[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 171 (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12802-H12805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3043, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 794
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. A motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 3688
pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall be in
order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee.
Sec. 3. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate
transmitting H.R. 3043, with a Senate amendment thereto, it
shall be in order to take the same from the Speaker's table
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a motion offered by the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House
concur in such amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 794
under
[[Page H12803]]
section 2 of H. Res. 491, because the resolution contains a waiver of
all points of order against the conference report and its
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pascrell). The gentleman from Arizona
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 2 of House
Resolution 491.
Such a point of order made under that resolution shall be disposed of
by the question of consideration under the same terms as specified in
clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from
Florida, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of
consideration.
After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration,
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H. Res. 491 says that it shall not be in order to consider a
conference report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a
list of congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that
were not committed to the conference committee by either Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that, on the first general
appropriations bill since the adoption of H. Res. 491 and its
improvements to the earmarks rules, that the majority has reported a
rule that waives all points of order.
I object to using veterans spending to grease the skids for a pork-
laden Labor-HHS spending bill. A cursory look through the more than 150
pages of earmarks in the conference report reveals such earmarks as
$320,000 for the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri;
$130,000 for the First Ladies Museum in Canton, Ohio; $85,000 for the
Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum in Los Angeles, California.
But beyond taking exception to the bill, I raise this point of order
as the only means available to highlight the alarming trend toward
opaqueness rather than transparency. Rather than allow for a full
debate on whether this conference report complies with the earmark
rule, this rule actually prevents it.
Mr. Speaker, I have a little experience challenging earmarks on the
floor. It's not been a pleasant experience at times. We don't know much
of what are in these bills that get to the conference. And then when
you have a conference report that comes with earmarks air-dropped into
it after that, and you only get that bill just a few hours before you
vote on it, then I think it behooves us to slow down a bit and say what
are we doing here.
I should note that when I challenged earmarks in the House version of
the bill, on one occasion we had an earmark withdrawn before the
earmark amendment could be offered because there was a problem with the
earmark.
{time} 1900
In other cases we had the Committee on Appropriations go to the Rules
Committee and actually withdraw some of the amendments before they
could be challenged. So it is obvious that these earmarks have not been
vetted through the process very well, and those are the earmarks that
actually went through the House process.
We have here at least nine, nine that are identified, nine earmarks
that were air-dropped that were not either part of the House or the
Senate version. Mr. Speaker, this just is not a good practice.
One example of the air-dropped earmarks that we just found out about
just hours ago, $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public
Service and Representative Democracy. Now, if we are air-dropping
amendments like that into this bill, what else is in the bill? We
really haven't had time to go through it. Outside groups are trying to
go through this bill and simply haven't had the time. And you are going
to have problems; we are going to be learning for weeks or months
what's in this bill unless we slow down a bit here.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would have the gentleman know that the earmarks that he refers to
are clearly delineated in this conference report.
This point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and
ultimately the funding of vital education, health, and veterans
programs. In fact, I would say that it is simply an effort to try to
kill this conference report and, in my view, on a faulty premise at
that.
Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly
disclosed in conformance with House rules. This parliamentary ruse
won't work because these programs are too important to the health and
vitality of the Nation.
With this conference we keep our commitment to our veterans with the
largest single increase in the 77-year history of the Department of
Veterans Affairs. It also invests in critical domestic priorities in
the Labor, Health, and Education bill with major investments in K-12
education, college affordability, increasing access to quality health
care, medical research, worker protection, and job training programs.
Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent
consideration of this package, which has strong House and Senate
bipartisan support.
Furthermore, the parliamentary maneuver that my good friend chooses
to use today to stop this legislation is completely transparent. Just
so that we keep the record straight, Madam Speaker, the changes
proposed in the Boehner discharge petition that our Republican
counterparts seem so eager to have adopted would not cover any measure
not now covered by our earmark rule, clause 9 of rule XXI. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Boehner's resolution does not even include the projects
that are covered by House Resolution 491, which was introduced by our
majority leader, Representative Hoyer, and is now in effect.
So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop
this bill, we will stand up for America's hardworking families and
America's veterans. We must consider this rule and we must pass this
conference report today.
Madam Speaker, I have the right to close, but in the end I am just
going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I think it begs the question, if there was
total transparency here, why did we waive all points of order against
this rule? I would have liked to have challenged the conference report
itself, but I couldn't because the Rules Committee had decided to waive
all points of order. Now, you have to ask why. If everything is
transparent and everything is known, why did we waive all points of
order? Why am I forced to bring a point of order against the rule
itself rather than the conference report?
And I would submit that I would like to believe that it is a
transparency, but when you have air-dropped earmarks dropped at the
last minute, again, if we are working so hard for America's hardworking
taxpayers, as was just said, then why are we air-dropping an earmark
for $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service? Naming
a center after a former Member, why is that so urgent that we have to
break all the rules that we have laid out and sneak it into a bill at
the last minute, with less than 24 hours, in fact, less than 12 hours
to actually review it? That's not proper vetting.
I should mention that there have been statements made by the
majority, and I have liked what I have heard about what we are going to
do this year in terms of earmarks transparency.
The Speaker of the House said back in June that Members need to have
time to read through these reports and that every earmark should have
to be defended.
These nine air-dropped earmarks into this bill today don't have to be
defended. They are untouchable. We can't even go at them. We can't
offer an amendment to strike them out because they are air-dropped into
a conference report where you have no ability to strike them.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's
yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing up a point of order
[[Page H12804]]
against the rule. And to take away that opportunity to raise a point of
order against the conference report, Madam Speaker, where there are
air-dropped earmarks, in this case I think the gentleman said nine, I
still remember the calls from the Democratic leadership, led, of
course, by Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, when the Democrats won
control of the House by virtue of the elections almost exactly a year
ago, that this would be the most open, honest, and transparent Congress
in history.
Madam Speaker, I just want to give you a quote from Speaker Pelosi
promising fiscal restraint if Democrats win. And here's the quote:
``Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against
earmarking billions of dollars for home-State projects, a practice she
calls a `monster' that hurts Congress.'' And here is what she said: ``
`I'd get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the
cynicism the public has . . . and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.'
'' And that was in the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2006.
Another quote from Madam Speaker Pelosi: ``We will bring transparency
and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks and will
give the American people the leadership they deserve,'' Nancy Pelosi,
press release, December 12, 2006.
Madam Speaker, this is absurd. And, again, I commend the gentleman
from Arizona for calling attention to this. Where is the openness?
Where is the transparency? What good do we have in regard to a point of
order so that we can look at these conference reports? Where are the 2
days that we are supposed to have to look at them? So it is taken away
from us. What good does it do if the Rules Committee waives all points
of order?
So I commend the gentleman. He's absolutely right. We need to have
some true transparency in this body.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the spirit and the letter of
the law has been complied with in this matter. I will just reference
one aspect of compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI and with the rules
in the Senate. This is what it says:
``The following list is also submitted in compliance with House
Resolution 491, which requires a listing of congressional earmarks in
the conference report or joint statement of managers that were not
committed to the committee of conference by either house, not in a
report on a bill committed to conference, and not in a Senate committee
report on a companion measure. Such earmarks are marked with an `X' in
the list below.''
If that ain't transparency, I don't know what is. All of them have
the ``X'' mark, the asterisk, and are clearly following the spirit of
the law.
When the Republicans were in charge, they had 14,000 earmarks, and
nobody knew where they were, where they came from, when they came. And
now we have them in this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I am not here to defend the Republican
record on earmarks. It's abysmal, frankly. I think that's one of the
main reasons we are here squarely in the minority today.
But I took great heart, as did many of us, at the promises that were
made with the new Congress, that we would have real transparency, real
accountability. And, unfortunately, what we are seeing today is a move
away from that.
Let me read a statement that I mentioned. In June of this year, the
Speaker of the House, in a press conference, said, ``Before Members
vote on a bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be
able to read it, that it should be a matter of public record. And if
there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency
will give the opportunity for it to be there.''
When you have nine, at least, that we have been able to find, and
when the gentleman says that they are all marked with an asterisk, how
do we know? We have 150 pages of earmarks that we were given just this
morning. We only got the hard copy of this this morning. We simply
don't know. So it behooves us to move a little slower here.
If we really believe in transparency, if we really believe that these
earmarks need to be there, then let's have a rule that actually allows
for a point of order to be lodged against the conference report, not
just against the rule.
Again, I have to say if there was complete transparency here and we
didn't have anything to worry about, I think we would have had a rule
that did not waive points of order against the bill. And that's why we
are here today.
We need to do far better. This is a wonderful institution. There are
wonderful people here. It has a great history. We need to do better by
it. And I would submit that this legislation before us today with 150
pages of earmarks and nine air-dropped earmarks at the last minute does
not do this institution the good that it deserves.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The question is, Will the
House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the question
of consideration will be followed by 5-minute votes on the motion to
instruct conferees on H.R. 1429 and the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to House Resolution 379.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203,
nays 178, not voting 51, as follows:
[Roll No. 1044]
YEAS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
[[Page H12805]]
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--51
Arcuri
Baird
Blunt
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Cubin
Culberson
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ellison
Ferguson
Fossella
Gordon
Hare
Hunter
Israel
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
LaHood
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
McNulty
Michaud
Oberstar
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Poe
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Slaughter
Sutton
Tancredo
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Westmoreland
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1934
Messrs. TERRY, PEARCE, REICHERT, MACK, and Mrs. BACHMANN changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on November 6, 2007, I inadvertently
failed to vote on rollcall No. 1044. Had I voted, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1044, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________