[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H13885-H13888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On Page H13885, November 14, 2007, the following appeared:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 817, TRANSPORTATION,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2008
The online version should be corrected to read: PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3074, TRANSPORTATION,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2008
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 817 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 817
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes. All points of
[[Page H13886]]
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 817
under 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. Weiner). 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
New York, 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. I thank the Speaker.
And while the Speaker of the House is actually in the Chamber, I want
to read a quote from March of this year. In March of this year, the
Speaker of the House said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there
should be an appropriate time for people to read it. That should be a
matter of public record. If there is an earmark that can stand the
scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be
there.''
Let me just ask, if I can, the representative from the Rules
Committee, don't we have a rule that says that we are not to consider a
bill or a rule until 24 hours after the bill is actually out there? I
would yield to the gentleman to answer.
My understanding is that this bill was posted on the Web last night
at just after 7 o'clock, yet here we are at 1:35 already considering
the rule. I think that is important, because when you look at the bill,
we didn't just get it on the Internet where it would be searchable,
where we could find things in it. We got a PDF file that is not
searchable.
When you look at the bill itself, you find complete sections that
have been X'd out, or little insertions with little notations here that
are barely legible. You have another big insertion here of an entire
page. Again, there are little insertions there within the insertion.
You have within it ``3 percent'' stricken. It says ``4 percent'' now.
To what?
This is really difficult to wade through. And when we don't even get
24 hours? I mean, 24 hours, frankly, is far from sufficient to consider
a bill that is 531 pages long. Then when you consider the bill itself
is not searchable, it was given in a PDF file, and then you also have
141 pages of earmarks that are part of the report. That is not a
searchable index, either. It is just given. You can wade through it.
The earmarks that are air-dropped into the conference report are
supposed to be asterisked. You can see some of those. We identified 21.
But is that all there is? We're not sure. But when you look through
that list of earmarks that were air-dropped in, you have to be
suspicious of why in the world we waited until now to air-drop these
earmarks in when nobody can challenge them.
Keep in mind, this is a point of order against consideration of the
rule. Because the majority has chosen to waive the rule against points
of order on the bill, we can't challenge any of the earmarks in the
bill, so we have 21 earmarks air-dropped into the bill at the last
minute that we have no ability to challenge.
You might think that, well, if they were air-dropped into the bill,
then they certainly must be vital spending, vital projects, that we
just couldn't do during the regular consideration of the bill.
I will read a couple of them and you can make your own decisions on
whether or not this was vital spending, something that couldn't wait,
something that was so important that you had to, at the last minute, in
the last 24 hours, include it in where nobody could see it.
One is for $200,000 for the Intergenerational Research Center in
Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. The Intergenerational
Research Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. This
is part of the Economic Development Initiative.
Another one: Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in
Pennsylvania for a multipurpose facility. That is $300,000 there.
Tell me, please, somebody tell me, what was so vital here that we had
to violate the rules that we have had in the House to insert this at
the last minute, when nobody has the ability to challenge it?
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to point out to my friend and colleague from Arizona
that this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule,
and ultimately to consider a measure that invests in our Nation's vital
transportation infrastructure and housing program at a time when we
desperately need it so much in this country. In fact, I would say it is
simply an effort to try to kill this conference report, and on a faulty
premise at that.
Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly
disclosed in conformance with the House rules. The blanket waiver
against consideration of the conference report did not include a waiver
of either clause 9 or rule XXI of House Resolution 491.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Well, we've waived other requirements as well here. What
this point of order is about is transparency. Again, we got this bill
last night, less than 24 hours ago. It has always been the
understanding you would have at least 24 hours, and we are violating
that even.
When you look at the bill itself, here I found another page, section
409, we're not sure what was there, because it is now gone. It is gone
from the bill. It is very difficult to go through a bill that is 534
pages that is not even searchable and wade through the earmarks.
The gentleman mentioned this is vital spending we have to get done.
Let me give you an example of some of what is in the bill itself.
$150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia.
$275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me clear up this issue here about the time requirements. The
rules of the House say there shall be a 72-hour, or 3-day layover on
these bills. That was waived. That was waived by the majority party.
Then as a courtesy in their ``new directions,'' they say it should be
at least 24 hours. So here they are even waiving a promise of a waiving
of a rule of 3 days.
So I wanted to clarify that. It is supposed to be 3 days, that is the
premise from which we start, and then we come down to a promise of 24
hours. They are even waiving that promise.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
Let me get back to this list of these vital projects that we somehow
have to rush through here. There is $400,000 for the Bel Alton High
School Alumni Association in Bel Alton, Maryland. Again, $400,000 for
the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association. Why in the world is this
in the bill at all? Is it any wonder that somebody wants to move this
bill through quickly and without following the rules?
{time} 1345
$500,000 for the Los Angeles Fire Museum in Bellflower, California;
two earmarks totaling $300,000 to revitalize downtown Clearwater,
Florida; $150,000 for the Edmunds Arts Center in Edmunds, Washington;
$100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, Alabama; $100,000 for the
reuse of the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Romney, West Virginia;
$100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan;
$750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; and
$300,000 to the Houston, Zoo in Houston, Texas.
Again, this is just a tiny sliver of the 141 pages of earmarks in the
bill, more than 1,000 of them. And again, 21 air-dropped earmarks that
we have never
[[Page H13887]]
seen before, never had the ability to challenge on the House floor for
such vital things as the Grand Teton National Park Pathway System in
Wyoming. This may be a good project, but it should receive the scrutiny
it deserves, not air-dropped into a report that we are given less than
24 hours to consider, that we have no ability, none, to amend out.
Or $500,000 for Park Street Streetscape Improvement in Alameda,
California. Why in the world was this that vital where we had to
violate our own rules to bring this to the floor and hide these
earmarks where they don't see the light of day?
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Campbell from
California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Let's talk about what is really going on
here. If somebody is an alcoholic, they understand they shouldn't
drink. What they will do oftentimes is they will ask their friends to
help them, you know, come in the house. Make sure I don't have any
alcohol here. Keep me honest. Make sure I don't do this.
This Congress is drunk on earmarks. The majority party has said,
well, we want to get better. We want to stop drinking. We want to stop
doing these bad earmarks, so we set up a point of order on the bill so
we can stop this.
But it is the equivalent of the alcoholic saying, I want you to help
me, Mr. Speaker, and I want you to come check my house to make sure
that I don't have any alcohol, but then locking the door so you can't
go in and you can't look. That is what the majority party is doing
here.
They say we have this point of order on earmarks, but we are waiving
it. We are going to bury them in the bill so you can't see. The
majority here in this Congress is not serious about controlling
earmarks, and they should be, because of the ones that the gentleman
from Arizona read, and whether it is teaching people how to play golf
in the defense budget or monuments, to me, whatever it is. We have
budget problems, we all agree. We disagree on how to take care of them.
But one thing we must do is stop these earmarks, and the majority is
not doing that.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman yields the
balance of his time to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. FLAKE. How much time remains on this side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I did the math for you, sir; 1 minute
remains.
Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. I appreciate my colleague for yielding. This is exactly
what the American people are disgusted with. We can't balance the
budget. We can't send the President appropriation bills that are within
the budget. This bill is some $3.5 billion over the President's
request. But having said that, we have all of these projects that
didn't go through the House, didn't go through the Senate, that got
air-dropped into a conference. And we wonder why the American people
look at us like our heads have been cut off.
There is nobody in my district who would ever vote for any of these
projects that got air-dropped into this bill. And we have this process,
this point of consideration on these earmarks, on consideration of this
bill, in exactly the time when we are supposed to have a better look at
what these earmarks are.
All we have are these brief descriptions, if you can find them in the
bill, because this bill should not be up on this floor until tonight.
It is one thing to waive the 3-day rule, but the 24-hour rule, most
Members believe, is almost sacrosanct. And yet, not even 24 hours after
the bill was filed, it is on the floor of the House. Members don't know
what is in it. That is why this point of order that we fought for this
summer was put into effect.
I would urge my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's point of order
to stop consideration of this bill so we have a chance to look and see
what else is in here that we haven't seen, because this place is out of
control.
Mr. FLAKE. In my remaining 30 seconds, let me just say, in January
when we passed transparency rules on earmarks, I was the first one to
compliment the majority on what they had done. We put some decent rules
into play. But rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce
them. And we have seen a pattern over the past several months
culminating in this kind of thing, breaking the rules so we can bring a
bill to the floor with 21 air-dropped earmarks into it where we are
simply not following our own rules.
This institution deserves better than this. I plead with my
colleagues to vote to stop this bill from moving forward until we can
actually see what's in it.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the
Rules Committee for yielding to me.
I think my friend from Arizona raises issues, and sometimes it is not
clear with reference to earmarks. I don't recall hearing too many
people argue about the earmarks that the President of the United States
has within the prerogative of the President. Two-thirds of Federal
spending is nondiscretionary. And in a budget the size of ours, which
is $2.9 trillion, that means discretionary funds in this particular
budget are about $935 billion.
What they fail to do in their point of order or that we hear in the
Rules Committee is to say to the general public that the name of the
Member requesting the earmark exists, the name and address of the
intended recipient, and if there is no specifically intended recipient,
the intended location of the activity, the purpose of such earmark, a
certification that the Member or spouse has no financial interest in
such congressional earmark, and it requires the House Appropriations
Committee to make open for public inspection approved earmarks.
Now each of these earmarks has an asterisk and each of these earmarks
is easily identifiable. Clearly, there are things that people disagree
with as to whether or not in the particular constituency that that
constituency is going to benefit.
Democrats cut in half the number of earmarks. I believe my friend
from Arizona knows that when this measure was sent to the Senate, the
Senate increased the number of earmarks that are here. But I don't care
whether you call it earmark, toe mark, arm mark, elbow mark, whatever
it is, it is something that benefits the American people. And in a
budget that has $2 trillion in it, we can find some reason for us to
control that as opposed to the executive branch.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, we must consider this conference report
which provides funding for our Nation's priorities. For example,
Community Development Block Grants to provide communities with funds to
assist low and moderate-income persons; housing for the elderly,
disabled, and homeless veterans; foreclosure mitigation and
reconstruction of the Minnesota bridge and the repair of aging bridges
throughout our Nation that is desperately needed.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the new House Democratic
majority has implemented the most honest and open earmark rule in the
history of the United States House of Representatives. But don't take
my word for it. A few weeks ago, Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers
for Commonsense, was quoted in CQ Weekly as saying, ``The House has
given us more information than we have ever had before on earmarks, and
they deserve credit for that.''
I am troubled with the analogy given by my colleague from California
comparing it to a drinking problem. I would say the comparison,
considering the way the Republicans abused the process, would be to a
person who started a fire, then called the fire department, and when
the fire department came and put out the fire, they then turned around
and criticized the fire department for the way that the fire was put
out.
That is the situation that they have. They abused the earmarks when
they were in control of the House, and now they are critical of our
majority when we attempt to fix it. It is important to remember which
side actually abused the earmark process and who actually stepped up to
the plate to reform the system and provide transparency.
[[Page H13888]]
We didn't wait until 2 months before the election. We responded to
the people's call for more openness on the first day of Congress. It
seems quite clear to me that the minority is more concerned with
obstructionism, while we are focused on actually meeting the needs of
our constituents and the people in this country.
This question of consideration is the result of an unwarranted point
of order against our rule. A ``no'' vote will prevent consideration of
a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.
So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to block
this bill, we will stand up for housing and we will stand up for the
critical infrastructure upon which our economy depends. We must
consider this rule and we must pass this conference report today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
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. 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, this 15-
minute vote on the question of consideration will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 186, not voting 49, as follows:
[Roll No. 1093]
YEAS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
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
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--49
Barton (TX)
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Buyer
Carson
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Tom
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doyle
Hastert
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Langevin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lynch
Meeks (NY)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Oberstar
Paul
Payne
Rangel
Rush
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shays
Smith (NJ)
Taylor
Turner
Udall (CO)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weller
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1414
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 against:
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1093, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2007, I was participating in
an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and inadvertently
missed 1 recorded vote.
I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 1093.
____________________