[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 191 (Thursday, December 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15438-H15440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2008
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 869, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 69
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public
Law 110-92 is further amended by striking the date specified
in section 106(3) and inserting ``December 21, 2007''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 869, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.J. Res. 69.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
{time} 1330
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is now 1:30 in the afternoon, very late into December and we have
to decide how soon we want to get out of town so that we don't have to
look at each other for the remainder of the year.
This vehicle is necessary to simply keep the government open while
we're making the final decisions on all remaining appropriations for
the fiscal year.
There have been numerous meetings going on this week all over Capitol
Hill, and there have obviously been many communications going on
between the Hill and other locuses of influence and power in the city.
And I would hope that those would bear fruition sometime soon.
Meanwhile, if we want to keep the government open, we have no choice
but to pass this continuing resolution. It simply extends, it keeps the
government open for another week, to December 21, 2007. I think it's
self-explanatory.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the last time that Chairman
Obey and I were on the floor together, I was heard to quote our friend,
Will Rogers, and it had to do about sometimes we talk more than we
should. I was intrigued by the fact that while he advised us to never
miss the opportunity to shut up, that recently in Latin America there's
discussion among Latin leaders in which a fellow by the name of Chavez
kept talking and talking and talking, and this is by way of suggesting
that we don't really have to keep talking today. I think it was the
King of Spain, David, who said, ``Por que no te calles?'' If I could
repeat that, ``Por que no te calles?'' That is, if we don't talk too
much, we'll be all right here today.
Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to believe that Christmas is less
than 2 weeks away and that David Obey provides me with material for my
own presentation one more time.
While most Americans are Christmas shopping and decorating their
Christmas tree, Congress continues to stumble its way to completing its
business for the year. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go,
so we find ourselves today considering yet another continuing
resolution.
It was just 1 year ago the House passed a series of continuing
resolutions to ensure the continuation of government funding programs
into the new fiscal year. My friend Chairman David Obey came to the
House floor as the ranking member during that debate to criticize
Republicans in the House and Senate for their failure to pass the
annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the
breakdown in the budget process and vowed that things would be
different under a Democratic majority.
We are now only, I say, 74 days in the new fiscal year, and once
again the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is on the
floor decrying the breakdown of regular order. The only difference is
that David Obey is now Chairman Obey, and I'm the committee's ranking
member.
The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is
largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely
manner. Earlier this year, my chairman was absolutely beating us all
over the room because of our failure to pass bills at the end of the
year.
The Senate leader held up our bills. Mr. Obey knew that we'd passed
all of our bills in the House by July 4. The year before we'd done the
same thing, and all the bills had been signed by the President. And lo
and behold, Mr. Obey finds himself. Frankly David, I thought you had
much closer relationships with the Senate than I, but here we are. The
breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to
blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely fashion.
The President has been very clear all year long that he would veto
any spending bill or any omnibus package that exceeded his budget
request. All told, the House-passed spending bills exceeded the
President's budget request by $23 billion, and yet the Democrat
majority chose to dismiss or ignore the President's clear intent, that
is, until now.
A short time ago, Chairman Obey instructed the committee staff to
prepare an omnibus spending bill and pare spending back to exceed the
President's request by $11 billion. Not included in this total, there
was over $7 billion being designated as emergency spending.
Just in the last several days, maybe even hours, the Democratic
leadership finally got the message. They came to the realization that
the President was, indeed, serious. So it all appears that, after
months of work by our exhausted committee staff, work can finally begin
on a spending package that the President may be able to sign. I say may
be able to sign because the President has not yet seen the details of
the omnibus package that will come forward.
For good measure, let me make very clear the President will veto any
omnibus spending package that contains any controversial policy
provisions, any gimmicks or any consequential budgetary sleight of
hand.
I urge Chairman Obey to resist the urge on his part to add any so-
called contingency spending anywhere in this package, as it may lead to
a presidential veto.
I'd like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past CR
debate. He said, and I quote, ``We are here
[[Page H15439]]
today with not a single dollar having been appropriated to any
government program that has anything whatsoever to do with the domestic
operations of this government. That is a disgraceful performance. And
so we are left with the choice of passing this continuing resolution or
having the government shut down.''
Again, my friends, these are the words of Chairman David Obey from
last year, then Ranking Member Obey. They are particularly meaningful
today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I had thought that perhaps once this session we could
simply do our jobs straightaway without having the usual, trite
partisan slogans uttered again and again. I'd hoped that we wouldn't
continue to chew the same cud over and over again. But evidently we
can't. So I will simply take a couple of minutes to respond to the
gentleman's comments.
For me to take lectures from the minority party on fiscal management
or the management of appropriations would be akin to Willie Sutton
lecturing the House on bank security. It wouldn't be taken very
seriously.
But let me, nonetheless, since the gentleman has chosen to engage in
yet another round of carping, let me simply point out that the
gentleman is now making a fuss, once again, because we have not passed
appropriation bills singly and now face the prospect of an omnibus
appropriation bill with all domestic appropriations tossed into one
budget document. If that, in fact, occurs, what it will mean is that
the President sent us one budget document and we sent him one back.
That's hardly a Federal offense, the last time that I checked.
Secondly, I would simply point out that this Congress has passed and
sent to the President appropriation bills totaling about 75 percent of
all of the discretionary spending in the budget. The reason that none
of the domestic bills have been finalized is because the President
chose to veto the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill. So we
are now engaged in the only action left open to us, which is to reach a
negotiated agreement between the Senate and the House and between the
Congress and the President. We are trying to achieve the required
negotiated result between the two branches of government and between
the two branches of the legislative portion of the government.
Let me simply say that there will be, at the end of this year, there
will be one critical difference between this Congress and the previous
Congress controlled by our friends on the other side. In the previous
Congress, they were able to pass not a single domestic appropriation
bill through the Congress. They had passed them through the House, just
as we passed all of our appropriation bills through the House. In fact,
they didn't pass all of their appropriations bills through the House.
They didn't get the Labor-H bill passed last year, which was the major
domestic appropriation because they did not see fit to provide a
minimum wage increase for workers, and so they preferred to bury the
bill rather than have a bill pass which carried a minimum wage increase
for America's workers.
But the critical difference between them and us is that when we took
over this Congress in January, we had to first clean up their mess. We
had to spend the first six weeks passing appropriation bills to make up
for the fact that they had not passed a single domestic appropriation
bill. And so, as a consequence, we will have one critical difference
when our work is done, hopefully at the end of next week. We will have
passed all of the appropriation bills necessary to keep the government
running for a full fiscal year. We may not have done it in single
fashion, as they would prefer, but the fact is that, whether they like
the packaging, we will have done our jobs, and I would submit we will
have done our jobs on a bipartisan basis.
There were, on average, 60 Republicans who helped us every step of
the way in trying to pass these appropriation bills. I think that
demonstrates that we had bipartisan legislation before us in virtually
all instances on those appropriation bills, and that was reflected in
the fact that, on average, we had over 60 Republicans supporting each
of those bills.
We could not get the bills through the Senate, but they will, in the
end, be passed, and that, in the end, will be a critical difference
between the result of the record produced by our friends on the other
side last year and one that will be produced, I would hope, on a
bipartisan basis this year under different management.
So with that, if the gentleman has any further comments, I'll
withhold. If he has any further speakers, I'll withhold. If he doesn't,
I'm prepared to yield back.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any other
speakers, but I did want to apologize to my colleague and take just a
moment to do that. If, indeed, I have lectured the gentleman, I
certainly would want to apologize to the House for that, for the House
knows he's never lectured us or anybody else. Now I'm not certain what
may have gone on in his own caucus, but certainly he doesn't lecture
us.
And if my quoting his own words takes the term ``carping,'' I guess
it's difficult not to quote him exactly, and if that's carping, so be
it.
Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply take a moment to indicate where I think we
are on the appropriation matters. I think we have a reasonable prospect
of finishing our work for the year come the middle of next week. I had
originally been predicting that we would be out of here on the 22nd of
December and reconvene after the 27th. I'm now slightly more optimistic
than I was initially. And I think that, while none of us may be
particularly enamored of the final result, I think that we are getting
closer to having a result which can be supported by many people on both
sides of the aisle, at least in the House itself.
{time} 1345
I cannot speak for what the Senate will produce, but I would hope
that Members would familiarize themselves. As soon as we have the final
product available, we will try to make that product available to
Members so that they have an opportunity to review it before we
actually vote on it next week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 869, the joint
resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous question
is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I am, in its present form.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. LEWIS of California moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 69 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report
the same back to the House promptly with the following amendment:
At the end of the joint resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Public Law 110-92 is further amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 151. Appropriations, funds, and other authority made available
by this joint resolution that are related to the provisions of title IX
of the Act referred to in section 101 (1)--
``(1) shall be available, notwithstanding section 106, until
enactment of a supplemental appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008
that provides supplemental appropriations for one or more of the
appropriation accounts included in such title IX; and
``(2) are designated as being for overseas deployments and related
activities pursuant to subsections (c)(2)(E) and (d)(1)(E) of section
207 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2008.''.
[[Page H15440]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on
his point of order?
Point of Order
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have had virtually no time to understand
what the content of this resolution is; but as I read it, I would make
a point of order against the amendment on germaneness grounds because
the resolution adheres to a December 21 delimiting date, whereas the
instructions in the proposed amendment refers to matters outside of the
time period in question, and I will, therefore, suggest that the motion
is not in order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will just speak on the point
of order.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I was about to present is
quite simple. The motion will ensure that we continue to provide
funding for our troops in harm's way until Congress takes the necessary
action to pass a bridge fund or a full-year war supplemental.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman speaking on the point of
order or on the motion to recommit? The question is whether the point
of order is well taken. If the gentleman doesn't wish to speak on the
point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit
exceeds the temporal ambit of the joint resolution beyond the
delimiting date in section 106 of Public Law 110-92. Accordingly, the
point of order is sustained, and the motion to recommit is ruled out of
order.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
grounds 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 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
the motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of
the joint resolution, if arising without further debate or proceedings
in recommittal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 194, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 1161]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
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
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
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
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
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
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
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Ackerman
Carson
Crenshaw
Cubin
Heller
Hooley
Jindal
McNulty
Mica
Miller, Gary
Paul
Regula
Rush
Waters
Waxman
{time} 1411
Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia and UDALL of Colorado changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 1161, I was in the Chamber and
trying to cast my vote as the rollcall was closed. Had I been permitted
to enter my vote, I would have been recorded as ``nay.''
____________________