[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 93 (Thursday, July 8, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5341-H5347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4755, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 707

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4755) making appropriations for the 
     Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H5342]]

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 707 is a structured rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act 
of 2005. It is a fair and appropriate rule and should be approved by 
the House so we can move on to consideration of the underlying 
legislation.
  H. Res. 707 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. It also provides that the bill shall be 
considered as read.
  H. Res. 707 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, which prohibits 
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments put in the Committee on 
Rules report accompanying this resolution. H. Res. 707 provides that 
the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House 
or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order 
against the amendments printed in the report.
  Finally, H. Res. 707 provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very 
closely with his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran of Virginia), in crafting this bill, and for that he 
deserves our support. This appropriations bill is one of the more 
challenging bills to manage, and he does so with respect to the 
institution in which we all serve.
  I do want to specifically note that this is a fiscally responsible 
bill, and I commend the gentleman from Georgia's (Chairman Kingston) 
management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational 
changes are managed better within the agencies of the legislative 
branch of government.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair amendment process for 
consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that House committee was sending 
mail into the committee members' districts. During yesterday's 
Committee on Rules hearing on the appropriations bill for the 
legislative branch, we learned that the Committee on Resources is 
sending mail to committee members' districts touting the individual 
Member's accomplishments on that committee. Mailed under the chairman's 
frank, these laudatory mail pieces are sent out as Committee on 
Resources reports.
  But listen to what they say: ``Members of Arizona's congressional 
delegation are making a difference for Arizonans every day through 
their work on the House Committee on Resources. Arizona is fortunate to 
have Congressmen Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake and Raul 
Grijalva on these important issues.''
  It goes on to read, ``Committee members Renzi, Hayworth and Flake 
supported the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which provides resource 
managers with the tools they need to combat the dangers of overstocked 
forests.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have four of these committee 
mailings submitted for the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The committee mailings are as follows:

                   Resources Committee Field Hearing

       What is the impact of the Endangered Species Act on 
     southeast New Mexico? It's your chance to learn more.
       What: Examining the Impacts of the Endangered Species Act 
     on Southern New Mexico.
       When: Monday, June 7th, 2004 at 9 a.m.
       Where: Pecos River Village, Carousel Building, 701 Muscatel 
     Avenue, Carlsbad, New Mexico.
       Learn About the Impact of the Endangered Species Act on 
     Southeast New Mexico.
       Congressman Steve Pearce Represents the 2nd District of New 
     Mexico. After a very successful hearing on the impact of the 
     endangered silvery minnow last year in Belen, NM, Congressman 
     Steve Pearce has asked the Resources Committee to learn about 
     the impact of endangered species legislation on jobs and 
     lifestyle in southeast New Mexico.
       Congressman Pombo is Chairman of the House Resources 
     Committee. Join Congressman Pearce and Congressman Pombo in 
     Carlsbad on June 7th where they will hear first-hand from 
     family farmers, ranchers, irrigation providers, oil and gas 
     producers and local governments about how the Endangered 
     Species Act has brought pain and suffering to their 
     communities and families. The Resources Committee welcomes 
     the opportunity to travel to New Mexico to personally visit 
     with people who are directly affected by this outdated, 
     onerous and unreasonable policy.
                                  ____


     Resources Committee Report on Healthy Forests Restoration Act

       America's National Forests have become unnaturally dense, 
     diseased, and insect infested, leaving them incredibly 
     susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. To date, wildfires have 
     burned over three million acres in the United States in 2003. 
     These fires not only destroy forests, they kill wildlife and 
     pollute air and water alike.
       California has had more than its fair share of wildfire 
     disasters. The House Resources Committee and its members are 
     committed to protecting our environment from the devastating 
     effects of catastrophic forest fires.
       This report is meant to update you on what the Resources 
     Committee and your California Representatives are working on 
     to help keep our forests healthy and keep fires from 
     destroying forests, property, and jobs.
                                                    Richard Pombo,
                               House Resources Committee Chairman.

       ``The Resources Committee and its members are charged with 
     the responsibility of coordinating federal efforts to 
     encourage, enhance and improve programs for the protection of 
     the environment and the conservation of natural resources 
     within our Public Forest areas. I am honored to have such 
     dedicated and knowledgeable committee members to work with as 
     we work to balance resource preservation and usage. I am 
     particularly honored to work with California Congressmen in 
     efforts to prevent further forest fires from devastating 
     California's incredible resources and beauty. Together we 
     will continue to work on the issues affecting California and 
     the West.''--Richard Pombo


            resources committee work valuable to california

       Members of California's Congressional Delegation are making 
     a difference for Californians every day through their work on 
     the House Resources Committee. The Resources Committee deals 
     with issues such as wildfire prevention, water rights, 
     environmental protection, and land use. California is 
     fortunate to have so many able men and women on this 
     committee to work on these important issues.


  california congressmen help pass ``healthy forests restoration act''

       Committee Members Baca, Miller, Cardoza, Radanovich, 
     Dooley, Nunes, Gallegly and Calvert supported this bill, 
     which provides resource managers with the tools they need to 
     combat the dangers of overstocked forests.
       The ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act'' establishes 
     streamlined procedures to increase use of scientifically-
     proven management techniques of thinning and prescribed 
     burning to avoid catastrophes to our forests, homes and water 
     supply.
       Additionally, the Act calls for additional open public 
     meetings on all projects that fall under the Healthy Forests 
     legislation, providing an opportunity for public input over-
     and-beyond current public hearing requirements.
       And this landmark legislation makes for better forest 
     management and helps protect communities from the dangers of 
     uncontrolled wildfires.
       It protects the rights of private landowners.
                                  ____



      Resources Committee Report on Endangered Species Act Reform

       As you may know, the application of the Endangered Species 
     Act (ESA) has caused economic hardship and to farmers, 
     ranchers, small businesses, and individuals--and it has done 
     little to actually protect endangered species of animals.
       The law has become more powerful than Congress ever 
     intended it to be. It has been

[[Page H5343]]

     applied across millions of acres and hundreds of miles of 
     waterways, at a cost of billions of dollars. We can improve 
     this law--limiting unwarranted impacts--if we define the 
     scientific standard federal agencies must meet when making 
     ESA decisions.
       This report is meant to update you on what the Resources 
     Committee and your Arizona Representatives are working on to 
     ensure that improper application of the Endangered Species 
     Act will never threaten the economic security of Arizona and 
     its people.
                                                    Richard Pombo,
                               House Resources Committee Chairman.

       ``Congress' efforts to improve the ESA stems from an April 
     2001 decision by the Federal government to shut off 
     irrigation water to nearly 1,200 farmers and ranchers in the 
     Klamath Basin in California in order to protect several 
     species of endangered fish. This decision was later examined 
     by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which 
     found that the order to shut off the water had `no sound 
     scientific basis.' As a result of this decision--with `no 
     sound scientific basis'--the livelihoods of hundreds of 
     farmers and ranchers in the area were destroyed, and the 
     local economy and community was severely harmed. Your Arizona 
     Representatives are working in Congress to reform the ESA to 
     prevent this type of devastation from ever occurring in 
     Arizona.''--Richard Pombo


              Resources Committee Work Valuable to Arizona

       Members of Arizona's Congressional Delegation are making a 
     difference for Arizonans every day through their work on the 
     House Resources Committee. The Resources Committee deals with 
     issues such as wildfire prevention, water rights, 
     environmental protection, and land use. Arizona is fortunate 
     to have Congressmen Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake, 
     and Raul Grijalva working on these important issues.


            Resources Committee Working to Enact ESA Reforms

       Congressmen Renzi, Hayworth and Flake are co-sponsors of 
     H.R. 1662, ``The Sound Science for Endangered Species Act 
     Planning Act,'' to improve the way the law uses science and 
     to further involve the public.
        Requires peer-reviewed science as basis for ESA 
     decisions.
        Creates an independent process to amend the ESA to 
     make certain that all aspects of science in the 
     implementation of that act are sound and peer-reviewed.
        Establishes a mandatory independent scientific 
     review requirement for all ESA listing and de-listing 
     proposals to ensure the use of sound science and provide a 
     mechanism for resolving scientific disputes during the 
     rulemaking process.
        Requires the Secretary of the Interior to solicit 
     and obtain additional data from landowners and others that 
     would assist in the development of recovery plans, including 
     the recovery goals.
        Requires that an action, including an action for 
     injunctive relief, to enforce the prohibition against the 
     incidental taking of a species must be based on pertinent 
     evidence using scientifically valid principles.
                                  ____


     Resources Committee Report on Healthy Forests Restoration Act

       America's National Forests have become unnaturally dense, 
     diseased, and insect infested, leaving them incredibly 
     susceptible to catastrophic wildfire. To date, wildfires have 
     burned over three million acres in the United States in 2003. 
     These fires not only destroy forests, they kill wildlife and 
     pollute air and water alike.
       Arizona has had its fair share of wildfire disasters. The 
     House Resources Committee and its members are committed to 
     protecting our environment from the devastating effects of 
     catastrophic forest fires.
       This report is meant to update you on what the Resources 
     Committee and your Arizona Representatives are working on to 
     help keep our forests healthy and keep fires from destroying 
     forests, property, and jobs.
                                                    Richard Pombo,
                               House Resources Committee Chairman.

       ``The Resources Committee and its members are charged with 
     the responsibility of coordinating federal efforts to 
     encourage, enhance and improve programs for the protection of 
     the environment and the conservation of natural resources 
     within our Public Forest areas. I am honored to have such 
     dedicated and knowledgeable committee members to work with as 
     we work to balance resource preservation and usage. I am 
     particularly honored to work with Arizona Congressmen in 
     efforts to prevent further forest fires from devastating 
     Arizona's incredible resources and beauty. Together we will 
     continue to work on the issues affecting Arizona and the 
     Southwest.''--Richard Pombo


              resources committee work valuable to arizona

       Members of Arizona's Congressional Delegation are making a 
     difference for Arizonans every day through their work on the 
     House Resources Committee. The Resources Committee deals with 
     issues such as wildfire prevention, water rights, 
     environmental protection, and land use. Arizona is fortunate 
     to have Congressman Rick Renzi, J.D. Hayworth, Jeff Flake, 
     and Raul Grijalva working on these important issues.


   arizona congressmen help pass ``healthy forests restoration act''

       Committee Members Renzi, Hayworth and Flake supported this 
     bill, which provides resource managers with the tools they 
     need to combat the dangers of overstocked forests.
       The ``Healthy Forests Restoration Act'' would establish 
     streamlined procedures to increase use of scientifically-
     proven management techniques of thinning and prescribed 
     burning to avoid catastrophes to our forests, homes and water 
     supply.
       Additionally, the Act calls for additional open public 
     meetings on all projects that fall under the Healthy Forests 
     legislation, providing an opportunity for public input over-
     and-beyond current public hearing requirements.
       And this landmark legislation makes for better forests 
     management and helps protect communities from the dangers of 
     uncontrolled wildfires.
       It protects the rights of private landowners.


        resources committee work focuses on southwest's forests

       Congressman Renzi introduced the Southwest Forest Health 
     and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2003 to promote the use of 
     adaptive ecosystem management to reduce the risk of wildfires 
     and restore the health of fire-adapted forest and woodland 
     ecosystems. Resources Committee member J.D. Hayworth is a co-
     sponsor of this bill, along with Arizona Representative Jim 
     Kolbe. The Resources Committee passed the act this summer 
     helping solidify the future of Northern Arizona University's 
     Ecological Restoration Institute.
       This is an important first step toward the future 
     application of practical science-based forest restoration 
     treatments that will reduce the risk of severe wildlife and 
     improve the health of dry forest and woodland ecosystems 
     across the country.

  Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage that I think the Members of the House 
simply do not know anything about. That committee received a large 
increase in funding last year in order to send out this propaganda into 
Members' districts. I have heard of income protection, but this goes 
way too far. There is no excuse in the world for it, and I think we 
ought to take measures to stop it.
  During the 107th and 108th Congress, most communities requested 
franking allocations somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000, and most 
spent far less than those allocations.
  For example, the Committee on Government Reform franking allocation 
was $35,000. They spent less than 10,000. Not counting the Committee on 
Resources, the largest request in Congress was the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which asked for $80,000 for franking. However, the Committee 
on Resources requested a franking allocation of $500,000, half a 
million. It is more than a 10,000 percent increase over the amount of 
the money that the Committee on Resources actually spent on franking in 
the 107th Congress. What is even more shocking is that the House rules 
do not prohibit a committee from sending out this propaganda with 
taxpayer dollars.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) offered an amendment to 
close this loophole to stop this practice. The amendment would limit 
mailing expenses for any committee to $25,000, which is more than 
generous. On a party-line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to make 
the sensible solution in order, and it is troubling that this problem 
has slipped under the radar for a year and a half and that the 
Committee on Rules refused to allow the full House to discuss the issue 
and vote up or down on this straightforward amendment. Debate on this 
serious problem has been quashed with a soft promise of future action.
  Again and again, the Republicans silence the Democrats and the voices 
of millions of Americans. There is little time left on the legislative 
calendar. This problem deserves immediate attention. It is shocking in 
that this body will not even have the opportunity to debate the problem 
and to consider the solution of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  This cries out for attention from this Congress, and I demand it, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we did have this discussion in the 
Committee on Rules about the printing yesterday. It just came up 
yesterday for the Republicans being criticized forever for rushing 
things to the floor. This seems a bit quick for the Democrats to do so. 
None of us on the Committee on Rules, Republican side, have seen that 
yet, but the committee of jurisdiction is actually the Committee on 
House Administration, and I think

[[Page H5344]]

it would be appropriate to let the authorizing committee have a shot at 
this to take a look at the problem before we move to address it on the 
House floor in an appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this rule so that I can 
offer an amendment to simply say that no committee in any year can 
spend more than $25,000 on just postage. That would be $50,000 a 
Congress. Why would such a limit be needed? Why is the $25,000 limit 
needed? After all, in the year 2002, the average committee spent only 
$2,104 on postage. The largest amount spent by any committee during the 
107th Congress on an annualized basis was $6,807.
  I know the gentlewoman from New York cited the amounts requested by 
committees. They requested a bit more than these figures. But when we 
look at what they actually spent, no committee needed to spend in the 
average year more than $6,807 in the 107th Congress.
  But a new phenomenon has arisen. The Committee on Resources has 
decided it needs more resources. In the 107th Congress it spent $2,483 
per year on postage. For the 108th Congress they requested a quarter 
million dollars per year for postage; $500,000, half a million dollars, 
for the whole 108th Congress.
  Think of this from a fiscal responsibility standpoint. That is a 
4,445 percent increase over what they requested before. Maybe that is 
not too bad. After all, 4,445 percent increase in the cost of a 
government agency, no fiscally responsible person would object to that. 
But do not compare it to what they requested last Congress. Compare it 
to what they actually spent. Then it is a 9,968 percent increase. Maybe 
somebody with some fiscal conservatism would be concerned about that, a 
committee which in the last Congress spent $2,483 on postage now wants 
to spend $250,000 on postage.
  We do not know what they are spending all this money for. It is hard 
to get the information. But we do know that last quarter, just in 3 
months, the committee spent $49,587 on postage, and when they spend 
money on postage, they inevitably have to spend money on printing, and, 
yes, they spent $40,732 on printing.
  What did they use the money for? Not to carry on committee business 
in the sense of telling the press what the committee is doing, writing 
to experts to see if they can gather information. This is not 
individually sent-out letters, no. These were mass mailings into 
individual Members' districts, $250,000 per year. What kind of mailings 
went out? Here is an example that was referred to by the gentlewoman 
from New York. We will see that this mailing went out to Arizona. Our 
information is that it went it to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. 
Renzi) district, who happens to be one of the most targeted Members in 
the entire Congress by one political party. It praises three Members of 
the Arizona delegation for cosponsoring a bill, and if we read it very 
carefully, it attacks or implicitly criticizes a fourth Member of the 
Arizona delegation for not cosponsoring this bill. I might add it is a 
terrible bill, but the mailing praises those who cosponsor it. Our 
information is that it went just to the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. 
Renzi) district; so the fact that it implicitly criticizes the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is not of great significance 
unless he has statewide ambitions I am unaware of.
  In any case, what does this mailing do? It lauds a Member. Some of 
these mailings are going out in violation or possible violation of the 
blackout period. So we are used to not sending out mailings 90 days 
before an election. Apparently the committee chairmen can. This mailing 
seems rather benign in that it lauds a Member, and it does so only on 
one issue.
  Mark my words: If we do not draw the line now, the next piece will be 
a hit piece, and it will not be limited to one issue. It will not even 
be limited to a committee's jurisdiction. It will be an attack piece 
sent out a day or a week before an election.
  How is this all different from the Member communications that we are 
aware of? Because many of us send mail to our constituents. First, a 
Member gets a limited Members' representational allowance. We are 
responsible to our districts, to the recipients of that mail. If the 
mail is informative, then I can tell my constituents we sent them 
informative mail that came out of our budget, which we could otherwise 
have used to hire personnel. But a committee chairman is not 
responsible to the people who receive the mailing, so they could look 
at it and say this is wildly uninformative. It is a terrible waste of 
money. It says it was paid for at taxpayer expense. I do not like it, 
but it does not matter because my Member did not send it. It comes out 
of the budget of some Washington committee.
  Second, the MRA funds are at least distributed relatively equally by 
party. Each Member gets their own account. This $500,000 went solely to 
one political party. And it is not just $500,000. If we do not draw the 
line now, it will be 5 million, it will be 25 million. It will not be 
one committee; it will be every committee.
  Members also know what information their constituents need to 
receive. Committee chairmen, with all due respect to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), I do not think he is an expert at what 
information people in the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Renzi) district 
need to hear. Then we are going to be told that these are to announce 
field hearings. I might add this piece of mail has nothing to do with 
any field hearing. But we could have a rule that we have these slush 
funds, but only if we are announcing a field hearing.

                              {time}  1130

  A field hearing should be a field hearing, not an excuse for 
propaganda, not a district-wide town hall on behalf of an endangered 
Member or a targeted Member.
  Finally, I know here in Washington that our targeted watchdog groups 
publish lists. They criticize those who spend money on postage and 
printing. They wonder whether that is a good use of government 
resources.
  Well, wait a minute. None of these groups caught this. They will 
attack a Member for spending $100,000 on postage. How about $250,000 on 
postage?
  We need to do something about it, and we need to do something about 
it today. If you vote for this rule, you are voting for giant political 
slush funds, not just of half a million dollars, but for as large as 
they are done by whichever party controls this House. You cannot say 
you are going to deal with it tomorrow if you vote against dealing with 
it today. Vote against the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman came very 
close to impugning the motives of the chairman and the actions of the 
committee. I would just suggest that he tread a bit more lightly on 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, all I can say in response to the last comment 
is if the committees adhere more closely to the spirit of the rules of 
the House, maybe we will not tread so closely in questioning their 
motives.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this bill, and I 
am not going to vote for it for two reasons.
  Number one, we have the continued saga of that ridiculous hole out in 
front of the Capitol, the Capitol Visitors Center. You remember back in 
the good old days when we had a budget surplus, and then we were told 
by the Republican majority that we could pass $6 trillion in tax cuts 
and still have money left over? Now we have dug ourselves into a huge 
deficit hole again, the biggest deficit in the history of the country. 
That hole in front of the Capitol, created for the construction of the 
so-called visitors center, really, in my view, is a symbol of what we 
have done to the Nation as a whole. We have dug a huge hole for the 
Nation.
  In this case, in the case of the visitors center, you have an 
addition to the Capitol which started out to cost

[[Page H5345]]

about a quarter of a billion dollars; it is now up to half a billion 
dollars. And the completion date, I would bet you, before it is over, 
will slip to sometime in 2007. I just continue to think it is a 
ridiculous, overblown use of taxpayers money.
  But there is something else in this bill that really bugs me. I 
happen to believe that the number one national disgrace in this country 
is the fact that some 44 million people are struggling every day 
without health care coverage. There is a provision in this bill which 
enables a study to go forward to see whether or not we will add 
supplemental health and dental benefits for Members of Congress under 
our health care plan.
  Now, I happen to believe that congressional employees should have 
dental coverage, and I think that Members of Congress should have 
dental coverage. But I also think that every citizen of this country 
ought to have access to health care and ought to have decent dental 
coverage.
  We just marked up the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill; and 
in contrast to the consideration that we are going to give Members of 
Congress about adding new health care benefits, what did the committee 
do this morning with respect to health care benefits for the rest of 
Americans?
  I will tell you: the chairman's mark on the Labor-Health-Education 
bill today entirely terminates the Community Access Program, which is 
the glue that makes health delivery to the poor work in 70 communities 
in this country.
  The chairman's mark cut several other programs. It cuts Rural Health 
Outreach grants, which support primary health care, dental care and 
mental health and telemedicine projects. It cuts those projects by 24 
percent.
  The Maternal and Child Health Care block grant is only 2.9 percent 
above the fiscal 2001 level, which means that we have a 10 percent loss 
of purchasing power for that program for average Americans.
  Then, if you go on, you see that childhood immunization, the cost to 
immunize a child has gone up by 24 percent since 2001. Appropriations 
have increased by only 15 percent. So we are having a growing gap in 
terms of our ability to immunize children in this country.
  So it just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is a substantial gap 
between what we are willing to consider doing for the average American 
when it comes to health care and what we are willing to consider doing 
for Members of Congress.
  I do not want to vote to deny health care coverage of any kind to 
anybody, but I want to say this to the majority in this House: if you 
vote for this legislative appropriations bill today, by God, do not 
dare to bring out an expansion of health care benefits for Members of 
Congress until you have also brought out legislation to this floor that 
covers health care for every American. And make sure that those 
Americans have the same kind of coverage, including dental care, that 
you would like to see for the average Member of Congress. Unless you do 
that, you will be giving hypocrisy a bad name.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that the gentleman was not referring 
specifically to me, because I do not have Federal health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that I plan to vote for this bill, but 
there is no way I can support this rule.
  There were a total of eight amendments submitted. There were seven by 
Democrats, one by a Republican. The one by the Republican was allowed. 
Only one out of the seven submitted by Democrats was allowed.
  A lot of them had no political overtones whatsoever. What is wrong, 
for example, with studying ways to improve and expand day care services 
on the Hill for our employees? That is hardly political. The only thing 
I can imagine is wrong is that a Member of the majority did not think 
of it; and I am sure if they had, it would have been made in order. But 
that should have been allowed, to study it.
  Now, I acknowledge that at least four of the amendments have some 
political overtones, and I can appreciate the embarrassment that 
Members of the majority must experience when their legislative actions 
stretch the bounds of proper rules and procedures of the House.
  How long, I think we know how long, what, 3 hours we kept that vote 
open on Medicare prescription drugs. We have subsequently read about 
all of the promises and the threats that were thrown back and forth to 
change the result, successfully, I might add.
  Then, on a separate issue, how often have we seen conference 
agreements completed before the conference was even convened? The 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) had every right to bring our 
attention to that abuse of power.
  I doubt the majority would have approved any of those amendments, but 
they should have been debated.
  Then there are the two amendments by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman). First, should C-SPAN tapes be rebroadcast for political 
purposes? I am not sure, but I think it is something that ought to be 
discussed on the floor of the House, and I regret the fact that we did 
not get an opportunity to discuss it.
  He had a second amendment to curb another potential abuse of power. I 
think it could be a pretty serious one. It is inappropriate to use the 
franking privilege out of committee resources to mail mass propaganda 
pieces on behalf of any Member, on the majority or the minority side.
  Now, if you look at the numbers that we have, the Committee on 
Resources apparently has asked for about half a million dollars to be 
mailing pieces into other Members' districts. We saw the explanation by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). No matter how much we want 
to cooperate with the other side, this is a major potential abuse of 
power, if somebody does not stand up and say wait a minute, there is 
something wrong with this.
  This has to be discussed. The public needs to be aware of it before 
we embark on this. Of course, if nothing is said, other committees are 
likely to do the same thing, and no ranking member has that ability.
  So this was an amendment that really needed to be discussed, and 
perhaps in that discussion we could get an explanation that would show 
us that this is not as abusive as it appears at first glance. Perhaps 
there is a logical explanation, but we sure ought to get that kind of 
explanation. The fact that we were denied the opportunity to discuss 
this is reason enough to vote against the rule.
  What we are looking for is fairness. We are looking for the resources 
in this bill to continue this great institution at a reasonable level, 
a fiscally responsible level, one that is acceptable to both sides. But 
when the process is clearly not acceptable to both sides, I think we 
have an obligation to stand up and say no.
  I would like to see some support from the other side of the aisle for 
raising objection to the way in which this rule was put together.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in no way trying to defend or impugn any question 
of what the Committee on Resources did, but I think the appropriate 
place to have a look at that is through the Committee on House 
Administration or through the bipartisan Committee on Franking. I 
expect that will be done. Not on the floor of the House.
  I know they do not want to miss an opportunity to make political hay 
over this, but the fact of the matter is, this is an inappropriate 
place to have that discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me take this time just to express my disappointment 
with this rule and my opposition to it. I listen frequently where 
Members of Congress like to say that we do not want to treat ourselves 
differently than we treat the general public. Yet

[[Page H5346]]

on this appropriations bill that affects our budget, we use different 
standards than we do on other appropriations bills. That is wrong.
  The ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), pointed 
out there are only eight amendments that were offered to the Committee 
on Rules. It would have been very easy to allow those amendments to be 
considered and then use the democratic process to either vote up or 
down those amendments. But, no, the majority refuses to allow us to 
have a debate on this floor on issues that affect the manner in which 
we operate the legislative branch.
  I am particularly disappointed that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was not made in order. We have 
an obligation to make sure that the resources of this body are used 
appropriately. That is the Committee on Appropriations' responsibility; 
that is the responsibility of our debate on the legislative branch 
bill. Yet we are not going to have an opportunity to see whether we 
could use a better standard on the franking privileges of our 
committees.
  It is my understanding that the majority controlled that. The 
minority has no opportunity. The majority has used that at least in one 
committee in a partisan manner. That is wrong. We should have a chance 
to be able to debate that issue.
  We work together to try to make sure that the resources of the 
legislative are used appropriately. In this case, it looks like it was 
not. Our opportunity to speak is when the legislative appropriation 
bill is on the floor. We are going to be denied that opportunity, 
because the majority refused to make in order an amendment so we could 
have that debate. That is wrong.
  Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, reject 
this rule, so that we have an opportunity to be able to have a full 
discussion on the legislative branch appropriation, as we would on any 
other appropriations bill that comes before this body.

                              {time}  1145

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment offered 
by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), was 
perfectly germane. The only reason in the world it was turned down was 
for political reasons. It was a major embarrassment that they had been 
found out, and I have to assure the people who are listening today that 
on my part, and I am sure on the part of others, that we will not rest 
until we rectify this mistake, although it is not a mistake. It is a 
blatant attempt, frankly, to misuse taxpayers' money as incumbent 
protection.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This vote will be followed by two 5-minute 
votes on House Resolution 706 and H.R. 3980.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--194

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Carson (IN)
     Collins
     Deutsch
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     LaHood
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Oxley
     Platts
     Quinn
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1211

  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. BACA and Mrs. DAVIS of California changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page H5347]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________