Congratulating the University of California, Los Angeles, men's basketball team for its National Collegiate Athletic Association tournament performance.

Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chair of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on environmental issues and look forward to working with her on continuing the Speaker's leadership on the Green the Capitol Initiative, both in terms of planting of the trees and the greening of roofs, and I look forward and appreciate her input.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I think it's unfortunate that the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished former chairman of this committee, has chosen this opportunity as a message opportunity, as opposed to working together in a bipartisan way, like the ranking member and I have done, to make sure that we can provide for the safety and security of the facilities of this institution.

He knows full well that the Capitol Visitors Center and the employees of the subcontractors that have been engaged to build that facility, while moving entirely too slowly, and we certainly have decried the cost overruns, are required to hire people who legally may work in this country and are required to ensure that a background check and a security check has been done on them. So his remarks are unfortunate, but everybody makes their own choices.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I am really proud of the work that the subcommittee and I have engaged in. We offer this legislation to the House and ask for their support. We have endeavored to make sure that this bill is fiscally responsible, provides for the life, safety and security of the needs of the people who work here as well as the people who visit us here, and make sure that we can engage in Congress's oversight role and provide for accountability for the American people.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Wamp from Tennessee on making sure that we can consistently

provide those initiatives for the American people.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition even though I am supportive of the amendment.

Madam Chair, very briefly, I fully support this amendment and appreciate the bipartisan cooperation that was endeavored in moving it forward.

I do want to express some concern about how the light bulbs will be adapted to the historical lighting that we have in this facility, in the Capitol complex.

I look forward to working with the sponsors of the amendment as we move this legislation through conference to ensure that that occurs.

I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and Mr. Wamp as we move through the conference process and commend them, as well as Speaker

Pelosi, for including the shifting from the light bulbs we use now to energy-efficient and environmentally friendly light bulbs as part of the initiative of the greening of the Capitol.

I yield back my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons.

While I support the gentleman, who is from the same generation that I am, in his endeavor to make sure that we can communicate and receive information in an electronic format, the approach that the gentleman is taking is absolutely inappropriate and won't accomplish his goal.

We have crafted a tight and fiscally responsible bill. As I outlined in general debate, we have held the bill to a 4.1 percent increase. We actually held it to $276 million below the total request.

In their traditional views, the minority agreed. They said that, on balance, the funding provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies is fiscally responsible. This amendment would add to existing shortfalls. It would add to what is already a growing funding shortfall in this account.

To be fiscally responsible, we have had to make some tough choices, including funding levels for GPO. The bill already, our colleagues should know, holds congressional printing and binding $62,000 below what was provided in fiscal year 2007. GPO is expecting an $8 million shortfall in this account in fiscal year 2007 in addition to a $3 million shortfall in fiscal year 2006. These shortfalls are due to the flat funding provided to this account since fiscal year 2007, in spite of increasing costs and workloads. These shortfalls will continue in fiscal year 2008. Eventually they are going to have to be paid.

This amendment would make that situation even worse. Most of the appropriation for congressional printing and binding goes towards Congress' printing requirements. I want to point out that the gentleman is incorrect when he states that there is a statute. While there is a statutory number in the Code that the GPO is told to print, they only print the number that is requisitioned. In other words, they only print, on a daily basis, the number that they are asked for. We have a deficit in the account that allows them to print the number that is asked for. GPO has no control over those requirements. It's required by law to produce the information.

If the gentleman is concerned about the number of printed materials being produced, he should take it up with the authorizing committee, the Joint Committee on Printing, and seek reductions in the amount of material that GPO is required to print in the Code.

Simply gratuitously cutting out and leaving people with the impression that we are doing something, when we are not, and all we are doing here is cutting $3.2 million when GPO will still be required to print the Code, is the wrong approach. The suggestion that this amendment was accepted previously but then cut out in conference also leads people to believe that we have done something when we have not.

I refuse to be disingenuous when it comes to being forthright with the American people. We do need to make sure that in the future the Congressional Record is produced electronically. This is not the right way to do it. It is irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the amendment offered by Mr. Flake does not say anything about reducing the number of copies printed of the Congressional Record. It simply cuts $3.2 million out of the Congressional Printing and Binding account. It provides no direction. It simply cuts that funding. There is no assumption that any of what the gentleman is suggesting would occur. It would simply further add to the deficit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I believe the gentleman has his own time.

How much time do I have left?

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I really believe that we should approach this in the appropriate way. If we want to change the statute and go to electronic production of the Congressional Record, that is what we should do. We should not simply hamstring the GPO by requiring them to print a Congressional Record and not ensuring they have adequate funds to do that, when they are already in a deficit situation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this is a fiscally responsible bill. Again, we have held the bill to a 4.1 percent increase, only $122 million over actual spending in fiscal year 2007, and if you take into consideration the $50 million rescission in the CR, we are at a 2.3 percent increase. That is $276 million below the total budget request.

Again, I want to point to the minority views, where the minority agreed this bill is fiscally responsible. They say, ``On balance, the funding provided in this bill to operate the legislative branch agencies is fiscally responsible.''

This bill funds the must-have's, not the nice-to-have's, by targeting increases towards keeping the agencies running, providing Congress with the tools it needs to perform its oversight responsibility, and funding critical security and life safety projects.

The amendment, if adopted, would eliminate $50 million worth of critical health and safety and security projects that we would be unable to fund if a 4 percent across-the-board reduction were adopted.

This amendment would eliminate funding for things like the $5 million we have in this bill to ensure that the Capitol Police have interoperable radios. According to the new police chief, a new radio system is their number one priority. The existing radio system is 20 years old. It is antiquated and outdated. It is not encrypted nor secure, and it is not interoperable. Hurricane Katrina showed the importance of interoperable communications during a crisis.

It also would eliminate funding potentially monitoring the utility tunnel abatement. We had tunnel workers who were subjected to horrendous conditions and have been exposed to asbestos, and we are endeavoring to make sure that we can make up for that and provide the funding for the abatement. That would be impossible if this amendment were adopted.

We provide $1.2 million for escape hoods for our Library visitors, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the capital, and emergency lighting upgrades in Rayburn.

The amendment would also impair our agency's work. It would put the legislative branch agencies back to a fiscal year 2006 funding level since there was no increase in 2007.

In practical terms, the impact of this would be less capability on the part of GAO to assist Congress in its oversight responsibilities; fewer and less timely products from CRS to assist Members in their legislative duties, a further reduction in CBO's ability to score Member bills, which was pointed out in the Rules Committee as already being a problem; elimination of the digital talking book conversion program for the blind; a reduced ability for the Office of Compliance to pursue health safety issues around the Capitol complex, even as we get ready to add new space with the approaching opening of the CVC; the Architect's operations would be strained to keep up with increases in utility costs; and, finally, since 77 percent of this bill is labor costs, as is most of the increase, this amendment would surely result in a reduction in our workforce.

It is irresponsible. Mr. Wamp and I have endeavored to put forward a bill that is fiscally responsible, fiscally tight, and ensures the life, safety and security needs of the people who work and visit here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have left?

I would ask that he speak for 1 minute and then we will close in opposition.

Madam Chair, at this time I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the former ranking member of this subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

I want to point out and remind my colleagues that Mr. Wamp and I are proud to report to you that we have brought the legislative branch appropriations bill in at $276 million below the request. The easiest thing in the world to do is jump on the table and to cry waste.

I want to also point out that this is a security upgrade, funding for security upgrades requested by former Speaker Hastert and continued by Speaker Pelosi so that we can ensure that we provide swing space for our very cramped space so that we can properly renovate the Cannon and Longworth House Office Buildings.

I ask my colleagues to come over and look at these pictures of the deterioration of our facilities. These are pictures of the 100-year-old Cannon House Office Building. If you take a look at the deterioration and life, safety and security upgrades that this facility needs, we can no longer wait to make these upgrades, and to make sure that we can protect the people who work here and the people who visit us. They are deteriorating and badly in need of renovation.

What the gentleman from Georgia's motion to recommit would do is delay for years, if not make it impossible, for us to begin renovation and repairs on our aging House facilities.

My colleagues, this committee does not deal with the sexiest of subjects that confront us every day, and I have only been here for 2 years and the chair of this subcommittee for the last 5 months. You don't earn a reputation as an institutionalist in that short period of time, but it is my hope to be able to do that over time.

We are stewards of this great institution, but we are also stewards just as much of these facilities. My colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Jose Serrano of New York, recently made a wonderful suggestion to remind us of the history embedded even in what may seem mundane, the space we occupy each day. He suggested that we each have plaques in our offices with the names of our predecessors in Congress who occupied that space before us. My own office, I was thrilled to learn, was once occupied by former Congressman Lyndon Johnson.

My point is they may seem like buildings and office space to the outside world, but we know better. How many of us countless times have found ourselves approaching this beautiful building we are now in and marveling privately to ourselves, wow, I work here, what an incredible privilege.

But with privilege comes responsibility. We must think about the institution, but we must also think about our hard-working staff. The number of hours they toil in these facilities is mind-boggling. You might be surprised to learn that the average work space for each of our staff is about 36 square feet. And I want to show you what 36 square feet is. This is 36 square feet. That is how much space that we allot, on average, to our employees.

GSA recommends an average of 100 square feet of space per employee. We need to renovate so that we can make sure we are not cramming our staff into unreasonable boxes for hours on end. Our staff make incredible sacrifices to serve the public, our constituents, and they help us do our job. We must make sure that we keep these facilities, the place they work every day and night, safe for them. We must make sure we keep these facilities safe and in good condition for our constituents and our successors.

Mr. Kingston's amendment is well-meaning, but it is not responsible, and it is not an eye toward the future with respect for our past. I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to recommit.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Yes, it is. It is an initiative from former Speaker Hastert.

I strongly urge you to vote against the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take a moment to highlight some of the provisions that were included in the Financial Services and General Government section of the omnibus appropriations legislation that we are considering this evening.

Despite a limited allocation, and multiple cuts subsequent to the House passed bill, the Financial Services and General Government portion reflects the commitment that I made when I became chairman to work on behalf of our consumers and to bring the priorities of the agencies that this bill funds closer to the needs of our citizens, especially the most disadvantaged.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission will receive a more than 27 percent increase over 2007 to help keep dangerous products out of the hands of our children. This is especially poignant this holiday season as we shop for safe gifts for our children. Funding for the Federal Trade Commission is increased by 15 percent over 2007 so that we can better address the problems of identity theft and deceptive lending practices, which impact more and more consumers.

We have an obligation to assist our States as they struggle to make sure that our 2008 elections are accurate and reliable. There was included $125 million for grants to help States comply with the Help America Vote Act, including upgrading voting machines and voter registration databases. All citizens want to be sure that their vote will count. This important funding moves us closer to that goal.

I am especially proud that we were able to fund the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund at $94 million, a 72-percent increase over 2007. This fund expands economic development and affordable financial services for underserved communities through housing loans, micro-business loans, and community development banks and credit unions.

It is my firm belief that the Federal Government should not dictate to the District of Columbia how it should manage its own affairs or spend its own money. In this section we took some important steps in this direction by allowing the District of Columbia to use its own local funds for needle exchange programs to help fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. This also removes longstanding restrictions on the use of local funds by District leaders in support of voting representation in the United States Congress. In addition, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories will, with the passage of this omnibus, have quarters with

designs they help select issued in 2009 to honor them and raise awareness of the diverse places that fly the American flag.

The consumers of today and tomorrow must have financial education programs that help them to better understand the complicated financial world in which we operate. The current subprime lending crisis is just one example of how important this funding is in our society today. The Office of Financial Education at the Department of the Treasury will receive $1.1 million, with $200,000 targeted at our future consumers currently in our elementary and high schools, and $200,000 aimed at efforts to protect all consumers against predatory lending. There is also an increase in the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget specifically for investor education and protection.

As our tax forms and obligations become more complicated, we as a government should provide additional taxpayer assistance. In order to address this need, $31.2 million is included above the President's request to increase IRS outreach and education services for taxpayers and small businesses, and tax return preparation services at Taxpayer Assistance Centers. There is an additional $6.7 million above the President's request to improve the services of the Taxpayer Advocate Service and its oversight of the IRS. Eight million is included for a new pilot grant program for Community Volunteer Income Assistance sites and $1 million over the President's request for Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics.

Recognizing the importance of our small businesses, there is an 11 percent increase over 2007 for Small Business Development Centers. The Microloan program is funded at $17 million, which includes the $15 million for technical assistance that had been eliminated in the President's request.

Our Federal workforce will be receiving a 3.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment. In addition, there are provisions to make sure that Federal workers whose jobs are threatened by privatization will have protections to ensure that the competitions against contractors are fair and unbiased. This bill also includes an important provision to improve congressional oversight of the practice of service contracting in Federal agencies. With contracting government-wide having grown to over $400 billion, Congress needs to ensure that it has necessary information on the size and scope of contracting in each agency. The bill will establish a pilot program that will require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB to track the cost and size of service contracts in three Cabinet-level departments. The program will give particular attention to contracts that have been performed poorly by a contractor because of excessive costs or inferior quality. It is also our intent that agencies other than the Department of Defense participate in this program, since the Department of Defense will already be subject to contract inventory requirements included in section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for fiscal year 2008.

I also want to clarify our intent with respect to section 739(b) of the Financial Services bill, regarding the use of public-private competition to evaluate the benefits of converting work from contract performance to performance by Federal employees. The NDAA includes section 324 relating to insourcing new and contracted out functions, and the Department of Defense should follow the provisions included in section 324 of its authorization.

There are also important provisions to address real national security needs. Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence receives $56.8 million to help coordinate with the rest of the U.S. intelligence community and with other countries to combat terrorist financing. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network receives $85.8 million to increase the number of financial transaction analysts coordinating with intelligence agencies and law enforcement, and the number of staff working to ensure Bank Secrecy Act compliance by financial institutions. Funding is included for additional Treasury staff to improve the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

I am also proud that this section of the bill recognizes, through real dollars, how we value and want to protect our national heritage. Operating expenses for the National Archives are funded at $315 million in order to restore the research hours that had been reduced and to expand the workforce of professional archivists. The Archives' grant program will receive $9.5 million to assist in the preservation of the historic documents of States, local governments, universities, local historical societies, and others.

Our Financial Services portion will benefit Americans by bringing Government in the agencies funded in this section closer to the people and make it better able to fit its services to their needs. The American people expect and deserve the best services their Government can offer and this is reflected in this pro-consumer section.

Let me conclude by thanking my friend, ranking member, and partner, Congressman Regula, for his hard work and collaboration throughout this process. We might not agree on everything, but we worked together to try and fashion the best possible financial services section. I also want to express my appreciation and thanks for the hard work of our staff, both the majority and the minority. They are dedicated and devoted countless hours to the final product that we are considering today.

I will vote in favor of this omnibus legislation tonight as we move this process forward.

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, 2008

Supporting consumers, voters, taxpayers, small businesses, and all

Americans

Consumer Issues:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission receives over a 27

percent increase over 2007 to help keep dangerous products

out of children's hands.

The Federal Trade Commission receives a 15 percent increase

over 2007 to help fight identity theft and fraudulent or

deceptive lending practices.

Election integrity:

$125 million is included to assist States in ensuring

accurate and reliable elections as we approach the 2008

presidential election. Within this amount, $10 million is

included for a new program to help states improve the

collection of information relating to the administration of

elections.

$200 thousand is included to help students learn about

elections through a mock election program.

Community economic development:

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

receives $94 million, a 72 percent increase over 2007, to

expand economic development and affordable financial services

for distressed communities.

Respect for the District of Columbia and for U.S.

territories:

For the first time in many years, the District of Columbia

may use its local funds to support needle exchange programs

that help fight the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The bill removes longstanding restrictions on the use of

local funds by District leaders in support of voting

representation in the U. S. Congress.

Quarters with designs from Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S.

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands,

and the District of Columbia will be issued in 2009 to honor

and raise awareness of the diverse places that fly the

American flag.

Puerto Rico, for the first time, is eligible to receive the

same proportionate share of election assistance grants that

states receive.

Financial education:

Treasury's Office of Financial Education receives $1.1

million, including $200,000 for efforts aimed at elementary

and high schools, and $200,000 aimed at efforts to protect

consumers against predatory lending.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's budget is

increased to support investor education and protection.

Taxpayer assistance:

$31.2 million above the President's request is to increase

IRS outreach and education services for taxpayers and small

businesses, and tax return preparation services at Taxpayer

Assistance Centers.

$6.7 million above the President's request is to improve

the services of the National Taxpayer Advocate and its

oversight of the IRS.

$8 million is for a new pilot grant program for Community

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites.

$1 million above the President's request is provided for

Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics.

Small business assistance:

Small Business Development Centers receive an 11 percent

increase over 2007.

The Microloan program is funded at $17 million. This

includes $15 million for technical assistance, which was

eliminated in the President's request.

Federal workforce:

A 3.5 percent Federal employee pay raise is included.

Federal workers whose jobs are threatened by privatization

will have protections to ensure that competitions against

contractors are fair and unbiased.

Concerns over costly or poorly performed government

contracts are addressed through report requirements that will

enable Congress to exercise greater oversight.

National security:

Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

receives $56.8 million to help coordinate with the rest of

the U.S. intelligence community and with other countries to

combat terrorist financing.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network receives $85.8

million to increase the number of financial transaction

analysts coordinating with intelligence agencies and law

enforcement, and the number of staff working to ensure Bank

Secrecy Act compliance by financial institutions.

Funding is included for additional Treasury staff to

improve the review process of the Committee on Foreign

Investment in the United States.

$250 million is included as part of a homeland security

border initiative to accelerate Land Port of Entry design and

construction and to assist the Federal Judiciary's

immigration casework.

Caring for our National heritage:

$315 million is included for National Archives operating

expenses to restore research hours and to expand the

workforce of professional archivists.

$9.5 million is included for the Archives' grant program to

help preserve the historic

documents of states, local governments, universities, local

historical societies, and others. The Administration proposed

to eliminate this program.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the myriad legislative provisions in this bill that modify projects and studies of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ``Corps''. These provisions, contained in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 division of H.R. 2764, affect authorizations and policy issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, after 7 long years, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure successfully enacted P.L. 110-114, the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2007,'' ``WRDA 2007'', last month. This landmark legislation authorizes roughly $23 billion in project studies, authorizations, and modifications across the spectrum of Corps missions.

Unfortunately, however, several of the provisions contained in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act undermine agreements reached in the House and Senate conference negotiations on the water resources act. In addition, these provisions undermine existing statutory obligations and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure policy with respect to Corps project authorizations.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most egregious examples of legislative language contained in this bill is section 117, related to the project at Johnson Creek, Arlington, TX. This provision expands the flood damage reduction measures currently underway in Arlington, TX, to provide additional flood protection to new developments currently being constructed along Johnson Creek, including a major league baseball stadium, a new national football league stadium, and a 5-million- square-foot development plan for Glorypark that will be comprised of multiple hotels, residential units, and commercial space nestled between the creek and the two stadiums.

The original plan for Johnson Creek, authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, called for the restoration of approximately 155 acres of bottomland hardwoods, and recreation features, e.g., walking trails, along Johnson Creek, at an estimated total cost of $30,000,000. Construction on the authorized project is approximately 50 percent complete.

During consideration of WRDA 2007, the Committee received a request to modify the ongoing project for Johnson Creek--the very same provision that is contained in section 117 of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Section 117 modifies the existing project to convert approximately 90 acres of the 155 acres designated as mitigation lands--and proposed for restoration in the original plan-- into a parking lot and other improvements related to the proposed stadium construction. Section 117 provides for the construction of additional flood control structures and the acquisition of an additional 90 acres of new environmental restoration/preservation lands to offset those lands constructed under the original authorization. The estimated cost of the revised proposal is $80,000,000.

I opposed the proposed modification for Johnson Creek when it was offered before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and continue to oppose the very same language that now appears in section 117 of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

First, section 117 authorizes the Johnson Creek project without requiring that the project meet a traditional cost-benefit test.

Section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 requires that, for flood control projects, the benefits of the project are in excess of the costs. Over many decades, this statutory requirement has been carried out through the calculation of a cost-benefit test for Corps projects. Typically, when Congress authorizes a project, it must be ``feasible''--meaning that the Corps determines that the project is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economically justified.

Section 117 waives the traditional cost-benefit test, and only requires that the project be technically sound and environmentally acceptable.

During the formulation of the Water Resources Development Act in the House, the Corps provided the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with information on the estimated cost-benefit ratio for the Johnson Creek plan, ``A Vision of Conservation,'' dated March 2006. According to the Corps, the total anticipated cost for the flood damage reduction element of the project is $27.9 million. The average annual costs are estimated to be $2.84 million. The total potential average annual benefits are $1.28 million. The estimated benefit to cost ratio is 0.45 to 1. In essence, the reason that the benefits for this project are very low is because the project does not protect traditional structures, e.g., housing, commercial properties, but mainly serves to minimize potential flooding of the parking lot for the sports stadium complex, built on the former ecosystem restoration lands of the prior project, and protect an amusement park further downstream.

The Corps estimated that the total anticipated costs for the recreation component of the plan are $10.6 million, estimated to be $1.14 million annually, and include the construction of trails and associated facilities within the project area. The total potential average annual benefits from the recreational element were estimated to be $1.6 million. The estimated benefit-to-cost ratio for the recreational element is estimated to be 1.44 to 1. The Corps also estimated that the ``Vision of Conservation'' plan would include an additional $21.5 million for bank stabilization, sedimentation basins, and the planting of trees, shrubs, and grasses. The Corps did not provide a detailed assessment of the benefits of these additional elements.

As Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I opposed the proposal to waive existing statutory and policy requirements that the project undergo a proper cost-benefit test. In a carefully and extensively negotiated bipartisan agreement, the Committee modified the project to allow the ``Vision of Conservation'' to proceed, but to retain the traditional benefit-cost analysis for the project. In addition, the Committee included statutory language to allow the non-Federal sponsor to

contribute additional local funds to ensure that the Federal and non- Federal shares of the cost of the project would reflect the estimated cost-benefit ratio. The Committee believed that this was a fair way to allow non-Federal sponsors, such as the City of Arlington, TX, to contribute more funding toward desired Corps projects, but not violate the requirement that the costs of a project at least equal the benefits.

This bipartisan agreement was included as section 5123 of the House- passed Water Resources Development Act of 2007:

``SEC. 5123. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

``(a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction,

environmental restoration, and recreation, Johnson Creek,

Arlington, Texas, authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat 280), is

modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project

substantially in accordance with the report entitled `Johnson

Creek: A Vision of Conservation', dated March 30, 2006, at a

total cost of $80,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of

$52,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $28,000,000,

if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

``(b) Non-Federal Share.--

``(1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the

project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind

services or materials.

``(2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-

Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of

planning, design, and construction work carried out by the

non-Federal interest for implementation of the project, if

the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the

project.

``(c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the

project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest

to participate in the financing of the project in accordance

with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of

1986 (100 Stat. 4184).

``(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 134 of the Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (119 Stat. 2263)

is repealed.''

During conference negotiations on H.R. 1495, the Conference Committee reached agreement on language related to the Johnson Creek project, which was modeled after the House-passed provision. Congress included its modifications to the Johnson Creek project in section 5143 of the Conference Report on H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

Now, just over one month after Congress enacted the Water Resources Development Act, section 117 of the Energy and Water bill seeks to undo our bipartisan, bicameral agreement before this language has even had the opportunity to work. The principal difference between the language contained in the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and the language contained in section 117 of this Act is the waiver of the benefit-cost test for the project.

I oppose the waiver of the benefit-cost test, and was able to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to retain this important protection in WRDA 2007. Section 117 of this Act arbitrarily waives the benefit-cost test--a position that was uniformly rejected by both the House and Senate during consideration of the water resources development legislation.

I continue to oppose this proposal, and will revisit the changes made by section 117 during the development of our next Water Resources Development Act in 2008.

I also strongly oppose section 123, related to the project for St. John's Bayou and New Madrid Floodway, of the bill.

Again, this language fundamentally undermines normal Corps planning and design methodologies related to the development of sound Corps projects. With regard to the defined project, this provision represents a complete reversal of well considered and appropriate law and policy, by waiving cost-benefit analysis and justification, as well as the environmental review required by National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA''). Section 123 carefully defines the project and states ``. . . the project is economically justified.'' This precludes appropriate and required economic analysis of the defined project.

The St. John's Bayou/New Madrid Floodway project was recently adjudicated with the judge issuing a summary judgment, in September 2007, in favor of the plaintiffs, enjoining the Corps from work on the project, and ordering the Corps to deconstruct the elements it had already built.

The judge's ruling stated: ``The Corps' manipulation of its habitat model in analyzing fish mitigation gives new meaning to the phrase `result-oriented decision-making.' (Emphasis added.) The Corps has obviously worked backwards from the mitigation dollars it could afford, tweaking several of its original, fundamental understandings of its mitigation obligations so as to make the project appear to return a positive benefit-cost ratio. Many mitigation decisions seem to have been based on cost alone, with a troubling disregard for the fundamental assumptions of the HEP [Habitat Evaluation Procedures] team model and HEP team member judgment. Several elements discussed above lack factual support or substantial evidence, but, more disturbingly, the Corps has demonstrated its willingness to do whatever it takes to proceed with this project--change definitions, abandon core assumptions--even if it means ignoring serious environmental impacts.''

Like Johnson Creek, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure considered and rejected a legislative proposal to waive the beneft-cost test and environmental reviews for this project during negotiations on the Water Resources Development Act. However, the Committee did approve language directing the Corps to utilize existing statutory authority to consider the non-Federal sponsor's ``ability to pay'' when determining an appropriate cost-share for the project. This language was included as part of section 2019 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, these are just two of the many concerns I have with the number of legislative provisions contained in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

I will continue to review the legislative proposals contained in this bill, and should changes be warranted to conform the projects to existing statutory authorities or Committee policy, I will revisit these projects during the development of a Water Resources Development Act in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 878, I call up the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 878, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the pending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think people know what this bill is all about and, at this point, I don't have any intention of talking more about it, unless provoked.

But let me simply take this time to bring to the House's attention the fact that Frank Cushing, who is a 23-year Hill veteran, is leaving the Congress at the end of this term. Frank has served as the staff director for the Republican majority, and now also for the Republican minority. He's also, in the past, served the House as the chief clerk of the VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee.

And I know I should not say it in this body, but he also served numerous positions in the Senate, including staff director for both the majority and minority of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and clerk of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

I think that the House owes Frank a debt of gratitude for the work that he's done through the years. I think the country owes Frank a debt of gratitude. He's a fine public servant. I hate to see him go, and I'm sure that that sentiment is shared in spades by the gentleman from California and the other side of the aisle. So I want to extend my best wishes to Frank.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The last people I will take any lectures from on earmarking are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The last time I chaired the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill, there were no earmarks. In the last year of the Republican regime, there were over 3,000. Earmarks exploded under their rule.

Two years ago, there were $16 billion in earmarks. The bill that we bring tonight contains a 43 percent reduction in that amount. In July, I offered this House an opportunity to strip all earmarks from the bill. We got exactly one Republican vote out of five in support of that motion. We got 45 Republican votes for that motion, less than 22 percent.

Last week, I suggested again that all earmarks be removed. I was run over by a majority of both caucuses.

Let me also point out that if the gentleman is complaining about so- called air-drops in projects, of course there are projects that were air-dropped. There were two appropriation bills that left the House that had no earmarks because they were the first ones out of the box, and we were trying to stay on schedule. Every Member in the House except the most obtuse knew that those earmarks would have to be added in the Senate, and they were, in the Homeland Security bill and in the Military Construction bill.

As far as the Labor-Health Subcommittee is concerned, the earmarks that were added there are only the earmarks that were added from Members who were not in the House at the time that the House bill passed. Those districts are entitled to representation, too, and those Members are entitled to be treated with consideration, just as every other Member of the House is.

So with all due respect, one last point: the gentleman complains, again, about the fact that we are passing an omnibus appropriation bill containing hundreds of pages and billions of dollars. I will hold that in this hand. I'm holding in my right hand all of the pages from the domestic budget that the Republican Congress passed when they were in power. You know how many pages there were? None, because they never got the job done on a single appropriation bill.

So if I have to choose between getting our work done in an omnibus bill like this or doing nothing and turning your job over to the next Congress, pardon me, it may not be elegant, but I'll take the product that chose the work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman complains that we're spending 60 minutes debating the contents of this bill tonight. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many minutes we spent debating the contents of the domestic appropriation bill conference reports in the last session of Congress when the Republicans controlled? Zero, because they produced zero legislation.

They left their dirty work to us, so we had to do twice the work this year because they didn't do any of it on the domestic side of the ledger last year. So 60 minutes may not be a lot to debate, but it's a whole lot more than zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Subcommittee didn't add 36 earmarks. It added 38.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the tremendous work done by the entire staff. It's already been mentioned by the gentleman from California. I want to publicly express my gratitude to the entire staff on both sides of the aisle as well as the associate staff and especially Rob Nabors, our staff director on the committee.

I don't think Members sufficiently appreciate how many nights in a row these staff people go without sleep. These people have literally been here virtually around the clock for the last 3 days. It's a miracle that they don't make some major mistakes.

I also want to express our special concern tonight for Dixon Butler, a staffer who has served the committee very well who underwent some very serious surgery yesterday. I think it's safe to say that Members on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about him, and we hope he'll take all the time he needs to get well.

I also want to make a few remarks to put this bill in context, because it is the major domestic achievement of the Congress for this year.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, in November, the public sent two messages. One was that they wanted to end the war in Iraq. The second was that they wanted a change in national priorities. We have struggled mightily to bring about both, and we have failed for two reasons. Number one, because we have not had enough votes in the Senate. The public thinks that my party has control of the United States Senate. Unfortunately, we merely have custody of it. Under their peculiar rules, they require 60 percent of the votes to make a major decision. We only have 51 percent of those votes on our side of the aisle in the Senate.

The second reason that we have failed to accomplish a good many things that we wanted to accomplish is because the President, after the election, essentially told the American people, Forget what message you thought you were sending. I'm the great decider. We're going to continue to do things my way. And that is what he has tried to do.

The result is that we have passed bills to try to change direction in Iraq twice. The President vetoed one of them, and he has blocked action on the other one in the United States Senate. He has insisted that we spend nearly $200 billion more for Iraq, but he said at the same time that we could not afford one-tenth that amount for crucial investments here at home.

We sent appropriation bills containing 70 percent of domestic discretionary spending to the President. On a bipartisan basis we sent those bills down. We averaged almost 60 Republican votes. He chose the veto path instead, and so only the Defense appropriation bill has become law.

He has insisted that he write the top line in the budget. If we did that, we would have cut 800 grants from the National Institutes of Health. We would have cut access to health care by $600 million. We would have cut rural health by 54 percent, vocational education by 50 percent. We would have eliminated every student aid program except Pell Grant and Work-Study. We would have cut the State and local law enforcement grants by $1.2 billion. We would have cut deeply into renewable energy.

We sent to him legislation which had very different priorities. He vetoed it. Next we asked, Why don't we split the difference? Why don't we go halfway to the President and have him come halfway to us? His response was, No way.

So now, as the majority leader has said, we're at the end of the road. This is the last chance to produce a set of domestic priorities that are different from those the President proposes.

In my view, this bill is totally inadequate to meet the long-term investment needs of the country, but it is a whole lot better than would have been the case if we had not waged the fight. Because of that fight, this bill will contain $600 million more than the President wanted for the National Institutes of Health. It will contain $1 billion more than the President wanted for community health centers and other points of health care access. It will contain $150 million more to help rural communities deal with their health problems. It will contain $150 million more for the Social Security Administration to deal with its disability backlogs. It will contain $800 million more in elementary and secondary education than the President wanted. It will provide $575 million above the President for vocational education. It will provide $1.2 billion more in State and local law enforcement assistance than the President wanted. It will provide $1.8 billion more for homeland and border security. And it will provide $500 million more for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

And, most importantly, it will provide $3.7 billion more for veterans' health care. It seems to me if the President can ask us to spend $200 billion more on the war in Iraq, we can spend $3.7 billion more to help those who wage the war at great risk to their own health and their own lives.

This bill also contains $7 billion in emergency funding. Eighty-five percent of that money has been asked for by the administration. It didn't originate here.

All in all, we have been able to move about $21 billion into a better set of priorities than we were presented with when we were presented with the President's budget.

We have heard a lot about all of the shortcomings in process tonight, but let me make clear there is one vital difference between what we are doing this year and what we did a year ago. Last year under a Republican majority, our friends on the other side of the aisle were not able to complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill, so we were left to deal with that when we took control of this institution in January. The difference is that this year we are recognizing that in an adult world, win, lose, or draw, we have an obligation to reach some final decisions. We have an obligation to compromise and move on. And that's what we are trying to do with this legislation. It is a responsible thing to do.

I want to thank every Democrat who supported it. I want to thank every Republican who will support it. And I would hope that this can finally wrap up the session, reflecting somewhat better than the President's budget has what the priority wishes are of the American people. I ask for ``aye'' votes on the two amendments.

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

Madam Chairman, this place, this House is always at its best when Members of the United States Congress work together. And I want to congratulate the chairwoman of this committee and the ranking member of this committee for working together.

Most people don't understand that the legislative branch creates an atmosphere of hospitality in this place. As I look and see the number of visitors that we have, your responsibility is to secure them and to welcome them. Let me thank you personally for the task that you have undertaken.

I want to thank you for the increase in the House Child Care Center, and I hope that our community does not criticize the fact that we are family friendly so that employees have the opportunity to have child care.

I want to thank you for supporting the Speaker's Green Initiative because we, too, must do what we ask Americans to do.

And, of course, the brave men and women that serve us, I welcome the increase in the Capitol Police, and I also look forward to their continuing to address the questions of discrimination and equality as they increase the numbers of police.

Let me join in the words of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and hope that we will challenge, if you will, the GAO to be responsible in its dealings with its employees and unionization.

But I came today to be able to offer to the American public the sense of pride and the sense of humbleness that I am now experiencing because of your grand leadership and that of the Appropriations Committee. And my good friend Congressman Jesse Jackson and, of course, members of the Congressional Black Caucus signed a letter, which I was proud to sign, because this picture reflects something that is near and dear to Texas.

My good friend comes from Tennessee. He knows that we have a lot of continuity or connection between Tennessee and Texas and the good State of Florida.

But we celebrated this week the Emancipation Proclamation. We celebrated, in particular, Juneteenth. Those of us in the South remember Major General Gordon Granger coming 2 years late to indicate that we might be free. Isn't it wonderful that now we will name the Visitors Center, and we hope for our good friends in the other body to be as reasonable, the Emancipation Hall.

I went through the hall just outside this door before I came to the floor, and I saw the name of William Jennings Bryan. I saw the name Wheeler of Alabama, Huey Pierce Long, Lew Wallace, Sequoyah, Sam Houston.

I met a woman who told me about her grandfather, Levi Coffin, who had helped slaves in the Underground Railroad. Her name was Ms. Holt. She was just standing there talking to me.

That's what naming the Emancipation Hall means to America. It reflects the wholeness of America, the wonderment of our history, the dignity of our history. Yes, slaves built this place, but all Americans will be able to go into Emancipation Hall, and it will symbolize the freedom of this Nation. I am so grateful that we have come to this place at this time.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, Emancipation Hall.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2008 and to commend Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz for her leadership in shepherding this bill though the legislative process. This legislation funds the House, Senate and various entities in the legislative branch, including the Library of Congress, the Capitol Police, the Government Accountability Office, and the Government Printing Office.

But it does more than that, Madam Chairman. The bill provides funding for ``Greening the Capitol'' to reduce carbon emissions from the operations of House buildings and the Capitol. It makes the necessary investments for critical health and safety needs by funding security upgrades and addressing health hazards and safety requirements in law. In short, this legislation demonstrates a commitment by the new Democratic majority to increased oversight, accountability and fiscal responsibility.

H.R. 2771 appropriates $3.1 billion for legislative branch entities, including $1.2 billion for House operations and $1.9 billion for legislative branch agencies and other offices. The total provided is $275.7 million (8 percent) less than requested by legislative offices and agencies and only $122.2 million (4 percent) more than comparable FY 2007 funding. Nearly 25 percent of this increased funding is directly attributable to costs associated with the 2008 presidential election and subsequent inauguration.

Following the long-established practice that each house of Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements without interference from the other body, the bill contains no funding for Senate operations. The bill appropriates $1.2 billion for operations of the House of Representatives, which is $36.5 million (3 percent) less than requested, but $54.1 million (5 percent) more than current funding.

The total for the House includes $581 million for members' offices, also known as MRA's, 5 percent more than current funding, but 5 percent less than requested and $162.8 million for House committees, 8 percent more than current funding and 4 percent more than requested. The bill also provides $169.4 million for the various House officers and employees, including the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 8 percent more than current funding, but 3 percent less than requested.

H.R. 2771 provides $21.1 million for joint House-Senate items, 13 percent less than current funding and 23 percent less than requested, when the recent June 8 supplemental request for the Capitol guides is taken into account. The appropriated amount includes $9.4 million for the Joint Committee on Taxation, 7 percent more than current funding.

Madam Chairman, H.R. 2771 provides a total of $1.9 billion for other offices and legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support congressional operations. This funding is $71.2 million (4 percent) more than current levels but $232.8 million (11 percent) less than requested. Among the agencies this bill funds are the Architect of the Capitol; the Capitol Police; the Library of Congress; the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office.

For the Architect of the Capitol, the bill provides $348.4 million, 9 percent less than current funding and 12 percent less than requested. Included in the bill is $27.5 million for the Capital Visitors Center. I cite with particular approval that the bill renames the center's Great Hall as ``Emancipation Hall'' in remembrance of the slave labor that created this mighty edifice.

Earlier this week, the House passed H. Con. Res. 155, which recognized the historical significance of June 19, 1865, or ``Juneteenth,'' the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, TX, with news that the war had ended and that all slaves were now free. But this was 2\1/2\ years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation--which had become official January 1, 1863.

Madam Chairman, I suppose it may just be another irony of life that the U.S. Capitol was rebuilt during the Civil War and completed around the time of Juneteenth. This magnificent symbol of democracy, freedom, and equality could not have been brought in to being without the blood and sweat and unrequited toil of slave labor. For much of our history the contributions to our country by slaves and their descendants has not been fully acknowledged. But in renaming the Great Hall to the Capitol Visitor Center as ``Emancipation Hall,'' we begin to rectify this error. It is a wonderful thing we are doing.

The bill also provides $3.9 million to implement the ``Green the Capitol'' initiative, including $2.7 for shifting from coal to natural gas for heating in the Capitol power plant, and the report requires the House CAO to purchase carbon credits. The bill also requires the hiring of an inspector general.

The bill provides the Capitol Police $286 million, which is $13.1 million (4 percent) less than requested, but $20.3 million (8 percent) more than current funding. The Library of Congress is slated to receive $572.5 million, $63.8 million (13 percent) more than the current level, but $89.1 million (13 percent) less than requested. There is $125.8 million for the Government Printing Office; $37.8 million for the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); and $503.3 million in net funding for the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The bill does not contain any earmarks as defined under House rules.

To conclude, Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2771 because it makes the necessary investments for critical health and safety needs by funding security upgrades and addressing health and safety hazards. I support this legislation because it reflects the commitment by the new Democratic majority to increased oversight, accountability and fiscal responsibility.

I thank Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz for her fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.