Mortgage Credit Repair Act of 2009

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

I'm pleased to join Chairwoman Lowey at the beginning of the consideration of this bill making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. This bill funds programs that safeguard our national security and promote U.S. interests abroad.

It was first founded under the auspices of the Marshall Plan under the understanding that good diplomacy and development can dramatically reduce national security problems and troop deployments for the United States.

I want to commend Chairwoman Lowey for her bipartisan work on this bill. She's listened to concerns of Members on this side of the aisle and worked to address them.

I also want to thank the staff both on this and the other side of the aisle for so many long hours of work on this. That's Nisha Desai- Biswal, Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Cecilia Alvarado, and Courtney Dunn. I also particularly want to thank Ann Marie Chotvacs, Mike Ringler, Alice Hogans, and Jason Small.

I know that Ms. Lowey and Ranking Member Granger, who is out today, appreciate their personal office staffs' work on this bill, especially Ann Vaughan and Rachel Carter. And I particularly want to thank my staff, particularly Rich Goldberg.

Now, on this legislation, we make one big key change, and that is with regard to the International Atomic Energy Agency's new report on the Iran nuclear program and related responses of the United States to their report. They showed that after producing low-enriched uranium at a rate of 40 kilograms per month over a 21-month period, Iran has now increased its stockpile by 60 percent in just 6 months, doubling its rate to over 80 kilograms of enriched uranium per month.

We know that Iran's greatest weakness remains her economic dependence on foreign gasoline. And we can all agree that the United States taxpayers should not be asked to help increase the supply of gasoline to Iran, especially now, especially after what we saw after the Iranian elections. Surprisingly, this is exactly what our taxpayer dollars have been doing.

In 2007 and 2008, the U.S. Export-Import Bank approved two separate loan guarantees totaling $900 million to expand the largest refinery owned by Reliance Industries Limited, an Indian company that provides roughly one-third of Iran's daily import of gasoline. In effect, the U.S. taxpayer is underwriting the increased supplies of gasoline to Iran.

This bill includes the Kirk-Sherman amendment to prohibit further use of taxpayer dollars to guarantee or insure or extend credit to any company that supplies gasoline to Iran. I think that is a very important step that leads off to legislation that Chairman Berman and I have put forward that we hope, later in the year from the authorizing committee, that will begin to truly squeeze Iran and her need for foreign gasoline.

Now with regard to the overall bill, I am disappointed that we have departed from the tradition of considering appropriations under an open rule. I first worked on the Foreign Operations bill of fiscal year 1984. I was taught appropriations at the foot of Appropriations chairmen Jamie Whitten and Bill Natcher. It was under these historic chairmen that we always considered appropriations bills under an open rule, protected under clause 2 of rule XXI that only monetary amendments could be offered.

Now we have departed from the long tradition established by Jamie Whitten and Bill Natcher. The rule that governs this bill makes in order only eight of 89 amendments, a 90 percent death rate for amendments in the Rules Committee on what used to be an open rule.

I would suggest that the partisan pressures under Speaker Wright, under Speaker Foley, were as bad or worse as now, but we are responding with highly restrictive rules that I think hurt our committee in the long run. I hope that we can address this soon and return to what I would call the Whitten-Natcher tradition.

Now let me turn to the substance of this bill, the product of work of especially Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Granger.

The American people are aware that we face many global challenges that are well addressed in this bill. The funds provide security assistance to our allies in support countries living in some pretty dangerous neighborhoods.

There is another reality of this bill and that is the financial crisis that we see and that we are helping countries through so that they do not collapse, triggering some sort of new global economic downturn.

The allocation given to the subcommittee, $48.8 billion, is an amount, when strictly compared to last year's base, that is very high. But the administration has pledged to eliminate the wartime supplemental spending in favor of a regular appropriations process. If it sticks to that plan, then funding levels in this bill appear to be much more reasonable, and it includes programs for State and USAID operations that I support.

I have to admit, though, I remain in doubt whether the administration really will not request a supplemental next year. In fact, I probably would lay a dollar bet with anyone that we probably will see a supplemental. I hope not. Chairman Murtha has already suggested that supplemental funds may be needed to sustain our troops because of the 302(b) allocation that his Defense Subcommittee received that in his view may not cover all of the FY 2010 needs. In that case, I hope we could restrict funding under this bill.

Now, I know Chairwoman Lowey and Ms. Granger have worked together on a number of very good governance provisions such as language to strengthen oversight of hiring, training and deployment of new staff funded by this bill; and a provision that launches a comprehensive review of roughly $8 billion in global health funding provided by this bill. Too often we forget that the United States has made the largest commitment of health funding ever in the history of mankind. It is something that the United States hasn't yet received enough credit for.

They also agree to language that closely mirrors the fiscal year 2008 bill which prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to organizations that support or participate in involuntary or coercive methods of family planning, and that was the bipartisan commitment that Chairwoman Lowey just alluded to.

The bill also includes amendments from several of my colleagues offered in full committee, particularly like a provision requiring the Secretary of State to report to Congress on deals brokered with foreign nations that receive detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, like Palau.

The June 10, 2009, New York Times reported that the United States has agreed to provide Palau with $200 million in return for receiving 17 suspected Uyghur terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. Now, according to the CIA Factbook, Palau has a population of only 20,796 people. Its GDP is only $164 million. Under this commitment then, the U.S. would be paying the Republic of Palau nearly $11.7 million per Uyghur terrorist.

With average incomes in the United States of $56,000, $200 million would support incomes of over 3,500 Americans; with tuition at $25,000 a year annually, it could put 7,000 students through college for a year. And $200 million also compares poorly to the cost of Guantanamo Bay itself. Guantanamo Bay, as a total facility, cost just $54 million to build. This would be

four times that amount for just 17 Uyghurs.

There is also an amendment in this bill for new oversight and sunset restrictions on funding provided to the International Monetary Fund in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental, and language affirming intellectual property rights protections for U.S. energy and environmental technologies, critical in the G-8 discussions right now and the coming Copenhagen discussions in which China and India have pledged to require compulsory licensing over all climate change and energy technology. Compulsory licensing is a code word for stealing U.S. patents. There will be no green jobs if that provision goes through in the Copenhagen treaty. I am very happy that the House voted nearly unanimously on the Larson-Kirk amendment to prevent that.

Now, Chairwoman Lowey has also described highlights of the bill. I will simply reiterate three very important items related to our national security. This bill includes $1.4 billion for the expanded work of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a $525 million increase to support prosperity and security of our partners around the developing world, a very important program that underlies the key point you cannot have long-term development without policy reform. You can build a dam, but if the government steals everything, all you will have is an empty structure a few years later. The MCC works to address that very problem in an effective way.

When taken together with supplemental funds, this bill fully funds our security assistance request for our strategic allies in the Middle East like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, and continues the fight against illegal drug trafficking in this hemisphere. I think especially with Ranking Member Granger's full backing, we have full funding for the pending request for Mexico and Central America by providing $7 million above the request, also for continued gains made in Colombia.

In summary, this bill is focused on furthering foreign policy and national security interests. It monitors the wise use of our tax dollars and achieves some fairly balanced solutions to some complex problems leading to what I hope will be a fairly bipartisan debate today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I just want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for his leadership on this.

UNRWA is an organization that is utterly irresponsibly run. Any corporation in America of UNRWA's size--which is $400 million a year-- would have an outside independent audit, and yet UNRWA has never had that--and in fact doesn't want it. UNRWA's staff has met with Republicans and Democrats up here and admitted that they, indeed, do make martyr payments to people that have carried out attacks against the people of Israel. And then we've seen all the video of mortar rocket attacks being used from UNRWA schools where UNRWA security personnel clearly could have prevented that.

This bill helps increase the heat on UNRWA, one of the least accountable U.N. agencies. And I really want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I want to thank the gentleman because I have worked very closely with him to support I think one of the key combat-support elements of this bill, which is the National Solidarity Program of the Government of Afghanistan.

We won the war in El Salvador largely through the help of a program called Mayors in Action, in which we funded programs totaling between $5,000 and then $10,000, as long as the community could come together and decide on what project. Having government services and activities in support of the El Salvadoran Government quickly undercut the insurgency and helped win a counterinsurgency campaign there.

Based on the success of that program and others, the National Solidarity Program is now operating in Afghanistan. This bill provides $175 million, largely through the leadership of the gentleman from New York.

When I deployed to Afghanistan in December, I spent quite a lot of time working with Monty Greer and Minister Zia, who described how this program is now in hundreds of villages throughout Afghanistan, but they had a funding shortfall. And working with General Nicholson of ISAF Region South, we put together a plan so that this bill would fund community development programs right behind the advance of U.S. troops.

It has been little noticed so far in this body that 2 weeks ago the United States Marine Corps launched an offensive in the key poppy- growing region of Afghanistan called Helmand Province, and it was that funding shortfall which would have not enabled U.S. troops to have the money to do community development projects right in the wake of their advance, along with the Afghan troops. This legislation allows them to have those tools right away so that the Afghan people will see progress in community development right behind the battlefield. It makes our chances of success much greater. It makes the sustainment and expansion of the Afghan Government much more likely. And bottom line, I think it will save a number of lives, especially for those of our constituents right now working for what sometimes has been called ``Uncle Sam's misguided children,'' otherwise known as the United States Marine Corps.

I yield to the gentleman who has worked with me so much with Minister Zia on this.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's also important to note that this bill carries forward the Kirk amendment that now prohibits any U.S. assistance to a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas--a terrorist organization, as designated by the United States, President Clinton, President Bush and I believe now President

Obama--unless every member of the new Palestinian Government has publicly, in writing, recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced terrorism. Over 20 United States citizens have been murdered directly by Hamas, and having this provision included in this legislation I think is very important.

Also, this legislation reverses the administration's proposed cut for U.S. assistance to Armenia. We provide $48 million in economic aid and $3 million in military aid for Armenia while maintaining military funding parity with Azerbaijan and providing $10 million in assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh. The bill also includes a new requirement for the administration to consult with Congress before exercising its waiver authority for assistance to Azerbaijan granted under section 907 of the Foreign Assistance Act.

Now, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 100,000 and 500,000 Korean Americans still have family living in North Korea. Almost all of them have not seen their loved ones since the end of the Korean War, while many have not seen family members even since World War II. In the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries, elderly Korean Americans are forced to contact their relatives without the protection of the U.S. Embassy or help from the State Department. Families are at the mercy of a black market group of smuggling rings that control access to North Korea.

This legislation urges the State Department Policy Coordinator for North Korea to make the issue of divided American citizen families who have their relatives in North Korea a priority and to establish a coordinator for this issue.

One last thing I want to highlight. As the United States draws down our troop commitment to Iraq, and we have tremendous concerns about safe and secure and sustainable homes and businesses for Iraq's embattled Christian minority, this bill provides a historic $20 million dedicated to religious minorities in Iraq, a big step forward for building an autonomous administrative region for Chaldo Assyrians in the Nineveh Plain. It's an important group that we should be concerned about, especially as the United States leaves Iraq.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We rarely do this under this legislation, but we also have an important tradition of highlighting human rights cases, especially if they set a particularly dangerous precedent. And one of the most concerning precedents is the one set by the Government of Egypt when they imprisoned Kareem Amer, who is the first blogger ever to be arrested for what he wrote on his Internet blog, calling for reconciliation between Muslims and Jews on his personal blog. He was convicted. He's currently serving in prison, and it is a particularly dangerous precedent to have set that merely what you may write in your Internet blog will land you in jail.

It's interesting to me, too, that of all the Muslim countries around the world, Egypt set the precedent, and of all the countries around the world that could have set this precedent against the freedom of speech on the Internet, it was one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance under this act. We have not gone to the step yet of dramatically affecting the U.S. assistance provided by this, but we do have to highlight Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman, his full legal name, and his time in jail, a very dangerous precedent under Egyptian law and one that should be highlighted here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to highlight a key provision of this bill, section 7006, which withholds 10 percent of the funding under this legislation for the Board of International Broadcasting, Radio Deewa. This is a service actually that the chairwoman and I helped sponsor and get rolling because of our perception that there was very little international broadcasting service and outside information in the main language of northwest Pakistan and Afghanistan of Pashtun. But we found that they were putting Batula Massoud on the U.S. taxpayer-funded radio, giving him a platform just 6 days after the Secretary of State put him on the Rewards for Justice terrorism list for his crimes against a number of terrorist targets, including the Prime Minister of Pakistan. So I really want to thank the chairwoman for including this because we sent a very clear signal that we want open and free communication with accurate news, but we do not give platforms to terrorists on the Rewards for Justice list of the State Department.

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

Let me just say this bill also contains one last program-- and then I will close--and that is called the Near East Regional Democracy program. It used to be called the Iran democracy program, and I hope that's still exactly what it does. We're providing $40 million for this, and it's very important. Following the suppression of democracy in Iran, we're particularly concerned about key minority groups there. The Azeris, representing 40 percent of the country, including the leading candidate for president whose vote was suppressed; the Kurds that we worked with so well in northern Iraq; and the Baluch, in which a significant Iranian military presence is there. And I want to pay particular attention to the plight of the Baha'i. The National Assembly of the Baha'i Faith is located in my district; but this is the faith that

was founded in Persia, now Iran. There are 330,000 Baha'is in Iran right now. Under this regime, we have now seen that they have been told to register their businesses and place of address, that this is the bureaucratic machinery that we have seen in other countries in other uniforms before. It is the machinery of oppression and potentially worse. We have seen now that just following the time President Ahmadinejad claimed that he had won the election--remembering, of course, that in 150 Iranian cities, the votes totaled more than the number of people living in those cities--that just following their claim to have won the election after only 2 hours of counting the ballots, that he moved against the Baha'i leaders, putting them on trial for their lives in that country. The Near East Regional Democracy program can help us build alternative voices in that country, all the more important.

Let me close on this bill by saying that this bill has one key and major component, which is assistance to the State of Israel for us. In my view, land for peace generally means no land and even more war, as we saw with Israel's withdrawal from Gaza where an area that used to be used for agricultural produce is now used for mortars and rockets against southern Israel, especially Sderot and Ashkelon. My worry is that we might have more of that kind of adventurism by the other side further if we see instability in southern Lebanon and especially on the West Bank. This legislation helps us underscore our commitment to the Israeli Air Force, their missile defense system and, especially, to their army to at least encourage the states in that region to make sure that no adventurism like we saw, especially in 1973, can move forward against our best allies in the Middle East. My hope is that we have very strong commitment for this on the floor today and in the United States Senate because I think this bill, more than any other, makes any potential conflict in the Middle East less likely; and that is good for us all.

With that, I recommend passage of the bill. I want to commend our chairwoman and our greatly missed Ranking Minority Member Kay Granger, who's out today, for bringing us a bill that adheres to the key principle that I try to follow at every possible turn, and that is the aphorism that we say, that partisanship should end at the water's edge. In my service in the United States military, I generally found that when we were being shot at, they weren't shooting at Democrats or Republicans. They were shooting at American citizens. The United States has bipartisan interests overseas, and this bill fulfills this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I seek time in opposition.

I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. There are many parts of the amendment that I support, like moving funds away from accounts that received a significant increase in the stimulus bill in order to increase funds for safe drinking water and sanitation programs.

Unfortunately, I oppose this amendment for what it represents. We are continuing the movement away from bipartisan consideration of amendments because it appears that the new practice under the Rules Committee is to take a number of Democratic amendments and put them in one group under the chairman's aegis so that it looks like we have a balanced list of amendments offered but really a much larger number of Democratic amendments are being considered. This is a very troubling practice that has now entered into the appropriations bills.

Once again, I would point out, under clause 2 of rule XXI, the only amendments that are allowed under our rules on the floor are money amendments that cut or rearrange funds, not policy amendments. That gives awesome power to the committee on both sides to limit debate on this bill. It's very odd that in all the consideration of appropriations bills before, we haven't really made this a standard practice like is happening now.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I stand corrected. Under the rule it's allowed, but we didn't need rules for appropriations bills. I would reiterate my admiration for Bill Natcher who insisted that his legislation always come to the floor without a rule because it was protected under clause 2 of rule XXI.

I'm also worried about this amendment because it cuts off FMF, Foreign Military Financing, for Sri Lanka. Now the Sri Lankan-elected democratic government was fighting the Tamil Tigers, registered as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Their victory over the Tamil Tigers will bring human rights and democracy to the whole country and remove the need for any kind of military operations which could tempt either side to hurt civilians.

The victory of the Sri Lankan military against the Tamil Tigers is exactly what will bring order, rule of law and democracy to that country. So we're now sending a signal that a democracy who is fighting a terrorist organization and wins will be cut off in its financing by the United States. I would put it to you that if we ever had a rebel terrorist organization operating in our country, maybe like the Confederate States after our victory, it would be odd, indeed, to see some country cutting off funding for us. Yet that's exactly what we did in our civil war. And I would say that a cutoff now is an odd signal when I would expect that the record of human rights, respect for the individual rule of law and especially in democracy will definitely go up now that the Sri Lankan Government controls all of their territory.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I have remaining.

I would say that I think with this amendment it would have been better to have handled it under a different procedure. But the key point that I would make here is there are many good parts of this amendment. I particularly love the part about no first class travel and hope that that goes into the final bill.

I would urge us in conference to reconsider sending the signal that we are sending to Sri Lanka. The general signal should be that when a democratic government engages a terrorist organization, we support the democratic government. When that democratic government wins against that terrorist organization, we should support them. That means that we should support all the aspects of that government that can effect good order and a return to normalcy, which means helping refugees and which means helping the government, but it means helping also to maintain a good relationship with that democracy that just did a good thing in making sure that the world has one less terrorist organization.

So I would urge opposition to the amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to present H.R. 3081, the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. I am deeply appreciative to my ranking member, Kay Granger, for her key role in drafting this bill. This reflects our bipartisan priorities and is a better product as a result of our collaboration.

After all the hard work that Ms. Granger put into this bill, I am deeply saddened that she's unable to be on the House floor with us today to see the passage of our bipartisan product. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my friend, Ms. Granger, and I know all of us wish for her a speedy recovery. Her presence is missed today on the floor, but I know her thoughts are with us, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with her as we move forward with the bill.

The bill has also benefited from the input of our very informed and engaged subcommittee members. The bill totals $48.843 billion, $3.2 billion below the request and $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, including supplemental appropriations.

The bill provides an upfront and transparent accounting of the resources needed to fund our foreign policy and national security interests to end the reliance on supplemental appropriations to fund anticipated needs.

Let there be no doubt, this bill, which funds the U.S.'s diplomatic and development priorities, is a cornerstone of U.S. national security. It includes $4.7 billion for assistance to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to help stabilize, strengthen, and rebuild these critical countries.

In conjunction with funding in the 2009 supplemental, the bill fully funds the U.S. commitments to our allies and partners in the Middle East, including a total of $2.775 billion in FMF pursuant to the MOU between the United States and our ally Israel and our commitments to Egypt and Jordan.

The bill provides $987 million to continue support for counternarcotics and alternate development programs in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean Basin, and Colombia and Peru.

The bill continues the congressional commitment to increasing the capacity of our civilian agencies to carry out diplomatic and development missions and provides resources to hire, train, support, and provide security for 1,000 new Department of State personnel and 300 new USAID personnel.

H.R. 3081 provides $7.6 billion for global activities, including $5.7 billion for global HIV/AIDS, which is $150 million above the President's request. Not less than $750 million will support the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the bill includes $648 million for voluntary family planning services in the developing world, of which $60 million is for the United Nations Population Fund.

Addressing pandemics and other health concerns overseas before they reach our shores is one of the best investments the United States can make to protect American citizens while saving lives overseas. To this end, the bill provides $75 million to address pandemic preparedness and response, in addition to $50 million in the supplemental appropriations act of 2009.

Now, while I continue to be personally committed to permanently repealing the global gag rule, in the interest of bipartisan cooperation, the bill does not change any provisions of law that restrict funding for abortion or otherwise condition family planning assistance.

The bill increases funding for key long-term development priorities, including $1.2 billion to improve access to quality basic and higher education and provide alternatives to madrassas where youth are often exposed to extremism; $1 billion for food security and agricultural development to respond to the global food crisis; over $1.2 billion in bilateral and multilateral assistance for clean energy, biodiversity and climate change initiatives; and $310 million to expand access to safe water and sanitation.

It includes $2.4 billion in refugee and disaster assistance to meet growing humanitarian needs, including in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The bill also provides $450 million for the Peace Corps to jump-start the President's pledge to increase the number of volunteers.

Finally, oversight is a bipartisan priority, and in order to improve accountability, the bill provides a total of $146.5 million for the activities of the Inspectors General of the Department of State and USAID, as well as for the

Special Inspectors General for Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction.

I want to take a moment to thank all of the staff that have worked so hard on this bill, especially Nisha Desai, our clerk, and her team: Craig Higgins, Steve Marchese, Michele Sumilas, Celia Alvarado, Courtney Dunn. I also want to thank Ann Vaughan, Jennie Munoz, and Elizabeth Stanley on my staff for their work.

And I would also like to thank our hardworking minority staff, including Ann Marie Chotvacs, the minority clerk, and Alice Hogans, Mike Ringler, Jason Small, and Rachel Carter for all their work.

Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan foreign assistance package before you preserves our Nation's interests. I urge my colleagues to give this bill our bipartisan support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I would like to yield for a unanimous consent to my distinguished colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) who has been an outstanding member of the committee and has made it a great bill because of her important work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our committee who has made major contributions and has helped make this bill the good bill that it is, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding member of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for a colloquy.

Reclaiming my time, first, I thank my friend for raising this important issue.

Yes, it is the committee's intent to fully fund Afghanistan's nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, and related programs at the President's requested level. We agree these programs are vital to our success in Afghanistan. And as we developed the bill, our funding assumption was, unless otherwise noted, that the President's full request for Afghanistan was met.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, yes, it is the committee's intent to support these activities.

And I yield to the gentleman.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, an outstanding member of the committee, Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I am pleased to yield to Ms. Woolsey.

I thank the gentlewoman for her kind words and for her support for women's health at home and abroad. Healthier mothers will enjoy safer pregnancies and childbirths, enabling them to better care for their children. Bolstering maternal health initiatives can help reduce the 4 million newborn deaths each year in the developing world. The committee has directed USAID to undertake a detailed review of its maternal health portfolio, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California for the purpose of a colloquy.

Yes. The committee is aware that this region is home to most of the displaced ethnoreligious minorities in Iraq.

Yes. It is the committee's intent to support these types of activities.

Yes. There are a number of organizations that have provided health, education, and other assistance in the region and should be considered as potential alternatives to governmental entities. I expect the State Department to continue to use a competitive bidding process to ensure that the most appropriate and effective organizations receive U.S. Government assistance.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a leader in this Congress who understands the importance of water, in addition to bicycles, and has been a tireless advocate for a whole range of important causes, my good friend Mr. Blumenauer.

I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

If the gentleman has no more speakers, I am prepared to close if he wishes to yield back the balance of his time.

As we close this debate, I want to thank Kay Granger again, the ranking member of this committee, who has been an invaluable partner in creating what we think is a very, very good bill. I also want to thank Mr. Kirk for his leadership not only in the committee but certainly in his role in presenting this bill today. We really have an outstanding subcommittee. Again, it's because the subcommittee members and the staff on both sides, who I acknowledged in my opening statement, and the ranking member; as well as the Chair of the overall Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. Everyone contributed to making this a really important bill.

I just must say in closing that, for me, it's a real privilege to be a Chair of this committee, to wake up every day and know that you can contribute to the great challenges we have internationally; and every day we are presented with an additional challenge that we have to face. As the leader of the free world, the United States of America has a key role to play, and I know that all the members of this committee understand our responsibility.

So this is a good bill. I appreciate your support. I hope we can get support from the majority of Members on your side of the aisle and our side of the aisle because this is an important bill; and as we move forward, it's extremely important that all of us support these efforts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

My amendment makes several modifications to the bill. Specifically, it would increase funding for safe water and sanitation programs by $25 million and democracy programs by $10 million. It would provide $300,000 for the implementation of the U.S.-Brazil Joint Action Plan to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination and promote equality; increase funding for maternal health programs by $10 million; and ensure proper use of taxpayer dollars by increasing funding for oversight of Department of State and USAID programs by $8 million. These additions would be offset by reductions to the Department of State Capital Investment Fund and USAID's Capital Investment Fund. The amendment would also restrict foreign military financing to Sri Lanka, but I would note that the base bill includes up to $1 million for demining activities under the nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs' account to continue the work with the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their homes. Lastly, this amendment includes a restriction on first- class travel by employees of agencies funded by this act.

I am pleased to have worked with Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Henry Cuellar, Alcee Hastings, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Marshall and Gwen Moore to address these concerns. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to note that Kay Granger, the ranking member's amendment, is not a money amendment. It's a policy amendment as well.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks but I just want to emphasize, again, that we are providing up to $1 million for demining activities under NADR for the Sri Lankan Government to help the displaced Tamil population return to their home. And in addition to the terrorism that occurred on the part of the Tamil Tigers,

we do have many civilians that have been displaced. And I think it is essential that the Government of Sri Lanka respond to that challenge and help those people return to their homes. So I know that we will continue to follow this issue to be sure that the policy that is in place adjusts to the actions that the government takes.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. Granger and I have worked hard to craft a bill that strengthens the civilian diplomatic and development capacity of the U.S. Government.

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Gates and many of us in this Chamber have said time and time again that the State Department and USAID have to start leading U.S. Government efforts to address the global threats of the 21st century, including preventing and responding to conflict. As our new administration sets priorities, develops strategies and creates greater efficiencies and harmony in our foreign policy, this requires an expansion of people and resources.

The proposed cuts in this amendment, to USAID's operating expenses and the Department of State's operating account, strike at the very heart of the bill's efforts to strengthen our civilian capacity. This amendment would have a devastating impact on USAID and the Department of State's ability to carry out their diplomatic, development, and reconstruction mission.

For USAID operating expenses, the amendment would halt support for over 200 existing personnel, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan, putting the U.S. Government missions in those countries in jeopardy.

The amendment would stop the construction of secure and safe facilities for USAID employees in nearly 30 countries overseas and halt the hiring of 350 new Foreign Service officers as planned in the development leadership initiative which is intended to rebuild the civilian development workforce.

Within the Department of State's operating account, the amendment would eliminate $328 million to add 1,000 foreign and civil service officers to fill the 12 percent vacancy rate at the 260 diplomatic posts worldwide and to fill urgently needed positions here in D.C., eliminate $213 million to add nearly 300 diplomatic security positions to better protect and secure diplomatic and development personnel, and reduce by nearly $700 million funding to regularize diplomatic operations in Iraq.

USAID is a global leader on health, and the proposed cuts would hamper their ability to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The proposed cut in this amendment could result in 18.3 million women being without access to voluntary family planning services, which could lead to an estimated 5.5 million additional unintended pregnancies, 300,000 additional under-5 deaths per year and 15,000 additional maternal deaths per year, and approximately 800,000 people in four high-burden countries going without planned multidrug resistance tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment services.

Congress must strengthen civilian agencies to respond to foreign policy

crises and not cut core programs in our diplomacy and development initiatives, as this amendment seeks to do.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my friend, the gentleman, Mr. Buyer. I agree. And I think most of us in this Congress would agree that we have to get our fiscal house in order. However, we put this bill together in a bipartisan way. And I again regret that Ms. Granger who worked so hard on this bill couldn't be here with us today. And I want to make it very clear that cutting funding for our diplomats who are serving our great Nation in very difficult parts of the world, whether it is Pakistan, Afghanistan, whether it is in Iraq, and I could go on and on, is irresponsible.

So I think it is fine to say that we have to put our house in order. However, I would like to remind you that in the past administration, diplomacy, development and defense were considered the three pillars of our national security. So just to say we can cut $1 billion here and $1 billion there and not to have the consequences, have great impact on the security of our people who are fighting for our Nation, I think is irresponsible.

Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 46, line 4 be considered as read.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

I would like to remind my good friend, Mr. Stearns, that the Peace Corps is also a job-creating program. These are our young people here who are going abroad to serve our country. So it is also a job-creation program for our young people. The Peace Corps, which is funded at $450 million in this bill, has long been one

of America's most effective tools in directly reaching citizens of other countries, demonstrating firsthand the best of American values and generating goodwill for our Nation around the world.

Just last year, Peace Corps volunteers helped train 148,000 teachers, health care workers and other professionals overseas. Their efforts improved the lives of over 2 million people in developing countries, including countries that are vital to our national security interests.

In recent years, the Peace Corps has been chronically underfunded. Last year the agency was forced to cut 500 new positions. Funding the Peace Corps at the authorized $450 million level lays the groundwork to fulfill the President's pledge to increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers at a responsible pace. In addition, the bill calls for the GAO to conduct a management review to ensure that every dollar is well spent and every volunteer's effort is well placed.

In recent weeks I and other Members have heard from thousands of Peace Corps' 200,000 alumni. I am sure there are some in Florida, Mr. Stearns, and other constituents calling for this increase. In fact, the gentleman from Florida may have heard from some of the nearly 7,000 Peace Corps current and former volunteers from the State of Florida.

I hope my colleagues will support me in opposing this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to Sam Farr, a former Peace Corps worker, from California.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a great advocate of the Peace Corps and a distinguished member of the committee, Betty McCollum.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), who is a former Peace Corps volunteer.

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I'm

embarrassed by this omnibus spending bill and the process that created it. Even as the President talks about the need to put our economic house in order, this House continues to spend and spend and spend and spend. Clearly, the Congress has lost its way.

Not one of the nine spending bills in this omnibus was ever considered by the full committee. Six of the nine bills in this package were never considered by the full Appropriations Committee. One more time we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars with no debate, no amendments, no Member input. Yes, clearly, this Congress has lost its way.

It's now standard operating procedure that only a handful of Members in leadership are actually involved in writing significant legislation. This has been true with every supplemental spending package the House has considered over the last 2 years. This was true in the development of the $789 billion stimulus package passed by the House just 2 weeks ago. And, that is true once again today.

Under this rule just adopted, Members have 1 hour to debate $410 billion in spending, with no opportunity for amendments. That equates to nearly $7 billion for every minute of debate. Sadly, the vast majority of our Members will have no voice whatsoever in crafting this measure.

The fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill contains funding for nine of the 12 regular appropriations bills, a total of $410 billion. The new fiscal year began on October 1 and today, nearly 5 months later, we're jamming the work that should have been done last year into one massive, last- minute, ``take-it-or-leave-it'' spending bill.

The spending in this legislation represents a $32 billion, or 8 percent increase over last year for the very same agencies and programs. With the exception of the spending boost after the September 11 attacks, this represents the largest annual Federal Government spending increase since 1978.

At the very time when our economy is forcing families to make do with less, Congress has embarked on the largest spending spree in our country's history. When combined with the three appropriations bills that were signed into law in September, this enacted fiscal year 2009 budget will become our country's very first trillion dollar discretionary budget.

It comes as no surprise that the $410 billion omnibus spending bill contains funding for many of the same government programs that received funding in the $789 billion stimulus package. Stimulus funding for these nine spending bills totals $270 billion. When added together, the combined fiscal year 2009 funding for government programs in both bills is $680 billion--an increase of $301 billion, or an 80 percent increase over just last year.

The real surprise is not the unfettered spending but the complete and utter failure of Congress to encourage any fiscal discipline whatsoever. At a time when American families are cutting unnecessary spending to weather the economic downturn, Congress should be doing the same thing. Instead, the premise of Pay-Go, or ``pay as we go'' is being replaced by the promise Go-Spend under this majority.

This delirious pace of government spending goes well beyond what most people would consider reasonable, let alone responsible. An 8 percent-- or a $32 billion--increase in 1 year on top of the stimulus package is simply unnecessary and unsustainable. Balance is what we should strive for, providing enough money to allow the agencies to carry out their primary missions and to achieve real results. Our public has grown weary of Congress' simply throwing money at every problem in this country. Spending fatigue has set in.

Mr. Speaker, as I commit to working constructively with David Obey this year, I encourage the majority leadership to pursue regular order that is inclusive of all Members so our work can once again reflect the bipartisan voices of this House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

I yield to the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield to the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I don't remember a time in the years that I've been in Congress that I've used a chart. I hope you can see this, but I can't see it very well.

Charts are interesting things. The most interesting part of them is that the numbers change all the time. But I thought it would be very appropriate to follow on to the comments that Mr. Kingston had made.

This package before us is a reflection of what has to be the worst possible year for the Congress in terms of their willingness to just throw the people's money at almost any problem around as though that is the solution.

I've described this as the first--hopefully the only--trillion dollar-plus discretionary budget in the history of the Congress. Indeed, in every category of spending--the 08 year, the 09 year, adding on to it the omnibus package, the $800 billion package that just passed--we have radically increased and adjusted that which will be going on in government not just in the fiscal year ahead of us, but setting a new stage for spending that I believe could lead to destroying the dollar as we know it.

If you just look at these categories. Here's in the area that has to do with energy and water. In that package, we have approximately--if I can read this thing properly--$30.9 billion in 08. In the 09 year, combined with the omnibus, that package goes up to $77.6 billion. That is a 151-percent increase in spending in this category of national funding, 08 to 09.

Most outrageous is the subcommittee that is chaired by the chairman of our full committee, my colleague and friend from beautiful downtown Wisconsin. In the 08 fiscal year, the Labor, Health and Human Services bill spent $144.8 billion. That's not trillion or million. It's billion dollars.

When you combine both the 09 spending year with the omnibus, the total in these categories of spending runs to $276.6 billion; a 91 percent increase over the 08 year. Think about that. A 91 percent increase in the largest discretionary package in all of our spending outside of national defense. Absolutely, it's clear to anybody who could think about it.

We're raising the bar, the foundation point for spending across the board in the Federal Government; and as we do so, we put pressure on spending across the board every year subsequent to the 09 year.

So year in, year out, we're going to be breaking the bank by way of additional spending.

If the public is concerned about its Federal Government--especially the tax-paying public who are legitimately working for a living--if they're worried about it, they will take a look at this chart. We'll be glad to make it available. It's time that we got a handle on just throwing money or mud at the wall--taxpayers' money, if you will.

This trillion-dollar package is a reflection of the Congress not doing its work. I come to the well with this chart simply to urge everybody who is listening to recognize that it's time that we send a message to the people's House: Enough is enough. We've got to get a handle on this or we're going to destroy our economy.

Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has stopped doing its work by way of regular order, that is, having hearings in the subcommittee, hearings in the full committee, coming here and having open rules. Instead, we're passing trillion-dollar packages with no input from the Members of the people's House, thereby no input for the citizens out there who pay our bill in the first place.

With that, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this package and urge you to help us make sense out of the way the system is working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very unusual circumstance for me to do this, but addressing my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, personally, let me say that you've heard a lot from me about the fact that I am disconcerted about the way we got here, but nonetheless, this omnibus process has been a long and difficult one in development. And you are to be congratulated for the effort you put into this not only recently, but much of last year, and I have every respect for that effort.

But having said that, I was joined by all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were in attendance at the President's address last evening. President Obama demonstrated to all of us, as well as the public, his immense capability as a public communicator. In many, many ways he said exactly the kinds of things we need to be discussing with each other if we're going to get America back on track.

President Obama urged all of us to reach out in as much bipartisanship, nonpartisanship as possible to make sure that we stimulate our economy, create jobs, leading America to a new opportunity in the years ahead. Following that, I would have hoped that the work of the House would reflect that very spirit; but, indeed, I mentioned earlier the omnibus package of some $800 billion that was just passed a couple of weeks ago, a bill that went forward with very, very little Member input, virtually no subcommittee work within the Appropriations Committee, a single hearing within the full committee, coming to the floor with no significant possibility of amendment, and yet we were literally one more time throwing the people's money in suggestion that we would solve problems that way. That was just 2 weeks ago.

And then we came to the President's address just last night. And here we are, the day after that, spending another $410 billion by way of this omnibus package that absolutely is a reflection of the worst of the way the House ought to be working.

When we take nine bills from last year, put it in a single package, having no serious Member input, no subcommittee work, almost no Member of the House having an opportunity to provide amendments, et cetera, it is the worst reflection of the way this House ought to be working. Indeed, if we continue on this pathway, we won't just in the first couple of months of this session be spending $1\1/2\ trillion of the public's money; we will be setting the stage for undermining our economy for the years to come. I'm afraid unless the public gets the message clearly enough that they send a clear voice by way of their communication with their membership, we won't change this pattern. And, indeed, the destiny of the country will be dramatically affected by such misdirection.

I urge the Members to express their view regarding this by way of voting ``no'' on the package before us.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The point that the chairman is making is a very, very important point. We do have a constitutional responsibility to spend the people's money by way of appropriations. Over the years there has been a tendency to concede all of that authority to an administration, Democrat or Republican, and people get up here and harangue about our exercising that constitutional charge that we have. The chairman is making a very important point. Years and years ago, literally every subcommittee chairman, as the chairman said earlier, pretty much dictated what went on in the whole budget. There was very little individual Member input. And the administration had an exchange over time. We ceded so much of our authority, it is very much a time for us to begin to reconsider this recent history, and I appreciate the point the chairman is making.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 184, I call up the bill

(H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I think we've already debated this issue extensively. This bill is needed to fill in the gaps left in the existing budget for this year. It is the last of yesterday's business so that we can move ahead to deal with the President's expected new budget. I would urge support for the package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 1105.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, for the last year and a half, this committee has been taking every reasonable action to ensure transparency in the earmarking process.

As an article in today's Roll Call says, ``The disclosure system implemented in the 110th Congress now allows for all of these Members' earmarks to be located with a simple search of the online version of the bill, allowing for more transparency than ever.''

One aspect of the transparency process is to list the names of every Member requesting an earmark. It has come to our attention that a small number of earmarks with multiple sponsors inadvertently omitted some Members' names--a simple staff error. To ensure full and complete transparency, I am entering into the Record the additional names that should be attached to those requests. These are not new projects. We are simply adding additional Members' names who should be listed as sponsors or as cosponsors.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25FE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25FE09.002

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

I yield an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really hate to take the time, but I do think in light of all that's been said that one last time I need to put in context what it is we're doing with this bill.

As I indicated earlier, last year we finished our international bills, but we reached an impasse with then President Bush because the President insisted that he would only sign appropriation bills that fit within his budget recommendations. Those budget recommendations were some $20 billion short of what the Congress determined when it passed the budget resolution that we needed to provide for those programs. If we had simply acquiesced in President Bush's programs, we would have cut the Job Corps, we would have eliminated Employment Service grants, we would have cut senior jobs by $172 million, we would have eliminated vocational education programs, we would have eliminated three student aid programs including the Perkins loan program, we would have funded the highway infrastructure at $800 million below the level guaranteed in the authorization, we would have cut airport modernization grants by 22 percent, we would have eliminated Community Service Block Grants, and we would have cut Low Income Home Energy Assistance by $570 million, and we would have cut health care access programs by $1 billion. As I said many times on this floor, I have never had anybody come up to me at home and say, ``Obey, why don't you guys in Congress get your act together and cut cancer research?'' And yet that's what the previous President and the previous Republican-controlled Congress did over a 2-year period. They cut over 900 medical research grants out of the National Institutes for Health. We objected to that and said, no, we didn't think that ought to happen.

So we then offered the President a compromise. I called the White House budget office, and I said, look, why don't we at least just split the difference between these bills so we can get something done on the domestic side of the ledger? They said no. At that point we had a choice. We could acquiesce in these reductions or we could say, no, we're going to bet on the outcome of the election. We did. Mr. Obama won. We now have a White House which is firm in its beliefs but also one that recognizes that people have to compromise to get things done.

This is now a compromise package brought to the House. This has been worked out at the staff level between Republicans and Democrats alike in both the Senate and the House. And the Senate minority leader, Senator McConnell, while I suspect he will vote against this package, urged us to take it up 3 weeks ago because he indicated it had been fully vetted by both sides, by both parties, and he said in his estimate he thought it would pass with an overwhelming vote. We shall see.

But I want to explain two other things about this bill, what this bill really does. And it's been suggested that this bill is not at all coordinated with the stimulus package we passed last week. Absolutely false. This omnibus bill does two things: It provides base funding for the programs funded in the Recovery Act without which those additional recovery funds would not be useful. Example: the Social Security Administration. While the Recovery Act provides $1 billion to the Social Security Administration to replace its computer center and to process increased disability retirement requests, this bill provides $10.5 billion for Social Security operating budgets. It doesn't do any good to have a computer center if you don't have an operating budget. This bill provides the other half of the funding that's needed to make our promises on Pell grants to students around the country a reality.

The recovery bill in the area of highways provided $27.5 billion for additional highway construction. This bill provides $40.7 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The recovery bill was built with this package in mind.

The second thing this bill does is to provide basic funding for all kinds of programs that were not increased by the recovery package. Three-quarters of the accounts in the Federal Government did not receive an additional dime in that recovery package. This bill takes care of the base funding for those programs.

Now, we hear some concerns expressed from the other side of the aisle about the number of earmarks in the bill. Give me a break. The last time that our party controlled the House of Representatives, we had, for instance, in the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill, depending upon how you define them, either zero earmarks or nine. When the Republicans lost control of the Congress, they were providing over three thousand earmarks in that subcommittee bill. That's the story, I mean as a practical matter. The other side didn't just let the cat out of the bag when it came to earmarks; they let out the whole blessed zoo. So now we have tried to reform that process, at the same time being respectful for Congress's right to determine how funding is directed in the budget. So we have a good many earmarks in this bill. Those earmarks represent congressional decisions about where dollars ought to be spent.

I would point out virtually every agency Secretary has far more in discretionary funds than the Congress has to distribute in earmarks. In fact, virtually every dollar in Secretary discretionary funds is nothing but funds that are reserved for administration earmarks or the functional equivalent thereof.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one other point. We have heard a lot of concern expressed today on the other side of the aisle about the deficits that are being mounted by this bill in conjunction with the stimulus bill. Let me point out I have heard seven different times Members on that side of the aisle refer to the fact that this is a $400 billion bill. It is not. It is a $410 billion bill. But $390 billion of that represents requests on the part of the Bush administration. So let's keep that in perspective.

Secondly, I really don't want to have to take lectures from those who supported the idea that we should borrow $1.2 trillion in order to provide tax cuts over the past years, the lion's share of tax cuts going to the very wealthiest people in this society. I don't want to hear lectures from people who essentially provided what will eventually be $2 trillion in costs for the Iraqi war.

A number of us tried to assure that at least half of the money that we provided to Iraq in economic aid would be in the form of loans, because Iraq has a lot of oil and sooner or later is going to be a rich country and we wanted to see the American taxpayers reimbursed for some of the costs of building schools, building roads and all the rest in Iraq. No, we couldn't get the votes to do that.

But now we face a serious problem in our own country, not in Iraq, but in our own country. And so, yes, in combination of this bill with the stimulus package, or the recovery package, as it's known, there is an awful lot of money being spent. I make no apology for that, because we are trying to fill what is going to be a $3 trillion hole in the economy because of the rising unemployment numbers.

I want to use this chart for what I hope will be the last time. This chart demonstrates what is likely to happen in the economy if we do nothing. The red bars indicate what estimates are in the economic community, what estimates are of what will happen to unemployment rates if we do nothing. These red bars indicate that by the end of next year, the economics profession largely expects us to have unemployment around 11 percent, perhaps even higher. The blue bars represent what we hope will happen if the government passes a $750 billion economic recovery package.

As you can see, unemployment, even under that scenario, is expected to rise through the remainder of this year before it begins to turn down next year. What we have tried to do is simply shave off the worst, most extreme effects of this recession. That's what we have tried to do with the stimulus package.

So what we have really had here today is a regurgitation of the debate that occurred 2 weeks ago on that stimulus package. But the fact is that if you take that stimulus package and add it to this package today, you are still only talking about a package of $1.2 trillion to counter what is supposed to be a $3 trillion hole. I would submit that it is very easy to imagine that we will, in fact, be back here asking for even more by way of countercyclical funding to counter the deep slide that we see in our recession.

Poll after poll demonstrates that you have close to 70 percent of the American people who agree with what President Obama is trying to do in passing the package to produce this moderating effect on what will otherwise be the most serious recession since the thirties.

So I make no apology for the fact that instead of providing billions of dollars for economic recovery in Iraq, we are not trying to provide a good amount of money to provide economic recovery here at home. I thought that's what our job was, to primarily concentrate on the needs on the home front.

I would point out one other thing in closing. For all of us who have talked and told our constituents that at a time of extreme economic distress at home, Members of Congress should not be getting a pay raise next year, if you want to assure that that, in fact, happens and that we deny that pay raise for the coming year, then you must vote ``yes'' on this bill, because without this bill you do not have the limiting language that was inserted in this bill by the rule that was passed earlier today.

With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Just for clarification to the gentlewoman (Mrs. Emerson), the D.C. School Vouchers Program will remain in effect. It has been funded this year for $14 million. It remains in effect until June of 2010. It will then be up to the authorizing committee to speak to our committee as to what they want to do. It will also be up to the D.C. Government to tell us if they wish to continue the program. The program stays in effect until next June, and I think that will give us ample time to find out how everyone feels about the continuation of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Chairman Obey for yielding time so I can comment on the Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill. I'd also like to thank him for the hard work he has put into bringing this bill to the floor.

The Financial Services and General Government section of this bill provides important funding to ensure that the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the people, and increases resources to ensure the agencies under this section have increased resources to perform important oversight roles over the operation of our banks and of Wall Street.

The bill provides $22.7 billion in discretionary appropriations for programs within the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the General Services Administration, the Small Business Administration, and several smaller agencies. This bill directs funding to programs in these agencies where we believe money will be well spent and will benefit, for example, disadvantaged communities and small businesses.

The bill also directs funding toward agencies that have important roles in our efforts to promote economic recovery. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included nearly $6.9 billion for agencies in the Financial Services bill, including the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration. The bill we are considering today will provide these agencies with funding to enable them to fully implement important recovery activities, such as support to small businesses and making our Federal buildings and vehicles more energy efficient.

I also want to highlight briefly four important themes in the Financial Services bill--financial sector oversight, consumer protection, small business development, and election administration improvements.

With respect to financial sector oversight, the bill provides funding increases over last year's level and the previous administration's requests for Treasury's Departmental Offices, information systems, and Inspector General. While this bill doesn't directly fund the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, it funds the Office of the Secretary and other executive leadership offices at Treasury that have central responsibility in making policy decisions on TARP. These funds will help ensure that the remaining TARP money will be distributed in an open and fair manner.

Mr. Speaker, I also want the House to know that we have increased the budget for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This bill includes a $37 million increase over the FY 2008 level, and is above the funding recommendations of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. This is just a down payment toward restoring the ability of the SEC to vigorously oversee the financial markets, enforce securities law, and protect investors.

If I might take a moment to look ahead, this subcommittee will be taking a hard look at

those agencies that failed in their duty to protect our economy. Although they are under new leadership now, we will have important questions for them in how they conducted themselves, and what resources and changes are needed to ensure such a crisis does not occur again in the future.

Regarding consumer protection, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would receive $25.4 million above the FY 2008 level. These extra funds will be used to continue the effort we started in the last Congress to restore the Commission's ability to keep unsafe products, including unsafe imported products, out of the marketplace. Money is also available in the bill for the Commission to improve the safety of pools and spas to prevent tragedies involving child drowning.

Consumer protection is also important with respect to financial products such as mortgages and consumer loans. My subcommittee held a hearing last year that examined the problems relating to the subprime mortgage market and what the Treasury Department and the Federal Trade Commission could do to address this situation. Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which will receive $107 million in this bill, or $78.4 million above the previous administration's request, helps to expand the availability of credit, capital and financial services to underserved communities throughout the nation, including those particularly hard hit by the credit crisis. The Federal Trade Commission will also receive increased funding for investigation and enforcement in the financial services area, including subprime lending investigations.

This bill also does a great deal to support small businesses by including $612 million for the Small Business Administration. This includes $110 million for Small Business Development Centers, which is $13 million over the FY 2008 level. We also provide $22.5 million for microloans and technical assistance to the smallest companies.

In addition, the bill funds SBA programs that target disadvantaged and low-income communities and entrepreneurs, including the HUBZone program, the PRIME program, and the 7(j) program.

The fourth important theme is improving election administration. The Election Assistance Commission is a small agency that works on issues that are extraordinarily essential to the Nation and to voters' confidence that their votes are counted accurately. This bill includes $100 million for payments to States to help them meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as well as additional funding for research and testing of voting systems. This funding will help ensure that elections are fair, accessible, and accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services section of this bill also includes a number of policy provisions that will address some ongoing congressional concerns.

It includes, for example, a moratorium on new competitive sourcing-- also known as A-76--activities. The provision halts the previous administration's controversial and detrimental Federal workforce program so that the new Administration can consider and implement its own workforce policies.

The bill also contains a provision to prohibit funds from being used in support of the IRS private debt collection program. Under this very misguided and wasteful program, the IRS allows private contractors to collect unpaid taxes and to keep up to 24 percent of the tax revenue they bring in. This program should be terminated, and the prohibition on funds will help ensure that the IRS better redirects their resources elsewhere.

The Financial Services section also includes provisions to liberalize travel to Cuba for Americans who have family members living in that nation. There is no reason to place any restrictions on those who simply wish to visit their families that are still in Cuba. In addition, the bill contains provisions to facilitate trade with Cuba relating to agricultural and medical product sales.

This section of the bill also encourages our Federal Government to address an important Federal worker benefit issue that has already been successfully dealt with by about 10,000 private sector employers, including more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. We have included report language that clearly states that, ``OPM should consider taking steps to extend health care benefits to Federal employees' domestic partners.'' It is past time for our Federal Government to take a lead in providing this important employee benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services provisions of this bill include many important funding and policy choices that will improve the services our government agencies provide to our constituents as they pay taxes, purchase products, vote in elections, and start small businesses. I urge a yes vote on this bill.