Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 2206) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 2206.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Let me start by saying what is not in this bill. There is no money in this bill for agriculture, there is no money for western wildfires, there is no money for western schools. All of that will be in the next bill, which will be considered separately.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is our response to the President's request for $100 billion in additional funding for the civil war in Iraq, after he vetoed the Congress's first attempt to deal with that problem.

What the bill does is to provide roughly $40 billion in funds that are needed for the troops. We provide $30.5 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We provide additional funding for training of Afghan and Iraqi soldiers.

We provide $3.5 billion for defense health, a number of these items we are providing the President has not asked for. We are providing, for instance, for the full $3.1 billion for base realignment. That is money which he asked for last year, but not in this bill.

We are also asking for $1.8 billion for veterans health care, which he did not ask for. We are asking for $2.2 billion for homeland security to strengthen our ports, our border and our cargo security.

We are providing $660 million to defend this country against the flu pandemic, which could kill many more Americans than have died in Iraq if we get hit with that flu. This is money the administration itself asked for 2 years ago.

We are also, in addition to that, asking to finish a number of jobs left over from the last Congress. We are asking to finish the construction, the job of cleaning up the mess after Hurricane Katrina.

We are also trying to restore 40 percent of the cut that the previous Congress, last year, made in the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program in light of the higher energy prices that are rising every day. And we are providing, roughly $400 million in order to keep some of America's poorest kids from losing their access to health care.

In addition to that, we are fencing the remaining funds that the President has asked for, for Iraq, and we are fencing that money, just as we did in 1984 when the MX missile issue was in dispute. And that money is being held until the President issues three reports.

By July 13, he needs to issue a report defining the progress Iraq is making in meeting the benchmarks which the President himself laid out several months ago.

And we also ask him to submit a second report outlining whether or not any of those benchmarks have actually been achieved.

And then, in addition to that, we are requiring a monthly report on the combat-ready status of Iraqi military units.

When the Congress receives those reports, it will then have about a week and a half before it has to consider, under expedited procedures provided in this bill, it would have to consider, essentially, two questions.

The pending question before the House would be whether or not the remaining funds should be released so that the President, essentially, gets all of his money with no strings.

The second proposition to be voted on is whether or not that money should instead be used to simply reposition our troops out of a combat role in Iraq.

We make certain exceptions, the same exceptions that we had in the bill the last time it was before the House. And I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think we guarantee that the administration has a fair, clean shot at getting the result it wants; and I think those in this Chamber who want a different result and want to see a new policy in Iraq, will get a clean shot at their preference.

What we are, in essence, doing is giving the President about 60 more days to make his case before those votes occur. I think that is eminently fair to him, and I think it is eminently fair to those of us in the Congress who disagree with his position.

We are trying to find a way to reach a final decision on these matters, even though many of us in this body very strongly disagree with the President's package. With this package, we will have compromised, now, on three very major items. We will have compromised on the initial Murtha principles with respect to military unit readiness by providing a waiver for the President.

We have also compromised with respect to the time line, because we have kept in our national bill that he vetoed, we retained the initial date by which troop repositioning was supposed to begin. But the final close-out date was left very much an open-ended affair. That was a huge concession to the White House.

And now, in a third concession, we are offering a way for the President to get the rest of his money. All he has to do is issue these three reports and then go to the Congress and try to persuade the Congress that his case is better than those who have a different view. That is a straight, fair way to deal with the problem.

And I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the majority party that is in a hole. It is the U.S. policy toward Iraq that is in a hole. It is not the majority party that is in disarray. Last time I looked, the headlines said that there was a bunch of Republicans going down to the White House yesterday to tell the President that the jig is almost up on his Iraqi policy.

The gentleman says we should fully fund the troops. We have provided $4 billion more for the troops than the President asked for. We are fully funding the troops. What we are not fully funding is a bankrupt policy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the gentleman is telling the House is that he thinks his accounting principles are more important than providing additional veterans medical care. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than providing the funding for base closure. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than port security, cargo security, and border security. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than defending this country from a pandemic flu epidemic. He is saying his accounting principles are more important than providing a bunch of kids in this country with the health care they need.

And then he squawks about the tunnel in the Capitol. The fact is what we are doing is protecting workers who were exposed to life-threatening asbestos. That is what we are doing.

So the gentleman may like the ad that we hear for the accounting company. He may have a passion for accounting. I would much prefer if he had a passion for people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me simply point out to the gentleman that in the last session of Congress, it took the Congress almost 110 days to respond to the President's request. Let me also point out that the first 30 days of this session were occupied because, while he was majority leader, we never managed to pass a single domestic appropriation bill, and we had to finish his unfinished business, which took the first 30 days of this session.

Let me also point out that we have had two meetings with the administration. We have laid out a number of compromises. I have laid out, frankly, to the administration that we are pursuing a two-track strategy. We asked them what concessions they would put on the table. They still have not put a single concession on the table in their conversations with us on this side of the Capitol. So absent that, we have no choice to proceed except sit here like a bunch of potted palms waiting for a miracle. Not many miracles on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Democratic Caucus chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Could I inquire of the gentleman from California how many speakers he has remaining?

We have only one remaining speaker, so why don't you proceed?

Parliamentary Inquiry

I have no idea what any Member put out by way of press release, and I claim no responsibility for any statement made by any Member.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that this motion is very simple.

It simply removes the provision in this bill which fences almost $50 billion pending the three reports from the President that we have talked about for the last hour. The effect of it is to give the President every dollar he wants, no questions asked, no oversight, no review, no nothing. It is a blank check, and it guts the bill, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, if you remove the fencing, you remove all pressure for policy change. That's the last thing we ought to want to do. If you vote for this motion, it is an endorsement of the status quo. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 387, I call up the bill (H.R. 2207) making supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the bill which the President vetoed last week, in addition to funding for the troops in Iraq, we provided funding for a number of other high-priority purposes. We provided additional funding above the President's request for veterans' health care, something which the President did not want. We added additional funding to defend the country against a potential epidemic from the pandemic flu virus that our scientists are concerned about. The President asked for that money 3 years ago, but this time around said he didn't want it in the bill. The President said he did not want to see the money that we put in the bill for homeland security and a variety of other programs.

It seemed to me the administration took special pleasure in also objecting to the fact that we had agricultural disaster funding in the bill and that we had the funding in the bill to respond to the court decision on western salmon and we also had funding in the bill to deal with Western school programs that had been allowed to lapse by the previous Congress and several other provisions like that. The President said that those programs didn't belong in this bill because they weren't emergencies.

Well, in fact, I think the President had it backwards because what the President seemed to suggest is that the only legitimate funding for an emergency appropriation would be for the war in Iraq. In fact, the war in Iraq should not be funded at all as an emergency appropriation. After all, it has been around for more than 4 years, despite the President's landing on that aircraft carrier. And the fact is that the President, in order to hide the full cost of the war, asked for that war to be funded in 11 different slices. Those funds should have been provided in regular appropriation bills, not in supplementals. So it is the President who has the usual practice figured out just backwards. We didn't object to dealing with the Iraqi problem, and we would appreciate it if he would not object to dealing with other legitimate emergency problems.

The President seemed to suggest, in his veto message, that we didn't have the courage to deal with the agriculture and other related issues alone, that we had to slip them in, so to speak, in the Iraq bill. And, frankly, that got my dander up. And so now that we are back in the second bill, I have insisted that when the House votes on this matter tonight that we vote on it separately to demonstrate to the President that there is support in both parties, I believe, for dealing with some of these issues, especially with the agriculture problem.

Now, I didn't declare 70 percent of the counties in this country to be disaster areas. The President did. The Congress has an obligation not to ignore those declarations and act accordingly, and that is what we are trying to do. So very simply, we are going to have these votes tonight, and I am glad that we are.

There are two items that are not in the bill that should be in the bill. One is spinach. When the President vetoed the bill, his administration made a lot of fun of the fact that we had funding for spinach in the bill. Well, there is no spinach in my district, but let me tell you why we had that funding. Nobody was laughing a year ago when people were deathly sick because they had consumed spinach that was contaminated with E. coli, and then the Federal Government went to spinach growers and asked that they take their products off the shelf voluntarily, and when they did that, that cost those spinach growers a lot of money. Now, I have heard a lot of conservatives and liberals alike in this House complain and cry and whine all over the floor when the government engages in an uncompensated taking from a private citizen. Well, if you tell an industry that they can't collect for their product after they have been asked by the government to take it off the market even though 99 percent of that spinach was perfectly safe, then what have you done? You have engaged in an uncompensated taking. Now, that may not bother many people in a city like Washington, D.C., where a lot of people look down their noses at anything rural, but the fact is that farmers are entitled and spinach growers are entitled to the same kind of consideration any other economic group would have in this country.

The second thing that isn't in here is funding for Great Lakes fishery problems. We had several Members of the minority party make fun of the bill 2 weeks ago because they claimed we had money in the bill for tropical fish. Well, I want to tell you what we had in the bill. The Federal Government discovered last year that fisheries in the Great Lakes, especially in Lake Michigan, that fish were being found with a disease called viral hemorrhagic septicemia. It does to fish what ebola does to human beings. It is a bloody problem. And that problem, if left unchecked, has the potential to destroy the entire Great Lakes fisheries. That is an 8 to $9 billion annual business. So what we tried to do was to simply recognize the plight of a few commercial fish growers who were told by the government they could not ship their product across State lines because it would endanger the entire fisheries, and so they complied. The irony was under the law if the fish produced by those farmers had been diseased, they could have collected from the government, but because those fish were healthy, they couldn't. So they were stuck in a catch-22 situation.

We tried to fund that, and we got laughed off the screen because the demogogues in this institution and demogogues on the other end of the avenue made fun of a problem that is a very serious environmental problem. We have taken that item out of the bill, too, simply because there is only so much bowl gravy that you can counter in a political debate. So we are left with the bare bones proposition that deals with legitimate problems faced by farmers and faced by Western States with respect to wildfires and the other problems funded in this bill.

So I am happy we finally are going to have an opportunity to vote on these items standing alone. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Ms. DeLauro.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Let me keep it short and sweet, Mr. Speaker. Let me simply point out that the items contained in this bill are not new add-ons. They are essentially items that clean up and finish last year's unfinished business. That is certainly the case with agriculture disaster. It is certainly the case with rural schools, a program which the previous Congress allowed to lapse. It is certainly the case with western wildfire, and it is certainly the case with the western fisheries' issues which the Congress of last year should have dealt with but didn't.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is really quite interesting. What it says is that the same folks who want to spend $57 billion on tax cuts on millionaires this year, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks who are comfortable with the idea that we have got over a trillion dollars in unfunded tax cuts, all paid for with borrowed money, the same folks that want us to spend, no questions asked, at least $600 billion in a sad, sad war in Iraq, these folks have suddenly gotten religion, and they now have a motion that says they would like to see this bill be deficit neutral.

What that mean is they are going to ask the farmers of America to bear the full weight of deficit reduction in this bill. This is simply a device to kill the bill because instead of asking that the bill be reported forthwith, it asks that the bill be reported promptly. That, as you know, is code language for killing the bill. I don't think I need to say anything further.

If you want to provide the funding in this bill, you will vote against this motion to recommit. If you care about the farmers, if you care about the western wildfire problem, if you want to meet our obligation to the parts of the country that generally get stiffed and ignored, then you vote against the motion to recommit. If you care about these folks, you will vote against the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 9, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and pending that I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this issue before us is the kind of issue that the Congress was designed to deal with. This Congress exists today because in 1215, almost 800 years ago, our forefathers many times removed, by adopting the Magna Carta, established for the first time in the English-speaking world the principle that the monarch was not unilaterally sovereign.

That expression wound up being turned into a reality for our country in 1789, when the Constitution of the United States was adopted. That Constitution created three coequal branches of government. It gave this body, the legislative body, the Congress, the ability to declare war. It certainly gave us the obligation to oversee the conduct of war. It gave us the obligation to oversee the use of taxpayers' money in dealing not just with war, but with every other issue as well.

The President yesterday vetoed the legislation now before us, which, for the first time, had he chosen to use it, would have given him the opportunity to have an exit strategy for a war that has brought incredible frustration and agony not just on the people of Iraq, but the people of our own country.

Now, the President has told the public that he is ``the decider.'' Well, he is a very important decider, but he is not the only decider in a democratic form of government. The ultimate deciders are our constituents, and we are elected to speak on their behalf and to participate in that decisionmaking. That is what the Congress did when it passed this legislation through both Houses.

I regret very much that the President did not use this legislation to establish a bipartisan approach to the war which has plagued us now for more than 4 years.

As we all know, yesterday was the fourth anniversary of the President's landing on that aircraft carrier under the banner ``Mission Accomplished'' and telling us that our troops had fulfilled their mission. Indeed, they had;

our troops won the war in Iraq, but it is the White House, in its pursuit of its Iraqi policy, it is the civilian leadership of the Pentagon which systematically, especially in the early days, ignored the judgment of the military that has brought us to the chaos that we see in Iraq today.

Now, the legislation before us attempted to do a number of things. It attempted to meet the financial needs of the budget in supplying our troops with everything that they need. Secondly, it attempted to hold the administration accountable and to hold the Iraqi Government accountable for the actions that they have taken. And thirdly, it was meant to provide the beginnings of an exit strategy from that civil war. The President has decided to veto that legislation, and the question before us now is whether we will override that veto or not.

The President said in his veto message yesterday that we had all too many so-called nonrelated items in this bill, along with funding for the troops in Iraq. I don't believe that the American people would agree with the President that $1.8 billion for veterans health care, $3.3 billion for defense health programs, $2.2 billion for additional Homeland Security initiatives, $6.9 billion for Katrina recovery, $663 million to protect the country from the ravages of a potential world flu pandemic, or $650 million to prevent kids from losing health insurance is unnecessary funding. I think the American public recognizes each of those as a legitimate expenditure of public funds.

I also think that the President has focused so much attention on those items simply to divert public attention from the fact that this bill is first, last and foremost about the war. It is about how we get our troops out of the war. It is how we send a message to the Iraqi politicians that our troops cannot be expected to accomplish the compromises that only they can reach if that war is to be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge every Member of this House, regardless of party, to vote to override the President's veto.

And I would point out to the President that we already have provided for two major compromises in this legislation. When we first established the Murtha principles for unit readiness, the White House objected. And so we said, all right, we'll change that, we will give the White House a waiver. When the White House objected to the timetable that we laid out for withdrawal of our troops from that civil war, again we compromised, and we said we will keep as hard deadlines the deadlines by which we must begin that process of redeploying troops, but we made the end date for the actual withdrawal of our troops from combat in a civil war, we made those dates extremely flexible in response to the President's views. So we have already compromised on two very major items in this bill.

Now that the President has laid down his veto, it seems to me that he has an obligation to lay on the table what compromises he is willing to make in order to bring us together in pursuit of an exit strategy from a war that we should never have gotten into in the first place.

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

Mr. LEWIS OF California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

The gentleman expresses his concern about funding designated as emergency spending. In fact, I would point out that the President himself asked for the antiflu money that we put in this bill. The President himself asked for that money 2 years ago as an emergency request.

I would also note, since he has expressed concern about our micromanaging the war, I would simply say we have had the administration providing us with bad intelligence. We have had the administration demonstrating bad judgment in saying we would be welcomed with open arms. We have had them demonstrate bad judgment in ignoring General Shinseki's warnings about the number of troops that would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq. We have seen bad judgment in the President's refusal to talk to the Syrians and the Iranians. We have seen bad judgment all across the board for the last 4 years. It seems to me that we are badly in need of having some kind of management to that war, and if it is not going to come from the executive branch, then the only alternative is for the Congress to express its views.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would simply point out to the gentleman who just spoke that the bill before us specifically allows our troops to continue to go after al Qaeda in Iraq, even after they are repositioned out of fighting that miserable civil war.

I would also simply say, the gentleman asks ``What do you think al Qaeda thinks.'' I think al Qaeda wants us to stay in Iraq. It is clear from the beginning that they were happy that we went there, that we got sucked in there, because we have served as a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. That is what al Qaeda thinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

I would also observe that our soldiers don't have the power to require Iraqi politicians to quit killing each other and make the diplomatic and political compromises necessary to end this civil war. Only Iraqi politicians have that, and we are trying to send them a message with this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

We are ready for our summary statement.

Absolutely.

I would simply say that I appreciate the work that the staff has done on both sides of the aisle, and the work that they will continue to do. It's going to be a long time before this issue is disposed of. I appreciate the fact that they worked, literally, night and day to bring us to this point.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke said that withdrawing from Iraq will destabilize the Middle East. The President's policy has already destabilized the Middle East.

He says that this policy endorses failure. The fact is that the only endorsement of failure comes on the part of those who will vote to continue the President's existing policy, because the President's policy in Iraq has been a 4-year failure.

We need a change in direction. The only question about the President's policy is whether it will produce a disaster or whether it will produce a catastrophe, and I am afraid it will produce the latter.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 332, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the President the exit strategy from the Iraqi civil war that up until now he has not had.

Next Tuesday will be the fourth anniversary of the President's ``Mission Accomplished'' landing on that famous aircraft carrier. On that date, U.S. troops had won the war in Iraq, but since that time the administration's mismanagement, their misjudgments, and their missed opportunities have entangled us in a quagmire that has become a prolonged civil war. That civil war has gutted our influence in the Middle East and much of the world. In the last 4 years, the administration has spent over half a trillion dollars. It has stretched the Army to the limit, brought our Guard and Reserve to the breaking point, and reduced our military to the lowest state of military readiness in modern history.

The President has refused to finance this war through the normal appropriations process. He has chosen to mask the true cost of the war by paying for it on the installment plan through a series of supplemental requests. He has

now requested another supplemental of almost another $100 billion in military spending, and almost $4 billion in other additional spending. The bill before us today is our response.

We provide $4 billion more than the President asked for for troops in the field. The President is objecting on two grounds. First, he does not like the conditions we have placed on funding for the war. Second, he objects to the money we have added for other crucial activities. He calls it ``pork.'' So do some of the charter members of the ``Invent Your Own Facts Club'' that seems to populate this institution.

We have provided $4 billion more than he has asked for for operation and maintenance for personnel costs and for procurement.

We have provided $750 million more than he asked for for Afghanistan.

We have provided $2.2 billion more for military health to meet the medical needs of our returning soldiers. We have added $1.8 billion for veterans health care above the amount the President asked for.

We have provided $2.2 billion more for aviation security, port security, and border security.

We have provided $80 million more for nuclear nonproliferation, and we have added $150 million for the FBI.

We have provided $650 million more than the President asked for for the pandemic flu emergency, cleaning up an action that last year's Congress never got around to completing.

We have provided $3.3 billion more for Katrina, again cleaning up some more business that last year's Congress failed to complete.

We have also provided $3.1 billion more for BRAC which the administration itself asked for in its budget last year.

We provided $500 million for wild land fires, the same amount put into the same account by the Republican majority 2 years ago for the same purposes.

We have added $400 million to low income heating assistance because the previous Congress cut that by $1 billion. We should have added back the whole billion dollars, but in the interest of saving money we confined it to $400 million.

We have added $425 million to continue the rural school payments in the West that the last Congress never got around to renewing. Unfortunately, they allowed that program to expire, as they allowed so many other things to expire last year.

We have also provided $3.5 billion for agriculture disaster, again an issue which has been hanging around for more than a year. The President has declared more than 70 percent of the counties in this country to be agriculture disaster areas. There ought to be some action that flows from that unless we are taking the President's initial action to be meaningless.

We have also provided $396 million in SCHIP to make certain that low income children and low income families don't fall off the State health care rolls. We have been asked to do that by bipartisan Governors from 14 States.

If the President wants to object to those items and call them pork, or of members of the flat earth club in this body want to call it pork, that's fine with me; I think the public will look at those issues somewhat differently.

The President is attacking these additional items as a smoke screen to obscure the fact that the key issue on this bill is whether or not there will be a change in direction with respect to our policy in Iraq.

This bill supports the troops. It begins to hold Iraq and the administration accountable, and it points the way to ending our involvement in a protracted civil war.

As a condition of providing the President with the funds he has asked for, we require that our American military units meet certain standards that are known as the Murtha standards. They simply require that any unit sent into battle be fully combat ready. They would require, as the Defense Department already has for the most part, they would require that any unit that has been in Iraq does not have to stay there for more than a year without relief, and they also require that if they are sent back, they get to spend at least a year at home before they go back. And in an era where no one is being asked to sacrifice except military families, it seems to me those are all minimum goals that we all ought to be willing to adhere to.

Because the President rejected these requirements, we have given him the right to waive these requirements, but only if he spells out to the country why he has departed from them. That is imminently reasonable. He owes the country that explanation.

We require that Iraq meet certain performance benchmarks, benchmarks that were first laid out by the President himself, and we tie those benchmarks to a timeline. If those benchmarks are met, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin by July 1. If they are not met, they must begin by October. Those dates are firm. The goal for completing such redeployment is 6 months after it starts.

Now, the President objects to the fact that we are setting timelines, but the Secretary of Defense himself was quoted in the Washington Post as noting that these timelines, in fact, have helped give the Iraqis a message that we are not going to stay in Iraq forever. We stand by them. We believe these benchmarks and these timelines are necessary in order to give General Petraeus the ability to make clear to the Iraqis that we are not going to stay there forever, while they refuse to make the political compromises necessary to end the civil war.

Iraqis and the President must understand our troops won the war. They cannot achieve the political and diplomatic compromises that are needed to end the civil war, only the Iraqis can do that.

Four years after ``mission accomplished'' is long enough, Mr. Speaker. If the President were here I would simply say to him, ``Mr. President, with this bill we have compromised on two fronts. We have responded to your objection to the Murtha principles by giving you the ability to waive them; all you have to do is explain why to the country.'' We have responded to his concerns about those timelines by adjusting them and making them somewhat more flexible in terms of their completion.

So I would say to the President if he were here, ``Mr. President, it is your turn; we need a new direction and we need it now. Please do not say, as you said last week'' I will talk but I will not compromise. ``Mr. President, after 4 years, you need to change the direction. You need to sign this bill.''

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following tabular material reflecting the funding levels in the conference report.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25AP07.013

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the Chair of the Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say in response to the previous speaker, last session your party couldn't even pass a budget. Last session your party couldn't complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill.

You may not like the decisions we have made, but at least we have made them. And we have had to spend the first 30 days of this session finishing the work that you could never manage to get around to. So I suggest you look to your own house before you start criticizing somebody who has at least gotten the work done that you couldn't get done last year.

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

I simply want to take this time to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle. They worked overtime for many days and many nights, and I appreciate it very much, especially the committee staff director, Rob Nabors.

I would also simply say that we have heard twice now from the minority that this bill endorses failure. Not at all. What we have seen the last 4 years is a failure of intelligence. We have seen a failure of the administration to listen to career military. We have seen a failure to plan for the occupation of Iraq. We have seen a failure on the part of the administration to give the Congress accurate information. We have seen a failure to focus on al Qaeda and Afghanistan rather than being diverted to Iraq. We have seen a failure to understand the nature of the civil war in Iraq. And as a result, we have seen a tremendous collapse of American influence in the world. It is tragic.

I urge an ``aye'' vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, some days it is very interesting to watch what happens in a place like this. This is the most serious issue that this Congress will confront this year, and this motion is addressing that issue in the most unserious manner possible. This motion is presented by the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, and then he says he is going to vote against his own motion. I would like for a moment to remind the body of what this House is supposed to be.

The core purpose of this Congress, the main reason for its existence is to deal with issues like this. Today, the United States Congress is supposedly regarded as the greatest deliberative body in the world. We exist today, if we remember our history, we exist today because almost 800 years ago our British forefathers placed the first limitation on the absolute use of executive power in the history of the English speaking world when they forced the English monarch to sign the Magna Carta.

Over 500 years later, that evolved into the United States Constitution, which created three branches of government, with checks and balances designed to prevent arbitrary and unilateral exercise of unchecked executive power in order to protect liberty.

Because of that Constitution, and under the procedures defined by that Constitution, we are here in the fifth year of a war which this country was led into under false premises. And we are debating how the Congress should respond to the President's escalation and intensification of our involvement in an Iraqi civil war. We are also debating his request for another hundred billion dollars to continue that war.

He is also asking for billions of dollars in additional spending for other domestic and international activities, including flood control, nutrition programs, education and cultural exchanges, disease control in Southeast Asia, and salaries for U.S. marshals. The majority of both Houses have voted to try to bring about a change in direction in that war. We believe, at least those of us who supported the bill two weeks ago, we believe that our soldiers won the war that they were asked to wage, but that it is unrealistic to expect them to do something that they have no power to do, which is to force Iraqi politicians to make political compromises necessary to end the carnage in that country.

By this bill, we are attempting to put enough pressure on those Iraqi politicians and those Iraqi factions to make the compromises necessary to allow our troops to end their involvement in that civil war. And to do that, we have in the legislation now before us conditioned our continued presence in Iraq on Iraq's meeting certain performance benchmarks, which were first laid out by the President himself.

This motion, which has now been offered by the gentleman, is an example, I think, of people falling off both sides of the same horse at the same time because we have people who say they don't want us to put limits on the President's conduct of the war, now insisting that in fact we adhere to the very proposals that we passed just 2 weeks ago.

I want to say that this is, I think, despite the fact that it is an unserious motion, I intend to accept it because it is simply, in essence, a re-vote of what the House committed itself to 2 weeks ago.

The reason we have timelines in this bill is because we want to give General Petraeus the ability to use Congress as sort of a bad cop/good cop routine in order to convey to the Iraqi politicians that they must resolve their differences if they expect us to remain there for any significant length of time at all. There is no way that we can create that kind of pressure on Iraqi politicians unless we maintain the proposals that we made in this House bill.

The President wants none of these limitations to pass. I find it interesting that people who say that we should proceed to compromise are now offering a motion which in essence tells us not to compromise. In the end, we know that both sides are going to have to compromise; but in the interest of getting us to conference so that we can begin that long arduous process, which I fear will take many months, I am going to accept the motion of the gentleman, even though I regard it as a very quaint way to move to a position of compromise between the President and the Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to understand what this war has really done. This war has gutted our influence in the Middle East, it's gutted our influence in the world, it's divided our own country, and it's united our enemies. Outside of that, it's been a terrific idea.

Our troops won the war clearly, cleanly, and quickly. But now they are stuck in a civil war. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania points out, the only solution to that civil war is a political and diplomatic compromise, and there are no American soldiers who can get that done.

Although it certainly isn't intended to do it, this motion in fact carries out the comments made by Secretary of Defense Gates, who testified before our committee, before Mr. Murtha's subcommittee, that the war was militarily unwinnable, that it could only be won on the political and diplomatic front. In fact, The Washington Post carried this paragraph this morning. It said: ``Secretary Robert Gates told reporters traveling with him in the Middle East that congressional demands for withdrawal had been constructive. `The strong feelings expressed in Congress about the timetable probably had a positive impact, in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open ended commitment,' Gates said.''

When the bill was before us the first time, our Republican friends did not bother to offer a recommital motion. Why? Because they were divided about how to proceed. They could reach no agreement. They had no policy. Now they are offering a motion which they say they are going to vote against. Is that the best they can do? We have heard talk about a surrender date.

The only surrender that is involved here today is the surrender of the obligation of this Congress to oversee Presidential and executive branch policy. The only surrender is the total surrender of our obligation and our authority to a White House that has demonstrated from day one that it had not a clue of what it was getting into, and it today has not a clue about how to get out.

We have to provide better leadership than that, and that is what this bill before us tries to do. I would urge support for the gentleman's motion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Then let me yield myself 2 minutes before the gentleman closes.

Mr. Speaker, 2 nights ago I was watching the Public Television series on the Iraq War, and I saw one of the gentlemen who is generally regarded as being one of the intellectual architects of that war, Richard Perle, say the following: ``We do not leave the battlefield with the first casualty.''

I would simply note that an awful lot of people who have never seen a battlefield or been anywhere near one seem to be awfully anxious to make that kind of a statement.

When I heard that comment, I was reminded of a comment of my old friend, the philosopher, Archie the Cockroach, who said once that there is always a comforting thought in time of trouble when it's somebody else's trouble.

But as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has pointed out, there has been no sense of shared sacrifice in this country over this war. The only sacrifice most Americans are being asked to undergo is to take a tax cut.

Well, it seems to me that we ought to start asking whether it is right and indeed whether it is moral to allow a tiny band of American citizenry, military families, to bear the entire burden of this war that so many noncombatants seem to be so enthusiastic about. It seems to me we need to bring about a different policy that will indeed have equal sacrifice.

There are a lot of people who are apparently willing to fight to the last drop of somebody else's blood. I think it is time for that to stop.

We, on this side of the aisle, choose to take seriously the gentleman's motion, even though he himself indicates he does not intend to take his own motion seriously because he intends to vote against it.

I would urge that every Member on this side of the aisle, and I hope on the other side, would take this motion with the deadly seriousness that it deserves. Because lives are at stake. They are the lives of innocent Iraqis and they are the lives of innocent American troops who are simply being asked to carry out a policy which is increasingly futile.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the gentleman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 1591.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Yesterday, a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle sought to belittle the legislation before us because, in addition to funding the needs of the troops in Iraq, it contains money to address a number of domestic priorities. To ridicule that legislation, they tried to belittle items such as funding for levees in New Orleans, and agriculture disaster payments. In that they have been joined by editorial writers at papers such as the Washington Post.

Like the Post, the Republican speakers of yesterday indicated that their main objection to this legislation is the way it tries to create pressure to end our military involvement in an Iraq civil war. Those speakers and the Washington Post editorial writers make no effort to understand why these additional items are there. They simply ridicule them for their own purposes. This bill has my name on it, and I take full responsibility for each and every item in the bill.

Despite the comments of my good friend from California suggesting that if I could have written this bill, it would have been quite different, this is not a bill that was imposed from Nancy Pelosi's Speaker's Office. Oh, yes, she was consulted. But every last provision in this bill was not included until I personally approved of it, and I take full responsibility for it.

I want to be very clear about some of the items that the editorial writers and certain Members of this House have been criticizing.

Let's start with agriculture. I haven't voted for a farm bill in the last 10 years because I believe that existing farm programs provide way too much funding for large farmers and way too little funding for family farmers. But the fact is that over the past 2 years, over 70 percent of the counties in this country were declared disaster areas, not by me, but by the President of the United States. That entitles farmers who have suffered that weather-related disaster to certain forms of compensation.

The previous Congress tried to work its way through that problem for well over a year and failed. We at one time this year were looking at a bill in the Senate costing $6 billion. Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Peterson on this side of the Capitol, the cost of those agriculture disaster programs have been cut by one-third, by tightening up eligibility requirements.

I applaud him for making those changes.

There is a second criticism being made about the fact that there is some money in here for dairy. You bet there is. Because under the Republican stewardship, during the last Congress, or two Congresses ago, actually, in order to use an accounting gimmick, the then majority on the Agriculture Committee arranged to have the dairy program expire one month before every other farm program. That was done only for budget fiction purposes, to hide the true cost of the farm bill 5 years ago. You bet, in this legislation there is a 1-month fix so that when we go into writing the next farm bill, dairy will have a chance to compete with other farm programs.

I find the Washington Post criticism of this especially interesting, since they often squawk about the fact that farm programs give too much to large farmers. The MILC Program happens to focus on small farmers, which is why so many big farmers don't like the program. I make no apology for recognizing that is an inequity that needs to be fixed.

Then we have a squawk about spinach. Let me tell you why spinach is in here. You can laugh about it now, but people were dying last year because of an E. coli outbreak.

Now, the FDA did not have the authority to require mandatory recalls of spinach. What some of these companies did, despite the fact that their product was clean, they voluntarily withdrew their product from the market. That cost them a bundle and brought a lot of people to near bankruptcy.

I have heard a lot of conservatives on this floor talk about how outrageous it is when the government engages in an unconstitutional taking. They usually are talking in terms of land or environment. Doesn't the government that required or that asked these people to participate in the withdrawal in order to protect public health, doesn't that government have an obligation to people who exercise their patriotic duty and did what they were asked? I think they do. That is why this is in here.

Then they are squawking about aquaculture. Well, let me explain why that item is in the bill. In eight States in the union, fish farmers woke up one morning and discovered that the Federal Government had issued an edict which prevented them from transferring their product across State lines because lake trout, in the Great Lakes region, had been discovered to have viral hemorrhagic septicemia, a highly virulent fish disease. If it was allowed to get into lakes, in the Great Lakes, it could have ruined the entire fish supply. So, the government said you can't sell your fish across State lines.

Again, the problem was that the fish that they were prohibited from shipping across State lines was all healthy. In a catch-22 situation, if their fish had been diseased, they could have collected under disaster programs. But because they were healthy, they couldn't collect. So the government put those people out of business.

Does the government have an obligation to correct that problem? You better bet you they do. That is why it is in this bill.

There are some other items in the bill as well that people don't like. But the main frustration on the part of the opponents of this bill is because people don't like the way that we are going about trying to end our military participation in an Iraqi civil war.

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like the Washington Post, it is that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this Chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of the Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians, that we are going to end the permanent, long-term babysitting service. That is what we are trying to do.

If the Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that is just too bad. But we are in the arena, they are not. This is the best we can do, given the tools we have, and I make absolutely no apology for it.

I would say one thing, those of us who voted against the war in the first place wouldn't have nearly as hard a time getting us out of the war if people like the Washington Post and those who criticized us on the floor yesterday hadn't supported going into that stupid war in the first place

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that we could do as the distinguished speaker has indicated and simply rubber-stamp what the administration asks for and do nothing else. But the fact is, what we are doing is exercising our responsibilities to provide checks and balances; Congress has every right to limit the terms and conditions under which appropriations are made, especially in wartime.

I would also point out that lest there be any doubt for the support of the troops, in addition to all of the funding that Mr. Murtha has put in his section of the bill to meet the everyday combat and readiness needs of the troops, we have $1.7 billion above the President's request for veterans health care; we have another $1.7 billion above the President's request for defense health care. I think that makes quite clear that if you are concerned about the troops and concerned about the veterans, you will vote for this bill.

I will now yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The fact is that an earmark is something that is requested by an individual Member. This item was not requested by any individual Member; it was put in the bill by me. And it is there because we are simply doing the same thing with this facility that we are doing throughout the gulf coast, which is to make investments that mitigate against risk because of hurricanes.

This is a valuable Federal facility, and it certainly does not pass any definition of earmark that I know. I know the gentleman wants to see earmarks in every closet that he can find, but the fact is it is not an earmark. It was not asked for by any Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the characterization just placed on the previous speaker is flat out wrong.

Last night we had plenty of time for a lot of Members who didn't show up before the session expired. We called the gentleman from Ohio's office twice to inform him he had time available last night even though he was opposed to our position. He wasn't in a position to take it last night. So I would suggest that we have a different set of speakers today. We called on four Members of the caucus last night who were opposed to our position. And if the gentleman is suggesting that we have not called on Members who are opposed to our position, he is just flat out wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

With all due respect, we called your office twice last night, and we were informed that you had already gone home.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the subcommittee Chair on Foreign Operations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has quite a bit more time remaining. I suggest he run some off the clock.

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

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that at the end of the debate the closing speech on the Republican side will be given by our good friend from Texas Mr. Johnson. I think everyone in this place respects him and loves him.

I must say that having gone through this for the last 3 weeks trying to talk to each and every person who I could reach about this measure has given me a profound respect for a good many Members of this institution whom I had not known before, especially the newcomers.

The caucus that we had this morning was one of the most moving experiences that I have ever felt in my 38 years in the Congress. I heard Member after Member stand up and discuss this issue as a matter of high principle; but they also discussed it in terms of what the impact of their votes would be, not on themselves, but on the people of this country, on the soldiers who are fighting in the field, on the people in Iraq, and on our country's ability to influence the world.

This is a very tough issue. There are many considerations that each of us brings to this judgment, but in the end, I think we have a choice. As I said earlier today, we have a choice in determining what kind of Congress this is going to be. We can continue the practices of the past which rubberstamped virtually everything the President wanted on Iraqi policy. We can continue to do what he wants and only what he wants and only when he wants to do it and only in the way he wants to do it; or we can do what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they created the Congress. We can exercise checks and balances in order to try to move policy into a more constructive direction for this country.

If you oppose this bill today, and if you take the position that all it should contain is what the President sent down, then you would be saying that you wanted to finance BRAC, the base-closing program, by gutting key education programs as the President recommends. You would be opposed to additional border security, additional port security and additional cargo security.

You would be opposed to finally, after all of the horrendous pictures and all of the horrendous human suffering, you would be opposed to finally meeting our total obligations to the victims of Katrina.

You would be opposed to asking for the money which the President himself asked that we provide in 2005 on an emergency basis to prepare this country to meet the pandemic flu epidemic which will surely at some time come.

You would be opposing the additional $3.5 million that we have provided in this bill for veterans' health care and defense health care, and you would be opposing the timelines and the benchmarks which we place in this legislation, not because they are so perfect, but because they are the instrument by which we communicate to the Iraqi politicians that they must begin to resolve their differences, they must step up, because we are not going to run our baby-sitting service forever.

It is imperative that we finally send that signal. The President cannot send

that signal, but we can help General Petraeus. We can help our own government by sending the signal that this Congress is going to play bad cop until the Iraqis get the message.

That is what Mr. Murtha's efforts have been about, that is what mine have been about, that's what the Speaker's efforts have been about, and that's what the efforts have been about by virtually every person in this caucus and this House who has had a say in what this bill was going to contain.

I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman is entitled to his own opinions; he is not entitled to his own facts.

There is nothing in this bill whatsoever that has anything to do with tropical fish, unless he thinks that Lake Erie is in the Tropics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minority leader has chosen to trivialize one item in this bill, which represents our direct responsibility to people who work in the most outrageous conditions on Capitol Hill. Roll Call itself, in describing the funding that we have in this bill on the Capitol heating plant, which the majority leader just trivialized, wrote that ``what we have on our hands is a `horrific scandal'. The working environment for the 10-member Capitol tunnel shop team resembles that of hell.''

One of our own Republican colleagues in this House is mentioned in the editorial as describing the conditions in that heating plant as, quote, ``inhumane and unprofessional,'' and said of the tunnel workers, that they are ``probably going to end up dying because of their exposure to asbestos.''

The money in this bill is for cleaning up the asbestos problem, which people in that tunnel have to work in every day. I make no apology whatsoever for providing that funds. The minority leader ought to be standing side by side with us to meet our obligations to clean up that mess. I am surprised he doesn't recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 261, I call up the bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here? We are here because 4 years ago the President plunged us into a preemptive war in Iraq, a country that had not attacked the United States, and we took that action on the basis of bad information, manipulated intelligence, with no visible plans for governing after the war was over.

Mr. Speaker, that attack diverted us from the hunt for bin Laden, the person who did attack us.

The war has now gone on for 4 years and, as a result, we have seen chaos and carnage. We have seen over 3,000 American service men and women die, many times more wounded and maimed. We have seen our influence decimated throughout the Middle East. We have seen our reputation as the democratic hope of the world tarnished by stories about torture and rendition.

I voted against that war. There were 215 Republicans who voted for it and 6 that voted against it. There were 81 Democrats who voted for it and 126 Democrats who voted against it. We had 132 votes, in total, against going to war. And ever since that time, we have been trying to get to 218 votes so we can turn this country and this war around.

Over the last 4 years, this war has been fought with virtually no sense of shared sacrifice. Military families have done double and triple duty, while the rest of America has had to accept the sacrifice of a tax cut. That is about all that has been asked of most Americans.

We have spent a huge amount of our national treasure, and now the President is asking for another almost $100 billion for this war and asking for an additional $3.5 billion for his own domestic priorities.

This bill is our response. It says to the President: ``Okay, you can have that money, but only under certain terms and conditions.'' And we try to do three things: number one, to redirect a greater effort to the right war in Afghanistan, rather than the wrong war in Iraq. Secondly, we try to protect our troops to the maximum extent possible and correct the neglect that they have suffered as they have returned from the battlefield. And, thirdly, we are trying to send a message to Iraq politicians that they need to change direction; that we will no longer tolerate an open-ended, interminable babysitting job; that they must get together and begin to resolve their own differences.

This bill sets a timetable for repositioning our troops out of Iraq. The exact timetable will be determined by the performance of the Iraqis and whether or not they meet important political and military benchmarks.

And this bill establishes a target for finishing our redeployment in any circumstance. It recognizes that our troops won the war, but it also recognizes that the President's plan calls upon troops to do something that they do not have the power to do, namely, to convince Iraqi factions to reach reasonable compromises on their own turf.

It sets reasonable conditions for moving our troops into a different posture. It holds Iraqis accountable to standards that the President himself has laid out. And it puts us on a new direction with respect to the war in Iraq.

And it does some other things, too. It completes action on a number of leftover pieces of business that the previous Congress left to this new incoming Congress.

The President himself asked for $3.4 billion to deal with the needs of FEMA. We are also finishing action on the BRAC action which requires $3.1 billion in additional funding. We are finishing action on the need to improve family military housing to the tune of $3.4 billion. We are finishing action on rebuilding the lives and providing other assistance to the Katrina victims after the most devastating natural disaster in the history of our country.

We are finishing the action on the agriculture disaster problem that Congress wrestled with for well over a year in the previous Congress without coming to resolution. And we are providing the final $1 billion in funds to combat a potential pandemic flu, funds which the President himself requested in an emergency appropriation in the year 2005.

And we are also finishing action on the action begun last year by the Congress in trying to deal with the fact that 14 States are going to run out of child health money; and we need, therefore, to provide $750 million to see to it that low-income families and children in low- income families are not pushed off those State health care rolls. This is a request that has come in from Republican and Democratic Governors alike.

And we have also provided some additional funding, above what the President asked for, items which are not

last year's business, but which we think are important in terms of this year's business.

We are increasing funding for veterans health and defense health by $3.4 billion. We are, on the homeland security front, increasing funding substantially. The President, since days after 9/11, has been resisting virtually every congressional effort to add funding for homeland security, for border security, for cargo security and the like.

We are continuing the effort to provide significantly more money than the President has asked for. If anybody wants to argue with that, I would suggest they take it up with the 9/11 Commission. I would suggest they take it up with the Hart-Rudman Commission. I would suggest they take it up with the 9/11 families. Everybody but Anne Coulter, I think, would be responsive to what those families think.

And then we are also providing $1.2 billion in additional funding for our war in Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I sat at CIA headquarters and watched, right after 9/11, as our predator aircraft were searching Afghanistan for bin Laden. And I know what the people at that agency were saying when they expressed their frustration that the President was diverting a huge share of our resources in the hunt for bin Laden to prepare for the unilateral attack on Iraq.

What this bill is trying to do is to correct that by, again, refocusing additional attention on the war against Afghanistan. And I make absolutely no apology for the funds that we have in here.

Now, some will say this is not a perfect instrument. They will differ with the time line that we have for the repositioning of troops, and they will differ with the benchmarks. But what I would say to them is that what is important in this document today is not the exact wording. What is important is not the exact timetable. What is important is not the exact enumeration of benchmarks. What is important is that, for the first time, this Congress will be exercising its constitutional responsibilities to provide real oversight on the executive branch of government, and we will be trying to set this country on a new direction.

Someone in this House said last week that we are similar in our position to a board of directors for a corporation. He said the President is the CEO. The President's Cabinet represents his management team, and we are the board of directors. And when a board of directors of a corporation sees that the management of the corporation is leading it down a disastrous path, it has a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders to step in and correct the problem. That is what we are trying to do in this legislation. In this case, we have a fiduciary responsibility and a representational responsibility to the taxpayers and to our constituents, and we are trying to meet that responsibility today.

Now, there are some who have criticized us for doing so, some in newspapers and some on this floor. Very frankly, I am getting a bit tired of those who were consistently wrong from the beginning on the issue of Iraq, I am getting tired of them lecturing those of us who were consistently right from the beginning in our opposition to this war.

And when people ask me why we don't have a better solution, I tell them of the old story about Eddie Stanky, who used to play second base for the New York Giants many years ago. And one day, Leo Durocher, the manager, was hitting ground balls to the infield, and Stanky dropped two in a row. And so Durocher grabbed a glove and said, ``Here, kid, I'm going to show you how it's done.'' And he went out to second base, and the very first ball Durocher dropped. And he turned to Stanky, and said, ``Kid, you got second base so screwed up, nobody can play it.''

The fact is, if you substitute George Bush for Eddie Stanky and Iraq for second base, you have got the picture of what the problem is today.

Now, this Congress cannot run foreign policy, but it has an obligation to try to influence the policy and influence the conduct of that policy when we see it headed down the wrong path. Mr. Murtha has tried to lead the way in seeing to it that we face up to those responsibilities, and this legislation will give us an opportunity to do that.

I would hope it would be supported on a bipartisan basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The gentleman talks about how we need to support General Petraeus. Let me quote from Thomas Friedman, who has had years of experience in understanding the Middle East. He said: I hope the Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi keep pushing to set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq because they are providing two patriotic services that the Republicans failed to offer in the previous 4 years. The first is policy discipline. The other useful function Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues are performing is to give the President and General David Petraeus, our Commander in Iraq, the leverage of a deadline without a formal deadline. How so? The surge cannot work without political reconciliation among Iraqi factions, which means Sunni-Shiite negotiations, and such negotiations are unlikely to work without America having the leverage of telling the parties that if they do not compromise, we will leave. Deadlines matter. At some point Iraqis have to figure this out themselves. Since Mr. Bush refuses to set a deadline, Speaker Pelosi is the next best thing. Do not underestimate how useful it is for General Petraeus to be.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can have charts, but the charts don't change facts. I would also observe that the important thing is not what happened 7 or 8 years ago. The important thing is what we are going to do today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, we can debate yesterday until the cows come home. What Mr. Murtha and I are trying to focus on is what we do in this bill today to make tomorrow better for our servicemen and our country. That is the issue, and that is the issue that this bill tries to address.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield myself 1 minute.

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, for the last 4 years we have tried it your way. For the last 4 years we have had a Congress that did whatever George Bush wanted it to do, rubber-stamp, lock-step all the way.

Today is different. Today we have a Congress that is responding to what the public asked for in the last election. What you are seeing today is the new world of checks and balances. Get used to it. It is what the public asked for, and it is what they are going to get out of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the caucus vice chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a distinguished graduate of the University of Wisconsin and featured in the Wisconsin alumni magazine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.

The gentleman referred to us as producing ``bribe-as-you- go'' legislation.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me simply congratulate the gentleman for withdrawing those words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished caucus chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago this Congress voted to authorize the President to engage in a preemptive attack to Iraq, a country that had not attacked the United States. I supported the military action against Afghanistan because they gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and those who attacked us on 9/11. But I opposed the President's unilateral and preemptive attack on Iraq, because I believed that this action would destabilize the Middle East, isolate us in world opinion, and weaken our influence in the world. Our opposition was vilified. Our patriotism was questioned, and that continues today.

We are told that if we oppose the President's intensification of the war, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Well, I, for one, am tired of those who have been consistently wrong about this war lecturing those of us who have been right from the start. I am tired of the manipulation of intelligence by this administration. I am tired of the stubbornness of an administration that didn't have a clue about the Middle East realities when they got us into this mess, and don't have a clue now about how to get us out.

Sadly, there will be no happy endings to this war. The President's policy has done so much damage that there is no good way for us to get out, whether it happens in 6 months or a year or 5 years.

Our troops won the war, God bless them. But the problem with the President's plan is that it calls upon our troops to do something they do not have the power to do, and that is to convince the Iraqi factions to stop killing each other and work together on a political compromise.

Instead of the President's surge, in my view, we should set a rough target for repositioning our troops out of the area. We should recognize that Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, will never join together in a strong central government. We should tell the Iraqis that if they do not amend their Constitution to allow for a loose confederation with an oil sharing agreement between the Sunnis and the Shiites, that we will leave them to each others' tender mercies. We should participate in regional discussions with all parties, including Syria and Iran. We should resume aggressive leadership to resurrect a meaningful Middle East process, peace process, and Congress should pass legislation prohibiting an attack on Iran without authorization by this Congress.

Given the chaos that the administration's policy has produced, none of these suggestions may work. But all of them would be better than continuing to be stuck in another 5-year period in an endless war with endless promises to the American people and with endless failures on the ground.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply make a few observations about the gentleman's comments. With respect to the forest funded school program that he is talking about, it needs to be understood that is not within the jurisdiction of our committee. The problem with that program is that the authorizing committee has allowed that program to expire, and it is a mandatory program. Any time the Appropriations Committee tries to involve itself in mandatory programs we get skinned by people on both sides of the aisle, and we are told to mind our own business. We have.

I am very sympathetic about the gentleman's problem, but this is not an appropriated program. The Appropriations Committee deals with discretionary spending, not mandatory spending.

Surely.

But the fact is we have not reauthorized expired programs. That is the difference. We do not have the authority to reauthorize a mandatory program. If we did, we would have to find another $320 million, and I would like to know where that offset is going to come from.

The gentleman is right to want this program to continue, but he is wrong if he thinks that the Appropriations Committee is the proper venue for it.

I would prefer not to. I only have 5 minutes. The gentleman as the bill manager has more time than I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for 30 seconds.

I understand that. We had nine other requests to do the same thing. If we had done so, Members on your side of the aisle would have come and attacked us and scalped us for doing things that we had no business doing. So he can't have it both ways, which is what many Members in the minority are trying to do today.

I would be happy to join with the gentleman in urging the authorizing committee to fix the problem, but it is not within our purview to do.

With that, I take back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong the comments on the rule. Let me simply say that the majority had 8 months to deal with the most basic responsibility of a legislative body, which is to pass the Federal budget. They were in the majority. They now are not. Now they are in the minority.

We are trying to clean up their spilt milk, and they can squawk all they want about how we did it. The fact is, there are no new issues here. Virtually every single issue that will be debated today was already debated when we passed the appropriation bills. These are the bills that the House passed last summer in the previous session of the Congress. We had hundreds of amendments to these bills.

Now because the Republicans in the House couldn't convince the Republicans in the Senate to vote for these bills, we have before us what is, in essence, a pre-conferenced conference report, and we have boiled down this almost 1,000 pages. This is what it would look like if we had an omnibus appropriation bill. We would have had 1,000 pages of legislative material. We have boiled it down to about 150 pages.

We have basically decided to stick with the fiscal year 2006 basic funding level for most programs. We try to then adjust programs for agencies so that they don't have to lay off workers, so that they don't have to have furloughs, such as the Social Security Department and the FBI, who both told us that they desperately needed these adjustments or they would have to shut down their operations or lay off people.

We then decided that there are some priorities on both sides of the aisle, and we used almost $10 billion, which we had cut from other portions of the bill, to finance those items.

You may not like the choices we have made, but, in contrast to the last Congress which ducked its responsibility to make these choices, at least we have made the choices. At least we have made them, and we are going to vote on this today. We are going to send it to the Senate so that when the President submits his new budget on February 5, he has a clean slate and so do we, and that is the way it ought to be.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard unmitigated nonsense from the gentleman. The gentleman is somehow claiming that we are funding that silly rain forest that your party agreed to 2 years ago in Iowa. The fact is that Senator Byrd and I made clear we would provide no earmarks in the 2006 bill.

I am not going to yield, so let me finish my thought. The gentleman does it all the time, and it is highly rude.

I would simply point out that we had no requirement to retroactively go back 2 years earlier and repeal silly things that your side of the aisle did 2 years ago. There is not a dollar in this bill for that rain forest. You know it as well as I do. Quit trying to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, my only response to some of the comments I have heard from the other side of the aisle is, you are really something else. You are really something else. You spent all of the last year trying to pass appropriation bills. You passed all but one through the House. You could not get your Republican friends in the Senate to support any of them. So when you relinquished your duties we had no domestic budget for the coming year.

I offered on the floor to make any substantive compromises necessary when you were still in control. I offered to make any procedural concessions necessary to enable you to pass the bills on your watch. You did not do it.

Your own chairman at the time admitted that the Republican floor leader in the Senate blocked the bills from passage. So you have forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess.

Now I want to comment on a few claims that have been made. You say there has been no participation by the minority side.

This bill was negotiated at the staff level for 3\1/2\ weeks, 7 days a week, around the clock. Your staff was invited to every meeting. Some of them they did not come because they did not like the choices that were being made. But someone had to make the decisions, because you did not.

So the staff negotiated virtually all of those compromises. When they could not reach agreement, then they brought the Members in. You had Senator Domenici on the Republican side and Mr. Visclosky going on and on about the Energy and Water bill, for instance. You had Rosa DeLauro in the ag bill involved, you had Mr. Dicks in the Interior bill involved as the appropriate subcommittee chairs. If you did not bring your subcommittee ranking members into the mix, that is your fault, not mine.

All I know is, our people participated. If they did not on your side, it is either because they did not want to or because you did not invite them to. I do not know which is which. Do not blame us for your screw- ups.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out to the gentleman who just spoke that our committee took no action whatsoever on all of the items he just mentioned. They are all mandatory programs. All this resolution does is to carry forward the same limitations in those programs that you had in them last year.

Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. The previous two speakers claimed that there were earmarks in the bill. Now the gentleman is objecting because we eliminated agricultural earmarks. The fact is, those earmarks are very good things. I agree with the gentleman. But we promised we would eliminate all earmarks in this bill, and that is what we did, and I make no apology for it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 116, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 20) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that on page H988 of the Congressional Record there is listed the following statement:

Under clause 9(a) of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits are submitted as follows offered by myself: H.J. Res. 20 making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

No.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank Janet Airis and her staff at the CBO scoring unit; Ira Forstater and Nadia Soree and the entire staff at the Legislative Council; and certainly, most of all, the staff of the Appropriations Committee, both majority and minority, both Senate and House, especially Rob Nabors and David Reich.

This is a bill that needs to pass so that everyone who is reliant upon programs contained therein understands what the rules of the game will be for the remainder of the fiscal year. I urge passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the President will submit to the Congress his new budget. It would be kind of nice if we had disposed of his last year's budget request before the President brings

his new budget forward, because I believe that he is entitled to start the year with a clean slate, and I think we are entitled to start the year with a clean slate as well.

Unfortunately, we cannot do that because of the failures of the last Congress. This resolution represents the last remaining legislation that must be passed in order to clean up the mess left to us by the last Congress.

Now, we all know the story. Last year, the House debated and passed every single appropriation bill except the Labor, Health, Education bill. That was held up because of the now-well-known division between the two parties on the minimum wage and also because moderate Republicans in this House, led by people like Mr. Castle and others, were demanding that the Republican leadership add at least $3 billion to the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill in order to get their votes on the Republican budget resolution.

The then chairman, Mr. Lewis from California, my good friend, specifically said on the House floor that the reason the Congress was not allowed to finish its work is because the Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, shielded the Senate from any painful votes on appropriations before the election. Then, after the election, the majority party walked away from their responsibility to finish the budget, and they left us to clean up the mess as they walked out the door.

When we considered the CR under which we are now operating, I specifically said from this place on the House floor that I would make any substantive compromise that was necessary and I would make any procedural compromise that was necessary in order to enable the then majority Republicans to finish the bills on their watch, on their terms. I said I was willing to recognize that they still controlled the Congress and so they had a right to have Republican priorities reflected in those bills, even if I disagreed with those priorities.

But I also warned that if they did not live up to their responsibilities to pass the budget, then they would forfeit their right to complain and whine about how we went about cleaning up their leftover jobs.

So when it became apparent that they would not meet their responsibilities, Senator Byrd and I announced that we would proceed by doing two things. We announced, first of all, that we would provide no congressional earmarks. We told anybody who had an earmark in a 2007 bill that if they wanted it considered in the following fiscal year they would need to present it under the reform process, which we were in the process of putting together; and we announced at that time that we intended to cut earmarks by 50 percent in comparison to the 2007 bill.

The second thing that we announced is that we would take the 2006 continuing resolution and make whatever adjustments were necessary in order to avoid shutdowns of agencies or layoffs or furloughs and in order to recognize priorities that we thought people had on both sides of the aisle. That is what we did.

In this bill, we started with the fiscal 2006 base. We then cut or rescinded $9- to $10 billion, almost $10 billion, in items that we thought could be cut or rescinded. We cut over 60 programs. We generated $10 billion or so in savings, and we added that to the $7 billion that still remained within the Republican budget resolution cap, and then we allocated that money on the basis of what we thought were better priorities.

Now, the gentleman from California says we should have just stuck with the existing 2006 continuing resolution. We could have done that. If we had, we would not have been able to add $3.6 billion in veterans' health care, which we have done in this bill, which is our number one priority. We would not have been able to add $1.2 billion in defense health, which we add in this bill. We would not have been able to add $500 million for basic housing allowances for our military, and we would not have been able to add the $1 billion that we added for BRAC, the base closing operations. We would also not have been able to add the $216 million that we added to the FBI budget at the request of the administration.

In education, two weeks ago, when the Democratic Party brought to this House floor a proposition to lower interest rates on student loans, we were told, ``oh, that is just tokenism. What you ought to do is add to the Pell Grants.''

That is what we have done. We added enough to the Pell Grant program to allow an increase in the maximum grant of $260. We wouldn't have been able to do that either if we had followed Mr. Lewis' suggestion and simply stuck to the CR under which we are now operating.

In addition to that, we added $250 million to Title I and $100 million to Head Start so we could end the decline in enrollment in that program.

In the area of science, we were asked by a number of Members on the Republican side of the aisle in this House, and on our side, plus the Senate on both sides, to add money for NIH. Members did not like the fact that, under the alternative, we were going to lose at least 500 medical grants in cancer research, heart disease, Alzheimer's and the rest.

I have not met a single constituent who said, ``Hey, Obey, I think you ought to save money by cutting cancer research grants.'' We added $620 million to reverse the decline in the number of research grants at NIH, and we added some additional funds to the National Science Foundation.

We added some additional money to energy conservation and energy research programs, in addition to which we provided a $200 million add- on for the Clean Water Revolving Fund. There isn't a small community in this country that doesn't need some help with clean water.

We added $100 million for park maintenance, and we added $90 million for firefighting.

We also were requested by the administration to provide at least the amount that they asked for the global AIDS program and to combat malaria and TB. So we added $1.4 billion to do that, and we added $146 million to prevent the Social Security Administration from having a 10- day furlough for their employees. That is what we did.

We also provided a suspension of all earmarks.

Now, I want to make clear a lot of the earmarks that we suspended are perfectly defensible. They accomplish laudatory public purposes. I think it is sad that we haven't been able to fund them. But the fact is that it became apparent to me that the earmarking process had been so discredited by the Cunningham case and by other cases that we have no choice but to start over. So we wanted to clear the decks, clean up the process, and start over.

Ninety-nine percent of the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle have immense integrity. They don't ask the Congress for things that are illegitimate, but it is that 1 percent that has fouled the nest for everybody else. So we are trying to clean up the nest so that we can approach next year with a clean start and so that we will have a process so that both parties will know what earmarks the other party is putting into the bills.

I want the minority to be fully cognizant of whatever earmarks the majority puts in the bills, and I want us to be fully cognizant of the other earmarks you put in the bills. That is the only way we can protect the integrity of this institution.

So we are being criticized in some quarters because we are being told, ``Well, when you eliminated the earmarks, you should also have eliminated the money in those programs.'' We didn't do that for one very simple reason. We didn't want to reduce the amount of money in the COPS program, for instance.

What we are doing, by eliminating earmarks, and let's be clear about it, we are not saving a dime by eliminating earmarks. But what we are doing is transferring the power to decide where that money goes from the congressional branch to the executive branch. I don't like that, but it is a price I am willing to pay to clean up the system. What that means is that the administration will have much more authority than normal to decide where money goes, whether it is in the Army Corps of Engineers program or COPS or you name it.

I would simply say, we may have made some wrong choices. Undoubtedly, we did. But the process was this.

For 3\1/2\ weeks our staffs worked 7 days a week round the clock, and they negotiated with the Senate, Republican

and Democratic staff alike. The Republican staff was invited to every meeting that took place. If they attended or didn't, that was up to them.

Whenever the staff could not reach agreement, the Members were brought in order to argue it up. If you don't think that occurred, talk to Mr. Visclosky, talk to Senator Domenici, talk about the arguments they had on the Energy and Water bill, and there are countless other examples.

We are now in a situation in which we have to move on. We may have made some wrong choices, but at least, in contrast to last year, we made those choices, we made them. They may not be popular, but they were necessary so that we can turn the page, get on the next year.

This bill is the functional equivalent of a conference report. All of the appropriation bills that were not completed action on last year, this is what they look like. This is what they look like. This is a continuing resolution that we are producing today in order to direct where the spending in these bills ought to go.

Now, you may say you don't think it fits the traditional definition of a continuing resolution. Either you can have an automatic continuing resolution, or you can have a thinking man's continuing resolution. I don't think that we were obligated to lock ourselves into the 2006 numbers, because that would have prevented us from providing the initiatives that I talked about for veterans, for education and the like.

This is a responsible document. Nothing was sneaked in. Everybody knows what is in this package. All the staff knows.

I would urge an ``aye'' vote for the bill so that, come Monday, we can deal with the President's new budget, rather than continuing to deal with the spilt milk of yesterday's majority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about how we should have stuck with the bills that they produced last year. There is only one problem. They couldn't convince their Republican brethren in the Senate to buy them. And so we had to try something else.

I can't help it that the majority party did not meet its responsibilities to pass these appropriations because you had an internal fight within the Republican Party. But now the responsibility is passed to us, and at least we are producing a proposal which can pass both Houses. That is more than can be said for the work product of the last Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it is not correct that we are cutting BRAC. We are increasing BRAC $1 billion above the existing levels in the continuing resolution under which we are operating today. We will deal with the additional requests for BRAC in the supplemental, and you can bet that they will get all of their money. But we are adding $1 billion to BRAC. We are not cutting.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, we have just heard it.

The gentleman is objecting because we were not able to go back 2 years to excise from a previous appropriation the rain forest project which was put into your bill when you were chairman. We have eliminated all earmarks for today and tomorrow. We cannot be expected to correct all of your mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

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

The answer is that there is money, there is adequate money to provide for that committee, if, in fact, it is created. But the formal action on creation has not yet taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for a colloquy.

My preference is that additional funding would be available for enhancement grants which can be used for hiring. But that final decision will be up to the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I, once again, repeat, this bill does not cut BRAC. It adds $1 billion to BRAC. The fiscal 2006 level was $1.5 billion. This bill will have $2.5 billion, and we will be adding more in the emergency supplemental.

With whatever time I have remaining of the 15 seconds.

With all due respect, I don't live in the world of newspaper articles. We produced this bill. I know what is in it. I would hope the gentlewoman would also learn what is in it.

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

I yield the gentleman (Mr. Hoyer) another minute.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I won't take the full 4 minutes. Let me simply say that it is necessary for the House to move forward with this legislation. It is easy to nitpick. It is interesting to me that the minority today has chosen to chastise us for decisions that we made not to go back 2 years and repeal some of the mistakes that the minority made when they were in the majority. They argue that we should have done that; they argue that we should have lived with a simple continuing resolution at '06 levels. If we do that, that would mean we would not have the added funding for veterans health care, we would not have the added funding for BRAC, we would not have the added funding for the National Institutes of Health; we would not be able to raise the Pell grant by $260 for the maximum grant; we would not have the extra funding for energy research.

I would ask Members to recognize that after a full year of the Republican minority not being able to produce and finish their work, it is time for us to finish their work so we can move on. The President is producing his new budget on February 5, which is next Monday. We need to clear the decks so we can deal with that afresh.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is simply a nit-picking motion which, if adopted, would kill our chances of passing this resolution in the United States Senate and result in us living on an '06 continuing resolution, which would deny us the ability to provide additional funds for veterans health care, for education, for veterans housing and the like.

I would point out, this resolution already adds $500 million to the basic allowance for housing. This CR already increases family housing construction by $210 million and funds military construction at the level of the President's request that have been authorized.

This motion would eliminate the weapons research account that has been of some controversy today. I would point out, we have already cut that account by $94 million. I doubt that the House wants to eliminate that nuclear weapons research.

I would also say that in a new found and sudden burst of false piety, we are now being chastised because we did not reach back and eliminate an item that was approved 2 years ago for the State of Iowa by the majority. In fact, the gentleman who was chairman of the committee when that item was approved is none other than the gentleman offering the motion right now.

I don't mind clearing up the mistakes for last year, of the gentleman, I do mind being asked to go back 2 years to clear up your mistakes. That is asking too much, even for us.

Secondly, I would say that some of us may not like the Denali Commission, but it is a perfectly authorized program. And as much as I might like to see a project like that in my district, I don't have one, neither does the gentleman. I think it is illegitimate for us to single out one legitimate program for elimination that would require us, I think in the interest of fairness, to go back and look at hundreds of other programs that have been approved in the past. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks during debate on H.J. Res. 20.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the rules of the Committee on Appropriations for the 110th Congress, adopted on January 16, 2007.

Committee on Appropriations--Committee Rules Effective for the 110th

Congress

(Approved January 16, 2007)

Resolved, That the rules and practices of the Committee on

Appropriations, House of Representatives, in the One Hundred

Ninth Congress, except as otherwise provided hereinafter,

shall be and are hereby adopted as the rules and practices of

the Committee on Appropriations in the One Hundred Tenth

Congress.

The foregoing resolution adopts the following rules:

Sec. 1: Power to Sit and Act

(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions

and duties under Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the Committee and each of its subcommittees

is authorized:

(1) To sit and act at such times and places within the

United States whether the House is in session, has recessed,

or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it deems

necessary; and

(2) To require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance

and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such

books, reports, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and

documents as it deems necessary.

(b) The Chairman, or any Member designated by the Chairman,

may administer oaths to any witness.

(c) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the

Committee or its subcommittees under subsection (a)(2) in the

conduct of any investigation or activity or series of

investigations or activities, only when authorized by a

majority of the Members of the Committee voting, a majority

being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas

under subsection (a)(2) may be delegated to the Chairman

pursuant to such rules and under such limitations as the

Committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed

by the Chairman or by any Member designated by the Committee.

(d) Compliance with any subpoena issued by the Committee or

its subcommittees may be enforced only as authorized or

directed by the House.

Sec. 2: Subcommittees

(a) The Majority Caucus of the Committee shall establish

the number of subcommittees and shall determine the

jurisdiction of each subcommittee.

(b) Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive evidence, and report to the Committee all matters

referred to it.

(c) All legislation and other matters referred to the

Committee shall be referred to the sub committee of

appropriate jurisdiction within two weeks unless, by majority

vote of the Majority Members of the full Committee,

consideration is to be by the full Committee.

(d) The Majority Caucus of the Committee shall determine an

appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members for each

subcommittee. The Chairman is authorized to negotiate that

ratio with the Minority; Provided, however, That party

representation in each subcommittee, including ex-officio

members, shall be no less favorable to the Majority than the

ratio for the full Committee.

(e) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full

Committee are each authorized to sit as a member of all

subcommittees and to participate, including voting, in all of

the work of the subcommittees.

Sec. 3: Staffing

(a) Committee Staff.--The Chairman is authorized to appoint

the staff of the Committee, and make adjustments in the job

titles and compensation thereof subject to the maximum rates

and conditions established in Clause 9(c) of Rule X of the

Rules of the House of Representatives. In addition, he is

authorized, in his discretion, to arrange for their

specialized training. The Chairman is also authorized to

employ additional personnel as necessary.

(b) Assistants to Members:

(1) Each of the top twenty-one senior majority and minority

Members of the full Committee may select and designate one

staff member who shall serve at the pleasure of that Member.

Effective as of such date as the Chairman may determine, all

other Members of the Committee may also each select and

designate one such staff member.

(2) Effective as of such date as the Chairman may

determine, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the

full Committee and of each subcommittee may each select and

designate one staff member, in addition to the staff member

designated under the preceding paragraph, who shall serve at

the pleasure of the Member making the designation.

(3) Staff members designated under this subsection shall be

compensated at a rate, determined by the Member, not to

exceed 75 per centum of the maximum established in Clause

9(c) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Effective as of such date as the Chairman may determine, the

limit on compensation under this subsection shall be

increased to 80 per centum of such maximum.

(4) Members designating staff members under this subsection

must specifically certify by letter to the Chairman that the

employees are needed and will be utilized for Committee work.

Sec. 4: Committee Meetings

(a) Regular Meeting Day.--The regular meeting day of the

Committee shall be the first Wednesday of each month while

the House is in session, unless the Committee has met within

the past 30 days or the Chairman considers a specific meeting

unnecessary in the light of the requirements of the Committee

business schedule.

(b) Additional and Special Meetings:

(1) The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers

necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the

consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the

Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The

Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call

of the Chairman.

(2) If at least three Committee Members desire that a

special meeting of the Committee be called by the Chairman,

those Members may file in the Committee Offices a written

request to the Chairman for that special meeting. Such

request shall specify the measure or matter to be

considered. Upon the filing of the request, the Committee

Clerk shall notify the Chairman.

(3) If within three calendar days after the filing of the

request, the Chairman does not call the requested special

meeting to be held within seven calendar days after the

filing of the request, a majority of the Committee Members

may file in the Committee Offices their written notice that a

special meeting will be held, specifying the date and hour of

such meeting, and the measure or matter to be considered. The

Committee shall meet on that date and hour.

(4) Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the

Committee Clerk shall notify all Committee Members that such

special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and

hour and the measure or matter to be considered. Only the

measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered

at the special meeting.

(c) Vice Chairman To Preside in Absence of Chairman.--A

member of the majority party on the Committee or subcommittee

thereof designated by the Chairman of the full Committee

shall be vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as

the case may be, and shall preside at any meeting during the

temporary absence of the chairman. If the chairman and vice

chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are not present at

any meeting of the Committee or subcommittee, the ranking

member of the majority party who is present shall preside at

that meeting.

(d) Business Meetings:

(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including

the markup of legislation, of the Committee and its

subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the

Committee or the subcommittee concerned, in open session and

with a majority present, determines by roll call vote that

all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall

be closed.

(2) No person other than Committee Members and such

congressional staff and depart mental representatives as they

may authorize shall be present at any business or markup

session which has been closed.

(e) Committee Records:

(1) The Committee shall keep a complete record of all

Committee action, including a record of the votes on any

question on which a roll call is demanded. The result of each

roll call vote shall be available for inspection by the

public during regular business hours in the Committee

Offices. The information made available for public inspection

shall include a description of the amendment, motion, or

other proposition, and the name of each Member voting for and

each Member voting against, and the names of those Members

present but not voting.

(2) All hearings, records, data, charts, and files of the

Committee shall be kept separate and distinct from the

congressional office records of the Chairman of the

Committee. Such records shall be the property of the House,

and all Members of the House shall have access thereto.

(3) The records of the Committee at the National Archives

and Records Administration shall be made available in

accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House, except

that the Committee authorizes use of any record to which

Clause 3(b)(4) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House would

otherwise apply after such record has been in existence for

20 years. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority

Member of any decision, pursuant to Clause 3(b)(3) or

Clause 4(b) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House, to

withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter

shall be presented to the Committee for a determination

upon the written request of any Member of the Committee.

Sec. 5: Committee and Subcommittee Hearings

(a) Overall Budget Hearings.--Overall budget hearings by

the Committee, including the hearing required by Section

242(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and

Clause 4(a)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of

Representatives shall be conducted in open session except

when the Committee in open session and with a majority

present, determines by roll call vote that the testimony to

be taken at that hearing on that day may be related to a

matter of national security; except that the Committee may by

the same procedure close one subsequent day of hearing. A

transcript of all such hearings shall be printed and a copy

furnished to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident

Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

(b) Other Hearings:

(1) All other hearings conducted by the Committee or its

subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the

Committee or subcommittee in open session and with a majority

present determines by roll call vote that all or part of the

remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the

public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other

matters to be considered would endanger the national security

or would violate any law or Rule of the House of

Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the

preceding sentence, a majority of those present at a hearing

conducted by the Committee or any of its subcommittees, there

being in attendance the number required under Section 5(c) of

these Rules to be present for the purpose of taking

testimony, (1) may vote to close the hearing for the sole

purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be

received would endanger the national security or violate

Clause 2(k)(5) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives or (2) may vote to close the hearing, as

provided in Clause 2(k)(5) of such Rule. No Member of the

House of Representatives may be excluded from

nonparticipatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee

or its subcommittees unless the House of Representatives

shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or any of its

subcommittees, for purposes of a particular series of

hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a

particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to

Members by the same procedures designated in this subsection

for closing hearings to the public; Provided, however, That

the Committee or its subcommittees may by the same procedure

vote to close five subsequent days of hearings.

(2) Subcommittee chairmen shall coordinate the development

of schedules for meetings or hearings after consultation with

the Chairman and other subcommittee chairmen with a view

toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and

subcommittee meetings or hearings.

(3) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or

any of its subcommittees as the case may be, insofar as is

practicable, shall file in advance of such appearance, a

written statement of the proposed testimony and shall limit

the oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary,

except that this provision shall not apply to any witness

appearing before the Committee in the overall budget

hearings.

(4) Each witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity

before the Committee, or any of its subcommittees as the case

may be, shall to the greatest extent practicable, submit a

written statement including a curriculum vitae and a

disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program)

of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or

subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year

or either of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or

by an entity represented by the witness.

(c) Quorum for Taking Testimony.--The number of Members of

the Committee which shall constitute a quorum for taking

testimony and receiving evidence in any hearing of the

Committee shall be two.

(d) Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses:

(1) The Minority Members of the Committee or its

subcommittees shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairman

or subcommittee chairman, by a majority of them before

completion of any hearing, to call witnesses selected by the

Minority to testify with respect to the matter under

consideration during at least one day of hearings thereon.

(2) The Committee and its subcommittees shall observe the

five-minute rule during the interrogation of witnesses until

such time as each Member of the Committee or sub committee

who so desires has had an opportunity to question the

witness.

(e) Broadcasting and Photographing of Committee Meetings

and Hearings.--Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the

full Committee or any of its subcommittees is open to the

public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by

television, radio, and still photography, as provided in

Clause (4)(f) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. Neither the full Committee Chairman or

subcommittee chairman shall limit the number of television or

still cameras to fewer than two representatives from each

medium.

(f) Subcommittee Meetings.--No subcommittee shall sit while

the House is reading an appropriation measure for amendment

under the five-minute rule or while the Committee is in

session.

(g) Public Notice of Committee Hearings.--The Chairman of

the Committee shall make public announcement of the date,

place, and subject matter of any Committee or sub committee

hearing at least one week before the commencement of the

hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee,

with the concurrence of the ranking minority member of the

Committee or respective subcommittee, determines there is

good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee

or subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum

being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman

or subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the

earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this

subsection shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest

and promptly entered into the Committee scheduling service of

the House Information Systems.

Sec. 6: Procedures for Reporting Bills and Resolutions

(a) Prompt Reporting Requirement:

(1) It shall be the duty of the Chairman to report, or

cause to be reported promptly to the House any bill or

resolution approved by the Committee and to take or cause to

be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote.

(2) In any event, a report on a bill or resolution which

the Committee has approved shall be filed within seven

calendar days (exclusive of days in which the House is not in

session) after the day on which there has been filed with the

Committee Clerk a written request, signed by a majority of

Committee Members, for the reporting of such bill or

resolution. Upon the filing of any such request, the

Committee Clerk shall notify the Chairman immediately of the

filing of the request. This subsection does not apply to the

reporting of a regular appropriation bill or to the reporting

of a resolution of inquiry addressed to the head of an

executive department.

(b) Presence of Committee Majority.--No measure or

recommendation shall be reported from the Committee unless a

majority of the Committee was actually present.

(c) Rollcall Votes.--With respect to each roll call vote on

a motion to report any measure or matter of a public

character, and on any amendment offered to the measure of

matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and

the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be

included in the Committee report on the measure or matter.

(d) Compliance With Congressional Budget Act.--A Committee

report on a bill or resolution which has been approved by the

Committee shall include the statement required by Section

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately

set out and clearly identified, if the bill or resolution

provides new budget authority.

(e) Constitutional Authority Statement.--Each report of the

Committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character

shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted

to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed

by the bill or joint resolution.

(f) Changes in Existing Law.--Each Committee report on a

general appropriation bill shall contain a concise statement

describing fully the effect of any provision of the bill

which directly or indirectly changes the application of

existing law.

(g) Rescissions and Transfers.--Each bill or resolution

reported by the Committee shall include separate headings for

rescissions and transfers of unexpended balances with all

proposed rescissions and transfers listed therein. The report

of the Committee accompanying such a bill or resolution shall

include a separate section with respect to such rescissions

or transfers.

(h) Listing of Unauthorized Appropriations.--Each Committee

report on a general appropriation bill shall contain a list

of all appropriations contained in the bill for any

expenditure not currently authorized by law for the period

concerned (except for classified intelligence or national

security programs, projects, or activities) along with a

statement of the last year for which such expenditures were

authorized, the level of expenditures authorized for that

year, the actual level of expenditures for that year, and the

level of appropriations in the bill for such expenditures.

(i) Supplemental or Minority Views:

(1) If, at the time the Committee approves any measure or

matter, any Committee Member gives notice of intention to

file supplemental, minority, or additional views, the Member

shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar

days after the day of such notice (excluding Saturdays,

Sundays, and legal holidays) in which to file such views in

writing and signed by the Member, with the Clerk of the

Committee. All such views so filed shall be included in and

shall be a part of the report filed by the Committee with

respect to that measure or matter.

(2) The Committee report on that measure or matter shall be

printed in a single volume which--

(i) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional

views which have been submitted by the time of the filing of

the report, and

(ii) shall have on its cover a recital that any such

supplemental, minority, or additional views are included as

part of the report.

(3) This subsection does not preclude--

(i) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report

unless timely request for the opportunity to file

supplemental, minority, or additional views has been made as

provided by such subsection; or

(ii) the filing by the Committee of a supplemental report

on a measure or matter which may be required for correction

of any technical error in a previous report made by the

Committee on that measure or matter.

(4) If, at the time a subcommittee approves any measure or

matter for recommendation to the full Committee, any Member

of that subcommittee who gives notice of intention to offer

supplemental, minority, or additional views shall be

entitled, insofar as is practicable and in accordance with

the printing requirements as determined by the subcommittee,

to include such views in the Committee Print with respect to

that measure or matter.

(j) Availability of Reports.--A copy of each bill,

resolution, or report shall be made available to each Member

of the Committee at least three calendar days (excluding

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) in advance of the

date on which the Committee is to consider each bill,

resolution, or report; Provided, That this subsection may be

waived by agreement between the Chairman and the Ranking

Minority Member of the full Committee.

(k) Performance Goals and Objectives.--Each Committee

report shall contain a statement of general performance goals

and objectives, including outcome-related goals and

objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding.

(l) Motion to go to Conference.--The Chairman is directed

to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of

the House whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate.

Sec. 7: Voting

(a) No vote by any Member of the Committee or any of its

subcommittees with respect to any measure or matter may be

cast by proxy.

(b) The vote on any question before the Committee shall be

taken by the yeas and nays on the demand of one-fifth of the

Members present.

(c) The Chairman of the Committee or the chairman of any of

its subcommittees may--

(1) postpone further proceedings when a record vote is

ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or

on adopting an amendment;

(2) resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time

after reasonable notice.

When proceedings resume on a postponed question,

notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to

further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the

question was postponed.

Sec. 8: Studies and Examinations

The following procedure shall be applicable with respect to

the conduct of studies and examinations of the organization

and operation of Executive Agencies under authority contained

in Section 202 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of

1946 and in Clause (3)(a) of Rule X of the Rules of the House

of Representatives:

(a) The Chairman is authorized to appoint such staff and,

in his discretion, arrange for the procurement of temporary

services of consultants, as from time to time may be

required.

(b) Studies and examinations will be initiated upon the

written request of a subcommittee which shall be reasonably

specific and definite in character, and shall be initiated

only by a majority vote of the subcommittee, with the

chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking minority member

thereof participating as part of such majority vote. When so

initiated such request shall be filed with the Clerk of the

Committee for submission to the Chairman and the Ranking

Minority Member and their approval shall be required to make

the same effective. Notwithstanding any action taken on such

request by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

subcommittee, a request may be approved by a majority of the

Committee.

(c) Any request approved as provided under subsection (b)

shall be immediately turned over to the staff appointed for

action.

(d) Any information obtained by such staff shall be

reported to the chairman of the subcommittee requesting such

study and examination and to the Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member, shall be made available to the members of

the subcommittee concerned, and shall not be released for

publication until the subcommittee so determines.

(e) Any hearings or investigations which may be desired,

aside from the regular hearings on appropriation items, when

approved by the Committee, shall be conducted by the

subcommittee having jurisdiction over the matter.

Sec. 9: Official Travel

(a) The chairman of a subcommittee shall approve requests

for travel by subcommittee members and staff for official

business within the jurisdiction of that subcommittee. The

ranking minority member of a subcommittee shall concur

in such travel requests by minority members of that

subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member shall concur

in such travel requests for Minority Members of the

Committee. Requests in writing covering the purpose,

itinerary, and dates of proposed travel shall be submitted

for final approval to the Chairman. Specific approval

shall be required for each and every trip.

(b) The Chairman is authorized during the recess of the

Congress to approve travel authorizations for Committee

Members and staff, including travel outside the United

States.

(c) As soon as practicable, the Chairman shall direct the

head of each Government agency concerned not to honor

requests of subcommittees, individual Members, or staff for

travel, the direct or indirect expenses of which are to be

defrayed from an executive appropriation, except upon request

from the Chairman.

(d) In accordance with Clause 8 of Rule X of the Rules of

the House of Representatives and Section 502 (b) of the

Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, local currencies

owned by the United States shall be available to Committee

Members and staff engaged in carrying out their official

duties outside the United States, its territories, or

possessions. No Committee Member or staff member shall

receive or expend local currencies for subsistence in any

country at a rate in excess of the maximum per diem rate set

forth in applicable Federal law.

(e) Travel Reports:

(1) Members or staff shall make a report to the Chairman on

their travel, covering the purpose, results, itinerary,

expenses, and other pertinent comments.

(2) With respect to travel outside the United States or its

territories or possessions, the report shall include: (1) an

itemized list showing the dates each country was visited, the

amount of per diem furnished, the cost of transportation

furnished, and any funds expended for any other official

purpose; and (2) a summary in these categories of the total

foreign currencies and/or appropriated funds expended. All

such individual reports on foreign travel shall be filed with

the Chairman no later than sixty days following completion of

the travel for use in complying with reporting requirements

in applicable Federal law, and shall be open for public

inspection.

(3) Each Member or employee performing such travel shall be

solely responsible for supporting the amounts reported by the

Member or employee.

(4) No report or statement as to any trip shall be

publicized making any recommendations in behalf of the

Committee without the authorization of a majority of the

Committee.

(f) Members and staff of the Committee performing

authorized travel on official business pertaining to the

jurisdiction of the Committee shall be governed by applicable

laws or regulations of the House and of the Committee on

House Administration pertaining to such travel, and as

promulgated from time to time by the Chairman.