Federal Criminal Immigration Courts Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for raising some important concerns about the effect of the digital transition on broadcasters in his home State. I will be glad to work with the gentleman and the ranking member to try to come to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made important observations regarding the necessity of keeping Congress' commitment to repay this long-term debt to the Postal Service. I agree with my colleague that failure to meet this commitment would adversely affect the future financial stability of the Postal Service and eventually force it to take actions that would increase cost for postal consumers. I want to assure the gentleman that I will work hard to reach an agreement with the Senate that produces a conference report that provides the $29 million payment.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to call on the administration to resume including these funds in its budget requests. The revenue forgone appropriation has not been part of the President's budget request since fiscal year 2004.

As I have previously stated, this bill's budget allocation is $243 million below the President's request, so we are placed in a very difficult position when we have to find money for critically important items that have been left out of the President's budget.

I strongly urge the administration to recognize the importance of the revenue foregone appropriation and include it in future budgets.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a distinguished member of the subcommittee and famous Orioles fan.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Would the gentleman yield?

I will continue to work with you on this issue. I know how important it is to you and to our country. You have that commitment from us.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) will agree to not offer his other amendment, which would call for deeper cuts to the account, if this one is agreed to.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Decreasing funding to the Selective Service by $10 million would effectively shut down the agency, and we need to understand that. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the effect would be to shut down the agency.

Now, everyone know that I'm no fan of this war. With my votes that's been made clear. But we must recognize the value of the Selective Service as an inexpensive insurance plan to back up our Active Duty and Reserve Armed Forces. We have a war going on, and we have to have in place many institutions, if you will, and programs that will, at any moment's notice, respond to a congressional call for a draft or any other involvement.

Now, there's also something that we need to understand here. The gentleman wants to take $10 million and give it to the Small Business Administration. I think it's important to note first that prior to full committee markup, we had already increased the Small Business Administration by $40 million. That was above the President's request. In full markup we added another $80 million to the Small Business Administration.

So right now they are at $120 million above the President's request and additional dollars that were brought to light during this whole procedure.

So to send it over to small business is not only an interesting statement because it is a way to get support for something that may be unpopular like a draft, but the fact of life is that there probably could have been another 20 agencies that one could have selected to send money to if that was the point.

So I think that, number one, the Small Business Administration has been taken care of very well in this bill. Number two, there is no need and there should be no desire to cripple the Selective Service Administration, and for that reason, I would hope that our colleagues would vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill ensure that when Federal employees compete with private contractors, it will be done on a level playing field.

The administration's push to contract out Federal employees' jobs is part of a massive push towards private contracting by this administration. Federal contracts rose from 207 billion in 2000 to roughly 400 billion in 2006.

The New York Times reported in February that the increase in contracting is driven by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does. I may add that the day is not far off when they will try to outsource the Congress.

The administration claims that it wants a smaller government, yet it has promoted a hidden workforce of private-sector contractors and grantees who get rich off the government, but are not accountable. The number of contractors increased by 2.5 million since 2002, which is 98 percent higher than the slight increase in the Civil Service workforce.

Congress has raised serious questions regarding the cost- effectiveness in this level of contracting and of outsourcing many Federal employees' functions. In many cases we see government employees working side by side with contractors with the same responsibilities, yet their compensation, benefits, protections and accountability are much different. These are serious issues.

This amendment would strike the modest improvements in the competitive sourcing language that has been carried on appropriations bills for several years. These improvements would help protect the rights of Federal employees.

And let me just comment on the fact that this amendment not only takes out the language that was included in

this bill, but, in fact, takes a full step backward and undoes that which we have done in past bills, even during the time that the Republicans were in control of the House.

What we do here is ensure that a contractor does not receive a cost advantage by not offering a health plan, or offering an inferior health plan or retirement plan to its employees, assuring appeals rights for Federal employees in cases of privatization decisions that adversely affect them just as contractors currently have appeal rights, and ensuring that OMB doesn't direct or request agencies to conduct competitions if they otherwise would choose not to.

This is really just an unnecessary amendment. It is directed at destroying the last bit of opportunity the Federal employees have for full protection. That has to be made clear. There is no need for this amendment other than to try to outsource everything and destroy the Federal workforce.

We all have great respect for our Federal employees. Throughout the history of this Congress and in recent years, we've worked in a bipartisan fashion to reduce spending here and there, but this just goes at the heart of this assault that this administration has on Federal employees. And for that reason, and so many others, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman. He knows how much I respect his desire to improve every bit of the educational programs in D.C., but there are a couple of things we need to know.

First of all, this program is funded at $35.1 million. Interestingly enough, when we approached the D.C. government about this program, we asked what amount they wanted, and this was exactly the amount which was the President's request. They told us that they did not want or need any more. So it is funded at the President's request.

The big problem with this, and what I want to speak about, is the message that this cut sends to the public and to those folks who like to spend a lot of time attacking Members of Congress on both sides. The Special Counsel's Office is involved at this very moment in some very sensitive and high-profile investigations having to do with whistle- blower issues, having to do with the Hatch Act and having to do with so many other issues that we have read about and talked about for a while.

If you are talking about a bipartisan way of inviting attacks on Congress and criticism of Congress, this is probably the best way to accomplish that. Because for $1 million to a program that is funded at the full presidential

request, a program where the District of Columbia has said they didn't want any more money, for that $1 million, to give the impression they were somehow trying to put a damper on the investigations taking place is just the wrong message. For that alone, we should oppose it on both sides of the aisle.

In fact, I would hope, after listening to what I know the gentleman has maybe already paid attention to in the past in putting together this amendment, that he would actually consider withdrawing the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, had I not done my homework, you would have helped me do it, because you started out by telling us you wanted to help D.C., but then you did tell us that it was that you were having problems with the Special Counsel. Well, that is the issue. The issue is you want to get at the Special Counsel.

I am suggesting this is the wrong time and the wrong place to do it, because they are involved in very serious investigations, and the last thing we need is for the public and the talk show hosts to say that Congress, because they won't say you or I, that party or this party, that Congress is trying to put a chill on these investigations.

During the hearings, for the record, we asked the D.C. Government if they wanted more dollars. We gave them the opportunity to tell us if they wanted more than the President's request, and they said no.

The Special Counsel has been asked to look at various issues, including violations of the Hatch Act.

All of the above.

That is true.

If the gentleman will yield further, my point to the gentleman is he started his argument by saying he wanted to help the tuition program, but, in fact, he has a problem with the Special Counsel. I am suggesting hat for the good of this House, we should not be doing anything that appears like we are trying to chill.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, my point would be until at least one of those investigations has concluded, which has gotten quite a bit of publicity in this country and been discussed widely, we should not be cutting what is not a large budget.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman has raised some very serious issues that need addressing, and I would accept the amendment and support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am ready to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those amendments that leaves you scratching your head. This really is an issue that has been visited for so many years and well understood by the medical profession and activists and citizens throughout this country. We are not promoting the use of drugs. In fact, every needle exchange program that I am familiar with, including the one that exists in my congressional district, encourages people to seek treatment, demands in many cases that you seek treatment. But all it says is that while you are a drug addict, while you are trying to get off that addiction, that you not spread the HIV virus by sharing needles.

This is a very sensible medical approach to a very serious social issue and a medical issue. When you have folks who are addicted, the impression that some people get is that this is some sort of a party that people go to and they get drugs by getting needles. What you get is a medical procedure that says you're addicted, we want to help you, we want you to submit yourself to treatment, but in the meantime we will ask you to use this needle rather than one that you can share with someone else and either get the HIV virus or pass it on to someone else.

Washington, DC, is number one in the Nation in AIDS cases right now. All this language says is that the local government will be able to use its local funds to put forth a needle exchange program. My God. To what extent will we continue in this House as we have in the past to take every social issue that we can't win in our local districts and bring it and put it on the people of the District of Columbia and say this is how we want you to behave, because this is what I believe in and back home I can't do this, so I'm going to do it on you and I'm going to do it to you.

The mayor, city council, the leadership, has asked over and over again, give us the opportunity to deal with this issue on our own, in our own way, and in our own terms.

We are not, if I had my way, I would have said that Federal funds could be used for a needle exchange program. That's who I am. But that's not what this says. This simply says that those dollars that are raised locally by the people in the District of Columbia, that they can use it for a program that can save lives, that can stop the spread of AIDS, that can deal with an issue in the most proper and humane way.

This is one of those issues where you have to go deep into your soul, into your heart and not deal with the rhetoric of what sounds right in a 30-second sound bite, but what is proper for public safety, for public health, and for the human dignity of a person that already has a major problem.

I have dealt with a lot of people who are addicted for a long time in my district. I know the pain they go through. At the expense of perhaps making light of it, when they show up at a needle exchange program, they are not dressed in tuxedos with martinis in their hands having a ball. They are people who are hurting, hurting and trying to survive somehow. This may just give them a chance not to get sick, but perhaps just as important, or most importantly, not to make someone else sick.

I would hope that the gentleman fully understands what this is. One, it's local control over the destiny of the District of Columbia; and, secondly, it is a proper medical way for this society to deal with an issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, just one comment. First of all, the committee received a letter in support of removing the prohibition signed by 29 leaders of medical, public health and social service organizations.

In addition, while drug use is illegal, users should not have to pay with their lives. Studies conducted by the CDC, NIH, National Academies of Science and the GAO, which demonstrate that needle exchange programs reduce the incidence of HIV. I mean, this is an array of serious government agencies saying that this, in fact, reduces HIV.

So, on the one hand we spent a lot of money in this country, both here at home and overseas. To the President's credit, he has picked up the ball lately on that issue, and has responded better than in the past on the idea of fighting this disease throughout the world.

Well, right here at home, right here in the Nation's Capital, where the largest number of people infected exist now, the largest ratio, we could deal with this by simply allowing them to do what they must do.

Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of the possibility that we would allow them to use their local dollars, the District of Columbia already has put together a plan, a very comprehensive plan to deal with this issue.

That is the plan presented to the committee by Dr. Greg Payne, the Director of the Department of Health. In it, they speak about the dollars they want to spend and the agencies they want to deal with at the local level. They are very serious about the fact that they want this done, and we should be supportive of it.

I did not, in my comments, intend, nor do I now, to question the gentleman's commitment to his belief that this is not a good program. I respect that. I disagree with you, but that was never my intent, if that's what you got out of it.

But I know that you would not be able to present this kind of an approach anywhere else except when it comes to dealing with the District of Columbia because it is, for all intents and purposes, a territory or a colony. And I take that very seriously because I was born there, an America colony. And I'll be darned if I'm going to be the Governor, now in charge by the Congress of a colony. I don't want to do to D.C. what I feel has been done to my birthplace for 109 years. I fight every day to make that a better situation.

And I think what's happened is somewhere along the way we discovered in Congress, and at times it's been done by everybody, we discovered in Congress that there was a playground, there was a place where we could put forth issues that we thought were important issues. And so if you look at the provisions that prohibit local and/or Federal funds from being used in D.C., you see everything from the abortion issue to the gay issue, to the domestic partners issue, to the needle exchange issue; just about every issue that we have ever decided is important in this country, we've used D.C. as the example. And why? Because they can't fight back because they're powerless because they are, indeed, a colony.

Well, I don't know how long I'm going to be chairman of this committee, but as long as I'm chairman of this committee, I will work hard on many issues, and one of them is to alleviate the burden of the District of Columbia to have to be treated like a colony of the U.S. Congress.

Let us do this locally. Let us all decide that if you really believe in something like this, do it locally.

Let me read to you something that Mayor Fenty wrote to us. And I always mention the fact, and I don't want to put my ranking member in a difficult situation, although, you know, he's tough enough to handle it, but he and I are big fans of this Mayor. We're big fans of the vision he presents. We're big fans of giving the District every opportunity to succeed. He says it more than I do. In every opening statement, at every committee hearing, he brings up D.C. as something, a group of people he wants to help.

The Mayor says, statistics in 2005 show that D.C. has the highest rate of AIDS cases in the country, a rate that is over six times the national average. An estimated 1 in 20 D.C. residents is infected with HIV. Nearly 1 in 50 has full-blown AIDS.

My God, if this is true, and it is, then why wouldn't we let them at least use their local funds to deal with this issue?

You know, I don't know 50 years from now how we're going to be judged, but I think that an issue that may not get the importance it gets now, like this one, will be one of the ones that will judge all of us as to what we did when we had an opportunity to do something.

Absolutely.

Well, with all due respect, and reclaiming my time, you may not feel that it's treated like a plantation, you may not feel that it's treated like a colony, but let me tell you, I don't know a plantation, but I know a colony, and we do treat it like a colony.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment would continue the existing ban on public funding for needle exchange programs in Washington, D.C. We have prohibited this since 1999, so we've done this for 7 years. We generally speaking have had votes in the House and Senate and voted overwhelmingly not to have the taxpayers be heroin dealers.

Intravenous drug use is associated with two epidemics, the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C and illicit drug abuse and the physical, economic and social damages it does. Needle exchange programs do not increase drug abuse. They maintain it, they sustain it, they support the intravenous drug use.

Also, over the years, we can argue about the studies and we've argued on this on the House floor over and over about this study and that study. The best that you can say is studies are inconclusive. In fact, recent studies are moving to prove what I have alleged in these debates over the years, that there's no significant impact on HIV infection, in fact, we merely subsidize heroin use.

Responsible public health policy and compassion requires us to meet the primary illness, not just the outward symptoms of the disease. Addiction is what fuels HIV risk. Providing needles to addicts isn't going to help end their addiction. It is not compassionate to enable addicts to continue their addiction. What we need to do is get them off. For example, D.C. has actually reduced the funding for drug abuse and addiction treatment. They need to be focusing on addiction treatment, not providing free heroin needles.

I want to speak briefly about Vancouver, Canada, which was the model

in the western hemisphere. When they first implemented this program, I visited Vancouver and watched the distribution of needles. They assured me that this was going to get the problem under control, even though they saw rising drug abuse in the center city of Vancouver. By the next time I went up to Vancouver, they had multiple needle sites, that in fact some of the needle sites in downtown Vancouver were competing with each other and arguing over who got to provide the needles. We saw in many of these urban center areas, which has been repeated in New York and in other places where they've had these experimental programs that in fact it has increased codependency because in many of these areas where you see people who are being treated for a variety of different illnesses, you have homeless shelters, and we've seen a rise in codependency because the needle exchange programs and the heroin dealers are down where the needle exchange programs are and we've seen an increase and a rise in this.

Recent studies out of Vancouver are continuing to prove on a steady, systematic way that it has been one colossal failure that had been touted on this House floor as a solution to HIV. I believe that it is not only practically wrong for us to provide the funds through taxpayer funds to a program that is not only practically not effective in stopping HIV, it is, I believe, morally and ethically wrong to ask the taxpayers to in effect provide the very needles that keep people addicted to heroin.

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

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

I was hoping that we could deal with this issue in a broader amendment and I misspoke. We have a battle on the House floor over direct funding. This is in particular a limitation and I understood that under parliamentary rules my earlier amendment might be tossed out on grounds of trying to legislate on an appropriations bill.

In the past, just for the record, the Rules Committee has always protected this amendment because we felt it was absolutely critical not to have the distribution of needles to heroin addicts in our capital city of America. But since the Rules Committee did not protect the general, this particular amendment in front of us doesn't really have a broad, sweeping effect on the District of Columbia but in fact targets two programs that have in fact in the past ineffectively distributed needles and syringes.

The general question is, and this is a proxy vote, is do you believe that needles should be distributed to heroin addicts by public enemies, and particularly in our Nation's Capital. Should we repeat in the streets of Washington, DC, what has failed in so many cities in the United States and around the world, in a, I believe, heartfelt honest attempt to reduce HIV virus, instead hasn't reduced HIV virus or at least at best--there is dispute as to that--but has in fact increased and sustained heroin addiction in the United States.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

First, I want to make it absolutely career that I have spent much of my career work on antinarcotics effort, and it is not a cavalier, cheap shot-type amendment here. I have visited the Vancouver multiple times. I have visited the heroin centers in Switzerland. I have been on the streets of New York and other areas where this has purported to do what the gentleman claims it does. It doesn't. The gentleman didn't cite any study, to the degree there are studies. I have already acknowledged they are mixed. But the net impact is it hasn't seen a reduction in HIV use, and it has seen an increase in heroin use.

Secondly, as far as Washington DC, they have 80 beds, capacity for 80 beds for detoxification. That is not a serious effort to reduce heroin.

Thirdly, we fund the District of Columbia. It is our national capital. You can criticize or say that we micromanage, but, in fact, we provide much of the funding that goes in the District of Columbia, and it is, if not directly, at least indirectly taxpayer funds. Because it is a national capital, that is why it is set up as the District of Columbia.

Now, I understand there is frustration with that, but we have also tried to limit any direct or indirect funds to heroin needle exchanges anywhere in the country. This isn't targeted at Washington DC. You can look at my record. I am willing to target anybody on this program, because I don't believe it reduces HIV. I do believe it increases heroin addiction. I do believe that, in fact, it has been a well- intended, as I said, program, that has worked out to be counterproductive.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First off, we have quoted study after study on this House floor, indirect studies contracted out by different people at different times have, in fact, proven different things depending on what you want to try to prove. The net impact of it is it hasn't reduced HIV, and it has not reduced but, in fact, we have seen heroin addiction go up.

Medical associations are on both sides of the record on this issue, because on the early days of this issue it showed great promise, and there was great hope that, in fact, it might work, but that it has not. What we really need is drug treatment, not drug enable willing. What you can see when you go into these difference centers and visit them is, as a matter of fact, some people come in, they see it as a way to get clean needles. But when you analyze the studies, it's not even that those who were using dirty needles used dirty needles less, they use heroin more.

During the periods of time where they could get the needles at the distribution points, they get the needles at the distribution points. At other times, when they want to get caught up, they go get the dirty needles. It doesn't even reduce. In a case-by-case basis, there's not proven sustained evidence that it even reduces the dirty needles of those who go to the centers. Unless you have round-the-clock constant track usage in a controlled setting, it simply doesn't have the impact that it claims to have.

I believe that this is good Federal policy that we have maintained since 1999, and we should keep this policy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as my friend from Wisconsin knows my issue on this commitment goes far beyond the District of Columbia. This doesn't have anything to do with the goal of being a city council member in the District of Columbia.

I believe any type of funding of heroin needles is counterproductive, and there are plenty of medical experts on both sides who will make that argument either direction. But evidence is increasingly proving that the one group of doctors, the one group of researchers and the 7 years of legislation here are being proven correct, and time will prove them even more correct.

But I do want to address the underlying fundamental question on whether we have a right to legislate in the District of Columbia.

Obviously, the Constitution from the founding of this country has treated the District of Columbia differently. It's our national capital. We have increasingly given them more flexibility.

I think that that is, generally speaking, a good thing. But we don't have a Fort Wayne, Indiana, appropriations bill that comes to the floor. We get some funding, but there are not special bills that come from taxpayer dollars all over America. Nor is there a northern Wisconsin funding bill that comes to the House floor.

When we take large sums of money from our districts that then gets used in policies, in our national capital, that was set up to be different than the other States, with different guidelines and difference regulations, then we do have some obligation to the taxpayers in our district and to our Nation that chose us as the national capital and an appropriations process that set us up where we are taking funds from other States because this is our national capital, and which none of us resents putting funds in because it's our national capital. We use much of the space here, we have put certain restrictions in the city.

I believe we are justified then in trying to do wise policies to the degree possible when necessary in the city. But my opposition to heroin needles is not just restricted to District of Columbia. This is bad policy that does not help the HIV problem and does expand the heroin problem.

Would the gentleman yield?

The point is, we have debated this in multiple ways, we had faith-based debates. We had the debate the other day on international family planning. Money is fungible, and it's very difficult to sort out which is which when it's this big amount of funds we put into the city.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to make just two brief points. One is Vancouver, when they were first looking at it because of their at that time rising AIDS rates, which were not nearly as high at D.C., had a similar plan, or met with similar people from the medical community, and they've been proven wrong. Just because you have a plan and it came from the medical community does not mean it will work, and the program hasn't worked.

But I do want to make, if I could, one personal clarification. I am more than willing and have worked to put this restriction on every city in America. I don't distinguish Washington, D.C., from others, and I don't appreciate the implication that I would treat it like a plantation. I believe this restriction ought to apply to every city.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, sic transit gloria Oxley. Mike Oxley, my Republican predecessor, is barely gone, when one of his great works is being trashed by his former colleagues.

Indeed, as I look at this assault, the gentleman from New Jersey started out talking about small business, but small business clearly appeared to be the stalking horse here. He talked about the New York Stock Exchange. They don't deal with small business. He talked about Sarbanes-Oxley in very negative terms broadly. His complaint is not about small business, but about Sarbanes-Oxley in general. If you analyze what the gentleman said, it was an assault on Sarbanes-Oxley.

Now, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed by a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. It was signed and claimed as a great triumph by our Republican President, George Bush.

I am sad for President Bush. No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, immigration, Medicare part D, even the war in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, are there no Bush policies left that can escape the assault of the Republican Party? I am inclined to think that there are only two Bush policies left that command strong support on the Republican side: illegal wiretapping and torture. Everything else they appear to have abandoned.

In fact, 10 days ago, the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Paulson, explicitly disagreed with the gentleman from New Jersey on the need for this amendment and said, no, we don't want to do this now. This is working.

What is working is a couple of days ago the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, our former colleague Mr. Cox, said, we don't need legislation. We are in the process of changing this. All five of the Commissioners appeared, and none of them asked us for legislation. Mr. Cox specifically said it is not needed.

This is a vote of no confidence in Chris Cox and the SEC. They have said, yes, we should change this. We have more time. It is in a deferment period, and the SEC is in the process, along with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, of winding this down, of making it easier.

Mr. Cox was asked just yesterday, well, what is this going to cost small business? He said, we don't know yet, because we are changing it already for the big businesses that have to pay. But we are going to look at that, and we will make adjustments.

So Chris Cox, on behalf of a unanimous SEC, three Republicans, two Democrats, along with the Republican Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Paulson, says we are fixing this. Please do not at this point legislate.

Of course, what we see is, if you listen to the gentleman from New Jersey, this is the beginning of an assault on Sarbanes-Oxley in general, because much of his speech was not about small business, it was about Sarbanes-Oxley in general, which he does not like and thinks is a terrible burden and is driving people overseas.

It is not driving small business overseas. Nobody argues that. It is not driving small businesses off the New York Stock Exchange; they were never on it. So this is step one in the assault on Sarbanes-Oxley. It is an unnecessary assault because the SEC, under Chairman Cox, with a Republican majority and Secretary Paulson are already trying to fix this problem.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I voted against No Child Left Behind. I understand that. You have got nothing with Bush, and I understand that. I just felt sorry for the poor man being abandoned so much.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

First, as to executive compensation, the gentleman from New Jersey, he finds inconsistencies where none exist. They are kind of like Harvey, his invisible rabbit.

On executive compensation, the SEC has said when asked that they do not have the power to do what our bill does. That is very different than Sarbanes-Oxley. With regard to Sarbanes-Oxley, Chris Cox has said I am doing this, so they are quite different.

The SEC with executive compensation said we can make them say how much it will be; if you want to go further, we have no power to do that.

That is exactly the opposite of what they have said on Sarbanes-Oxley in which they said we are fixing this, and Chris Cox said there is no reason for you to legislate.

The gentleman from New Jersey is being unfair to Chairman Cox in caricaturing him as saying ``we don't know.''

What he said when asked what it would cost is very straightforward: ``We don't know yet.'' He said we are in the process of finding out because what the chairman said is we are downsizing Sarbanes-Oxley. We are downsizing it for everybody. We will know better after we see what the new requirements are for larger businesses, how much there will be saved for smaller businesses.

The fact is that the gentleman from New Jersey quite graphically misrepresented what the SEC said. The SEC did not say ``we don't know,'' the SEC said ``we will tell you after we have had some experience.''

The answer is ``yes'' for a variety of reasons, but I want to make this point. It has nothing to do with this amendment. The gentleman has proven my point. Small businesses don't do IPOs. It is not in the small business area where the decline has happened. So

what we see here is small business has been taken hostage by people who never liked Sarbanes-Oxley because the argument the gentleman makes has nothing to do with the specifics of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Again, the gentleman from Florida has made a general assault on Sarbanes-Oxley. He is now attacking Speaker Hastert. The number of people who are in trouble on the Republican side by this group grows and grows and grows. It is the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois, the former Speaker, who apparently acquiesced, inappropriately, according to the gentleman. Take it up with him, I would say to the gentleman.

Briefly.

Because I was not the chairman, I do remember discussion of it during the conference report. But reclaiming my time.

It is my time.

Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is that I will not allow my time to be diverted by internecine Republican warfare. You don't like George Bush's bill that he signed. You don't think that Oxley did a very good job. You are upset at your own leadership procedurally. You think Chris Cox doesn't know what he is doing. You disagree with Paulson.

Mr. Chairman, they can fight it out. I would like to discuss substance. I'm not here to get even for past grievances that Republicans have with other Republicans.

Again, the gentleman from Florida's assault has nothing to do with this amendment, but it is relevant in this sense: It shows that what we have here is the beginning of an attack on Sarbanes-Oxley.

The IPOs, small business don't do IPOs. Small business hasn't left America to go to England. That is the clear indication of what is up.

Now to get back to the substance, Chairman Cox and the other members of the commission said we agree it went too far in the regulation. We are scaling it back. We are scaling it back first for the big businesses who will be affected by it, and we will learn from that scaling back how much it will help smaller businesses.

Again, the gentleman from New Jersey quite unfairly mischaracterized what the commissioners said. The commissioners didn't say ``we don't know,'' period. They said we don't know now because we expect to get experience from the reductions in the scaling back we have already ordered, and that will tell us how that will help small business.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

The gentleman is simply wrong. He made it very clear. I am quoting him almost verbatim when I say they said: We will find out from scaling back in general how much it will save, and then we will be able to tell you how much the savings will be.

No, I am not yielding any more because this is just not a debatable issue. The five commissioners didn't say simply ``we don't know.'' They said, ``We don't know as of now, but we will know better once we have had this experience.''

I want to go back and respond, the gentleman from Florida said the SEC is fiddling while capital markets burn. I don't think Chris Cox is fiddling.

Let me make the substantive argument here.

Law enforcement in America is not totalitarian. It is not authoritarian. It requires a buy-in by those regulators. And that's why this amendment would do so much damage. There is, of course, a disconnect between the amendment which hides behind small business and the broader attack on Sarbanes-Oxley that we have heard from the two speakers.

But here's where the connection comes in. The SEC, with the full backing of Secretary Paulson, all these Republican nominees, Secretary Paulson from Goldman Sachs, Chris Cox and the others, they understand that Sarbanes-Oxley was overwritten in the regulatory phase. They are writing it down, but they don't want people to just think this is chaos. They have asked us explicitly, the Secretary of the Treasury and the SEC, the Republican appointees, to let them work this out. They agree that it needs to be reduced.

But if you start now with Congress piecemeal amending it, the degree of consensus they are trying to reach in the business community will erode. If people think, oh, we got one amendment through, we got this piece out, then there will be others who want another piece, people who have always resented it. And Mr. Cox has been very careful to try to get, for instance, unanimity in the commission because he wants people not to think this is a chance he's saying, it's going one way, it's going the other. And to begin now to whittle away at his authority, when he is in the process of doing exactly what critics of Sarbanes- Oxley as it now stands say they want to do, undermines his ability to reform this in an orderly way.

First of all, does the gentleman not understand that his question, as virtually all of his debate, has zero to do with the amendment he purports to be supporting?

The fact is that the problems, yes, in China they have decided to do it in Shanghai. I think there are a lot of reasons why there has been a shifting and we're no longer overall in the world. But it has nothing to do with this amendment because it's not about small business. We haven't lost the share of small business. But the gentleman has reinforced my point. I mentioned Shanghai. Shanghai is appropriate, because this amendment is an attempt to shanghai small business into the cause of undermining Sarbanes-Oxley and undercutting the effort by the SEC, supported by the Secretary of the Treasury--and I assume the Bush administration--to allow the process of scaling back Sarbanes- Oxley to be done in an orderly, reasonable fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have just passed an amendment that was going to be offered by one Member on our side of the aisle.

I want to make the point that if Members expect us to call them, they are wrong. As far as I am concerned, we are not running a baby-sitting service. If Members want to offer their amendments tonight, they have an obligation to pay attention and be here in a timely fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of this amendment, and in the past I have often considered voting for it. But I have a far different attitude now than I had in the past because of the Iraqi War.

The fact is that we have no sustained demonstrations in the streets against Iraq, and, in my view, largely that is not occurring because we have no draft. And we have no draft because the country has settled into a comfortable acceptance of the idea that a precious few people, namely those in the regular Armed Forces of the country and those in the Guard and Reserves, should be the only people in our society who are at risk in this stupid and fruitless war. And I just cannot abide that.

I have said many times on this floor that I think it is outrageous that there is no sense of shared sacrifice about this war. We ask our Guard and Reserve personnel to return to Iraq and Afghanistan time and time and time again. And yet of the rest of society we ask nothing except to worry about Paris Hilton and to worry about who wins the Super Bowl, and, oh, yes, if you are a millionaire, we are going to spend $57 billion this year giving you a tax cut. That is really some sense of shared sacrifice.

And so I just cannot bring myself to vote for this amendment, though it might make sense on the numbers, because I think it would be a symbolic act which would send to the country yet another signal that the only people we expect to bear any burden for this stupid, outrageous, lied-to-get-into war are those in the military. And I just think that is wrong. I know that is not the gentleman's intent, but I think that is the practical signal that we send.

So I cannot vote for this amendment. I did not even want to speak against it, but this war bugs me a lot and the total lack of the willingness of this society to face the inordinate costs which we are laying on military families bugs me a whole lot more.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to congratulate the gentleman for at least being willing to stay here and debate the amendment tonight. It's more than I can say for a whole lot of other people, and I respect him for that. Let me say, however, that I don't have quite as much high regard for his amendment.

Well, whoever. I have minimum high regard for it, let me put it that way.

Mr. Chairman, I think we need to fully understand what is afoot with respect to contracting.

I want to cite some other facts, because there is an inexorable and stealthy effort to put much of the activities of government in the hands of contractors rather than in the hands of public servants. And more and more of that contracting is being provided in a noncompetitive manner. That also applies to many, many grants being provided by the executive branch.

For example, the Congressional Research Service documented an unusually large number of sole-source grants issued by the Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor, which resulted in 90 percent of discretionary funds for the High Growth Job Training Initiative being awarded on a noncompetitive basis over a 5- year period. It isn't just Halliburton and Blackwater who are getting lots of taxpayers' dollars in a noncompetitive fashion.

The administration's use of contracting has increased significantly in the past 5 years. For example, the Department of Health and Social Services' contract obligations have nearly doubled from $5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $8.7 billion in fiscal year 2006. The number of contract employees at the Department of Health and Social Services exceeds 32,000, about half the number of Civil Service employees. A significant share of those contracts were awarded on a noncompetitive basis.

In fiscal year 2006 alone, Health awarded nearly 21,000 contracts worth more than $1.9 billion with less than full and open competition. That is four times the total amount of congressionally directed earmarks that are expected to eventually be included in the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill.

I won't even bother to get into what has been happening at the Education Department where local school districts have virtually been blackmailed into accepting contracts with book publishers preferred by the administration or else they are frozen out of the program entirely.

So I would simply say I think the gentleman's amendment is ill- advised, and when the time comes late tomorrow evening, I would hope that we will have a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, I recognize this specific discussion is aimed at Sarbanes-Oxley. But in fact I have been around here for awhile, and I know that this occurs in the context of a much broader and much more insidious pattern.

The fact is if you take a look at what Republican controlled Congresses have tried to do since 1995, you will see that they have voted for appropriation after appropriation that cut the SEC budget even below the President's request. What that meant was that while that agency's workload was expanding and exploding, the ability of the SEC staff to keep up with that workload was being undermined by this body.

The percentage of all corporate filings reviewed by the agency declined dramatically from 21 percent in 1991 to about 8 percent in 2000. Is it any wonder that the Enrons of this world were convinced that they could get away with anything. After Enron failed and after we had a series of other corporations that failed, and their officers went to jail, people got scared. They decided we better do something or we will be seen as being complicit in the abandonment of government's obligation to see that investors are protected.

So what happened is they were scared finally in backing into passing Sarbanes-Oxley. They fought it all the way. And now that it is on the books and the heat is off and the cops ain't watching as much, then what are they doing, they once again want to whittle away at Sarbanes- Oxley. Not with my vote they are not going to.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana. I was not aware of the fact that he had gotten a medical degree. I don't think he is a doctor, and neither am I, and so I would submit that neither one of us are actually qualified to make final judgments about medical matters.

But I am also bothered by something else. You know, I came here to be a Member of the United States Congress. I didn't come here to be a Member of the D.C. City Council. I'm certainly not getting paid for it. I don't know if the gentleman is, but I'm not, and I don't feel like doing double duty as a city councilman at 7 minutes after midnight. I don't even think I would feel like doing that tomorrow.

But what I am bothered by is the idea that somehow we think we can come from our own communities, our own States, and then come to this town, because we happen to technically approve the district's budget in a plantation-type style, we, therefore, begin to tell the District of Columbia that we are going to decide what kind of medical advice is relevant. I heard the gentleman say this in debate, I believe it is wrong.

Well, the gentleman is perfectly entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion. But the fact is that I don't believe that it makes much sense for either Dr. Souder or Dr. Obey to be telling D.C. how they can use their own money. I think it's the height of arrogance on the part of the Congress.

If you want to dictate to communities, would you dare go home and dictate to your own hometown what the city council ought to do? Would you say that because we provide Federal money to your city council, that somehow we should decide what their policy ought to be on medical matters? I don't think so.

I am baffled by people, especially by conservatives, who every day will profess to believe in local control, States' rights and the like, but then when it comes to the District of Columbia, they say, well, because we have a special opportunity, we are going to impose our judgment on yours. I don't think this is about the issue of needle exchange or drugs. I detest drugs. My God, look what they have done to Rush Limbaugh.

But for God's sake, it seems to me that we ought to have enough restraint to recognize that if we wanted to dictate to the D.C. what their policies ought to be, then we ought to resign from Congress and run for city council for the District of Columbia, or maybe even mayor.

But until that time, it seems to me that the District of Columbia government has the right to make their own choices even if they are wrong.

Now, Will Rogers said once that when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

I would submit that I don't have to agree with the gentleman's opinion, and he doesn't have to agree with mine to recognize that we have got a right to state those opinions and follow up on them on Federal matters. But we are interfering in the operation of a local city, and we have no right to do that on education, on drugs or anything else.

You learn from your own mistakes, and if the District of Columbia is making the wrong choice, then I suspect in time evidence will show they made the wrong choice.

But, until then, we are imposing our own judgment on a life- threatening matter. As one layman to another, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

Let me simply say, I would agree with the gentleman if his amendment was limited only to the money that we are appropriating to the District of Columbia. What I don't agree with is when we impose that same judgment on the use of their local money.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is unable to be here this evening, although this is, indeed, his amendment. I would ask unanimous consent that it be identified as such for all proceedings of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would strike section 738 of this legislation, which, as drafted, would have the same effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other appropriations bills, preventing funds from being spent to conduct public/private competitions.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public- sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core mission when Congress takes the opportunity to save money through competition away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civil workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

But the particular language included in this bill is even worse. The underlying language goes further than past Democrat efforts to gut public/private competition by unnecessarily delaying and complicating how the most efficient delivery of commercial activities is determined. This newest attempt to stack the deck against competition for services that can easily be found in the Yellow Pages also creates uneven and duplicative protest rights and intrusive new data requirements, while ignoring the consideration of quality in determining the best source of commercial services for the taxpayer.

In short, Mr. Chairman, by allowing this language to remain in the underlying legislation, approximately $200 million in expected annual savings from planned competitions will be placed at risk.

Additionally, by removing quality from the list of factors in determining who wins a competition, this bill would double costs in many competitions. In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking private companies nationwide.

At this point I will insert into the Record a letter of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition. A portion of that letter reads, This provision will discourage many private-sector firms from participating in the competitive sourcing contracting process. Section 738 would penalize private-sector bidders that offer health insurance benefits to their employees. The Office of Management and Budget reports that the competition under the A-76 process creates an average savings of 15 to 20 percent for the American taxpayer.

The Fair Competition Coalition,

June 27, 2007.

Dear Representative: As you continue consideration of the

FY 2008 appropriations bills, I would like to bring to your

attention some anticompetitive language that was included in

Section 738 of the FY 2008 Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations Act. This provision will discourage

many private sector firms from participating in the

competitive sourcing contracting process, which is being held

at most Federal agencies. The members of the Fair Competition

Coalition ask that you support an amendment offered by

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) which would strike the

Section 738 language from the bill.

Section 738 would penalize private sector bidders that

offer health insurance benefits to their employees. In an

unprecedented intrusion into the competitive process, this

provision singles out one benefit element, and ignores the

reality of the total compensation packages commonly offered

in the private sector. These compensation packages typically

include a wide range of health, matching retirement, bonus/

incentive, professional and personal development, and other

benefits. It also undermines and ignores unique and

innovative health benefits plans, particularly those that are

provided by the small business community.

Section 738 also would allow employees of the Federal

government to protest the award to the private sector.

Congress and the Executive Branch have properly excluded

Federal employees from challenging agency management

decisions in Federal court. Beyond the constitutional

questions of whether such action creates the required ``case

or controversy,'' the President has properly asserted his

responsibility to supervise the ``unitary'' executive branch

and opposed establishing ``interested party'' status for

these decisions.

Already many companies are not pursuing A-76 competitions,

and the language in Section 738 will drive companies further

away from the process. The Office of Management and Budget

reports that the competition under the current A-76 process

creates an average savings of 15% to 20% for the American

taxpayer. The proven benefits of competitive sourcing are too

high to place arbitrary restrictions on the program. We urge

you to support effectiveness and efficiency in Government by

voting YES to the Sessions amendment.

If you have any questions, please contact our Coalition

points of contact: Michele Kaplan of the Professional

Services Council or Kent Sholars of the Contract Services

Association.

Sincerely,

Aerospace Industries Association, American Congress on

Surveying and Mapping, Airport Consultants Council,

American Council of Independent Laboratories, American

Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics

Association, American Institute of Architects,

Associated General Contractors of America, Business

Executives for National Security, Construction

Management Association of America, Contract Services

Association of America.

Design Professionals Coalition, Electronic Industries

Alliance, Information Technology Association of

America, Management Association for Private

Photogrammetric Surveyors, National Association of RV

Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense Industrial

Association, National Federation Of Independent

Business, Professional Services Council, Small Business

Legislative Council, Textile Rental Services

Association of America, The National Auctioneers

Association, United States Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to follow the advice of that letter and support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public-sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government.

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

Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's comments.

I, too, have respect, as well we all do, for all Federal employees. But this is serious business. Spending the taxpayers' money is serious business. And outsourcing does one thing, private contracting does one thing: It provides for an opportunity to save hard-earned taxpayer money.

The majority says that they oppose and fight adamantly as they oppose no-bid contracts. So how can be it be consistent to oppose a competitive contracting process that allows private firms the opportunity to have outsource contracts?

This is a commonsense amendment. I offer it on behalf of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield? It is Mr. Sessions' amendment.