Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 869, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 69) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 69.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is now 1:30 in the afternoon, very late into December and we have to decide how soon we want to get out of town so that we don't have to look at each other for the remainder of the year.

This vehicle is necessary to simply keep the government open while we're making the final decisions on all remaining appropriations for the fiscal year.

There have been numerous meetings going on this week all over Capitol Hill, and there have obviously been many communications going on between the Hill and other locuses of influence and power in the city. And I would hope that those would bear fruition sometime soon.

Meanwhile, if we want to keep the government open, we have no choice but to pass this continuing resolution. It simply extends, it keeps the government open for another week, to December 21, 2007. I think it's self-explanatory.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I had thought that perhaps once this session we could simply do our jobs straightaway without having the usual, trite partisan slogans uttered again and again. I'd hoped that we wouldn't continue to chew the same cud over and over again. But evidently we can't. So I will simply take a couple of minutes to respond to the gentleman's comments.

For me to take lectures from the minority party on fiscal management or the management of appropriations would be akin to Willie Sutton lecturing the House on bank security. It wouldn't be taken very seriously.

But let me, nonetheless, since the gentleman has chosen to engage in yet another round of carping, let me simply point out that the gentleman is now making a fuss, once again, because we have not passed appropriation bills singly and now face the prospect of an omnibus appropriation bill with all domestic appropriations tossed into one budget document. If that, in fact, occurs, what it will mean is that the President sent us one budget document and we sent him one back. That's hardly a Federal offense, the last time that I checked.

Secondly, I would simply point out that this Congress has passed and sent to the President appropriation bills totaling about 75 percent of all of the discretionary spending in the budget. The reason that none of the domestic bills have been finalized is because the President chose to veto the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill. So we are now engaged in the only action left open to us, which is to reach a negotiated agreement between the Senate and the House and between the Congress and the President. We are trying to achieve the required negotiated result between the two branches of government and between the two branches of the legislative portion of the government.

Let me simply say that there will be, at the end of this year, there will be one critical difference between this Congress and the previous Congress controlled by our friends on the other side. In the previous Congress, they were able to pass not a single domestic appropriation bill through the Congress. They had passed them through the House, just as we passed all of our appropriation bills through the House. In fact, they didn't pass all of their appropriations bills through the House. They didn't get the Labor-H bill passed last year, which was the major domestic appropriation because they did not see fit to provide a minimum wage increase for workers, and so they preferred to bury the bill rather than have a bill pass which carried a minimum wage increase for America's workers.

But the critical difference between them and us is that when we took over this Congress in January, we had to first clean up their mess. We had to spend the first six weeks passing appropriation bills to make up for the fact that they had not passed a single domestic appropriation bill. And so, as a consequence, we will have one critical difference when our work is done, hopefully at the end of next week. We will have passed all of the appropriation bills necessary to keep the government running for a full fiscal year. We may not have done it in single fashion, as they would prefer, but the fact is that, whether they like the packaging, we will have done our jobs, and I would submit we will have done our jobs on a bipartisan basis.

There were, on average, 60 Republicans who helped us every step of the way in trying to pass these appropriation bills. I think that demonstrates that we had bipartisan legislation before us in virtually all instances on those appropriation bills, and that was reflected in the fact that, on average, we had over 60 Republicans supporting each of those bills.

We could not get the bills through the Senate, but they will, in the end, be passed, and that, in the end, will be a critical difference between the result of the record produced by our friends on the other side last year and one that will be produced, I would hope, on a bipartisan basis this year under different management.

So with that, if the gentleman has any further comments, I'll withhold. If he has any further speakers, I'll withhold. If he doesn't, I'm prepared to yield back.

Let me simply take a moment to indicate where I think we are on the appropriation matters. I think we have a reasonable prospect of finishing our work for the year come the middle of next week. I had originally been predicting that we would be out of here on the 22nd of December and reconvene after the 27th. I'm now slightly more optimistic than I was initially. And I think that, while none of us may be particularly enamored of the final result, I think that we are getting closer to having a result which can be supported by many people on both sides of the aisle, at least in the House itself.

I cannot speak for what the Senate will produce, but I would hope that Members would familiarize themselves. As soon as we have the final product available, we will try to make that product available to Members so that they have an opportunity to review it before we actually vote on it next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have had virtually no time to understand what the content of this resolution is; but as I read it, I would make a point of order against the amendment on germaneness grounds because the resolution adheres to a December 21 delimiting date, whereas the instructions in the proposed amendment refers to matters outside of the time period in question, and I will, therefore, suggest that the motion is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, here we are 74 days into the new fiscal year, and the new majority is requesting their third continuing resolution to fund the government because they failed to pass the necessary appropriations bills.

As of today, only one appropriations bill funding the Department of Defense has been signed into law. What is the status of the rest? Well, another one has made it to a conference committee, and the rest of the appropriations bills wait for the majority to decide what to do. They control both Houses of Congress, and yet they still have to decide what to do.

They had a chance to bring their record to two appropriations bills signed into law. But instead, the majority decided to play politics with a bill that had extraordinary bipartisan support, the Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, because the majority thought they could use it as a campaign ploy.

The new majority promised that they would finish their appropriations work. About a year ago, my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said things would be different under the leadership of the new majority. She said, and I quote, ``The House will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its most basic duties.''

Well, today we see that that has not been possible. Next week, the majority is expected to propose an omnibus appropriations bill for all the appropriations bills that haven't been finished. That bill will probably run into the thousands of pages and spend nearly half a trillion dollars. Members may not have enough time to read and digest that legislation before they are asked to vote on it. And unless the majority decides to move the omnibus appropriations bill through a conference committee, that bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the majority's earmark rule, and the rules of the House then would not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in that massive omnibus appropriations bill. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include numerous earmarks that no one is going to be able to vet and that most won't even be able to see.

Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, sent a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 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 the consideration by the Rules Committee.''

I sincerely hope that Chairman Obey will comply with our request. If he does, that would, to an extent, provide Members with a bit of comfort when the bill comes to the floor.

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,

Pete Sessions.

Madam Speaker, the new majority, again, has failed to live up to their promises to finish their work on time and many others, and the underlying third continuing resolution is just another example of their failure to lead.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing the conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act that I made reference to a few minutes ago. The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate followed suit and named conferees on September 6 of this year.

Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. They have even refused to name conferees. Instead, the majority plans to include the veterans funding in the massive omnibus appropriations legislation. But the status of the omnibus is still in doubt.

Negotiations apparently are ongoing, but we all know there is one bill that has extraordinarily wide bipartisan support and that the President will quickly sign it into law, the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. We already know that we are going to be here next week. We should pass the Veterans Affairs appropriation bill and provide the veterans the funding they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question. Our veterans deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the last time that Chairman Obey and I were on the floor together, I was heard to quote our friend, Will Rogers, and it had to do about sometimes we talk more than we should. I was intrigued by the fact that while he advised us to never miss the opportunity to shut up, that recently in Latin America there's discussion among Latin leaders in which a fellow by the name of Chavez kept talking and talking and talking, and this is by way of suggesting that we don't really have to keep talking today. I think it was the King of Spain, David, who said, ``Por que no te calles?'' If I could repeat that, ``Por que no te calles?'' That is, if we don't talk too much, we'll be all right here today.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to believe that Christmas is less than 2 weeks away and that David Obey provides me with material for my own presentation one more time.

While most Americans are Christmas shopping and decorating their Christmas tree, Congress continues to stumble its way to completing its business for the year. Unfortunately, we still have a long way to go, so we find ourselves today considering yet another continuing resolution.

It was just 1 year ago the House passed a series of continuing resolutions to ensure the continuation of government funding programs into the new fiscal year. My friend Chairman David Obey came to the House floor as the ranking member during that debate to criticize Republicans in the House and Senate for their failure to pass the annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the breakdown in the budget process and vowed that things would be different under a Democratic majority.

We are now only, I say, 74 days in the new fiscal year, and once again the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee is on the floor decrying the breakdown of regular order. The only difference is that David Obey is now Chairman Obey, and I'm the committee's ranking member.

The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely manner. Earlier this year, my chairman was absolutely beating us all over the room because of our failure to pass bills at the end of the year.

The Senate leader held up our bills. Mr. Obey knew that we'd passed all of our bills in the House by July 4. The year before we'd done the same thing, and all the bills had been signed by the President. And lo and behold, Mr. Obey finds himself. Frankly David, I thought you had much closer relationships with the Senate than I, but here we are. The breakdown of regular order, particularly in the Senate, is largely to blame for our failure to complete our work in a timely fashion.

The President has been very clear all year long that he would veto any spending bill or any omnibus package that exceeded his budget request. All told, the House-passed spending bills exceeded the President's budget request by $23 billion, and yet the Democrat majority chose to dismiss or ignore the President's clear intent, that is, until now.

A short time ago, Chairman Obey instructed the committee staff to prepare an omnibus spending bill and pare spending back to exceed the President's request by $11 billion. Not included in this total, there was over $7 billion being designated as emergency spending.

Just in the last several days, maybe even hours, the Democratic leadership finally got the message. They came to the realization that the President was, indeed, serious. So it all appears that, after months of work by our exhausted committee staff, work can finally begin on a spending package that the President may be able to sign. I say may be able to sign because the President has not yet seen the details of the omnibus package that will come forward.

For good measure, let me make very clear the President will veto any omnibus spending package that contains any controversial policy provisions, any gimmicks or any consequential budgetary sleight of hand.

I urge Chairman Obey to resist the urge on his part to add any so- called contingency spending anywhere in this package, as it may lead to a presidential veto.

I'd like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past CR debate. He said, and I quote, ``We are here

today with not a single dollar having been appropriated to any government program that has anything whatsoever to do with the domestic operations of this government. That is a disgraceful performance. And so we are left with the choice of passing this continuing resolution or having the government shut down.''

Again, my friends, these are the words of Chairman David Obey from last year, then Ranking Member Obey. They are particularly meaningful today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any other speakers, but I did want to apologize to my colleague and take just a moment to do that. If, indeed, I have lectured the gentleman, I certainly would want to apologize to the House for that, for the House knows he's never lectured us or anybody else. Now I'm not certain what may have gone on in his own caucus, but certainly he doesn't lecture us.

And if my quoting his own words takes the term ``carping,'' I guess it's difficult not to quote him exactly, and if that's carping, so be it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I will just speak on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit that I was about to present is quite simple. The motion will ensure that we continue to provide funding for our troops in harm's way until Congress takes the necessary action to pass a bridge fund or a full-year war supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 869 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

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 869.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 869 provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 69, a simple, 1-week extension of the fiscal year 2008 continuing resolution.

Madam Speaker, every Congress has the constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money entrusted to it by the American people. It is one of our most important responsibilities. Voters do not expect us to abdicate that responsibility, or any other, for that matter.

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 of our appropriations bills on time. We in the majority have been absolute in our promise to construct and pass spending bills with broad bipartisan support, and I am proud to say we have delivered on those promises.

Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that have passed the House this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes, with one bill collecting as many as 187 votes from the minority. And in that spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our bold and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritizes veterans health care, education and energy independence.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate that we are forced to pass a continuing resolution. But, it is something that must be done to work out the remaining issues that we have. We all understand it is our prime duty to make sure that the government is running efficiently, from our children who need quality education to our veterans who need the benefits promised to them when they signed up to serve our country, and to our senior citizens who need access to health care and affordable prescription drugs.

Many on the other side still fought tooth and nail, with some Members holding up the legislative process, in fighting these bipartisan appropriations bills, but we remained focused and strong and passed our bills on time.

It is important to note that continuing resolutions are extremely common, with a CR being enacted for every fiscal year since 1954. Additionally, Congress has averaged five continuing resolutions per year. And I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that over the last 10 years of Republican control, the House has considered 75 continuing resolutions.

Madam Speaker, this is an important resolution that will allow us to do the work necessary to fulfill our promises to the American people, and I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend, Mr. Diaz-Balart, if he has any speakers.

We have no speakers, either, so if the gentleman would like to close, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 869 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for a series of votes today due to personal family reasons. I request that my votes be recorded in the Congressional Record.

On rollcall No. 1156 on Ordering the Previous Question on House Resolution 869, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 1157 on Ordering the Previous Question on House Resolution 859, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 1158 on passage of House Resolution 859, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 1159 on the motion to recommit the Conference Report (H.R. 2082) with Instructions, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 1160 on agreeing to the Conference Report (H.R. 2082), I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 1161, to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall No. 1162, on passage of H.J. Res. 69, I would have voted ``yea.''