[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 107 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H8205-H8216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 644 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3170.

                              {time}  1316


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3170) making appropriations for financial services and general 
government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the Financial Services and General 
Government 2010 appropriations bill, which includes total funding of 
$24.150 billion.
  This is a bill that we worked on cooperatively with our ranking 
member, Jo Ann Emerson, and I want to thank her for her work that she 
has put into this bill, for her friendship and her all around goodwill. 
We had helpful input from our subcommittee members and a productive 
full committee markup where all members had an opportunity to offer 
amendments and to have them debated and considered.
  This is a bill that we, as a Congress, can be proud of. The agencies 
that this

[[Page H8206]]

bill funds touch the lives of all of us, and the funding is directed to 
those programs where we believe the American people will derive the 
most benefit.
  You have had a chance to look at the bill and report and to see the 
specifics of how the money for the 2010 fiscal year have been allocated 
so, in the interest of time, I'm not going to present a lot of detail 
regarding each program and agency. Instead, I would like to briefly 
highlight the five important themes that were addressed throughout this 
bill.
  The first of these is rebuilding the regulatory agencies designed to 
protect investors, consumers and taxpayers. A significant increase of 
$76 million above 2009 is provided for the Securities and Exchange 
Commission. This is the agency that combats financial manipulation, 
fraud and deceptive practices. It has not been vigilant enough in 
executing these duties in the past few years. The increase provided 
will allow the SEC to hire approximately 140 new employees to 
strengthen their oversight capacity.
  In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers 
in financial matters, will receive $33 million more than in 2009.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which plays an important 
safety role in our product decisions, will also receive increased 
funding.
  Funding is strengthened for several of the Inspector General offices 
included in our bill that are charged with making sure that regulatory 
and financial agencies are doing what they're supposed to do.
  With regard to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, the bill 
requires the Treasury Department to provide reports so that we know how 
Treasury is addressing those parts of the financial crisis over which 
it has been given oversight responsibilities.
  A second major theme of the bill is to make sure capital and other 
assistance gets to small businesses and low-income communities, not 
just to large businesses and the wealthy. Funding increases are 
directed to the two key agencies which play important roles in this 
area. The Small Business Administration receives $236 million more than 
last year, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 
receives $137 million more than in 2009.
  Our third priority of supporting equitable and efficient 
administration of justice in the Federal courts is met by well-directed 
funding increases that allow our courts to keep up with the costs and 
growing workloads.
  The fourth theme is to provide for fair and effective collection of 
taxes. Full funding is provided for the President's request for the 
IRS, which includes a substantial increase for tax enforcement to close 
the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. We also help our taxpayers 
meet their responsibility by including resources for the IRS to provide 
assistance in person, over the phone, and on the IRS Web site.
  Our final priority is to meet our obligations to the Nation's Capital 
City, Washington, D.C., by including payments to address high-priority 
needs. We reduce undue interference in local affairs by dropping 
numerous restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts 
of the Nation. For example, we dropped the prohibition on use of local 
D.C. tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same 
position as the 50 States by leaving that decision up to the elected 
government of the District of Columbia.
  Beyond these five priority areas, our bill touches the lives of 
Americans in other ways as well. For example, we assist American 
farmers by clarifying language from last year's bill regarding trade 
with Cuba and the requirement for payment of ``cash in advance.'' We 
also provide increased funding for Drug-Free Communities coalitions who 
work to reduce problems of youth drug abuse in their neighborhoods and 
communities.
  Before I conclude, I would like to thank staff on both sides of the 
aisle who have made tremendous contributions to this process. All the 
staff, both majority and minority, have worked long hours with 
dedication, and I would like to extend my personal thanks.
  So let me end by saying that I believe this is a good bill that 
merits your support. It directs funding to improve the services that 
our government agencies provide to our constituents as they invest 
their savings, purchase products, start small businesses and pay taxes. 
It addresses the needs of our courts and our Nation's Capital City. I 
would ask for your vote in favor of its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, since this is the first bill I'm managing on the floor 
as ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I'd like to 
say for the record how honored I am to have this position.
  The economic challenges facing our Nation demand that the contents of 
the Financial Services Appropriations bill be deliberately laid out and 
carefully structured. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over a diverse 
group of agencies which regulate the financial and telecommunications 
industries, collect taxes and provide taxpayer assistance, support the 
operations of the White House, the Federal Judiciary, and the District 
of Columbia, manage Federal buildings and provide oversight of the 
Federal workforce.
  I want to commend Chairman Serrano for his efforts in crafting the 
bill. It has been a real privilege and pleasure to work with him. And 
while we don't always agree, he has been very open to concerns and 
issues raised by Members on our side of the aisle. I thank the chairman 
for his commitment to bipartisanship and for listening to the minority 
views.
  I also want to thank the majority staff who worked on this bill, 
including the Clerk, David Reich, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Lee Price, 
Andria Oliver, Ed O'Kane, Alex Jobal and Nadine Berg. I also have to 
commend the members of the minority staff. John Martens, Alice Hogans, 
Dena Baron, and my staff, Justin Rone and Jeffrey Connor, who have all 
been extremely dedicated to putting the best possible product forward 
from the subcommittee. On both sides, these staff members worked very 
hard for the committee and the American people, and I appreciate their 
efforts.
  While I've been pleased to have a wonderful working relationship this 
year with Chairman Serrano, I am disappointed by the fact that we're 
not doing what our constituents have asked us to do, and that is to 
work together in a totally bipartisan way at the full committee level 
to make the lives of our constituents better.
  For example, the rule for consideration of the bill limits debate to 
17 amendments, and I believe that 97 were submitted to the Rules 
Committee. This rule, then, doesn't, the rule governing the debate 
here, did not display bipartisanship or regular order because we had 
colleagues who want today offer amendments about which they felt very 
strongly, saving taxpayer money by taking extra returned TARP money and 
putting it toward the deficit, people who felt very strongly about the 
D.C. public school systems, and the like. But it's troubling that they 
weren't able to offer their very substantive amendments, amendments 
which our constituents feel very strongly about.
  I do urge my colleagues to support a process where every Member has 
the opportunity to have his or her voice heard on the floor of the 
House.
  Now, let me turn to the bill before us today. The $24.15 billion 
allocation provided to the subcommittee is much too large. It's a 7 
percent, or $1.6 billion increase above the current year, excluding 
stimulus funding. This allocation allows most agencies in the bill to 
be funded at or above the rate of inflation. I believe the resource 
requirements of the agencies funded in the bill can be met with a 
smaller allocation. Especially at a time when every household in 
America faces difficult budgetary choices, Congress must be diligent 
when spending the taxpayers' money. The Federal Government, in this 
bill, is growing at an incredible rate at a time when employers who I 
represent in the district have cut jobs, and when people are really 
hurting. They're making the tough choices, and we really should too, as 
an example to them.
  The Congressional Budget Office concedes that, ``Under current law 
the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path--meaning that the 
Federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over 
the long run.''
  This bill primarily funds government agency operating accounts. It 
doesn't support programs or grants, and doesn't represent a commitment 
to fiscal sustainability. In short, this bill

[[Page H8207]]

provides a 7-percent increase which goes straight to the bureaucracy's 
bottom line. We're not making the tough decisions the American people 
feel we should consider at a crucial time for our Nation's economy.
  The administration's own budget documents state that the Federal debt 
held by the public will be 68.5 percent of gross domestic product by 
2014. This is the highest percentage of Federal debt to GDP since 1950, 
the year that I was born.
  That said, using the allocation provided to him, Chairman Serrano has 
done an outstanding job of crafting this bill. I'm grateful that the 
bill provides increases to critical programs such as the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury Terrorism and Financial 
Intelligence Programs, and Tax Preparation Assistance Grants.
  I also support the proposed reduction in the ONDCP's media campaign 
in order to provide additional resources to the Drug-Free Communities 
program and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program.
  I'm pleased the bill provides $74 million for D.C. education 
programs, including $42 million to D.C. public schools. My stepdaughter 
currently teaches in a District public school, and her reports, along 
with the Adequate Yearly Progress measurements, indicate dramatic 
improvements need to be made before every D.C. school is offering the 
opportunity that children in D.C. deserve.
  In the meantime, this bill does not eliminate the Opportunity 
Scholarships program, but it does restrict the program to students 
already enrolled in it.
  How can we limit educational opportunities for low-income students 
when we know the public school system is underperforming?
  Regarding the General Services Administration, I am grateful that the 
chairman has included language directing a review of the GSA supply 
schedule. In just one example of the need for this review, the 
Department of Homeland Security has identified $42 million of savings 
over 5 years by no longer using the GSA to purchase office supplies. We 
want to try to improve the GSA supply procurement process so that this 
savings can be replicated throughout all government departments and 
agencies.

                              {time}  1330

  I also support the GSA construction and alteration projects funded in 
the bill. I don't usually have positive things to say about GSA 
construction and alteration accounts, but I will say that the chairman 
has done an excellent job in crafting the bill that funds justifiable 
projects.
  I also want to thank the chairman for including language clarifying 
the congressional intent regarding the cash-in-advance policy in the 
sale of agricultural and medical supplies to Cuba. This clarification 
will help American producers expand their markets in a significant 
neighboring export market.
  One area of the bill that I believe has received an excessive level 
of funding is payments under the Help America Vote Act. There is no 
question that we are obligated to provide for free and fair elections. 
It's a hallmark of our democracy, and we must always work to safeguard 
the electoral process. However, the administration justifiably proposed 
to cut this particular program to $50 million because the States aren't 
spending the funds that have been provided in the past years. The 
account contains a surplus of $186 million today. This bill needlessly 
adds $100 million to this underused account.
  The Election Assistance Commission is waiting for the States to claim 
the 2008 and 2009 grant funds. Of the $115 million provided in fiscal 
year 2008, only $25 million has been claimed by the States. Of the 
fiscal year 2009 funds, $100 million, only $3 million has been paid to 
two States.
  Another area of the bill that deeply concerns me is controversial 
changes to longstanding general provisions regarding the District of 
Columbia. I strongly oppose these changes. I do not believe that 
increasing the availability of abortions or medical marijuana will 
improve the quality of life in the District of Columbia.
  As you see, Mr. Chairman, this bill is very controversial. Not only 
does the proposed bill spend more than $24 billion, but it proposed to 
change longstanding policies on which Members on both sides of the 
aisle have long agreed. This is why the bill should be considered in 
regular order.
  We recognize that operating under an open rule is grueling, long, 
hard work, and we've done it that way for years and years, at least as 
long as I have been on this committee. At the same time, we believe 
that the responsible regular functioning of this institution is 
important, especially on spending measures that demand the full 
attention of the Congress because they have the full attention of the 
American people.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I have some reservations regarding 
this bill and I'm disappointed that it's not being debated so that all 
Members could be heard, I would again like to thank Chairman Serrano 
for his openness and his friendship.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the full committee and the most famous Chicago Cubs fan in 
the Nation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. I think George will dispute that fact.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a key part of efforts to restore the 
stability of, and public confidence in, America's financial 
institutions. For example, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
this bill strengthens its ability to enforce rules that govern 
investments and financial markets and detect and prosecute fraudulent 
schemes. Under the Federal Trade Commission allocation, it strengthens 
the FTC's capacity to protect consumers and combat anticompetitive 
behavior and prosecute unfair and deceptive practices in areas such as 
foreclosure and credit repair services.
  With respect to the Treasury Inspector General, it provides $30 
million to help the Inspector General perform mandated reviews in cases 
where bank failures or other circumstances caused losses for the 
deposit insurance fund. It also provides a substantial amount of 
funding, $387 million more than 2009, to target wealthy individuals and 
businesses who avoid U.S. taxes by parking money in overseas tax 
havens.
  I think those are four good reasons to vote for the bill.
  I also want to speak just for a moment to the LaTourette amendment. 
That amendment simply is an effort to try to find a way to give auto 
dealers across the country an opportunity to have a decent review 
process, a decent appeals process, given the fact that GM and Chrysler 
have set up their own arbitrary process to shut them down.
  I would point out the majority of Members of this House are sponsors 
of similar legislation, and I would also suggest this. This Congress 
has provided $60 billion in funding to the auto industry. I think to 
suggest that somehow they have been abused because the Congress is 
trying to provide some efforts to help local auto dealers get a better 
understanding of what is happening to them is, in my view, off the 
point.
  In addition to the $60 billion we provided those auto companies, 
we've also provided increased Federal purchases of automobiles to try 
to get rid of their backlog. We've provided the Cash for Clunkers 
provision which they wanted to see passed, and we provided $2 billion 
in research funding to help the auto industry develop new technology. I 
hardly think that they have been underprivileged in terms of their 
treatment by this Congress.
  So I would simply say before people get too exercised about the 
LaTourette amendment, I don't think anybody expects that language to 
survive intact. What we do want is to see that language used as an 
opportunity to get the auto dealers and the auto companies to sit down 
and work out a better appeals process so that you don't have some 
significantly profitable auto dealers at the local level being 
unnecessarily put out of business. That means job losses in virtually 
every county in this district, and I don't think we have an obligation 
to support that.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 3 minutes to a fellow subcommittee member 
and a very hardworking member from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentlelady.

[[Page H8208]]

  A wise friend, a local historian pointed out to me the city council 
makes decisions that can affect you for the next month, the next week, 
State legislatures make decisions that may affect you the next year, 
but the United States Congress makes decisions that will affect the 
next generation and for many years to come. And so we, all of us, take 
very seriously our obligation here to work together to find solutions 
to the problems that face the Nation, to protect what is great about 
America. And this committee has done so, all of us on the committee, 
regardless of our core principles, the districts we work for, 
represent, trying to find areas we can work together.
  And I want to thank Chairman Serrano, our full committee chairman, 
Mr. Obey, for example, finding areas to work together with our superb 
ranking member, Mrs. Emerson, to find common ground on important areas. 
I want to thank the chairman for accepting the amendment that Mr. 
LaTourette offered that we all support to protect car dealers from 
being arbitrarily shut down and enforcing State franchise laws, for 
accepting the amendment to get information from the White House on 
whether or not foreign combatants captured on foreign battlefields are 
actually being read Miranda rights.
  I want to thank the committee chairman for agreeing as we work 
together to try to get the Supreme Court to open up their oral 
arguments to disclosure on the Internet.
  But when it comes to the financial solvency and security of the 
Nation, there are profound differences of opinion between those of us 
who are fiscally conservative and the fiscally liberal majority. We, 
this week, saw the deficit exceed a trillion dollars for the first time 
on the same day that the majority laid out a government takeover of the 
health care industry, what would be the largest tax increase in the 
history of America, the week after the liberal majority passed the 
largest tax increase in the history of the country on energy. The 
energy tax that this majority passed will affect everyone in America 
and hammer the private sector unless you're Amish. I think the Amish 
are the only people that come out okay under that energy tax.
  And don't forget this liberal majority is going to allow the Bush tax 
cuts to expire 12 months from this coming January 1. When you combine 
all of those things together, the New York Post points out today that 
in New York City the tax rate would get to about 58 percent.
  So there is a profound difference in us as fiscal conservatives and 
the direction that the liberal, fiscally liberal majority is taking us.
  I offered an amendment in committee, which the majority denied, that 
all money refunded by TARP recipients had to go to pay down the 
deficit. That amendment was rejected. We keep searching, as fiscally 
conservative Members in the minority, we keep searching for ways to 
keep money. Is there any cut that this liberal majority would accept? 
We haven't seen it yet. We've offered every cut we can imagine, from 
little ones to big ones. Nothing is accepted.
  This Congress is spending more money in less time than any Congress 
in history. It's irresponsible. It's dangerous. This endangers the 
national security of the country, and there should be no more spending, 
no more debt, no new taxes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I begin by thanking my good friend from 
New York and the distinguished chairman of the full committee for their 
kindness and their graciousness in making this time available.
  I have rarely voted against the rule and rarely voted against the 
previous question. I am very much troubled by what we see happening 
here today. I recognize the goodwill of the gentleman from New York and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, but I would observe that we are playing 
with fire here.
  My friend from Wisconsin mentioned billions of dollars we've made 
available to the auto industry. He's correct. We have. Now the question 
is do we, by what we are doing here with regard to the auto dealers, 
jeopardize those expenditures and jeopardize the well-being of our auto 
industry? That is what is at stake here.
  This is a serious matter. If the auto industry goes down because we 
have taken sides in a quarrel between the auto industry and the 
dealers, we will have destroyed not only the dealers that complain but 
all of the other dealers and all of the people who work for the auto 
industry, who are associated with it, all of the suppliers. Frankly, we 
are playing with fire here.
  I recognize that there is the intention to use this as a lever to 
help the dealers, and I applaud that. But I think that this is the 
wrong lever, the wrong time, and the wrong way to use this kind of 
lever.
  The result of this playing with fire can be a serious disaster which 
we visit upon ourselves, upon the auto industry, upon all of those who 
are dependent upon it. And I would urge my colleagues in dealing with 
this to be exquisitely careful with this kind of exercise because it 
imposes upon all of us and upon the Nation an incredible level of 
danger which I hope will be avoided, and we are now putting ourselves 
in a position where all of the good that has been done to try and 
preserve this important auto industry is being put at risk.
  Mr. Chair, it is with sadness and great dismay that I rise in 
opposition to H.R. 3170, the ``Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Act of 2010.'' The bill's legislative 
language, which would force auto manufacturers that have received 
federal funding to reinstate terminated dealer franchises, has the 
grave potential to do significant harm to the already suffering 
national economy. Thanks to the timely intervention of the 
Administration and extraordinarily speedy bankruptcies, Chrysler and 
General Motors (GM) are once again on the path toward viability. 
Nevertheless, section 745 of this bill threatens to undo the delicately 
wrought restructurings achieved in bankruptcy court for both companies 
and could very well bring about their collapse. Should section 745 
become law, I fear far more dealers, not to mention auto suppliers and 
other ancillary businesses, would be forced to close than would have 
otherwise under Chrysler's and GM's original dealer termination plans. 
Although I recognize that both companies, particularly Chrysler, did a 
poor job in achieving dealer rationalization, it remains my strong 
preference to resolve this matter outside of statute. I urge my 
colleagues to take heed of this warning.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
LaTourette)
  (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have nothing but the highest regard for the dean of 
the House. As a matter of fact, when I was elected in 1994, my mentor, 
Ralph Regula, said, When you grow up, you need to be like John Dingell.
  And in this particular instance, however, I thought I was going to 
disagree with his remarks, but I couldn't agree with him more. And I 
would assure him, as the author of the amendment in this bill and also 
from observing Mr. Maffei and the majority leader as they move 
legislation in a different path, that everybody understands the gravity 
of this situation. But without exerting this lever, we're going to have 
a crisis in this country, and an economic recovery will not be possible 
if we continue to throw people out of work.
  The use of expedited bankruptcy proceedings by the automotive task 
force in connection with the two car companies has caused the 
extinguishment of State franchise laws and rights that have affected 
all of the dealers that are listed on this chart: 789 for Chrysler, 
2,600 for General Motors. About 60 people work at each dealership. This 
stroke of the pen, this saying that this is the way we're going to go 
to get General Motors and Chrysler out of trouble on top of the $60 
billion that Mr. Obey talked about is going to throw over 200,000 
people out of work.
  I am grateful to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey, and 
the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Serrano, for accepting this 
amendment and also going to the Rules Committee and protecting it from 
potential point of order.
  And the proof is in the pudding on the car companies. The car 
companies

[[Page H8209]]

submitted reorganization plans on February 17 that didn't contemplate 
the closing of as many plants, the firing of as many people, nor the 
closing of the dealerships. The auto task force, according to testimony 
by Mr. Bloom, the new head of the task force, before the Senate said 
they pushed back. The task force said to the car companies, you're not 
being aggressive enough because you haven't closed enough plants, 
you're not being aggressive enough because you haven't fired enough 
people, you're not being aggressive enough because you haven't closed 
enough dealerships, and so now we're left with what we're left with.
  As a result, if the crocodile tears that we now hear from Detroit are 
to be believed, if they really thought this was the way to go, to close 
down people that are making money for them and don't cost them any 
money, they would have, on February 17, said, This is our plan. They 
didn't do it until May, and as a result, 200,000 people are going to 
lose their job.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SERRANO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Sarbanes) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership, 
Chairman Serrano, on this bill, for giving me the opportunity to speak 
on an important issue impacting my district.
  The District of Columbia operates a juvenile detention facility named 
New Beginnings in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, which is in my 
district. Since its opening this May, there have been two separate 
instances of escapes by juveniles housed at the facility. In the last 
instance, six juveniles escaped without any notification to the county 
in which the facility is located. From all accounts, these escapes 
occurred through easily breached doors and windows. Both of these 
episodes have raised troubling questions about the level of oversight 
and security at the facility.
  Applicable District of Columbia law requires: ``Developing and 
maintaining a system with other governmental and private agencies to 
identify, locate, and retrieve youth who are under the care, custody, 
or supervision of the department, who have absconded.'' Unfortunately, 
these and other standards relating to the security at the facility have 
not received adequate attention from District of Columbia authorities.
  I'd like to yield to the majority leader who I know has a perspective 
on this.
  Mr. HOYER. I would like to echo the remarks of my colleague, Mr. 
Sarbanes.
  Prior to opening New Beginnings, the District of Columbia operated 
another juvenile detention facility, Oak Hill, at the same location. I 
represented that area of our State for some period of time. This 
facility was plagued with a history of escapes, and Oak Hill officials 
routinely, in my opinion, failed to notify area officials and local law 
enforcement when that occurred. In 2002, I facilitated an agreement 
signed by the D.C. Human Services Department obligating them to contact 
local police and communities in the vicinity about Oak Hill escapees.
  Although that facility has now been replaced, I am dismayed that the 
District has failed to comply with the spirit of that agreement and, as 
Mr. Sarbanes points out, applicable D.C. law. I join with my colleague 
in urging the subcommittee to continue to work with the District of 
Columbia to ensure, first, that every effort to prevent future escape 
is undertaken and, second, that the local community, including law 
enforcement, be notified should an escape occur.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank Chairman Serrano for the opportunity to 
speak about this important issue; and as we move forward with this 
legislation, I hope we can work together with the District of Columbia 
to make sure that we can protect the surrounding community.
  I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. I can certainly appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's 
frustrations, and he raises an important issue. I will work with the 
gentleman to ensure that the District of Columbia reviews security 
procedures at the New Beginning youth facility and works cooperatively 
with local leaders in the State of Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Thank you.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 3 minutes to a member of our subcommittee, 
Mr. Crenshaw from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me just say, as we stand here debating this bill, 
there are a lot of people in our country that are hurting because of 
some particular acts that have taken place, and one of the things this 
subcommittee is tasked with doing is to make sure the regulatory 
agencies that could prevent situations like this actually have the 
proper amount of funding and the oversight to protect American lives in 
the future.
  A lot of you all have heard me say from time to time that the number 
one responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect American 
lives, and usually when I say that I am talking about national 
security. I'm talking about funding for our men and women in uniform.
  But today, I rise to talk about two agencies under this bill which 
are aimed to protect American lives by protecting their health and 
their financial security: the Consumer Product Safety Commission and 
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  During the housing boom in Florida, a lot of American drywall 
producers couldn't keep up with the pace and the demand for drywall for 
the new homes. So they began to import drywall from overseas locations, 
including China. However, unbeknownst to the contractors and to the 
families who were buying their dream homes, this drywall was 
contaminated. Some say the Chinese used byproducts from coal plants. 
Some say it was from overseas shippings.
  The end result has been catastrophic. Families have had to flee their 
homes that smell like rotten eggs, and worst of all, these homes have 
put their families' health at risk. These contaminants have caused nose 
bleeds, headaches, asthma attacks, among other things. American 
families soon realized that their American Dream had turned into an 
American nightmare.
  So how could this have been prevented? Well, my colleagues and I on 
the subcommittee have asked that since the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission is charged with protecting the public from products like 
this, how did it go undetected? All I know is this legislation is aimed 
to end an episode like that and make sure it doesn't happen again. 
There's more money, more regulation, more oversight to end this.
  The other tragedy that's taken place this year has devastated the 
financial security of a lot of our citizens. Last year, a guy named 
Bernie Madoff admitted that he had created an elaborate Ponzi scheme 
from the legitimate investments of hardworking Americans. Instead of 
investing the funds, he would simply deposit the money in his own bank 
account, and cover this up by masking foreign transfers and filing 
false SEC reports. Again, how did this happen? How did the SEC not 
catch this tremendous and egregious highway robbery? Well, the good 
news is this bill contains additional funds for the SEC to try to help 
them do a better job of making sure this doesn't happen again.
  Now, I would have written this bill differently had I been in charge. 
I think there are a lot of flaws in the bill, but I think as members of 
this subcommittee we do have a responsibility to try to protect the 
health and the financial security of our American citizens.
  Mr. SERRANO. I'd like to yield 2 minutes now to a gentlewoman who, 
notwithstanding some of the things you see happening on this House 
floor, is really the only Representative from Washington, D.C., Ms. 
Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the 
gentleman, the ranking member and the committee for bringing this bill 
forward, especially Chairman Serrano for consistently showing respect 
for our citizenship as American citizens by not interfering with local 
governance and trying to keep others from doing so.
  Mr. Chairman, it's very painful for a Member to have to come to the 
Congress to ask that you vote for her local budget. It's particularly 
painful when that Member doesn't even have a vote herself on her own 
local budget. Yet some Members are quick to step up with amendments of 
their own on a

[[Page H8210]]

budget they had nothing to do with raising, as if District of Columbia 
were just another Federal appropriation.
  One Member, I regret to say, came forward with some misinformation 
which the Rules Committee and I had to correct this morning that 
somehow we wanted Federal funds to be used for abortion. Nonsense. We 
have never asked for Federal funds for abortion services in the 
District of Columbia, only for use of local funds. We have never asked 
for anything except equality with other jurisdictions and other 
American citizens.
  All residents ask is that you respect the Home Rule Act. Congress had 
no intention that our local budget would be treated any differently. 
These are our funds, local funds, not Federal funds. It is very 
difficult for Congress, and Congress does not, in fact, change the 
local budget because Congress doesn't know anything about it. The 
presence of the D.C. budget here becomes a basis for a small minority 
to use us for their own purposes, to try to impose on us their own 
choices.
  You can't endorse local control as a founding principle for everybody 
except the residents of your Nation's Capital. The Founders never made 
exceptions. I ask you to vote for this appropriation and in doing so, 
to remember, we demand not to be relegated to second-class citizenship 
because of our treatment in this process and on this floor.
  And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all you have done for this 
appropriation.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. The bill before us today will open up the funding spigot 
for abortions in the District of Columbia. The Dornan amendment has, 
for years, helped to reduce abortions in D.C. Recently, there has been 
a lot of talk about abortion reduction, and the one thing that everyone 
seems to agree on is that public funding for abortion increases the 
number of lives lost to abortion. Even the Guttmacher Institute has 
found that significantly more women choose abortion when the government 
subsidizes it. Unfortunately, the bill before us today will only serve 
to increase abortion.
  The District of Columbia has a sordid history with abortion funding. 
In 1994, when the funding ban was lifted, D.C. took $1 million away 
from the Medical Charities Fund which was created to help AIDS patients 
to instead pay for abortions. And the District had to request 
additional funds to make up for the funds used on abortion. Then, when 
the funding ban was reinstated, the city disregarded the law and 
continued to fund abortion for two additional years.
  The bill will again open the door for D.C. to abuse taxpayer dollars 
to expand abortion, and it completely disregards the views of the 
majority of Americans who do not support public funding for abortion.
  The bill thrusts upon hardworking taxpayers the values of the 
Washington elite. Nearly 180 Members of this House, both Republicans 
and Democrats, made a simple and reasonable request: maintain existing 
pro-life policies in appropriations bills; and if you don't, allow us 
the opportunity to vote up or down.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee unilaterally acted to deny Members 
and, consequently, the constituents they represent, the opportunity 
even to vote on whether this bill should be used to expand public 
funding for abortion. Such actions are an offense to the democratic 
process, to the American taxpayers, and to the sanctity of human life.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards) who by the way was the strongest leading voice in having 
us put language in this bill that says that any TARP money has to be 
explained to the Congress on its use and all kinds of reports come back 
to Congress.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank Chairman 
Serrano for his kind comments and for his leadership for including two 
key provisions in this bill I strongly supported.
  First, this bill holds the U.S. Treasury Department accountable for 
how it invests taxpayer funds under the TARP program. Language included 
in the bill at my request mirrors my bill, H.R. 2832, which directs the 
Treasury Secretary to report back to Congress by December of this year 
on their plans to repay taxpayers the money they have invested in the 
TARP program. The language also requires the Treasury to submit to 
Congress the estimates, the likely gains and losses, from those 
investments.
  Our efforts to shore up the financial system must be accompanied by 
greater accountability and strict oversight to ensure taxpayer dollars 
are being spent wisely and effectively. The American taxpayers have a 
right to know how their tax dollars are being invested and when they 
will be repaid.
  Second, the bill adds $92 million to the budget of the SEC and for 
the first time specifies that $4.4 million of SEC funding should be 
used by the Office of Inspector General, increasing their staff by 140 
investigators, lawyers and analysts to investigate and prosecute 
corporate crime. The Americans want greedy Wall Street criminals who 
helped cause this recession investigated and punished for their crimes. 
By increasing enforcement at the SEC, we will send a strong message 
that if you rob innocent investors of their retirement and college 
savings you will spend the rest of your life sharing a prison cell with 
criminals like Bernie Madoff.
  I thank Chairman Serrano for including these two important provisions 
in this legislation and urge the bill's passage.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee) and also wish her, on behalf of the House, a happy birthday.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the 
chairman for his well wishes. They come every 6 months now I think, but 
thank you so much.
  Let me rise in strong support of H.R. 3170 and just say to the 
chairman, this is my first year on this subcommittee, but it's an honor 
to serve with you and such great leaders.

                              {time}  1400

  I want to thank Chairman Serrano and Ranking Member Emerson for their 
very hard work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. You've worked 
together during very difficult times for our economy and, of course, 
for this appropriation.
  This bill begins the work of rebuilding the regulatory and oversight 
framework of the Federal Government, restoring home rule to the 
District of Columbia, and safeguarding consumers by reinvigorating the 
Consumer Products Safety Commission.
  By investing in the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal 
Trade Commission, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the IRS, and 
other vital agencies, we can bring back a fair and honest marketplace 
that is safe for consumers and investors alike.
  We need strong regulators to enforce our Nation's financial 
regulations. This will ensure the stable operation of our capital 
markets, help stabilize the economy, and bring an end to this 
unregulated financial environment during the Bush administration, which 
has created havoc in the lives of millions.
  The chairman has also taken great strides in restoring home rule to 
the residents of the District of Columbia. As Chairman Serrano has 
said, we were elected to represent our home districts, not elected to 
represent the District of Columbia, nor are we members of the D.C. City 
Council.
  The people of the District of Columbia should have the ability to 
make the same decisions as other communities and cities which make 
these decisions for themselves. They should not be subject to the 
ideological whims of Members who wish to advance personal agendas on 
the back of D.C. residents.
  These are Americans. They deserve to be treated fairly--just like 
we'd want our constituents to be treated.
  I also want to thank the chairman for clarifying the definition of 
cash in advance for agricultural and medical equipment payments from 
Cuba.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me just say that United States companies 
should be able to benefit from profits

[[Page H8211]]

and create jobs, which is the bottom line, during this recession as a 
result of these business opportunities. So this provision is very 
important for our economic recovery.
  So I look forward to working with the chairman and the subcommittee 
to ensure that the Treasury Department prioritizes real terrorist 
threats to our national security and does not waste vital agency 
resources--our tax dollars--on Americans who want to travel to the 
Caribbean.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield 1 minute to my friend and leader, the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on 
his leadership of this committee and say how pleased I am that my good 
friend, Jo Ann Emerson, is the ranking Republican on this committee. I 
thank her for her leadership--one of the very constructive Members of 
this body.
  This subcommittee is a special subcommittee to me because I had the 
great honor of serving on this subcommittee for 23 years. I chaired 
this subcommittee for 2 years and then served as the ranking member 
when we had the hostile takeover of the institution by the other side, 
and they became the chair and I became the ranking member. So I have 
served on this committee for some time.
  I rise today because I normally would have weighed in with the 
chairman and with the ranking member on the issue of pay for civilian 
employees. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to discuss with 
the chairman the provisions for pay in this bill.
  The administration and I had a discussion some months ago with 
reference to their recommendation on civilian and military pay. I 
indicated to him that we are in a very unique situation in America 
today. We've lost millions of jobs, millions of people are concerned 
about losing their jobs, and I therefore perceived it as a relatively 
unique situation where Federal employees understood that there would be 
constraints that were not necessarily present in other years.
  Federal employees are already constrained by the ECI, the Economic 
Cost Index, wage index, in the country. If people across the country 
don't get raises, they don't get raises.
  However, for the 28 years that I have served in this body, there have 
only been 4 years where there has not been pay parity between the 
military pay cost-of-living adjustment and the civilian cost-of-living 
adjustment.
  In 1985, the military received half a point more than the civilians. 
In 1994 and 1995, the civilians received in 1994, 1.7 percent more than 
the military and, in 1995, fourth-tenths of a point more than the 
military. In 2002, the military received 2.2 more.
  Both the military and the civilian employees obviously perform great 
services for our country. I think there was a sense by the military and 
civilians that parity between the two made sense, and in fact the 
Congress, as you see in 24 of those 28 years, has followed that policy.
  The chairman, in consultation with me, because I don't want the 
burden to be on him or the committee, and in discussion with those of 
us who represent a large number of Federal employees, concluded because 
of the uniqueness of our economic situation that agreeing to this lack 
of parity--not supporting it, but agreeing to it--that may be, for 
some, a distinction without a difference, but it is, I think, a 
distinction.
  However, because of my concern and my discussions with Mr. Orszag in 
February or March, I went back to Mr. Orszag--and I want to read into 
and submit for the Record a letter dated July 9, 2009.
  It says, ``Thank you for your June 24, 2009, letter regarding pay 
parity for Federal civilian employees and nonmilitary in noncombat 
zones.''
  Now, the reason he references noncombat zones is because I think 
there is an appropriateness in the hazardous duty pay, whether they be 
military or civilian. We put people in harm's way and we put them at 
risk, and giving them greater compensation makes a lot of sense. I 
suggested this to the Armed Services Committee. That's not what we did 
here, but I will go on.
  ``Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the economic 
downturn, the administration did not include equal pay increases for 
civilian and military pay personnel in its fiscal year 2010 budget 
submissions. Nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment''--
and, really, the commitment of all of us in this Congress who, for 24 
out of 28 years, has fought for and affected pay parity as the policy 
of this Congress--``nonetheless, the administration shares your 
commitment to a strong civil service that can attract the talent we 
need to deliver the high level of performance the American people 
deserve from their government.''
  This is the important sentence. I made it known to Mr. Serrano. I did 
not go over this with Mrs. Emerson. But, it says this, ``The 
administration is therefore committed in future years to the principle 
of pay parity between the annual pay increase for the Federal civilian 
workforce and members of the Armed Service serving in nonhazardous 
locations.'' Again, this is not about hazardous duty pay for people in 
harm's way. ``Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal 
employees,'' et cetera.
  I rise simply to note that on behalf of the Federal employees I 
represent, the Federal employee representatives with whom I have had 
extended discussions, the Senate has taken action in their 
subcommittee. They did not effect pay parity either, although they 
effected a greater increase than is included in this bill.
  Between now and the conference committee, I intend to be working with 
Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Emerson on what policy we believe to be 
appropriate, given the economic circumstances that confront all 
Americans.
  Federal employees have the benefit of having stable, secure jobs. 
They very much appreciate that. They understand that they don't want 
their fellow citizens to be in distress and without them being 
cognizant of that distress and appreciation for the economic situation 
it puts us in.
  So I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member for their concern 
and their focus, and I look forward to working with him on this issue 
as they proceed through the process and we go to conference.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2009.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: Thank you for your June 24, 2009, 
     letter regarding pay parity for Federal civilian employees 
     and military personnel serving in non-combat zones.
       Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the 
     economic downturn, the Administration did not include equal 
     pay increases for civilian and military personnel in its 
     Fiscal Year 2010 budget submission. Nonetheless, the 
     Administration shares your commitment to a strong civil 
     service that can attract the talent we need to deliver the 
     high level of performance the American people deserve from 
     their government. The Administration is therefore committed 
     in future years to the principle of pay parity between the 
     annual pay increase for the Federal civilian workforce and 
     members of the armed services serving in non-hazardous 
     locations.
       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal employees. 
     We look forward to continue working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
                                                         Director.

  Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I come to the 
floor and I rise in opposition to this bill. I do so for a number of 
reasons, but the reason I take this opportunity to express that is, the 
longstanding policy that blocked the compulsion that was delivered to 
American taxpayers to fund abortions through the District of Columbia 
has been dropped from this bill, and it was refused to be allowed as an 
amendment here to the floor. So the constituents of America will not 
know how their Member would vote and where their Member stands on 
compelling public funds to be used for abortions in the District of 
Columbia.
  We've gone through this debate here before. This debate has gone on 
back and forth, but it was established back in the early nineties. The 
process of funding public abortions in D.C. were established in the 
early nineties, and

[[Page H8212]]

that was rolled back, and still the District of Columbia violated 
Federal law for 2 years and continued to fund abortions.
  Now, here's the image that I have in my mind. Two of them. One of 
them is to compel anyone who has a moral objection to funding abortions 
is wrong. The second thing is the memory of the vote on the Mexico City 
Policy. When we lost that as a pro-life coalition here in Congress, I 
saw people over on that side of the aisle jumping up and down, hugging, 
clapping, and cheering. And why? Because we were going to compel 
taxpayers to fund abortions in foreign lands.
  How could anyone be that delighted about such a policy? But I think 
it was because those who were cheering and clapping and hugging believe 
they had landed a blow against the convictions of the people who they 
could just consider be wearing a different jersey on the other side of 
the aisle.
  It is bigger than this, it's deeper than this. This is life. This is 
unborn, innocent human life that doesn't have a voice here on this 
floor. If we could hear their scream for mercy, we would at least hear 
the Tiahrt amendment and have a real debate here on the floor, as we 
would have had in any of the two previous centuries this United States 
Congress has operated under open rules.
  I oppose the bill and I advocate for open rules.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the chairman and my friend. Mr. Chairman, why 
Tuesday? Why do we have Federal elections on Tuesday? My guess is that 
most Members of this House of Representatives don't know the answer to 
that question, and the answer is: There is no good answer for our 
voting on Tuesday.
  There is good reason to change voting from Tuesday to weekends. One 
out of four people say they don't vote in Federal elections because the 
weekday is too busy for them. They're balancing their jobs and their 
schedules and their kids.
  I've introduced the Weekend Voting Act, which would move Federal 
elections from Tuesdays to weekends. And I want to thank the chairman 
of this subcommittee for including language that I had proposed in this 
bill directing the GAO to conduct a study on the cost-benefit analysis 
of weekend voting.
  That study is going to answer the question: Why Tuesday? But, more 
importantly, it's going to answer the question: Why not weekends, and 
lead to the empowerment of the American people.
  We ought to make it easier for people to vote, not harder.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for 
yielding. Mr. Chairman, for almost two decades, Congress has banned the 
use of taxpayer funds for abortion in the District of Columbia except 
in the exceedingly rare and tragic cases of rape, incest, or the life 
of the mother.
  President Obama tells us he wants to reduce abortion. Well, one of 
the most effective and proven ways to reduce abortion is not to fund 
it. The evidence is compelling. And, frankly, it's logical.
  The research arm of Planned Parenthood, an organization that itself 
every year performs over 305,000 abortions in its own clinics--a 
staggering loss of children's lives--their research arm, the Guttmacher 
Institute, has made it absolutely clear that when taxpayer funding is 
not available, between 20 and 35 percent of Medicaid abortions that 
would have been procured simply don't occur and that these children go 
on to be born.
  Today, there are thousands of children in the District of Columbia 
and millions throughout the country who live, attend schools, have 
boyfriends and girlfriends, get married and have their own kids--dream 
and hope because taxpayer subsidies didn't effectuate their demise.
  Pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the 
authority and, I would respectfully submit, the obligation and duty, 
especially from a human rights perspective, to set policy as it relates 
to how funds are used in either protecting or destroying children. We 
should not be subsidizing the killing of unborn children.
  By definition, abortion is infant mortality. Ultrasound technology, 
the rise of prenatal medicine has shattered the myth that unborn 
children are somehow not human, nor alive.
  Dr. Alveda King, Mr. Chairman, niece of the late Dr. Martin Luther 
King, had two abortions. She now leads an organization known as the 
Silent No More Campaign, made up exclusively of women who have had 
abortions.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. She has made it very clear that, after every 
abortion, one baby dies--two if they're twins--and the woman is 
wounded.
  The intermediate and long-term psychological damage and physical 
damage to women is underreported and underappreciated, but as she and 
so many others have pointed out, it is real and frightening. Dr. King 
has said, How can the dream survive? She was talking about her late 
uncle, the late Dr. Martin Luther King. How can the dream survive--
these are her words--if we murder children?
  Abortion methods, Mr. Chairman, are gruesome. The cheap sophistry of 
choice, the euphemisms that are cynically employed to cloak it, can't 
mask a dismemberment abortion that hacks a child to death and can't 
mask poison shots that chemically burn and kill an unborn child. 
Abortion is infant mortality. We should not be funding it. There will 
be children who will die if this legislation becomes law simply because 
the subsidies are there to effectuate their deaths.
  I hope Members will vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Could I inquire as to how much time is available?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 8\1/2\ minutes available, 
and the gentlewoman from Missouri has 5\1/2\ minutes available.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes for a 
colloquy to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the Chair of this subcommittee for 
producing a good bill, and I seek to enter into a colloquy with him 
about the importance of making voting systems auditable and about 
conducting audits of electronic election results.
  Voting is the foundation of our democracy. It is the right through 
which we preserve all other rights. Anything of value should be 
auditable, especially our votes. That's why it is so important that 
States using paperless systems have all of the funding they need to 
convert to paper ballot voting systems before the next general election 
and that all States have the funding they need to conduct audits of the 
electronic tallies.
  I would yield at this moment back to the chairman.
  Mr. SERRANO. I agree with the gentleman about the importance of 
protecting the integrity of the vote count. I was pleased to 
incorporate HAVA funding in the bill and language in the committee 
report stressing the importance of gathering information on voting 
system malfunctions, of making official paper ballots more accessible, 
and of verifying election results. I hope jurisdictions will use these 
funds to deploy the most accessible paper ballot voting systems and 
will audit their election results to ensure the integrity of our 
democracy.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman very much.
  We have a recent compelling example of how important this is. We have 
the resolution of the Senate race in Minnesota. If the only information 
available were an electronic tally, one candidate would have been 
presumed the winner without recourse, but because a bipartisan 
canvassing board was able to inspect and recount actual voter-marked 
ballots, they were able to determine that the other candidate actually 
won. Software electronic counts alone cannot be relied upon to ensure 
that the intent of the voters will be honored.
  In 2010, seven entire States and counties in a dozen others will not 
be able to verify independently the electronic tallies in their 
elections unless they use their HAVA funds to deploy accessible paper 
ballot voting systems. We

[[Page H8213]]

have not succeeded yet in establishing a national standard.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOLT. However, I urge every jurisdiction in the country that has 
changed their voting system in the last several years to move to an 
accessible paper ballot system.
  I thank the gentleman very much for his support.
  Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman is most welcome, and I look forward to 
working with him to make sure all States have the funding they need to 
implement these critical election protection measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mrs. EMERSON. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentlelady for recognizing me again 
during the course of this debate.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the sad consequences of bringing appropriations 
bills to the floor under a closed rule or under a structured rule is 
that you leave so many Members on both sides of the aisle between the 
devil and the deep blue sea. Sadly, we have that in this particular 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, you would have seen during the rule vote that it was a 
close vote, and thanks to some great work by orthopaedic surgeons in 
its last 30 seconds, the provision was able to survive.
  I would suggest that it is not a mystery to those of us in this House 
that the people who voted ``no'' on the rule, many of them--both 
Republicans and Democrats, and I think the last time I saw the 
scoreboard it was 33 Democrats--weren't voting ``no'' against their 
leadership and the rule that they'd brought forward. They were voting 
``no'' because the rule did not permit a discussion on an amendment by 
Mr. Tiahrt or by anybody else relative to the use of taxpayer funds for 
abortions in the District of Columbia. That's why they voted ``no.''
  Likewise, we have discussed--Mr. Obey has discussed, Mr. Dingell has 
discussed, and I have discussed--the fact that Mr. Serrano and Mr. Obey 
were very gracious to accept an amendment that I offered that deals 
with the 200,000 people in this country who are about to lose their 
jobs, who work at auto dealerships across the country.
  You know, for 14 years--just as an aside, Mr. Chairman--I chafed at 
the fact that appropriators were legislating on authorization bills, 
but now that I'm one of them, I love it. I think it's a wonderful 
process, and I hope it continues.
  Having said that, as for the vote that Members are going to take in a 
couple of hours, nobody is going to know where they stand on the car 
dealers, and nobody is going to know where they stand on the issue of 
abortion. If you vote ``yes'' on the bill, you can call up and say, 
Hey, I was with you auto dealers. Yet the people who don't think that 
taxpayer funds should be used for abortion are going to be concerned 
about that vote. If you vote ``no'' on the bill, you are not going to 
have any difficulty with the people who don't think taxpayers' funds 
should be used for abortions, but your auto dealers would be right to 
be mad at you. These need to be open ruled.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. The fact of the matter is we have to have some 
clarity. The people who send us here to Washington deserve to know 
where we stand on these issues. For every year that these 
appropriations bills had come to the floor when we were in the 
majority, we hadn't liked some of the amendments. I can remember being 
where the Chair is today. I sat in that chair for 3 days on an Interior 
Appropriations bill, and I let every Democrat and every Republican who 
wanted to say something come down and strike the last word or offer an 
amendment. At the end of the day, the will of the House prevailed. This 
rule and the way this debate is being conducted, the rule of the House 
is not being adhered to.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the 
subcommittee and one of our great leaders.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill, a bill that aims to 
bring much needed stability and confidence to our financial system and 
assistance to our small businesses.
  The bill provides critical funding to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission to help it strengthen the regulation of our financial 
markets and to the Federal Trade Commission to enhance its ability to 
protect consumers. It ensures further oversight of TARP. It requires 
Treasury reports that will notify Congress of steps taken to implement 
oversight recommendations. To help small businesses weather the current 
economic storm, the bill supports $848 million for the SBA, including 
$25 million in new microlending and $10 million in microloan technical 
assistance.
  In 2008 alone, SBA's intermediary microlenders made more than 5,000 
loans, totaling more than $60 million, to entrepreneurs who were unable 
to secure the credit that they needed from conventional lenders. This 
bill also includes significant funding for IRS tax enforcement to 
support the administration's efforts to combat tax haven abuse.
  I have worked to ensure that the bill includes a provision which 
prevents Federal contracts from going to domestic corporations that 
incorporate in tax havens to avoid meeting their tax obligations.
  The bill also eliminates Bush-era restrictions that hamper the 
ability of U.S. companies to export agriculture goods to Cuba. In this 
economic climate, we should be opening and not irrationally closing 
markets for American products.
  In recent years, many of our regulatory agencies have neglected their 
responsibilities to protect consumers, taxpayers and investors. This 
bill takes strong steps to reverse that disregard while making critical 
investments in programs that help small businesses, the lifeblood of 
our economy, succeed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this important piece 
of legislation.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment to 
provide funding for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation in the 
amount of $660,000. I decided not to offer that amendment today, but I 
wish to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy regarding 
the importance of this foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the best interest of our Nation 
to ensure that the leaders of tomorrow have access to the best 
educational opportunities available. For that reason, I have long been 
associated with the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, which 
awards scholarships for college students to attend graduate school in 
preparation for careers in government or elsewhere in public service.
  The Truman Scholarship Foundation was established by Congress in 1975 
as the Federal memorial to our 33rd President, Harry S. Truman. The 
foundation has been operating from the original appropriation and the 
interest from that amount since 1977; but as the cost of college has 
increased over the years, the foundation's assets have not grown 
accordingly to meet the needs of the students it serves.
  So, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Serrano, I ask your 
assurance that you will seek to include funding for the Truman 
Foundation in conference with the other body.
  Mr. SERRANO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield.
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, 
and I will assure him that I will do my best to work with my Senate 
colleagues in conference.
  Mr. SKELTON. I certainly thank the gentleman, and I thank you for 
this opportunity to raise the issue on the floor.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman again 
for his graciousness and for his openness in working with me and with

[[Page H8214]]

the rest of the subcommittee on the minority side, and I look forward 
to continuing that relationship.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank 
all of the speakers who have participated today, but I think there is a 
clarification that needs to be made.
  Many speakers have come to the House floor and have spoken about the 
abortion issue and have said that the American taxpayer is being asked 
in this bill to foot the bill for abortions. That is not correct, and 
that has to be made clear.
  First of all, to me, the issue is whether or not the District of 
Columbia should be given the opportunity to govern its own affairs or 
whether Congress will continue to impose on D.C. its will. So, for many 
years, the folks in the District of Columbia have had to accept 
Congress' wishes for many test items and issues throughout the country. 
I believe that, in some cases--and with all due respect to my 
colleagues--they have imposed these provisions on the District of 
Columbia in many areas of gay marriage, of needle exchange programs, of 
abortion, and of gun issues so that they could go back home and say 
they had done something on that issue. Yes, they did, to the people of 
the District of Columbia--not to the people in their districts but to 
the people of the District of Columbia.
  What this bill simply says is that local funds raised locally by the 
taxpayers of the District of Columbia can be used to provide abortion 
services. The ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion remains in 
place.

                              {time}  1430

  Let me repeat that. Federal funds going to the District of Columbia 
cannot be used to supply abortion services. What we've done is to say, 
local funds that you raise on your own from your own American citizen 
taxpayers can be used for those purposes. That should be clarified, and 
people should know the truth.
  This bill is a good bill; and I hope that at the end of the day, 
people will vote for it. It covers many areas. I thank all my 
colleagues.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chair, since I was elected to serve in Congress, 
I have supported the pro-life position. I am strongly committed to 
protecting the rights of the unborn. Accordingly, I think it is wrong 
for Americans' tax dollars to be used to pay for abortion.
  Mr. Chair, I voted against the rule for consideration of this bill 
because it did not afford Members an opportunity to express their clear 
position on the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion. Fortunately, we will 
have a chance to vote again on a conference report between the House 
and the Senate, which I hope will strip these abortion provisions from 
the bill before any bill is signed into law.
   Mr. Chair, let the record reflect that I oppose lifting the 
restrictions on government-funded abortions in the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr Chair, I rise in support of the District of 
Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  We, as Members of Congress, have one notion that binds us all 
together--every one of us understands that the key to the future of our 
great nation is the quality of the education we provide our children.
  We all know the story of many failing District of Columbia public 
schools: Low graduation rates. High drop out rates. Low math and 
reading scores, reflected in a city-wide adult literacy rate of 37%! 
And, we can all agree that the children in the District deserve a first 
class education!
  A few years back, I had the honor to Chair the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Subcommittee. In that capacity, I worked to create a 
program to give a `hand-up' to children in DC--the District of Columbia 
Opportunity Scholarship Program.
  We built a `three-sector' approach, endorsed by former Mayor Anthony 
Williams and then councilman and current Mayor Adrian Fenty, and 
others: public schools, charter schools, and the latter, and the 
Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides families with funds to 
send their children to private or parochial schools.
  Since 2005, some 3,000 students have been provided with Opportunity 
Scholarships (over 7,000 applied). Today, there is a long waiting list, 
but over 1,700 D.C. scholarship students are attending 49 non-public 
schools. The average annual income for these families is around 
$23,000.
  In April, the U.S. Department of Education released its own report--
finding that students in the scholarship program are performing at 
higher academic levels than their peers who are not in the program, and 
are better off by virtually every important measure in their chosen 
schools.
  So this is a good news story, right?
  Well, not any more.
  During the markup of this bill in Committee, I offered an amendment 
to make all DC children eligible for the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program.
  And an amendment to allow the younger brothers and sisters of 
Opportunity Scholars to be allowed to participate alongside their older 
siblings. Both were defeated.
  And likewise, I tried on behalf of Minority Leader Boehner and others 
before the Rules Committee, unsuccessfully, to make all children 
eligible.
  But the Rules Committee said ``no'' to the Boehner amendment and in 
doing so, slammed the `door of opportunity,' inexcusably, on thousands 
of low-income Washington families.
  Anticipating that there may well be a wellspring of indignation that 
Congress is again interfering with DC governance, may I ask where the 
District would be today if the Federal Government had not assumed most 
of the costs of the city's judicial system, and numerous city employee 
pension obligations--which we still pay.
  And, I never heard protests about intervention when I inserted 
funding in the D.C. Appropriations bill to rebuild many dilapidated and 
dangerous DC school playgrounds or money to protect the Anacostia 
riverfront.
  So why not continue to support a program that really is important: 
one that helps children!! by providing $14 million to give these 
children a better school and their parents a chance to fulfill their 
dreams?
  And may I add, the dollars that now rescue some children in failing 
District public schools do not come at the expense of the public 
system--the program offers parents a choice without hurting public 
schools.
  We need to heed the call of many city parents who want school choices 
for their children--a future as bright as ones in many of our states.
  While the theoretical debate on such scholarships may have some value 
in the political sphere, District children should not be the pawns in 
some ideological battle. Rather, we need to protect their future and 
keep the scholarship program alive and expand it.
  Finally, Mr Chair, as the Washington Post recently wrote, and I 
quote: ``Political ideology and partisan gamesmanship should not be 
allowed to blow apart the educational hopes of hundreds of DC 
children.'' I could not agree more!
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chair, it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer 
dollars of hundreds of thousands of Washington, D.C. residents who 
cherish the right to life and use them to fund abortions. I am deeply 
disturbed that this Congress is set to vote on a Financial Services and 
General Government Appropriations Act that lacks traditional 
protections against using tax dollars to fund the destruction of human 
life.
  Every year since 1996, this annual funding bill has included language 
that prevented the use of federal and local funds to pay for abortions 
in the District of Columbia. Not only was the language prohibiting the 
use of local funds stripped from the Financial Services Appropriations 
bill, but a bipartisan amendment to restore this ban on taxpayer-funded 
abortion offered by Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) and Congressman 
Lincoln Davis (D-TN) was blocked by the Democrat-controlled Rules 
Committee from even receiving an up-or-down vote on the House floor, 
violating a much older tradition of this storied institution.
  Earlier this year I joined nearly 180 of my colleagues in writing a 
letter to Speaker Pelosi to urge the retention of important pro-life 
provisions that have historically been included in government spending 
bills. Despite our bipartisan plea, the Democrat leadership has chosen 
to remove these provisions and deny the people's representatives a vote 
in this House, shutting out the voices of the millions of pro-life 
American taxpayers they represent.
  The District of Columbia now has the unlimited ability to use local 
taxpayer funds to provide abortions. This is a dark moment for the 
cause of life in America and I hope that this Congress will rededicate 
itself not only to protecting the taxpayer, but the unborn.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Financial and 
Governmental Services Appropriation Act of 2010.
  The bill appropriates a total of $46.2 billion to fund the important 
operations and functions of the U.S. government. This support will help 
fund federal government salaries, including a 2% pay raise for all 
federal civilian employees, the U.S. postal service, and it will help 
to rebuild the regulatory, enforcement and oversight structure of the 
federal government.

[[Page H8215]]

  This bill supports our efforts to protect consumers and investors by 
strengthening the oversight of Wall Street and large financial 
institutions. Enhancing the regulatory authorities and oversight 
functions of government agencies will be a major focus of these 
efforts. This legislation contributes to this process by increasing the 
flow of government resources to the agencies that will be on the 
frontlines. The bill appropriates $1 billion for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, $149 million to fund the operations of the 
Treasury Department Inspectors General; $292 million for Federal Trade 
Commission; $113 million for the Consumer Product Safety Commission; 
and $38 million for the FDIC Inspector General.
  The bill also acknowledges the key role the nation's small businesses 
will play in the recovery by providing resources for the government 
programs that are helping small businesses weather current economic 
conditions. Small businesses drive economic growth and job creation in 
the U.S. Protecting the health of existing small businesses and 
fostering the growth of new ones is a congressional priority. In 
addition to providing $847 million for the Small Business 
Administration, the bill further illustrates Congress' commitment to 
supporting healthy small businesses by reinstating agreements with auto 
dealerships that were dropped as part of the recent General Motors or 
Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings.
  This bill funds the important functions and operations of the federal 
government, while also supporting the financial reform, enforcement and 
oversight priorities of Congress. I encourage my colleagues to join me 
in support of the bill.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3170, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for 
FY 2010. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Serrano, has done a wonderful 
job of shepherding this complicated and bi-partisan bill to the floor 
today.
  I rise today to speak on one specific provision in this bill. The 
bill requires automakers that have taken government funding, such as 
General Motors (GM) and Chrysler, to reinstate agreements with 
dealerships they have dropped as part of their recent bankruptcy 
proceedings.
  Automobile dealers are the backbone of all of our communities. They 
are an economic engine employing dozens and sometimes hundreds of 
hardworking, taxpaying members of the community.
  Auto dealers are on the frontlines of the U.S. automotive industry. 
They take the chances with the new cars being developed in laboratories 
in Detroit and around the world. They are the face of our cities, the 
sponsor of many little league teams and the lead in many charitable 
events.
  When the Auto Task Force and the bankruptcy judges took the ability 
of our auto dealers to earn a living, they took away a portion of our 
communities.
  The bill gives these men and women the opportunity to reclaim their 
lives and their businesses, and plug a hole that has been torn in each 
and every one of our districts.
  Support this bill, support our communities and support our automobile 
dealers.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chair, there is an amendment to this bill 
that should have been made in order, but was not.
  The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill 
before us today includes a modest investment of $12 million to provide 
an educational lifeline to a few lucky disadvantaged students living in 
our nation's capital.
  We are all too painfully aware of the challenges facing the public 
school system in the District of Columbia, where less than half of 
elementary students are proficient in reading and math. Mayor Adrian 
Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee are working hard to turn this 
around, and I applaud their efforts.
  But change can't happen fast enough for the District's children. 
That's why Congress created a three-sector plan to improve education 
for all students. Students could choose to attend their traditional 
neighborhood public school, a charter school, or a private school--if 
they were lucky enough to win a scholarship lottery.
  Sadly, this Democratic majority and the Obama Administration have 
backed away from this bipartisan, fair approach that lets District 
parents decide what school is best for their child. This majority has 
cut off the scholarship option for any student who is not already in 
the program.
  Earlier this spring, the Department of Education actually rescinded 
more than 200 scholarships from new students who had been told they 
would be able to attend the private school their parents had chosen for 
them this fall.
  Instead, these students will now be forced to attend a D.C. public 
school--one they did not choose, and one that may be failing 
academically or expose their child to physical danger. Adding insult to 
injury, some of these children are being separated from older siblings 
who were lucky enough to receive a scholarship in the past.
  This matter is best illustrated by The Washington Post, which 
featured the plight of one mother, Latasha Bennett, in a July 10 
editorial.
  The Post reports that Ms. Bennett is ``in an understandable panic 
over where her daughter will go to kindergarten next month. She had 
planned on the private school where her son (already a scholarship 
recipient) excels, but, without the voucher she was promised, she can't 
afford the tuition.''
  What the amendment that was rejected by this Democratic majority 
would have done is help Ms. Bennett and the thousands of District 
parents who are trying to give their children the opportunities they 
never had. It's that simple.
  The parents who are fortunate enough to participate in the program 
are grateful for the opportunity these scholarships provide their 
children, and students are taking advantage of the benefits. After 
three years of study we know parents remain highly satisfied with their 
children's schools, and participating students are ahead of their 
counterparts in D.C. public schools in reading.
  In fact, the lead independent researcher, Dr. Patrick J. Wolf, has 
called this program a success. In written testimony to the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform, he stated the 
``D.C. OSP has met a tough standard of efficacy in serving low income 
inner city students.'' Further, in responding to a question from the 
Chair of the Committee, Mr. Wolf agreed the D.C. OSP is one of the most 
effective national programs he has studied.
  This type of success should translate into an expansion of the 
program. Instead, this Administration's Statement of Administration 
Policy on this bill actually praises the Democratic majority for taking 
away families' choices, stating, ``The Administration also appreciates 
the Committee's support for continuing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship 
program for only those students currently enrolled in the program.''
  The reaction from D.C. residents is telling: More than 7,000 D.C. 
residents have signed a petition imploring Congress to keep the program 
alive.
  Further, seven members of the D.C. Council also have petitioned 
Education Secretary Arne Duncan to reverse his decision. In their 
letter, the members say ``we believe we simply cannot turn our backs on 
these families because doing so will deny their children the quality 
education they deserve.''
  The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has helped thousands of low-
income students in Washington go to the school of their choice--
including the exclusive Sidwell Friends School attended by the 
President's own children.
  The President obviously chose the school he thought was best for his 
daughters. Why shouldn't every parent have that opportunity? I am 
ashamed this majority will not even allow Congress to debate whether or 
not to continue the program and the benefits it provides to families in 
the District of Columbia. What a travesty.
  This Administration has spoken about ``green shoots'' when it 
discusses hopeful signs in our weakened economy.
  The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is a ``green shoot'' in the 
weakened school system of this nation's capital city--and we are 
letting it die.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation, first, because it provides much-needed funding, and 
second because it will correct a grave injustice affecting people in 
all of our districts.
  Auto manufacturers operating on taxpayer money are shutting down 
dealerships without any justification and without adequate compensation 
to the dealers.
  These closures are difficult for all communities but their effects 
are especially pronounced in minority communities.
  The closure of minority-owned dealerships cost 150,000 jobs in 2008 
and will cost another quarter of a million jobs in 2009.
  Members of this body have worked for decades to support small 
business and minority-owned business. We should do everything we can to 
help them now.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Obey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3170) 
making appropriations for financial services and general government for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

[[Page H8216]]



                          ____________________