[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 27]
[HOUS]
[Pages 36213-36216]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 
    SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2764, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN 
OPERATIONS AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 (CONSOLIDATED 
   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008) AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 72, 
          FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2008.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 893 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 893

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the 
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to 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. 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.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 72) making further continuing appropriations for the 
     fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions of the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 72 
     or the motion to concur pursuant to this resolution, 
     notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the 
     Chair may postpone further consideration of either measure to 
     such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
       Sec. 4. House Resolution 849 is laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 893.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 893 provides for consideration 
of two measures, an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill to 
provide funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a continuing 
resolution. Each measure is debatable for 1 hour.
  The continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government open 
and running while the omnibus bill is processed and sent to the White 
House for the President's signature.
  Madam Speaker, while I have no problem with the rule that is before 
us, I cannot support the underlying funding for Iraq. The tens of 
billions in new money for the war in Iraq has no timetables for 
withdrawal, no limitations, no requirements that the Iraqi Government 
make progress towards reconciliation, no benchmarks, no conditionality, 
nothing. Madam Speaker, this is a blank check.
  The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an 
endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war. It is stunning that 
so many have gone along for so long asking no questions, giving this 
President everything he wants.
  After years of Bush ineptitude, how dare this Congress provide 
another blank check for this administration. No weapons of mass 
destruction, a constantly changing rationale for our occupation, 
benchmarks for the Iraqi Government that never get met, no democracy, 
no respect for human rights, no reconciliation, a government plagued 
with corruption, and no end in sight. All this, Madam Speaker, and some 
of my colleagues still say, ``stay the course.''
  Our brave men and women in uniform have done their job. So many have 
sacrificed, and far too many have made the ultimate sacrifice. They 
have been successful in some areas of Iraq in quelling some of the 
violence, essentially providing the chance, the window of opportunity 
for the Iraqi Government to move ahead with efforts for reconciliation.

                              {time}  1215

  The response of the Iraqi Government has been to do nothing. No 
reconciliation.
  Isn't our responsibility, as Members of Congress, to raise questions? 
Shouldn't we put pressure on the Iraqi Government to do more? And 
shouldn't we put pressure on our own government to not be such a cheap 
date? Don't we owe our soldiers whom we put in harm's way better than 
acquiescence to a Commander in Chief who is incapable of ever admitting 
error?
  Madam Speaker, there is no military victory to be had in Iraq. To the 
extent that this awful situation becomes less awful depends on 
political progress, something the Maliki government doesn't want to do, 
and something our own leaders seem willing to keep putting off.
  I want more, Madam Speaker, I expect more, for the sacrifice our 
troops have made. Quite frankly, the status quo is not worth one more 
American dollar or one more drop of American blood. I am sick to my 
stomach when I think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we 
have already spent in Iraq while we nickel and dime our own people at 
home. None of this war is paid for. It is all borrowed money. It's all 
on the backs of our kids. It's all debt that is being bought up every 
day by China.
  Madam Speaker, I long for the day when we have a President who will 
threaten a veto on a bill that fails to provide all our people with 
health care, or that fails to adequately fund education for our 
children. Instead, we have a White House that engages in blackmail 
tactics: Give me what I want on Iraq, with no strings attached, or I'll 
shut the government down.
  Those who defend the status quo say that we need to give the 
President whatever he wants so we can assure ``victory.'' ``Victory'' 
at the beginning of this war was ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of 
mass destruction. When we found that there were none, the definition of 
``victory'' changed. In fact, over the last 5 years, the definition of 
``victory'' has changed several times.
  For me, the closest thing to victory is ending this war, getting an 
Iraqi Government that puts national reconciliation above its own self-
interest and getting our troops out of that country and home to their 
families where they belong. I believe the surest way to get that type 
of victory is setting a firm timetable for the U.S. occupation of Iraq 
to end. It will change the dynamic, and it will force the Iraqi 
Government to embrace, rather than avoid, reconciliation.
  In fact, in today's Washington Post, the U.S. military has found that 
the strongest point of agreement among all Iraqis across all sectarian 
and ethnic groups is the belief that the U.S. military invasion of 
their country is the

[[Page 36214]]

primary root of the violent differences among them and that the 
departure of ``occupying forces,'' their words, is the key to national 
reconciliation.
  Madam Speaker, the Iraqi people themselves firmly believe that 
reconciliation will not happen until we leave. If the Iraqi people want 
us to leave, and a majority of the Iraqi Government want us to leave, 
and a majority of the American people want us to leave, then why on 
Earth are we staying?
  Let me also state, Madam Speaker, what ``victory'' is not. It is not 
allowing this President to kick the ball down the field and dump this 
war on the next President of the United States. That is called 
``passing the buck,'' and that is what we will be doing if we approve 
this new Iraq money.
  One final observation. The war in Iraq has not only cost us dearly in 
terms of human life and treasure, it has also cost us in terms of our 
standing in the world. We have lost the support and the respect of so 
many who have looked to us as a force for what is good, decent and 
positive in world affairs. I warn my colleagues that our lost prestige 
and standing is also a threat to our national security. Madam Speaker, 
I want my country back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, first I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are here 80 days into the new fiscal year, and one appropriations 
bill has been signed into law. Today, we are here to consider hopefully 
the last piece of the appropriations puzzle, as well as yet another 
continuing resolution before the omnibus appropriations bill is sent to 
the President.
  What is so interesting about this process is that the omnibus bill 
that has finally come before the House in many ways is very similar to 
the proposals that the minority has advocated for months, and is very 
similar to what we predicted would, in fact, be the legislation that 
ultimately would become law. However, Madam Speaker, instead of working 
toward a compromise, a bipartisan resolution to this legislation, a 
bipartisan product, the majority decided to use the appropriations 
process to, in effect, score political points while funding for our 
troops in critical theaters of operation has been dangerously delayed.
  Now, the underlying amendment we will consider today will finally 
help bring our appropriations process to a close, and it will do so in 
a fiscally responsible manner, funding the Federal Government and 
funding our troops in critical theaters of operation without 
preconditions and without strings. These funds will allow for the 
progress that we have recently seen to continue to take hold. It will 
allow for our men and women in uniform to continue to do their job as 
they have done so, so effectively, in fact, so heroically for so long.
  I think commendation is due. I think congratulations is due to all 
who have worked on this process, and that congratulations I think is 
due to those on both sides of the aisle who have worked hard, have 
worked diligently, to come up with this final appropriations 
legislation work product that will fund the Federal Government for the 
next fiscal year, and especially, as I have said, will continue to fund 
in critical theaters of operation our men and women who are doing such 
an extraordinary job and who deserve our unrestricted support.
  There are very important, very important endeavors, efforts and 
projects that are funded in this appropriations bill, in this omnibus 
appropriations bill. We cannot, I believe, emphasize sufficiently, 
especially at this critical time, our support and the continued need of 
our support for our great ally and friend, Israel, that lives in an 
area of the world that is extremely dangerous. And while we have the 
benefit of thousands of miles between, for example, the state sponsor 
of terrorism in Iran, the regime in Iran, Madam Speaker, while we have 
thousands of miles physically separating us from that state sponsor of 
terrorism, our friend and ally, Israel, does not. And so I have always 
felt very strongly about our need to support Israel. The fact that this 
appropriations legislation includes the support that it does for our 
friend and ally, Israel, is something that I think is very important. 
And there are many, many aspects of this legislation that we, on a 
bipartisan basis, can be very proud of. And we, I think, will have 
further opportunity to discuss them.
  But today, I am told that there are some glitches that need to be 
worked out, and that the majority needs some time and the appropriators 
need some time on both sides of the aisle to work them out. So we will 
be hopefully seeing those glitches being resolved in the next minutes 
and hours.
  As we wait for those glitches to be resolved, we are cognizant of the 
fact that we are finally bringing to the floor the rule that will allow 
for consideration of the final legislative product on the 
appropriations for this year.
  With that in mind, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if I can inquire if the gentleman from 
Florida has additional speakers.
  I will reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like, at this time, Madam 
Speaker, to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee, my friend, Mr. Sessions of Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend, 
for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, we are here right now for the purpose of providing for 
the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the 
Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2764. That is what we are here for. 
I will repeat that. We are here for providing for the consideration of 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment. It 
is rather confusing, not just to Members of Congress. It is confusing, 
I think, to the American people, also.
  Madam Speaker, today, I would like to just read from the Calendar, 
Wednesday, December 19 on the back page, ``Status of Major Bills, First 
Session.'' Here is essentially what it says.
  It says that Homeland Security appropriations was completed on June 8 
in the House and July 26 in the Senate. Never sent to conference.
  Energy and Water appropriations, July 17. Never completed by the 
Senate.
  Military Construction and VA, June 15 in the House, September 6 in 
the Senate.
  The new fiscal year has already started. This new Democrat majority 
has been sitting on these bills, including the VA, since September 6. 
And yet they are coming to the floor today just a week before Christmas 
terribly upset, terribly upset, and yet it says here, let me see if I 
got this right, sent to conference, these are all blanks. They didn't 
go to conference. The Speaker of the House and the Senate majority 
leader never had a conference. They didn't get together to try and work 
out the differences that they had. What they did is they let Members 
sit day after day after day.
  Just 1 year and 75 days ago, when Republicans had completed all but 
one of these bills, we were called irresponsible and we couldn't do the 
people's business. And yet here we are, 1 year later plus 75 days, and 
only one of the bills has made it to the President. I could keep going. 
Financial Services and General Government; Labor, Health, Human 
Services and Education.
  My gosh, what is happening?

                              {time}  1230

  What is happening to this House of Representatives and the United 
States Congress? What is happening is that I believe we had what I 
would consider to be false hopes and promises that were established in 
the first place about all these problems that were going to go away. 
Just give our good friends, the Democrats, that ability to hold the 
House and Senate, and they will do it. But, Madam Speaker, they didn't 
even get the work done between themselves, forget blaming things on the 
President of the United States or Republicans. They couldn't even 
appoint their own conferees. They couldn't even do their own work.

[[Page 36215]]

  Today, we sit here and listen to all the things that are still wrong 
and about how Republicans have stood in the way and been 
obstructionists. That is not the facts of the case. The facts of the 
case are all these bills that I have talked about were never even sent 
to a conference, and today, the reason why we are still talking is 
because allegedly there is a glitch, a glitch, because the negotiations 
between the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate 
couldn't get it right. Well, if you do things in the dark, if you do 
things where nobody else is involved, that is what you get. I am told 
it's a $70 billion mistake.
  I just don't understand why business is done this way, when 1 year 
ago we had all but one bill done before the election. All but one. If 
you systematically go through a process and work through the bills in 
the light of day, where the information is posted on the Web site, 
where you give people time to read the bill, I think a better result 
happens.
  I think it's deceptive. I think it's deceptive to say that this House 
would be the most honest, open, and ethical Congress in the history, 
when there was no attempt from the very beginning to even live up to 
that.
  So here we are, just a few days before Christmas, still burning time, 
trying to burn time, because we know that the negotiators have to fix 
the problems, and that is a real problem to this House, and I think it 
is to the American people.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to take just a few minutes to say this. 
The Republican Party congratulates our colleagues and all of us today 
for presumably ending what we are doing, and I am pleased to say that 
it was a victory for the taxpayers because we are not going to increase 
taxes, as our good friends the Democrats wanted to do and have bemoaned 
all week long about not getting that massive tax increase.
  We are going to go and make sure in SCHIP that we don't take 2 
million children from their own private insurance to a government-run 
program that is still overburdened. We are going to make sure that we 
don't do, I think, bad things in dealing with our ability to find 
terrorists with the FISA bill.
  So it's a great victory today for the taxpayer, for the people who 
want to protect this country, because what has prevailed is what we 
said should happen, and that is that the Republican minority kept after 
this process to make sure that the taxpayers don't lose on this last 
day before we leave before Christmas, and we are going to stay after 
that because we believe we are doing the right thing.
  I am proud of what we will accomplish here today if we can find this 
$70 billion mistake that has happened and we can close the books on the 
year and know we went home with no further damage.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas by saying he 
is entitled to his own opinions, but he is not entitled to make up the 
facts. The facts are that the difference between this Congress under 
the Democratic majority and under the previous Congress under the 
Republican majority is they left Washington before their work was done. 
They kicked all their work onto the Democratic Congress that was 
elected last November. They didn't do their job. If the Congress could 
be sued for malpractice, they would have been sued for malpractice.
  The bills that we are dealing with today the House of Representatives 
passed in a timely manner, all of the appropriations bills, as we were 
supposed to do. We did it, and they were good bills, and I commend 
Chairman Obey for his work on those bills. We did that in spite of all 
the obstructionism and resistance from the Republicans in this House.
  Unfortunately, because of the Senate rules, an individual Member, and 
in the case of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, was successful 
in slowing down the process and preventing conference committees from 
meeting and preventing the Senate from considering certain bills. Now 
they can be proud of that. That is just obstructionism. That is not 
doing the people's business. But the bottom line is that we are here 
today dealing with an omnibus appropriations bill to get the people's 
business done; not to kick the ball down the field and dump it on next 
year's Congress. It is to do it now.
  One other thing, Madam Speaker, and that is one of the major 
differences with the new Democratic majority is that we have helped 
undo some of the damage that the Republicans have done to domestic 
spending over the years. Because of the Democratic majority and our 
ability to reorder priority, education is better off today than it 
would be if the Republicans were in control. Medical research, there is 
more money for medical research to find lifesaving drugs and to find 
cures to disease because the Democrats made that a priority, over the 
Republican objections. Our veterans are getting a better deal today. 
Under the Democratic majority, there is the largest single-year 
increase in veterans health in the history of the Veterans 
Administration. Those are the things that we have done.
  Today, we are considering a Senate addition to what we did in the 
House, which I have an objection to, and that is the funding for the 
war in Iraq. The Republicans, while they were in control, gave the 
President a blank check; no accountability, no questions asked, 
nothing. And here we are, the fifth year into this war, with no end in 
sight, and there are some of us who believe the time has come to call 
the President to account, to start the process of bringing our troops 
home so they can be reunited with their families.
  So there's a huge difference between the Democrats and the 
Republicans.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the omnibus 
appropriations bill. Finally, some good news from Washington. I am very 
pleased that the House has scheduled to vote on the disaster assistance 
package to provide relief to our farmers suffering from a record 
drought and record heat in the Southeast. My farmers are hurting. This 
omnibus appropriations bill will provide some $600 million for disaster 
assistance.
  My congressional district in North Carolina has been affected by what 
is called ``exceptional drought.'' That is the most serious category 
that you can have. This aid will bring real relief to our rural 
communities. I have been proud to lead the charge on 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 
drought relief.
  I have been very pleased to be able to work with Speaker Pelosi, 
Majority Leader Hoyer, Majority Whip Clyburn, Ag Chair Peterson, and 
Appropriations Chairman Obey to get this done. I want to thank them for 
their critical help. This is important to rural America. I also want to 
thank the Governor of North Carolina, Mike Easley, for his leadership.
  Madam Speaker, I grew up in Johnston County and lived in farm country 
all my life. As a senior member of the House Ag Committee, I am also 
pleased that we have finally gotten this football to the end zone. This 
disaster assistance and the other things in this bill are a major 
achievement, and it's an important step forward, especially for 
America's farmers and the consumers of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I oppose this rule that will allow this omnibus to be brought to the 
floor. We had some discussion yesterday, and it should continue today, 
about the over 9,000 earmarks that are in this bill. It was mentioned 
by the majority leader yesterday, or the day before. He said, ``Having 
said that,'' in justification for bringing this bill forward, when it 
was pointed out that many of these earmarks had been brought to the 
floor

[[Page 36216]]

for the first time with this bill, he said, ``this bill incorporates 
all of the bills that passed this House. This is not as if these are 
items of first impression. These are bills that we considered in this 
House and passed with essentially overwhelming bipartisan votes.''
  That is only partly true. Yes, these bills, many of them were brought 
to the House before. A few of them left the House earmark-free. One of 
them, the Department of Homeland Security bill, we were told we can let 
this one go and not have the earmarks added because it isn't 
traditionally earmarked. Guess what? There are more than 100 earmarks 
that have now been air-dropped into that bill. We are sitting today 
with hundreds, literally hundreds of earmarks that have been air-
dropped into the bill that we have never seen before yesterday. Never 
seen before yesterday, or Monday, I should say. That is simply wrong.
  Let me give you just a couple of examples. There was $1.6 million for 
the City of Bastrop, Louisiana. According to the Bastrop Daily 
Enterprise, ``The money is officially earmarked for the purchase of 
bulletproof vests and body armor. Bulletproof vests only cost about 
$700 to $800, however, so $1.6 million would appear to be overkill.'' 
Police Chief Curtis Stephenson agrees, conceding, ``There's no way we 
need that kind of money just to put all our people in vests.'' Again, 
this was an earmark for bulletproof vests for the police officers in 
this city, and the city comes back and says, We don't have that many 
police officers.
  We are told that these earmarks are vetted. How are they vetted? The 
answer is they are really not. They are not vetted by that party; they 
aren't vetted by this party. It's more of a game of ``Can you catch me 
with my hand in the cookie jar or not?''
  Earlier this year, when I was challenging a couple of earmarks on the 
floor, one Member who had one of the earmarks I was going to challenge 
beat me to the floor to withdraw his own earmark because he didn't want 
the scrutiny that would come if that earmark were publicly debated. 
Later that same week, the Appropriations Committee, when they found out 
certain other earmarks might be challenged on the floor, called the 
Rules Committee and struck some other earmarks that were to be debated 
on the House floor because they couldn't withstand the scrutiny. That 
isn't vetting. That is hoping that your hand isn't caught in the cookie 
jar.
  Now we have this bill today with over 9,000 of these earmarks. Now, 
the majority will say, Hey, that is a 17 percent reduction in the 
number of earmarks in our worst year. Put another way, that's like 
saying, You know, last year I smoked five packs a day and I am down to 
three this year. I darn-well quit. That is hardly something to pat 
ourselves on the back about.
  Put another way, we have just 17 percent fewer earmarks than the 
worst year in congressional history for earmarking. Please don't use 
this side of the aisle as a bar with which to judge yourselves. That is 
a bar that a snake could crawl over. We didn't handle ourselves well in 
the majority with regard to earmarks. That is one of the big reasons we 
find ourselves in the minority today. But when the new majority came 
into power in January of this year, we were told that we would have 
transparency, that we would have names next to earmarks, that there 
would be time to actually discuss these earmarks and debate them, that 
if there were earmarks air-dropped into a bill, there would be an 
opportunity to strike all earmarks, at least one vote.
  We don't have that today because this isn't a conference report. You 
simply have to change the name of the bill that is coming to the floor 
and you obviate your obligation to live by your own rules. That is 
simply not right. It's nothing that we should be proud of.
  I mentioned earlier on the floor today that an astute Member of 
Congress told me yesterday one of the toughest parts of being a Member 
of Congress is to remember what we should be outraged about. I would 
submit that this is something that we should be outraged about, but we 
are not. We blithely pass it as if this is standard business. It 
shouldn't be. It shouldn't have been for us when we were in the 
majority, and it shouldn't be for the new majority.
  It was in a press report yesterday that some Members were upset, I 
think justifiably, that there seemed to be just a few Members getting 
all the earmarks. They mentioned in the press article that a lot of the 
earmarks are going to the vulnerable Members instead of to the 
established Members in their district.
  I would say that that is something I think outside of the Beltway 
people say that is just wrong, for money to go to Members just to be 
re-elected. But here, unfortunately, we see that and say, Hey, that is 
one of the noblest purposes we have seen for earmarks. Usually they're 
tied to campaign contributions or something else.
  We need a moratorium on earmarks. We should pass a CR rather than 
this omnibus and go into next year without these 9,000 earmarks.

                          ____________________