A resolution congratulating Cal Ripken Jr. for his induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, for an outstanding career as an athlete, and for his contributions to baseball and to his community.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am far from enthusiastic about voting for this bill, but I will do so despite its shortcomings.

Ironically, one of the worst shortcomings is that it is too long. It rolls into one massive measure provisions from no fewer than 11 regular appropriations bills that the House passed earlier this year, creating a ``consolidated'' omnibus that was not finished until yesterday and that very few if any Members have had a chance to completely review.

I regret that once again the apparent inability of the Senate to pass all but a few appropriations bills has led to this result. This is not the way Congress should do its work. That is

why I have joined as a cosponsor of a resolution, H. Res. 283, that would change the House's rules to generally bar consideration of a conference report including accounts within the jurisdiction of more than one appropriations subcommittee--and, while technically the measure before us is not a conference report, I think that it would be better not to proceed in the way we are doing today.

An even greater shortcoming is that this bill fails to provide the level of funding I think is needed for some important purposes. This results directly from President Bush's insistence that he will veto any bill appropriating more money than he has requested for domestic purposes and from the blind loyalty of Republican members of Congress, both here and in the Senate, who have made clear they will support any such veto.

But, despite these shortcomings, I will vote for the bill because it still is better than would have resulted if we had simply rubber- stamped the President's budget requests and because it includes provisions that will directly benefit Colorado and the Nation.

On a matter of great importance for all Coloradans, and especially residents of our Western Slope, the bill retains my amendment barring BLM from proceeding with final regulations for a commercial oil shale leasing program during fiscal year 2008, plus additional language in the explanatory statement that makes clear that the Interior Department must provide adequate time for the Governor and the public to provide input before any such final regulations are adopted.

This demonstrates that Congress has listened and will insist that the administration move carefully with regard to commercial-scale development of oil shale, even though the revisions of the oil shale provisions of the 2005 energy policy act approved by the House earlier this year are not included in the Senate version of the energy legislation that the House will consider later this week. Those revisions would have required that BLM issue proposed regulations and allow ample time for public comments on them. The language in this appropriations measure, which affects only final regulations, is consistent with that approach.

And the bill also provides funding for many things of direct immediate benefit to Colorado, including much-needed improvements to our transportation infrastructure, the continued acquisition of lands in the Beaver Brook watershed for inclusion in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, and work by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation with respect to our vital water supplies.

Other examples of specific items for use in Colorado include funds for child abuse prevention and treatment programs in Golden, for career training in the health professions at Aims Community College in Greeley, for health information systems at the Avista Adventist Hospital in Louisville, for facilities and equipment to be used by Children's Hospital in Denver.

The bill's provisions for the National Park System include funds for several Colorado units, including land acquisition at Mesa Verde and for construction work at Rocky Mountain National Park. It also makes a start toward the Centennial Challenge initiative which has such promise for parks in our State and nationally.

And Colorado and the entire country will benefit because the measure includes funds for the vital work of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, including critical funding for the Energy Systems Integration Facility, ESIF.

ESIF will be a state-of-the-art facility to accelerate research into energy systems integration and the key issues of interconnectivity and control of resources. The $55 million included in the bill for ESIF will enable NREL to begin construction on this needed facility in fiscal year 2008, and the $7 million for South-Table Mountain, STM, Infrastructure will help with initial construction on this site while the $8 million for solar equipment will allow NREL to purchase state- of-the-art solar equipment for the Solar Energy Research Facility.

There is also funding for energy-related work at the Colorado School of Mines as well as for use in connection with a biodiesel project in Costilla County and the sustainable biofuels development center.

In fact, the bill provides a full $486 million more than President Bush requested for investments in solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency--something that I am very glad to support.

In addition, I am glad that there is funding within NASA's earth science account to initiate important climate research missions as well as well as an endorsement of language in the House-passed Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations report that called for continued support for climate sensors already in development. This includes the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor, TSIS, which is being built by the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.

However, as chairman of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I am disappointed that to construct a bill the President would sign, the higher funding levels for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, provided in both the House and Senate bills had to be sacrificed. It is clear that Congress recognizes the value of NASA's activities in science, aeronautics, and exploration, and I hope the President will send Congress a budget request next February that would give NASA the resources it needs to carry out its important missions.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I want to highlight some of the items in the measure that are particularly important for Colorado's servicemembers and veterans.

These include $61.3 million for the parking structure and energy plant at Fitzsimmons Veterans Hospital and $7.3 million for a new F-16 facility at Buckley Air Force Base.

In addition, the bill will provide $35.1 million for the Pueblo Chemical Depot, to be used for construction of on-site chemical destruction facilities, with the goal of completing clean-up at the facility by 2012.

And it includes nearly $170 million to support Fort Carson in the context of the stationing of two new brigades and the new headquarters of the Fourth Infantry Division. This includes $53 million for new barracks; $18 million for an addition to Evans Army Hospital and a dental clinic; $8.3 million for a Defense Access Road to allow personnel and equipment to deploy easily from Peterson Air Force Base; $4.9 million for a new indoor range; $72 million for new unit operation facilities; and $13.5 million for construction of new facility support operations for the 13th Air Support Operations Squadron.

There is also $24.5 million for an Air and Space Integration Facility at Schriever Air Force Base and $15 million to upgrade academic facilities at the Air Force Academy.

Mr. Speaker, I could continue at length but will conclude by simply noting that the bill provides much-needed funding to study diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, and diabetes; to help small rural hospitals; and to provide 280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to health care. It includes more adequate funding that the president requested for education--including special education, after- school programs and Head Start, Pell grants and other student assistance--as well as for assistance to state and local law enforcement and homeland security.

So, while as I said the bill has serious shortcomings and while I would change many parts of it if I alone were ``the decider'' about the matter, I think it deserves approval tonight and I will vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I simply want to compliment Chairman Serrano in providing great leadership in the financial services area. This is one of the few bills that was substantially under the President's request, and in fact, it's more than $1 billion under the President's request, which was kind of unusual.

But more importantly, I won't begin to get into all the features of the bill, but because of the news in a recent editorial in The Post, we note that Mayor Fenty and Chancellor Ray are trying to improve the school system of the City of Washington. That's a huge challenge; and in this bill, we've tried to give them as much support as possible in their effort to improve the opportunities for the young people in the Washington, D.C., community. This city should be a leader in education.

Secondly, and there's language in here and I don't know how many of you noted in The Post a couple of weeks ago a story indicating that D.C. has the highest HIV/AIDS rate of any major capital in the world. That's shameful and should not be, and we've provided language in this bill to not only provide help to other countries but to provide help to this city to address that problem and a lot of other features which, regarding the interests of time, I won't get into.

As ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, I would like to thank Chairman Serrano for creating such a fair and open environment in composing the Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill. Chairman Serrano has provided great leadership, knowledge, and an inclusive spirit while shepherding this bill through. Additionally, my colleagues on the subcommittee have provided valuable insight to the final product before us today. Lastly, but equally as important, I would like to recognize the hard work, dedication and expertise of the subcommittee staff on both sides of the aisle without which none of this would be possible.

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill allocates $20.6 billion in discretionary budget authority. By taking into consideration the priorities of the President and the Members of the House and Senate, we have produced a bill that meets the needs of Americans, and the operations of our government while staying $1.1 billion below the President's budget request and approximately $800 million below the House request. I appreciate the efforts of our counterparts in the Senate in helping us put forth this compromise.

Although the subcommittee's allocation is below the President's request, it is still a significant increase from fiscal year 2007 and contains more than adequate funds for the 32 agencies in this bill to fulfill their missions. 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, protect consumers from harmful products, 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 10 years, assists in the administration of Federal elections and protects consumers and investors from fraudulent practices.

At this time I would like to highlight several items of importance to me.

I am particularly pleased at the $97 million for Small Business Development Centers, an increase of nearly $10 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. This program is vital to the life of small business.

I am also encouraged to see $1.1 million for Treasury's Office of Financial Education, an increase of approximately $400,000 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 to ensure maximum programmatic impact.

Additionally, the bill increases essential funding for the Internal Revenue Service to close the nearly $300 billion tax gap. 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.

Last, but not least, I am supportive of the funding appropriated in the bill to improve education in the District of Columbia. We are in a unique position to help the new Chancellor and Mayor provide a better future for the children of Washington. The children in Washington, DC, 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 DC a chance to succeed.

Also, the bill contains language regarding HIV/AIDS in DC. One in every 20 city residents in Washington, DC, is thought to have HIV, and one in every 50 has AIDS; these rates are higher than those in many poorer countries. I find this astonishing and disheartening. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Mayor, and the administration to address this serious problem.

Chairman Serrano has done a fair job in allocating funds to the various agencies within the bill. However, I do have a couple of spending concerns, which I would like to outline.

Primarily, I am concerned about $125 million added to this bill in unrequested funding for election assistance grants. This program has not been authorized to receive funding in 2008, and there still remains a large carryover balance, which leads me to believe this money cannot be used effectively before the 2008 elections.

I am also concerned about the elimination of funding for the Department of Homeland Security to begin planning their new headquarters building. This funding is critical to begin relocating DHS employees who are currently spread out all across Washington, DC, under one roof.

Lastly, I am pleased to note that all of the contentious policy riders have been eliminated from the bill. Therefore, I strongly support the Financial Services and General Government section of this bill.