Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2771) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 502.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 502 provides for consideration of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2008, under a structured rule.

The rule provides H.R. 2771 with 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except for those arising under clause 9

or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three amendments, two offered by Republican Members and one bipartisan amendment.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the legislation we will consider today, H.R. 2771, funds the legislative branch of our government. This includes funding for the House of Representatives so Members of Congress have the resources we need to serve our constituents.

It includes funding for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Compliance and other government agencies.

The bill also takes a bold step forward and begins implementing the Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. For the first time ever, the House of Representatives will take steps to address the threats of global warming by ensuring the House operates in a carbon-neutral manner.

The bill provides initial funding to Green the Capitol by switching to 100 percent renewable wind energy for the House's electricity needs, increasing the use of cleaner-burning fuels, and making congressional offices more energy efficient.

This is necessary as Members of Congress must set an example for our constituents by being as environmentally friendly as possible, especially as we ask them to do the same in their own homes.

Most importantly, however, this bill shows the Democratic majority's commitment to change the way our government is run. This bill demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility, increased oversight and increased accountability.

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attested to, this bill is fiscally responsible. It provides an increase of only $122 million, or 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level. This is significantly lower than the 13 percent increase requested by the President. And much of the increase is attributable to unavoidable expenses that come in a Presidential election year.

Reducing the President's budget request by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars shows that the Democrats are committed to holding the line on unnecessary spending, while ensuring that government is still able to deliver services to the American taxpayer.

While funding is increased by 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee chose to invest heavily in critical life and safety and security measures for the Capitol complex.

The world changed on September 11, and we now know that the United States Capitol will forever be a target of a terrorist attack.

We owe it to our staff members, our visitors, our constituents, our distinguished guests, and to ourselves to ensure that the Capitol complex is as safe and secure as possible.

In a post-9/11 world, we cannot be too lax when it comes to securing the Capitol complex. Security enhancements are no longer an option. They are a necessity.

The Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides almost $50 million for security and lifesaving projects, including $5 million for new, interoperable police radios, $275,000 for utility, tunnel, health and safety process, $1.2 million for visitors escape hoods, $16 million for building security enhancements, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the Capitol, and $4.4 million in emergency lighting upgrades for the Rayburn Building.

The bill also provides a 7.7 percent increase for the Capitol Police Department and a 23 percent increase for the Office of Compliance so they can ensure health and safety of the Capitol complex.

Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the defining traits of the Democratic Congress has been increased government oversight. As such, this bill provides the tools Congress needs to hold the government accountable to the American taxpayer.

The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee is determined to crack down on unnecessary spending by government agencies. The subcommittee held 11 agency budget hearings and is requiring government agencies to reexamine their needs based on priority, cost effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility.

The bill provides for additional staff at the Government Accountability Office to enable the GAO to better support congressional oversight efforts and address important issues such as health care, changing security threats, education, and continued audit work on the war in Iraq.

The Congressional Budget Office receives an increase in funding to better advise Congress on controlling runaway health care spending.

Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz and I discussed CBO staffing in a colloquy during a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday. We both agree that the current funding staff levels are insufficient to meet our needs. We'll work together with CBO Director Orzag to address the staffing and enhance this important agency's efforts in the future.

The bill increases support for the Inspector General overseeing the Capitol Police Department. It also establishes a statutory Inspector General at the Architect of the Capitol. It is absolutely essential that there is stringent oversight of the Architect's office to improve its financial and management practices.

The subcommittee is 100 percent committed to improving the oversight and completion of the Capitol Visitors Center. I have personally toured the Visitors Center, and it is a beautiful addition that, when finished, we will all be proud of. However, no Member of Congress is proud of how this edifice has been produced. The project has spiraled out of control due to an inexplicable lack of oversight and accountability in prior Congresses, resulting in unnecessary delays and massive cost overruns. This bill assures that there will no longer be a blank check and no questions asked.

The subcommittee has held, and will continue to hold, monthly hearings, and the Architect will be required to submit a detailed plan to the House and Senate before one cent can be spent.

Madam Speaker, this bill delivers on the promises that Democrats made. It's fiscally responsible. It focuses on life, safety, and security measures, and provides much needed accountability to the process.

I would like to thank Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for all their hard work and thoughtful work that went into this legislation.

In particular, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz. She has been a true champion for the Democratic majority's efforts to bring efficiency, fiscal responsibility, accountability to the Federal Government, and to this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, this bill is well thought out, well crafted, and sets the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy the comments and the colloquy that my colleague from Texas and I and the rest of the committee engage in. We seem to have this conversation quite a bit these days.

I'd like to remind the gentleman that, while it's true that we have made three amendments in order this year, two Republican and one bipartisan, last year there were four Democratic amendments made in order on this particular appropriations bill. The prior year, however, there were 11 amendments offered in committee, and only one Democratic amendment was offered in this bill.

Why I raise this number, I want to point out that this is not unusual for this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to be a structured rule in prior years. And, in fact, there's good reason for that. My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in committee yesterday, in fact, that there is potential for demagoguery on both sides of the aisle on this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and that he has agreed in the past, and this year, on a structured rule.

Now, honorable men and women can disagree on the merit and the substance of particular amendments, the number of which are not as important as the fact that we are arguing about substantive language, about health and safety, about meeting our constituents' needs. And I think it's important that we talk about that substance, rather than just the number on the bill.

And so, Madam Speaker, I think that we've done a good job producing a fiscally accountable bill for the Congress. In fact, the President asked for $275 million more than our subcommittee is providing under this legislation. The President asked for a 15 percent increase in this appropriation, and Congress saw fit to only offer 4.1 percent. I think the subcommittee has done a good job crafting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California and I agree on one thing absolutely, and that is that Mr. Cleaver is a great Member of Congress and offers thoughtful amendments.

The problem with his amendment was that it was simply unworkable. It required that vehicles be E85 ethanol-compliant. And, for example, in California, in Mr. Dreier's and my own State, there are only two gas stations that provide E85 fuel.

I drive a hybrid. I think it is an important thing for Members of Congress to lead on this issue, but the fact is that the amendment was unworkable. We discussed that in Rules Committee yesterday. I discussed that with Mr. Cleaver, and, in fact, the committee did see fit not to make that amendment in order.

The gentleman raises a number of other points, but I would like to talk about the $16 million and the FDA building that the gentleman raised and the fact that the appropriations subcommittee is, in fact, bringing fiscal accountability and better standards to the construction process of the Capitol, and that this proposal that the gentleman from California refers to was actually initially brought to the House by former Speaker Hastert. And, in fact, we are continuing the prior administration's priority in this area.

The subcommittee has changed the way this building will be managed and procured in that the GSA will manage the construction and retrofit of this new building that is being acquired in order to provide swing space and allow the operations of Congress to continue as we revamp other buildings here in the Capitol complex. The $16 million in security enhancements this bill provides for the FDA building are critical if we are to use the building for additional House office space. The project was originally approved, as I said, by former Speaker Hastert and is now being carried forward in this bill. It is critical so that we can get the swing space ready for the House to use when we begin the badly needed renovations to the Cannon Building, which is nearly 100 years old, and to the Longworth Building, which is nearly 75 years old. We need flex space to move offices while those buildings are being renovated. The FDA building fits the bill.

GSA is ready to invest $150 million in the renovations of this building. This additional funding is to bring security from the generic government building level up to meet the requirements of congressional office space. This is a long-term investment. If we don't put

this money into getting the FDA building ready now, we will have to delay much-needed renovations to our existing buildings.

I would also say that I believe it is important for our staff to get the same kind of security that we would get as Members. We know that in the post-9/11 world, as we have talked about many times on the floor before, Members of Congress and this Capitol complex are targets, and it is imperative that we provide our staff with the same security that we ourselves demand.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I was not.

Madam Speaker, I will say that it seems ironic to me that they blame the Democrats for everything, yet this proposal that is being put forward by the gentleman from Georgia was originated under the speakership of Mr. Hastert and was planned during that period of time. And, frankly, it was a good idea. It's something that needs to be done.

The other point I would just like to make at the outset of my discussion here.

No, I will not yield.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I also want to point out that Mr. Kingston is talking about immigration and the lack of accountability with regard to illegal workers on government projects. I would like to remind the gentleman that it is his President that is in charge of enforcement, it is the administrative branch of government that is in charge of adjudicating and prosecuting illegal aliens, and that it is their Department that is awarding the contracts. And so if the gentleman is concerned about this, he should talk to his President down the street. And with a single conversation, he should be able to get the administration to do what he wants, since he is of the same party.

With regard to this building that we're talking about, when we had the anthrax scare here in Congress, I am aware that they actually had to displace Federal workers to house congressional employees in that building. That was only for a couple of weeks. To do this for months on end while a building is being renovated is simply unacceptable.

Further, Mr. Kingston's amendment was argued in the subcommittee and it was put forward in the subcommittee and it was rejected by the subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. We need this swing space to be able to do the renovation. And I think this goes back to a very simple thing that Mr. Dreier said, that this can be demagogued.

Clearly, we can have disagreements, but we need to do the right thing by the American people to provide for the safety of Congress. This $16 million appropriation is for Capitol security. Either you support security for Members, for the staff and for the general public, or you don't. You either support security or you don't. And I say that the bipartisan workings of the committee were the correct action and that the amendment that the gentleman offered was previously rejected in committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Georgia by saying that, in fact, the Rules Committee did offer Mr. Jordan's amendment from Ohio that one-ups the gentleman from Georgia. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia said he wanted to cut overall the entire operations in Congress and legislative branch by 1 percent. Mr. Jordan offers a 4 percent cut. And so we made that in order so that the Congress can have the debate that Mr. Price from Georgia has indicated that he wants to have on the House floor.

It is a very open process. And, in fact, I will tell you that this is a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Wamp and Ms. Wasserman Schultz came to the Rules Committee and indicated absolutely that they had worked on a bipartisan basis on this bill and that they thought that they had done a good job working on a bipartisan basis.

We have, in fact, offered the debate. We will, in fact, have a debate on cutting overall administration. In fact, this is a responsible bill in that we have cut $275 million from the President's request, 11 percent less than the administration asked for the operations of the legislative branch. This is a fiscally responsible bill. The committee has worked together to craft it in a bipartisan way, and I think that we in fact have a very good piece of legislation before the Congress today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for his hard work on the bill. Clearly he and our chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, have done a good job working together on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that will work for Congress and work for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my friend, the gentleman from California, that I, in fact, did yield to him earlier in the debate for quite some period of time and let him speak on my time prior. So, with that, I think we have, in fact, worked on a bipartisan basis. I am also willing to work and discuss with my colleagues.

But, in fact, as the gentleman said, this legislative branch appropriations bill is one where you can, in fact, have shenanigans, or I think his word was ``demagoguery,'' and, in fact, we have a structured rule so that we limit that. We are, in fact, trying to have the most open process. I think we have succeeded in doing a better job than happened in the prior Congresses.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like just to yield briefly to our distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to respond.

The gentleman is correct. I will yield him additional time to respond.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Madam Speaker, there were several misstatements of fact in the last statements that were made here on the floor by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This bill actually does not provide $4 billion for legislative branch appropriations, as the gentleman indicated, but $3.1 billion for the legislative branch. The actual spending for fiscal year 2007, including the supplemental but not rescissions, this bill is a $122 million increase, which is 4 percent of that amount. If the $50 million rescission in the fiscal year 2007 CR is included, the bill is only $73 million, or 2.4 percent, above the prior year.

We have provided in this measure fiscal responsibility, accountability, and security and life safety for the Members of Congress, for the general public and for our staff.

I would also like to make a point that this bill represents a $276 million reduction from the Republican administration's request on this matter.

Madam Speaker, three principles guided the development of the underlying legislation: fiscal responsibility, security and life safety, and accountability.

This bill makes smart decisions with taxpayer dollars. It provides the necessary resources for Congress to carry out its constitutional oversight responsibilities, something we saw sorely lacking in the last Congress. It ensures the Capitol complex is safe and secure. Most importantly, it allows Members of Congress to represent and serve our constituents in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from the Big D recognizing me, and I thank both of my friends for their management of this rule.

I have got to clear my throat, Madam Speaker, because it was last night and early this morning that we had a freewheeling, very passionate, vigorous debate that took place on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, as we all know. And we are here this morning addressing an issue which traditionally has, in a bipartisan way, been recognized that, as a measure to avoid demagoguery, should be brought up under a structured rule. It is the only appropriations bill that both Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized all along that we should do, and I am happy to say that we are proceeding with the other appropriations bills under an open amendment process.

I will say that I am very, very troubled, very troubled, with the way that this has been handled. My friend from California has just said that this is a discussion that has been going on and on. We seem to have this same discussion back and forth. And I will tell my friend we could end it right here, we could end it right here if, in fact, as the gentleman from Dallas has just said, the promises that were made in last year's election were, in fact, kept. We don't have to continue to have this kind of debate over the rule if we would see the kind of compliance with the commitments that were made to the American people.

Now, let me just say what did happen in the past on the issue of the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. As Mr. Sessions has just said, 100 percent of the amendments that were proposed last year were, in fact, made in order. And the year before, the gentleman is absolutely right, there were 11 amendments submitted, but the gentleman said only 1 amendment was made in order. No. One Democratic amendment was made in order of the 11 amendments, but there were Republican

amendments proposed, too, and there were 4 amendments made in order. So what I am saying is that this notion that somehow 11 Democratic amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and only 1 Democratic amendment made in order? That is wrong.

The fact of the matter is we have worked very hard to ensure that every Member who has come forward with a responsible, thoughtful amendment that should be debated on the legislative branch appropriations bill could, in fact, have that opportunity. And that is what has happened in the past. I am very proud to say that last year every single amendment submitted to the committee was made in order. This year 23 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, 23 amendments. And how many were made in order? It is very sad. Only three amendments were made in order.

Now, let's look at some of the amendments that were denied, Madam Speaker. The distinguished chairman, former chairman, of the Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Kingston, is here, and he came before the Rules Committee with some very thoughtful amendments.

Now, my friend from California has just talked about the issue of the Visitors Center. Mr. Kingston, who has consistently raised very important questions about that in the past, said that we don't need to put $16 million, which, as was said in the dissenting views on this issue, is the tip of the iceberg, creating a chance to spend well in excess of $50 million, at the minimum of $55 million, for another building with an additional 200,000 square feet behind the Ford Building over here.

Now, Madam Speaker, we are going to have an additional half a million square feet when we see completion of this Congressional Visitors Center. We all hope that it happens in our lifetime, but I will say that we are going to have an additional 500,000 square feet. And I know my friend from California said he has just been there.

And, by the way, I should extend congratulations to the gentlewoman from Florida for the great job that she has done in working closely with Mr. Wamp on this issue. She testified, Madam Speaker, before the Rules Committee, and I appreciate her diligence on this, and I suspect that she would be somewhat concerned as well that the opportunity for an amendment process like the one that we have had in the past is being denied to a number of our Members, both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Mr. Kingston, the former chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, also offered an amendment calling for the Basic Pilot Program to be included, dealing with this notion that we impose on everybody else, Madam Speaker, the requirement that they comply with the Basic Pilot Program when it comes to this very serious issue of illegal immigration, and yet we are free of having to comply with that within the first branch of government. I think that is an absolute mistake, and that is what Mr. Kingston has been trying to address with his amendment.

One of the amendments that troubled me most that was not made in order came from a very distinguished Democratic Member of this institution. I am proud of the fact that he represents my parents in Kansas City, Missouri. It is Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, who came before the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and he said that he had been told by staff not to offer the amendment. He was very concerned about being there, and he said that he was somewhat confused, and, understandably, that does happen on occasion. I just told one of my staff members that the moment they tell me to do something, I automatically and instinctively do the opposite. But what happened in his case was that he felt somewhat concerned about coming before the Committee on Rules when so many people had told him not to do it.

I have never seen a situation like this, Madam Speaker. The Chair of the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter had to say to Mr. Cleaver that he was welcome at any time to come before the Rules Committee and offer an amendment. I thought that that was just a right that every Member in this institution had. And, unfortunately, while we made Mr. Cleaver's amendment in order in the last Congress, this new majority refused to allow Mr. Cleaver the opportunity to even have his amendment heard, even have it debated here, Madam Speaker.

And that is why Mr. Sessions is going to offer an opportunity, if we can, to defeat the previous question, to take the Cleaver amendment, which deals with the very important priority that has been set forth by our Speaker that looks at the environmental standards for this institution. Mr. Cleaver simply says that prospectively we should have flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles purchased through the Members' representational accounts. It is an issue that should be debated here on the House floor. Again, we made that amendment in order last year, and it has been denied the opportunity this year.

One other thing that I will say again that is very troubling about this so-called new era of openness. Our colleague from West Virginia, a very distinguished former member of the Committee on Rules, tried to submit an amendment to the Rules Committee, and Shelley Moore Capito was denied that opportunity at the door to even submit her amendment, recognizing that she was a few minutes, I think right around 30 minutes, beyond the imposed deadline. I think the flexibility for Members is something that we always recognized, but has been denied here. But to have a former member of the Rules Committee denied an opportunity to even submit the amendment is, to me, Madam Speaker, undermining this entire spirit of openness.

So, Madam Speaker, let me say I am going to encourage my colleagues to support Mr. Sessions in his quest to defeat the previous question so that we can give Emanuel Cleaver an opportunity to offer the amendment that was denied him by the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

And let me, if I could, just respond to a couple of his points. First of all, the gentleman has offered some very thoughtful arguments on this issue, and I think that the fact that he has made these arguments underscores why the Rules Committee should have, in fact, allowed a debate on these issues to proceed.

He began by talking about how unworkable the amendment that Mr. Cleaver has put forward by virtue of the fact that California has only two of these E85 stations. I know that the Cleaver amendment provides options, a hybrid vehicle, which the gentleman drives and obviously is able to get fuel very easily, and the option of looking at the flex- fuel vehicles. And, obviously, if it is a flex-fuel vehicle, it has the ability to use others. They don't have to go to those two stations that exist in California.

And I think that, again, that underscores the fact that we should be having this debate. We made it in order in the last Congress, and, unfortunately, they chose not to make it in order.

And on the issue of the additional building, he has raised a lot of interesting arguments about that. Mr. Kingston would simply like to have a chance, as a former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, to debate it.

I thank my friend for yielding, and I will just say that I wish we would have a chance to have a free-flowing debate on this.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say I am somewhat concerned with the whole tenor of this debate. My California colleague has stood here through the entire debate not yielding time to a single Member, talking about the fact that we are going to have this freewheeling debate. I asked him to yield to me, when he obviously has a great load of time. Madam Speaker, he chose not to yield. That is clearly his right. But if we are interested in at least a modicum of civility in the debate, I always try my darnedest to yield to any colleague who asks me to yield during debate, because I think that is what we should do around here.

I was simply going to respond when my friend said that Mr. Price was here decrying the fact that his amendment was not made in order, which had a more modest cut than the one that has been made in order under the Jordan amendment, that maybe some Members would determine that the $275 million figure to which my friend referred earlier, being below the President's request, is not quite enough, but that maybe the Jordan amendment is too much.

Mr. Price simply wanted to have a chance, Madam Speaker, to say, gosh, maybe a little more modest cut than the one that is in the Jordan amendment should be considered.

So, I just want to say that I, again, as Mr. Price said so well during this debate, promises were made about a new sense of openness. It is very, very unfortunate that those promises have not been kept, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask my friend, if a $4 billion increase

is, in fact, a 6.76-percent increase over last year's funding level, which does round out to be a 7-percent increase in the spending over last year's funding level, I just ask my friend from Dallas if that, in fact, is correct?

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I would just like to, again, say that I hope very much that my friends on both sides of the aisle will join in supporting Mr. Sessions in trying to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order the very thoughtful, environmentally sound amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Madam Chair, I want to start by saying that it's an awesome feeling being in my 11th year as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to be standing here as the ranking member offering our first bill and to congratulate our chairwoman from Florida on her first product. It is a joyous occasion for each of us, and I am grateful for this opportunity.

Let me also say that while I do not support and we do not support the overall spending that the Appropriations Committee is recommending for the year, we certainly do support this bill. This bill is a fiscally responsible product. We did work in a bipartisan way. We kind of went through waves where we could do better at times, but towards the end we really came together, and especially on the critical issues, in a bipartisan way. I commend the gentlelady from Florida on that cooperative spirit. I think we both learned a lot along the way about how to work with each other and how to reach out to our members and we do have a good subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.

I too want to thank this outstanding staff: Jeff Shockey and Liz Dawson on the minority side; Tom Forhan, Chuck Turner and David Marroni on the majority; particularly Melissa Chapman and Amanda Schoch on my personal staff for all the work that they've done. We're new, we're learning, but we are working together and we're grateful for that.

I want to point out a few things in this bill that I think are very noteworthy. As the chairwoman said, the Inspector General of the Architect of the Capitol is a very important move. Former chairman and now ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, began this initiative in the '07 bill. For the chairwoman to go forward with it I think is incredibly important. We've learned a lot. Unfortunately, a lot of lessons learned from the CVC, but clearly they need the oversight of the Inspector General.

I also want to commend her on responding to the needs of the Capitol Police. If we are not state-of-the-art in communication on Capitol Hill, then in the whole country we've got a problem with security. They need the money for interoperable communications. It is now in this bill and we're grateful for that.

One caution, and we talked about it some during the rules debate, is this FDA building, the swing space, the whole issue of are we in the wake or behind the CVC going to go into another major capital improvement project and is that necessary or even wise at this time to go forward with that. We're going to talk more about that, but my view is we need sweeping procurement reforms in the way the AOC operates. I know that this is not necessarily an AOC directly driven project, but the whole supervision of how we procure capital improvements, renovations and do it is not efficient.

Frankly, we saw the Botanical Gardens a few years ago, we didn't learn enough lessons from that. We went into the CVC. It's gotten out of hand. We need reforms before we go forward. I look forward to discussing that more as the morning goes.

The Green the Capitol Initiative falls under the category of the prerogative of the majority but the responsibility of the minority to question, is this real substantive. I think there's widespread bipartisan support for environmental improvements on Capitol Hill and across the country. I'm the cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. The gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, will speak in a few minutes with concerns about the Green the Capitol Initiative. He's one of the leaders, as am I, on renewable energy and energy-efficiency technologies, but does this end up being somewhat window dressing, not as much substance as we would like. It's not a large budget issue, but we have the obligation to ask these questions.

One of the questions would be, we have an E-85 pump coming but we don't yet have these fleet vehicles or leased vehicles running off of E-85. So we've got to connect the dots and make this work, but we're respectfully asking these questions with the same desire as the majority, to green the Capitol and frankly be as environmentally responsible across the board as we can.

Let me also say another disappointing aspect is that we're still in my view not doing enough for the blind and physically handicapped. The digital talking books program does still receive a reduction even though we made some improvements at the full committee. I want to advocate for doing all we can along the way.

And then let me just say a word about something that's in this bill that thankfully the Rules Committee allowed to stay in this bill and it's the naming of the hall which some say that this subcommittee or even the full committee should not take action on, but I disagree. Because time is of the essence. This new Capitol Visitors Center is the 600-pound gorilla that we've been trying to get our arms around and frankly we've both taken a lot of ownership in this. We inherited this problem, as did the Acting Architect, Mr. Ayers, inherit the cost overruns in this very large project, which is unprecedented. We haven't done it in the history of the Capitol, something this large, 580,000 square feet, $592 million, over twice the original cost; but frankly the planning overlapped September 11. $170 million in cost overruns are for enhanced security improvements in the wake of September 11. But there is a 20,000 square foot space in the middle of this new Capitol Visitors Center, and it's going to be the largest congregate space in the Capitol. Unfortunately, through, I think bad communication, this hall was called the Great Hall, which is exactly the same name as the main hall in the Library of Congress for over 100 years. The Great Hall is this beautiful, ornate room at the Library of Congress. Early on, there was bipartisan agreement at our subcommittee that both of these halls on each end of a tunnel should not be called the Great Hall.

So we took action and I think carefully thought through and felt through some of the options, and the most glaring omission in the history of the Capitol is the irony that the people that built the Capitol were, in large part, slaves who never were honored in any way, shape or form for the work that they did building this Capitol. There were even periods of time where the people working on the dome were Union soldiers and slaves, at the same time, building the dome during the Civil War. What an unbelievably awesome thought that the people who were fighting for their freedom were working side by side with these slaves.

Listen, this is our opportunity to truly honor them in a way that transcends our service, our existence, individuals. And so the naming of this 20,000 square foot hall Emancipation Hall is something that is ripe with life and tradition and time-honored work for all of us. I'm pleased that it was left in the bill, and I'm pleased that our Senate counterparts took action on this yesterday by introducing legislation.

The power to convene is greater than the power to legislate. Sometimes we forget that things like this may seem to be symbolic, but it means so much more. I've taken 1,700 groups through the Capitol over the last 13 years. I give these tours and it inspires young people to a life of service. What greater way to honor freedom than to walk people through this new 20,000 square foot hall and say, this is Emancipation Hall, a great lesson of history.

We gained our national character by the mistakes that we learned from, never to repeat again. That's where we get our character. That's why this is so important.

Some people say we shouldn't spend the money to change the name of the signs. We should never have printed the signs. Let's not make another mistake by not rectifying this first mistake.

I really appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which we have worked on this particular issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis of California.

Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, let me just underscore what Mr. Lewis said about the work of Jesse Jackson, Jr., on the work on Emancipation Hall, but also the support from John Lewis, Jim Clyburn and Ms. Norton, who is in the Chamber this morning, and all the people who have any jurisdiction or involvement in this particular issue.

Ms. Kilpatrick and the Congressional Black Caucus support his bill, in large part because of Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s, leadership. He is extraordinarily bright. He was so articulate and passionate about this issue. Frankly, it wouldn't have been done to this point. We are not complete without him. I just want to underscore that recognition.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman of Pennsylvania, a member of the full committee, Mr. Peterson.

Madam Chair, before recognizing the ranking member of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, I want to just point out that the Comptroller General of the GAO, David Walker, has stated that he ``supports the right of GAO employees to organize if they so choose.'' And I also recognize the presence on the floor today of the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr. Brady, a friend of mine.

But to speak eloquently on this bill is a man who knows as much about the House as anyone here, a person who I work with very well. I yield 9 minutes to Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.

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.