5 full months through the fiscal 
year, and yet we decided to go ahead and do the exact same bill in the 
remaining 7 months; 8 percent increase if we had 12 months, now we've 
got 7 months left. All borrowed time, all borrowed money off of a 
system that now, months later, is under greater distress.
  The American family, the American taxpayer, American business, even 
investors to this great country, like China--as we've heard the 
gentleman, Mr. Kirk, talk about--the investors, people who will pay for 
this debt, are growing weary of bigger and bigger government, of more 
and more spending.
  And I do recognize that we disagree with each other on the floor 
based upon party lines, but at some point there has to be a reality 
check. And the reality check is that, since we decided to wait almost 
half a year, why not cut it in half? Makes sense to me. Perhaps that's 
common sense; perhaps it's just political shenanigans. But, Mr. 
Speaker, here we are today with 7 months remaining and we're going to 
cram down an 8.5 percent increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act and the rule currently being debated in the House.
  Division E of this bill provides $27.6 billion for programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. This is a 
modest increase of about 4\1/2\ percent over the 2008 funding level. 
These funds are critically needed to support the core activities of 
agencies which serve every American family and which benefit the 
taxpayers of this country. These agencies include the National Park 
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge System, and the National 
Forest System. These land management agencies manage more than 600 
million acres of publicly owned land and host more than 200 million 
visitors every year.
  The bill also funds the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, which provide education, law enforcement, and health 
services for 4 million Native Americans. It includes the money to 
support the staff of the Department of the Interior, which develops the 
offshore and land-based energy resources of this country. These energy-
related programs generate over $20 billion of revenue for the Federal 
Treasury every year. It includes money for the EPA to support 
environmental protection activities in every congressional district 
affecting every single American family.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the question raised 
earlier as to why we need this omnibus money when we have just provided 
$11 billion for the agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act signed last week. The basic answer is the stimulus legislation 
provides funding for infrastructure projects at these agencies, in 
particular funding to address the longstanding and well-documented 
maintenance backlogs. The omnibus bill we are considering today 
supports the operational costs of these agencies.
  The recovery bill pays to repair Indian schools. This bill pays for 
the teachers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DICKS. The recovery provides funds to fix dilapidated Indian 
hospitals and clinics and allows purchases of critically needed medical 
equipment. The omnibus bill pays for the doctors, dentists, and nurses.
  The recovery bill will improve the roads, bridges, trails, and 
visitor services facilities of our parks, refuges, and forests. The 
omnibus bill pays for the park rangers who provide visitor services and 
for the law enforcement rangers who protect those visitors.
  The recovery bill will repair, rehabilitate, and build new water and 
sewer systems in over 500 communities. The omnibus bill includes 
funding to support efforts to protect public health by enforcing laws 
and regulation to ensure our air is fresh, our water is safe, and that 
our families are not exposed to dangerous toxins.
  I want to commend Chairman Obey for bringing this bill badly needed 
by the American people. These are important programs, and I appreciate 
his leadership on this bill and the staff of the committee as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus Appropriations 
Act currently being debated in the House.
  Division E of this bill provides $27.6 billion for programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Interior and Environment Subcommittee. This is a 
modest increase of about 4\1/2\ percent over the 2008 funding level. 
These funds are critically needed to support the core activities of 
agencies which serve every American family and which benefit the 
taxpayers of this country. These agencies include the National Park 
Service, the U.S. Wildlife Refuge System, and the National Forest 
system. These land management agencies manage more than 600 million 
acres of publicly owned land and host more than 200 million visitors 
every year. The bill also funds the Indian Health Service and the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs which provide education, law enforcement, and 
health services for 4 million Native Americans. It includes the money 
to support the staff of the Department of the Interior which develops 
the off-shore and land-based energy resources of this

[[Page 5599]]

country. These energy related programs generate over $20 billion of 
revenue for the Federal treasury every year. It includes money for the 
EPA to support environmental protection activities in every 
congressional district affecting every single American family.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically address the question raised 
earlier as to why we need this Omnibus bill when we have just provided 
$11 billion for these agencies in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act signed last week. The basic answer is that the 
stimulus legislation provides funding for infrastructure projects at 
these agencies, in particular funding to address the long-standing and 
well documented maintenance backlogs. The Omnibus bill we are 
considering today supports the operational costs of these agencies.
  The Recovery bill pays to repair Indian schools. This bill pays for 
the teachers.
  The Recovery provides funds to fix dilapidated Indian hospitals and 
clinics and allow purchase of critically needed medical equipment. The 
Omnibus pays for the doctors, dentists, and nurses.
  The Recovery bill will improve the roads, bridges, trails, and 
visitor services facilities of our parks, refuges, and forests. The 
Omnibus bill pays for the park rangers who provide visitor services and 
for the law enforcement rangers who protect those visitors.
  The Recovery bill will repair, rehabilitate and build new water and 
sewer systems in over 500 communities. The Omnibus bill includes 
funding to support efforts to protect public health by enforcing laws 
and regulation to ensure our air is fresh, our water is safe, and that 
our families are not exposed to dangerous toxic wastes.
  The Recovery bill will pay to improve border security by installing 
surveillance equipment and allowing purchase of better equipment for 
law enforcement personnel. But it is the Omnibus bill which pays for 
the refuge and park personnel who patrol the border areas which are 
overwhelmed by drug dealers and undocumented aliens. I toured this area 
last weekend on a Committee field visit and I can tell you these brave 
rangers and other law enforcement personnel face danger every day and 
desperately need the funding in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, a full-year Continuing Resolution will not adequately 
fund the operational costs of these agencies. Fixed costs average a 
little over 5 percent this year. If Congress simply extends the 
Continuing Resolution, agencies already suffering serious staffing 
shortfalls will have to further reduce staff. The Park Service will 
lose $161 million. The wildlife refuges will lose $29 million. The 
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service will lose $320 
million. These cuts will have very serious consequences.
  Let me give one very straightforward example of the impact of a full 
year Continuing Resolution. The Indian Health Service estimates that if 
they are forced to operate for the rest of the year under the 
Continuing Resolution that they will provide 2,800 fewer hospital 
admissions and 400,000 fewer outpatient visits. Screening for diabetes, 
cancer and other life threatening diseases will also be significantly 
reduced. These are very serious consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill we are considering today includes a very 
modest increase of 4.8 percent over the 2008 level for Interior and 
Environment programs. The recommendations have been developed through a 
fully bipartisan process. I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last night here in the well, the President said that 
there were no pork barrel projects in this bill, and now we find out 
there are over 9,000 pork barrel projects. Some people in the other 
Chamber said that the American people don't care about those pork 
barrel projects. I think they do.
  And I think the American people care about our kids. We are stealing 
from our children and future generations. And let me just tell you why 
I say that.
  We spent $700 billion in the TARP bill. We don't even know where half 
of that money went, $350 billion. We spent $14 billion on the auto 
industry. That's just the beginning. And there wasn't even a plan. If 
there had been a plan, it would have been a different situation. We 
spent $787 billion plus interest, which is going to take it over $1 
trillion, on the stimulus bill, and we don't know if that's going to 
work. And we have got these 9,000 pork barrel projects that are in this 
bill, which is $408 billion. You add all that up plus the national 
health care, which the President said we are going to have to have here 
very quickly, and you don't have any idea how much money we're talking 
about. Mr. Geithner said $2 trillion is going to go in to help bail out 
the financial institutions. You add all of that up and it is an 
astronomical amount of printing of money and borrowing of money, and we 
don't have it. And we're borrowing from our kids and future 
generations.
  And then on top of that, the President said he was going to cut the 
deficit in half in 4 years. That is not possible. It is just not 
possible. And I just hope the American people are paying attention, Mr. 
Speaker, because we're playing with funny money in this place and we're 
hurting the future generations of this country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Listening to my friend from Indiana talking about funny money and 
fiscal responsibility, well, you know, we didn't hear that from you 
when those on the other side ran the economy into the ditch for the 
last 8 years, turning a $5 trillion surplus into a massive budget 
deficit. If he would have listened to the President last night, he 
would have heard that the President said the economic recovery package 
had no earmarks. Now, even though this Omnibus has one-fourth of the 
earmarks that the previous Republican crew had when they ran the place, 
the President wasn't talking about today's bill. He was talking about 
the economic stimulus.
  I appreciate the hard work of the committee in bringing this forward. 
As we know, this work was largely done last year but we had a President 
that was running out the clock. He wouldn't work with the committee to 
deal with then what our established budget resolution was. He wanted 
more Draconian cuts. The committee wisely sidestepped that, moved 
forward with a new Congress and a new administration. This $410 billion 
package works in harmony with the economic recovery package, and I am 
pleased that it refocuses on the pieces that matter.
  I have got a little provision in here that makes a difference for my 
community, a broadly supported effort for $45 million to revitalize our 
community with a Portland streetcar, something that's gaining attention 
across the country. People look at this as an opportunity to rebuild 
and renew, create jobs, revitalize community. It also contains 
important funding provisions for Public Broadcasting that will allow 
our hometowns to continue to invest in quality, commercial-free, 
educational, and cultural programming. It continues the investment in 
renewable energy.
  I would like to conclude by paying special tribute to the committee 
and especially Chairwoman Lowey for her success in raising the profile 
and investment in international clean water and sanitation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we came together with bipartisan 
legislation in 2005, the Water for the Poor Act, but Congress didn't 
put any significant money in it. There was less than $10 million for 
all of Sub-Saharan Africa. This year there is $300 million to implement 
the Water for the Poor Act, and a significant investment in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. It's going to mean that hundreds of thousands of lives are 
going to be saved and the United States is going to be regarded 
differently around the world.
  Simple, common sense, should have been done years ago, is going to be 
done now, and I appreciate the committee's hard work.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The bill that we are talking about, again, is a large bill, $400 
billion worth of spending, very few committee markups, committee 
hearings. We heard that they could not negotiate with the President 
because they didn't want to have to make tough decisions to fit within 
a box the package that would

[[Page 5600]]

be, I think, best for the American people, $400 billion more worth of 
spending.
  Borrowed money is difficult for the United States, and it's my hope 
that sometime during this process that my friends the Democrats are 
going through that they will recognize that borrowing money is a sad 
way to run the business.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me begin by thanking Chairman Obey and the members of the 
Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle and their staff for 
their tireless efforts in trying to put together a bill that will help 
the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. This is, as I 
said earlier, a completion of last year's work. Unfortunately, the 
White House refused to negotiate with the Congress. They showed an 
incredible amount of disrespect and indifference to what congressional 
leaders of both parties had to say, and it was their way or the 
highway, and so here we are. We're trying to wrap up last year's work 
in a way that will help the American people.
  My colleague from Texas talks about that we should have a freeze on 
all spending. Well, given this economy, that kind of a policy would 
leave a lot of people in the cold. It will take some government 
investment to get us out of this ditch that we're in. And no matter how 
you want to look at it, the graphs and the charts are all the same, 
that these last 8 years this administration's policies, with the help 
of a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in 
charge of Congress, have driven this economy into a ditch, and we need 
to get out of this ditch.
  Mr. Speaker, I should also tell my colleagues that this rule also 
prevents Members of Congress from receiving a pay raise, and every 
Member of this House has the opportunity to vote up or down on this 
rule. And a vote against this rule and I would say a vote against the 
bill is a vote for the congressional pay raise. So if you have said 
publicly that you oppose the congressional pay raise, that you would 
vote against an increase in your salary if you could, well, here's your 
chance. If you vote ``no'' on the rule and you vote ``no'' on the 
underlying bill, then you are voting to increase your pay. I think 
during these difficult economic times, that's the least this Congress 
can do, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 393, 
nays 25, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 84]

                               YEAS--393

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--25

     Boren
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Costello
     Deal (GA)
     Ehlers
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Minnick
     Paul
     Peterson
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Scalise
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Stupak
     Taylor
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barrett (SC)
     Butterfield
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Clyburn
     Davis (IL)
     Hoyer
     Larson (CT)
     Miller, Gary
     Perriello
     Platts
     Rush
     Stark

                              {time}  1352

  Messrs. PETERSON, BOREN and FLAKE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. CALVERT, TERRY, AKIN, LANCE, CUELLAR, BARTON of Texas, 
INGLIS, CULBERSON and THOMPSON of Pennsylvania changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 5601]]

  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. McGOVERN. 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 398, 
nays 24, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 85]

                               YEAS--398

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--24

     Barton (TX)
     Blunt
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Deal (GA)
     Ehlers
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Issa
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Paul
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Stupak
     Westmoreland

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Davis (IL)
     Larson (CT)
     Miller, Gary
     Perriello
     Platts
     Rush
     Stark


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1409

  Mr. BURGESS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________