José Serrano

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) will agree to not offer his other amendment, which would call for deeper cuts to the account, if this one is agreed to. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SERRANO. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman has raised some very serious issues that need addressing, and I would accept the amendment and support it.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman. He knows how much I respect his desire to improve every bit of the educational programs in D.C., but there are a couple of things we need to know. First of all, this program is funded at $35.1 million. Interestingly enough, when we approached the D.C. government about this program, we asked what amount they wanted, and this was exactly the amount which was the President's request. They told us that they did not want or need any more. So it is funded at the President's request. The big problem with this, and what I want to speak about, is the message that this cut sends to the public and to those folks who like to spend a lot of time attacking Members of Congress on both sides. The Special Counsel's Office is involved at this very moment in some very sensitive and high-profile investigations having to do with whistle- blower issues, having to do with the Hatch Act and having to do with so many other issues that we have read about and talked about for a while. If you are talking about a bipartisan way of inviting attacks on Congress and criticism of Congress, this is probably the best way to accomplish that. Because for $1 million to a program that is funded at the full presidential request, a program where the District of Columbia has said they didn't want any more money, for that $1 million, to give the impression they were somehow trying to put a damper on the investigations taking place is just the wrong message. For that alone, we should oppose it on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I would hope, after listening to what I know the gentleman has maybe already paid attention to in the past in putting together this amendment, that he would actually consider withdrawing the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a determination. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those amendments that leaves you scratching your head. This really is an issue that has been visited for so many years and well understood by the medical profession and activists and citizens throughout this country. We are not promoting the use of drugs. In fact, every needle exchange program that I am familiar with, including the one that exists in my congressional district, encourages people to seek treatment, demands in many cases that you seek treatment. But all it says is that while you are a drug addict, while you are trying to get off that addiction, that you not spread the HIV virus by sharing needles. This is a very sensible medical approach to a very serious social issue and a medical issue. When you have folks who are addicted, the impression that some people get is that this is some sort of a party that people go to and they get drugs by getting needles. What you get is a medical procedure that says you're addicted, we want to help you, we want you to submit yourself to treatment, but in the meantime we will ask you to use this needle rather than one that you can share with someone else and either get the HIV virus or pass it on to someone else. Washington, DC, is number one in the Nation in AIDS cases right now. All this language says is that the local government will be able to use its local funds to put forth a needle exchange program. My God. To what extent will we continue in this House as we have in the past to take every social issue that we can't win in our local districts and bring it and put it on the people of the District of Columbia and say this is how we want you to behave, because this is what I believe in and back home I can't do this, so I'm going to do it on you and I'm going to do it to you. The mayor, city council, the leadership, has asked over and over again, give us the opportunity to deal with this issue on our own, in our own way, and in our own terms. We are not, if I had my way, I would have said that Federal funds could be used for a needle exchange program. That's who I am. But that's not what this says. This simply says that those dollars that are raised locally by the people in the District of Columbia, that they can use it for a program that can save lives, that can stop the spread of AIDS, that can deal with an issue in the most proper and humane way. This is one of those issues where you have to go deep into your soul, into your heart and not deal with the rhetoric of what sounds right in a 30-second sound bite, but what is proper for public safety, for public health, and for the human dignity of a person that already has a major problem. I have dealt with a lot of people who are addicted for a long time in my district. I know the pain they go through. At the expense of perhaps making light of it, when they show up at a needle exchange program, they are not dressed in tuxedos with martinis in their hands having a ball. They are people who are hurting, hurting and trying to survive somehow. This may just give them a chance not to get sick, but perhaps just as important, or most importantly, not to make someone else sick. I would hope that the gentleman fully understands what this is. One, it's local control over the destiny of the District of Columbia; and, secondly, it is a proper medical way for this society to deal with an issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, just one comment. First of all, the committee received a letter in support of removing the prohibition signed by 29 leaders of medical, public health and social service organizations. In addition, while drug use is illegal, users should not have to pay with their lives. Studies conducted by the CDC, NIH, National Academies of Science and the GAO, which demonstrate that needle exchange programs reduce the incidence of HIV. I mean, this is an array of serious government agencies saying that this, in fact, reduces HIV. So, on the one hand we spent a lot of money in this country, both here at home and overseas. To the President's credit, he has picked up the ball lately on that issue, and has responded better than in the past on the idea of fighting this disease throughout the world. Well, right here at home, right here in the Nation's Capital, where the largest number of people infected exist now, the largest ratio, we could deal with this by simply allowing them to do what they must do.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a distinguished member of the subcommittee and famous Orioles fan.

Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made important observations regarding the necessity of keeping Congress' commitment to repay this long-term debt to the Postal Service. I agree with my colleague that failure to meet this commitment would adversely affect the future financial stability of the Postal Service and eventually force it to take actions that would increase cost for postal consumers. I want to assure the gentleman that I will work hard to reach an agreement with the Senate that produces a conference report that provides the $29 million payment. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to call on the administration to resume including these funds in its budget requests. The revenue forgone appropriation has not been part of the President's budget request since fiscal year 2004. As I have previously stated, this bill's budget allocation is $243 million below the President's request, so we are placed in a very difficult position when we have to find money for critically important items that have been left out of the President's budget. I strongly urge the administration to recognize the importance of the revenue foregone appropriation and include it in future budgets.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for raising some important concerns about the effect of the digital transition on broadcasters in his home State. I will be glad to work with the gentleman and the ranking member to try to come to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

Mr. SERRANO. Absolutely.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2829 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 517, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendments to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Stearns regarding currency manipulation; An amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; An amendment by Mr. Poe or Mr. Cuellar regarding funding for the Federal district courts; An amendment by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia regarding funding for District of Columbia schools programs; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa reducing funding for election reform programs; An amendment by Mr. Cardoza regarding funding for the General Services Administration; An amendment by Mr. Cardoza regarding funding for the General Services Administration; An amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding funding for the Selective Service System; An amendment by Mr. Sessions striking section 738; An amendment by Mr. Boozman regarding High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; An amendment by Mr. Boswell regarding studies by the Office of National Drug Control Policy; An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction; An amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding funding for the Selective Service System; An amendment by Mr. Ellsworth prohibiting funds for certain contractors with tax debt; An amendment by Mr. Emanuel limiting funds for the Vice President's office; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting funds to enforce certain requirements under section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; An amendment by Mr. Goode limiting Federal funds for registration of unmarried couples in the District of Columbia; An amendment by Mr. Hulshof regarding funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 8.9 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Kingston limiting funds for contracts to entities that do not participate in a basic pilot program related to illegal immigration; An amendment by Mr. Lucas limiting funds to seize coins made or issued by the U.S. Government prior to 1933; An amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas limiting funds to enforce certain regulations related to exports to Cuba; An amendment by Mr. Miller of North Carolina regarding Executive Order 13422; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer limiting funds for the Federal Election Commission regarding certain certifications for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund; An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer limiting the collection and distribution of funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund; An amendment by Mr. Pence limiting funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill by 1 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia; An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds for certain entities in the District of Columbia; An amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds for the IRS ``Where's My Refund'' program; An amendment by Mr. Upton regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs; An amendment by Mr. Wicker limiting the use of funds to implement section 5112 of title 31, United States Code; An amendment by Mr. Wolf regarding establishment and funding for a budget and entitlement reform commission; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for a project of the Barracks Row Main Street; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center in Pomona, California; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Grace Johnstown Area Regional Industries Incubator and Workforce Development program; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Mitchell County Development Foundation, Inc. for the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree project; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, SPUR Urban Center; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the West Virginia University Research Corporation for renovations of a small business incubator; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Belvedere Business Park project; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Historic Downtown Retail project, Valley Economic Development Center; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Advantage West Economic Development Group Certified Entrepreneurial Community program; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for the Wittenberg University East Asian Study Center; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for 147 projects requested by Members of Congress and disclosed pursuant to the rules of the House; An amendment by Mr. Regula regarding the IRS; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; and An amendment or amendments by Mr. Serrano regarding funding levels. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm pleased to present, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, the first Financial Services and general government appropriations bill to the House. This is my first time as chairman, and it has been an honor and a privilege. The subcommittee held multiple hearings this spring to explore the issues facing agencies funded through this bill. As the hearings progressed, a common theme emerged in my mind for improving these agencies. It became clear that the subcommittee needed to work to bring government closer to the people, to better fit its services to their needs. The American people expect and deserve the best services their governments can offer. For example, with respect to the Internal Revenue Service, we, as a subcommittee, addressed the fact that the IRS needs to be fair and evenhanded in whom it audits. We also ensure that the IRS works to provide real assistance to the taxpayer who cannot afford the services of an expensive accountant. We want the Election Assistance Commission to help promote the use of voting machines in student and school elections as an educational tool. Because these are our future voters, we must do this. We felt that government must do more to protect our consumers, and so we have directed the Federal Trade Commission to examine identity theft with an eye toward ending this hurtful crime. We directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to strengthen its consumer product monitoring capabilities. We have also increased funding for the community development financial institutions to help expand the availability of credit, capital and financial services to underserved communities throughout the Nation. I feel that through funding initiatives and congressional guidance contained in this bill, government will be more responsive and more proactive on behalf of the American people whom it serves. The total funding recommended by the bill is $21.4 billion. This funding level is tight. While the bill is $1.9 billion above the fiscal year 2007, it is $243 million below the President's budget request. It was a challenge to reduce funding from the requested level for two reasons. First, most of this bill, over 80 percent, funds basic administrative accounts, such as the salaries of the Treasury employees who are managing the Nation's finances. These accounts cannot be reduced without reducing the most basic government services. Second, there were a number of holes in the President's budget that needed to be filled. This bill increases funding for programs where we believe money will be well spent and will benefit, for example, disadvantaged communities or small businesses. These are important priorities that needed to be addressed. To summarize, this bill includes $12.3 billion for the Department of the Treasury. Within this amount, $11.1 billion is for the IRS, a $550 million increase above fiscal year 2007, and $52 million above the President's request. This increase includes more money than requested for taxpayer services and the IRS Taxpayers Advocate Office. The bill also includes $100 million for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's program to increase economic development and financial opportunities for folks living in disadvantaged communities. The bill includes $722 million for the Executive Office of the President, of which $460 million is directed to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs. This includes increases for the Drug Free Communities grants program, and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, which are critical efforts in the war on drugs. This bill, however, rejects the 31 percent increase to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign requested in the President's budget. Recent studies have called in question the effectiveness of the campaign, and it does not make any sense to give this program the substantial increase requested in light of these questions. The recommendation reduces funding for the campaign by $6 million from last year to $93 million this year. The judicial branch will receive $6.3 billion, which is $278 million above 2007, but $254 million below the request. While this is a reduction to the requested level, we believe that the amount in the bill will be sufficient to fund all necessary operations and staffing levels for the judiciary. Programs related to the District of Columbia will receive $648 million, including $309 million for the District of Columbia court system. Within this figure, the bill assumes an increase in the reimbursement for attorneys who defend indigent clients so that their compensation rate is closer to the rate for defense attorneys practicing before Federal courts. This will help ensure fair and just representation for these defendants. The bill also includes funding for the D.C. public schools, the Tuition Assistance Grant program, the Water and Sewer Authority, construction of a forensic lab, and other critical items requested by the D.C. Government. General provisions for the District of Columbia are fewer in number and have been changed based on our discussions with the D.C. government. My basic principle is that the Federal Government should not dictate to the city how to manage its own affairs or spend its own money. Therefore, you will find that we have removed or changed riders that have been in past bills that closely prescribed to the city what it should or should not do. In some cases, I would actually like to go further than this bill goes. But I consider the changes we made to be first steps toward eliminating some of the restrictions Congress has placed on the District. Let me take this opportunity, as an aside, to mention that my ranking member, Mr. Regula, has been excellent also on this issue. He, like I, believe that since the District of Columbia has a new mayor and an exciting new leadership, we want to do everything we can to allow them to grow within their own boundaries, make their own decisions and develop their own vision. The bill includes funding for numerous important independent agencies. Some, such as the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, support all government agencies in their day-to-day operations. Other agencies are smaller but equally vital. For example, the Election Assistance Commission deals with issues that are extraordinarily important to the Nation and its ability to have reliable, secure and accessible elections. This bill includes, Mr. Chairman, $300 million for payments to States to help them meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002. The bill also includes money for essential regulatory agencies, namely the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. We have provided a total of $78 million in increases over 2007 for these agencies. We are recommending funding to ensure that they have the ability to oversee, investigate, and take necessary actions relating to their respective missions. For example, the Federal Trade Commission would receive $36 million above this year's level and $7 million above the request to enhance consumer protection activities, including investigations of subprime lending and identity theft and to keep the marketplace free from anticompetitive business practices. Another important agency in this bill is the Small Business Administration. The bill includes $582 million for the SBA, including $100 million for Small Business Development Centers, which is $12 million above the current year. The bill also funds a 7(a) loan guarantee program by providing an $80 million subsidy to make loans more affordable for small businesses. We also include $17 million for a Microloan program, including $2.5 million for the subsidy cost of these loans, as well as funding for SBA programs that target businesses in disadvantaged or low-income communities. These include the HUBZone program, the PRIME program and the 7(j) program, which provides assistance relating to accounting practices or bidding on Federal contracts. This bill also has numerous general provisions that apply to funds in the Act or governmentwide. The mark includes some changes in these provisions from previous bills. It includes, for example, some changes to the provision on public-private competitions, known to some as A-76, or outsourcing, that will strengthen protections for Federal employees. Mr. Chairman, this bill will not make everyone happy. It is not even doing all that I want it to do. We have had to make compromises in order to ensure that this bill will make it through the process and to the President's desk. However, the bill is a good step towards making some important changes to funding and policies. I encourage everyone to recognize that this bill is part of a process that will take time to complete. We will not be able to do everything in our first year. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Regula, for his work and collaboration. We may not always agree on everything in this bill, but we worked together where we could to develop the best possible bill. I truly appreciate his leadership and support. I also want to express my appreciation and thanks for the dedication and hard work of our subcommittee staff, both the majority and minority, especially today when they will be here past 1, 2 o'clock in the morning. Dale Oak, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Frank Carillo, Deb Bilek, and Jim Curry with the majority staff; John Martens and Alice Hogans with the minority staff; and Rick Limardo with Congressman Regula's personal staff have devoted countless hours. That is why this bill is before you today. I would like to recognize their many contributions. I would like also like to acknowledge and thank my personal staff under the leadership of Nadine Berg. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bill. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.012 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 2829 pursuant to House Resolution 517, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Mr. SERRANO

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2829 and that I may include tabular material on the same.