[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 193 (Monday, December 17, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15516-H15525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2764, THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 (CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 878 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 878
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
2764) making appropriations for the Department of State,
foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House,
without intervention of any point of order except those
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee
that the House concur in the Senate amendment with each of
the two House amendments printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 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 or demand for division of the question
except that the question of adoption of the motion shall be
divided between the two House amendments.
Sec. 2. During consideration of the motion to concur
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the motion to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). The gentlewoman from New York
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 Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule is
for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 878.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 878 provides 1 hour of
debate on the motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act with
each of the two House amendments printed in the report accompanying the
resolution.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
motion except those arising out of clause 10 of rule XXI, and provides
that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read.
The rule directs the Chair to divide the question of adoption of the
motion between the two House amendments; and, finally, it provides that
the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to a time
designated by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that our
government is running efficiently, from our children who need quality
education to our veterans who need the benefits promised to them when
they put their lives on the line for their country, and to our senior
citizens who need access to health care and affordable prescription
drugs.
And I am proud to say that we, here in the House of Representatives,
have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by
passing all 12 of our appropriations bills on time. We've also used our
time this year to pass all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, to
increase the minimum wage, to promote a 21st century jobs and global
economic initiative, add much needed funds to the gulf coast following
hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to undertake the largest expansion of
college aid since the GI Bill in 1944.
We also passed the widely acclaimed landmark lobbying and ethics
reforms standards, enacted PAYGO, resulting in no new deficit spending,
and passed an unprecedented energy bill that will help our Nation to be
more energy efficient, while addressing global warming.
We will not soon forget that, of the 12 appropriations bills that we
were supposed to have passed in 2006 when Republicans controlled the
Chamber, only two were completed. The others were abandoned, requiring
the incoming Democrat majority to meet the responsibilities abdicated
by an outgoing party that now claims a mantle of fiscal responsibility.
Simply put, we were forced to clean up their mess.
And according to the Office of Management and Budget, President Bush
and the Republican Congress increased Federal spending by nearly 50
percent, turned record surpluses into record deficits, and increased
our national debt by more than $3 trillion. And let's not forget that
President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress doubled our
foreign debt to more than $2 trillion, more in 7 years, Mr. Speaker,
[[Page H15517]]
more in just 7 years than in the previous 224 years of our Nation
combined. Listen to that, America. They did more in 7 years to run up
the debt than the previous 224 years of our Nation combined.
Now, all this among budget failures that vastly increased our
national debt, while leaving the agencies, States and localities in
limbo for months concerning their future funding. Let me add to that
our children's health program.
It is simply astounding to me that the President would request an 11
percent increase for the Pentagon, a 12 percent increase for foreign
aid, and $195 billion emergency funding for this terrible war, while in
the same breath claiming that any increase in domestic programs needed
for the citizens is fiscally irresponsible.
We all remember the promises of the Bush administration claiming
that, at the most, the Iraq war would cost $50 billion. A recent report
issued on November 13 states that the total economic cost of the Iraq
war through 2008 exceeds $1.3 trillion, with a projected cost of $3.5
trillion; a long way from $50 billion.
I believe the New York Times Editorial Board said it succinctly in
their editorial published last week when they wrote, and I quote, ``We
know what's behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal
discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: Political
posturing, just in time for the 2008 election.''
But one should not forget the damage that his administration
inflicted by shortchanging domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for
the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war.
I will submit this editorial for the Congressional Record.
[From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2007]
Disabled, and Waiting for Justice
We know what is behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm
for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and
debt: political posturing, just in time for the 2008
election. But one should not forget the damage that his
administration has also inflicted by shortchanging important
domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and
his never-ending Iraq war.
A case in point is the worsening bureaucratic delays at the
chronically underfunded Social Security Administration that
have kept hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans from
timely receipt of their Social Security disability benefits.
As laid out by Erik Eckholm in the Times on Monday, the
backlog of applicants who are awaiting a decision after
appealing an initial rejection has soared to 755,000 from
311,000 in 2000. The average wait for an appeals hearing now
exceeds 500 days, twice as long as applicants had to wait in
2000.
Typically two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win
their cases. But during the long wait, their conditions may
worsen and their lives often fall apart. More and more people
have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even died while
awaiting an appeals hearing.
In one poignant case described by Mr. Eckholm, a North
Carolina woman who is tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a
day has been waiting three years for a decision. She finally
got a hearing last month and is awaiting a final verdict,
but, meanwhile, she has lost her apartment and alternates
sleeping at her daughter's crowded house and a friend's
place.
The cause of the bottlenecks is well known. There are
simply too few administrative law judges--1,025 at present--
to keep up with the workload. The Social Security
Administration is adopting automated tools and more efficient
administrative practices, but virtually everyone agrees that
no real dent will be made in the backlog until the agency can
hire more judges and support staff.
The blame for this debacle lies mostly with the
Republicans. For most of this decade, the administration has
held the agency's budget requests down and Republican-
dominated Congresses have appropriated less than the
administration requested. Now the Democratic-led Congress
wants to increase funding to the Social Security
Administration, and the White House is resisting.
Last month, Congress passed a $151 billion health,
education and labor spending bill that would have given the
Social Security Administration $275 million more than the
president requested, enough to hire a lot more judges and
provide other vital services. But Mr. Bush vetoed that bill
as profligate.
Democrats in Congress are working on a compromise to meet
Mr. Bush halfway on the whole range of domestic spending
bills. The White House is not interested in compromise.
If the president remains intransigent, federal agencies may
have to limp along under continuing resolutions that maintain
last year's spending levels. That would likely, among many
other domestic problems, crimp any new hiring at the Social
Security Administration and might require furloughs, leading
to even longer waits. Mr. Bush should back down from his veto
threat and accept a reasonable compromise. Both sides should
ensure that real efforts are made to reduce these intolerable
backlogs.
Mr. Speaker, this week's actions by the President is just one thread
in the appalling tapestry that this administration has in its misplaced
policies.
Democrats believe that running this House right is a matter of pride.
We believe it's a matter of having fundamental respect for both the
institution in which we serve and for the citizens who have given us
the privilege to serve here.
{time} 1930
In the spirit of working together, we Democrats in Congress
collectively extended our hand to those on the other side of the aisle,
including the President, to reconcile our differences and pass this
important spending bill.
In return, we received nothing but the same obstructionism that has
plagued our body and our counterpart on the other side of the Capitol.
And today, those same Members who once enjoyed the splendors of
having a majority in the House, the Senate and a Republican President,
now chastise the Democratic Congress for trying to solve their own
fiscal blunders. But their cries ring hollow, Mr. Speaker.
Democrats have crafted this omnibus appropriations bill that invests
in the American people's priorities, that protects our troops and
invests in the homefront, and restores funding to the President's
devastating cuts to medical research, to college assistance, to job
training, and education and health care.
And when my fellow Members of Congress and I cast our votes on this
floor this evening, we seek to reconcile our ideals with what is
possible to achieve. We seek to do both what is right in principle and
necessary at any particular point in time and pray that the two are one
in the same.
In this bill, we fund programs for medical research, and we provide
280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to health care. We
added extra funds for title I, special education, teacher quality
grants, after-school programs, and Head Start, while also adding more
for Pell Grants and other student aid programs.
We added extra funds above the President's request to help local
communities hire and train more local law enforcement, while also
adding more in homeland security grants to better secure our Nation. We
also have met the guaranteed levels set in the authorization bill while
adding funds for our bridges, which sorely need it.
We invest in solar and wind energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency,
while also promoting scientific investments and conservation efforts.
And I would like to stress that this bill provides $3.7 billion in
additional funding for our veterans health.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate we are forced to
pass an omnibus to get our work done at the end of the year. This is
especially disheartening because we Democrats in the House of
Representatives have been absolute in our pledge to fund important
programs and help the American people. And this omnibus comes only as a
remedy to the obstructionism in the other body.
The President should accept this reasonable compromise and sign it
into law. It is a crucial bill that will keep us on our course of
fulfilling our promises to the American people, and I believe it is a
clear demonstration of the Democrats' devotion to being fiscally
responsible with the money given to us by our fellow citizens.
As I shared a quote from an editorial from the New York Times
earlier, I would like to close with another quote published on November
26. It states: ``It is clear that Mr. Bush's threat to veto Congress'
proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It's
all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his
failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as
long as his Republican allies allow him to.'' I could not agree more.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my
friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for the
time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H15518]]
This morning I woke up to the news that the majority had posted on
the Rules Committee Web site the omnibus appropriations bill that we
are considering tonight. The majority posted this bill, approximately
3,500-page bill, after many Members had retired for the night. So that
effectively made it impossible for many of us to even begin to see what
was in this legislation obviously until many hours after that.
When the new majority took over, they promised, Mr. Speaker, that
they would give at least 24 hours to review legislation before it comes
to the floor for a vote. The rules of the House require 3 days.
Oftentimes the Rules Committee through the years has waived that
requirement, and that's why it's very interesting to note and I think
very relevant to note that the majority made a promise that at least 24
hours would be provided for Members to review, to attempt to understand
legislation to make sure that the legislation doesn't have provisions
that Members would oppose.
During testimony 2 weeks ago at the Rules Committee, Members from the
minority expressed our concern with the prospect that the majority
would rush through a very large appropriation bill spending, as in this
case, approximately a half a trillion dollars without giving Members
time to properly read and understand the bill. One particular area of
concern was with the possible inclusion of earmarks that Members would
not have an opportunity to review before voting on them.
On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, addressed the House
to speak about the majority's changes to the House rules. During her
speech, she addressed the issue of earmarks and how the majority
claimed to deal with the issue.
Today, as we consider this rule for this omnibus bill, I think it's
appropriate to look back and see what the distinguished chairwoman said
the majority would do to bring transparency to the earmark process.
``The rules that Thomas Jefferson first wrote down two centuries ago
provide for order and discipline in the House. They provide for
transparency and accountability. If they are followed, corruption will
be exposed before it has a chance to take root. Democrats are going to
follow the long-established rules of the House, instead of treating
them as impediments to be avoided. We are going to allow Members to
read bills before voting on them and prevent them from being altered at
the last minute.
``The rules package will finally shed light on an earmarking process
that has greased the wheels of corrupt House machinery. It requires the
full disclosure of earmarks on all bills and conference reports before
Members are asked to vote on them.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, let's compare those promises with today's rule. The
rule provides for consideration of this legislation, H.R. 2764. But
because the majority is moving the appropriations bill as an amendment
between Houses and not a conference report, the bill will fall squarely
within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule, and the rules of the
House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that may be contained
in the legislation.
So this bill is not subject to the earmark rule which the majority
claimed would bring transparency and accountability to the earmark
process. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill
that may include numerous earmarks that no one has vetted and no one
has seen.
We've already seen this loophole in action when we debated H.R. 6,
the energy bill. The legislation came to the floor also as an amendment
between the Houses; and as such, it too was exempt from the earmark
rule. Yet it included earmarks that were not discovered until after
passage.
So, yes, the majority ``directs the Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations to insert in the Congressional Record at any time during
the remainder of the first session of the 110th Congress such material
as he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal
year,'' but there may be problems with that provision.
I did see that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee did list earmarks in the bill, but the requirement does not
say exactly what material the chairman is required to insert, just what
``he may deem explanatory.'' It does not require him to list all
earmarks. So earmarks in the bill could have been omitted from the
statement.
Second, the provision allows the chairman to insert the explanation
into the Congressional Record at any time during the first session of
the 110th Congress. So in theory, the chairman may still have some time
to insert an explanation after both Houses of Congress pass the
legislation and the President signs the legislation into law.
We were so concerned with this procedural loophole during a recent
markup that in the Rules Committee Mr. Dreier offered an amendment to
the rule to require that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
provide the list of earmarks required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the
omnibus appropriations bill. Unfortunately, that amendment to the rule
was rejected along partisan lines.
Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr.
Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, have sent a letter to Chairman
Obey asking him to ``adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule
XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the
House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations
bill prior to consideration by the Rules Committee.''
Mr. Speaker, I submit that letter into the Congressional Record at
this point.
Committee on Rules,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.
Hon. David R. Obey,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a
``martial law'' rule to provide for the same day
consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That
measure also includes a provision giving you the option of
inserting extraneous explanatory material in the
Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the
remainder of this session.
During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment
to the rule to require that you provide the list of earmarks
required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus
appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the
rule was rejected along partisan lines.
Mr. Chairman, we know that you have made an effort during
this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained
in bills coming through your committee. However, because the
omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate
amendment to a House bill, it falls squarely within one of
the loopholes of the earmark rule and the Rules of the House
will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be
contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the
motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, the
energy bill, you are well aware that no list of earmarks was
provided for that measure because it fell within the same
loophole.
We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the
letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and
provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of
earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior
to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of
disclosure will be in the best interest of the House, its
Members, and the Nation.
We appreciate your willingness to consider our request.
Respectfully,
David Dreier.
Doc Hastings.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
Peter Sessions.
I would simply say that as of today we have not received a response
to that letter.
Mr. Speaker, I ask when it is appropriate to do so, where is the
transparency and the accountability promised when the majority in
effect, in practice continues to systematically circumvent its own
rules and violate its own promises?
Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished
gentlelady from New York, the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.
I rise in a somewhat curious posture, and that is, to support the job
that has to be done on behalf of the American people. So I would call
this the responsible serving of the American people's spending bill.
That's what Democrats have attempted to do today.
I remind my colleagues that most of the appropriations bills, I would
say all
[[Page H15519]]
of them, have been passed out of this body, and certainly the
predicament that we find ourselves in is because of the
administration's refusal to prioritize on behalf of the needs of
veterans; the needs of major research institutions; a failing job
market that needs increased job training dollars; the young people of
America who want a future and, therefore, college assistance; and then
recognizing the importance and the crucialness of access to health
care; a good energy policy; and certainly the needs of repairing the
transportation system of America.
I'm grateful that we have reprogrammed dollars to include money for
research, job training, college assistance, access to health care, and
as well, that we're reminded that we must ensure the safety of this
Nation, while fighting, of course, to preserve the transportation
centers of excellence, the letter that I wrote to ensure that funding
for that would be included.
And though we talk sometimes without understanding about the concept
``earmark,'' it is for the community of Houston, Texas, and the 18th
Congressional District more early childhood education, more homeland
security dollars for a constable's office. It is more dollars for a
mental health facility, and it is recognition of more technology for
our local first responders.
So I rise today to express the dilemma, when we have three branches
of government, to refute any accusations of the postures that Democrats
are in. Democrats are fighters. It is because of a budget mark and a
stance by this administration to demand $120 billion for a war that is
not working that puts us in a position not to be able to service the
needs of the American people.
{time} 1945
So we will continue this fight and we will stand strong and tall for
those who are in need.
And I look forward to the Military Success Act of 2007 that I have
authored being debated on this floor to acknowledge that the military
has finished their work, it's time to bring them home and to reward
them in honor and medals for what they have done in Iraq and to ensure
that the people of America receive a spending bill that serves the
needs of the American people.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to
yield 6 minutes to the distinguished former member of the Rules
Committee, my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the previous speaker that this body and
the other body passed a spending bill for our veterans increasing by $4
billion over 3 months ago, and the President made very clear,
emphatically stating that he was ready to sign that bill to get this
money to our veterans, and the Democratic leadership has made a
decision, for whatever reason, not to send that bill to the President.
So I think it's important to point that out.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to the rule and to the
underlying bill in its present form. In regard to the rule, I can't
expound and do any better than the comments that the senior Republican
long-term member of the Rules Committee has just outlined, the
gentleman from Florida. That stack of 11 bills in this omnibus sitting
in front of the gentleman from Florida is almost as large as the
Internal Revenue Code, which I understand is as thick as nine Bibles.
Mr. Speaker, that's probably as thick as at least six Bibles, and every
rule has been waived. And all this business about earmark reform, it
makes a total mockery of that. So, Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of
the rule, absolutely I am opposed to it.
We need earmark reform. I have submitted legislation to cut earmarks
by 50 percent immediately and then 1 percent of discretionary spending
in the subsequent year and to say that no Member of this body, no
matter how powerful, should have a larger bite at the apple in regard
to Member-directed initiatives, or what the general public, who's so
outraged at that process, knows as pork and/or earmarks.
In regard to the bill itself, my colleagues, I'm sure, hopefully on
both sides of the aisle, will be opposed to this omnibus because
there's not one penny, Mr. Speaker, not one penny of money for our
troops in Iraq. That in itself is a reason why absolutely I would be
opposed to this omnibus. But, Mr. Speaker, there's more. There is much
more when we look into the weeds and finally see some of the things in
these bills.
Last year this body voted to strike language from the energy and
water bill that would not allow the Corps of Engineers to update
manuals in regard to how they control water releases from certain dams
in the Southeast where we are suffering from a severe drought, Mr.
Speaker. And yet this same language now is stuck in on the Senate side,
and it's in this omnibus bill that would prohibit the Corps of
Engineers from updating these 25-year-old manuals, making the drought
in the Southeast worse than it has ever been. And, Mr. Speaker, I want
to point out the fact that in this body last year when we voted to
remove that language from those bills, Speaker Pelosi voted to remove
the language; Majority Leader Hoyer voted to remove the language;
Appropriations Chairman Obey voted to remove the language; Minority
Leader Boehner voted to remove the language; and every subcommittee
chairman on the Appropriations Committee, the so-called cardinals on
the Democratic side, voted to remove that language. Now it's in there
sort of air-dropped on the Senate side.
There are other things in here, Mr. Speaker, that I am so much
opposed to. There's increased funding for title X, almost $17 million
for Planned Parenthood and abortion providers, but there's no increased
funding for critical abstinence education, which goes a long way to
ensure that abortion services wouldn't be needed, Mr. Speaker.
There is $2.9 billion in here, Mr. Speaker, to provide for security
on our southern border, to build that fence that this body has called
for; yet there are all kinds of restrictions. In fact, the committee
says 15 conditions have to be met before this money can be spent on 300
or 400 miles of fencing on our southern border that we so desperately
need, and at the same time there's millions of dollars in this omnibus,
Mr. Speaker, that provides legal defense funds to defend illegal
immigrants who are in this country. I just don't quite understand the
logic of that, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure my colleagues are as confused as I am over this gimmick of
advanced appropriations. But how does this body say that we are going
to spend $2.4 billion additional money on Labor-HHS and say that we are
not going to count it against this year's appropriation, that it's
going to be counted in 2009, this so-called advanced appropriation? Is
it an emergency, Mr. Speaker, to spend $100 million to provide security
at the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions? Is
that, my colleagues, what we would call money that needs to be spent in
an emergency?
And last but not least, Mr. Speaker, I put language in an
appropriation bill that would not allow funding for States that mandate
that our little girls in the fourth and fifth grade, our 9-, 10-, 11-
year-old children, could not attend public school unless they receive a
shot against human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease, not
a communicable disease like measles, mumps, and whooping cough.
Unfortunately, this funding is allowed in this omnibus, but my language
is removed.
So for many, many reasons, my colleagues, vote ``no'' against the
rule and vote ``no'' against this bill when it comes to us in its
present form.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
for a response.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, even though it's not Halloween, I'm concerned
that some Members may be seeing ghosts. So I simply want to say that
the gentleman from Florida raised concerns that because this is an
amendment between the houses that we might not be fully disclosing
earmarks.
Let me simply point out to the House that the gentleman's claims are
misplaced. Early this afternoon I submitted for printing in the Record
a lengthy and complete explanatory statement, the same statement that
went on the Rules Committee Web site last night. That statement
contains full and complete disclosure of all earmarks. We did that
disclosure exactly
[[Page H15520]]
as if this were a conference report. Nothing has been left out that
would have been required if this had been a conference report.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the omnibus
appropriations bill.
This is good news from Washington. We can always find problems with
things if we look for them. For education, for veterans, for health
care for children, many other programs, these are things people have
been waiting for.
And I'm very pleased that the House is scheduled to vote on a
disaster assistance package to provide relief to our farmers suffering
from record droughts in the Southeast. My farmers are hurting, and this
omnibus appropriations bill will provide some $600 million for disaster
assistance.
My congressional district in North Carolina has been afflicted by
what's called ``Exceptional Drought.'' This is the most serious
category in America. Every county in the State is experiencing drought
conditions. The whole Southeast is experiencing record drought. This
aid will bring real relief to rural communities.
I have been proud to lead this effort. In September I wrote a
bipartisan letter to the President signed by 54 of my colleagues from
both political parties to make the case for disaster relief. I've been
very pleased to work with Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer,
Majority Whip Clyburn, Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson, and
Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey to get this done, and I want to
thank them for their leadership, and our farmers thank them.
I grew up on a Johnston County farm, and I have lived in a farm
community all my life. And as a senior member of the House Ag
Committee, I am pleased that we have finally gotten this football into
the end zone. Now we will do the clincher. This disaster assistance is
a major achievement and an important step forward for America's
farmers.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this rule and then
voting for the underlying omnibus bill that will make a difference not
only for rural America but for all Americans.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
omnibus appropriations bill.
For better or worse, it is the Appropriations Committee that is
charged with the job of making the difficult choices that provide the
best mix possible of funding levels for competing programs. The
interior and environment portion of this bill is the product of the
difficult choices that had to be made as a result of the President's
insistence that we cut $22 billion from the levels approved by the
House 6 months ago.
The final allocation for the Interior Subcommittee was $26.6 billion,
essentially flat funding at the 2007 enacted level, because we were
unable to achieve a compromise with the President that would have
allowed for modest growth in the Interior and related agencies as well
as the Environmental Protection Agency. I would remind my colleagues
that since 2001, these same accounts have been reduced drastically.
Interior has been cut by 16 percent, EPA by 29 percent, and the
nonfirefighting accounts in the Forest Service by more than 35 percent.
In allocating these funds in this omnibus bill, our subcommittee, on
a bipartisan basis, could have frozen funding for all programs at the
Department of Interior, EPA, the Indian Health Service, and the Forest
Service at the 2007 enacted levels. Alternatively, we could have
approved deep reductions proposed by the President for the Forest
Service, Indian health clinics, fire preparedness programs, clean air
State grants, PILT payments or Land and Water Conservation Fund and
Conservation Grants.
We did not choose either of these approaches. Instead, we chose to
produce a conference version that was consistent with the priorities
established in the House-passed Interior appropriations bill,
reflecting the input from Members on both sides of the aisle and from
41 hearings held by our subcommittee this spring. The final version
reflects the input of hundreds of individuals and organizations during
these hearings.
The bill includes an increase of $123 million for the National Park
Service operational accounts to fund an additional 1,500 FTE positions.
This staff will help reinvigorate the Park Service for its centennial
in 2016. An additional $24 million is included as interim funding for
the new centennial matching grants program for 2008. This will get the
program going while the authorizing committees complete negotiations to
find a funding source for this new mandatory program. An increase of
$39 million is provided for our national refuge system to begin
refurbishing our refuges and replacing the 600 positions which have
been lost since 2004.
{time} 2000
$145 million is provided for the National Endowment for the Arts, an
increase of $20 million, to partially restore this program to the
levels 12 years ago. The gentlewoman from New York has been my partner
as we fought to restore this program to the levels of 12 years ago.
The bill includes an increase of $165 million for the Indian Health
Service to cover medical inflation and ensure adequate medical care for
Native Americans, one of this country's most disadvantaged populations.
An increase of $169 million over the 2007 level is provided for
various firefighting programs, $81 million more than requested by the
President. And $188 million is provided for climate change programs,
including $43 million for the EPA and $32 million at the U.S.
Geological Survey. Included for the USGS is $7.5 million to expand its
climate research, of which $2.5 million is for a new global warming and
wildlife center.
$20 million is provided for the EPA geographic program to ramp up the
cleanup of Puget Sound, which is the Nation's second largest estuary
and which has been in serious decline.
In this bill, we have also addressed the very serious environmental
challenges that exist in the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and other
major bodies of water in the United States. These increases represent a
significant redirection of funds to priorities which we believe serve
the country's present and future needs and have not been adequately
addressed by President Bush. But the President's requirement that our
bill be reduced by $1 billion below the original House level has forced
us to make very painful reductions. As I said at the beginning, these
were tough choices.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding these remarks, I want to thank Mr.
Tiahrt. And I would like to say to my colleagues on the Republican
side, I have never seen a year in which Democrats and Republicans at
the committee level, at the subcommittee level have worked better and
have had better information on both sides of the aisle and have worked
to adequately address earmarks to reduce the number of these earmarks
very dramatically. So I would say that there has not been a lack of
cooperation. There has been outstanding cooperation on the entire
subcommittee.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in
particular opposition to this ominous omnibus bill that comes to the
floor of the Congress today.
I am tempted to say to the American people, Here comes the bus, but
I'm not going to get on, because this legislation represents a
fundamental failure of the legislative process.
Eleven separate appropriations bills balled into one, the sheer
tonnage and weight that has been visible on the
[[Page H15521]]
screens of America tonight give evidence that this government is
broken, and this budget process is broken; 3,500 pages, 34 pounds, and
Members of the minority have had, at this very hour, roughly one day to
review its contents.
This legislation, which we'll consider under this rule, will cost
approximately $515 billion, including $44 billion designated as so-
called ``emergency spending,'' and over $10 billion in other budget
gimmicks being used to artificially lower the cost.
Now, I want to commend President Bush and the men and women of good
will in this Congress who have worked to lower the cost of this
legislation from its House- and Senate-passed versions. There have been
improvements on the margin. There has been lipstick placed on this pig,
but it's still a pig; and the American people are soon to find that
out.
Let's take, for example, this legislation includes $31 billion for
military operations in Afghanistan for protective equipment for troops
overseas, but it does not include one dime to fund our troops in harm's
way at this hour serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I say to my
patriotic colleagues in the other party, that is unconscionable that we
would bring before this Congress a spending bill which, for some
purpose, serves some audience far to the left of this Chamber, I
suspect, who are not including a single cent for our soldiers in harm's
way.
And this omnibus contains over $11 billion in so-called ``emergency''
and ``contingency'' spending. Let me favor my colleagues with some of
the emergency provisions in this bill: $20 million for salaries at the
Farm Service Agency, apparently salaries of employees at the Farm
Service Agency unanticipated; $8 million for salaries at the Department
of Justice, legal activities and salaries also at DOJ; salaries and
expenses for everything from the U.S. Marshal Service to U.S.
Attorneys. I mean, Mr. Speaker, where is the surprise in the emergency
of finding out we have employees at the Department of Justice? And my
own personal favorite here, we have a legislative emergency in the form
of $100 million for Presidential security at political conventions.
This is the so-called ``emergency spending'' which those who will point
to this legislation as having come in at or near the President's
numbers will not include these provisions. And there are so many more
that will be explored in the months ahead.
This bill is also chock-full of the very worst kind of pork barrel
spending. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, I requested earmark projects for my
district, and there are some necessary infrastructure projects in this
legislation for eastern Indiana. I brought every single one of them
through the ordinary committee process in the light of day. But there
are, we must assume, thousands of so-called ``air-dropped'' earmarks in
this legislation which will not come to light until after this
legislation is signed into law.
So it's what we don't know in this legislation that frustrates me the
most; 24 hours, I say again, Mr. Speaker, 24 hours to review 3,500
pages and 34 pounds.
Twenty years ago, President Reagan came to this podium and said these
words: ``The budget process has broken down. It needs a drastic
overhaul. With each ensuing year, the spectacle before the American
people is the same as it was this Christmas,'' he said, ``budget
deadlines delayed or missed completely, hundreds of billions of dollars
worth of spending packed into one bill, and the Federal Government on
the brink of default.'' So said Ronald Reagan before this Congress two
decades ago. The more things change, the more they seem to stay the
same.
I was a harsh critic of reckless and wasteful spending when my party
was in control; and I rise, respectfully, to register the same dissent.
We can do better, Mr. Speaker. The American people expect from this
Congress, whatever its management, whichever party, to do better than
to pile into a heap our unfinished business the week before Christmas
and send it all to the President without the light of day.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman on the Committee on
Appropriations, Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out that the last year the
Republicans were in control we had $16 billion in earmarks. This bill
tonight cuts that by 42 percent. The gentleman squawks about the
emergency spending; 86 percent of the emergency funds in this bill were
requested by the administration.
With respect to his charge that we have 34 pounds in this budget in
order to pass the domestic appropriation bills this year, that's
absolutely correct. It's very heavy. You can double the weight by only
printing on one side, as the gentleman has done, but the fact is, do
you know how high the stack was a year ago? Here. Do you see anything?
It's because you didn't pass any domestic appropriation bills
whatsoever. I'll take this over nothing any time.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It's a fascinating evening that we find ourselves in, to be asked to
somehow, in less than a day, in fact, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker,
this bill was filed after midnight. So on the very same day we're being
asked to consider a bill, which all of America can see here, which is
over 3,000 pages long.
Now, when the Democrat majority came in, they said, well, this was
going to be the most fair and democratic Congress that we've ever had,
that somehow a new day was dawning, that they would do business in a
different way. I have not been a fan of omnibus spending legislation
when my party was in control. I voted against the omnibus. It's no way
to run the railroad, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when my party was in
control, if an omnibus was passed, I note, for example, if I look at
the Congressional Record of January 4, 2005, that to bring an omnibus
piece of legislation to the floor by waiving the 3-day rule was
described as ``martial law'' by then-Minority Leader Pelosi, now
Speaker Pelosi. It's in the Record, Mr. Speaker. Look it up.
So somehow when she's the minority leader, Mr. Speaker, it's not okay
to bring this monstrosity; in fact, it's tantamount to martial law. And
yet we've heard that this is going to be such an open and democratic
and fair Congress. So what is it, Mr. Speaker? Is it martial law, is it
not martial law, to expect Members who haven't even seen the bill, much
less read the bill, to vote on it tonight?
I heard the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee
come and speak to us about earmarks. Well, again, this was the
leadership team that claimed that they would do better. And as I look
at it, when you add in the earmarks in the one appropriations bill that
was passed by regular order, you're still looking at the third highest
amount of earmarks, I believe, in the history of the Republic.
Now, the Speaker herself said, and I don't have the quote in front of
me, but something along the lines that she would just as soon do
without earmarks. But as I've read the legislation, she doesn't appear
to be leading by example in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, there are very few people who know what is in this bill.
But what I do know is it spends the people's money with very little
accountability. I was at a town hall meeting in my district, and I have
the honor and privilege of representing the Fifth Congressional
District of Texas. I was in Athens, Texas, and a constituent, a very
wise man, came up to me and said, You know what? I don't think that any
Member of Congress should be allowed to vote on a piece of legislation
unless they've read the bill, which I guess might lend this evening's
vote to one, maybe two, Members, maybe no Members. There's something to
be said for that. A bad process can lead to bad outcomes, and this is a
bad outcome. It spends too much of the people's money. It continues to
grow the government budget faster than the family budget, the family
budget that has to pay for it.
Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of the House Budget Committee. I see
several of my colleagues on the Democrat side who are also serving on
that Budget Committee. And we just heard testimony from the head of the
Congressional Budget Office, which I might add
[[Page H15522]]
was an appointment under this majority, this Democrat majority, who
said that if we don't change the spending patterns of the Federal
Government that within a generation we're looking at doubling taxes on
our children and grandchildren.
Now, you can go check the Record. And it's not just the head of the
Congressional Budget Office; it's the head of OMB, it's the Comptroller
General. And yet we are asked to vote on an omnibus piece of
legislation that, once again, sets us on this path to double taxes on
the next generation. It's just unconscionable. Again, it robs the
family budget to pay for the Federal budget.
And here's something else that's unconscionable about this: in this
omnibus, we're going to pay to fund some bureaucrat in the bowels of
the Commerce Department, but we won't pay for the men and women in our
Nation's uniform fighting for liberty in Iraq. Well, last I looked,
they're part of this Federal Government as well. They're wearing our
Nation's uniform. They get paychecks drawn on the U.S. Treasury. But
somehow we can find the ability, in this 3,000-page bill, to pay for
every bureaucrat in Washington; but we won't fund the men and women in
harm's way in Iraq. Also unconscionable.
There are so many reasons, Mr. Speaker, that this rule should be
voted down, as should the entire bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on
Education and Labor, Mr. George Miller.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
{time} 2015
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I
want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to recognize the
difficult choices that the Appropriations Committee had in dealing with
the education portion of this legislation. At a time when this
administration is almost $55 billion behind its promises to the
American people, to the parents of this country, to the children of
this country, to the educators of this country, of the resources that
would be available in title I, we find that, in fact, we are only going
to be able to add about $1 billion, a little over $1 billion this year,
which is completely insufficient, at a time when schools and school
districts are struggling to make the reforms required under No Child
Left Behind.
But I want to thank the Appropriations Committee, because as
difficult as that choice is to only provide that small amount of money,
they were able to make of that portion of the money almost $500 million
available to schools in need of improvement. These are schools that we
were supposed to have started helping out 3 and 4 years ago. This is
the first time this money has ever been put in this budget to help
these schools that have been recognized as needing very substantial
improvement to improve the opportunities of the children in those
schools for a decent education, but this bill is the first time that we
have done that. The administration has ignored that over the last 6
years.
I also see that the committee was able to restore some of the money
for educational technology, a subject that is becoming more and more
important in terms of improving our schools, improving the opportunity
of students to learn, and improving opportunities for students to
understand the technologies that they are going to have to grasp in the
workplace and in higher education. The President's budget zeroed that
money out. The Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Mr.
Obey, was able to restore almost all of it, the money that was
available in the last year.
Now I see that we have been able to add $259 million to IDEA, which
is able to take it above the President's request, which was a cut in
education for students with disabilities. Once again, the Republicans,
when they were in the minority, promised that they would fully fund
IDEA because districts are struggling with the education of students
with disabilities, and they signed letters, they passed resolutions,
they did all of it. The day they came in power, they stopped funding
IDEA. So it has been flat-funded while school districts struggle with
both trying to deal with school reform and the education of students
with disabilities.
So this committee, I think, made some good choices, difficult
choices, insufficient choices. But if you look at what the President
had recommended for educational technology, if you look at what the
President had recommended to help schools with English learners in
those schools, this is a dramatically better budget, but an
insufficient budget for the education, but it is completely
insufficient for the education of America's children. Don't go home and
tell your constituents how well you understand the tools that they need
to compete in a globalized world, in a globalized economy, because you
have absolutely failed to provide them, and this administration has
failed to provide them.
Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee has been able to
recalibrate some of the numbers and to move some of the money around
for these high-priority areas. I am only so sorry that we weren't able
to do better by America's children and their families.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a prior colleague
who spoke said that this 34-pound bill was that size and weight because
of our photocopying. I just want to make clear for the Record that it
was handed to us by the majority like that.
I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, those of us who have teenage kids at home know very well
the saying ``nothing good happens after midnight.'' That is why you
have a curfew. Nothing good happens after midnight.
I would say the same holds true when you are putting together an
omnibus. Here is what you get when you pass an omnibus and you present
it after midnight; 34 pounds, some 3,400 pages of documents here that
we have no idea what is in there. Any Member who says that he has read
it isn't telling you the truth. Nobody has read through this thing. We
will be discovering for months items that are in this bill that we
simply don't know. Preliminary analysis, and you will hear me say this
several times, because that is all you can do is a preliminary
analysis, a cursory reading will tell you that there are 9,241 earmarks
in this omnibus bill.
Now, we earlier in the year passed a couple of bills without any
earmarks in saying we would probably be nearly earmark free when it
comes to the omnibus, or when it comes to the end of the year, MILCON
and I think Homeland Security, because typically, particularly Homeland
Security, that bill is not traditionally earmarked. Well, guess what?
It is now. There are well over 100 earmarks in the Homeland Security
one, and I think over 150 in the MILCON, earmarks that I have never
seen, I don't think anyone in this body has seen until midnight last
night. So those are air-dropped earmarks, more than 300 of them, I
think, in this bill that we have had no opportunity to see, let alone
challenge on the House floor, we are just seeing for the first time
now.
Let me just give you an idea of what happens when you do things after
midnight. Here are a few of the earmarks that were slipped in. These,
by the way, we are always told that you have to leave it open to air-
dropped earmarks because there are vital things that need to be done.
Maybe there is a natural disaster somewhere, something that you have to
account for. Well, here is what was added last night. One was a $1.8
million earmark for the East Capitol Center for Change, Capitol Area
Asset Building Corporation, and the National Center for Fatherhood to
administer Marriage Development Accounts in the District of Columbia.
That is something that couldn't wait for a regular bill to go through?
Did we have to do that in the middle of the night? How about $400,000
for the Burchfield-Penny Art Center in Buffalo? The Burchfield-Penny
Art Center was so important that we had to air-drop it into this bill
and not have any challenge, any way to challenge it on the House floor.
Let me remind my colleagues that we agreed in the transparency rules
earlier this year that if there were air-dropped earmarks into a bill,
we would have an opportunity to offer a point of
[[Page H15523]]
order to strike them out, to at least eliminate them. We can't do that
here because this is not a conference report. This is an amendment
between the Houses.
We have had that before. Rules are only as good as your willingness
to enforce them, and we have seen a pattern of unwillingness to enforce
the rules or to seek ways around them. Now, some will stand up and brag
and say, Hey, we have 40 percent fewer earmarks here than we had 2
years ago. They will say we have 40 percent fewer, the dollar value is
down. Well, if you look at last year, we have, I think the figure is,
about 400 percent more earmarks than last year. It is hardly, hardly a
mark of fiscal discipline to have 9,200 earmarks in this bill when you
have already had 2,000 pass in the defense bill. For one, that is not a
40 percent reduction, and two, it is about a 400 percent addition to
last year.
Let's reject this rule and reject this bill.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State,
Foreign Operations and Related Programs, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, specifically division J on State
and Foreign Operations. Division J reflects a bipartisan, bicameral
effort by Ranking Member Wolf, myself, Senator Leahy and Senator Gregg
to address our strategic priorities, national security interests and
invest in development, poverty reduction and global health. I also
wanted to thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for their knowledge
and their commitment to the priorities in this bill.
Just a few highlights. For those of us who did read the bill, what do
we have, 20 hours, 3,500 pages. I am sure if you all divided it up, you
would have a good understanding of what is in that bill.
Some highlights: $6.5 billion, $796 million above the President's
request, for HIV/AIDS and other global health programs; $1.5 billion to
address humanitarian emergencies, including Iraqi refugees; $550
million for the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur, funding for
Liberian security sector assistance and increased assistance for
Africa; an expansion of basic education, safe water, environmental
programs; $1.544 billion, 344 million above the Senate-passed level,
for the Millennium Challenge Account. This funding will allow them to
undertake all planned compacts and threshold programs this year. It
maintains Israel's qualitative military edge. It maintains our
development and security assistance to the people of Pakistan,
assistance central to helping them fight al Qaeda, the Taliban and
associated terrorist groups.
And I want to especially thank our staff for their tireless work in
crafting the bipartisan bill, the division J of this Consolidated
Appropriations Act. This bill will help make America be more secure and
improve the lives of millions around the world, and I encourage my
colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend how many
speakers she has remaining.
Ms. SUTTON. We have two speakers remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would reserve at this time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee of Military
Construction, Veterans Administration and Related Agencies, Mr.
Edwards.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this bill sends a clear message to
America's service men and women, their families and their veterans that
a grateful Nation deeply respects their service and sacrifice, provides
the largest increase in VA health care funding in the 77-year history
of the VA. The bill also provides funds to hire 1,800 new VA claims
processors to reduce the serious backlog of benefits claims and reduce
the time to process them.
On the military construction side, we increased $4.37 billion for
BRAC, military construction and family housing, a 29 percent increase
over last year.
I want to salute Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for making veterans
and support of our military families the highest of priorities in the
new Congress. Millions of America's veterans and military families will
receive better health care and have a better quality of life because of
their dedication to them.
I want to thank the majority subcommittee staff, an outstanding
staff, the best anybody would have a right to work with, Carol Murphy,
Tim Peterson, Walter Hearne, Donna Shahbaz and Mary Arnold, the
outstanding minority subcommittee staff, Liz Dawson, Dena Baron, and my
staffer, John Conger. I hope to offer a special note to the son of a
distinguished Army soldier, Rob Nabors, Chief Clerk of the
Appropriations Committee. Because of Mr. Nabors' good judgment,
professionalism, calm demeanor and dedication, America's veterans and
our military will benefit not just this year but for decades to come.
Tonight, Mr. Nabors' father has a right to be especially proud of his
son. And let me, along with that, thank Mr. Wicker for his partnership
from day one in this effort.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida continues to
withhold his time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, with governing comes responsibility. The responsible
vote on this rule and this bill is ``yes.'' The minority has talked
about responsibility for the military. They are right. That is why this
body and the other body passed a Defense Appropriations bill, $459
billion to support the military. The other side talks about
responsibility for reducing the deficit. They didn't reduce the deficit
when they were in the majority. We are reducing it by passing a budget
that puts us back on the path to a balanced budget.
We also have a responsibility to listen to the concerns that are
being raised by the men and women that we represent. They are worried
about gangs and drugs. So this bill puts 34 percent more money into
drug courts, nearly doubles the amount of money being spent on police
support programs around the country. They are worried about porous
borders and people coming into the country illegally. So this bill puts
15 percent more into customs and border enforcement. They are worried
about high heating costs, being unable to pay their utility bills. So
this bill puts 21 percent more into the program that helps people pay
their utility bills.
Finally, there is all this talk about supporting and saluting our
veterans. This bill stops talking and starts acting with a request that
matches that which the veterans service organizations of this country
asked us for, the largest increase in veterans health care in the
history of the country. The responsible vote is ``yes.'' The
irresponsible political course is to complain. Let's do the country's
business, pass this rule, and pass this bill.
{time} 2030
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for
a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule
and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to
restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule while
closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months.
Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of
jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill
or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order
lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last
Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a
``question of consideration.'' But because the Democratic Rules
Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points
of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of
earmarks on the rule or on the bill.
The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a
procedure to accept ``amendments between the
[[Page H15524]]
Houses,'' such as with this legislation, the omnibus appropriations
bill. Because the omnibus is not a conference report, the bill falls
squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules
of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks contained in
the legislation. Any action as announced previously by the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee is at his discretion.
I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House
Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to Rules Chairwoman
Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that
the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to
Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic
earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative
propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.
Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of
October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on
how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have
advised the committee that language waiving all points of
order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''
should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,
notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to
recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure
requirements of clause 9.
In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order
against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause
9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that
waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the
rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI
does not comprehensively apply to all legislative
propositions at all stages of the legislative process.
Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill
or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or
joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''
to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--
whether they be floor amendments during initial House
consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not
covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule
felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to
immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations
about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one
offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a
member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of
a special rule.)
The question of order on September 25 involved a special
rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment
between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It
had no application to the motion in the first instance.
Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special
rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).
The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule
providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered
as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same
rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no
application to the amendment in the first instance, the
special rule had no tendency to waive any application of
clause 9(a).
The same would be true in the more common case of a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.
In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding
officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a
particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule
XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability
of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure
requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object
of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the
question whether a special rule waives the application of
clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any
application.
In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no
application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all
points of order except those arising under that rule--when
none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its
negative implication would be that such a point of order
might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all
points of order against provisions of an authorization bill
except those that can only arise in the case of a general
appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this
area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use
language that yields a misleading implication.
I appreciate your consideration and trust that this
response is to be shared among all members of the committee.
Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.
Sincerely,
John V. Sullivan,
Parliamentarian.
Mr. Speaker, my amendment will restore the accountability and
enforceability of the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this
loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous
question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 878
Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the
Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for
enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4,
if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order or demand for division of the question, shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for
forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:
(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''
at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the
end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding
the following at the end:
``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between
the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to
an order of the House unless the Majority Leader or his
designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited
tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and
amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective
item in such list) or a statement that the proposition
contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional
Record prior to its consideration.''.
(2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows:
``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph
(a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with
respect to the proposition. The question of consideration
shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiation
the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but
shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except
one that the House adjourn.''.
____
(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.''
[[Page H15525]]
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 form 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
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.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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.
____________________