Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for the work he has done on this very important bill. We have had our differences, but in the meantime he has been more than cooperative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Legislative Line Item Veto Act. My opposition is based on Congress's experience with previous efforts to give the President line item veto authority, as well as my serious concerns over what this bill would do to the balance of budgetary power between the Legislative and Executive Branches.

During 1997, President Clinton exercised his authority under the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 to cancel spending authority or tax benefits 82 times. Total cancellations of discretionary budget authority amounted to $479 million, or less than three one-hundredths of one percent of the total fiscal year 1998 Federal budget.

The cancellations made during this period were mired in controversy. On October 6, 1997, President Clinton cancelled $287 million for 38 military construction projects in 24 States. Soon after the cancellations were announced, the administration admitted, in response to bipartisan criticism, that they had used flawed information in deciding to cancel nearly half of the projects.

The administration used three criteria in making these decisions. The cancelled projects: (1) were not requested by the military; (2) could not make contributions to the national defense in fiscal year 1998; and (3) would not benefit the quality of life and well-being of military personnel. These criteria were applied by the bureaucrats within the White House and OMB without consulting either the Department of Defense or the Members of Congress who sponsored the projects.

Congress's motivation for funding many of these projects was safety. A Live Fire Command and Control Facility at Fort Irwin, CA, would enable the Army to safely train personnel in the live firing of ordnance. Renovations at White Sands Missile Range, NM, would address the absence of fire suppression systems.

Other projects provided much-needed housing. One would provide housing at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, where there were no existing facilities to house the 13th Bomb Squadron.

Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston singled out a particularly egregious cancellation relating to the money for Army reserve units in Utah. He said, in a letter to President Clinton, ``I can only conclude that your decision was based on something other than an altruistic yearning to cut spending. Mr. President, this was an embarrassing mistake . . .''

The Clinton Administration responded to some of the criticism by stating that many of the cancelled projects would be requested in future budgets anyway. This only fueled congressional objections, however, as Members could not understand why the projects were not necessary now when they could be considered necessary in the next budget cycle.

Congress responded by passing a bill to disapprove the President's military construction cancellations. The bill was vetoed by the President. The House voted 347-69 and the Senate voted 78-20 to override the veto, enacting the bill and nullifying the cancellations.

On June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act violated the presentment clause of the Constitution, thus ending a divisive and contentious fight between the Executive and Legislative branches.

The experience of the original Line Item Veto Act should cause Congress to be extremely cautious about giving the President new line item veto authority. Even though implementation under H.R. 4890 differs from the 1996 Act, the proposed bill would transfer a great deal of budgetary power to the Executive Branch.

The expedited rescission authority mandated by H.R. 4890 would give new weight to the President's rescission proposals. While under current law any rescission proposal can be disregarded by Congress if it has no merit, H.R. 4890 requires votes in the House and Senate. The President, or even bureaucrats within the agencies or the Office of Management and Budget, would set the legislative agenda by deciding what rescissions to include in a bill.

A President could also structure his rescission messages with more of an eye toward politics instead of good policy. For example, a President, encouraged by his political advisors, could propose rescissions that target the projects of one political party. In this event, the debate over the bill would be blatantly political and would certainly lead to legislative stonewalling by the offended party. A President could also make deals with specific Members of Congress to further his legislative agenda. He could easily threaten to cancel an item directly benefiting a particular Member's district, and then back off his threat if that Member votes in favor of the President's program. If a President is interested in trading Members' projects for their support for expanded entitlement spending, for example, overall spending would actually increase.

H.R. 4890 could also present Congress with a procedural nightmare. Each rescission bill would use up to five hours of debate time in the House and ten hours in the Senate. The President could submit up to five rescission messages for each enacted spending or tax bill, or up to ten messages for an omnibus bill. A multiple-rescission-bill scenario could easily eat up precious legislative time when the legislative calendar is already severely limited.

A Republican Congress might tend to support a Republican President's rescission proposals. However, there may not always be a Republican President in the White House. Expedited rescission authority would provide new opportunities for conflict between a White House and Congress of differing parties. The result could be a legislative deadlock manufactured by the Executive Branch.

The experience of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton showed how contentious the debate could become over saving a relatively small amount of money. Congress should have serious reservations over giving the Executive Branch so much sway over the funding of congressional priorities and the framework of the legislative agenda.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The reason I asked you to yield, Mr. Chairman, is that it strikes me that the entire membership should know that already Mr. Murtha and you together have lost out to the legislative branch subcommittee. It is a very unusual thing. I think maybe Mr. Murtha has lost control.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and to try to answer the gentleman's very appropriate questions.

I will speak to both of the amendments that he might have in mind, the Tech Center in Apple Valley, California, and the JASON Foundation program, for it speaks very much to why this kind of funding should flow through the Defense Department. If

there is a need that this country has today as it relates to our future security and national defense, it is to one way or another here at the Federal level, where we can impact education, it is to begin to turn around the involvement of young people as well as excellent teachers in the fields of math and science.

Without any question, our future viability in terms of security does relate to America leading in these fields. The JASON Foundation is very much involved in that question; but most importantly, I would like to highlight that by describing the Tech Center in Apple Valley, California, and give you a feeling for what we are talking about as far as turning kids on to math and science and stimulating teachers to become better teachers in the fields of math and science.

A young teacher dealing with kids at the elementary level took them out in the countryside in the nighttime in the desert. You and I know it gets cold in the desert, and they looked at the stars. When it started getting cold, he thought, we need a center where kids can study these things.

It led to this high-tech center. Amazing over time what has evolved from that model that one day may very well turn around the teaching of math and science in the country. No less than Dan Goldin visited this school, and walking into a classroom with me. Here were about 30 youngsters around the room at computers. The unique thing about this was not just that. But these were third grade youngsters who happened to be handicapped, and they were using their computers to develop lesson plans for their colleagues in the third grade in Philadelphia.

And Goldin's eyes got big as he examined some of the ideas coming from this high-tech center as to how to turn kids on. Over time he saw that this was perhaps the first chapter of the book that must be written that will change the way we teach math and science in the country. Dan Goldin eventually, with this young guy, became convinced that he ought to gift him the first antenna that brought men back from the Moon. And as a result of that gift, that school and its teaching model is currently across the country teaching kids to use the Internet by way of using this antenna. Now, tens of thousands of youngsters in school districts all over the country and in four foreign countries are participating in this effort to turn around the way math and science is taught, the way teachers are turned on, and the way kids are turned on to the fields of math and science.

If we are going to lead the world in the future and have the security for the world for peace we need, we must get back in the business of math and science, and this chapter will be a piece of the book that will be written.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the chance to tell my colleagues about the benefits to students from military families from access to the JASON science education program.

Since 1993, this non-profit subsidiary of the National Geographic Society has provided advanced science and mathematics training to DoD teachers and students. Because of the funding provided in past Defense Appropriations bills, many DoD teachers have had the opportunity to attend extended hands-on science training sessions with experts from NASA, NOAA and many major universities.

As my colleagues are well aware, we are facing a science education crisis in the United States. Within the next five years, some 70 percent of current advanced math and science teachers will be able to retire. More and more of the science and math students in our top universities are immigrants, with fewer and fewer students from our nation's public schools each year.

Independent analysis shows that teachers who have the opportunity to attend the JASON seminars are much better prepared to lead their students into an understanding of science and math, and to get their kids enthusiastic about making a career out of these subjects. These seminars are highly recommended by the National Science Teachers Association.

Schools that serve our nation's military families are increasing ranked among the best, and one of the chief reasons for that is their affiliation with enrichment programs like the JASON project. Our responsibility lies not only with providing weapons and training to those who would defend our nation. We must also make we give the very best opportunities and benefits to their families, who are also making a sacrifice in defense of America.

Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amount of money to invest in bringing better science and mathematics education to our military families. Our nation needs that training, and these families deserve it.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to inform my colleagues on the excellent programs put together by the Center for Education Research in Apple Valley, California.

First, it is important to remember that the 21st Century Department of Defense is much more than weapons programs and soldiers in barracks. Tens of thousands of our dedicated men and women in uniform have made a life-long career of defending their nation. They now have families, and it has become our responsibility to provide for those families as they move about our nation to meet the needs of our military.

Many schools that serve the children of military families have developed high standards of excellence. But not all schools in all places have met these standards in the past. As the DoD worked to translate these high standards to other schools, the Center for Education Research came forward with a proposed discipline for science nearly a decade ago.

The heart of this program is the Goldstone-Apple Valley Radio Telescope curriculum, which allows 10,000 students around the world to take part in NASA research projects by way of the Internet. This program now reaches students and teachers in 27 states, 14 countries and three territories.

I want to emphasize that the support of these students is valued and sought out by NASA researchers. In fact, the students' efforts have in many cases saved millions of dollars for Federal science programs by freeing top researchers from process work and allowing them to do more analysis.

The Center for Excellence was asked last year to create a comprehensive Internet-based science curriculum and train 500 teachers by the Department of Defense Education Activity program, which is the primary agency helping our DoD schools achieve high levels of excellence. The Stars and Stripes newspaper, and even DoDEA itself, have featured this program in stories that highlight what we are trying to do for our military families.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again want to point out that not all good ideas come through the bureaucracies that oversee spending for our federal government. Often those bureaucracies hold back ideas that could quickly and dramatically advance the quality of services we provide to our constituents--and in this case--the families of those who defend us.

When this happens, these programs need an advocate who can get the agency to engage, and see the value of these ideas. I am proud to be an advocate for a program that continues to help tens of thousands of kids whose parents devote their lives to protecting our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant for both the Federal government and the desert communities in my district--Michael B. Styles, the longtime national president of the Federal Managers Association and one of the guiding lights of Copper Mountain Community College.

My good friend Mike Styles has been a dedicated member of the Federal Manager Association's General Executive Board since 1986. He served as national vice president, zone president, and chapter president. As national president for some 15 years until this past March, his efforts are a testament to the highest level of commitment an individual can demonstrate on the behalf of federal workers.

His leadership among federal managers was recognized when the President appointed him in 1995 to the National Partnership Council, which advises the President on federal labor-management issues and relations. His six years on the council helped open up communication between the management industry and the Administration and Congress.

In his long career in Tactical Data Systems management with the Department of the Navy and United State Marine Corps, Mike helped make significant improvements in systems acquisition and logistics support. The Fleet Marine Force, one of his main projects, has been improved considerably by his efforts.

He spent 30 years as a lecturer, facilitator and consultant, specializing in education theory and practice. Since 1986, Mike has taught graduate and undergraduate courses as adjunct professor at the National University School of Management and Technology. He is a tremendous asset as President of the Federal Management Institute, the association's education division, having received a master's degree in education from the University of Redlands. He was also a fellow at Syracuse University's Maxwell Center for Advanced Public Management.

The citizens of Joshua Tree, a desert city in my congressional district, are particularly grateful for Mike Styles' contributions to the Copper Mountain Community College District. Mike was the original founder of the Friends of Copper Mountain College, established in 1983. This charitable organization provides students with educational support and introduces them to community service. He has served on the college's board of directors since 1996, and has been president of the College Foundation for the past two years. This college is especially important to our federal workforce, since it serves Marines and their dependents who are stationed at the nearby Air-Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms.

The Morongo Basin has also benefited greatly from Mike's community service. He serves on the United Way's Board of Directors, is a member of the Knight of Columbus, and plays an active role in the chamber of commerce. Having worked with Mike over the years, I can attest to his dedication in bettering the Inland Empire region of California.

Mr. Speaker, Mike Styles has been an exemplary public servant and civic leader, and thousands of our federal employees and students have benefited from his expertise and dedication to education excellence. In addition to ending his long service as FMA president this spring, Mike is stepping down as president of the college foundation. Please join me in thanking him for his dedication, and wishing him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to express my sadness at the passing of a friend, David Hansberger of Yucaipa, whose civic leadership helped guide this growing community to cityhood and set it on a course to become a highly-desired destination city in my California district. Mr. Hansberger passed away this week, and all of his friends will feel the loss.

David Hansberger is a native of Redlands, my hometown, and received all of his education in our area. As he grew up, the Inland Empire also grew, from a semi-rural group of small cities to a population powerhouse--one of the largest urban growth areas in the United States. That we have been able to remain a fabulous place to live is a credit to local leaders like David Hansberger and his brother, Dennis, who is now a San Bernardino County Supervisor.

His public service career actually began in the Coast Guard, where he served 8 years and became a First Class Petty Officer and received the Honor Man Award. When he returned to San Bernardino County, he became a leader in a number of our local industries: Owner-operator of Snow-Line Orchards for 13 years; manager of Tri-City Concrete and Perris Ready- Mix; Realtor for Hansberger-Teeters and Emerich and Company, and finally the District Manager of the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District, protecting the natural assets of the growing area.

David applied this intimate knowledge of how San Bernardino County ticked to his civic activities. He served on hospital and charity boards, and was very active in the Jaycees, ultimately becoming a District Governor for that group. He was very popular as a caller at auction events for charities, and was given credit for dozens of extremely successful fund-raisers for groups over the years.

Perhaps David Hansberger's largest contribution, however, was in helping guide the citizens of Yucaipa into cityhood. This booming area in the foothills on the east side of San Bernardino Valley had made four attempts at incorporation by the mid-1980s, and the lack of success had caused deep divisions in the community.

Mr. Hansberger took over as president of the Yucaipa City Incorporation Committee, and is widely credited with smoothing the rivalries and disagreements. Yucaipa voters finally voted to incorporate in 1989, and the city has grown to a population of 47,000. David Hansberger became a charter member of the city planning commission, and helped set a tone of top-quality home development that has made the city a beautiful place.

The friends of David Hansberger are legion--indeed, most people who knew him would say he never let anyone be a stranger for long. His genuine concern and compassion drew people to him, and he welcomed them as friends.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in expressing condolences to Mr. Hansberger's wife of 41 years, Sheila, and his children, grandchildren, parents and siblings. I ask you to join me as well in celebrating his wonderful contributions to making his community, and our world, a friendlier and more livable place.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's yielding.

You and I have had a great opportunity to work together in the defense arena in recent years. My chairing our subcommittee in Appropriations brought in clear form to me the contribution you have made to the strength of America and our role in the world.

I may not be able to speak later, but let me say to the gentleman that very early on in this process, one of the great trips I have ever taken was with a cross-section of this House, people who voted against the war, people who were in the center somewhere, people who supported the President from the beginning, all of them over a long weekend. And together we saw Saddam Hussein for what he was, visiting killing fields with 500,000 people that this guy murdered, of his own people, while he was building golden palaces.

As we left, we came together to see what we would do about that big supplemental on the war. To a person, Democrat and Republican, one of our Members summarized it by saying this: All of you know where I have been coming from. I voted against the war. It is going to be very unpopular when I go home. But after seeing what Saddam Hussein is really about, how could we do anything else?

And all 13 of those Members came in that great debate and supported the President's fight against Saddam Hussein because it was a fight against the war on terror.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. The gentleman who presents the amendment has expressed in many ways his commitment to reducing Federal spending across the board. There is not any doubt that he and I disagree relative to the way we should go about reducing the Federal budget and impacting the national debt.

For example, just last week we had an extensive debate regarding the supplemental appropriations bill, which was designed to provide vitally needed funds to fight the war on terror in the Middle East and, above and beyond that, to provide critical funding for relief for those people who are impacted by hurricanes in the gulf coast. The gentleman felt that that spending within that package was unacceptable enough to him that he voted against those efforts.

In contrast, when we attempted to weigh and measure carefully those funding requirements, I thought that supplemental did a fabulous job. I voted in favor of it. So we have a different approach relative to how we would impact the Federal budget.

In this instance, we are talking about very, very small pieces of money. The other involves billions of dollars, but they were critical Federal responsibilities. The gentleman in this instance is addressing by way of a couple of amendments a region in California that has faced very, very explosive growth. The communities within the region are made up of people who are largely older, senior citizen. They do not have an industrial base.

There is, in one instance, a very interesting cooperative project between the community involved, the city, a community college and senior citizen organizations to make sure that there is a recreational activity that will not only assist the schools' physical education programs but also supplement the vital economic needs of that community.

The gentleman has suggested that nothing has been done in the appropriations process regarding reducing spending over these recent years. Let me suggest the reality is much different than that. The fiscal year 2007 House Agriculture appropriations bill includes $35 million less in Member projects than last year's bill.

The Military Quality of Life bill reduced Member projects by $40 million compared to last year. The current House Interior appropriations bill reduced Member projects by $89 million.

We have brought about a small revolution in this last year in the appropriations process. Every one of our bills came in under budget and well ahead of time. Working with the other body, we were able to send all of our conference reports to the President's desk for signature without having an omnibus bill at the other end.

The gentleman, paying lip service to reducing the budget in this amendment, reduces spending by something like .0007 percent. The reality is that whatever money might be theoretically saved by his amendment will go back into the pool and bureaucrats will spend the money.

I believe that the President should and has the responsibility to present the House with a budget. We, in turn, have a constitutional responsibility to control spending. You do that by effective oversight of every one of these programs.

Indeed, in this instance the gentleman seems to have much more confidence in bureaucrats downtown than he has in the Members of the House who do their work every day, day in and day out, year in and year out, in our subcommittees.

Indeed, I strongly object to that style which would suggest a Member's preconceived notion is better than the work of the House. I urge, very strongly, to have the Members vote against these proposed amendments that suggests that either one Member or indeed bureaucrats can do the job better than the committee.

I appreciate very much the chairman. I must say I have come to the floor simply to express my deep appreciation for the work that the chairman is doing on this very important measure, a bill that drives much of the infrastructure of the country, as well as providing housing programs. He and Mr. Olver have done a great job on this bill under circumstances where they are under great pressure. There is never quite enough money available to do all that we might like, so it takes very, very positive bipartisan effort to make sure that we provide balance as we restrain spending at the same time.

It is a very fine bill. And I might mention further that these gentlemen, together, are now today producing the eighth bill out of 11 FY 07 Appropriations bills off the floor. It is our intention to complete all those bills by the 4th of July break. You are giving us a fantastic demonstration today that anything is possible if people are willing to work together. So it is great to be with you. And thank you very much for your effort.

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. 4939.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 857, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

The supplemental provides $94.5 billion for the global war on terror, disaster assistance, border security and avian flu preparedness. This measure provides significant funding to fight the global war on terrorism and support the troops. Funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are provided at $65.8 billion. This includes funding earmarked by Congress for Humvees, Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles.

Additionally, the conference report includes roughly $2 billion to develop and procure countermeasures to prevent Improvised Explosive Devices attacks on our troops.

Funding for disaster assistance is at the President's request of $19.8 billion. Included in the funding is the following: $6 billion for FEMA disaster relief; $5.2 billion for community and economic development; $3.7 billion for various flood control repairs by the Army Corps of Engineers; as well as $500 million for agriculture disaster assistance for farmers, ranchers and producers affected by the 2005 hurricanes. The total is $3.4 billion below the Senate-passed bill.

Avian flu preparedness is funded at the President's request of $2.3 billion. Border security is funded at $1.9 billion. This funding provides $708 million to deploy National Guard troops along the Southwest border.

Additionally, $1.2 billion is provided to the Department of Homeland Security to enhance border security. This funding also assumes the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 4,000 additional detention beds and various tactical and logistics support activities for the Secure Borders Initiative.

Finally, the border security package also earmarks $20 million to increase judges and attorneys at the Department of Justice to better process violation of immigration laws.

The conferees worked exhaustively to knock out items not related to the global war on terror and disaster assistance, as well as to reduce the overall funding for this package.

You may recall the Senate-passed bill was $108.9 billion. The House- passed bill was $91.9 billion. The House bill was passed on March 16. Remember that, Mr. Speaker, March 16, prior to the President's formally requesting funding for border security, avian flu preparedness or levees. This package is $94.5 billion. The final conference report before us is $14.4 billion below the Senate-passed bill.

The conference report excluded funding for a $700 million railroad relocation project and no language compelling the DOD to cover hurricane damage to shipyard facilities otherwise covered by private insurance.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN06.013

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, my permanent chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Florida, Bill Young.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would yield back as well except just to make a comment about your comment, and that is to say first and foremost, the gentleman made some very interesting comments that I have a good deal of empathy for, but beyond that, this bill would not be here in this timely fashion, in this form, in a bipartisan spirit if the gentleman had not been very, very cooperative in this effort, and I appreciate that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in the closing moments of the legislative work on the Foreign Operations subcommittee report almost entirely to remind the Members that this is perhaps one of the most difficult bills of all those that we take through the appropriations process, not because it is the largest bill, not because there are not problems solving the bill, but because, generally speaking across the country, Americans tend to say if we are going to spend money, we ought to spend money at home first and forget about spending money anywhere else, except perhaps for national defense.

Ofttimes my constituents say why are we spending so much money on foreign aid, not recognizing that we are spending such a very, very fractional piece of our total dollar available in this arena, but it is through this vehicle that our voice is effectively heard around the world on behalf of freedom, of opportunity and, indeed, on behalf of American interests.

There is little doubt that this bill has done so well over the years because we have had the kind of leadership in this subcommittee that truly recognizes the importance of this. We have all talked about the fact that Mrs. Lowey and our chairman, Jim Kolbe, have worked so well together, but this is Jim Kolbe's last bill on the floor where he is formally presenting his thought and his leadership relative to that role in the world. He has done a fabulous job for us. We are going to miss him in the House. I must say that if any regret regarding these remarks at all, it is to say that I only wish Jim Kolbe would be back next year working with us on this and many other projects for years to come.

So thank you, Mr. Kolbe, very much.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. This is the seventh of 11 bills the committee plans to bring to the House floor before the 4th of July break.

I, too, want to take a moment to express my appreciation for the work of Mr. Kolbe, as well as Ms. Lowey. These two people working together are a demonstration of the way Congress ought to work. The two of them working together does demonstrate for all of us that the best way to get this done is to set aside partisan differences where it is possible, but, most importantly, to promote the thought that the place works a lot better by working together.

I want to take a moment to give very special tribute to Jim Kolbe, as Ms. Lowey did. Jim is presenting his last bill. It is a very, very impressive product, most impressive because it demonstrates truly one of our fabulous Members working on behalf of all of us and the country. Jim Kolbe is as fine a member as the Appropriations Committee has ever had.

The bill addresses critical issues, including the AIDS pandemic, global trade and commerce, anti-narcotics programs, and the Global War on Terrorism.

Specifically, this bill provides a total of $3.4 billion in global assistance funds

to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, $752 million above last year's level, and the same as the President's request.

The bill provides $445 million for the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. These accounts are more than double the amount that was requested by the President.

The legislation also provides a record level of funding for the President's signature foreign assistance initiative, the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Total funding is $2 billion, $248 million above last year. That represents a budget increase in a very tight budget circumstance.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is really important for us to recognize the role that this bill has played on the global war on terror. We would not have been as successful as we have been in that effort if it had not been for the work of this subcommittee.

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. 5521, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

The bill that we bring before you today is the legislative branch bill that funds the activities of the House. The bill includes approximately $3 billion, excluding the Senate items, an increase of about 3.6 percent over FY 2006.

We worked very closely with Mr. Obey and his staff in developing this bill. I want to thank the committee members on both sides of the aisle, as well as our very fine staff for the work they have done.

While the bill is very small in size, it is the fundamental oil that allows the legislative branch to carry out its important responsibilities relative to our Nation's legislative and governmental interests here in Washington.

The bill represents a $224 million reduction, or 6.9 percent below the request. There will be no further reduction in the current workforce. All personnel cost-of-living increases and all

of their pay-related costs are provided. The Capitol Visitor Center is funded at the cost-to-complete level of $25.6 million. This amount reflects the GAO's latest estimate, and the Architect has concurred with the estimate. An additional $20.5 million is included for project fit-out and operations, essentially getting the place ready to go. The bill establishes an Inspector General in the Architect of the Capitol's Office. The IG will audit and report semiannually on management and operations of the AOC.

We expect to complete this bill today and move forward from there to the foreign operations bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JN06.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JN06.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JN06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH07JN06.004

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Thompson, for his hard work and leadership on electronic-waste generated by the legislative branch. The Committee shares his concern and has included language in its report to ensure that Member offices are made aware that the House has regulations regarding the disposal of unwanted electronic equipment and for the Chief Administrative Officer to develop user friendly guidelines and procedures for Member offices. In addition, the Committee will request that each legislative branch agency provide information to the Committee regarding its disposal policy for electronic equipment and work to address this issue in conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Obey and I have both understood for years that if you wander through the Rayburn Building and do not get lost, you have been here too long. With that, I think you have a very good proposal.

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

I rise at this moment only because I intended to do this at the beginning of the presentation of the bill and I was unable to be on the floor, but it is very important for the Members to know that the combination of work between the chairman of this subcommittee and our ranking member, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Sabo, reflects the very best work of the House and the Appropriations Committee.

This is the fifth bill that will be coming off the floor in an effort to have all our bills completed with their work on the floor by the 4th of July break. Without their fabulous partnership, this would not have been possible today.

In the bill overall, they provide approximately $32 billion for homeland defense, but I want to for those Members who are most concerned about that pattern whereby we are reducing patterns of growth in government to have them realize that this year's homeland security bill terminates six programs, resulting in $154 million in taxpayer savings. More importantly, in the five appropriations bills considered on the House floor thus far this year, the Appropriations Committee has recommended the termination of 22 programs for a total savings of $1.082 billion.

This is a very important piece of work. It shows the kind of imagination we need if we are going to be able to effectively carry forward this war on terrorism that is first international, but most important, important relative to our homeland defense and homeland security.

I want to congratulate the gentlemen and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5427, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for the year 2007. This is the fourth of 11 bills the committee plans to bring to the House floor before the July 4 break.

I want to especially extend praise to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky, as well as members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and their staff for their very fine work in preparing this bill.

This measure provides $30 billion in total discretionary spending. This represents a decrease, I repeat, a decrease of some $172 million below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.

The bill contains critical funding to support a vigorous civil works program through the U.S. Corps of Engineers, focusing limited resources on completing high-priority projects. This legislation also continues a number of significant reforms to improve project execution and financial management.

The bill also includes a number of important energy initiatives, including efforts to strengthen clean energy technologies, energy supply and conservation programs, and fossil energy research and development.

I would like to make two additional points regarding this bill. First, Member project funding in the bill before us today is some $200 million, or 16 percent, below last year's level. This bill also terminates four programs, resulting in $460.5 million in taxpayer savings.

Mr. Speaker, this energy and water bill is a fine product, worthy of all of our support. One more time, I would like to commend Mr. Hobson and Mr. Visclosky for their work together.