Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are here 80 days into the new fiscal year, and one appropriations bill has been signed into law. Today, we are here to consider hopefully the last piece of the appropriations puzzle, as well as yet another continuing resolution before the omnibus appropriations bill is sent to the President.

What is so interesting about this process is that the omnibus bill that has finally come before the House in many ways is very similar to the proposals that the minority has advocated for months, and is very similar to what we predicted would, in fact, be the legislation that ultimately would become law. However, Madam Speaker, instead of working toward a compromise, a bipartisan resolution to this legislation, a bipartisan product, the majority decided to use the appropriations process to, in effect, score political points while funding for our troops in critical theaters of operation has been dangerously delayed.

Now, the underlying amendment we will consider today will finally help bring our appropriations process to a close, and it will do so in a fiscally responsible manner, funding the Federal Government and funding our troops in critical theaters of operation without preconditions and without strings. These funds will allow for the progress that we have recently seen to continue to take hold. It will allow for our men and women in uniform to continue to do their job as they have done so, so effectively, in fact, so heroically for so long.

I think commendation is due. I think congratulations is due to all who have worked on this process, and that congratulations I think is due to those on both sides of the aisle who have worked hard, have worked diligently, to come up with this final appropriations legislation work product that will fund the Federal Government for the next fiscal year, and especially, as I have said, will continue to fund in critical theaters of operation our men and women who are doing such an extraordinary job and who deserve our unrestricted support.

There are very important, very important endeavors, efforts and projects that are funded in this appropriations bill, in this omnibus appropriations bill. We cannot, I believe, emphasize sufficiently, especially at this critical time, our support and the continued need of our support for our great ally and friend, Israel, that lives in an area of the world that is extremely dangerous. And while we have the benefit of thousands of miles between, for example, the state sponsor of terrorism in Iran, the regime in Iran, Madam Speaker, while we have thousands of miles physically separating us from that state sponsor of terrorism, our friend and ally, Israel, does not. And so I have always felt very strongly about our need to support Israel. The fact that this appropriations legislation includes the support that it does for our friend and ally, Israel, is something that I think is very important. And there are many, many aspects of this legislation that we, on a bipartisan basis, can be very proud of. And we, I think, will have further opportunity to discuss them.

But today, I am told that there are some glitches that need to be worked out, and that the majority needs some time and the appropriators need some time on both sides of the aisle to work them out. So we will be hopefully seeing those glitches being resolved in the next minutes and hours.

As we wait for those glitches to be resolved, we are cognizant of the fact that we are finally bringing to the floor the rule that will allow for consideration of the final legislative product on the appropriations for this year.

With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like, at this time, Madam Speaker, to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, my friend, Mr. Sessions of Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this matter was debated previously. It is obviously a critically important piece of legislation. I made some points about it before. I am not going to repeat my points at this time. I hope we can move to other very pressing matters before us today.

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

I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is our duty to do all we can to provide future generations a better world in which to live. Our Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but there is still much more to do. We must continue to decrease carbon emissions and invest in multiple forms of energy-efficient technologies to help preserve the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.

For our national security, we must make investments to increase clean energy sources and increase domestic energy supplies. From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12

billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable domestic energy sources. They included the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.

The underlying legislation, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, further promotes research and development into next-generation energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and marine energy. Furthermore, it authorizes almost $3 billion for energy storage and development programs to make renewable energy sources more effective. But we must keep in mind that right now, alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist.

I am pleased that incentives for the domestic production of oil and gas have been retained in this final legislation. These incentives are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of these incentives, which were included in earlier versions of this legislation, would have driven up the costs of oil and natural gas to American consumers even further and increased our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the strongman/clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

I am also pleased that a provision that would have taxed domestic oil companies at higher rates than the Chavez-controlled oil company was removed.

This legislation also provides for the H-Prize. The H-Prize will award cash prices to individuals, universities and businesses making significant advances in the field of hydrogen energy. Hydrogen is a clean domestic energy source that produces no emissions other than water. The use of hydrogen as an energy source will simultaneously reduce dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Unfortunately, this bill has taken almost a year to make it to the President's desk because the majority decided to shut out the minority from deliberations for much of the year. When this bill first came before the House in the opening days of the 110th Congress, the majority blocked all amendments with a closed rule. In August when we considered H.R. 3221, the majority shut out over 90 amendments and allowed only five minority amendments out of 23 amendments. Just last week, we considered Senate amendments to H.R. 6, and once again the majority blocked the minority from providing amendments. If the majority had just decided to follow its campaign promise and allow the minority to participate in the formulation of this legislation, this bill could have been signed into law months ago.

I would also point out that the majority brings this legislation to the floor as a Senate amendment instead of as a conference report. As such, it fits into one of the loopholes of the majority's earmark rule, just as it did last week. Because the earmark rule did not apply to the legislation last week, it wasn't possible to find out that the bill contained earmarks until after the bill passed the House. So we wonder if the legislation we are considering today also contains earmarks. Unfortunately, we will not know, because the legislation is not subject to the earmark rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

It is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or a report or a statement there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept ``amendments between the Houses'' such as they plan to do with the underlying legislation. Because the energy bill is not a conference report,

the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in the legislation.

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

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

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

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

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

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

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

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

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

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

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

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

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

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

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

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

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

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

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

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

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

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

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

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

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

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

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

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

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

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

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

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

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

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

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

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

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

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

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

question whether a special rule waives the application of

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

application.

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

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

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

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

negative implication would be that such a point of order

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

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

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

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

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

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

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

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, ``I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

Madam Speaker, those are not my words; those are the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts. He spoke those words on the floor on several occasions last year regarding what he eloquently called a ``martial law rule.''

So, although they are not my words, they are quite relevant to this debate. Since I have already used some of the gentleman's words, I will continue to point out one more comment that the gentleman made on martial law rules. I think this one quote is particularly interesting because it was given on December 7, 2006, just a month before the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. It speaks about how the Democrats proposed to run the House, and it is in sharp contrast to how they are actually running the House. This is what the gentleman said:

``There is a better way to run this body. The truth is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debates on the issues that come before this body.''

Now, I ask, Madam Speaker, where is that openness and fairness my colleague spoke about? Where is the openness on the energy bill rule, where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican substitute? Where was that openness when we considered SCHIP reauthorization under two closed rules, shutting out all amendments? Where is that openness today when we are asked to consider a 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill with less than 24 hours to review the legislation?

I know where it is, Madam Speaker. They left it on the campaign trail. It was an empty promise, and it became evident that it was a false, hollow promise on the opening day of their new majority, when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for the consideration of the first six bills that they were to take up, in effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first six bills they were to bring to the floor.

So their remedy for examples of unfairness they had criticized in the Rules Committee was: no Rules Committee. And that trend, started, sadly, that day, continues to this day.

As my colleague has said, yes, and I quote, ``There is a better way to run this body. The truth is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debates on the issues that come before this body.'' How right my colleague was.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts spoke earlier about the fact that my previous comments were focused upon process; and that is correct, they were, because process is a fundamental aspect of a representative democracy.

The legislation that the majority made available early this morning, this bill, Madam Speaker, I was in the district today and I had the opportunity and privilege of having various meetings with constituents, and I have arrived here this evening, and I must admit, Madam Speaker, that I have not had the time to absorb this bill.

Now, process is important because it is our responsibility, Madam Speaker, to represent the American people in a responsible way. Now, the rules of the House call for, and it is true, and the former chairman mentioned it, and I admit, I have made mistakes, as well, the rules of the House call for 3 days for Members to be able to review bills.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I may have been able to lift it up, but I have not had the opportunity to absorb the legislation, as I think as important a bit of legislation needs to be reviewed.

Now, as I was saying, Madam Speaker, that rule, the requirement of 3 days for Members of this House to review legislation, is often waived by the Rules Committee. That is why the new majority made a promise during the campaign to at least provide 24 hours so that Members could review, study, attempt to absorb legislation at least with 24 hours. So that is why it is most sad, most unfortunate that the new majority is not living up to its own promises. Because I think there is a legitimate, it is a legitimate point of concern when the 3-day rule is waived. And that is why the promise was made.

So I think it is most unfortunate that the promise of the new majority to at least allow the House 24 hours to review legislation, especially as important a piece of legislation as this omnibus appropriations legislation is, that promise is not kept.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule while closing loopholes that we have found over the last few months, that under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as is it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept amendments between Houses, such as they plan to do with this omnibus appropriations bill. Because the omnibus appropriations bill is not a conference report, it will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule, and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that are contained in this legislation.

I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian John Sullivan recently sent to Rules Chairwoman Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since

January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

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

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

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

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

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

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

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

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

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

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

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

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

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

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

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

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

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

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

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

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

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

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

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

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

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

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

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

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

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

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

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

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

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

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

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

question whether a special rule waives the application of

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

application.

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

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

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

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

negative implication would be that such a point of order

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

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

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

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

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

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

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

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.

Hon. David R. Obey,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a

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

consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That

measure also includes a provision giving you the option of

inserting extraneous explanatory material in the

Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the

remainder of this session.

During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment

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

required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus

appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the

rule was rejected along partisan lines.

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

this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained

in bills coming through your committee. However, because the

omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate

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

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

will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be

contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the

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

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

provided for that measure because it fell within the same

loophole.

We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the

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

provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of

earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior

to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of

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

Members, and the Nation.

We appreciate your willingness to consider our request.

Respectfully,

David Dreier.

Doc Hastings.

Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Peter Sessions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would reserve at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

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

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

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

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

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

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

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

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

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

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

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

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

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

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

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

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

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

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

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

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

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

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

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

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

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

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

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

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

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

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

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

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

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

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

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

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

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

question whether a special rule waives the application of

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

application.

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

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

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

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

negative implication would be that such a point of order

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

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

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

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

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

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

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

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, here we are 74 days into the new fiscal year, and the new majority is requesting their third continuing resolution to fund the government because they failed to pass the necessary appropriations bills.

As of today, only one appropriations bill funding the Department of Defense has been signed into law. What is the status of the rest? Well, another one has made it to a conference committee, and the rest of the appropriations bills wait for the majority to decide what to do. They control both Houses of Congress, and yet they still have to decide what to do.

They had a chance to bring their record to two appropriations bills signed into law. But instead, the majority decided to play politics with a bill that had extraordinary bipartisan support, the Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, because the majority thought they could use it as a campaign ploy.

The new majority promised that they would finish their appropriations work. About a year ago, my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said things would be different under the leadership of the new majority. She said, and I quote, ``The House will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its most basic duties.''

Well, today we see that that has not been possible. Next week, the majority is expected to propose an omnibus appropriations bill for all the appropriations bills that haven't been finished. That bill will probably run into the thousands of pages and spend nearly half a trillion dollars. Members may not have enough time to read and digest that legislation before they are asked to vote on it. And unless the majority decides to move the omnibus appropriations bill through a conference committee, that bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the majority's earmark rule, and the rules of the House then would not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in that massive omnibus appropriations bill. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include numerous earmarks that no one is going to be able to vet and that most won't even be able to see.

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

I sincerely hope that Chairman Obey will comply with our request. If he does, that would, to an extent, provide Members with a bit of comfort when the bill comes to the floor.

Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.

Hon. David R. Obey,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a

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

consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That

measure also includes a provision giving you the option of

inserting extraneous explanatory material in the

Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the

remainder of this session.

During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment

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

required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus

appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the

rule was rejected along partisan lines.

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

this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained

in bills coming through your committee. However, because the

omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate

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

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

will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be

contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the

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

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

provided for that measure because it fell within the same

loophole.

We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the

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

provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of

earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior

to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of

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

Members, and the Nation.

We appreciate your willingness to consider our request.

Respectfully,

David Dreier,

Doc Hastings,

Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

Pete Sessions.

Madam Speaker, the new majority, again, has failed to live up to their promises to finish their work on time and many others, and the underlying third continuing resolution is just another example of their failure to lead.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing the conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act that I made reference to a few minutes ago. The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate followed suit and named conferees on September 6 of this year.

Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. They have even refused to name conferees. Instead, the majority plans to include the veterans funding in the massive omnibus appropriations legislation. But the status of the omnibus is still in doubt.

Negotiations apparently are ongoing, but we all know there is one bill that has extraordinarily wide bipartisan support and that the President will quickly sign it into law, the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. We already know that we are going to be here next week. We should pass the Veterans Affairs appropriation bill and provide the veterans the funding they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question. Our veterans deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if he would be so kind, I have been reviewing the bill since it was made available to us last night, and I was wondering, that earmark that he referred to, if he has any idea where it would be.

I will continue looking, then.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend, Mr. Welch, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, bipartisanship, those are just some of the words the new majority used to describe the way they were going to run the 110th Congress. Today, just as we have seen during much of the new majority's stewardship of the House during this year, those have been, at best, hollow promises.

The rule we are considering is being called something similar to a standard conference report rule by the majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, normally considering a conference report under such a rule would not cause much controversy, but this is not a conference report. It never went through the usual conference process. The majority never named conferees, never held a conference meeting nor gave the minority the chance to offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Last night in the Rules Committee, we met until late. We heard from our friends on the other side the aisle that, well, it is not a conference report because Republicans in the Senate didn't want a conference. But Mr. Barton was there. He is, as you know, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and he said ``I certainly wanted to be part of it. I wanted to be part of the conference.'' So, again, the blame was on the Republicans, even though, last I heard in November, it was the Democrats that won the majority in the House and in the Senate.

During their campaign, the new majority promised that they would allow for regular order for legislation. They even put their campaign promise in a book called ``A New Direction for America,'' and yet they have consistently broken their campaign promises. And today is no exception.

Now, the rule specifically breaks two promises made by the majority during the campaign. First, they said in ``A New Direction for America,'' ``House-Senate conference committees should hold regular meetings at least weekly of all conference committee members. All duly appointed conferees should be informed of the schedule of conference committee activities in a timely manner and given ample opportunity for input and debate as decisions are made toward final bill language.''

Now, why is it important, this difference between a conference report and what is being brought forth today? Again, the majority is saying that because the Senate couldn't go to conference, they were using this procedure in lieu of a conference, of a real conference.

Now, debate is structured like a conference report, and they are trying to argue that we are treating this bill like a conference report. But here is how this process differs: Republican Members were never given an opportunity to review the entire text, as conferees would have been; this bill is being considered with less than the 24 hours promised by the new majority for conference reports; there is no list of earmarks in the bill, as would be required in a conference report; and there is no list of air-dropped earmarks, as would be required in a conference report.

That is why it is important, what we are dealing with. It seems somewhat technical, but it is extremely important that a mechanism is being used that has circumvented the conference process. Circumventing the conference committee not only blocks Members from debating and amending the legislation in the committee, but it blocks the minority from using one of the few legislative tools at our disposal, which is, obviously, as I have said, the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, the one time we considered such a rule in the 109th Congress,

my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, closed his speech opposing the rule by saying things would be different under the new majority. I think his words are particularly relevant today. He said, ``We should have a more open process. We should have regular order. We should have hearings. We should have committee markups. We should do this the right way. I hope that in the next Congress that we will set a new standard, one that we can all be proud of, Democrats and Republicans alike.''

Well, as I said, I think those words are particularly relevant today, because they point to the vast difference between what was promised and the reality of the performance of the majority in this Congress, and we are already 1 year into that performance of the new Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this is not regular order, certainly not what the majority promised. I urge my colleagues to oppose this transparent procedural ploy so that we may have a full and open debate on this critical issue of importance to the Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if this were the serious effort that our distinguished colleague has just mentioned, the majority would permit amendments, would permit discussion, would permit a conference on this critical issue, if it were the serious effort that has been described by the previous speaker. Instead, we see a process to shut out debate, to shut out amendments, to shut out ideas. That is not the serious effort just described.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished leader on the issue of energy in this Congress, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

With regard to the protests, really the outrage that is being heard from this side of the aisle, the origin of that is because of the unfairness of the process, the fact that the minority has been, as was very, I think, clearly explained by the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee when he just spoke, Mr. Barton, the minority has been shut out. And this is an extremely important issue for the Nation. And if there is going to be a new energy policy, the new energy policy must be developed by the representatives of the American people in a way that represents, not only a strict numerical majority that controls the process of the House by virtue of the existence of the Rules Committee, et cetera, the ability to close out debate, but that it has to reflect genuine majority opinion. And that is reflected in the United States of America when there is dialogue, discussion, and agreement in a bipartisan fashion. So that's where the complaining, the outrage is coming from.

And I would remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that this is too important an issue to have such an exclusivist process being used to develop it. Apparently, there is no genuine interest in passing a law, in having a law passed, become law, legislation become law; but, rather, there is interest in the exercise of press releases, of passage by the House, perhaps like we've seen with much of the appropriations process where, certainly in the 15 years that I've been here, I don't recall one bill having been sent and signed at this stage of the session.

But anyway, I wanted to remind my colleagues as to the origin of the outrage, of the discontent felt by the minority side of the aisle.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend again for yielding and all of those who participated in this debate on this rule that is so critical in the sense that it is bringing forth legislation of extraordinary importance to the Nation. Unfortunately, it has been brought forth in a process that has been most unfair and ultimately exclusivist, and that does not lead to good policy.

I have a friend who always remarks that in government, personnel is policy. I have realized now how process becomes policy when it is so exclusivist, not allowing the genuine will of the House to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing an AMT patch for the millions of American taxpayers who face the unintended consequences of that tax.

The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy taxpayers from using legitimate deductions and credits to avoid paying taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155 people, the ``super rich.'' The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation; therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers. Without fixing the AMT problem, 25 million taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing the average taxpayer an additional $2,000. In Florida alone, it will affect over 1 million taxpayers, 6.5 times more than in 2005.

The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the IRS to make the necessary changes to tax forms and to process tax returns under any changes to the law. As of now, the majority's failure to pass an AMT fix will force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds until mid March at the earliest. This is likely to delay returns for 21 million taxpayers who currently will be subject to the AMT but who, with the patch, would not have to pay the AMT. That comes out to about a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government paid for by the American taxpayer.

We urgently need to fix the AMT so that American taxpayers will not have to wait to get their hard-earned money back from the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question.

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

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

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

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

I thank my friend for yielding.

When we see significant changes in law included in the rule as we see this morning, in other words, self-executed in the rule, it's important that these questions be asked during the debate on the rule, because after this rule is passed, changes in the law will already have been made. The changes in the law are included in the rule.

I have some serious questions. Some of them were already brought out by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. For example, there is this section, section 18 in the legislation being brought to us today. Basically it says, warrantless surveillance is authorized by this legislation on any undocumented person in the United States. Now, that's in the law. And I would ask any colleague listening to this, it's in the self-executing part of this rule, section 18, ``This act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of any alien not permitted to be in or remain in the United States.''

Now, how do you know, Mr. Speaker, if they're undocumented or not? Thus, now, this will give the right to surveillance, warrantless surveillance with regard to any household where there may be an undocumented worker? This is extremely serious. The question needs to be asked.

The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee pointed out, that's why this needs to be vetted, to be discussed, and not to be included in a rule where we find out about this the morning that the rule is on the floor and the rule makes it law, because it includes in the rule changes in the law that we hadn't even been able to see before.

Now, other questions. There is a prior section in the legislation, section 3, that creates what they call basket warrants for terrorists throughout the world. But wait a minute. Section 18 says that if you are someone not permitted to be in the United States, it should not be construed to prohibit surveillance. My question is, does that section void the prior basket warrant section? I don't know. What I know is that it's in the rule.

When we vote on the rule in a few minutes, we will be self-executing legislation, because these changes in the law are in the rule to be self-executed, to be made already part of the law. So these are serious questions. I wish that there would have been an opportunity for the gentleman from Michigan, along with the chairman, to be vetting these issues, because they're serious issues, serious questions, like the one I asked before.

Now, unlimited, warrantless surveillance for the undocumented. And those who live with the undocumented, I would ask? Those who share a residence with the undocumented? Those who share a workplace with the undocumented and who are citizens, are legal immigrants in the United States? These are serious questions. And now we can ask them on the morning that the legislation is on the floor. And, by the way, it's being included in the rule, so that as soon as we vote on the rule, we will already have voted on this legislation.

No, this is not the way to run this place, Mr. Speaker. It's another example of an excessively exclusivist process keeping out debate affecting legislation, including extremely serious legislation, like this legislation that should be protecting the American people, and that's why this is most unfortunate, this process today, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's important for the future of our children that they develop the skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success later in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education without a proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has long-term effects on their education. We must do all we can so that low-income children do not begin their education at a disadvantage, and that is why Head Start was created.

In order to give the children the proper foundation they need to begin their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive early child development services to about 900,000 children from low- income families. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten with a proper educational foundation for their continued educational success to hopefully break the chain of poverty. The underlying bipartisan conference report builds on the success of the program and alleviates some of its shortcomings.

The bill authorizes over $7 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009, it authorizes a 4.1 percent increase. And for fiscal year 2010, there's an additional 4.5 percent increase.

It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best education possible. There are several provisions in the conference report that will help with that goal. First, the legislation seeks to ensure that a greater number of early Head Start teachers are better trained and educated in early childhood development, with a focus on infant toddler development, no later than September 30, 2012. Additionally, the conference report requires that at least 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or related field by September 30, 2013.

Madam Speaker, competition encourages better quality. As recommended by a 2005 GAO study, this legislation seeks to increase competition among Head Start grantees to help weed out poor performers and foster stronger programs.

There is also a need for greater oversight of the program grantees. This legislation requires Head Start agencies to create a formal structure of program governance for assessing the quality of services received by the Head Start children and families, and for making decisions related to program design and implementation.

The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how Head Start funds are spent. This will help prevent abuse and further ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged children that they are meant to reach.

The conference report kept the House's unanimously passed motion to instruct language limiting the compensation of a Head Start employee to Executive Level II, which equals $168,000. This is to prevent Head Start employees from receiving excessive salaries and bonuses, like in some past experiences.

With regard to a child's eligibility in a Head Start program, the conference report allows Head Start agencies to serve children whose parents earn 130 percent above the poverty level. The conference report caps the amount of participants that can be served at the increased level to 35 percent of all participants, and only if the agency can prove that they are serving all eligible participants at the poverty level.

Other important provisions included in the conference report are to continue the eligibility of faith-based organizations as Head Start agencies. Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations.

With regard to our children's safety, the conference report requires background checks for those who transport children to Head Start centers.

I wish to thank both Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for their bipartisan work on this important legislation. This important legislation goes to show, Madam Speaker, that when we are willing to work together and compromise, we can bring forth good legislation with bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, which I believe is instrumental to the educational success of many children.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, the record brought out today by the Roll Call editorial, that I am very pleased, by the way, that our ranking member brought forth and read into the Record, I think is important for a number of reasons.

Again, I was also here when the distinguished Speaker was elected in January. I recall the promises at that time and during the campaign, the electoral campaign that preceded that ceremony in January. The promises were, and I am sure they will be recalled, to have a more open process, a more transparent House. So the reason why I think it is most appropriate now to bring out the record that Roll Call in

an editorial has outlined is that instead of seeing, during this year, this first year of this Congress, a more open process, a more transparent process, a more democratic process, what we have seen is a more than doubling of the closed rules, of the gag rules, if you will, the gag rules that don't permit any amendments on legislation.

Since we are discussing the rule, by the way, on legislation that is an example of bipartisanship, the Head Start program is one that has been supported from its inception in a bipartisan manner, but we are discussing the rule, the means to debate this legislation, the procedure, if you will, to debate the legislation, I think it's appropriate to bring out the more than doubling by a majority that promised more transparency and more democracy in the running of the House, a more than doubling of gag rules that prohibit debate, that prohibit any amendments for debate. So I think that is appropriate to bring forth. And I commend Roll Call that, yes, was very critical when we were in the majority of many of the things that happened at that time. But a doubling, more than doubling of the impropriety, of the gag rules by a majority that promised more transparency is not only important to bring out but I think it is most unfortunate.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished colleague who has worked so much on this legislation in an admirable way, as he has on many issues of great importance to the American people, Mr. Castle of Delaware.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Education Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations act. The House passed this veterans affairs and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even refused to name conferees.

Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has such bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto, actually, the veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.'' Fortunately, that purely political move failed last week when the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill from the Labor-HHS bill.

Recently the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than that; they deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding. I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question.

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

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

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

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