[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.

                          ____________________