[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[House]
[Pages 34136-34139]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 869, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) making further continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 69

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public 
     Law 110-92 is further amended by striking the date specified 
     in section 106(3) and inserting ``December 21, 2007''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 869, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.J. Res. 69.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is now 1:30 in the afternoon, very late into December and we have 
to decide how soon we want to get out of town so that we don't have to 
look at each other for the remainder of the year.
  This vehicle is necessary to simply keep the government open while 
we're making the final decisions on all remaining appropriations for 
the fiscal year.
  There have been numerous meetings going on this week all over Capitol 
Hill, and there have obviously been many communications going on 
between the Hill and other locuses of influence and power in the city. 
And I would hope that those would bear fruition sometime soon.

[[Page 34137]]

  Meanwhile, if we want to keep the government open, we have no choice 
but to pass this continuing resolution. It simply extends, it keeps the 
government open for another week, to December 21, 2007. I think it's 
self-explanatory.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the last time that Chairman 
Obey and I were on the floor together, I was heard to quote our friend, 
Will Rogers, and it had to do about sometimes we talk more than we 
should. I was intrigued by the fact that while he advised us to never 
miss the opportunity to shut up, that recently in Latin America there's 
discussion among Latin leaders in which a fellow by the name of Chavez 
kept talking and talking and talking, and this is by way of suggesting 
that we don't really have to keep talking today. I think it was the 
King of Spain, David, who said, ``Por que no te calles?'' If I could 
repeat that, ``Por que no te calles?'' That is, if we don't talk too 
much, we'll be all right here today.
  Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to believe that Christmas is less 
than 2 weeks away and that David Obey provides me with material for my 
own presentation one more time.
  While most Americans are Christmas shopping and decorating their 
Christmas tree, Congress continues to stumble its way to completing its 
business for the year. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go, 
so we find ourselves today considering yet another continuing 
resolution.
  It was just 1 year ago the House passed a series of continuing 
resolutions to ensure the continuation of government funding programs 
into the new fiscal year. My friend Chairman David Obey came to the 
House floor as the ranking member during that debate to criticize 
Republicans in the House and Senate for their failure to pass the 
annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the 
breakdown in the budget process and vowed that things would be 
different under a Democratic majority.
  We are now only, I say, 74 days in the new fiscal year, and once 
again the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is on the 
floor decrying the breakdown of regular order. The only difference is 
that David Obey is now Chairman Obey, and I'm the committee's ranking 
member.
  The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is 
largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely 
manner. Earlier this year, my chairman was absolutely beating us all 
over the room because of our failure to pass bills at the end of the 
year.
  The Senate leader held up our bills. Mr. Obey knew that we'd passed 
all of our bills in the House by July 4. The year before we'd done the 
same thing, and all the bills had been signed by the President. And lo 
and behold, Mr. Obey finds himself. Frankly David, I thought you had 
much closer relationships with the Senate than I, but here we are. The 
breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to 
blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely fashion.
  The President has been very clear all year long that he would veto 
any spending bill or any omnibus package that exceeded his budget 
request. All told, the House-passed spending bills exceeded the 
President's budget request by $23 billion, and yet the Democrat 
majority chose to dismiss or ignore the President's clear intent, that 
is, until now.
  A short time ago, Chairman Obey instructed the committee staff to 
prepare an omnibus spending bill and pare spending back to exceed the 
President's request by $11 billion. Not included in this total, there 
was over $7 billion being designated as emergency spending.
  Just in the last several days, maybe even hours, the Democratic 
leadership finally got the message. They came to the realization that 
the President was, indeed, serious. So it all appears that, after 
months of work by our exhausted committee staff, work can finally begin 
on a spending package that the President may be able to sign. I say may 
be able to sign because the President has not yet seen the details of 
the omnibus package that will come forward.
  For good measure, let me make very clear the President will veto any 
omnibus spending package that contains any controversial policy 
provisions, any gimmicks or any consequential budgetary sleight of 
hand.
  I urge Chairman Obey to resist the urge on his part to add any so-
called contingency spending anywhere in this package, as it may lead to 
a presidential veto.
  I'd like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past CR 
debate. He said, and I quote, ``We are here today with not a single 
dollar having been appropriated to any government program that has 
anything whatsoever to do with the domestic operations of this 
government. That is a disgraceful performance. And so we are left with 
the choice of passing this continuing resolution or having the 
government shut down.''
  Again, my friends, these are the words of Chairman David Obey from 
last year, then Ranking Member Obey. They are particularly meaningful 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I had thought that perhaps once this session we could 
simply do our jobs straightaway without having the usual, trite 
partisan slogans uttered again and again. I'd hoped that we wouldn't 
continue to chew the same cud over and over again. But evidently we 
can't. So I will simply take a couple of minutes to respond to the 
gentleman's comments.
  For me to take lectures from the minority party on fiscal management 
or the management of appropriations would be akin to Willie Sutton 
lecturing the House on bank security. It wouldn't be taken very 
seriously.
  But let me, nonetheless, since the gentleman has chosen to engage in 
yet another round of carping, let me simply point out that the 
gentleman is now making a fuss, once again, because we have not passed 
appropriation bills singly and now face the prospect of an omnibus 
appropriation bill with all domestic appropriations tossed into one 
budget document. If that, in fact, occurs, what it will mean is that 
the President sent us one budget document and we sent him one back. 
That's hardly a Federal offense, the last time that I checked.
  Secondly, I would simply point out that this Congress has passed and 
sent to the President appropriation bills totaling about 75 percent of 
all of the discretionary spending in the budget. The reason that none 
of the domestic bills have been finalized is because the President 
chose to veto the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill. So we 
are now engaged in the only action left open to us, which is to reach a 
negotiated agreement between the Senate and the House and between the 
Congress and the President. We are trying to achieve the required 
negotiated result between the two branches of government and between 
the two branches of the legislative portion of the government.
  Let me simply say that there will be, at the end of this year, there 
will be one critical difference between this Congress and the previous 
Congress controlled by our friends on the other side. In the previous 
Congress, they were able to pass not a single domestic appropriation 
bill through the Congress. They had passed them through the House, just 
as we passed all of our appropriation bills through the House. In fact, 
they didn't pass all of their appropriations bills through the House. 
They didn't get the Labor-H bill passed last year, which was the major 
domestic appropriation because they did not see fit to provide a 
minimum wage increase for workers, and so they preferred to bury the 
bill rather than have a bill pass which carried a minimum wage increase 
for America's workers.
  But the critical difference between them and us is that when we took 
over this Congress in January, we had to first clean up their mess. We 
had to spend the first six weeks passing appropriation bills to make up 
for the fact

[[Page 34138]]

that they had not passed a single domestic appropriation bill. And so, 
as a consequence, we will have one critical difference when our work is 
done, hopefully at the end of next week. We will have passed all of the 
appropriation bills necessary to keep the government running for a full 
fiscal year. We may not have done it in single fashion, as they would 
prefer, but the fact is that, whether they like the packaging, we will 
have done our jobs, and I would submit we will have done our jobs on a 
bipartisan basis.
  There were, on average, 60 Republicans who helped us every step of 
the way in trying to pass these appropriation bills. I think that 
demonstrates that we had bipartisan legislation before us in virtually 
all instances on those appropriation bills, and that was reflected in 
the fact that, on average, we had over 60 Republicans supporting each 
of those bills.
  We could not get the bills through the Senate, but they will, in the 
end, be passed, and that, in the end, will be a critical difference 
between the result of the record produced by our friends on the other 
side last year and one that will be produced, I would hope, on a 
bipartisan basis this year under different management.
  So with that, if the gentleman has any further comments, I'll 
withhold. If he has any further speakers, I'll withhold. If he doesn't, 
I'm prepared to yield back.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any other 
speakers, but I did want to apologize to my colleague and take just a 
moment to do that. If, indeed, I have lectured the gentleman, I 
certainly would want to apologize to the House for that, for the House 
knows he's never lectured us or anybody else. Now I'm not certain what 
may have gone on in his own caucus, but certainly he doesn't lecture 
us.
  And if my quoting his own words takes the term ``carping,'' I guess 
it's difficult not to quote him exactly, and if that's carping, so be 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply take a moment to indicate where I think we 
are on the appropriation matters. I think we have a reasonable prospect 
of finishing our work for the year come the middle of next week. I had 
originally been predicting that we would be out of here on the 22nd of 
December and reconvene after the 27th. I'm now slightly more optimistic 
than I was initially. And I think that, while none of us may be 
particularly enamored of the final result, I think that we are getting 
closer to having a result which can be supported by many people on both 
sides of the aisle, at least in the House itself.

                              {time}  1345

  I cannot speak for what the Senate will produce, but I would hope 
that Members would familiarize themselves. As soon as we have the final 
product available, we will try to make that product available to 
Members so that they have an opportunity to review it before we 
actually vote on it next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 869, the joint 
resolution is considered read for amendment and the previous question 
is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am, in its present form.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. LEWIS of California moves to recommit the joint 
     resolution H.J. Res. 69 to the Committee on Appropriations 
     with instructions to report the same back to the House 
     promptly with the following amendment:
       At the end of the joint resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Public Law 110-92 is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 151. Appropriations, funds, and other authority made 
     available by this joint resolution that are related to the 
     provisions of title IX of the Act referred to in section 101 
     (1)--
  ``(1) shall be available, notwithstanding section 106, until 
enactment of a supplemental ap2ropriations Act for fiscal year 2008 
that provides supplemental appropriations for one or more of the 
appropriation accounts included in such title IX; and
       ``(2) are designated as being for overseas deployments and 
     related activities pursuant to subsections (c)(2)(E) and 
     (d)(1)(E) of section 207 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2008.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist on 
his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have had virtually no time to understand 
what the content of this resolution is; but as I read it, I would make 
a point of order against the amendment on germaneness grounds because 
the resolution adheres to a December 21 delimiting date, whereas the 
instructions in the proposed amendment refers to matters outside of the 
time period in question, and I will, therefore, suggest that the motion 
is not in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will just speak on the point 
of order.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I was about to present is 
quite simple. The motion will ensure that we continue to provide 
funding for our troops in harm's way until Congress takes the necessary 
action to pass a bridge fund or a full-year war supplemental.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman speaking on the point of 
order or on the motion to recommit? The question is whether the point 
of order is well taken. If the gentleman doesn't wish to speak on the 
point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit 
exceeds the temporal ambit of the joint resolution beyond the 
delimiting date in section 106 of Public Law 110-92. Accordingly, the 
point of order is sustained, and the motion to recommit is ruled out of 
order.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                  Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
the motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of 
the joint resolution, if arising without further debate or proceedings 
in recommittal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 194, not voting 15, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1161]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke

[[Page 34139]]


     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Carson
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Heller
     Hooley
     Jindal
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Regula
     Rush
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  1411

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Georgia and UDALL of Colorado changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 1161, I was in the Chamber and 
trying to cast my vote as the rollcall was closed. Had I been permitted 
to enter my vote, I would have been recorded as ``nay.''

                          ____________________