[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 26]
[House]
[Pages 35586-35596]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 35587]]

     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, 
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.

[[Page 35588]]

       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.
  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

[[Page 35589]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 35590]]

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 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

[[Page 35591]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 35592]]

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 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.

                              {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

[[Page 35593]]

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 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

[[Page 35594]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 35595]]

     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.''
       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.


[[Page 35596]]

  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.

                          ____________________