[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1059-H1068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 20, FURTHER CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2007
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 116
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 20) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the joint resolution
and against its consideration are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution shall
be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 116 provides for consideration of
H.J. Res. 20, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2007. It may
seem strange that we are doing that at this late date.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be
good stewards of the money given to it by the American people, but the
last Congress failed to live up to this duty. Of the 11 appropriations
bills it was supposed to pass in 2006, only two were completed. The
others were abandoned, left for the incoming Democratic Congress to
deal with.
My fellow Democrats and I could have approached this responsibility
in the way it was approached last year, but we promised to run the
House differently, to run it responsibly, and that is exactly what we
intend to do.
We had a mess to clean up, Mr. Speaker. The budget failures of the
past Republican Congress have vastly increased our national debt, but
they did more than that. They left agencies, States and localities in
limbo for months concerning their future funding. What is more, we have
seen an explosion in earmarks over the last 12 years in Washington,
earmarks that had greased the wheels of an out-of-control congressional
machinery.
The number of earmarks approved by the House had, according to
estimates by even the most conservative of groups, doubled and tripled
in recent Congresses, and for every shameful, unjustifiable bridge to
nowhere that was exposed and shouted down by the public, many more
questionable earmarks slipped through undetected, a few lines here or
there in a large bill, misspending the people's money and taking
advantage of their trust.
The Democrats have pledged to fundamentally reform the way earmarks
are passed into law by this body, to bring transparency to a process
that until recently had been deliberately shrouded in darkness.
The Rules reform package that we enacted on the first day of this
Congress will shed new and much-needed light on the earmarking process.
It will require the full disclosure of all earmarks proposed by Members
of the House. If a project is worth funding, then the Representative
requesting it should have no qualms with standing up publicly on its
behalf.
[[Page H1060]]
But the earmarks in the budget bills left undone by Republicans last
Congress did not have any such standards applied to them, and so
Democrats have decided to rid this CR of all earmarks. It was a
difficult decision and one which we all had to justify to our
constituents back home. But in the end, it was a necessary step to
bring forth a new day in the people's House.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect, and cleaning up the mess we
inherited required difficult choices between bad alternatives.
But I am very pleased that despite it all the legislation does
contain increases in funding for critical programs affecting the lives
of millions of people at home and around the world.
Spending on veterans health care is increased by $3.6 billion above
the 2006 spending level. Spending on Pell Grants for the first time in
5 years is increased by $615.4 million. The NIH is going to receive an
additional $619.6 million.
Other increases are going to support public housing, crime and law
enforcement, and domestic transportation needs.
The bill even has a global focus, granting an additional $1.3 million
to expand the efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis
internationally.
Mr. Speaker, the minority, I predict, will claim that the closed rule
under which we are debating this bill is a violation of the spirit of
the House and a rejection of the promises Democrats made last year to
open up the legislative process.
Let me be very clear, extremely clear about the past record of the
House. Since 1997, the House has voted on 75 continuing resolutions,
and all of them, 100 percent, were considered under a closed rule
process with no amendments allowed. What is more, a third of those
continuing resolutions contained substantive policy changes.
In addition to that extensive precedent, the House has already fully
debated and considered eight of the appropriations measures contained
here. To do so again would take us all year, and we do not have that
luxury, not with the many challenges that confront our Nation at this
moment in history.
Under the circumstances left for us by the former majority, we have
done the best we could. We have produced a bill that will keep the
government functioning and a bill that, despite its flaws, is a breath
of fresh air compared with how appropriations legislation used to be
handled in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are ready for a new direction. They
have proved that in this country, and that is why they put a new kind
of Congress in power. This Congress is going to be defined not just by
the way it does business, but by the kind of business it conducts.
This Congress is not going to pass the buck, leaving unfinished
business for others to handle and leaving problems for others to fix.
Democrats are making the tough choices the American people expect us to
make and that they elected us to make.
At the end of the day, that is what real leadership is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and
the chairwoman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself as much time as may I consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee held a 3-hour hearing and
took testimony from the appropriations chairman Mr. Obey and Members
that brought forth amendments to the committee in hopes of having them
debated and considered on the floor here today.
Many good ideas were presented to the committee. These ideas ranged
from considering a true, clean continuing resolution to restoring the
lapse Federal Government safety net for 4,400 schools and 780 counties
in rural America, from helping farmers with natural disaster relief, to
increasing funding for local housing authorities, to taking unspent
money from a rain forest education project in Iowa and, instead,
spending those moneys to help millions, to help our veterans.
But unfortunately, after listening to the thoughtful testimony from
Members on their ideas for improving the bill, the Rules Committee
rejected every single one of them and approved this closed rule by an
8-4 vote.
So this House will spend just 1 hour, Mr. Speaker, considering this
bill with no amendments even allowed to be debated and no substitute
bill allowed to be offered by the minority.
So why the rush and the closed process? We are not asking for much.
Give us a few minutes to sort out confusing parts of this resolution
that have not passed the House previously, but have magically appeared
in this resolution, like a rewriting of the formula for the
distribution of section 8 housing funds. This new formula will affect
hundreds of communities all across the Nation.
In my district in Washington State, multiple communities are slated
to have their grants cut dramatically. In one city, city of Kennewick,
the housing authority alone there will have their grant cut by $1
million. That is roughly one-third of their total budget. This
rewritten formula was not approved by the House in previous spending
bills for this year and clearly needs more input and discussion before
becoming law. Unfortunately, we are denied the opportunity to discuss
that.
One major issue that is neglected on this bill is a continuing safety
net for our schools and counties in rural areas that have large amounts
of Federal land and, therefore, have a very limited tax base.
Recognizing the importance of this safety net, Mr. Walden of Oregon
came to the Rules Committee and offered a bipartisan amendment with Mr.
DeFazio of Oregon that would have provided a 1-year extension of
funding so that these schools could keep their libraries open, keep the
teachers at least through the end of the school year, and help counties
with necessary road repairs. Let me be clear. Last year, over 4,400
schools received $400 million, and with this bill, they will receive
exactly zero.
After convincing testimony by Mr. Walden, three Democrat members of
the Rules Committee agreed to join me and Chairwoman Slaughter as
cosponsors of H.R. 17 which would fix the problem for an additional 7
years. Less than an hour later, however, the Rules Committee voted
against even considering a bipartisan amendment that would provide 1
hour of relief for this problem, saying that it is not the right
vehicle.
Mr. Speaker, please try to explain to school children when their
libraries close because of insufficient funding that the Congress
wanted to act but chose not to because they did not feel this was the
right vehicle.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of unauthorized programs continue to
be funded in this underlying resolution. We do not have a complete list
of the unauthorized programs because the underlying measure is not a
general appropriations bill and did not go through regular order.
Therefore, there is no report which is required to list all
unauthorized programs that are funded.
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
speak at length about the open process they would have when they were
in charge. I want to believe them, I truly do. I have had discussions
with my colleagues up in the Rules Committee every time we have met
this year, but unfortunately, the actions simply do not match the
promises that were made.
{time} 1030
At the beginning of the 110th Congress, I heard my colleagues on the
majority side say that after we wrap up our first 100 hours agenda, we
will have an open process. It has now been nearly 4 weeks. The 100
hours are long past, and yet the House is yet to consider a bill under
an open rule. Most have been closed out without any amendments.
I have to ask when, when will this House have the opportunity to
debate and consider the bills? When will the minority be permitted to
truly participate in this process? Because I can think of no better
time than right now when we are considering the funding for our
Nation's priorities and funding for almost the entire Federal
Government.
Let us have a real debate on the $463 billion in this omnibus. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
[[Page H1061]]
Just as a response to my colleague from Washington to remind him
that, just a month ago, the minority was the majority. If he thinks the
things he points out today were serious problems, he should have fixed
them then.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me simply make a few observations about the
gentleman's comments. With respect to the forest funded school program
that he is talking about, it needs to be understood that is not within
the jurisdiction of our committee. The problem with that program is
that the authorizing committee has allowed that program to expire, and
it is a mandatory program. Any time the Appropriations Committee tries
to involve itself in mandatory programs we get skinned by people on
both sides of the aisle, and we are told to mind our own business. We
have.
I am very sympathetic about the gentleman's problem, but this is not
an appropriated program. The Appropriations Committee deals with
discretionary spending, not mandatory spending.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Surely.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation we had earlier that this
is not in your jurisdiction, but we were given waivers in this bill for
legislation that is also not under your jurisdiction, and the rewrite,
if I am not mistaken, of the formula that I mentioned on formula 8.
Mr. OBEY. But the fact is we have not reauthorized expired programs.
That is the difference. We do not have the authority to reauthorize a
mandatory program. If we did, we would have to find another $320
million, and I would like to know where that offset is going to come
from.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is right to want this program to continue,
but he is wrong if he thinks that the Appropriations Committee is the
proper venue for it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I would prefer not to. I only have 5 minutes. The gentleman
as the bill manager has more time than I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has the time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for 30 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment that was offered by our colleague from
Oregon, while, yes, it refers to as a mandatory program was simply a 1-
year program so that this problem could be fixed.
Mr. OBEY. I understand that. We had nine other requests to do the
same thing. If we had done so, Members on your side of the aisle would
have come and attacked us and scalped us for doing things that we had
no business doing. So he can't have it both ways, which is what many
Members in the minority are trying to do today.
I would be happy to join with the gentleman in urging the authorizing
committee to fix the problem, but it is not within our purview to do.
With that, I take back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong the comments on the rule. Let me
simply say that the majority had 8 months to deal with the most basic
responsibility of a legislative body, which is to pass the Federal
budget. They were in the majority. They now are not. Now they are in
the minority.
We are trying to clean up their spilt milk, and they can squawk all
they want about how we did it. The fact is, there are no new issues
here. Virtually every single issue that will be debated today was
already debated when we passed the appropriation bills. These are the
bills that the House passed last summer in the previous session of the
Congress. We had hundreds of amendments to these bills.
Now because the Republicans in the House couldn't convince the
Republicans in the Senate to vote for these bills, we have before us
what is, in essence, a pre-conferenced conference report, and we have
boiled down this almost 1,000 pages. This is what it would look like if
we had an omnibus appropriation bill. We would have had 1,000 pages of
legislative material. We have boiled it down to about 150 pages.
We have basically decided to stick with the fiscal year 2006 basic
funding level for most programs. We try to then adjust programs for
agencies so that they don't have to lay off workers, so that they don't
have to have furloughs, such as the Social Security Department and the
FBI, who both told us that they desperately needed these adjustments or
they would have to shut down their operations or lay off people.
We then decided that there are some priorities on both sides of the
aisle, and we used almost $10 billion, which we had cut from other
portions of the bill, to finance those items.
You may not like the choices we have made, but, in contrast to the
last Congress which ducked its responsibility to make these choices, at
least we have made the choices. At least we have made them, and we are
going to vote on this today. We are going to send it to the Senate so
that when the President submits his new budget on February 5, he has a
clean slate and so do we, and that is the way it ought to be.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr.
Dreier from California.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. We
keep hearing that every time this has come before us it has been
considered under a closed rule. A closed rule is the norm for this. The
fact of the matter is, in 1987 is the last time that we considered a
year-long CR that would have allowed for consideration of the entire
budget.
Guess what? It was under a Democratic Congress, and at that time they
made eight amendments in order. Since that time, we considered short-
term continuing resolutions, and they have been done under unanimous
consent, they have been done under suspension of the rules. But it is a
complete mischaracterization to say every time we consider something
like this it has been done under a closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, at some point, at some point, and I don't know when that
will be, the Democratic leadership is going to run out of excuses as to
why they deny both Democrats and Republicans, Democrats and
Republicans, the opportunity to participate in the process.
First, it was, we promised to get the Six for '06 done in 100 hours.
We considered a lot of this stuff in the last Congress. Then it was,
well, this is the same rule that was considered back in the 103rd
Congress. Now it is, well, this is your mess, Republicans, and we have
to clean it up.
The fact of the matter is, the argument that our friends on the other
side of the aisle have continued to make over and over and over again
is shutting out more than half of the American people. As I say, it is
shutting out the opportunity for both Democrats and Republicans to
participate in the process.
We offered 21 amendments, very thoughtful amendments, that would have
taken $44.5 million, $44.5 million, that is utilized right now for rain
forest education in Iowa and transfer that spending to help provide
desperately needed assistance to the war wounded. These are the kinds
of priorities that we have set forward, Mr. Speaker. Tragically, this
process has denied us to help the war wounded over those who want to
focus attention on rain forest education in Iowa.
Oppose this rule and oppose this measure.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to Mr. Obey from
Wisconsin for whatever he wants to do with it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard unmitigated nonsense from
the gentleman. The gentleman is somehow claiming that we are funding
that silly rain forest that your party agreed to 2 years ago in Iowa.
The fact is that Senator Byrd and I made clear we would provide no
earmarks in the 2006 bill.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
[[Page H1062]]
Mr. OBEY. I am not going to yield, so let me finish my thought. The
gentleman does it all the time, and it is highly rude.
Mr. DREIER. I always yield.
Mr. OBEY. I would simply point out that we had no requirement to
retroactively go back 2 years earlier and repeal silly things that your
side of the aisle did 2 years ago. There is not a dollar in this bill
for that rain forest. You know it as well as I do. Quit trying to
pretend otherwise.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/4\
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
Washington State for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act, H.R. 17, of which the chairman of
the Rules Committee is a cosponsor.
I went before the Rules Committee yesterday with an amendment
cosponsored by my colleague from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to reauthorize,
or to appropriate, I should say, not reauthorize, for 1 year, just 1
year, funds for our schools and roads in our communities, $400 million.
To meet the PAYGO test, we provided a mechanism. It is not the most
elegant mechanism out there, but it was an across-the-board reduction
in all spending by .00086 percent, or 1 penny out of $11.59 spent in
this bill.
Today, across America, in more than 4,400 school districts in 600
counties, layoff notices are going out for teachers, for sheriffs'
deputies, for search-and-rescue patrols, for essential services in our
counties. Libraries in Jackson County, Oregon, will close in April, all
15 of them, because the last Congress and now this Congress has failed
to take action, failed.
The distinguished gentleman who chairs the Appropriations Committee
says, this is mandatory spending; we can't touch it in our bill. You
can't authorize in this bill, oh, unless you got a waiver from the
Rules Committee, because you cannot stand here and tell me there aren't
programs being funded in this bill that have fully been authorized. I
don't believe it is the case. This is one such program, and you made
the choice not to do it here.
Now, many of you have indicated that you will work with us to fund
this somewhere else, and I am deeply appreciative of that. The
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, a cosponsor of this reauthorization
legislation, made that commitment yesterday, I believe, to work with us
on some other vehicle.
But I just have to tell you how dramatic this is in my district and
in districts across this country where school board administrators are
having to tell their teachers, next year I can't guarantee you will
have a contract, and I have to be able to do that by March 1. They are
putting out the layoff notices. They are looking at shutting down vital
services. All because this Federal Government made a decision at some
point to stop harvesting timber on Federal forest land in a significant
measure, an 80 to 85 percent reduction, that this Congress, through its
actions in the past and lawsuits and everything else, brought to a
dramatic halt, active management of our Federal force.
Last year in America, 9 million acres burned, and this Congress had
to appropriate $1.5 billion to put out forest fires and grassland
fires, the most in the history of our country, following another year
that was the most.
We will not change the policy so we get commonsense management of our
forests. Now, for the first time in nearly 100 years you break the
commitment that the Federal Government has had since Teddy Roosevelt
was President and created the great forest reserves, to be a good
neighbor to the counties where up to 70 or 80 percent of the Federal
lands in their counties are owned and managed or mismanaged, in some of
our opinions, by the Federal Government.
School kids in my district out in Grant County boarding this bus are
going to be traveling on roads where the road department is basically
being eliminated.
I want to share with you a letter from a fifth grader in Ashland,
Oregon. A fifth grader in Ashland, Oregon, gets it and understands that
this Congress ought to be able to understand it and get it. She wrote
to me after going to a Martin Luther King event and decided she ought
to get involved in public service. Her mother is a school teacher; her
father is a professor.
``I live in Ashland and go to Bellview School. I am in fifth grade. I
use our library a lot. We always borrow books on tape for car trips. My
New Year's resolution is to read all the `Hank the Cowdog' books, and
the library has them all. I need the library to stay open so I can
finish my resolution. I also use a lot of books there for school
reports.
``Please help to keep our library system open!
``Sincerely, Alice.''
I appreciate your willingness to work with us in the future. I wish
we could have had the amendment made in order in this resolution so
that Alice could get her school books and the layoff notices wouldn't
go out.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (H.R.
17 a.k.a. County Payments), in both this Congress and the last, has
been a strongly bipartisan issue.
The DeFazio-Walden legislation to reauthorize and fund the County
Payments program for seven years enjoys the support of 98 Members of
their House.
I would like to thank the members of the Rules Committee who heard me
out yesterday on a DeFazio-Walden amendment which would have restored
funding for this vital program. I would like to thank Congressmen
McGovern, Alcee Hastings (FL) and Cardoza, who following my remarks in
Committee, joined Chairwoman Slaughter and Congressman Doc Hastings
(WA) as cosponsors of H.R. 17.
As I have said in eight of 18 one-minute Floor speeches, the failure
of Congress to reauthorize the County Payments program is a breach of
faith to more than 600 forested counties and 4,400 school districts
across America.
The DeFazio-Walden amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday
would have provided the vital $400 million to fund this program for one
year as we work to fully reauthorize and fund the program. The
amendment would have met the PAYGO rule by providing a .00086 percent
across-the-board reduction in the [$463 billion] CR we are considering
today. This fraction of a percent reduction amounts to one penny out of
every $11.59 which will be appropriated in this CR.
One penny is all that rural counties and school districts across this
country need.
Without this penny, what will happen to rural America's forested
counties and school districts? Severe cuts in funding for jail beds,
sheriff's patrols, and criminal prosecutions, and the pursuit of meth
cooks. Rural school districts will forego overdue repairs, not buy
textbooks, or face significant challenges bussing kids to school.
Libraries will close in places like Jackson County, Oregon. In fact,
during the Rules Committee discussion yesterday, Chairwoman Slaughter
commented that ``even during the Depression we didn't close
libraries.'' I would like to draw your attention to a letter I received
from Alice, a fifth-grader from Ashland, Oregon who utilizes one of the
15 Jackson County libraries scheduled to close in April if this vital
funding is not restored.
There are further impacts. Surely you remember the searches for the
Kim Family in southern Oregon and the mountain climbers on Mt. Hood?
Both Jackson and Hood River Counties used equipment and personnel paid
for in part by the County Payments program in those searches. The
Klamath County, Oregon sheriff's force of 35 officers will be cut by
one-third. They patrol an area 100 times the size of the District of
Columbia.
These vital county services and rural school programs were once
funded by timber receipts. The virtual elimination of timber harvest in
our Federal forests prompted Congress to provide payments to develop
forest health improvement projects on public lands and simultaneously
stimulate job development and community economic stability.
Consider that Oregon's Second District, which I represent, is 60
percent public land; 78 percent of Harney County is public land; 79
percent of Deschutes County is public land; 72 percent of Hood River
County is public land.
While these forest and range lands are America's treasures, these
vast tracts of land do not provide a tax base for communities, greatly
reducing the amount of revenue that can be generated for services like
schools, libraries, and law enforcement.
I appreciate the kind words from the Rules Committee members and
their commitment to work with Congressman DeFazio and myself to find
the appropriate legislative vehicle to deal with this rural Federal
funding crisis.
We must not wait any longer--pink slips are being sent to county
employees, rural school programs are being cut, and Alice, the fifth-
grader from Ashland, Oregon is losing her library--time is running out.
[[Page H1063]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
{time} 1045
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this.
I understand my colleague from Oregon being frustrated. This is an
issue we have discussed over the last year, and I imagine his
frustration has doubled because the committee that he was a member of
in the last Congress, the bill did not find its way into law because of
what happened in the prior Congress. I understand his going with my
colleague, Mr. DeFazio, to the Rules Committee and flagging the issue
because while it is not quite as critical in my direct district, it
affects them and it affects my State. And not just Oregon, but there
are people in rural America across the United States for whom this is
serious.
I am sorry that the last Congress failed in its responsibility. I
worked with him then. I will work with him now.
I respectfully disagree slightly in terms of the tactic, in terms of
venting frustration at the Rules Committee or the Appropriations
Committee. I take the Chair of the Appropriations Committee at his word
that he is concerned. He will work with us. The Chair of the Rules
Committee, Ms. Slaughter, is a cosponsor with us. And I look forward,
as we move forward with this year's budget, to doing the best we can.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I think it is the Ways and Means Committee. Is it
Agriculture or Ways and Means?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It is Natural Resources, isn't it?
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I
think I can clarify it, although I am on the minority side.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the bill, I think, has been
referred to both the Natural Resources Committee and the Agriculture
Committee. In the last Congress, my subcommittee and the full Resources
Committee passed the bill out to the Agriculture Committee, where no
further action was taken, nor was there any action taken by the United
States Senate, which was no great surprise.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.
Mr. DICKS. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, then, of
course, under PAYGO, we have to find an offset; isn't that correct?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Right.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to tell the gentleman I want
to work with him as well because this is a major concern in our whole
area out there in the Northwest, and I appreciate his leadership on
this issue.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to divide the
issues here. I appreciate my friend and colleague clarifying that it
was both committees, neither of which I am a member of, but I am
working with him, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Dicks and others in the Northwest to
try to resolve this. We are frustrated that the process broke down, but
I want us to get started on the right foot.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield again just
briefly.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, when we first had the forest plan, the major
reduction in timber harvesting, we worked on a bipartisan basis to get
an offset. I think it was like $250 million, something like that, and a
phase out over a number of years. But I realize some of the schools,
especially in Oregon, get a very substantial amount of money for this
program, and I hope we can find an offset.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate Mr.
Dicks' willingness to come forward, his interaction with my colleague
even now, Mr. Walden.
This is important business. It failed last Congress. It is not going
to be achieved this Congress unless we are able to do it in a
bipartisan fashion, unless we are able to look seriously at dealing
with the funding. Wedging it in here, with all due respect, is ill-
advised. Having an across-the-board cut for everybody on something
where I know Mr. Obey has been working very hard to clear the decks so
we can get busy on this year's budget and that we can start looking at
the overall fiscal situation.
I will continue my efforts to work with the gentleman, but I don't
think we ought to confuse it today with the matter before us. I think
it is appropriate to use as a vehicle to raise the issue. I think it
was a point well made before the Rules Committee. I appreciate his
coming to the floor here today to talk about unmet needs. There may be
others that could talk about unmet needs. The issue before us is moving
forward.
For me, I hope this is the last time this CR action happens. I
appreciate the Appropriations Committee being willing to make some very
tough decisions. This is not something that would have been ideal. I am
sure Mr. Dicks, as a senior member of that committee, there are things
that he would have done differently. I am sure Mr. Obey didn't want to
be in this situation. But the fact is we are picking up from the abject
failure of the Republican leadership last Congress, a breakdown in the
process, a failure to pass the legislation, and now we must move
forward.
I support this rule. I don't think we have to go back 20 years to
find one exception. The fact is we have a plan to move forward. I
appreciate the work that has been done. We don't have to bring up
extraneous issues. I, too, like Mr. Obey, choked hearing about the
reference to the rain forest, which wasn't something that is dealt with
in this bill. You could go back over time and start undoing the work
that Mr. Dreier or others disagree with when they were in the majority.
I hope they come to the Appropriations Committee with proposals to
rescind things that they did, but do it in the course of regular order
in terms of the authorizing committee or coming forward with their own
amendments in the course of what is going to happen this year.
To somehow pick on this rule, pick on this CR, trying to deal with
the mess that the Appropriations Committee inherited, I think is out of
line, uncalled for, and, frankly, hypocritical.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my friend from Oregon
supports regular order. That is not what we are seeing today.
But the pundits say there is no point in talking about the
legislative process in this debate today. They say people don't care
about the rights of the legislative minority. I am not so sure about
that. When people outside the Beltway hear that the funding bill for
the rest of the year was basically drawn up by two people--one Senate
chairman and one House chairman, in a closed room with no input from
anyone else--they might conclude that doesn't sound quite right. And
then when they hear this bill cuts military construction by $730
million below last year's level and falls over $3 billion short of the
redeployment needs of our servicemen and their families, then most
people might feel a little more debate and a few more people in the
room could have resulted in a solution that fully funded these
essential programs. That is the way the legislative process works.
Someone drafts up a proposal. Then it is debated and amended, and in
the end, a consensus is possible.
But this is the first time in recent memory where the leadership
simply puts two people in a room and lets them write an entirely new
bill, moving the numbers around to suit their own preferences. And then
the House is told ``just take it or leave it.'' No amendments. No give
and take. No one else allowed to submit a better idea. And only 30
minutes of debate for the minority side.
Maybe that is why this bill does not meet the critical needs of our
soldiers, such as basic housing allowance and research for Gulf War
veterans and amputees.
So, Mr. Speaker, process may be considered inside baseball and a
nonissue to some. But to me, democracy calls for a fair process, even
in a continuing resolution; and, more often than not, it results in a
better bill for the average citizen.
[[Page H1064]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the work of Chairman Obey and
his staff in consulting with us on the Labor-HHS chapter of this bill.
I know the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, has been put in a difficult position. A position we in the
House lamented all last year when the other body neglected to schedule
time for our bills.
But I would remind everyone that under Chairman Lewis' leadership, we
completed work on every bill but one by July 4 of last year.
This process insist my view is beyond the pale. First of all, this is
a continuing resolution in name only. For all practical purposes, it is
an omnibus bill. To my knowledge, not one Member of the House other
than the bill's sponsor saw this product in its entirety until Monday
night. Let us be clear. This is not an inconsequential bill. It
provides roughly half the money needed to run the government for an
entire, and we are going to whisk it off the House floor in a grand
total of 2 hours. The Appropriations Committee has not met to discuss
the contents of the bill, let alone to offer amendments that could
improve it. And Members of the House have had only slightly more than
one day to decode the unorthodox language contained in this 137-page
document. Furthermore, the bill before us is not amendable by the body
as a whole. I cannot recall the entire time I have been a Member of the
House a single appropriations bill that has not been open to amendment
at some level.
The American people who watch this debate will see us spend $463.5
billion of their money with a grand total of 2 hours of discussion, 1
hour on the rule, 1 hour of general debate. If you do the math, that is
$3.8 billion per minute of public debate. Frankly, that is a travesty,
and the American people deserve better.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Continuing
Resolution for Fiscal 2007 and I join in complimenting our
distinguished chairman, Mr. Obey, for accomplishing in a few weeks,
with the distinguished Senate Appropriations Chairman, Robert Byrd,
what their predecessors were both unwilling and unable to do.
A mess was inherited from the prior Congress, and this bill cleans
those up and corrects them in a very responsible fashion.
If any of our colleagues on the other side want to criticize this
package, I ask why didn't they fix it when they had a chance? I also
ask why did they create this irresponsible problem by delaying passage
of these necessary measures in the first place? It should have been
done by the end of September of last year. Despite the constitutional
expectations to pass all appropriation bills by September 30 in time
for the new fiscal year, the last time all appropriation bills passed
on time was 1994, when the Democrats were in charge, and thank goodness
we are again.
The action today roughly provides cuts in over 60 programs and
rescinds unobligated balances in order to transfer $10 billion in
savings that are used to address critical investments such as our
veterans' health care and health accounts of the Department of Defense
to care for our returning wounded veterans. It will keep our Social
Security offices open rather than shutting them down. Community
policing is increased by $70 million. And it provides important help
for students, Pell grants, about $260 more per year for each of them.
It covers additional children with disabilities. It provides $103.7
million for Head Start. It provides funding to expand some of our
community health centers to take care of people who don't have any
health insurance. It keeps our Public Housing authorities utility costs
at least paid for the moment. It provides $125 million for 38,000
additional students below grade level. And we provide an additional
$197.1 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Federal
Highway funds are provided at levels guaranted in SAFETEA and Amtrak
funding is maintained at 2006 levels. We know that is still $266
million below 2004 levels. We just don't have the funds to do
everything we want to do. But at least we want to move forward.
Our Nation has many needs, Mr. Speaker, and we need to understand and
meet those responsibilities for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But
surely we have responsibilities here at home, and we have a
responsibility to meet the need for a defensible budget policy that
imposes tough decisions in tough time.
I want to congratulate Mr. Obey as our new chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, somebody who is not only well suited to this
position, but probably the finest chairman of Appropriations I have
ever had the opportunity to serve with.
Thank you for doing what you had to do for the Nation.
Congratulations.
Please, I ask all my colleagues to vote for this continuing
resolution on behalf of all the citizens of our country.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions of Texas.
{time} 1100
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from the State of Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this closed rule and to
the underlying 137-page, as they call it, omnibus appropriations
measure that is being rushed to the floor of the House of
Representatives today without committee oversight, regular order, or
input from the vast majority of Members of this body.
Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment that would
have eliminated $44.5 million in unspent funds from an earmark that
dates back to the 2004 omnibus appropriations measure that would have
created an indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa. Because the project
failed to meet its non-Federal matching funds matching requirement,
this money remains unspent. It is sitting waiting for it to be spent.
Last night, I offered an amendment that could be used for better
purposes. It could be used to make sure that we move the money to the
veterans health care program, and that is exactly what my amendment
said. Despite their claim of support for veterans health care and their
stated opposition to earmarks, Democrats rejected my commonsense
proposal on a party line vote of 9-4.
They also rejected along the same party line margin an amendment
offered by my colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) which would have
replaced the Democrats' omnibus spending bill with a clean continuing
resolution that would have saved taxpayers around $7 billion.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor today because we believe that the
process that should have included more time and more opportunity for
feedback but at least the ability in the Rules Committee to do the
right thing was rejected by the Democrats who stand up and say that
they are for an open and fair process.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my
former colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Gingrey from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and the
underlying resolution. No amendments allowed, no committee hearings, no
committee votes taken, all we have is simply a closed rule, a closed
process, a bunch of broken promises.
So here we go again, Mr. Speaker. Once more, Members of the House
find themselves with really no good choices, forced to accept the ``our
way or the highway'' mentality of the new majority, despite their
promises to do otherwise.
As if the majority's broken promises for civility and openness in the
people's House wasn't disconcerting enough, this continuing resolution
is one giant broken promise.
For instance, the Democrats promise no earmarks in this continuing
resolution. They even include ``window-dressing'' language to that
effect for the
[[Page H1065]]
purpose of their talking points and sound bites. Yet, on closer
inspection, one realizes that, while this resolution does eliminate
earmarks for organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America,
various law enforcement programs, schools and hospitals, it somehow
still provides funding for several notorious million-dollar earmarks
such as the Bridge to Nowhere.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic rationale for picking at which earmarks
stay and which earmarks go strikes me as bizarre and hypocritical, to
say the least.
Even more troubling, this continuing resolution shortchanges our
military, their families and our communities transitioning under the
BRAC process by almost $3.1 billion, not to mention an additional
billion dollar shortfall for military construction. Clearly, the
majority has a ``tough love'' philosophy when it comes to our military,
their families and the war on terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, we could have even fixed some of these problems right
here, right now if Members had been allowed to offer amendments. But I
guess that is not the way it works in this moveon.org Congress.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to also commend the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Obey, for the work that he has done on this bill. I had
some reservations, I must say, when we started down this road. But I
now realize that Chairman Obey and our counterpart chairman in the
Senate had a good plan to put this thing together.
I regret that last year we did not pass 9 of the 11 appropriations
bills. Thank goodness, we passed Defense and Homeland Security. And I
do think it is important to point out, and I am sure Mr. Obey did this,
that we passed most of the bills except for HHS in the House.
So I do not blame our colleagues here for what happened. It was the
other body that refused to bring the bills up in a timely way.
Now, we have, you know, we had a difficult hand that we were dealt.
There is some very good programs like rural water development and some
very important school money that we could not include because they were
earmarks.
But I do think it is important for everyone to recognize that, for
Indian Health Services, we were able to increase that by $125 million.
If we had not done that, hundreds of thousands of members of the tribes
would not have been able to get health care.
We were able to take care of the LANDSAT for the U.S. Geological
Survey, plus $16 million; U.S. Forest firefighting costs, plus $70; EPA
Homeland Security hazard, plus $9.5; and operational shortfalls.
One of the biggest problems we have with our land management agencies
is that they do not have enough money in the President's budget to
cover fixed costs, and 80 to 90 percent of their costs are employees.
So when that happens they have been, over the last 7 years, forced to
cut employment, not fill vacancies. This has affected the Park Service.
This has also affected the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest
Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They are all hurting. They do
not have enough resources. So we have some very major issues that we
have to deal with.
Conservation has been hit by this administration. From 2001 to 2006,
the Interior budget has been reduced by 1.2 percent in real terms. EPA
has been cut by 6.6 percent. We put these two agencies together in this
bill.
So this is a question of priority; and what I am hopeful of, with the
new majority and with a new budget and with a new allocation, we will
be able to stop the bleeding in these conservation agencies. No one has
been a bigger supporter of these agencies than the chairman of the
committee who has worked with me on a series of conservation
initiatives over the years, but this is a serious problem that we have
to face up to.
You know, we may have to work to get new legislation enacted in order
to increase the amount of money. The land and water conservation money,
the amount of money that the administration proposed, has never shown
up in the budget. So it is time for us to find some new solutions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the bill that comes
to the floor under that closed rule. I think it is important to
understand that this 137 page bill comes to the floor as a critically
important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will
control the vast amount of spending of the Federal Government for the
balance of the fiscal year.
And yet the process by which it is coming to the floor is no less
than stunning. The leaders on the other side said, as soon as the 100
hours are over, we will accord you procedural fairness. I have here the
Boston Globe and the Washington Post in which each of them said, ``As
soon as that is done, on January 18,'' the majority leader said,
``Republicans will enjoy more rights and power than they allowed
Democrats in the entire 12 years the Democrats were in the minority.''
Yet this bill comes to us under a stunning procedure. Indeed, this
bill, these 137 pages, at the Appropriations Committee level received
no hearing, no hearing whatsoever. At the markup level, no markup
occurred.
What does that mean? That means no Democrat was allowed an
opportunity at the committee level to offer an amendment, and no
Republican was allowed an opportunity to offer an amendment to this
bill.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you are represented by either a Member of
the majority or a Member of the minority, you get no say in this bill.
So the bill then proceeded to the Rules Committee. Well, at the Rules
Committee, the Democrats and Republicans in theory could offer
amendments. Would you like to know how many amendments were made in
order for the minority party? Answer: Zero. Not one. Not one.
How about the Democrats? Were they allowed to offer an amendment?
This is not a fair procedure, and this is not democracy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, my only response to some of the comments I
have heard from the other side of the aisle is, you are really
something else. You are really something else. You spent all of the
last year trying to pass appropriation bills. You passed all but one
through the House. You could not get your Republican friends in the
Senate to support any of them. So when you relinquished your duties we
had no domestic budget for the coming year.
I offered on the floor to make any substantive compromises necessary
when you were still in control. I offered to make any procedural
concessions necessary to enable you to pass the bills on your watch.
You did not do it.
Your own chairman at the time admitted that the Republican floor
leader in the Senate blocked the bills from passage. So you have
forfeited any right to squawk about how we cleaned up your mess.
Now I want to comment on a few claims that have been made. You say
there has been no participation by the minority side.
This bill was negotiated at the staff level for 3\1/2\ weeks, 7 days
a week, around the clock. Your staff was invited to every meeting. Some
of them they did not come because they did not like the choices that
were being made. But someone had to make the decisions, because you did
not.
So the staff negotiated virtually all of those compromises. When they
could not reach agreement, then they brought the Members in. You had
Senator Domenici on the Republican side and Mr. Visclosky going on and
on about the Energy and Water bill, for instance. You had Rosa DeLauro
in the ag bill involved, you had Mr. Dicks in the Interior bill
involved as the appropriate subcommittee chairs. If you did not bring
your subcommittee ranking members into the mix, that is your fault, not
mine.
All I know is, our people participated. If they did not on your side,
it is either because they did not want to or because you did not invite
them to. I do not know which is which. Do not blame us for your screw-
ups.
[[Page H1066]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). All Members are reminded that
they should address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it is a closed rule that does
not provide a fair and open amendment process.
On the positive side, the underlying continuing resolution increases
funding for Pell Grants and COPS while not exceeding the spending caps
set by the President's budget. As the ranking member on the Higher
Education Subcommittee, I am pleased that the Pell Grant maximum awards
go up $260 from $4,050 to $4,310.
I also believe in putting more cops on the street through increased
funding to the COPS Program, especially since my home town of Orlando
saw its murder rate more than double in the past year. I sent a letter
to the appropriators signed by Anthony Weiner and 101 Members calling
for an increase in COPS funding. I am pleased that this bill increases
COPS funding by $70 million, which is enough money to put 900 new cops
on the street.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, you know, last year, I watched the worst
budget failure since the 1995 government shutdown led by the Republican
Congress. You only passed two appropriations bills, you got no budget
resolution passed to get your work done, and then you are sitting here
complaining after we are trying to clean up the mess you left behind.
We have a phrase for that in Chicago. It is called chutzpah. You
cannot do that. You cannot sit here and come to the floor and complain
about what has happened here. Because you handed off nothing but lemons
and we are trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that you handed
off here.
I compliment us for doing exactly what we said we were going to do.
There are no earmarks, there is no pay rise, and there are no gimmicks.
It is a new day in Washington from the failures of what happened in the
past, and we are very clear that this will be a new day from the type
of politics that ran here, and there will be none of that until we pass
an increase in the minimum wage. We have done right by what we said.
I compliment, as the Republican speaker beforehand, my colleague,
said, from Florida, this is a budget that veterans can be proud of, the
education of our children, our health care needs and our law
enforcement needs, that directly help people. While college costs have
gone up close to 35 percent since 2003, we have held Pell Grants
frozen. They are now going up $260. 5.3 million more students will get
the assistance they need.
Increases for veterans, $3.6 billion to provide health care for
325,000 veterans.
In the area of the National Institutes of Health Care, 500 research
projects will be funded that would not have been funded. This is direct
help to the American people.
{time} 1115
And in the law enforcement area, 31,000 positions, including 12,000
FBI agents and 2,500 intelligence analysts will be verified, doubling
the number of intelligence analysts since 9/11 at the FBI. This is
exactly the type of investments we need to do. So from top to bottom,
investing in the education, health care, research and law enforcement
areas that have been sorrily missed in past budgets, this continuing
resolution makes the investments and turns around what were the dire
consequences in those areas.
And in addition to that, it makes clear that this is a new day in
Washington. We will have no earmarks, no pay raise and no gimmicks. And
we are actually turning the page over so we can go forward with the
type of budget and the type of appropriations that will continue to put
our fiscal house in order, invest in the education and health care and
energy and environmental security of this country. This turns the page
on a past that was broken and that was failed. And I am proud that we
have done that. And I am sure there will be some colleagues, like in
the past, that will point to things. But we are pointing in a new
direction and turning the page on a broken and failed past and towards
a future that, in fact, puts America's priorities and its fiscal house
in order.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the
gentleman wouldn't yield. I just wanted to ask one brief question. But
I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am curious about this new day for the
Democrat Party because in the budget that I have a little more control
over or interest in, the Ag Committee, they have cut food stamps by $11
million. I want to make sure my Republican colleagues understand that.
That is right.
We just heard from the Democrat leader that it is a new day and the
Democrats, on their first day of this new day, have cut food stamps $11
million.
They have also, in this budget, cut conservation programs right and
left. They cut, for example, the Equip Program. The Equip Program is a
program designed to help farmers with conservation and watershed and
water run off and nutrients going into streams. They cut it by $70
million.
On the conservation operations account, which is an account that
helps farmers create habitat for wildlife, they cut that by $72
million. It helps with surface water retention so that we can reduce
the impact of drought on farmers. They have cut that, again, $72
million. It also helps with nutrient management.
There is a small dams program that they cut by $74.2 million, which
affects Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
North Carolina, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Virginia, Texas,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Oklahoma. And, Mr. Speaker, I am reading
out these States so that the Democrat Members from these States can
realize that they are, a vote for this bill is a vote to cut their own
dams program in their own States by $74 million.
Now, we have also heard about energy independence. This account also
cuts the biomass program in the USDA by $2 million. But don't think
your taxpayers are going to get any of this money. Where does the money
go? To the bureaucracy. The FDA, who only asked for a $20 million
increase, gets $100 million under this omnibus bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out to the gentleman who
just spoke that our committee took no action whatsoever on all of the
items he just mentioned. They are all mandatory programs. All this
resolution does is to carry forward the same limitations in those
programs that you had in them last year.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of
the lemonade that the gentleman from Illinois was referring to, the
impact on NASA in this omnibus continuing resolution.
The Democratic majority rejected my request to be permitted to offer
an amendment addressing some of the devastating cuts to NASA that are
included in this bill. The Democrat majority has chosen, I believe,
partisanship over partnership. The rhetoric about an open process
transparency partnership is nothing but a sham. There is no
transparency, there is no openness.
This House passed a NASA budget. We passed $16.7 billion for NASA.
Nearly all of the increased funds in that bill went to fund the
replacement for the shuttle. Now, this bill drastically reduces those
funds. It will result in delays in producing the vehicle to replace the
shuttle, the need to continue the shuttle beyond 2010. In my opinion,
these cuts in the NASA budget will lead to billions of dollars of
increased funds needed in the outyears to keep the Orion Project on
track.
There is only one way to interpret this, my colleagues, and that is
to say this is a back-handed way to destroy
[[Page H1067]]
the manned space flight program, to destroy the work that is going on
in places like Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center,
Johnson Space Flight Center.
And to say that there are no earmarks in this bill, in my opinion, is
a little bit tongue in cheek. Within this budget is a huge transfer of
funds that the administration did not ask for. I don't know what else
you can call it other than an earmark.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many
speakers he has remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, in response to the
chairwoman, we have about four or five speakers left.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, looking back over this week's legislative
accomplishments, I am sure democracy has somehow been furthered by our
vote on Monday to congratulate the winners of the Orange Bowl, or our
debate yesterday commending the two coaches of the Super Bowl.
But today's vote has some significant consequences in that we are
about to do great harm to our Nation's land grant colleges by erasing,
zeroing out $186 million in agricultural research grants. Today's vote
has real consequences. There are 24 of you on that side of the
political aisle that represent colleges that get this money, and I
specifically urge five of you that are first-term Members here, Mrs.
Boyda, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Courtney, and Mr. Welch, to
consider the following: Your vote on this continuing resolution zeros
out critical research grants in your home districts.
At the University of Missouri-Columbia, my alma mater, this
resolution forces 20 faculty reductions, the dismissal of 93 staff and
49 graduate students. You can argue that you open college doors by
increasing Pell Grants, and yet those students are going to find the
doors of plant and animal science laboratories locked tight.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this CR.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). All Members are reminded to
address their comments to the Chair and not to others in the second
person.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to Mr. Obey of
Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, you can't have it both ways. The previous two
speakers claimed that there were earmarks in the bill. Now the
gentleman is objecting because we eliminated agricultural earmarks. The
fact is, those earmarks are very good things. I agree with the
gentleman. But we promised we would eliminate all earmarks in this
bill, and that is what we did, and I make no apology for it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, rarely in the history of America has a
Congress spent more money with less accountability than this Congress
is doing today: $463 billion with 1, count it, 1 hour of
accountability. One hour of general debate. Mr. Speaker, that is $7.7
billion per minute of the people's money that is being spent here
today. Families all across America will spend more time deliberating
over the purchase of a new dryer than we will spend in debating how we
spend $463 billion of their hard-earned money.
Now, as the Democrats have taken over, Speaker Pelosi recently said,
``Democrats believe we must return to accountability by restoring
fiscal discipline and eliminating deficit spending.''
This is fiscal discipline? This is accountability?
Mr. Speaker, if this becomes law, everybody's share of the national
debt will go up from roughly $28,860 to $30,399.
This is cutting out deficit spending? This is accountability? This is
fiscal responsibility?
Real fiscal responsibility would have been for the Rules Committee to
allow for the amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) to pass a true CR. That would have saved $6 billion.
We need to vote this rule down.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this Democrat
joint resolution, which really is nothing more than a big old omnibus
bill. It is a bill that uses what appears to be budget gimmicks and
what appears to be some misleading rhetoric to mask their true passion,
which is spending more of the taxpayer dollars on government programs.
And we know government does not have a revenue problem. Government has
a spending problem.
And despite their campaign promises, they are refusing to allow the
House to discuss and vote on something that they advocated just last
month, which would have been a true continuing resolution to restore
fiscal responsibility and to pay down the deficit.
Now, as my colleague from Texas said, Representative Campbell offered
an amendment, which would have been a true CR. It would have spent $6.2
billion less. But they didn't want that. They wanted the omnibus. If
they were committed to fiscal responsibility, they would join us in
that CR. They would help pass Paul Ryan's line item veto bill, and they
would show what fiscal responsibility looks like. It is another action
of the hold-onto-your-wallet Congress.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was before the Rules
Committee requesting permission to offer an amendment, and I appreciate
the courtesy that was extended to me by the Rules Committee, but would
like to highlight, once again, that this omnibus spending bill does not
include something that is of high priority to me and a high priority to
many of my colleagues on the Republican side, but clearly a priority to
Democrats who, last fall, signed a discharge petition attempting to
bring to the House floor the issue of disaster assistance for farmers
across the country. And despite the fact that 196 Members of the House,
Democrat Members of the House, signed a discharge petition, we are
still not at the point in which we are able to vote upon providing
disaster assistance to farmers across the Midwest and around the
country due to weather-related losses.
And I would encourage my colleagues, as we continue to work ourselves
through the appropriation process, that we have other opportunities to
pursue this. And I hope that the words that were expressed to me
yesterday in the Rules Committee that that would be the case remains
true.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 30 seconds
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 15 seconds remaining.
{time} 1130
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so I can insert Mr. Sessions and Mr. Walden's amendment that
was rejected in the committee. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the
Record at the appropriate place the amendment that I will be asking my
Members to consider if we defeat the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain that everybody
understands that the money we are operating under is the money that the
Republicans voted last year to spend. We are under their spending
levels, not ours, so the complaints ring hollow.
[[Page H1068]]
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute:
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
``That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H. J.
Res. 20) making further continuing appropriations for the
fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes. All points of order
against the joint resolution and against its consideration
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on
the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; (2) the amendment in section 2 of this
resolution if offered by Representative Walden of Oregon or
his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
``Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows:
Page 39, after line 24, insert the following:
``Sec. 20327. Of the uncosted balances available from funds
appropriated under Section 130 of Division H of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199)
under the heading `Department of Energy, Energy Programs,
Science', as amended by Section 315 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103),
for the Iowa Environmental and Education project in
Coralville, Iowa, $44,569,000 is rescinded.''.
Page 87, line 6, strike ``$25,423,250,000'' and insert
``$25,467,819,000''.
At the end of chapter 5 of title II of the division B being
added by section 2, add the following new section:
``Sec. 20522. (a) In addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated or made available by this division, $400,000,000
is appropriated for the purpose of making payments for fiscal
year 2007 under sections 102 and 103 of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note). The Secretary of the
Treasury shall use such funds to make such payments in lieu
of using funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, as
otherwise authorized by sections 102(b)(3) and 103(b)(2) of
such Act.
``(b) There is hereby rescinded an amount equal to .00086
percent of the budget authority provided (or obligation limit
imposed) for fiscal year 2007 for any discretionary account
pursuant to this division.''.
____
The information contained herein was provided by Democratic
Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th
Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a
special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering
the previous question is a vote against the Democratic majority agenda
and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer
an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________