Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2829) making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am going to include my statement in the Record. I will paraphrase it in the interests of time.

First, I want to congratulate Chairman Serrano in being the pioneer chairman of the newly created Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. He has given us great leadership in a bipartisan, inclusive spirit while shepherding this bill through the subcommittee. Additionally, my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides have provided valuable input and guidance. The chairman has mentioned the hard work of the staff on both the majority and minority. I won't reiterate that, but I will say we have had great staff help for both majority and the minority.

I am pleased to present this Financial Services bill. We have taken into consideration the priorities of the President and the Members of the House, and I think we have produced a bill that meets the needs of Americans and our operations of government while staying below the President's budget request, which is somewhat unusual for most of the Appropriations Committee bills. I appreciate the leaders of the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis, in providing a manageable allocation for the bill.

We allocate, as the chairman has said, $21.4 billion in discretionary budget authority. This is $243 million below the administration's request, but it is $2 billion above fiscal year 2007. This is in recognition of some additional responsibilities that we have.

It provides funding for a diverse number of agencies that affect the lives of all Americans. Twenty-seven different agencies are funded in this bill: Telecommunications; IRS Taxpayer Assistance; Small Business Administration, an interesting group; the General Services Administration; and also the Office of Personnel Management.

I want to mention here that in testimony, I was struck by the fact that the director of the Office of Personnel Management said that in the next 10 years, 60 percent of the workforce will retire. I would say to any young people that are listening tonight there will be a lot of opportunity in the Federal Government.

Another point that was made in the hearing was that only 15 percent of the Federal employment is in Washington, D.C., which means that there will be job opportunities all across the country. I would urge young people that are in political science or have an interest in government to think about getting the skills that might be useful in working in Federal employment. This would, of course, be some budget experience, some tax policy and some general policy of government. There will be opportunities and exciting challenges.

We have the Small Business Development Centers. Sometimes I think we only think about the big ones in terms of businesses, but it is the thousands and thousands of small businesses that really fuel this Nation's economy. I know in my own district, if you add up the 50, the 75 and the 100-employee businesses, that is a very significant total. Those businesses don't tend to go overseas. They don't sell out and move their operations somewhere offshore. They stay. Therefore, I think it is extremely important that we help small business in every possible way.

We do that in this bill. We have $100 million for Small Business Development Centers. This is an increase. It is a method, a way of providing management assistance. Just in Ohio alone, we have over almost 900,000 small businesses. Every dollar we invest in this leverages a couple of dollars in economic activity.

Another interesting thing in the bill is financial literacy. We hear a lot of comment about the fact that our young people don't know how to handle credit cards, they don't know how to handle their loans, and they get themselves in financial trouble. We have allocated in this bill $900,000 for the Treasury's Office of Financial Education. This is some $200,000 over the President's request.

What I would like to do is urge that Treasury work with the Department of Education and move some of this responsibility to them to work with the schools, the elementary and high schools, in improving financial literacy in this country. Credit is extremely important, and too often young people do not understand the impact of building credit card debt and other types of debt which gets them in substantial financial trouble. So we hope that we can encourage a greater amount of financial education among the students of this Nation.

We also hear a lot about the fact that $300 billion of taxes are left uncollected. As Mr. Dreier pointed out on the statement on the rule, most people pay their taxes. The United States is unique, probably in some respects in that we have a voluntary system of paying taxes, but people want to know that if they pay their taxes, they want their neighbor and their fellow citizens to also pay theirs.

If there is this $300 billion tax gap, we need to do something to address it, so we have set aside the money for taxpayer support services. And I might say, for those that are listening out in the audience across the country, that many people are not aware of the fact that there is a Taxpayer Assistance Service. It is available in most of the major cities of the country, and they can be very helpful to people who have some type of problem with IRS. We said some years ago that we want to make the IRS more taxpayer friendly, and we have tried to do that in this bill.

The chairman mentioned the District of Columbia. I often think about President Reagan, who talked about the city of Washington being the ``shining city on the hill.'' What we try to do in this bill is to move this city a little bit further along in that direction.

The District of Columbia, and we recently changed their voting status, is the Capital of this Nation and a city we should all take pride in. So what we have tried to do in this bill, since we fund D.C., their Federal money, is to make it a better city.

I want to say I think the Mayor is recognizing the challenge that is before him. They have made a dramatic change in their school system. Now the Mayor is responsible and accountable, and I am hopeful that this will make a vast improvement over a period of time in education.

The key to a successful city is a successful education system. One of the things that plagues the cities of America is the fact that they do have problems with their system, and they have a high rate of dropouts. We hope we can change that not only in the District of Columbia, but in every city in America.

If our Nation is to remain competitive in the years to come, we have to start with the education system. I am pleased that the Mayor and the city leadership here recognize that fact. We put $35 million for college tuition assistance, $41 million for school improvement, and $10 million to improve libraries. I know the Mayor has selected a new superintendent. We wish her well. We want to do everything we can to make her administration and that of the Mayor a success in dealing with education problems.

The chairman mentioned the Election Assistance Commission. This is, of course, designed to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to vote. That is, again, fundamental to our democracy, that people have not only the right to vote, but that we make it as uncomplicated as possible so they do make the effort to exercise their franchise. I think, perhaps, the $300 million is not necessarily required at this time because the Presidential primaries will start in January, and the States are already sitting on $1.3 billion, but we can perhaps address that issue in conference.

The loan program, I am a little concerned. We are giving $80 million to help subsidize loans where there is a default. Historically this is funded by a premium on both the borrowers and lenders, and I am hoping that we can work out a program that will encourage people to use the loan program.

Private debt collectors, we don't know. We have kept that in place with a very limited amount of money because we are not sure how effective that program is, but I think the Treasury would argue that it has been a successful program.

We have maintained the policies on abortion. We have maintained the policies on Cuba. Any change of these would bring about a Presidential veto.

I hope that we can work out any differences we might have in conference, and that the bill would be one that the President of the United States can sign. Certainly in terms of meeting his fiscal requirements. We have more than met that challenge by being under his numbers.

I urge Members to look at this bill and weigh the importance of it when it comes time for final passage. I know we will have a number of amendments, and we will address those as we move along.

Introduction

First, I would like to congratulate Chairman Serrano on being the pioneer Chairman of the newly created Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee. Chairman Serrano has provided great leadership and a bipartisan, inclusive spirit while shepherding this bill through subcommittee and full committee. Additionally, my colleagues on the subcommittee have provided valuable input and guidance throughout the process.

Also, I would like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication and expertise of the subcommittee staff. On the majority side, Dale Oak, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Frank Carillo, Deb Bilek, Jim Curry and Nadine Berg on Chairman Serrano's personal staff. On the minority side I would like to thank John Martens and Alice Hogans for their counsel in putting together this bill.

Overview

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present before the House today the fiscal year 2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill. By taking into consideration the priorities of the President and the Members of the House, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of Americans, and the operations of our government while staying below the President's budget request. I appreciate the efforts of the leaders of the House, Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis to provide a manageable allocation for this bill.

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill allocates $21.4 billion in discretionary budget authority. This number is $243 million below the Administration's request and $2 billion above fiscal year 2007. I would like to repeat this to my colleagues who have voiced concerns over extraneous spending in appropriations bills; this bill is $243 million below the Administration's request, while still providing sufficient funds for various agencies to continue their missions and service.

The bill provides funding for a diverse number of agencies that affect the lives of all Americans. The agencies funded in this bill regulate the financial and telecommunications industries, collect taxes and provide taxpayer assistance, lend a helping hand to small businesses and disadvantaged communities by providing them with capital, support the operations of the White House and Federal Judiciary, provide Federal payments to the District of Columbia, operate and maintain Federal buildings, manage our federal workforce which is expected to experience tremendous attrition rates over the next ten years, assists in the administration of federal elections and protect consumers and investors from fraudulent practices.

SBA-Small Business Development Centers

The Chairman has done a good job of highlighting the bill so I will not repeat him, but I would like to mention several items of importance to me. I am particularly pleased at the $100 million for Small Business Development Centers, an increase of nearly $13 million. The Small Business Development Centers account is the Small Business Administration's primary method of providing management assistance to small businesses. In my state of Ohio we have over 889,000 small businesses and every dollar invested in the OHIO SBDC network leverages at least $2.00. This program is vital to the life of small business, and I urge my colleagues to maintain this funding on the House floor today.

Financial Literacy

I am also encouraged to see $900,000 for Treasury's Office of Financial Education, an increase of approximately $200,000 over the President's request. The increase is targeted toward improving the National Strategy for Financial Literacy and expanding efforts at financial literacy in elementary schools and high schools. Financial literacy is a very important life skill and I look forward to working with the Chairman to further develop this initiative and ensure maximum programmatic impact.

Additionally, the bill increases essential funding for the Internal Revenue Service to close the nearly $300 billion tax gap, which is the difference between the amount of taxes owed and the amount actually paid. Closing the tax gap is critical as most Americans do not mind paying their fair share of taxes as long as they know others are doing the same. Furthermore, $3.6 billion is set aside for taxpayer support services activities aimed at tax return preparation, the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate and IRS outreach and education efforts to serve taxpayers by helping them understand their tax obligations before they file. These activities have been steadily reduced in recent years and are in need of a boost.

D.C. Education

I am supportive of the funding appropriated in the bill to improve education in the District of Columbia, including $35 million for college tuition assistance, $41 million for school improvement, and $10 million to improve libraries. The children in Washington D.C. have been at a disadvantage for many years, and I look forward to working with the Mayor to enhance the school system to give the children of D.C. a chance to succeed.

Concerns

As I mentioned previously, this bill is $243 million below the Administration's request, and Chairman Serrano has done a fair job in allocating these funds to the various agencies within the bill. However, I do have a couple spending and policy concerns, which I would like to outline.

Election Assistance Commission

Primarily, I am concerned about $300 million added to this bill in unrequested funding for election assistance grants. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 authorized $3.9 billion for grants to the states to improve their voting systems through 2007. This program has not been authorized to receive funding in 2008 and there still remains $1.3 billion in appropriated dollars from the Help America Vote Act that have yet to be spent by the States. Therefore, I believe that an additional $300 million is unnecessary at this time especially with Presidential primaries beginning in January. This is a short turnaround to spend $300 million while the states are sitting on $1.3 billion. Although I am supportive of the Election Assistance Commission, I remain concerned over these unrequested and unauthorized funds.

SBA 7(a) Loan Program

Another funding item of concern that I bring up with trepidation is subsidization of 7(a) business loans. An amendment in committee was adopted which ignores the fact that the 7(a) loan program has been operating at record levels without a subsidy appropriation since fiscal year 2005. Past practice has proven that subsidies limit access to SBA loans if demand for loans exceeds the availability of appropriations. In past years, SBA has been forced to temporarily shut the program down or impose loan limits to manage within available appropriations. Zero subsidy has proven to be effective and allowed SBA flexibility to manage the program in a user friendly way. I hope to work with the Chairman in Conference to find an agreeable solution regarding 7(a) subsidization.

Policy Riders

Regarding policy, I have reservations with language attempting to limit the use of private debt collectors. Private debt collectors simply pursue the low hanging fruit that the IRS does not currently devote resources to.

Otherwise longstanding policies on abortion and Cuba are maintained in this bill. Any altering of these may bring about a Presidential veto.

Lastly, while I have a few qualms with the bill, I believe it is a bill that should be passed by the House and signed by the President, as long as controversial policy riders or substantial funding changes are not made to the bill. I thank the Chairman and ask my colleagues to vote yes with me on House passage of the first Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I express my appreciation to my very good friend from Sacramento, Ms. Matsui.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the rule. I know that this is a rule that follows the 200-year tradition that we have had of appropriations bills as privileged resolutions. They have the ability to come to the floor without a rule at all, but if items are protected in the bill, they have to provide waivers from the Rules Committee, and that is what has been followed here. We did this when the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats are following suit here.

But there are a number of concerns that have come to the forefront. To me, the most important concern, Mr. Speaker, is one that I raised upstairs in the Rules Committee last night.

The Committee on Ways and Means had put into place a very important program in September of 2006 which deals with an issue that is near and dear to every single American who pays taxes. That issue is ensuring that every single American pays their taxes. I don't like paying taxes. But I do it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't like the fact that there are people out there who don't pay their taxes when they are supposed to do it. The challenge of collecting taxes is a very, very important concern of, as I said, every American who does pay their taxes. Collecting taxes is a very important thing, too. Making sure that people do comply with the law is, I believe, an imperative that we need to do all we can to enforce.

Unfortunately, this appropriations bill that we are bringing forward is one that actually eliminates a program that has been extraordinarily effective. It is a program, Mr. Speaker, that has been utilized now by the Federal Government and by 40 of the 50 States. What does it consist of? Simply contracting with private collection agencies, PCAs, to ensure that people who are deadbeats, who are not paying their taxes, actually pay their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, this issue does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. I see Mr. Rangel here and other members of the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. McCrery sent a letter to us in the Rules Committee saying that he believed that this rule should not allow protection for a point of order to be made against the provision about which I am speaking.

So, Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need for us to make sure that the Ways and Means Committee can have the jurisdiction, and, frankly, keep in place this collection process. So far, $19.4 million has been collected from people who have not paid their taxes by these private collection agencies, and the projection is that over the next 10 years in excess of $1.5 billion will be collected by the Federal Government from these people who have been deadbeats and have not paid their taxes. So I think it is very unfortunate that this bill proceeds with this, and the fact that this rule does not provide us with an opportunity to address that has led me to oppose it.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is going to be an effort to defeat the previous question, and if that is done, our colleague from Nebraska Mr. Terry is going to offer an amendment to the rule that would make in order a provision that would allow for the rejection of the cost-of-living adjustment.

I know there is a lot of talk around here about that issue, so we are going to be having a vote on that. Our colleague from Nebraska, as I said, Mr. Terry will in fact be the author of that amendment if we did defeat the previous question on this issue.

Having said that, I do want to say there are a number of items in this bill that I think are very good and important. I am particularly proud of having worked for a number of years on the issue of financial literacy training for students and for adults as well.

We see this proliferation of advertising, Mr. Speaker, that continues to come down from a wide range of entities, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately, there are many young people today who really don't have the grasp of the financial instruments that are options to them out there. For that reason, I believe that something in this bill that is very good is the effort to focus on the increase of financial literacy training.

Mr. Speaker, I want to praise my colleagues, especially Mr. Regula, who has taken on this responsibility here as the ranking member of the subcommittee, and Mr. Serrano, who is chairing the subcommittee. I praise them for working together in a bipartisan way on some other items that are very important.

As I said, I believe that interdicting illicit drugs is a very important issue. This drug trafficking issue was a topic of discussion in the last debate that we had on the Andean Trade Preference Act that we are going to be voting on later this evening, and I believe that there are, again, many, many other items that are included in this bill that are good and decent and appropriate measures.

But I just am very, very concerned about this issue, as I said, Mr. Speaker, of this notion of people abusing the tax provisions and not, in fact, paying their fair share of taxes. So I feel strongly that taking advantage of these private collection agencies is, in fact, the right thing to do. I know there is concern voiced about that, because people don't like being harassed. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? If they are not paying their fair share of taxes, I believe steps should be taken to try and get them to do that. So this is going to lead me to oppose the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Greensboro, North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record extraneous material, including the amendment to be offered by Mr. Terry if, in fact, we do defeat the previous question.

If I may inquire of my friend from Sacramento, how many more speakers do you have remaining?

I have no further speakers, but I understand there is some amendment here to the rule that you want to talk about, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am just a little confused about this amendment. I know that the Budget Act calls for us to have completed our appropriations work in the House by the 4th of July, and the promise that was made by the Democratic majority was that all of the appropriations bills would be done by the 4th of July break. I will say that I am a little confused.

I would be happy to yield to my friend as to what this proposed amendment would, in fact, entail.

Mr. Speaker, again, I remember there was a promise made that the work on House appropriations bills would be completed by the July 4 break. It sounds to me as if there is an attempt being made to really go beyond and not comply with that promise that was made. There seems to be some kind of requirement here that we amend the rule to make this happen.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague or to the gentleman from Florida, my Rules Committee colleague.

Reclaiming my time, I would say last year there was not a commitment that was made that we would complete all of our appropriations work by the July 4th break.

I would be happy to further yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to further yield to my friend, I would say that we have been going through the appropriations process. We are in the minority. There is a new majority. A promise was made to the American people that work on the appropriations process would be completed by the July 4th break. I am just a little confused here as to how it is that we got to this point.

This is now an amendment to the rule that is being propounded, and I would just like to say that I think by virtue of doing this we are simply, Mr. Speaker, underscoring the fact that the work has not been completed. If a finger of blame is being pointed, I guess at our side, we have delayed the process of completing the appropriations work, all I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this was a commitment that was made at the beginning of the 110th Congress. And obviously, with the explanation just provided by my friend from Sacramento, this has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee for his explanation.

I will say, however, what we have done is we have followed the standard appropriations process. In fact, as we look at the rules that have been passed out so far through the appropriations process, in the last Congress, we made in order every single amendment that was proposed to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, and as the gentleman knows, only three of 23 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee when it came to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee bill were made in order which did in fact limit the debate.

All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is my friend from Sacramento has come forward and said she is going to offer an amendment to the rule. I am concerned about it, the fact that it was not included in the rule and it has just come to our attention.

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

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

I would say to my very good friend from Wisconsin, welcome to the challenge of governing, as he knows very, very well.

The fact of the matter is there was, in fact, at the beginning of this Congress, a statement made. And what has been proposed by my colleague from Sacramento is an amendment to the rule to deal with the Budget Act. All of a sudden, we are going to just waive the responsibility here to deal with this question, and I just think that the procedure around which we are now taking this action on this amendment underscores that our colleagues are having a little bit of difficulty governing.

Let me just say that I am opposed to this rule for a number of reasons. I would like to restate the concern that I raised earlier.

I had a chance to speak with our colleague from New York, the distinguished Chair, of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. I told him of a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee from Mr. McCrery which raised concern over the fact that there are people out there who are completely abrogating their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes. They are not complying with the law. And in September of 2006, private collection agencies were enlisted by the Federal Government to begin the collection of taxes from deadbeats who are not paying their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, 40 other States, 40 other States have enlisted private collection agencies, and they have been successful, and at the Federal level, we have, as of March of this year, seen $19.47 million collected so far, and the projection is that under these private collection agencies in the next decade, we will see between $1.5 billion and $2.2 billion in taxes that are owed to the Federal Government paid.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule, we are undermining the ability of the Ways and Means Committee to take on its responsibility for this issue. So I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule so, in fact, we will have an opportunity to do the right thing when it comes to this issue.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the gentleman yield?

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, I do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of the above.

That is true.

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

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

I yield back my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Briefly.

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

It is my time.

Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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

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

Let me make the substantive argument here.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 2829 pursuant to House Resolution 517, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

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

I'm pleased to present, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, the first Financial Services and general government appropriations bill to the House. This is my first time as chairman, and it has been an honor and a privilege.

The subcommittee held multiple hearings this spring to explore the issues facing agencies funded through this bill. As the hearings progressed, a common theme emerged in my mind for improving these agencies. It became clear that the subcommittee needed to work to bring government closer to the people, to better fit its services to their needs.

The American people expect and deserve the best services their governments can offer. For example, with respect to the Internal Revenue Service, we, as a subcommittee, addressed the fact that the IRS needs to be fair and evenhanded in whom it audits. We also ensure that the IRS works to provide real assistance to the taxpayer who cannot afford the services of an expensive accountant.

We want the Election Assistance Commission to help promote the use of voting machines in student and school elections as an educational tool. Because these are our future voters, we must do this. We felt that government must do more to protect our consumers, and so we have directed the Federal Trade Commission to examine identity theft with an eye toward ending this hurtful crime.

We directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to strengthen its consumer product monitoring capabilities. We have also increased funding for the community development financial institutions to help expand the availability of credit, capital and financial services to underserved communities throughout the Nation.

I feel that through funding initiatives and congressional guidance contained in this bill, government will be more responsive and more proactive on behalf of the American people whom it serves.

The total funding recommended by the bill is $21.4 billion. This funding level is tight. While the bill is $1.9 billion above the fiscal year 2007, it is $243 million below the President's budget request.

It was a challenge to reduce funding from the requested level for two reasons. First, most of this bill, over 80 percent, funds basic administrative accounts, such as the salaries of the Treasury employees who are managing the Nation's finances. These accounts cannot be reduced without reducing the most basic government services.

Second, there were a number of holes in the President's budget that needed to be filled. This bill increases funding for programs where we believe money will be well spent and will benefit, for example, disadvantaged communities or small businesses. These are important priorities that needed to be addressed.

To summarize, this bill includes $12.3 billion for the Department of the Treasury. Within this amount, $11.1 billion is for the IRS, a $550 million increase above fiscal year 2007, and $52 million above the President's request. This increase includes more money than requested for taxpayer services and the IRS Taxpayers Advocate Office.

The bill also includes $100 million for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's program to increase economic development and financial opportunities for folks living in disadvantaged communities.

The bill includes $722 million for the Executive Office of the President, of which $460 million is directed to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs. This includes increases for the Drug Free Communities grants program, and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, which are critical efforts in the war on drugs.

This bill, however, rejects the 31 percent increase to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign requested in the President's budget. Recent studies have called in question the effectiveness of the campaign, and it does not make any sense to give this program the substantial increase requested in light of these questions. The recommendation reduces funding for the campaign by $6 million from last year to $93 million this year.

The judicial branch will receive $6.3 billion, which is $278 million above 2007, but $254 million below the request. While this is a reduction to the requested level, we believe that the amount in the bill will be sufficient to fund all necessary operations and staffing levels for the judiciary.

Programs related to the District of Columbia will receive $648 million, including $309 million for the District of Columbia court system. Within this figure, the bill assumes an increase in the reimbursement for attorneys who defend indigent clients so that their compensation rate is closer to the rate for defense attorneys practicing before Federal courts.

This will help ensure fair and just representation for these defendants. The bill also includes funding for the D.C. public schools, the Tuition Assistance Grant program, the Water and Sewer Authority, construction of a forensic lab, and other critical items requested by the D.C. Government.

General provisions for the District of Columbia are fewer in number and have been changed based on our discussions with the D.C. government.

My basic principle is that the Federal Government should not dictate to the city how to manage its own affairs or spend its own money. Therefore, you will find that we have removed or changed riders that have been in past bills that closely prescribed to the city what it should or should not do. In some cases, I would actually like to go further than this bill goes. But I consider the changes we made to be first steps toward eliminating some of the restrictions Congress has placed on the District.

Let me take this opportunity, as an aside, to mention that my ranking member, Mr. Regula, has been excellent also on this issue. He, like I, believe that since the District of Columbia has a new mayor and an exciting

new leadership, we want to do everything we can to allow them to grow within their own boundaries, make their own decisions and develop their own vision.

The bill includes funding for numerous important independent agencies. Some, such as the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, support all government agencies in their day-to-day operations. Other agencies are smaller but equally vital. For example, the Election Assistance Commission deals with issues that are extraordinarily important to the Nation and its ability to have reliable, secure and accessible elections. This bill includes, Mr. Chairman, $300 million for payments to States to help them meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

The bill also includes money for essential regulatory agencies, namely the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. We have provided a total of $78 million in increases over 2007 for these agencies. We are recommending funding to ensure that they have the ability to oversee, investigate, and take necessary actions relating to their respective missions. For example, the Federal Trade Commission would receive $36 million above this year's level and $7 million above the request to enhance consumer protection activities, including investigations of subprime lending and identity theft and to keep the marketplace free from anticompetitive business practices.

Another important agency in this bill is the Small Business Administration. The bill includes $582 million for the SBA, including $100 million for Small Business Development Centers, which is $12 million above the current year. The bill also funds a 7(a) loan guarantee program by providing an $80 million subsidy to make loans more affordable for small businesses.

We also include $17 million for a Microloan program, including $2.5 million for the subsidy cost of these loans, as well as funding for SBA programs that target businesses in disadvantaged or low-income communities. These include the HUBZone program, the PRIME program and the 7(j) program, which provides assistance relating to accounting practices or bidding on Federal contracts.

This bill also has numerous general provisions that apply to funds in the Act or governmentwide. The mark includes some changes in these provisions from previous bills. It includes, for example, some changes to the provision on public-private competitions, known to some as A-76, or outsourcing, that will strengthen protections for Federal employees.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will not make everyone happy. It is not even doing all that I want it to do. We have had to make compromises in order to ensure that this bill will make it through the process and to the President's desk. However, the bill is a good step towards making some important changes to funding and policies. I encourage everyone to recognize that this bill is part of a process that will take time to complete. We will not be able to do everything in our first year.

Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Regula, for his work and collaboration. We may not always agree on everything in this bill, but we worked together where we could to develop the best possible bill. I truly appreciate his leadership and support.

I also want to express my appreciation and thanks for the dedication and hard work of our subcommittee staff, both the majority and minority, especially today when they will be here past 1, 2 o'clock in the morning.

Dale Oak, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Frank Carillo, Deb Bilek, and Jim Curry with the majority staff; John Martens and Alice Hogans with the minority staff; and Rick Limardo with Congressman Regula's personal staff have devoted countless hours. That is why this bill is before you today. I would like to recognize their many contributions. I would like also like to acknowledge and thank my personal staff under the leadership of Nadine Berg.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.012

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

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

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