To require representatives of governments designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General lobbying contacts with legislative branch officials, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying resolution. In past debates on defense appropriations, I have spoken of the four challenges I believe we must successfully address if we are to ensure the security of our country in the 21st Century. These challenges are, first, addressing the equipment and readiness needs created by the 1990s procurement holiday; second, transforming and adapting our forces to use the opportunities and meet the challenges posed by the new technologies of the information age; third, increasing the size and changing the force structure of our forces in order to have more available manpower for deployment and for combat operations; and, fourth, doing those things necessary to win the war on terror and succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the rule and the underlying legislation do much to meet these four challenges. The bill itself provides $427.4 billion to meet the needs of our military. That is $19.1 billion more than last year.

Speaking broadly, the bill provides $84.9 billion for military personnel, $120.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $81.5 billion for procurement, $75.3 billion for research and development and $50 billion towards the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The procurement sections of the underlying bill do much to bring on line new weapons and replace worn-out equipment. I am particularly pleased to note the $11 billion for naval shipbuilding and conversion, the $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-22 aircraft and the $500 million above the President's request for National Guard equipment needs. In addition, in light of developments in North Korea, the $9 billion for ballistic missile defense is clearly a prudent expenditure. Additional funds are available to replace equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the personnel front, the end strength for the National Guard is funded at its full projected strength of 350,000. Moreover, all personnel receive a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise that the administration requested.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go before we make up for the neglect of our military in the 1990s when we reduced our end strength levels and failed to replace and update weapons systems and bring on new weapons. The changing nature of technology poses real threats and opportunities. Moreover, our forces are involved in a tough fight against a vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They require our continued support.

No one bill in and of itself can address all these challenges. However, the Appropriations Committee has brought us a bill that makes significant progress in all these areas.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, carefully crafted by the chairman, Mr. Young of Florida, and the ranking member, Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. Their professionalism and cooperation in devising ways to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform is something to which we should all aspire. I particularly want to recognize Mr. Sabo, who is leaving Congress after the completion of his current term, for his distinguished career of service to his district, his State and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just briefly to offer a different perspective, if I may.

I would argue that we don't spend too much on defense, we spend far too little. Frankly, by historical measures, we spend less now than at any time since 1940. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we were spending roughly 50 percent of the entire Federal budget, roughly 9 percent of our gross national product on defense. By 1980, that was down to 33 percent of the Federal budget and 6 percent of the gross national product. Today, it is about 17 or 18 percent of the total budget, only about 4 percent, actually slightly less than that, of the gross national product.

I would argue we steadily decreased our expenditure even in a time of danger, and frankly that is a tribute to the professionalism and the skill of our military and the focus on trying to deliver the best service as reasonably priced as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I too have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, today in closing I again want to draw attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. This legislation accomplishes much in terms of funding our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror, while setting the military on the path of further transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and all the members on both sides of the aisle of the defense appropriations subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. The appropriators have given us a genuinely excellent and bipartisan bill. It does not shrink from making the hard decisions regarding the funding of the current and the future force. This is never an easy task, and it is even harder during a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Members to vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

I readily admit that no bill, including this legislation, is perfect. That is the reason why we reauthorize and appropriate for the Department of Defense on an annual basis. Moreover, we deal with ongoing contingencies through emergency supplemental appropriations when and as required. This legislation takes critical steps toward fulfilling the current and future needs. It is a building block toward creating a stronger military tomorrow and an essential element in funding our troops in the field today.

Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support the rule and underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, out of deference to our ranking member, I didn't claim time in opposition, but I am opposed to this bill, and I want to state why.

H.R. 5228 does change the law significantly with respect to United States policy towards countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism; but moreover, with respect to executive branch scrutiny over the schedules chosen by Members of Congress. More about that in a moment.

Under current law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, FARA, requires that agents from foreign countries have to report on their activities to the Attorney General, but there is an exemption for all diplomatic officials recognized by the State Department.

This bill would change that. It would remove the exemption for diplomats from governments designated as state sponsors of terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. These countries already have limited diplomatic channels in the United States. While Syria and Sudan have embassies, Iran and North Korea do not have embassies in the United States, and Iranian and North Korean diplomats don't have meetings in the halls of Congress.

Thanks to President Carter, we do have a Cuban Interest Section in the United States and a U.S. Interest Section in Havana. Meetings between Members of Congress and Cuban, Sudanese and Syrian diplomats are important, as they are with all diplomats. They offer channels for expressing ideas, improving relations, and expressing concerns.

Currently, Cuban, Sudanese and Syrian diplomats don't report on their meetings with Members of Congress and staff, just as all other diplomats do not. But this bill would require these diplomats to now report all of their meetings with Congress to the Justice Department.

Moreover, it would most directly impact the Cuban Interest Section, which has frequent meetings with Members of Congress. Furthermore, there are more Cuba-related bills and amendments per year than there are for Sudan and Syria. This bill is, therefore, a step backwards for diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, whose relations are already strained.

Moreover, this bill increases executive branch scrutiny over the scheduling books of Members of Congress, but only for Members and staff who meet with the Cuban Interest Section, the Embassy of Sudan and the Embassy of Syria.

I want to state this again. This bill increases executive branch scrutiny over the scheduling books of Members of Congress.

Now, in the last month, there has been a significant debate in this country and in this Congress over questions of separation of power, over the very speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution which gives me the ability to stand on this floor and basically state anything that I think is in the interest of my constituents or the American people. And I can say it with impunity. This is a privilege that is given Members of Congress, that sets our role apart from the rest of the people in this country. No one outside this Chamber can make statements that would be free from being subject to attack by libel laws. Here we can say anything we want. We have a special role. This bill takes away the ability that Congress has to be able to meet independently without having to report to the executive branch or being reported on to the executive branch with respect to discussions with representatives of other countries.

I want Members of Congress to hear me loud and clear. The doctrine of separation of powers is at stake here. Our constitutional ability under speech and debate, which has been under attack by the Executive, is at risk when the Attorney General now will be collecting information from other countries based on contacts made with them by Members of Congress.

I want Members of Congress to think about this. We are a coequal branch of government, and we are a separate branch of government. Members of Congress, this is a power grab by the Executive over the legislative branch, and specifically targets Members of Congress who believe in engagement over isolation and believe that diplomacy is an important tool to achieve peaceful resolution to conflicts.

Ironically, this power grab by the Executive has been initiated by the legislative branch. Why are we so ready to give up our constitutional prerogative?

Why are we asking for countries whose representatives we meet with to report on us to the Attorney General?

What could possibly be the motivation for that, to set the stage for Members of Congress for being accused of being disloyal to the United States? How absurd can that be? Yet this is exactly what this legislation sets the stage for.

Over the last month, we have had a debate over whether the administration has the right to go into any congressional office and grab the papers of a Member of Congress. That debate focuses on the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. This debate also should, and the fact that this has been put on the suspension calendar doesn't give it the right to waive critical inspection and demand that it meet the constitutional test. This does not meet the constitutional test. This is unconstitutional. It is an abrogation of our obligations as Members of Congress to assert a check and balance to the administration exercise of power.

We ought to remember where we came from. Our power comes from the people. Congress was created specifically to be spokespersons for the people of the United States. We should not and cannot give that away.

Vote against H.R. 5228. Reassert congressional authority to be a coequal branch of government to assert checks and balances over the administration. I do not, and I insist on not having to have my schedule open to the Attorney General or to anyone else when I am pursuing the interests of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the title of this bill: ``To require representatives of government designated as state sponsors of terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General lobbying contacts with legislative branch officials.''

This bill would require diplomats, Cuban, Sudanese, Syrian and perhaps

others, to now report their meetings with Congress to the Justice Department. Now, this is a two-way street. Once they do that, then the Attorney General has the ability to go back to Members of Congress and begin to inquire what was that meeting about. They don't have any business doing that. We are a coequal branch of government. We are a separate branch of government.

Since the Justice Department now feels that they can go into our offices and grab our papers, what is the difference between doing that and having another government say they met with Members of Congress and then the Justice Department coming back and saying what was that meeting about.

We don't have to answer to the Justice Department. I wasn't elected by the Attorney General. I was elected by the people of Ohio's 10th Congressional District.

This bill opens the door for the destruction of our constitutional right to speech and debate of the separation of powers. Not everything that we do here in this Congress poses an undermining of our role as Members of Congress. And I assert that this does. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's indulgence, and I appreciate the attention of Members of Congress who are also concerned with this issue of speech and debate and of our separation of powers.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5228 and note that while this is not a bad bill, it does track current law. Therefore, it does not really address the major problems that currently plague the lobbying industry.

This bill would amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, FARA, to require the representatives of foreign governments that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General any lobbying contact they have made with a legislative branch official, a vital need for those governments really sponsoring terrorism, many of whom are on the list held by the Attorney General.

Moreover, this bill will require such agents of foreign principals to disclose their contacts in a timely manner or risk their diplomatic or consular accreditation by the Secretary of State.

Let me make it very clear, there are some members of the list, some nation states on the list that if a bill was to come forward on this floor, I would vote to remove them from the list. But I think overall the underlying purpose of this is to ensure that those who are perpetrating terrorists and are activating or providing or facilitating terrorist acts around the world, that any who represent them in the United States should have to report.

Under the current law, agents of foreign principals that are required to register under FARA already must disclose all lobbying contacts with legislative and executive branch officials. Thus, the premise and point of this legislation seems somewhat unclear and may only track current law.

The best component of this bill is that it would require for the first time that the Justice Department post these lobbying contact reports on the Internet. This is excellent. Currently FARA only requires paper reports that are only available at the DOJ offices. And even though DOJ has put much of this information into their own computerized system, they have refused to share the information with the public. This bill would bring much-needed sunlight to a dark industry.

I have been a constant critic of the lack of oversight of this body. This legislative initiative provides another tool for Congress to raise its head of oversight. Things don't work in this country as long as we have a lack of the three branches of government functioning independently and individually as they should. This gives Congress and the public another tool of oversight.

The lobbying industry is growing at a startling rate, and current laws have proven inadequate to keep up with this evolving industry. The recent list of stories detailing the cozy relationships between lobbyists and certain Members of Congress are only the tip of the iceberg. They are symptoms of deeper problems with lobbying regulations and oversight.

While this bill does not do much to take down the house that Jack built, it is a good step in the right direction. It calls upon Congress to raise its head on oversight.

I rise today in support of H.R. 5228, but note that while this is not a bad bill, it does track current law and therefore does not really address the major problems that currently plague the lobbying industry.

This bill would amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, FARA, to require representatives of foreign governments that have been designated by the Secretary of State as State Sponsors of Terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General any lobbying contacts that they have made with a legislative branch official. Moreover, this bill will require such agents of foreign principals to disclose their contacts in a timely manner or risk their diplomatic or consular accreditation by the Secretary of State.

Under the current law, agents of foreign principals that are required to register under FARA already must disclose all lobbying contacts with legislative and executive branch officials. Thus, the point and premise of this legislation are unclear and seemingly unnecessary.

The best component of this bill is that it would require, for the first time, that the Justice Department post these lobbying contact reports on the Internet. This is excellent. Currently, FARA only requires paper reports that are only available at the DOJ offices, and even though the DOJ has put much of this information into their own computerized system, they have refused to share their information to the public. This requirement would bring much needed sunlight to a dark industry.

The lobbying industry is growing at a startling rate and current laws have proven inadequate to keep up with this evolving industry. The recent spate of stories detailing the cozy relationships between lobbyists and certain Members of Congress are only the tip of the iceberg--they are merely symptoms of deeper problems with lobbying regulation and oversight. While this bill does not do much to take down ``the House that Jack built,'' it is a good step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes again to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for his insight. And I am hoping that as we move this bill along, this instruction that he has given us will be taken into account.

Might I close by simply saying that one of the strong elements of this bill, which I think maybe Members of Congress might not have been aware of, and I hope is made very plain, as these various individuals meet with members in the White House, meet with Vice President Cheney on issues that we have concern with, they will have to report and it will be publicized, those interactions.

There is a component of this that will be worthy of the oversight that this particular bill gives at this instance. But I think it is important that when we do engage in oversight that our legislative initiatives pass constitutional muster.

With that, I would ask for the words of our various speakers, including Mr. Kucinich, to be taken into consideration as we move this bill along. And as indicated, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, and from the outset I want to commend Chairman Young of Florida and the ranking member, Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, for their leadership on this bipartisan bill and for all they do each and every day for our military and their families.

As my colleagues have noted, H.R. 5631 includes over $427 billion in discretionary funding, including an additional $50 billion provided in what is called the very critical Bridge Fund to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 90 percent of this funding will go to the Army and Marine units that are taking the fight directly to our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our committee's allocation is $4 billion below the President's request. This presented the committee with some significant challenges. We looked carefully at programs in the President's budget, and we made selected reductions. We also recommended less funding for programs encountering technological problems and developmental delays. With many competing challenges facing our military as we prosecute the global war on terror, this was not an easy task; but we believe we made appropriate choices to allow us to deter our enemies and yet enhance the high-intensity combat capability of our forces.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this important legislation, we must remain mindful that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, mind you all volunteers, regular military, Guard, and Reserve, are literally on the battlefield as we speak, brave men and women fighting a new kind of war where everybody literally is on the front line. As we all know, the Army and Marines are carrying the brunt of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an unprecedented level of partnership by their Guard and Reserve components, and young men and women from the Air Force and Navy stand with them. Their service and dedication on the battlefields of these countries are making our Nation safer from terrorists who seek to do us and other freedom-loving nations harm.

Make no mistake, our success in Iraq is hugely important. Our enemies in Iraq are thinking enemies; they are adaptable and would like nothing better than to see us withdraw prematurely, set arbitrary dates for withdrawal, and then come back after our departure to reinstall another despot or regime even more oppressive, more fanatical, and more horrendous and more dangerous than the last.

The bottom line is that we should never forget that the soldiers we support through this appropriations bill have freed nearly 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from killer regimes where protest and dissent were answered by killing fields and genocide, where women were denied basic freedoms, education, health care, and the vote.

Of course, the loss of any young soldier is heartbreaking; so are the deaths of innocent civilians killed by roadside and vehicle-borne bombs, or suicide bombers. We are dealing with Saddam loyalists, jihadists, imported terrorists, and domestic criminals who play by no rules and do not hesitate to bomb Iraqi weddings, mosques, funerals, and gatherings of children, school children as a common tactic.

Since we are engaged in the global war on terrorism with Afghanistan and Iraq being countries of conflict and violence, our soldiers and marines and others in the military need every possible advantage. This legislation provides our fighting men and women with the resources they need to be more deployable, more agile, more flexible, more interoperable, and more lethal in the execution of their missions. It provides for better training, better equipment, better weapons.

Of course, our bill supports the troops by providing a pay increase, enhanced life insurance coverage, and housing allowances. Mr. Speaker, I also welcome increased funding for research and development in this bill. Our bill exceeds the President's budget by $2.2 billion so we can speed important new technology from the drawing board to the laboratory, to the test bed, and into the arsenal of our warfighters.

My colleagues, the global war on terror will not be short. It will require deep and enduring commitment. And looking down the road, we face many potential threats and we cannot know what lies ahead, but this appropriations bill will give us the resources to do the job and to support our young men and women who do that job of liberty each and every day.

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

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, passage of H. Res. 877 will allow the House to consider the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill under an open rule. I would like to thank subcommittee Chair Young and my good friend Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work to craft a responsible bill for consideration by this House. It provides robust support to our troops stationed in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. In particular, I would highlight the increased funding to test new jammers for IEDs and additional funds for troop body armor and Humvees.

Importantly, the bill also focuses significant resources toward rebuilding our military. This includes addressing the strain placed on our National Guard. Wisely, the committee provided funding to maintain the Guard's current force size. In addition, they provided critical resources to ensure these men and women have equipment necessary to accomplish their mission.

I appreciate the committee's intense focus to mitigate the effect Iraq has had on eroding our military readiness.

I would like to highlight a few provisions which I feel are particularly forward-thinking. Many Members, including myself, felt that the House missed an opportunity last week to engage in substantive debate with regard to our policies toward Iraq. For that reason, I am very pleased that this bill contains a real policy proposal. It clearly states that it is not the intent of the United States to build permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, intentions matter. For too long this House has passed on opportunities to clarify our intentions in Iraq. Not only is such a statement in the best interest of our troops, but it is critical if we are to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. I would like to commend Mr. Murtha for his leadership in bringing this issue to the House for consideration.

This bill also begins to bring funding for the Iraq war into the regular budget process. Since the start of the war, the majority leadership has been engaged in a shell game. We pass budget resolutions that pretend we are not at war, and in doing so, we ignore the idea of shared sacrifice.

Only a select few are paying for the costs of this war, the men and women

in uniform and their families, and those who rely on critical domestic programs which have been cut to finance the war.

Let us admit we have lost the principle of shared sacrifice. This bill will be a first step toward again embracing that idea. Commend the subcommittee for returning to this path.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, the bill made in order under this rule reaffirms our ironclad support for our men and women in uniform in two fundamental ways. This legislation upholds our part of a solemn pact to provide our Armed Forces with everything they require, and it fulfills our duty to act responsibly in our Nation's interests. I commend the committee for achieving both goals in one bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would like to inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers.

I am prepared to close. Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill is critical to our warfighters, to our national security, and to our long- term strategic interests. It reaffirms the unwavering commitment all Members have for Armed Forces now more than ever.

Once again, I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work in crafting an excellent bill that will allow our Nation to achieve these goals.

I yield back the balance of my time.