Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Brian Baird, in introducing the Political Intelligence Disclosure Act. By requiring political intelligence firms to make their activities known in the same way lobbying is reported, this bill will help to bring transparency to the growing world of political intelligence.

Political intelligence firms were first established in the 1970s and have been operating since then without regulation. This industry focuses not on influencing Congress, but on gathering information on forthcoming legislative action in order to give their clients an advantage over other investors. This information is then used to influence decisions on stocks, securities and commodities. Currently, firms conducting political intelligence are not required to disclose their clients or earnings. But the bill we are introducing today would change that and require the same disclosure from political intelligence firms as from lobbying firms.

With leading experts noting that political intelligence businesses have quadrupled in size since 2003, these businesses are now emerging as a key factor in the lobby industry, and should be regulated accordingly. Such an important and increasingly relevant business should certainly be required to make its activities known to the public.

Additionally, there have been reports that employees of political intelligence firms have been attending meetings related to legislation, essentially posing as lobbyists. By requiring disclosure of these firms, this bill will ensure that people attending meetings where legislation is discussed make their intentions known and their goals clear.

The Political Intelligence Disclosure Act will bring necessary accountability to this growing field, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. We must make political intelligence firms accountable and transparent. This important bill will do just that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill today.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Waterfront Brownfields Revitalization Act. This bill will authorize a much-needed grant program to assist communities that are overcoming the unique challenges of waterfront brownfields and foster innovative approaches to remediation.

America's industrial heritage was established along the banks of its rivers, lakes, and coasts. Our Nation's vast and interconnected natural water system helped provide the power that fueled our rise to international prominence, and allowed us to move our manufactured goods efficiently to all corners of the country. However, that legacy also includes many decades of environmental contamination on the waterfront. Abandoned factories, dilapidated mills and underutilized ports can be found along the shores of many metropolitan areas. As localities seek to reconnect with their waterfronts and revitalize their downtowns, brownfield barriers threaten to derail community efforts to create jobs, promote recreational opportunities, restore the ecology, increase tourism, and grow their tax base.

Waterfront brownfields present challenges beyond typical environmental assessment and cleanup projects. Hydrology, water quality, wetlands, endangered species, habitat, dredged materials, flooding, environmental infrastructure, navigation, and other considerations must be carefully addressed so as not to exacerbate existing site contamination. Typically, waterfront brownfields require the involvement of multiple governmental agencies. As such, waterfront brownfields require special attention and resources to overcome their larger hurdles.

In my own district, the city of Rochester, NY, is currently working to revitalize its beautiful waterfront, while attempting to cope with the unique challenges that waterfront brownfields present. The city is undertaking a major community revitalization strategy to redevelop its port and waterfront area into a mixed use development, which will include housing, commercial, retail, and educational uses, enhanced recreation, new parks and open space, and improved public access to Lake Ontario, the Genesee River and the surrounding ecosystem. However, because the Port of Rochester was used extensively for industrial purposes from the late 1800s into the first half of the 20th century, significant environmental remediation will be required prior to redevelopment.

Initial investigations have found that more than 10 acres of the site contain up to several feet of slag from a former iron works. Portions of the site are impacted from petroleum releases and unsuitable fill materials. Old Genesee River deposits on the site and bank sediments have been shown to contain high levels of heavy metals cadmium and silver as well as pesticides and furans. The marina must also be dredged. Before the waterfront reuse can proceed, the Port of Rochester must first address an estimated $500,000 in environmental assessment issues related to contaminated sediments, beneficial reuse of sediments, groundwater contamination, and waste characterization related to the construction of the marina--and an unknown level of remediation.

Madam Speaker, Rochester is not alone in facing these types of complicated and expensive challenges to redevelopment. Cities all across the country are dealing with similar roadblocks as they try to engage incorporate waterfront real estate into their redevelopment plans, from Yuma, AZ, and Portland, OR, in the west, to Savannah, GA, and Philadelphia, PA, in the east, and almost everywhere in between where lakes and rivers exist.

My bill recognizes that the Federal Government can be an effective partner to communities interested in reconnecting with their waterfronts. Specifically, this legislation would authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish a waterfront brownfields pilot demonstration program to provide localities and other eligible entities with up to $500,000 to assess and clean up waterfront brownfields. The bill would also establish an interagency taskforce on waterfront brownfields restoration to identify barriers and potential solutions to waterfront brownfields revitalization, and seek methods for Federal interagency collaboration on such projects.

As cities across the country struggle to thrive in a changing global economy, and as our domestic manufacturing continues to diminish, it is imperative that Congress do all that it can to help these cities redevelop and succeed. Industrialization and manufacturing helped make this country the power that it is today, but as manufacturing has moved overseas it has not only taken jobs and changed the economic base of many industrial cities, it has also left behind decades of contamination. This legislation will give these cities the support they need to redevelop in an environmentally safe way, and utilize their waterfront as an incredible economic asset.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 982 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 982 provides that upon its adoption, House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 are hereby adopted.

House Resolution 979 recommends that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Judiciary Committee.

House Resolution 980 authorizes the Judiciary Committee to initiate or to intervene in any judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

Madam Speaker, I've had so many requests for time that I will cut my own time short. I simply want to give some reasons why it's important that we're here today.

In my 21 years in the House, I have known that there were Members who came to Congress simply hoping that throughout their career they will always land on the safe square; not wanting to take a vote that might challenge them in any way, not wanting to take a vote that might require explanation. Fortunately, this is the safe square today.

What we are doing here today is protecting the Constitution of the United States of America, which all of us are pleased, when we come here, to raise our hand and swear so to do. It is critically important that we protect the powers of the Congress of the United States for future generations. It would be dreadful if a future President, having looked back over the recent events, used it as a precedent.

We have a strong case on the merits, is the first point I want to make. The administration's assertions of executive privilege are weak, excessively broad, and unprecedented. We win the executive privilege argument both on legal grounds and our compelling need for requested information.

Aside from prevailing on the merits of the executive privilege dispute, enforcing our subpoenas is part and parcel of our current ability to perform effective oversight. If we accept the White House stonewalling in this instance, the House, in the future, will not be able to conduct its oversight. And every future President can view Congress, not as a coequal branch of this government, but as subordinate to the executive.

The enforcement of the subpoenas in this investigation seeks to strengthen, rather than weaken, the House's prerogatives by demonstrating that we are serious about citizens resisting the issuance of validly authorized congressional subpoenas. If we countenance a process where subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness, under a duly authorized subpoena, doesn't even bother to appear, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of reeds and the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost, and we may be in much more danger than even we believe.

There's ample precedent supporting the House's prerogative to initiate a civil action. If we pursue this course of action and it proves to be legally incorrect, then we here in Congress, where the laws are passed, can take necessary steps to correct that procedure. If we do not pursue this course of action at all, we, again, have already lost.

There are some who believe that the court will say that indeed we have no rights here. If that is the case, if that even should be a possibility, then I think we have to say that if the Justice Department has become that politicized and that weak, then we are in worse shape in this democracy than we know.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi of California.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Possibly five, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) who serves on both the Committee on Rules and Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) from the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) of the Judiciary Committee.

I believe I have just one. And so I will yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

That's correct, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting turn of events. They are apparently attaching no importance whatsoever to the Constitution of the United States. But that has not always been the case. I want to read to you a little from the debate in 1998 when Mr. Boehner speaks.

Mr. Boehner says: ``Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is the same: the American people are denied the right to know what is going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what happens in their government.

``The government does not belong to politicians in Washington, D.C. This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what is going on in their White House.''

I concur completely with Mr. Boehner on that statement. I want neither Republican nor Democrat President to stonewall the House of Representatives or Congress.

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

Madam Speaker, I began my speech today by saying we must not always live our lives hoping simply to land on a safe square. Some votes may be tough. This one isn't. The first thing we do when we enter this Congress is swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is what we are asking you to do today on both sides of the aisle. For some of our friends, it is obviously easier for them to pass; they would rather not vote on this. But for the rest of us, let us stand up to our duty, why we were sent here, and reassert that the Congress of the United States is a co-equal branch, and vote ``yes'' on this.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 62, 63, and 64, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I want to say a word about my friend, Tom Lantos. I had the opportunity to travel with Tom, and I served with him some 20 years here. Believe me, a giant of a man has fallen. As grief stricken as we are here, we need to know that throughout the world tonight there are people who were touched by Tom Lantos in many ways whose hearts are broken.

And to his beloved Annette, and to his daughters and family that he loved so much, we give our great condolences and our love forever.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 27. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 27.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall vote 18. Had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 18.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 918.

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

H. Res. 918 provides for consideration of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, under a structured rule.

As the Clerk just read, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all four amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill, including a full substitute. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, except for the substitute which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, like most Americans, I vividly remember the terrible mine tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah last August as we waited day after day, praying for the safety of the miners. We watched with great trepidation and sadness as three rescue workers were also killed attempting to save six miners who were trapped in a horrific mine collapse, all of whom, I am sad to say, did not survive.

As a native Kentuckian and one who remembers vividly the mines and particularly the whistles in the middle of the night indicating something had gone wrong at the mine, I was touched by that tragedy on a very personal level. It reminded me not only of the dangers of the profession but also the important role of Congress to do all that we can to ensure their safety.

I was simply shocked by some of the disturbing facts that were revealed after just a brief review of the evidence. The Crandall Canyon tragedy appears to have been preventable, and the rescue effort handled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration was tragically mismanaged.

Following the tragedy, the New York Times and other publications reported that the Mine Safety and Health Administration ``failed to conduct the required inspections . . . at 107 of the Nation's 731 underground coal mines,'' and ``that the agency had misstated the number of inspections it had conducted, apparently to inflate its rate of completed inspections.''

How tragic that is when lives are at stake. Sadly, on the day of the accident, we saw it was not NIOSH that was in charge of safety for the miners, but the owner, concerned only with his bottom line.

Madam Speaker, the evidence shows that, despite significant progress over the last several decades, mining remains one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Mining fatalities occur at a rate more than seven times the average for all private industries, far exceeding other dangerous occupations. Last year alone, 56 miners died on the job in the United States.

Unfortunately, the tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine was only the latest in a series of mine disasters, including three others last year which combined claimed 19 lives, the Sago Mine explosion, the fire at Aracoma Alma Mine, and the Kentucky Darmy Mine.

Madam Speaker, Congress owes it to the victims and to their families to perform a vigorous investigation to uncover what went wrong during these tragedies and how we can ensure that it never happens again. I am proud to say that we stand here today resolute in our promise to enhance the safety of our mine workers, bringing forth a bill that will aim to fulfill that pledge.

The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, or H.R. 2768, will help to prevent future disasters as well as improve our emergency response should another tragedy occur. We took an important step last Congress enacting into law the MINER Act, the bill intended to prevent disasters such as Crandall Canyon. However, the administration made it crystal clear that it did not intend to go any further or move more quickly than required under the MINER Act, despite new evidence that quicker action is necessary to ensure the safety of miners.

This bill empowers the Mine Safety and Health Administration to protect miners, providing them with the much-needed authority to investigate mine operators and punish those that ignore or break the law. Unfortunately, too many persons on the Oversight Committee are mine owners themselves. By providing the agency with subpoena authority, it will be permitted to stop production in mines that do not pay off delinquent accounts, and to shut down mines that do not abate violations. That is certainly long overdue and should have been done at least a century ago.

The bill also requires oversight and accountability by the agency, demanding that MSHA take a more active role in protecting the safety of the workers. For example, MSHA will be required to carefully review every plan for the notoriously dangerous practice known as ``retreat mining'' and to physically observe the process when it begins. In addition, they will be required to issue emergency response plans. Remember that the Crandall Canyon Mine had already been retreat-mined before these miners started work.

Furthermore, the bill is an important tool to enhance the safety and security of miners. It creates a miner ombudsman office to process incoming complaints and to assist whistleblowers while establishing solid ground rules for independent investigation of multiple fatality mine accidents. In addition, it requires improved communications and tracking systems, and it cuts the coal dust exposure limit in half, which is so important because I learned yesterday from Chairman Miller that black lung disease, one of the most awful ways to live and die, is on the upsurge.

While this legislation takes groundbreaking steps to protect miners, we still have a long way to go to ensure that mining no longer carries the ominous description of ``one of America's most deadly professions.'' More must be done to reduce long-term health risks facing miners, such as

black lung disease, which can be just as deadly as on-the-job tragedies. We must expand on the MINER Act until tragedies like Crandall Canyon are a thing of the past and the death toll ceases to rise. Many oversight hearings conducted by the Committee on Education and Labor concluded that not only were the recent mining disasters preventable, but that the risk of a repeat incident is still very real.

I would like to take a moment to commend the House Education and Labor Committee under the wonderful leadership of Chairman George Miller. It was Mr. Miller who leapt into action to take on this immense responsibility.

This represents a marked change in the way the Congress has been operating following last year's election. Since Democrats regained control of the House and Senate last November, we have once again begun to use two of the most basic tools in our legislative tool box, they are oversight and investigation, and today's bill is no exception.

The bill shows our commitment to proactively advocate for working men and women, especially the victims and families of disasters like that that occurred at Crandall Canyon last August. We must do everything we can to ensure that every single miner is able to return home at the end of the day to their family. I am proud to say this is, at its heart, the true intention of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Washington has any remaining speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question so that we can give more safety to the miners who work day after day in

sometimes unsafe and unspeakable conditions. I also urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 918

Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles supporting H.R. 2768 from Lexington, Kentucky and Salt Lake City, Utah.

[From Lexington Herald-Leader, Dec. 10, 2007]

Unaddressed Risks: Additional Mine-Safety Measure Needed

Congress and President Bush nearly broke their arms patting

themselves on the back last year when a new mine-safety act

became law.

The measure had the coal industry's blessings and was about

all that could get through the Republican-controlled

Congress, even in a year when 47 miners were killed in

accidents, including underground explosions in Kentucky and

West Virginia.

The MINER Act was a decent start. But it was also riddled

with weaknesses, including no provisions that directly

addressed the conditions leading to the deaths of 12 men at

the Sago, W.Va., mine.

There were no requirements that mines have rescue chambers

or that miners' emergency breathing devices be subject to

random checks to be sure they work.

Now it's time to do better.

The Supplementary Mine Improvement and New Emergency

Response Act, known as S-MINER, is awaiting action by the

House.

In addition to filling the previously listed gaps, the

measure includes a range of health and safety improvements

that have long been needed, including new limits on:

Retreat mining, in which coal pillars supporting the mine's

roof are removed and which led to the deaths of six miners

and three rescuers at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah this

year.

The use of coal conveyor-belt tunnels to ventilate mines, a

practice that carries flames and poison gases to where miners

are working when a fire occurs on a conveyor belt and that

contributed to the deaths of two miners at the Aracoma mine

in West Virginia last year.

Also, at long last, the measure requires more advanced

technology for measuring dust levels in mines to prevent

black lung, the smothering disease that is making a

resurgence among American miners.

And, in a major advance for mine safety, the bill provides

for independent panels to investigate mine accidents causing

multiple deaths, injuries or entrapments.

Under the current law, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health

Administration is responsible for investigating itself, an

obvious conflict of interest.

The coal industry argues that it would be unfair to impose

new safety requirements while it's still struggling to put

last year's law into place. But that's a lame excuse when the

proposed changes are so obviously needed.

Of course, no law will keep miners safe until Congress and

a new president rebuild MSHA.

An inspector general recently found that while underground

mining increased 9 percent from 2002 to 2006, the number of

federal mining inspectors had decreased by 18 percent, from

605 to 496.

As a result, MSHA failed to conduct required inspections

last year at 107 of the nation's 731 underground coal mines.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the exemplary career of Mr. Neil Nolf, a talented public servant and good friend, who is retiring at the end of the year after decades of public service at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. Since assuming his post as Public Affairs Officer in 1987, I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Nolf on many issues of critical importance to the residents of the 28th Congressional District of New York, especially those that involved improving the lives of the dedicated service men and women at the Air Base. His was a life dedicated to public service and his vision and leadership will be sorely missed.

Neil Nolf's life has been driven by a deep/rooted sense of commitment to his community and service to his country. Born and raised in western New York, Mr. Nolf graduated from Buffalo State College in 1975 and began work at the Social Security Administration in Buffalo. Mr. Nolf then left his home in western New York to begin work for the FBI in Washington, DC. From there, he fortunately returned to western New York to begin a very successful career at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. While working full time, Mr. Nolf enlisted as a reservist with the 914th Airlift Wing in 1979, discovering and honing the unique leadership skills that have come to define his lifetime of service.

Never content with settling for the status quo, as Public Affairs Officer, Mr. Nolf has been responsible for transforming the Air Reserve Station into the efficient facility that it is today. Overseeing the construction of a new training facility, an officers and airmen quarters, a military entrance processing site, and a much needed runway extension, he was able to the ensure that the 914th Airlift Wing had the critical equipment and facilities required to be one of the most successful units in the country. His leadership has also been significantly tested in recent years, with the 914th Airlift Wing being the most deployed reserve unit in the Nation since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2004.

The Air Base, its surrounding communities, and indeed the Nation as a whole, owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Nolf. His legacy will live on at the Air Base, and I look forward to seeing the Air Base continue to grow and flourish, adding much to the security and the economic viability of our Nation. I am honored today to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his service, and I wish Neil the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his storied life.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1163, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 878 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 878.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 878 provides 1 hour of debate on the motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act with each of the two House amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising out of clause 10 of rule XXI, and provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.

The rule directs the Chair to divide the question of adoption of the motion between the two House amendments; and, finally, it provides that the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that our government is running efficiently, from our children who need quality education to our veterans who need the benefits promised to them when they put their lives on the line for their country, and to our senior citizens who need access to health care and affordable prescription drugs.

And I am proud to say that we, here in the House of Representatives, have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing all 12 of our appropriations bills on time. We've also used our time this year to pass all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, to increase the minimum wage, to promote a 21st century jobs and global economic initiative, add much needed funds to the gulf coast following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to undertake the largest expansion of college aid since the GI Bill in 1944.

We also passed the widely acclaimed landmark lobbying and ethics reforms standards, enacted PAYGO, resulting in no new deficit spending, and passed an unprecedented energy bill that will help our Nation to be more energy efficient, while addressing global warming.

We will not soon forget that, of the 12 appropriations bills that we were supposed to have passed in 2006 when Republicans controlled the Chamber, only two were completed. The others were abandoned, requiring the incoming Democrat majority to meet the responsibilities abdicated by an outgoing party that now claims a mantle of fiscal responsibility. Simply put, we were forced to clean up their mess.

And according to the Office of Management and Budget, President Bush and the Republican Congress increased Federal spending by nearly 50 percent, turned record surpluses into record deficits, and increased our national debt by more than $3 trillion. And let's not forget that President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress doubled our foreign debt to more than $2 trillion, more in 7 years, Mr. Speaker,

more in just 7 years than in the previous 224 years of our Nation combined. Listen to that, America. They did more in 7 years to run up the debt than the previous 224 years of our Nation combined.

Now, all this among budget failures that vastly increased our national debt, while leaving the agencies, States and localities in limbo for months concerning their future funding. Let me add to that our children's health program.

It is simply astounding to me that the President would request an 11 percent increase for the Pentagon, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion emergency funding for this terrible war, while in the same breath claiming that any increase in domestic programs needed for the citizens is fiscally irresponsible.

We all remember the promises of the Bush administration claiming that, at the most, the Iraq war would cost $50 billion. A recent report issued on November 13 states that the total economic cost of the Iraq war through 2008 exceeds $1.3 trillion, with a projected cost of $3.5 trillion; a long way from $50 billion.

I believe the New York Times Editorial Board said it succinctly in their editorial published last week when they wrote, and I quote, ``We know what's behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: Political posturing, just in time for the 2008 election.''

But one should not forget the damage that his administration inflicted by shortchanging domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war.

I will submit this editorial for the Congressional Record.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2007]

Disabled, and Waiting for Justice

We know what is behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm

for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and

debt: political posturing, just in time for the 2008

election. But one should not forget the damage that his

administration has also inflicted by shortchanging important

domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and

his never-ending Iraq war.

A case in point is the worsening bureaucratic delays at the

chronically underfunded Social Security Administration that

have kept hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans from

timely receipt of their Social Security disability benefits.

As laid out by Erik Eckholm in the Times on Monday, the

backlog of applicants who are awaiting a decision after

appealing an initial rejection has soared to 755,000 from

311,000 in 2000. The average wait for an appeals hearing now

exceeds 500 days, twice as long as applicants had to wait in

2000.

Typically two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win

their cases. But during the long wait, their conditions may

worsen and their lives often fall apart. More and more people

have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even died while

awaiting an appeals hearing.

In one poignant case described by Mr. Eckholm, a North

Carolina woman who is tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a

day has been waiting three years for a decision. She finally

got a hearing last month and is awaiting a final verdict,

but, meanwhile, she has lost her apartment and alternates

sleeping at her daughter's crowded house and a friend's

place.

The cause of the bottlenecks is well known. There are

simply too few administrative law judges--1,025 at present--

to keep up with the workload. The Social Security

Administration is adopting automated tools and more efficient

administrative practices, but virtually everyone agrees that

no real dent will be made in the backlog until the agency can

hire more judges and support staff.

The blame for this debacle lies mostly with the

Republicans. For most of this decade, the administration has

held the agency's budget requests down and Republican-

dominated Congresses have appropriated less than the

administration requested. Now the Democratic-led Congress

wants to increase funding to the Social Security

Administration, and the White House is resisting.

Last month, Congress passed a $151 billion health,

education and labor spending bill that would have given the

Social Security Administration $275 million more than the

president requested, enough to hire a lot more judges and

provide other vital services. But Mr. Bush vetoed that bill

as profligate.

Democrats in Congress are working on a compromise to meet

Mr. Bush halfway on the whole range of domestic spending

bills. The White House is not interested in compromise.

If the president remains intransigent, federal agencies may

have to limp along under continuing resolutions that maintain

last year's spending levels. That would likely, among many

other domestic problems, crimp any new hiring at the Social

Security Administration and might require furloughs, leading

to even longer waits. Mr. Bush should back down from his veto

threat and accept a reasonable compromise. Both sides should

ensure that real efforts are made to reduce these intolerable

backlogs.

Mr. Speaker, this week's actions by the President is just one thread in the appalling tapestry that this administration has in its misplaced policies.

Democrats believe that running this House right is a matter of pride. We believe it's a matter of having fundamental respect for both the institution in which we serve and for the citizens who have given us the privilege to serve here.

In the spirit of working together, we Democrats in Congress collectively extended our hand to those on the other side of the aisle, including the President, to reconcile our differences and pass this important spending bill.

In return, we received nothing but the same obstructionism that has plagued our body and our counterpart on the other side of the Capitol.

And today, those same Members who once enjoyed the splendors of having a majority in the House, the Senate and a Republican President, now chastise the Democratic Congress for trying to solve their own fiscal blunders. But their cries ring hollow, Mr. Speaker.

Democrats have crafted this omnibus appropriations bill that invests in the American people's priorities, that protects our troops and invests in the homefront, and restores funding to the President's devastating cuts to medical research, to college assistance, to job training, and education and health care.

And when my fellow Members of Congress and I cast our votes on this floor this evening, we seek to reconcile our ideals with what is possible to achieve. We seek to do both what is right in principle and necessary at any particular point in time and pray that the two are one in the same.

In this bill, we fund programs for medical research, and we provide 280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to health care. We added extra funds for title I, special education, teacher quality grants, after-school programs, and Head Start, while also adding more for Pell Grants and other student aid programs.

We added extra funds above the President's request to help local communities hire and train more local law enforcement, while also adding more in homeland security grants to better secure our Nation. We also have met the guaranteed levels set in the authorization bill while adding funds for our bridges, which sorely need it.

We invest in solar and wind energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency, while also promoting scientific investments and conservation efforts.

And I would like to stress that this bill provides $3.7 billion in additional funding for our veterans health.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate we are forced to pass an omnibus to get our work done at the end of the year. This is especially disheartening because we Democrats in the House of Representatives have been absolute in our pledge to fund important programs and help the American people. And this omnibus comes only as a remedy to the obstructionism in the other body.

The President should accept this reasonable compromise and sign it into law. It is a crucial bill that will keep us on our course of fulfilling our promises to the American people, and I believe it is a clear demonstration of the Democrats' devotion to being fiscally responsible with the money given to us by our fellow citizens.

As I shared a quote from an editorial from the New York Times earlier, I would like to close with another quote published on November 26. It states: ``It is clear that Mr. Bush's threat to veto Congress' proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It's all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as long as his Republican allies allow him to.'' I could not agree more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for a response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. George Miller.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 878

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4,

if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order or demand for division of the question, shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as

follows:

Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:

(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''

at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the

end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding

the following at the end:

``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between

the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to

an order of the House unless the Majority Leader or his

designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited

tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and

amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective

item in such list) or a statement that the proposition

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or

limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional

Record prior to its consideration.''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 271) and ask for its immediate consideration.