Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that President Bush has selected a man of great integrity and one of our former colleagues who served in this Congress to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Jim Nussle. His chairmanship of the House Budget Committee gave us an opportunity to witness the expertise and responsible use of taxpayer dollars that he will bring to the OMB.

During his tenure in this body, Chairman Nussle's work made a positive impact on countless Americans. Without his hard work and leadership, the Family Opportunity Act, which provides badly needed medical care to children with disabilities, would never have become law.

To recognize Chairman Nussle's incredible talents, one should look no further than the very kind comments made by Chairman Nussle's former colleague across the aisle, my friend, Chairman John Spratt. He said, ``Jim was a fair and honorable chairman. In selecting Jim Nussle to succeed Rob Portman, the President is replacing one able and knowledgeable man with another.''

I congratulate President Bush on this astute choice. I wish Chairman Nussle the very best during his confirmation hearing today at the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It would provide an additional $6 million to the FBI, and to reduce the Economic Development Administration account to offset this cost.

I think that Congress must do all that we can do to provide appropriate resources to the hardworking men and women serving at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Every day these brave public servants stand on the front lines of our Federal law enforcement efforts and on the domestic front on the war on terror, and they need and they deserve all the support that Congress can give.

Many of my colleagues know that I have a real and very personal appreciation of the organization of which my father served as Director of the FBI between 1987 and 1993. I have nothing but the greatest respect for all the sacrifices that these agents make on behalf of our country, and I am happy to be able to come to the floor today with this amendment to support that great work.

As the report to the bill notes, since September 11, 2001, the FBI has undergone a significant transformation. They are being asked to make hard choices about resource allocation as they track domestic terrorist threats, arrest suspected drug kingpins, and ensure that criminals, from bank robbers to corrupt businessmen to tax cheats, are brought to justice.

Even with an increase of around $500 million in this bill, the FBI's salary request still faces a deficit. While I wish this amendment could go further, I understand the constraints of the budget authority and the outlay rules that Congress must follow.

Regardless, I believe that this is an amendment that will send a clear and unmistakable signal to the men and women of the FBI that we support them, that we support their hard work, and that we support all that they are doing to keep us safe.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to show your support for these brave men and women.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 213 of this legislation which, as drafted, would have the same anticompetitive effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other appropriations bills by preventing funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions.

In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the private sector to compete against the government for jobs at the Bureau of Prisons or Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to the public-sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to take competition away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.

Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

This provision, included by the Democrat Appropriations Committee, directly contradicts a number of legislative provisions recently passed on this issue by the House, including: The conference report for the 1997 omnibus appropriations bill, which specifically directed the Bureau of Prisons to undertake a prison privatization demonstration project; also, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, which directed the Bureau of Prisons to rehabilitate D.C. inmates in private prisons; and since 2001, every Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill has directed the Bureau of Prisons to contract for prison services.

I think the answer is clear, Mr. Chairman, that when the Democrats claim that these services are ``inherently governmental,'' despite numerous citations in the A-76 circular that these activities are exempt from this definition, and prevent competitive sourcing from taking place, that the Democrat leadership is clearly hearing from labor bosses that this bill represents another good opportunity to increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.

In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of its tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer- first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public- sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line at Amtrak, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles.

In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002. Despite this commonsense requirement that they cease their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, since Amtrak was supposed to be operating free of Federal subsidy, it has, instead, cost the taxpayers $3 billion in operating expenses.

Mr. Chairman, people tuned in on C-SPAN to watch this debate may be wondering what exactly this $3 billion in taxpayer funding is paying for. Well, in the case of the Sunset Limited, it is being used to subsidize the travels of a very few passengers who want to take a train from New Orleans to Los Angeles.

The trip is scheduled to take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete, that is, assuming the train is running on time. This occurrence is, however, exceedingly unlikely. According to Amtrak's most recent monthly performance report, the Sunset Limited was only on time 11 percent of the time. This makes the Sunset Limited the third worst on- time performer for any of Amtrak's 33 routes during 2007.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should be happy when the train is not running, though, because when it is, the route loses an average of almost $30 million a year. This means that Amtrak and the American taxpayer lose $0.57 per mile for each passenger on this train. For 2006, it cost the Federal Government $524 per passenger on that route, more than revenue that was brought in.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is the first step to instilling just a small measure of fiscal discipline at Amtrak. Failure to do so will only allow Amtrak to continue misusing and wasting taxpayer dollars.

This amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste. I hope that all my colleagues will join me and those taxpayer advocates in saving the taxpayers from throwing more good money after bad on the Sunset Limited.

I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I also rise with my colleagues who are here from El Paso, Texas, and also the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Tom Lea's birth. As a person who lived in El Paso, Texas, for a number of years, I also became aware of Tom Lea from living in San Antonio. Much of his artwork was displayed in San Antonio on a regular basis.

Tom Lea for many years painted pictures of the mountains and beauty that surrounds not only west Texas, but southern New Mexico also. El Paso is the beginning of what is called The Pass of the North, where two great countries come together, the history of Mexico and the history of the United States, and where these two great countries meet at the Rio Grande River. Tom Lea spent a lot of time writing, talking, thinking, pushing forward thoughts and ideas about these two great nations, and embodied a lot of that in artwork that I have several copies of. I have bought Tom's books over the years.

So today it is right and fitting that the United States Congress in its looking back, as we do on a regular basis, over many great Americans who have added not only to the artwork of America and the thought process, but also to the lives that they lived. Tom Lea, a great Texan and American, who added not only a spirit to the men and women who fought for this country in World War II, but also brought that beauty forward in artwork, the Franklin Mountains and places in New Mexico with just stunning beauty that have sustained so many people. It gives us an idea about why America is a great Nation and why we must continue to protect her.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of this 100th anniversary of Tom Lea, a great man from El Paso and a great community, and people who loved him a great deal and miss him even more. It is a great day to say thank you to Lady Bird Johnson and Tom Lea, both great Texans, on a beautiful day in Washington, D.C.

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

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, which spends $3.2 billion more than last year's Republican-crafted legislation. It also spends $2.8 billion, almost 6 percent, more than requested by President Bush for this year's transportation and housing funding.

Madam Speaker, I insert for the Record the President's Statement of Administration Policy pledging a veto of this legislation due to its fiscal irresponsibility.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3074--Transportation. Housing; and Urban Development.

and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2008

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3074 because, in

combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it

includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and

includes other objectionable provisions.

The President has proposed a responsible plan for a

balanced budget by 2012 through spending restraint and

without raising taxes. To achieve this important goal, the

Administration supports a responsible discretionary spending

total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a

$60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level. The

Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending

allocations adopted by the House Appropriations Committee

exceed the President's discretionary spending topline by $22

billion, causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008

discretionary spending. In addition, the Administration

opposes the House Appropriations Committee's plan to shift

$3.5 billion from the Defense appropriations bill to non-

defense spending, which is inconsistent with the Democrats'

Budget Resolution and risks diminishing America's war

fighting capacity.

H.R. 3074 exceeds the President's request for programs

funded in this bill by $3.4 billion, part of the $22 billion

increase above the President's request for FY 2008

appropriations. The Administration has asked that Congress

demonstrate a path to live within the President's top line

and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions

elsewhere, while ensuring the Department of Defense has the

resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Because

Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 3074

were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

The President has called on Congress to reform the

earmarking process that has led to wasteful and unnecessary

spending. Specifically, he called on Congress to provide

greater transparency and full disclosure of earmarks, to put

them in the language of the bill itself, and to cut the cost

and number by at least half. The Administration opposes any

efforts to shield earmarks from public scrutiny and urges

Congress to bring full transparency to the earmarking process

and to cut the cost and number of earmarks by at least half.

The Administration would like to take this opportunity to

share additional views regarding the Committee's version of

the bill.

Department of Transportation (DOT)

Federal Highway Administration. The Administration strongly

objects to increasing funds for the Federal Aid Highway

program based on adjustments determined through a revenue

aligned budget authority (RABA) mechanism. At authorized

levels, the Highway Account is spending beyond its means and

will be insolvent by 2009. Providing additional funding

through RABA adjustments only exacerbates the situation,

making the highway account oversubscribed by an additional

$500 million before the end of the SAFETEA-LU authorization

in FY 2009. Further steps will ultimately be needed, but

withholding RABA is an important first step to avoid the

threat of gas tax increases or a raid on the general fund.

Amtrak. The Administration strongly objects to providing

$1.4 billion for Amtrak, which will perpetuate a flawed model

for intercity passenger rail. While the bill provides some

funding for Intercity Passenger Rail Capital Grants, which

will help encourage sustainable, demand-driven service, the

bill fails to include reform provisions proposed by the

Administration to improve accountability and encourage

competition.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Administration

is disappointed that the Committee did not adopt the

President's proposal to align FAA's budget accounts with its

lines of business and to delineate the specific uses of the

General Fund contribution. These proposals would provide

greater transparency, improve management of resources, and

complement the reforms proposed by the Administration in the

NextGen Financing Reform Act of 2007.

Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund. The Administration

opposes the one-year extension for the war risk insurance

program for domestic air carriers, which crowds out private

sector mechanisms for diversifying risk. The Administration

has proposed reforms in the NextGen Financing Reform Act that

ensure that air carriers more equitably share in the risks

associated with this program.

US.-Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Committee

report highlights a number of issues related to the U.S.

Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot. The Administration

assures the Committee that the pilot will be conducted in

compliance with the conditions and reporting requirements set

forth in P.L. 110-28. However, the Administration would

strongly oppose any amendment that is intended to delay or

restrict the pilot program.

Reduction Proposals. The Budget proposed reductions in some

programs, such as DOT's Essential Air Service program, FAA's

Airport Improvement Program, and the Federal Transit

Administration's Capital Investment Grants. These reductions

are programmatically justified and would reduce Federal

spending. In addition, the House should consider reductions

to unrequested items, such as the Rail Line Relocation and

Improvement Program.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

The bill exceeds the request for HUD programs by more than

$3.5 billion. The President's Budget provides increases for

high-performing and high-priority programs, ensures effective

implementation of HUD programs, and reduces funds for lower

performing programs.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The

Administration objects to the $1 billion increase for the

CDBG program through a formula that is long outdated and, in

many cases, provides more money to wealthier communities than

poorer ones. The Administration urges Congress to pass the

CDBG legislative reform proposal that was transmitted on June

5, 2007, which improves targeting to the neediest communities

and provides incentives to expand economic growth more

strategically. In addition, the Administration recommends

eliminating the $180 million in funding for congressional

earmarks.

HOME/American Dream Downpayment Initiative. The

Administration objects to the more than $200 million

reduction to the request for the HOME Investment Partnerships

Program. In spite of the growing need for affordable housing,

the House bill would cut this high-performing program with an

effective track record of housing production for

low-income families and flexibility for communities to tailor

housing assistance to their unique needs. Moreover, the

Administration objects to the lack of funding for the

American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides crucial

assistance to increase first-time homeownership.

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. The House bill reflects

support for the Administration's proposal to reform the

Housing Choice Voucher program. This includes tying Public

Housing Authority (PHA) administrative expense payments to

the number of assisted families, maintaining rental

assistance to the 2007 allocations based on the prior-year's

actual expenditures, and providing incentive funds for

smaller PHAs to consolidate. The House bill should also

eliminate the cap on the number of families PHAs can assist

to unlock PHA funds to permit greater housing assistance. The

Administration's request would aid significant numbers of

additional families and renew approximately 1.9 million

vouchers currently in use, without the Committee's addition

of $330 million in unrequested funds.

Reducing Chronic Homelessness. The bill supports the

Administration's goal of reducing and ending chronic

homelessness; however, the House should also fund the

Prisoner Re-Entry program.

Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The bill supports the

Administration's proposal to increase multifamily loan limits

in high-cost areas and lift the statutory cap on the number

of Home Equity Conversion Mortgages that HUD can insure

through the end of FY 2008. However, the Administration would

prefer to permanently lift the cap to allow HUD to continue

assisting the market in providing this financial vehicle. The

Administration also is concerned that the Committee report

purports to direct HUD to reverse its implementation of

certain recently enacted asset disposition reforms for FHA

multifamily programs, which would increase the deficit by $38

million in FY 2008.

Other Housing Programs. The Administration's request

provides a program base funding level for public housing that

can be sustained in future years and, hence, the

Administration does not support the substantial increases for

these programs in the reported bill. The Administration also

objects to the funding provided for the HOPE VI program. HOPE

VI has accomplished its original goal. The Administration

also opposes the unreasonably high amount of new section 202

and 811 housing unit construction in the bill, which

simultaneously reduces resources dedicated to tenant

services, threatens future preservation, and exacerbates a

large and growing fiscal responsibility.

Working Capital Fund. The Administration strongly objects

to the $95 million reduction. HUD has made significant

improvements in strategically and responsibly investing its

IT system resources, with demonstrated success The requested

funds are needed to continue to improve HUD financial

management and provide proper program delivery and

compliance. In addition, the requirement for Committee

approval of E-Government funding transfers should be removed.

These systems support HUD's core mission and operations.

Lower Performing Programs. The Administration opposes the

funding provided for lower performing programs such as

section 108 loan guarantees, Brownfields, and Rural Housing.

These programs are duplicative, lack long-term outcome

measures, and have been unable to produce transparent

information on results.

Exemption from Credit Reform. The Administration opposes

section 218, which would prohibit using funds provided in

this or any other act to implement the requirements of the

Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 beyond those already being

implemented by the Government National Mortgage Association.

Congress enacted credit reform in 1990 to more accurately

budget for the full cost of credit programs and to bring

greater transparency to credit programs in the budget

process. This provision of the bill begins to unravel this

important reform by setting a precedent that could undermine

ongoing efforts to accurately estimate and report the costs

of credit programs in the Federal budget and Federal

financial statements.

Employment Eligibility Verification System

The Administration supports the use of the Employment

Eligibility Verification System, previously known as the

Basic Pilot Program, but urges the Congress to provide for a

transition period to permit agencies to effectively implement

acquisition policies and procedures.

Constitutional Concerns

Sections 405 and 406 purport to require approval of the

Committees prior to Executive Branch action. Since these

provisions would contradict the Supreme Court's ruling in INS

v. Chadha, they should be changed to require only

notification of Congress.

This year House Republicans proposed an alternative budget that would have achieved balance by 2012 and ended the raid on Social Security without raising taxes, simply by raising a strong economy, reforming currently unsustainable entitlement programs and exercising accountability in government spending.

Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by the majority of Democrats who have, instead, chosen to pass a budget containing the second largest tax increase in history and one that spends more than $22 billion more than President Bush had proposed for our Nation's priorities.

While today's legislation does find a number of worthy projects across the country, it also spends $1.4 billion, or $600 million above President Bush's request, for a program that has proven to be one of the Federal Government's worst fiscal black holes, Amtrak.

For the last few years, I have worked to address the rampant cost overruns and fiscal mismanagement in Amtrak by offering amendments and legislation to cut funding for the 10 worst money-losing lines and to competitively source some of Amtrak services so that the private-sector efficiencies could be used to help fix this broken system.

This week I am going to take a much narrower approach to fixing the fiscal disaster at Amtrak by offering a very simple amendment to cut funding for the most fiscally wasteful train line in the country, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, California.

If a passenger were to ride the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to Los Angeles, it would take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete the journey, assuming, of course, the train runs on time, which is highly unlikely, as this happens only 10 percent of the time. According to Amtrak's most recent performance report, the Sunset Limited ranks as the third most delayed route in 2007.

Perhaps because of this poor performance, this route lost a staggering $117 million between 2003 and 2006, losing an average of $29.27 million a year for the last 4 years. Taxpayers across the country are being asked to subsidize the fares of each passenger on this train by a whopping 57 cents per mile for each passenger.

In 2006, the Federal Government spent $524 per passenger getting these passengers from New Orleans to Los Angeles, meaning it would have been far cheaper, and, I'd add, faster, if we would just buy each passenger a plane trip ticket for their travel. The Federal Government could come out way ahead.

If my amendment were approved last year, Congress would have saved taxpayers $20.4 million. I believe it is not too much to ask for Congress to show a small bit of common sense and fiscal restraint by prohibiting funds to continue to be spent on the absolute worst line in Amtrak's system.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this amendment and many others that have been proposed on the Republican side of the aisle to pare down the excessive spending contained in this bill and to bring some fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process that will ultimately increase discretionary spending by $82 billion, or a whopping 9 percent increase in spending if all the new spending proposed by the Democrat majority is signed into law.

This Congress must do better, especially for a large group of people who have been jumping up and down talking about how spending money and balanced budgets are important. But, once again, I know what happens here on this floor of the House of Representatives. Democrats want to tax, and they want to spend. What they want to do is they want to grow the Federal budget, and what I want to do is keep it from encroaching on family budgets and taxpayers from my home State of Texas and those all across the United States.

I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation as it's currently drafted.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Land of Enchantment, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Madam Speaker, under the agreement that we just had with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), I'm going to go ahead and close, and then we are now through with our speakers and allow the gentleman to do the same thing.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question for this rule. Our country is facing a very serious problem that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August, and, to date, the majority Democrats have not shown a commitment to deal seriously nor quickly enough with one of the most serious threats facing America.

If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that clarifies one very simple and critical thing; that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States.

The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden, have testified to Congress that, under current law, their hands are tied. As Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology. Today our Intelligence Community is forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and, as a result, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting.'' I'll say it in my own way: The things that we would expect our government to know and be prepared for.

We simply cannot allow ourselves to be deaf and blind to terrorist communications that threaten our very existence because of a law that is woefully outdated. All of us have heard public reports from the Department of Homeland Security that terrorist chatter is at record levels that we have not seen since 2001. We have to open our ears, we have to open our eyes to keep this Nation safe. It can be done tonight with our part of this, Madam Speaker.

If my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are serious about facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to address this very real and very serious threat immediately.

I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record 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.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Sec. 410. None of the funds made available by this Act

shall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highest

loss, measured by passenger per mile cost as based on the

National Railroad Passenger Corporation's September 2006

Financial Performance of Routes Report.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 8: Strike section 524.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 9: Strike section 213.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, my amendment would strike section 111 of this legislation, which, as drafted, would have the same effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat majority's other appropriations bills which prevents funds from being spent to conduct public-private competitions.

While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to private sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to use competition away from them.

In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.

Competitions competed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every $1 spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

Specifically at the Department of Labor, since May 2004, 27 public- private partnerships have competed, involving over 1,000 positions. And thanks to a 10 percent protection clause, 24 of these competitions have been won by the government. This overwhelming track record of government success in competing with private sector begs the question, why would the Democrat leadership insist upon preventing Federal agencies from running their operations in the most efficient manner when they have been successful in the past?

I think the answer is clear, Madam Chairman, that when this appropriations bill cuts the budget for the Office of Labor Management Standards, which monitors union compliance with Federal law, and prevents competitive sourcing from taking place, that the Democrat leadership is clearly hearing from labor bosses that this bill represents a good opportunity to increase the power of labor bosses at the expense of taxpayers and good government.

In this time of stretched budgets and bloated spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit private sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 5: Strike section 111.

Offered By: Mr. Sessions

Amendment No. 15: Strike section 738 (page 117, line 9,

through page 124, line 13) and redesignate the succeeding

provisions accordingly.

Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Holy Cross Lutheran School and their recognition by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Recently the Achievements in Stratospheric Ozone Protection: Progress Report, a publication by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, highlighted the school's assistance in encouraging Sun safety.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency raises awareness about the effects of ozone depletion on public health. It also works to educate young children about the harmful effects of ultraviolet rays and how to reduce the risk of skin cancer as a result from over exposure to the Sun. The efforts of the United States Environmental Protection Agency would not be possible without the volunteer assistance of schools like Holy Cross Lutheran School.

I know I speak for all of Dallas when I say that we are very proud to have such an outstanding school in the 32nd District of Texas. The school is an example to all and I wish to thank them here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for all of their hard work.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unnecessarily and uncharacteristically restrictive rule. On Wednesday night, despite the protests and objections of Republicans on the committee, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did its level best to solidify the committee's status as the Graveyard of Good Ideas in this House by passing out the most restrictive rule for a Legislative Branch appropriations bill in recent history.

Last year, when the Republicans ran the Rules Committee, we reported out a rule for consideration of the 2007 Legislative Branch in which we made in order all seven, that's seven out of seven, amendments submitted by Members of this body so that they could be considered and debated on this House floor. These amendments included four sponsored by Democrats and three sponsored by Republicans, making the rule and that process a completely inclusive and bipartisan product.

The year before that, the Republican-run Rules Committee, nearly half of the 11 amendments submitted in it were made in order under the rule, with both bipartisan and Democrat-

sponsored amendments allowed to be debated there on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I wish I could claim to be stunned by the majority's enormous departure from the Republican-led precedent to increase inclusiveness and dialogue in the House on this particular appropriations bill which is, by convention, the only bill to come to this floor under a closed process.

However, rather than honoring this tradition, on Wednesday the Democrat Rules Committee produced the most restrictive and closed rule in recent history. Earlier this week, 24 Members of this body submitted thoughtful and earnest proposals to improve this legislation to the Rules Committee. Additionally, Members tried to have their constituent voices be heard also by the committee, but they were turned away at the door because their amendments were submitted shortly after the arbitrary deadline.

And out of these 24 amendments, only three were given the opportunity to be debated on the floor. In passing this rule, Democrats made a calculated decision not to make every single amendment in order like Republicans did the year before. They even voted to abandon the more relaxed standard of 2 years ago, when half of the amendments were made in order.

So instead of making 100 percent of their colleagues' amendments in order, or even 50 percent of the amendments in order, this rule makes only 12 percent of the amendments submitted in order. This seems pretty meager in comparison to the grand promises made during last year by Speaker Pelosi to run the ``most honest and open Congress'' in history.

Among the amendments rejected by the committee on Wednesday were two amendments offered by someone with more knowledge of the legislative appropriations than perhaps any other Member of this body, my friend and the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston; an amendment by a Member of the Democrat majority, Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, that was made in order last year by the Republican majority, not this year; and a number of friendly taxpayer amendments by my good friend and colleague from Texas, the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling, that would have reduced the overall cost of this bill to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I do understand that the majority Democrats outnumber Republicans and have enough Members on the committee to win every single vote in the Rules Committee. And I understand that, as the majority, it is their responsibility to run the committee and the floor as they see fit. So all things being equal, I will not take exception to their new, heavy-handed approach to shutting down debate.

However, the second-ranking member of this body, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, crowed to the media on December 5 that Democrats would ``have a Rules Committee that would give opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and be considered on the floor of the House.''

Obviously, that is not happening. I believe every single Member of this body and, more importantly, the American people who send us here every 2 years have the right to know that when these grand promises are not being lived up to that those things will be noted on the floor. And they are, again, today.

So while my service in the Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House may prevent me from being surprised when these campaign pledges are broken on a daily basis by the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee at the direction of Democrat leadership, I hope that the American people are still shocked and appalled that promises delivered in November and December were promptly forgotten in January, and that they continue to be ignored today.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to send a message to this new Democrat leadership that this restrictive debate in the people's House is completely unacceptable. Join me in voting ``no'' on this rule so that the Rules Committee can live up to the standards set by the Democrat leadership and pass out a rule that allows for debate on the issues and ideas of every single Member of this body, not just the ones that the Democrat leadership find politically convenient.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the Honorable David Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman now seems to want to duck what Republicans have done for 12 years, and that is, take responsibility for that, which they should do. The fact of the matter is we're here asking for and we're in the Rules Committee asking for the ability to be able to debate these. We're not blaming anybody, except to say that we believe there should be a debate, an open and honest debate that would be good for the American people, which would avoid the gentleman having to be concerned about who is blaming who.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

Madam Speaker, we are quite open about what we wanted today. We wanted the rule to match the promise that the new Democratic majority had made. They asked for the ability to lead this country and to make this the most open, honest Congress in history. Yet we find at this time that the Rules Committee does not do that.

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

If I could inquire of the time remaining on both sides, please.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here today to say we believe the process should equal what the Democrats had said they would do. It did not.

Secondly, we have problems with the bill because of the more than 7- percent increase in spending over last year's level. We believe that that is excessive, at a time when we thought both sides agreed that fiscal sanity would be in order, especially in dealing with this body. So, the Republican Party is here today to say we think that is too much money.

Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make in order the very thoughtful amendments of my Democratic colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), which was made in order by the Republican-controlled Congress in the Republican Rules Committee last year.

The amendment would encourage House Members to lease hybrid and other more economical vehicles. In this time of high gas prices and our need, the national desire, the need to reduce the reliance on foreign sources of energy, this House should have at least have the opportunity to debate such a thoughtful amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and the extraneous material printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

If the gentleman will yield, we were advised that the gentleman did not have any additional speakers.

I appreciate that.

Madam Speaker, without getting into an argument with the gentlewoman, we would just state the facts of the case. It is over $4 billion additional spending, this year over the last, and $4 billion is a lot of money to run this ship.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I believe it to be correct, but the fact of the matter is, whether it's a 6-percent increase or a 4-percent increase as the gentlewoman subscribes to, we believe that is not the proper way to grow this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.