Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Postal Service should issue a postage stamp commemorating Juan Nepomuceno Seguin.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 116, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 20) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that on page H988 of the Congressional Record there is listed the following statement:

Under clause 9(a) of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits are submitted as follows offered by myself: H.J. Res. 20 making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank Janet Airis and her staff at the CBO scoring unit; Ira Forstater and Nadia Soree and the entire staff at the Legislative Council; and certainly, most of all, the staff of the Appropriations Committee, both majority and minority, both Senate and House, especially Rob Nabors and David Reich.

This is a bill that needs to pass so that everyone who is reliant upon programs contained therein understands what the rules of the game will be for the remainder of the fiscal year. I urge passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the President will submit to the Congress his new budget. It would be kind of nice if we had disposed of his last year's budget request before the President brings

his new budget forward, because I believe that he is entitled to start the year with a clean slate, and I think we are entitled to start the year with a clean slate as well.

Unfortunately, we cannot do that because of the failures of the last Congress. This resolution represents the last remaining legislation that must be passed in order to clean up the mess left to us by the last Congress.

Now, we all know the story. Last year, the House debated and passed every single appropriation bill except the Labor, Health, Education bill. That was held up because of the now-well-known division between the two parties on the minimum wage and also because moderate Republicans in this House, led by people like Mr. Castle and others, were demanding that the Republican leadership add at least $3 billion to the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill in order to get their votes on the Republican budget resolution.

The then chairman, Mr. Lewis from California, my good friend, specifically said on the House floor that the reason the Congress was not allowed to finish its work is because the Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, shielded the Senate from any painful votes on appropriations before the election. Then, after the election, the majority party walked away from their responsibility to finish the budget, and they left us to clean up the mess as they walked out the door.

When we considered the CR under which we are now operating, I specifically said from this place on the House floor that I would make any substantive compromise that was necessary and I would make any procedural compromise that was necessary in order to enable the then majority Republicans to finish the bills on their watch, on their terms. I said I was willing to recognize that they still controlled the Congress and so they had a right to have Republican priorities reflected in those bills, even if I disagreed with those priorities.

But I also warned that if they did not live up to their responsibilities to pass the budget, then they would forfeit their right to complain and whine about how we went about cleaning up their leftover jobs.

So when it became apparent that they would not meet their responsibilities, Senator Byrd and I announced that we would proceed by doing two things. We announced, first of all, that we would provide no congressional earmarks. We told anybody who had an earmark in a 2007 bill that if they wanted it considered in the following fiscal year they would need to present it under the reform process, which we were in the process of putting together; and we announced at that time that we intended to cut earmarks by 50 percent in comparison to the 2007 bill.

The second thing that we announced is that we would take the 2006 continuing resolution and make whatever adjustments were necessary in order to avoid shutdowns of agencies or layoffs or furloughs and in order to recognize priorities that we thought people had on both sides of the aisle. That is what we did.

In this bill, we started with the fiscal 2006 base. We then cut or rescinded $9- to $10 billion, almost $10 billion, in items that we thought could be cut or rescinded. We cut over 60 programs. We generated $10 billion or so in savings, and we added that to the $7 billion that still remained within the Republican budget resolution cap, and then we allocated that money on the basis of what we thought were better priorities.

Now, the gentleman from California says we should have just stuck with the existing 2006 continuing resolution. We could have done that. If we had, we would not have been able to add $3.6 billion in veterans' health care, which we have done in this bill, which is our number one priority. We would not have been able to add $1.2 billion in defense health, which we add in this bill. We would not have been able to add $500 million for basic housing allowances for our military, and we would not have been able to add the $1 billion that we added for BRAC, the base closing operations. We would also not have been able to add the $216 million that we added to the FBI budget at the request of the administration.

In education, two weeks ago, when the Democratic Party brought to this House floor a proposition to lower interest rates on student loans, we were told, ``oh, that is just tokenism. What you ought to do is add to the Pell Grants.''

That is what we have done. We added enough to the Pell Grant program to allow an increase in the maximum grant of $260. We wouldn't have been able to do that either if we had followed Mr. Lewis' suggestion and simply stuck to the CR under which we are now operating.

In addition to that, we added $250 million to Title I and $100 million to Head Start so we could end the decline in enrollment in that program.

In the area of science, we were asked by a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle in this House, and on our side, plus the Senate on both sides, to add money for NIH. Members did not like the fact that, under the alternative, we were going to lose at least 500 medical grants in cancer research, heart disease, Alzheimer's and the rest.

I have not met a single constituent who said, ``Hey, Obey, I think you ought to save money by cutting cancer research grants.'' We added $620 million to reverse the decline in the number of research grants at NIH, and we added some additional funds to the National Science Foundation.

We added some additional money to energy conservation and energy research programs, in addition to which we provided a $200 million add- on for the Clean Water Revolving Fund. There isn't a small community in this country that doesn't need some help with clean water.

We added $100 million for park maintenance, and we added $90 million for firefighting.

We also were requested by the administration to provide at least the amount that they asked for the global AIDS program and to combat malaria and TB. So we added $1.4 billion to do that, and we added $146 million to prevent the Social Security Administration from having a 10- day furlough for their employees. That is what we did.

We also provided a suspension of all earmarks.

Now, I want to make clear a lot of the earmarks that we suspended are perfectly defensible. They accomplish laudatory public purposes. I think it is sad that we haven't been able to fund them. But the fact is that it became apparent to me that the earmarking process had been so discredited by the Cunningham case and by other cases that we have no choice but to start over. So we wanted to clear the decks, clean up the process, and start over.

Ninety-nine percent of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle have immense integrity. They don't ask the Congress for things that are illegitimate, but it is that 1 percent that has fouled the nest for everybody else. So we are trying to clean up the nest so that we can approach next year with a clean start and so that we will have a process so that both parties will know what earmarks the other party is putting into the bills.

I want the minority to be fully cognizant of whatever earmarks the majority puts in the bills, and I want us to be fully cognizant of the other earmarks you put in the bills. That is the only way we can protect the integrity of this institution.

So we are being criticized in some quarters because we are being told, ``Well, when you eliminated the earmarks, you should also have eliminated the money in those programs.'' We didn't do that for one very simple reason. We didn't want to reduce the amount of money in the COPS program, for instance.

What we are doing, by eliminating earmarks, and let's be clear about it, we are not saving a dime by eliminating earmarks. But what we are doing is transferring the power to decide where that money goes from the congressional branch to the executive branch. I don't like that, but it is a price I am willing to pay to clean up the system. What that means is that the administration will have much more authority than normal to decide where money goes, whether it is in the Army Corps of Engineers program or COPS or you name it.

I would simply say, we may have made some wrong choices. Undoubtedly, we did. But the process was this.

For 3\1/2\ weeks our staffs worked 7 days a week round the clock, and they negotiated with the Senate, Republican

and Democratic staff alike. The Republican staff was invited to every meeting that took place. If they attended or didn't, that was up to them.

Whenever the staff could not reach agreement, the Members were brought in order to argue it up. If you don't think that occurred, talk to Mr. Visclosky, talk to Senator Domenici, talk about the arguments they had on the Energy and Water bill, and there are countless other examples.

We are now in a situation in which we have to move on. We may have made some wrong choices, but at least, in contrast to last year, we made those choices, we made them. They may not be popular, but they were necessary so that we can turn the page, get on the next year.

This bill is the functional equivalent of a conference report. All of the appropriation bills that were not completed action on last year, this is what they look like. This is what they look like. This is a continuing resolution that we are producing today in order to direct where the spending in these bills ought to go.

Now, you may say you don't think it fits the traditional definition of a continuing resolution. Either you can have an automatic continuing resolution, or you can have a thinking man's continuing resolution. I don't think that we were obligated to lock ourselves into the 2006 numbers, because that would have prevented us from providing the initiatives that I talked about for veterans, for education and the like.

This is a responsible document. Nothing was sneaked in. Everybody knows what is in this package. All the staff knows.

I would urge an ``aye'' vote for the bill so that, come Monday, we can deal with the President's new budget, rather than continuing to deal with the spilt milk of yesterday's majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about how we should have stuck with the bills that they produced last year. There is only one problem. They couldn't convince their Republican brethren in the Senate to buy them. And so we had to try something else.

I can't help it that the majority party did not meet its responsibilities to pass these appropriations because you had an internal fight within the Republican Party. But now the responsibility is passed to us, and at least we are producing a proposal which can pass both Houses. That is more than can be said for the work product of the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is not correct that we are cutting BRAC. We are increasing BRAC $1 billion above the existing levels in the continuing resolution under which we are operating today. We will deal with the additional requests for BRAC in the supplemental, and you can bet that they will get all of their money. But we are adding $1 billion to BRAC. We are not cutting.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, we have just heard it.

The gentleman is objecting because we were not able to go back 2 years to excise from a previous appropriation the rain forest project which was put into your bill when you were chairman. We have eliminated all earmarks for today and tomorrow. We cannot be expected to correct all of your mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

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

The answer is that there is money, there is adequate money to provide for that committee, if, in fact, it is created. But the formal action on creation has not yet taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for a colloquy.

My preference is that additional funding would be available for enhancement grants which can be used for hiring. But that final decision will be up to the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I, once again, repeat, this bill does not cut BRAC. It adds $1 billion to BRAC. The fiscal 2006 level was $1.5 billion. This bill will have $2.5 billion, and we will be adding more in the emergency supplemental.

With whatever time I have remaining of the 15 seconds.

With all due respect, I don't live in the world of newspaper articles. We produced this bill. I know what is in it. I would hope the gentlewoman would also learn what is in it.

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

I yield the gentleman (Mr. Hoyer) another minute.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I won't take the full 4 minutes. Let me simply say that it is necessary for the House to move forward with this legislation. It is easy to nitpick. It is interesting to me that the minority today has chosen to chastise us for decisions that we made not to go back 2 years and repeal some of the mistakes that the minority made when they were in the majority. They argue that we should have done that; they argue that we should have lived with a simple continuing resolution at '06 levels. If we do that, that would mean we would not have the added funding for veterans health care, we would not have the added funding for BRAC, we would not have the added funding for the National Institutes of Health; we would not be able to raise the Pell grant by $260 for the maximum grant; we would not have the extra funding for energy research.

I would ask Members to recognize that after a full year of the Republican minority not being able to produce and finish their work, it is time for us to finish their work so we can move on. The President is producing his new budget on February 5, which is next Monday. We need to clear the decks so we can deal with that afresh.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is simply a nit-picking motion which, if adopted, would kill our chances of passing this resolution in the United States Senate and result in us living on an '06 continuing resolution, which would deny us the ability to provide additional funds for veterans health care, for education, for veterans housing and the like.

I would point out, this resolution already adds $500 million to the basic allowance for housing. This CR already increases family housing construction by $210 million and funds military construction at the level of the President's request that have been authorized.

This motion would eliminate the weapons research account that has been of some controversy today. I would point out, we have already cut that account by $94 million. I doubt that the House wants to eliminate that nuclear weapons research.

I would also say that in a new found and sudden burst of false piety, we are now being chastised because we did not reach back and eliminate an item that was approved 2 years ago for the State of Iowa by the majority. In fact, the gentleman who was chairman of the committee when that item was approved is none other than the gentleman offering the motion right now.

I don't mind clearing up the mistakes for last year, of the gentleman, I do mind being asked to go back 2 years to clear up your mistakes. That is asking too much, even for us.

Secondly, I would say that some of us may not like the Denali Commission, but it is a perfectly authorized program. And as much as I might like to see a project like that in my district, I don't have one, neither does the gentleman. I think it is illegitimate for us to single out one legitimate program for elimination that would require us, I think in the interest of fairness, to go back and look at hundreds of other programs that have been approved in the past. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 20, which among other things avert the impeding budgetary train wreck left by the Republican-controlled 109th Congress. I want to pay particular tribute to Mr. Obey, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his incredible work in fashioning this legislation that will enable us to put behind us the mess left by last Congress and get on to the important business of addressing the real and pressing needs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, last November millions of Americans went to the polls to register the strong disgust with the Republican dominated control of the legislative and executive branches of our Federal Government. Americans were fed up with a Republican Congress and its legacy of a culture of corruption, its failure to address the pressing needs of the American people, its unwillingness to provide effective oversight of the executive branch, its fiscal irresponsibility that resulted in record budget deficits and added trillions to the national debt, and its ability to complete one of the most basic tasks of the legislative branch: to pass the appropriations bills needed to fund the government. Is it any wonder that Americans were voting for a new way of doing the people's business when they elected the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate? I think not. We Democrats promised a new and better direction for America. And we have been delivering.

Mr. Speaker, behold what we accomplished in less than the first 100 legislative hours of our majority. We passed H.R. 1, which implements the recommendations of the 911 Commission; we passed H.R. 2, raising the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over three years and providing a much needed raise to nearly 5 million workers; we passed H.R. 3, which will provide funding for embryonic stem cell research and provide hope for millions of Americans suffering from some of the most debilitating illnesses.

But we did not stop there. We passed H.R. 4, which requires Medicaid to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors and disabled citizens; we passed H.R. 5, which will make college more affordable to middle and working class Americans by cutting the interest rate on federally insured student loans in half; and we passed H.R. 6, which is a substantial start in making this country more energy independent.

And we accomplished all this, Mr. Speaker, after draining the swamp and ending the culture of corruption by adopting the strongest, toughest ethics and lobbying rules in history.

Today, we clean up the fiscal mess left by the Republican-led 109th Congress. The last Congress abdicated its duty to be a faithful and responsible steward of the public fisc. They shirked their responsibility to establish the right priorities and make the right choices to serve the American people. They failed to pass nine of the eleven appropriations bills needed to sustain the operations of government for Fiscal Year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to your superb leadership, and especially the extraordinary legislative craftsmanship of our remarkable Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we rectify these Republican failures today. The Continuing Resolution we take up today, H.J. Res. 20, is not the ideal manner to fund the government and contains some provisions that each of us might not like, unlike the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq, the choices reflected in H.J. Res. 20 represent the best available alternatives out of a universe of worst choices. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my support for the Fiscal Year 2007 Continuing Resolution, and my appreciation to the leadership, the Chairman and members of the Committee, and for all my colleagues who join me in voting for H.J. Res. 20.

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 20, totals $463.5 billion, the amount remaining under the Republican budget resolution for the current fiscal year. Most programs are funded at FY 2006 levels with increases to cover the cost of pay increases. Of course, it was also necessary to make additions to maintain staffing levels, avoid furloughs, and generally meet increased costs or workloads for agencies, particularly the Department of Justice, the federal judiciary, the Social Security Administration, the FAA (including air traffic control), international peacekeeping operations, the Indian Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service.

But Mr. Speaker, because the new Democratic majority knows how to, and does not shirk from, choosing wisely and setting the right priorities, in this continuing resolution we were also able to provide significant new investments for high priority needs in many areas, including veterans healthcare and assistance, law enforcement, public health, housing and education, scientific research, energy independence, transportation, and the environment. Let me discuss briefly some of the more important and beneficial provisions.

veterans Affairs

In the area of veterans healthcare, the resolution provides $32.3 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion above the FY 2006 funding levels to provide service for the anticipated increase of at least 325,000 veteran patients and to meet rising healthcare costs', especially of our returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. As President Lincoln reminded us 142 years ago, we have a moral obligation to care for him whom has born the battle, and for his widow and orphan. We are going to keep that commitment.

We also provide $21.2 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion to provide care for service members and their families, including treating service members wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, we will never neglect the needs of those who proudly don the uniform in the defense of the United States. That is why the resolution provides $13.4 billion to fund the Basic Allowance for Housing, an increase of $500 million. This increased funding is

needed to provide a down payment towards the funding shortfall caused by higher housing rates.

Public Safety and Law Enforcement

In the vitally important area of public safety, law enforcement, and crime prevention, the resolution increases the funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation by $216.6 million to fully fund 31,359 positions, including 12,213 agents and 2,577 Intelligence Analysts-- doubling the number of Intelligence Analysts since September 11th. This amount also includes $100 million to proceed the FBI's plan to move from paper-based case management to electronic data sharing. The resolution also includes $147.4 million for counter-terrorism and intelligence infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I know that investing in crime prevention programs is an effective use of the taxpayers' precious dollars. That is why I am pleased that the resolution provides $520 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Formula Grants, an increase of $109 million, and $542 million for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), an increase of $70 million. Together these increases are the first step in reversing the drastic cuts to State and local law enforcement programs made since the Bush administration came into office in 2001. I will immediately make the request for the U.S. Justice Department to fund the new crime-prevention needs of Houston.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, education is destiny. The surest and most certain path to continued American prosperity lies in an educated citizenry. That is why I am especially pleased that for the first time in 4 years, the maximum Pell Grant has been increased, by $260 to $4,310. This long-overdue increase will help over 5.3 million students pay rising college expenses.

The resolution also provides $10.7 billion for IDEA Part B State grants, an increase of $200 million to help school districts serve 6.9 million children with disabilities and special needs. If we are going to be serious about leaving no child behind, then we must make sure to adequately fund special education.

But there is more, Mr. Speaker. The resolution increases Title I K-12 Grants by $125 million and provides more than 38,000 additional low- income children performing below grade level with intensive reading and math instruction. Thus, we have begun to reverse the decline since 2005 in Title 1 support for elementary and secondary schools at a time of record enrollments (55 million students in 2006) and pressures for more accountability from No Child Left Behind requirements.

The resolution also contains $125 million targeted to the 6,700 schools that failed to meet No Child Left Behind requirements in the 2005-2006 school year, enabling them to implement improvement activities, such as teacher training, tutoring programs, and curriculum upgrades. According to the Department of Education, without this funding more than 80 percent of high-poverty districts would be unable to afford these improvements.

The value and efficacy of Head Start is well known and long established. That is why it is so scandalous that the Bush Administration has cut this program by 11 percent in real dollars since 2002. The resolution increases funding by $103.7 million to help prevent a drop in Head Start enrollments. The money the Department of Education will have will still allow for teacher incentive pay for Houston.

Public Health Programs

The resolution provides $1.9 billion, an increase of $206.9 million to finance more than 300 critically need new or expanded health centers, serving an estimated 1.2 million new patients. We also increase Ryan White CARE Grants by $75.8 million to bring it to its authorized funding level of $1.2 billion.

Scientific Research

One of the most important investments this nation can make to secure its long-term future is in the area of scientific research. As a long- term member of the Science Committee, I am keenly aware that to keep ahead of our international competitors we cannot scrimp when it comes to expanding the Nation's intellectual capital and knowledge base. That is why the resolution wisely funds the National Institutes of Health at $28.9 billion, an increase of $619.5 million. This level of funding reverses a projected decline in new NIH research project awards and supports an additional 500 research project grants, 1,500 first time investigators, and expands funding for high risk and high impact research.

The resolution also provides an additional $50 million in new funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) innovation programs for physical science research and lab support for nanotechnology and neutron research. Equally important, the resolution increases provides funding for the National Science Foundation in the amount of $4.7 billion, an increase of $335 million. This increase is a down-payment towards enhancing U.S. global competitiveness by investing in basic science research.

Mr. Speaker, in an area close to my heart and important to my district, which is often referred to as the Energy Capital of the nation, the resolution increases funding to the Department of Energy's Office of Science by $200 million to support cutting edge research, including new energy technologies such as improved conversion of cellulosic biomass to biofuels. I also appreciate that the resolution increases funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy resources by $300 million which will enable us to accelerate research and development activities for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. NASA and in particular the Johnson Space Center can be funded by redisbursing funds in the Agency to avoid lost jobs and the stopping of important work. I will work for the continued work of NASA.

Housing and urban development

Mr. Speaker, as Hurricane Katrina laid bare for all the world to see, affordable housing has for too long been a neglected priority in this country. The resolution makes a modest but useful stab at correcting this woeful situation. The Section 8 Tenant-Based Program is funded at $15.9 billion, an increase of $502 million, which will enable the Department of Housing and Urban Development to renew 70,000 housing vouchers currently in use by individuals and families. The Section 8 Project-Based Program is budgeted at $5.9 billion, an increase of $939 million. This much needed increase will help HUD renew 157,000 housing vouchers currently in use by individuals and families.

Although no one likes to live in public housing, we must remember that for millions of our fellow citizens they are their home and sanctuary. For too long they have been neglected, which has led to an accelerated state of disrepair. That is why it is encouraging to see that the resolution provides an extra increase $300 million to enable Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) to address critical operating needs after last year's energy hikes saddled them with $287 million in unexpected utility costs. Although this increase is still $672 million short of the total estimated need of $4.5 billion, it will help to restore staff levels, maintenance activities, elderly service coordinators, security officers and equipment.

Also Mr. Speaker, the resolution contains language changing the funding formula for the Section 8 Tenant-Based Program. The current formula is based on information from 2004 that is out of date and results in some Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) getting more money then they can spend while others have less than they need. The resolution corrects this problem by directing HUD to use the most recent 12-month leasing and cost data. Last week HUD announced that a similar provision would be included in their 2008 budget request to be implemented in 2009. By including the language now, 2007 funds will be put to their intended use--funding housing units for low-income families and individuals rather than sitting unspent.

Transportation Guarantees

Next to human capital, few things are as important to the nation's economic future as is its physical infrastructure, especially its roads and bridges. That is why it is very good news that the federal aid highway program is fully funded at the level guaranteed in the SAFETEA- LU Act by providing an obligation limitation of $39.1 billion for FY 2007, $3.5 billion over the FY 2006 enacted level; and funding for Federal mass transit programs is increased by $470 million to $8.97 billion to meet the transit funding guarantees as required by SAFETEA-

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do something that I have never done before, and that is to oppose House passage of an appropriations bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, and I use the term ``friends'' sincerely, have produced an 8-month omnibus spending bill that appropriates $463.5 billion. It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only 1 hour of debate. It is the first omnibus spending bill that I have seen during my time in Congress written and considered without the input of the chairman or ranking members of any appropriations subcommittee, without the input of any Republican or Democratic subcommittee members, without the benefit of a full Appropriations Committee markup, without the standard three days for circulating the bill to committee members before markup, without the standard 3 days for circulating the bill to all House Members after full committee consideration, without any prior debate whatsoever, and without the opportunity to offer even one amendment on the House floor.

I do not fault my friend, Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for he is doing what he is asked to be done by his leadership. He is in the position today because of the former Senate majority leader's complete failure to schedule and pass the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee did their work last year, and Mr. Obey and I worked very closely in attempting to see it was fully completed. The Senate leadership did not.

As the former chairman of the committee, I know that Mr. Obey feels strongly about maintaining regular order and passing other appropriations bills. I can vividly recall a conversation Mr. Obey had with me shortly after I became chairman when he suggested that perhaps I would be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the breakdown of regular order.

I looked to his comments and have taken them to heart because I committed to him and to our Members that we would pass our spending bills in regular order, and the 2 years I served as chairman we did.

Today, my fear is that Mr. Obey may be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the very concern he expressed to me, the breakdown of that regular order. Shutting both Republicans and Democrats out of the legislative process is a highly, highly unusual circumstance, but that is exactly what has occurred.

Both Republicans and Democrats are being denied a full and open debate on this legislation that will spend, as I suggested earlier, $463.5 billion, roughly one-half of the annual Federal budget.

Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer, both former members of the Appropriations Committee, know that our process is very open and a collaborative one. Historically, appropriations bills are brought to the floor under an open rule to encourage debate and create better legislation. Our spending bills reflect not just the will of the Appropriations Committee but, indeed, the will of the entire bipartisan House. It is not uncommon to have hours and hours of debate and more than 100 Democrat or Republican amendments offered on a single spending bill. That is, until today.

The House will debate this legislation today for 1 hour. Not one amendment has been made in order. The Senate, that is, the other body, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to debate the legislation for up to 15 days and with the potential for an unlimited number of amendments.

Let me repeat, it is important that the Members hear that. One hour of debate in the House with no amendments, 15 days of debate in the Senate with potentially unlimited amendments.

Speaker Pelosi has vowed to run the House in a more open, democratic and inclusive way. A spirit of bipartisanship, she said, would prevail in the people's House. That pledge was put on the shelf so the new majority could complete their first 100 hours agenda.

The new majority then promised that business would soon return to regular order with plenty of opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to participate in the democratic process. Members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, are still waiting for the Speaker to keep her word.

In closing, I would suggest that our country would be better served by extending for a full year the clean continuing resolution the House and Senate passed in December. That legislation, a mere 19 pages long, contained no gimmicks, no policy changes, and did not reward or punish agencies indiscriminately, as is done in this 137-page package.

This omnibus spending bill before us today totally disregards the once proud tradition of regular order within the House Appropriations Committee and violates the longstanding bipartisan customs of the people's House. I urge that my colleagues join me in a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of our Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Wamp, the Appropriations Committee ranking member of the legislative branch.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

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

Mr. Speaker, somewhat responding to the majority leader's comment, I can't help but be moved to say that he suggested directly that Mr. Obey had spent a good deal of time with the gentleman from the Senate, Mr. Byrd, the two Members involved in this bill, and beyond that, a good deal of contact with our staff. Beyond those two Members, let me say that this has been a very fine product. It is a staff, nonelected staffperson's piece of work that involves $463.5 billion of appropriations.

I must say that it is important for me that the body know that I am committed to reducing the rate of growth of spending. $463.5 billion is a pretty significant rate of growth.

But in the meantime, as we go about reducing spending growth, I will also work in a bipartisan spirit to move our bill through the committee and on time and under budget.

I will not, however, respond to either intimidation or any threats relative to the way we are handling the appropriations process. The Appropriations Committee will not become a small colony in the empire of this new leadership.

We renew our commitment to bills produced by regular order that will serve as a credit to our committee, to the national interest, as well as to the people from our districts we pretend to serve.

With that, the leader and I will work further together on this matter, but I am very concerned about the volume of staff direction here where in the final analysis the people know that they are not elected representatives of the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit with instructions at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to the bill in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to eliminate earmarks to fund a variety of important Federal programs. In spite of those best intentions, however, a close reading of the bill revealed that earmarks were, in fact, left in.

Additionally, a number of critical programs affecting new law enforcement, military construction and military families have been shortchanged. In an effort to live up to the spirit of what this bill intended, my motion to recommit would eliminate nearly $600 million in earmarks, other unnecessary spending, and also use those funds to fully fund the Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to combat methamphetamines and other illicit drugs, restore critically needed funds to military construction and military family housing accounts, and reduce the Federal deficit.

Specifically, this motion would accomplish the following:

First, rescind the remaining $44.6 million from the Senate's rain forest in Iowa earmark, eliminate $94 million unnecessary and unrequested funding for the Denali Commission, funding that is nothing more than a thinly-disguised Senate earmark for Alaska. Eliminate $400 million of ongoing earmarks from the NNSA weapons activity accounts. Eliminate $49.7 million of spending in DOE's fossil energy account, spending that duplicates mandatory funding by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

My motion would distribute these savings in the following manner:

First, $50 million for the DEA's efforts to combat meth and other illicit drugs; $275 million for basic allowance for housing; $86 million for critically needed military construction and family housing; $178 million for deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to live up to the spirit of this legislation by voting to eliminate earmarks and put those funds to better use by combating meth, supporting our military families and reducing the deficit.

I urge a strong bipartisan vote on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time may remain to Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue of importance to my congressional district in Southwest Washington.

The White Pass Ski Area is located in the majestic Cascade Mountains in the Gifford Pinchot and Wenatchee National Forests. The area is commonly referred to by skiers as ``the jewel of the Pacific Northwest'' for its breathtaking views of Mt. Rainer and exciting skiing opportunities. The area, which provides critical tourism revenue to the surrounding rural communities, is now looking to expand to provide greater opportunities to skiers in the Pacific Northwest.

The Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 added over 23,000 acres of land to the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area and removed from wilderness designation 800 acres adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area as having ``significant potential for ski development'' and urging the Secretary of Agriculture to ``utilize this potential, in accordance with applicable laws, rules and regulations.''

The Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area that Congress had withdrawn from the Wilderness Area back in 1984 to Developed Recreation in recognition of the intent of Congress. However, the LRMP concurrently inventoried as roadless the same 800-acre area.

It is well-understood that it was congressional intent to permit expansion of the White Pass Ski Area. I would like to submit for the record a letter signed by all living Members of the 1984 congressional delegation, stating that it was their intent to provide for the expansion of White Pass Ski Area. In a February 3, 2004 letter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture also confirmed this congressional intent, stating: ``We agree that the intent of Congress was clearly to allow for ski area development in the Hogback Basin.''

The Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill that passed the House in May of last year included important information clarifying congressional intent to permit expansion of White Pass Ski Area. The language stated:

The Committee notes that the Washington State Wilderness Act of 1984 removed from wilderness designation 800 acres of land adjacent to the White Pass Ski Area in Washington State for potential ski development. The Committee notes that the Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan allocated the 800-acre area as Developed Recreation to allow for ski area expansion, while concurrently inventorying the same land as roadless to reflect its current physical character. The Committee recognizes that it was the intent of Congress to permit ski area expansion into this 800-acre area and urges the Secretary of Agriculture, once the Environmental Impact Statement for the White Pass Ski Area's Master Development Plan is properly completed, to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

Unfortunately, the Continuing Resolution that we are going to pass today does not include any report language, including the language clarifying congressional intent as it relates to White Pass Ski Area.

I wanted to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and highlight the fact that the House Appropriations Committee was prepared and willing to clarify congressional intent, and that the full House approved that clarification by voting for the Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Appropriations Bill in May. In keeping with this, I urge the Secretary of Agriculture to move forward expeditiously in approving the expansion plans in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations-- once the Environmental Impact Statement is properly completed.

July 7, 2005.

Mike Johanns,

Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Johanns: As members of the 1984 Washington

Congressional delegation, we are writing to express our

collective dismay over an injustice that has continued over

the past 21 years.

Over two decades ago, we succeeded in passing through the

Congress the Washington Wilderness Act of 1984 (Washington

Wilderness Act; P.L. 98-339). This legislation added 23,000

acres of wilderness along and near Highway 12, while removing

from wilderness designation 800 acres that are adjacent to

the White Pass Ski Area. As reported language stated,

legislation removed the 800 acres from wilderness so the

Secretary of Agriculture could evaluate its ``significant

potential for ski area development.''

Now, twenty one years after passage of this Act, the White

Pass Ski Area remains mired down in its third attempt at

completing an Environmental Impact Study to add these acres.

Something has gone terribly wrong.

The White Pass Ski Area, which began operations in 1952, is

located at the crest of the Cascade Mountains in south-

central Washington State within the boundaries of the

Wenatchee-Okanagan and Gifford Pinchot National Forests.

Plans for expansion of the White Pass Ski Area were first

initiated in the late 1950's and included the Hogback Basin.

In 1961, the White Pass Company submitted to the Forest

Service a survey and formal request for additional expansion

area on the north slope of Hogback Mountain, and requested it

not be incorporated within the anticipated wilderness

boundary. The Forest Service concurred with the proposed

boundary adjustments.

However, these discussions were not brought forward during

Congressional evaluation of the proposed wilderness

legislation. The Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577)

subsequently incorporated the Goat Rocs Wild Area, including

most of Hogback Basin, into the National Wilderness

Preservation System as the Goat Rocks Wilderness. Despite the

incorporation of the proposed expansion area into the Goat

Rocks Wilderness, discussions concerning White Pass expansion

plans and the need for a boundary adjustment continued over

the next 20 years.

In the early 1980's supporters of the ski area approached

Congress to lobby for a wilderness boundary adjustment during

the days preceding passage of the 1984 Washington Wilderness

Act. Environmental interests were concerned with the

precedent created by adjusting the Wilderness boundary, but

``agreed with the expansion of downhill skiing opportunities

in exchange for significant expansion of Goat Rocks . . .''

(Sid Morrison letter to Supervisor O'Neal April 17, 1989).

The purpose of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act were to

``(1) designate certain National Forest System lands in the

state of Washington as components of the National Wilderness

Preservation System, . . . and (2) insure that certain other

National Forest System lands in the State of Washington be

available for non-wilderness multiple uses.'' (PL 98-336, Sec

2(b)(1 and 2) Through the 1984 legislation, some 23,000 acres

of land were added to the Goat Rocks Wilderness while 800

acres were released from the wilderness area (refer to Goat

Rocks Add. West Side map #WA-W-109, March 1984).

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Report

(98-461) describing the legislation and its objectives

provides further explanation of the wilderness release

language in the Act. ``As reported, S. 837 would add

approximately 23,143 acres to the existing Goat Rocks

Wilderness established by Congress in 1964. In addition, some

800 acres would be deleted from the existing wilderness. The

800 acres deleted from the existing Goat Rocks Wilderness

Area have significant potential for ski development and

should be managed by the Secretary of Agriculture to utilize

this potential, in accordance with applicable laws, rules and

regulations (Senate Rpt. 98-461, page 10).''

The dilemma is that, because of multiple land use

designations for the proposed expansion area, in combination

with other procedural issues, efforts to approve expansion

plans have been repeatedly thwarted. The conflicting,

confusing and uncertain status of the subject lands needs

addressing.

The need for administrative action with respect to the

White Pass Ski Area expansion

project is evident from the 40-year history of expansion

attempts. Maintaining this area in a non-developed recreation

status is not consistent with the intent of Congress. Over

the past 21 years, various actions have continually

frustrated the intent of Congress to allow for the potential

expansion of White Pass Ski Area.

In order to prevent the failure of a third attempt to

resolve the expansion need, White Pass is committed to

complete another NEPA analysis. Based on findings from the

analysis, we the undersigned strongly urge the current

Washington Congressional delegation and the Secretary of

Agriculture to provide a vehicle for the White Pass Company

to expand into Hogback Basin without further delay and the

threat of costly appeals and judicial reviews.

We hope that you will agree that the conflicting, confusing

and uncertain status of the subject lands deserve your

thoughtful clarification, correction and resolution.

Sincerely,

Sid Morrison, U.S. Congressman 4th District, Mike Lowry,

Governor, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, Slade Gorton,

U.S. Senator, Al Swift, U.S. Congressman 2nd District,

Don Bonker, U.S. Congressman 3rd District, Norm Dicks,

U.S. Congressman 6th District, Dan Evans, U.S. Senator,

Governor, Tom Foley, U.S. Congressman 5th District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this massive $463 billion dollar spending bill because it fails four critical tests: the accountability test, the common sense test, the compassion test, and most of all--the smell test.

Hatched behind close doors by the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees with no input from Members or their constituents, H.J. Res. 20 levels a devastating blow against New Mexicans and their communities. Our most vulnerable low-income residents will pay the heaviest price.

As Deputy Ranking Member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee, I wish to point out that the Majority's arbitrary choices are ripping nearly one million dollars away from the public housing authorities in my district and the people they serve; including $272,428 from the Las Cruces Housing Authority; $158,355 from the Dona Ana Housing Authority; $30,461 from the Gallup Housing Authority; $40,717 from the Truth or Consequences Housing Authority; $15,076 from the Bernalillo Housing Authority, $43,596 from the Los Lunas Housing Authority; and a combined total of $416,173 from the Region V and Region II Housing Authorities.

A Section 8 voucher manager of one of my District's housing authorities described these drastic cuts as comparable to losing an entire month's worth of vouchers to the poor and needy families she serves. Another New Mexico housing authority representative stated that 100 families per month could lose access to vouchers in the region that housing authority serves.

The Majority's carelessly slung meat cleaver doesn't stop there. H.J. Res. 20 strips critical funding from the restoration of the Our Lady of Guadalupe Mission; essential economic development funding for a Business Park in Anthony-Berino; and desperately needed emergency ambulance services for the citizens of the Village of Columbus.

Two weeks ago, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and I announced our bipartisan determination to fight the dangerous scourge of methamphetamine use, production, and distribution in our state. Tragically, the Majority's ill-considered cuts will slash funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) by $30 million and 134 agents and Regional Enforcement Teams (RET) by $9 million and 23 agents. Our local and state law enforcement officers depend upon the MET and RET initiatives as two of their most effective tools in this fight. Many officers in my district have told me that even at current levels, MET funding is insufficient.

Perhaps the Majority's leadership has decided this battle isn't worth fighting. A few moments with the individuals and families whose lives this evil drug has destroyed might change their minds. But they don't seem to have the time to stop and think about how their choices will affect the safety of real people.

H.J. Res. 20 also reduces the funding associated with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process by nearly $4 billion, causing delays in the scheduled repositioning of the 1st Armored Division from Germany to Fort Bliss and the Air Force Special Operations Command from overseas to Cannon Air Force Base. The Majority's decision not only perpetuates inefficient overseas bases; it severely impacts the painstaking community development plans devised by cities like Las Cruces, Alamogordo, and Clovis in New Mexico.

Last, but certainly not least given the Majority's lip service in support of supplemental and alternative energy technologies, H.J. Res. 20 shreds funding for promising initiatives in this area. Consider, for example, a letter I submit for the Record from Karl Gawell of the Geothermal Energy Association. Mr. Gawell states that this legislation ``will be a serious setback for efforts in the House and Senate to restore the DOE geothermal research program.''

I have worked with Mr. Gawell to explore opportunities for expanded geothermal energy development in Southern New Mexico and I take his concerns very seriously. I hope that my colleagues will, too.

Mr. Speaker, as one who remains committed to vigorously fighting wasteful spending, I understand--and share--the Majority's desire to eliminate unnecessary earmarks. A rushed and ham-handed bill designed for appearances isn't the right way to do it. My constituents deserve the chance to have their voices heard--an opportunity which the normal process of public hearings is designed to provide.

Certainly, H.J. Res. 20 contains positive elements, such as the significant increase it provides in funding for veterans. I wish I could vote yes for that reason alone--but I cannot support a bill that inflicts so much pain on so many New Mexicans in an indiscriminate and slipshod manner.

I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a ``no'' vote.

Geothermal Energy Association,

Washington, DC, January 30, 2007.

Dear Representative: I am writing to express our serious

concern about the direction being set by the FY 07

Appropriations bill, H.J. Res. 20, that the House will be

considered tomorrow. This bill will be a serious setback for

efforts in the House and Senate to restore the DOE geothermal

research program.

While the bill includes a generic $300 million increase in

funding for renewable energy, it allows the Secretary of

Energy to distribute those funds. Meanwhile, we are told that

the base for funding will be the Administration's FY 07

request, which for geothermal energy was ZERO!

The House adopted an amendment last year to the Energy and

Water Appropriations Bill sponsored by Representative

Millender-McDonald appropriating $5 million for geothermal

research in FY 07, and the Senate Appropriations Bill as

reported by Subcommittee and Committee would have restored

the entire $23.5 million geothermal program.

There is simply no justification for terminating geothermal

energy research at the Department of Energy. Recent studies

by the National Research Council, the Western Governors

Association Clean Energy Task Force, and MIT all support

expanding geothermal research funding to develop the

technology necessary to utilize this vast, untapped domestic

renewable energy resource.

We urge the House to take action to address this tragic

situation as it considers the

FY 07 Appropriations bill and ensure continued funding for

DOE's geothermal research efforts.

Sincerely,

Karl Gawell,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Republican motion to recommit.

Last year, I held nearly 40 town hall meetings across New Mexico talking to our local communities about combating methamphetamine use in our towns. Twenty of these meetings were in schools with our school kids, and we found that five times the national average of kids in New Mexico are addicted to methamphetamines, up to 15 percent of our elementary and high school students are already addicted.

Two weeks ago, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and I announced our bipartisan determination to fight the dangerous scourge of methamphetamine use, production and distribution in our State. Tragically, the majority's ill-considered cuts will slash funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration Mobile Enforcement Teams, the MET teams, by $30 million and 134 agents, and Region Enforcement Teams, the RETs, by $9 million and 23 agents.

Our local and State law enforcement officers depend on the MET and RET initiative as two of the most effective tools in this fight. Many officers in my district have told me that even at current level of funding, MET is insufficient.

Perhaps the majority leadership has decided battles against illegal drugs are not worth fighting. A few moments with the individuals and families who I met with in my 20 school meetings and 19 additional town hall meetings might change their minds. But we did not seem to have time to consider the people and the effects on the lives of kids in the real America that we face today. We were explained, well, maybe we made a few mistakes. Do tell. We made mistakes that affect the lives of the young people of this Nation and the heart and the soul of this country.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Work with us to protect and defend the families of New Mexico and all of America.