Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 878 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 878.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 878 provides 1 hour of debate on the motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act with each of the two House amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising out of clause 10 of rule XXI, and provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.

The rule directs the Chair to divide the question of adoption of the motion between the two House amendments; and, finally, it provides that the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that our government is running efficiently, from our children who need quality education to our veterans who need the benefits promised to them when they put their lives on the line for their country, and to our senior citizens who need access to health care and affordable prescription drugs.

And I am proud to say that we, here in the House of Representatives, have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing all 12 of our appropriations bills on time. We've also used our time this year to pass all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, to increase the minimum wage, to promote a 21st century jobs and global economic initiative, add much needed funds to the gulf coast following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to undertake the largest expansion of college aid since the GI Bill in 1944.

We also passed the widely acclaimed landmark lobbying and ethics reforms standards, enacted PAYGO, resulting in no new deficit spending, and passed an unprecedented energy bill that will help our Nation to be more energy efficient, while addressing global warming.

We will not soon forget that, of the 12 appropriations bills that we were supposed to have passed in 2006 when Republicans controlled the Chamber, only two were completed. The others were abandoned, requiring the incoming Democrat majority to meet the responsibilities abdicated by an outgoing party that now claims a mantle of fiscal responsibility. Simply put, we were forced to clean up their mess.

And according to the Office of Management and Budget, President Bush and the Republican Congress increased Federal spending by nearly 50 percent, turned record surpluses into record deficits, and increased our national debt by more than $3 trillion. And let's not forget that President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress doubled our foreign debt to more than $2 trillion, more in 7 years, Mr. Speaker,

more in just 7 years than in the previous 224 years of our Nation combined. Listen to that, America. They did more in 7 years to run up the debt than the previous 224 years of our Nation combined.

Now, all this among budget failures that vastly increased our national debt, while leaving the agencies, States and localities in limbo for months concerning their future funding. Let me add to that our children's health program.

It is simply astounding to me that the President would request an 11 percent increase for the Pentagon, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion emergency funding for this terrible war, while in the same breath claiming that any increase in domestic programs needed for the citizens is fiscally irresponsible.

We all remember the promises of the Bush administration claiming that, at the most, the Iraq war would cost $50 billion. A recent report issued on November 13 states that the total economic cost of the Iraq war through 2008 exceeds $1.3 trillion, with a projected cost of $3.5 trillion; a long way from $50 billion.

I believe the New York Times Editorial Board said it succinctly in their editorial published last week when they wrote, and I quote, ``We know what's behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: Political posturing, just in time for the 2008 election.''

But one should not forget the damage that his administration inflicted by shortchanging domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war.

I will submit this editorial for the Congressional Record.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2007]

Disabled, and Waiting for Justice

We know what is behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm

for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and

debt: political posturing, just in time for the 2008

election. But one should not forget the damage that his

administration has also inflicted by shortchanging important

domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and

his never-ending Iraq war.

A case in point is the worsening bureaucratic delays at the

chronically underfunded Social Security Administration that

have kept hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans from

timely receipt of their Social Security disability benefits.

As laid out by Erik Eckholm in the Times on Monday, the

backlog of applicants who are awaiting a decision after

appealing an initial rejection has soared to 755,000 from

311,000 in 2000. The average wait for an appeals hearing now

exceeds 500 days, twice as long as applicants had to wait in

2000.

Typically two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win

their cases. But during the long wait, their conditions may

worsen and their lives often fall apart. More and more people

have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even died while

awaiting an appeals hearing.

In one poignant case described by Mr. Eckholm, a North

Carolina woman who is tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a

day has been waiting three years for a decision. She finally

got a hearing last month and is awaiting a final verdict,

but, meanwhile, she has lost her apartment and alternates

sleeping at her daughter's crowded house and a friend's

place.

The cause of the bottlenecks is well known. There are

simply too few administrative law judges--1,025 at present--

to keep up with the workload. The Social Security

Administration is adopting automated tools and more efficient

administrative practices, but virtually everyone agrees that

no real dent will be made in the backlog until the agency can

hire more judges and support staff.

The blame for this debacle lies mostly with the

Republicans. For most of this decade, the administration has

held the agency's budget requests down and Republican-

dominated Congresses have appropriated less than the

administration requested. Now the Democratic-led Congress

wants to increase funding to the Social Security

Administration, and the White House is resisting.

Last month, Congress passed a $151 billion health,

education and labor spending bill that would have given the

Social Security Administration $275 million more than the

president requested, enough to hire a lot more judges and

provide other vital services. But Mr. Bush vetoed that bill

as profligate.

Democrats in Congress are working on a compromise to meet

Mr. Bush halfway on the whole range of domestic spending

bills. The White House is not interested in compromise.

If the president remains intransigent, federal agencies may

have to limp along under continuing resolutions that maintain

last year's spending levels. That would likely, among many

other domestic problems, crimp any new hiring at the Social

Security Administration and might require furloughs, leading

to even longer waits. Mr. Bush should back down from his veto

threat and accept a reasonable compromise. Both sides should

ensure that real efforts are made to reduce these intolerable

backlogs.

Mr. Speaker, this week's actions by the President is just one thread in the appalling tapestry that this administration has in its misplaced policies.

Democrats believe that running this House right is a matter of pride. We believe it's a matter of having fundamental respect for both the institution in which we serve and for the citizens who have given us the privilege to serve here.

In the spirit of working together, we Democrats in Congress collectively extended our hand to those on the other side of the aisle, including the President, to reconcile our differences and pass this important spending bill.

In return, we received nothing but the same obstructionism that has plagued our body and our counterpart on the other side of the Capitol.

And today, those same Members who once enjoyed the splendors of having a majority in the House, the Senate and a Republican President, now chastise the Democratic Congress for trying to solve their own fiscal blunders. But their cries ring hollow, Mr. Speaker.

Democrats have crafted this omnibus appropriations bill that invests in the American people's priorities, that protects our troops and invests in the homefront, and restores funding to the President's devastating cuts to medical research, to college assistance, to job training, and education and health care.

And when my fellow Members of Congress and I cast our votes on this floor this evening, we seek to reconcile our ideals with what is possible to achieve. We seek to do both what is right in principle and necessary at any particular point in time and pray that the two are one in the same.

In this bill, we fund programs for medical research, and we provide 280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to health care. We added extra funds for title I, special education, teacher quality grants, after-school programs, and Head Start, while also adding more for Pell Grants and other student aid programs.

We added extra funds above the President's request to help local communities hire and train more local law enforcement, while also adding more in homeland security grants to better secure our Nation. We also have met the guaranteed levels set in the authorization bill while adding funds for our bridges, which sorely need it.

We invest in solar and wind energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency, while also promoting scientific investments and conservation efforts.

And I would like to stress that this bill provides $3.7 billion in additional funding for our veterans health.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate we are forced to pass an omnibus to get our work done at the end of the year. This is especially disheartening because we Democrats in the House of Representatives have been absolute in our pledge to fund important programs and help the American people. And this omnibus comes only as a remedy to the obstructionism in the other body.

The President should accept this reasonable compromise and sign it into law. It is a crucial bill that will keep us on our course of fulfilling our promises to the American people, and I believe it is a clear demonstration of the Democrats' devotion to being fiscally responsible with the money given to us by our fellow citizens.

As I shared a quote from an editorial from the New York Times earlier, I would like to close with another quote published on November 26. It states: ``It is clear that Mr. Bush's threat to veto Congress' proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It's all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as long as his Republican allies allow him to.'' I could not agree more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. George Miller.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 878

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4,

if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order or demand for division of the question, shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:

(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''

at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the

end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding

the following at the end:

``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between

the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to

an order of the House unless the Majority Leader or his

designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited

tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and

amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective

item in such list) or a statement that the proposition

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or

limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional

Record prior to its consideration.''.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This morning I woke up to the news that the majority had posted on the Rules Committee Web site the omnibus appropriations bill that we are considering tonight. The majority posted this bill, approximately 3,500-page bill, after many Members had retired for the night. So that effectively made it impossible for many of us to even begin to see what was in this legislation obviously until many hours after that.

When the new majority took over, they promised, Mr. Speaker, that they would give at least 24 hours to review legislation before it comes to the floor for a vote. The rules of the House require 3 days. Oftentimes the Rules Committee through the years has waived that requirement, and that's why it's very interesting to note and I think very relevant to note that the majority made a promise that at least 24 hours would be provided for Members to review, to attempt to understand legislation to make sure that the legislation doesn't have provisions that Members would oppose.

During testimony 2 weeks ago at the Rules Committee, Members from the minority expressed our concern with the prospect that the majority would rush through a very large appropriation bill spending, as in this case, approximately a half a trillion dollars without giving Members time to properly read and understand the bill. One particular area of concern was with the possible inclusion of earmarks that Members would not have an opportunity to review before voting on them.

On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, addressed the House to speak about the majority's changes to the House rules. During her speech, she addressed the issue of earmarks and how the majority claimed to deal with the issue.

Today, as we consider this rule for this omnibus bill, I think it's appropriate to look back and see what the distinguished chairwoman said the majority would do to bring transparency to the earmark process.

``The rules that Thomas Jefferson first wrote down two centuries ago provide for order and discipline in the House. They provide for transparency and accountability. If they are followed, corruption will be exposed before it has a chance to take root. Democrats are going to follow the long-established rules of the House, instead of treating them as impediments to be avoided. We are going to allow Members to read bills before voting on them and prevent them from being altered at the last minute.

``The rules package will finally shed light on an earmarking process that has greased the wheels of corrupt House machinery. It requires the full disclosure of earmarks on all bills and conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's compare those promises with today's rule. The rule provides for consideration of this legislation, H.R. 2764. But because the majority is moving the appropriations bill as an amendment between Houses and not a conference report, the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule, and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that may be contained in the legislation.

So this bill is not subject to the earmark rule which the majority claimed would bring transparency and accountability to the earmark process. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include numerous earmarks that no one has vetted and no one has seen.

We've already seen this loophole in action when we debated H.R. 6, the energy bill. The legislation came to the floor also as an amendment between the Houses; and as such, it too was exempt from the earmark rule. Yet it included earmarks that were not discovered until after passage.

So, yes, the majority ``directs the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 110th Congress such material as he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal year,'' but there may be problems with that provision.

I did see that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee did list earmarks in the bill, but the requirement does not say exactly what material the chairman is required to insert, just what ``he may deem explanatory.'' It does not require him to list all earmarks. So earmarks in the bill could have been omitted from the statement.

Second, the provision allows the chairman to insert the explanation into the Congressional Record at any time during the first session of the 110th Congress. So in theory, the chairman may still have some time to insert an explanation after both Houses of Congress pass the legislation and the President signs the legislation into law.

We were so concerned with this procedural loophole during a recent markup that in the Rules Committee Mr. Dreier offered an amendment to the rule to require that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee provide the list of earmarks required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus appropriations bill. Unfortunately, that amendment to the rule was rejected along partisan lines.

Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, have sent a letter to Chairman Obey asking him to ``adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior to consideration by the Rules Committee.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit that letter into the Congressional Record at this point.

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.

Hon. David R. Obey,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a

``martial law'' rule to provide for the same day

consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That

measure also includes a provision giving you the option of

inserting extraneous explanatory material in the

Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the

remainder of this session.

During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment

to the rule to require that you provide the list of earmarks

required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus

appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the

rule was rejected along partisan lines.

Mr. Chairman, we know that you have made an effort during

this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained

in bills coming through your committee. However, because the

omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate

amendment to a House bill, it falls squarely within one of

the loopholes of the earmark rule and the Rules of the House

will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be

contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the

motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, the

energy bill, you are well aware that no list of earmarks was

provided for that measure because it fell within the same

loophole.

We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the

letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and

provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of

earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior

to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of

disclosure will be in the best interest of the House, its

Members, and the Nation.

We appreciate your willingness to consider our request.

Respectfully,

David Dreier.

Doc Hastings.

Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Peter Sessions.

I would simply say that as of today we have not received a response to that letter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask when it is appropriate to do so, where is the transparency and the accountability promised when the majority in effect, in practice continues to systematically circumvent its own rules and violate its own promises?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished former member of the Rules Committee, my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, a prior colleague who spoke said that this 34-pound bill was that size and weight because of our photocopying. I just want to make clear for the Record that it was handed to us by the majority like that.

I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I would ask my friend how many speakers she has remaining.

I would reserve at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule while closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a ``question of consideration.'' But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept ``amendments between the

Houses,'' such as with this legislation, the omnibus appropriations bill. Because the omnibus is not a conference report, the bill falls squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks contained in the legislation. Any action as announced previously by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is at his discretion.

I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to Rules Chairwoman Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, 2008

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

Americans

Consumer Issues:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission receives over a 27

percent increase over 2007 to help keep dangerous products

out of children's hands.

The Federal Trade Commission receives a 15 percent increase

over 2007 to help fight identity theft and fraudulent or

deceptive lending practices.

Election integrity:

$125 million is included to assist States in ensuring

accurate and reliable elections as we approach the 2008

presidential election. Within this amount, $10 million is

included for a new program to help states improve the

collection of information relating to the administration of

elections.

$200 thousand is included to help students learn about

elections through a mock election program.

Community economic development:

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

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

expand economic development and affordable financial services

for distressed communities.

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

territories:

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

may use its local funds to support needle exchange programs

that help fight the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The bill removes longstanding restrictions on the use of

local funds by District leaders in support of voting

representation in the U. S. Congress.

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

Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands,

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

and raise awareness of the diverse places that fly the

American flag.

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

same proportionate share of election assistance grants that

states receive.

Financial education:

Treasury's Office of Financial Education receives $1.1

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

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

consumers against predatory lending.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's budget is

increased to support investor education and protection.

Taxpayer assistance:

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

IRS outreach and education services for taxpayers and small

businesses, and tax return preparation services at Taxpayer

Assistance Centers.

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

the services of the National Taxpayer Advocate and its

oversight of the IRS.

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

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites.

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

Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics.

Small business assistance:

Small Business Development Centers receive an 11 percent

increase over 2007.

The Microloan program is funded at $17 million. This

includes $15 million for technical assistance, which was

eliminated in the President's request.

Federal workforce:

A 3.5 percent Federal employee pay raise is included.

Federal workers whose jobs are threatened by privatization

will have protections to ensure that competitions against

contractors are fair and unbiased.

Concerns over costly or poorly performed government

contracts are addressed through report requirements that will

enable Congress to exercise greater oversight.

National security:

Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

receives $56.8 million to help coordinate with the rest of

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

combat terrorist financing.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network receives $85.8

million to increase the number of financial transaction

analysts coordinating with intelligence agencies and law

enforcement, and the number of staff working to ensure Bank

Secrecy Act compliance by financial institutions.

Funding is included for additional Treasury staff to

improve the review process of the Committee on Foreign

Investment in the United States.

$250 million is included as part of a homeland security

border initiative to accelerate Land Port of Entry design and

construction and to assist the Federal Judiciary's

immigration casework.

Caring for our National heritage:

$315 million is included for National Archives operating

expenses to restore research hours and to expand the

workforce of professional archivists.

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

help preserve the historic

documents of states, local governments, universities, local

historical societies, and others. The Administration proposed

to eliminate this program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmental restoration, and recreation, Johnson Creek,

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

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

modified to authorize the Secretary to construct the project

substantially in accordance with the report entitled `Johnson

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

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

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

if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

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

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

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

services or materials.

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

Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of

planning, design, and construction work carried out by the

non-Federal interest for implementation of the project, if

the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the

project.

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

project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest

to participate in the financing of the project in accordance

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

1986 (100 Stat. 4184).

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

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

is repealed.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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