[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29838-29840]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3043, 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 794

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2.  A motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 3688 
     pursuant to section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 shall be in 
     order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee.
       Sec. 3.  Upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
     transmitting H.R. 3043, with a Senate amendment thereto, it 
     shall be in order to take the same from the Speaker's table 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order, a motion offered by the chairman of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House 
     concur in such amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 794 
under section 2 of H. Res. 491, because the resolution contains a 
waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pascrell). The gentleman from Arizona 
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 2 of House 
Resolution 491.
  Such a point of order made under that resolution shall be disposed of 
by the question of consideration under the same terms as specified in 
clause 9(b) of rule XXI.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed, the gentleman from 
Florida, each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of 
consideration.
  After that debate the Chair will put the question of consideration, 
to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H. Res. 491 says that it shall not be in order to consider a 
conference report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a 
list of congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that 
were not committed to the conference committee by either Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that, on the first general 
appropriations bill since the adoption of H. Res. 491 and its 
improvements to the earmarks rules, that the majority has reported a 
rule that waives all points of order.
  I object to using veterans spending to grease the skids for a pork-
laden Labor-HHS spending bill. A cursory look through the more than 150 
pages of earmarks in the conference report reveals such earmarks as 
$320,000 for the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri; 
$130,000 for the First Ladies Museum in Canton, Ohio; $85,000 for the 
Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum in Los Angeles, California.
  But beyond taking exception to the bill, I raise this point of order 
as the only means available to highlight the alarming trend toward 
opaqueness rather than transparency. Rather than allow for a full 
debate on whether this conference report complies with the earmark 
rule, this rule actually prevents it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a little experience challenging earmarks on the 
floor. It's not been a pleasant experience at times. We don't know much 
of what are in these bills that get to the conference. And then when 
you have a conference report that comes with earmarks air-dropped into 
it after that, and you only get that bill just a few hours before you 
vote on it, then I think it behooves us to slow down a bit and say what 
are we doing here.
  I should note that when I challenged earmarks in the House version of 
the bill, on one occasion we had an earmark withdrawn before the 
earmark amendment could be offered because there was a problem with the 
earmark.

                              {time}  1900

  In other cases we had the Committee on Appropriations go to the Rules 
Committee and actually withdraw some of the amendments before they 
could be challenged. So it is obvious that these earmarks have not been 
vetted through the process very well, and those are the earmarks that 
actually went through the House process.
  We have here at least 9, 9 that are identified, 9 earmarks that were 
air-dropped that were not either part of the House or the Senate 
version. Mr. Speaker, this just is not a good practice.
  One example of the air-dropped earmarks that we just found out about 
just hours ago, $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public 
Service and Representative Democracy. Now, if we are air-dropping 
amendments like that into this bill, what else is in the bill? We 
really haven't had time to go through it. Outside groups are trying to 
go through this bill and simply haven't had the time. And you are going 
to have problems; we are going to be learning for weeks or months 
what's in this bill unless we slow down a bit here.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.

[[Page 29839]]

  I would have the gentleman know that the earmarks that he refers to 
are clearly delineated in this conference report.
  This point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and 
ultimately the funding of vital education, health, and veterans 
programs. In fact, I would say that it is simply an effort to try to 
kill this conference report and, in my view, on a faulty premise at 
that.
  Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly 
disclosed in conformance with House rules. This parliamentary ruse 
won't work because these programs are too important to the health and 
vitality of the Nation.
  With this conference we keep our commitment to our veterans with the 
largest single increase in the 77-year history of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. It also invests in critical domestic priorities in 
the Labor, Health, and Education bill with major investments in K-12 
education, college affordability, increasing access to quality health 
care, medical research, worker protection, and job training programs. 
Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent 
consideration of this package, which has strong House and Senate 
bipartisan support.
  Furthermore, the parliamentary maneuver that my good friend chooses 
to use today to stop this legislation is completely transparent. Just 
so that we keep the record straight, Madam Speaker, the changes 
proposed in the Boehner discharge petition that our Republican 
counterparts seem so eager to have adopted would not cover any measure 
not now covered by our earmark rule, clause 9 of rule XXI. As a matter 
of fact, Mr. Boehner's resolution does not even include the projects 
that are covered by House Resolution 491, which was introduced by our 
majority leader, Representative Hoyer, and is now in effect.
  So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop 
this bill, we will stand up for America's hardworking families and 
America's veterans. We must consider this rule and we must pass this 
conference report today.
  Madam Speaker, I have the right to close, but in the end I am just 
going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I think it begs the question, if there was 
total transparency here, why did we waive all points of order against 
this rule? I would have liked to have challenged the conference report 
itself, but I couldn't because the Rules Committee had decided to waive 
all points of order. Now, you have to ask why. If everything is 
transparent and everything is known, why did we waive all points of 
order? Why am I forced to bring a point of order against the rule 
itself rather than the conference report?
  And I would submit that I would like to believe that it is a 
transparency, but when you have air-dropped earmarks dropped at the 
last minute, again, if we are working so hard for America's hardworking 
taxpayers, as was just said, then why are we air-dropping an earmark 
for $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service? Naming 
a center after a former Member, why is that so urgent that we have to 
break all the rules that we have laid out and sneak it into a bill at 
the last minute, with less than 24 hours, in fact, less than 12 hours 
to actually review it? That's not proper vetting.
  I should mention that there have been statements made by the 
majority, and I have liked what I have heard about what we are going to 
do this year in terms of earmarks transparency.
  The Speaker of the House said back in June that Members need to have 
time to read through these reports and that every earmark should have 
to be defended.
  These nine air-dropped earmarks into this bill today don't have to be 
defended. They are untouchable. We can't even go at them. We can't 
offer an amendment to strike them out because they are air-dropped into 
a conference report where you have no ability to strike them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's 
yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing up a point of order 
against the rule. And to take away that opportunity to raise a point of 
order against the conference report, Madam Speaker, where there are 
air-dropped earmarks, in this case I think the gentleman said nine, I 
still remember the calls from the Democratic leadership, led, of 
course, by Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, when the Democrats won 
control of the House by virtue of the elections almost exactly a year 
ago, that this would be the most open, honest, and transparent Congress 
in history.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to give you a quote from Speaker Pelosi 
promising fiscal restraint if Democrats win. And here's the quote:
  ``Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against 
earmarking billions of dollars for home-State projects, a practice she 
calls a `monster' that hurts Congress.'' And here is what she said: 
```I'd get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, 
the cynicism the public has . . . and the fiscal irresponsibility of 
it.''' And that was in the Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2006.
  Another quote from Madam Speaker Pelosi: ``We will bring transparency 
and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks and will 
give the American people the leadership they deserve,'' Nancy Pelosi, 
press release, December 12, 2006.
  Madam Speaker, this is absurd. And, again, I commend the gentleman 
from Arizona for calling attention to this. Where is the openness? 
Where is the transparency? What good do we have in regard to a point of 
order so that we can look at these conference reports? Where are the 2 
days that we are supposed to have to look at them? So it is taken away 
from us. What good does it do if the Rules Committee waives all points 
of order?
  So I commend the gentleman. He's absolutely right. We need to have 
some true transparency in this body.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, the spirit and the letter of 
the law has been complied with in this matter. I will just reference 
one aspect of compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI and with the rules 
in the Senate. This is what it says:
  ``The following list is also submitted in compliance with House 
Resolution 491, which requires a listing of congressional earmarks in 
the conference report or joint statement of managers that were not 
committed to the committee of conference by either house, not in a 
report on a bill committed to conference, and not in a Senate committee 
report on a companion measure. Such earmarks are marked with an `X' in 
the list below.''
  If that ain't transparency, I don't know what is. All of them have 
the ``X'' mark, the asterisk, and are clearly following the spirit of 
the law.
  When the Republicans were in charge, they had 14,000 earmarks, and 
nobody knew where they were, where they came from, when they came. And 
now we have them in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I am not here to defend the Republican 
record on earmarks. It's abysmal, frankly. I think that's one of the 
main reasons we are here squarely in the minority today.
  But I took great heart, as did many of us, at the promises that were 
made with the new Congress, that we would have real transparency, real 
accountability. And, unfortunately, what we are seeing today is a move 
away from that.
  Let me read a statement that I mentioned. In June of this year, the 
Speaker of the House, in a press conference, said, ``Before Members 
vote on a bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be 
able to read it, that it should be a matter of public record. And if 
there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency 
will give the opportunity for it to be there.''
  When you have 9, at least, that we have been able to find, and when 
the

[[Page 29840]]

gentleman says that they are all marked with an asterisk, how do we 
know? We have 150 pages of earmarks that we were given just this 
morning. We only got the hard copy of this this morning. We simply 
don't know. So it behooves us to move a little slower here.
  If we really believe in transparency, if we really believe that these 
earmarks need to be there, then let's have a rule that actually allows 
for a point of order to be lodged against the conference report, not 
just against the rule.
  Again, I have to say if there was complete transparency here and we 
didn't have anything to worry about, I think we would have had a rule 
that did not waive points of order against the bill. And that's why we 
are here today.
  We need to do far better. This is a wonderful institution. There are 
wonderful people here. It has a great history. We need to do better by 
it. And I would submit that this legislation before us today with 150 
pages of earmarks and 9 air-dropped earmarks at the last minute does 
not do this institution the good that it deserves.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The question is, Will the 
House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the question 
of consideration will be followed by 5-minute votes on the motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 1429 and the motion to suspend the rules and 
agree to House Resolution 379.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203, 
nays 178, not voting 51, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1044]

                               YEAS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--51

     Arcuri
     Baird
     Blunt
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Ellison
     Ferguson
     Fossella
     Gordon
     Hare
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     LaHood
     Markey
     Matsui
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Michaud
     Oberstar
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Poe
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Slaughter
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Westmoreland
     Yarmuth


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1934

  Messrs. TERRY, PEARCE, REICHERT, MACK, and Mrs. BACHMANN changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on November 6, 2007, I inadvertently 
failed to vote on rollcall No. 1044. Had I voted, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1044, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________