[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25035-25040]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
 CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 846 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 846

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on or before 
     the legislative day of November 20, 2004, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of any of the following 
     measures:
       (1) A bill or joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations for the fiscal year 2005, an amendment 
     thereto, or a conference report thereon.
       (2) A bill or joint resolution making general 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  The resolution we are considering today would provide for the same-
day consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules. It waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote 
to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on 
Rules, against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules.
  The rule applies to the waiver to any resolution reported on or 
before the

[[Page 25036]]

legislative day of November 20, 2004, providing for consideration or 
disposition of any of the following measures:
  First, a bill or joint resolution making continuing appropriations 
for the fiscal year 2005, an amendment thereto or a conference report 
thereon; or, second, a bill or joint resolution making general 
appropriations for fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and an 
amendment thereto or a conference report thereon.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear what we are trying to do. We are trying to 
make sure that as a result of the action that we took on or about 
October 8 as it related to the funding of the government that we would 
make sure we would responsibly work on behalf of the American people to 
make sure that all spending bills would be necessarily approved and 
done properly by this House. But we wanted to make sure that the 
government was funded from that day forward.
  Today, as we end what we believe will be the last day for the House 
of Representatives for the 108th Congress, it allows us a chance to 
make sure that we are prepared to do just that. As we speak, up in the 
Committee on Rules right now here in the Capitol, the Committee on 
Rules is meeting to approve the omnibus appropriations bill. This bill 
will make sure that we can bring this very important bill to the floor 
and then we can get on with our work today and hopefully adjourn 
tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this 
time.
  It is the 11th hour and the deals have been struck. Most, if not all, 
of us want to go home. Certainly the majority does. So we find 
ourselves again being asked to override regular House rules and vote on 
legislation which I defy anybody to tell me that 99 percent of us have 
read. I am talking about 99 percent of the Members of the House of 
Representatives have not read this legislation.
  There is no reason why we cannot consider the omnibus appropriations 
bill tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday. There is no reason why all of us in 
the body and, most importantly, the American people should not have at 
least 24 hours to try to read how we are spending their money before we 
spend it.
  I realize, Mr. Speaker, that most of the Members will support this 
measure. But I am opposed to the process by which it has come together 
floor today. And in just a few short hours, Members of this body will 
be asked to approve a bill that spends nearly $400 billion of 
Americans' hard-earned tax dollars without being afforded the 
opportunity to actually read the bill. That is just not right.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, one party controls Washington, 
D.C.'s political circumstances. One party controls the House, the 
Senate, and the White House. One party has controlled Congress' 
legislative agenda and one party has controlled this year's 
appropriations process. I ask the American people what have they done 
for them this year? In a word, if I were answering, it would be not 
much.
  Despite escalating gas prices and continued reliance on fuel needs 
from the volatile Middle East, has Congress enacted a comprehensive 
energy bill? No. Bridges and tunnels and highways around America are 
literally crumbling away due to years and years of neglect. And despite 
the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs are on the line, has 
Congress passed a transportation bill? No. Welfare reform? Still on the 
starting blocks. Patient's bill of rights? In intensive care. Fully 
funding education programs like No Child Left Behind? Still waiting at 
the schoolhouse door. Getting our first responders the tools and 
equipment they need to protect the homeland? Do not hold your breath.
  As far as I can tell, the only thing that the ruling party can do 
successfully is explode the national debt and burden our children and 
grandchildren to fix the mistakes we make on a daily basis around here 
in the House of Representatives. Enough already.
  So we will go home today or tomorrow after having worked fewer days 
in this session of Congress than in any previous Congress in nearly the 
last 60 years. These really are the best words that I can use to 
describe this situation. The rule is a disservice to the Members of 
this body. More importantly, it is an affront to the people whom we 
represent. This process smells and the odor wafts from sea to shining 
sea.
  I understand the circumstances at the end of the session deadline of 
which the majority speaks, but I ask why the rush? Why run this House 
in such a disorderly way? The precedent that we continue to set with 
this kind of action will haunt us and our successors for many 
generations. It is up to the majority to step up to the plate and 
attempt to restore integrity to the process this body practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I appreciate the gentleman's speaking about the way in which the House 
is operating today. I am proud of what we are doing. And in just a few 
hours we are going to hear the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, come and say that this 
package before us represents a freeze or a 0 percent growth in 
nondefense discretionary spending. That is hard work. That is hard 
work, Mr. Speaker, but in the very beginning of this year the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Budget Committee, as a result 
of enlisting the Members of Congress, decided that we were going to 
have a budget that did the right thing for 2005. And that is exactly 
what this Republican-led Congress has done.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) worked very diligently to make 
sure that the budget that this conference put forth and this House put 
forth is something that will be passed. We intend to make sure that we 
are not going to have any wild spending sprees like we have done in the 
past. It is going to be responsible. I am proud of what we have done. 
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), our great Speaker, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, have made sure 
that the things that are in this bill deal with the essence of what is 
good for America. I am very proud of what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), 
minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. Speaker, I believe it appropriate for me to rise in light of the 
gentleman from Texas's remarks. First of all, I note that the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations is on the floor. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the most respected Members in this body. 
He is a gentleman who has led our committee with fairness and great 
ability. Mr. Dyer is also on the floor, our chief clerk of the 
Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations continues 
to be, in my opinion, one of the committees that really strives to work 
in a bipartisan fashion to meet the responsibilities that it has and 
the responsibilities that this Congress has to the American people.
  The budget to which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) spoke has 
resulted in a dysfunctional appropriations process over the last 4 
years really. I have served on the Committee on Appropriations for 23 
years, so I have some experience of the workings of that committee. In 
the early years that I served, it was also difficult to pass 
appropriation bills. Then we got into the 1994 election, the majority 
changed and, in 1995, of course, we shut down the government on 
November 22, 1995. The government essentially remained shut down and 
with sporadic periods of being open between then and early in January 
of the following year.
  Since that time, particularly since the election of President Bush in 
2000,

[[Page 25037]]

in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, this year, we have clearly had a 
dysfunctional budget and appropriations process, about which my friend 
from Texas seems to be so proud. In fact, this is the third year in a 
row where we have passed an omnibus appropriations bill including most 
of the appropriations. We have ignored the regular order. We have 
ignored the process of adopting appropriation bills one by one. We have 
ignored the process of having our appropriation bills open to full 
disclosure and consideration, not only by the House of Representatives, 
but by the American people. We have prevented the American people from 
having the opportunity to make their views known on these appropriation 
bills. Why? Because we have passed them in the dead of night, as we did 
last night, come out with a very quick Committee on Rules report, a 
martial law rule, and an inability to expose those to the light of day.
  Now, most of those appropriations bills, the nine bills that will be 
incorporated into this omnibus have, in fact, been subjected to 
hearings, discussion on this floor, discussion on the Senate floor, and 
most, I do not know what percentage, but I would guess well over 90 
percent, perhaps even as close to 97 or 98 percent of the bills have, 
in fact, been subjected to the regular order and the legislative 
process as it should run.
  But the fear of the American people is that in the dead of night, in 
the cloudiness of quick consideration, that many things are included in 
these bills which perhaps both Houses would not have put in there, as 
has happened too frequently during the course of this Congress, or that 
neither House really knows is in there.
  So when my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) refers to this as being a process that is contrary to regular 
order, he is absolutely right. It is not something of which we ought to 
be proud. To that extent, I disagree with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas. It is, in fact, something that we ought to commit ourselves 
to not repeating. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), my good 
friend, is on the floor, and was the chief of staff of one of the most 
distinguished leaders with whom I have had the privilege of serving, 
Bob Michel, himself a member of the Committee on Appropriations. I used 
to remember Leader Michel during the times when he was the Minority 
Leader of this House saying that this process was wrong when we pursued 
it, when we got into a deadlock and could not get bills passed.
  So it is not that it is solely the actions of one party. It is, 
however, to say that we ought not to pretend that when we are doing it, 
that it is good, and that when the other guy is doing it, it is bad. It 
is not a good process. We did not in the year of last year pass eight 
of our appropriations bills until the calendar year following the 
beginning of the fiscal year. It was January. The previous year, it was 
February before we adopted most of the appropriations bills. I regret 
that we do not consider the appropriations bills one by one. There has 
not been a conference on the Labor-Health bill, a bill which will have 
approximately $150 billion in discretionary funding in this bill. It 
has not been conferenced. I have been a member of that committee for 23 
years. I did not participate in a conference on that bill.
  Now, because of the way our committee operates, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and others 
have kept me apprised, and I am not surprised at that. As I said, they 
are good and decent and fair leaders of the Committee on 
Appropriations. We ought not to delude ourselves because of their 
fairness and because of the fact that they have kept me informed and 
kept the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) informed and others 
informed. But the American people who have been precluded from seeing 
that bill conferenced have not been informed as our democracy 
contemplates, so I do not share the gentleman's pride in this process.
  Mr. Speaker, because I have the time and I am on my feet, I also want 
to make a comment. I may make this comment again when he is here. In my 
view, the House of Representatives has sustained an extraordinary loss 
in the last election. I do not speak in terms of the fact that another 
candidate won the election. I, in no way, denigrate that candidate. But 
I do rise to lament the loss of a giant of this House, a Member of this 
House who, in my opinion, is arguably the best legislator in this 
House, a Member of this House whom I have grown to have the highest 
respect for, for his intellect, for his integrity, for his focus on 
fiscal responsibility. No one, no one in this House or in the United 
States Senate has any more faithfully focused on fiscal responsibility 
than my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Charles Stenholm). It is a 
great loss to the House that he will not be serving with us next year.
  As we consider this appropriation bill, and as the gentleman from 
Texas remarks with respect to constraining funding, I will tell my 
friend that we have constrained funding less over the last 4 years 
perhaps than at any time since I have been here, less than we did 
during the Clinton years. Domestic discretionary spending has risen 
higher over the last 4 years, as perhaps the gentleman knows, 
discretionary spending has risen higher. Now, there have been some 
reasons for that. Certainly, 9/11, terrorism, the war in Iraq. As the 
gentleman from Texas knows, I have supported that funding. We cannot, 
we must not send our best abroad to fight terrorism without supporting 
them fully. I have done that, and I intend to do that. But having said 
that, I do not intend to pretend that that money is for free, that 
somebody is not going to pay that bill.
  Earlier this week, the Republicans increased the debt of this Nation 
by $800 billion, meaning that over the last 42 months we have increased 
the national debt by 25 percent, $2 trillion. I personally do not 
believe that that is something of which to be proud, $2 trillion in 
additional debt. I have three grandchildren. One is a little older, one 
is little younger, and one is very young. And all of them are going to 
pay that bill. Because this generation of Americans, acting through its 
Members in the House of Representatives, has determined that it will 
not pay its bills. I think that is an immoral policy. It is the refusal 
to accept personal responsibility for the challenges confronting our 
generation, and we are going to allow the next generation and perhaps 
generations thereafter to pay that bill.
  The immediate consequences, of course, were evidenced yesterday. I 
hope they will be ameliorated. I hope interest rates will not 
skyrocket. I hope the deficit will, as the gentleman from Texas hopes, 
will be constrained. But I will not delude myself, I tell my friend 
from Texas, that it is discretionary spending that has caused our 
problem, because those of us on the Committee on Appropriations know it 
is not discretionary spending. In fact, discretionary spending as a 
percentage of the budget is less today than it was in 1962 and 1972 and 
1982. So we ought not to delude ourselves that our failure to fully 
fund No Child Left Behind, as the gentleman from Florida has said, is 
something of which to be proud. There are going to be children left 
behind as a result of us failing to do that.
  So I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say that I will vote for this omnibus bill 
when it ultimately gets to the floor. I will vote against this rule, 
but I will vote for the omnibus bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), Jim Dyer, and each one of our chairmen and ranking members have 
worked hard to try to come to grips with bills that meet our 
responsibilities. These bills do so only in part. I thank my chairman 
and would say that there are areas in which we are short, not because 
we want to be short, but because the resources are not there to meet 
our commitments.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me 
this brief time, at a time when debate is not fulsome and I had time to 
ruminate to some degree on what I consider the very serious fiscal 
challenge that confronts our country. We cannot pretend that we can 
have tax cuts and war and investment in education and transportation 
and energy and other needs

[[Page 25038]]

of our country and simply pass the debt along to our children and our 
grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that is not right.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Maryland I believe articulated a hope and a dream 
that both of these parties want to stand for, and that is that we can 
continue to work together. He expressed great confidence not only in 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and Jim Dyer, who is the staff 
director of the Committee on Appropriations; he appropriately talked 
about the service to this body of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), a Congressman from Texas 17. But he also talked about our 
hope and dream for the ability that we have to control ourselves, to 
bring forth spending that is worthy of the American public will.
  The only thing that I would add is that we also need to have an 
economy that works, that is competitive with the world. We know we 
passed this last year, a medicare prescription drug bill that, for the 
first time, will allow senior citizens not to have to make a choice 
between food, clothing, housing, and getting the prescription drugs 
that were ordered by their doctor. These too are accomplishments that 
we have done, and it does come at a cost and a price, but it is the 
right thing to do.
  I continue to believe in the American dream. I think that is what we 
are all about here today on a Saturday, working hard. And yes, the 
gentleman referred to us working until 2, 3, and 4 in the morning. I 
think that is good too. I think this body is faithful to the American 
public, and I believe in what we are doing.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me time. He is a 
very able member of the Committee on Rules.
  I think I follow in the tradition that those of us who are outside of 
the body politic of the appropriators do every year, and that is that 
we rise to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking 
member, and the chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and 
particularly the chairman as he finishes his tenure. I want to thank 
him very much for the collegial and sensitive work he does. I 
particularly thank him for coming to my district to support our Fishers 
House. We thank him so very much for the work that is being done for 
our veterans and for their families that are at our veterans hospitals 
all over the country.
  But for our colleagues and the American people that wonder why we 
rise today, because what we do today is probably one of the more 
important responsibilities of this body, and it is to get out of 
Washington and send the dollars, your tax dollars, back to your 
communities, to be able to keep your hospitals open, your schools open, 
to be able to help our senior citizens and to create peace around the 
world.
  The reason why I rise is because we have not completed our job, 
coming from Texas where there is no energy policy discernable so that 
we can say to the American people that you will not continue to see 
your fuel prices increase, and, of course, the devastation that has 
occurred because jet fuel prices are high.
  We have not been able to infuse into the economy reasonable policy so 
that those individuals who work every day can have a reasonable quality 
of life.
  And then, of course, my concern, as the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions) talked about the Medicare bill, one of the most 
expensive and unworkable bills that we have ever seen. More money goes 
to the pharmaceuticals than money in your pocket. No guaranteed 
prescription drug benefit for our seniors. That is why I rise today.
  And if we want to talk about peace, it is unfortunate that even today 
in Iraq, where I visited just a few weeks ago with our soldiers, we 
have soldiers in Iraq without the appropriate equipment, and we have 
already spent $200 billion plus there and we have no plan.
  My last point, Mr. Speaker, is on the floor yesterday we did 
something good with respect to Sudan. The Lugar bill was passed. But 
yet this administration and the will of this Congress has not seen its 
way to fund the African Union peacekeeping troops and to force Sudan to 
allow those troops in. And as we speak today, mothers and children are 
being raped and killed and villages are being raided and it is being 
done by the Sudanese police officers.
  So you see there is much we could be doing but yet we are forcing an 
omnibus bill on the floor and yet many of us have never seen it. We 
welcome those dollars to go home to those street repairs, to help those 
nonprofits, to help ex-offenders return back into the community, to 
build affordable housing, to work with our Boy Scouts and other non-
profit organizations. So this is why we are here. This is a martial 
rule that forces us to move forward on the people's business without 
the attention to detail to wonder whether there are enough dollars in 
there for Pell grants for our college students to go to school, and to 
be able to know whether our troops that are on the front lines in 
Afghanistan and Iraq have the appropriate equipment.
  In a few weeks we will be looking in Iraq for elections. Dollars will 
be needed to be expended there. Safety will be needed. We will need the 
appropriate number of troops. We do not even know whether or not that 
the dollars that we have will suffice for the troop deployment and 
enforcement as well as the equipment, as well as the many casualties 
that are coming into our hospitals here in the United States and 
Germany, and of course whether we have the dollars to provide for those 
families whose troops have lost their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that we will proceed today. I do not know as 
we proceed that we will have the opportunity to say to the American 
people that we have done our very best. I would hope that we could do 
better in the 109th, but, more importantly, I wish we could do better 
for the American people today.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in previous election years 
we have heard about an October surprise. We did not have an October 
surprise this year. We are getting a November surprise.
  Now, it is not a surprise to those of us who serve in this body. It 
is an unpleasant surprise to the American people, particularly those 
people who think that as a collective society we have some 
responsibilities to each other, because this is an appropriations bill 
that fails to fund adequately those programs that are essential to 
improving the quality of our lives to the extent that they must be done 
together.
  People on the other side are fond of saying it is the people's money, 
not the government's money. Of course it is the people's money. But 
civilized and sensible people understand that we have two sets of needs 
for our money. Some of our needs, our desires are best met by money 
that we have individually and as families. But in our society 
particularly there are essential needs for our well-being that can only 
be met if we pool our money.
  Now, on the one level people understand that they know that homeland 
security cannot be advanced by a tax cut. But neither can environmental 
cleanup, neither can transportation, neither can our ability to extend 
some compassion to people in need. The majority understand that. They 
understand that the American people understand that. So that is why, 
and let us be very clear, the sole reason we are here today a couple of 
weeks after an election funding the government for

[[Page 25039]]

the rest of the year is the majority's craven unwillingness to stand up 
before the election for what they truly believe in. They have 
successfully hidden from the American people the true consequences of 
their philosophy. And that is the November surprise.
  People who believe that America ought to be vigorously cleaning up 
environmental messes left from earlier periods, people who think we 
ought to be expanding the amount of affordable housing we have, people 
who think we ought to be extending health care for Americans rather 
than seeing it continue to erode, people who think we ought to be 
meeting our international obligations.
  I read just this past week in Congress Daily that there is a 
shortfall in the money we send to feed starving people overseas. That 
is not adequately funded. Some of the President's own priorities are 
not funded internationally. It is true, I gather, they did manage to 
give in to the administration and there is money to go to Mars, and 
maybe ultimately the homeless can live there. But God help them, they 
better be able to because they certainly are not going to be able to 
find housing here.
  Again, let us be clear here. There is no reason whatsoever why in 
this lame duck session after the election we are funding all of the 
important domestic elements of government and some of the international 
ones, except the majority's understanding that the consequences of 
their anti-government attitude simply would not have worked well before 
the election. The sole purpose of this timing is to deceive the 
American people. Fortunately, that deception cannot continue because we 
are going to have elections in the future. And we are going to test 
this philosophy, and here is the philosophy.
  It is an administration that believes that all we have to do to reach 
the good life is essentially to remove all restraints on capital. Do 
not tax it. Put the taxes on people's consumption or on the money they 
earn for working. Do not hobble them with environmental regulations. 
For goodness sake, do not allow labor unions to speak up for their 
people. Do not make them pay overtime very much.
  Four years from now the minimum wage will be meaningless because it 
will not move for 4 years under their administration and inflation will 
accomplish what the ideologues cannot accomplish openly. It will be 
eroded.
  But let us go back to the budget. Now, the members of the Committee 
on Appropriations have always gotten praise here, including the 
majority members. What is the general phrase? They have done the best 
they can in a bad situation. Given the constraints they face, they have 
done a good job.
  Let us be very clear, those constraints, those limitations; that is, 
inadequacy of funding for our public purposes, which is how as a 
society we in part express our aspirations for decency, for quality of 
life, for compassion, those constraints were not natural constraints. 
They did not come from the heavens. They are not natural phenomena. 
They are the result of the conscious policy choices of the 
administration and the majority. A decision to go to two wars, one of 
which was necessary in my judgment, one of which was not, and then to 
do five tax cuts, has left us, and the majority acknowledges that 
implicitly today by bringing up two weeks after an election measures 
that by any sense of democratic procedure should have been voted on 
before the people got to cast their ballots.
  So the majority implicitly acknowledges that its extremely 
conservative assault on government, its refusal to acknowledge that 
there are important moral purposes that we can only accomplish if we 
pool our resources and work together as a people, they implicitly 
acknowledge the unacceptable nature of that, and we will continue this 
debate over the next 2 years.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while we were here considering this rule the Committee 
on Rules was meeting and reported out the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 4818, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, and 
providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 114, making further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes.
  I bring it to the attention of the body that that particular rule, if 
this same day rule passes and then its undertaking, will allow the 
members of this body one hour of debate on the rule and one hour of 
debate on spending upwards of $388 billion, or more as it were.
  Now, when we have passed the omnibus, and it will happen sometime 
today, the law requires that the President of the United States will 
have 10 days in which to review the omnibus provisions. What is amazing 
to me is that the House of Representatives Members are constrained by 
not knowing. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and 
I have not seen this legislation. We have not read it. We may have 
participated in some part of the regular process of some of the 
particulars, but much of what is in this bill no member of the House of 
Representatives other than a handful have seen it at all. So the law 
requires that the President of the United States and his team of people 
rightly have an opportunity to review the provisions that are passed in 
this body and the other body, and they get ostensibly what will amount 
to 20 days, and many of the Members in this body will not get 20 
minutes to read what it is that we are passing in spending the American 
taxpayers' money.
  No, I am not proud of the process. There may be substantive things in 
the bill that will help Americans, but you and no one else can tell me 
that by avoiding regular order, by avoiding the way legislation ought 
be presented in this country. You cannot tell me that today you can 
call your constituents and tell them precisely what is in this bill. I 
know I cannot. I do not think that is right, and I do not think any 
Member of this House believes it is right.
  Do you have the power? Of course you do. Can you continue down this 
path? Of course you can. You do so at your peril because ultimately the 
American people will come to understand that you cannot have deficit 
and borrowed money, run a war, it used to be called having guns and 
butter. I think my friends in the majority think we can have guns, 
butter, ice cream and cookies. It is not going to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is a great way to start a Saturday morning, the opportunity to get 
up and debate before the American public the important parts about not 
only America and our process and the ability that we have by majority 
vote, but it is also an opportunity for us to look the American public 
right in the eye and to say that we have done what we said we would do, 
that this is a lean package. It follows exactly what we said we would 
do in the budget earlier this spring.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has brought forth a package as 
a result of what we heard was bipartisan work, informing people what 
was in the bill, the opportunity to make sure that not only as the 
gentleman from Maryland said to keep him updated but others in his 
party to make sure that they were aware of what was happening on an 
omnibus spending package that is important to this great Nation and an 
obligation of this Congress.

                              {time}  0945

  Yes, I am proud that we have the ability to say today we will bring 
this to the floor of the House of Representatives. The Committee on 
Rules has acted, and subsequent to us leaving today, we will have a 
measured and wonderful debate. I am proud of what we have done. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.

[[Page 25040]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________