Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 677, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Joint Resolution 52.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution keeps government functioning until Congress and the President can make final decisions on appropriation issues for fiscal year 2008. It is a clean CR. It funds all departments at last year's level. The only exception is a $5.2 billion appropriation for MRAPs, which are essential to protect our troops. It expires November 16. I ask Members to do the responsible thing and vote ``aye.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me recite a slightly different version of recent history with respect to appropriation bills.

After 12 years of rule by the Republican Party, the American people gave the Democratic Party the privilege of moving into the majority in the last election. We were sworn in on January 4. At that point, not a single domestic appropriation bill had been passed by the previous Congress.

So before we could move to our own business for this year, we had to first clean up the unfinished business left by the previous Republican- controlled Congress. That took us 6 weeks. And in 6 weeks we passed the entire domestic budget; and, at the time we did that, we eliminated all earmarks.

Then we also set about to implement the earmark reform process which was spoken for by both political parties in this House. That took us an extra 3 weeks. During that time, we ramped up the number of hearings and the intensity of congressional oversight; and by the end of the hearing process we had doubled the number of hearings held by the previous Congress and restored a much more tenacious set of oversight habits.

We also were forced to confront the President on Iraq because of the unraveling situation in that misbegotten war. And we also, as we tried to pass our appropriation bills, had to endure filibuster by amendment on the part of the minority. They took more than 60 hours above the amount taken by the minority in the previous year on appropriation bills.

Republicans offered 339 amendments to the appropriation bills that we passed in the House, compared to 172 amendments that were offered by Democrats when we were in the minority. Despite all of that, we still managed to pass every single appropriation bill before the August recess. That is only the second time during the Bush administration that this House has passed all of its appropriation bills before the August recess.

Then those bills went to the Senate; and, as the gentleman indicated, they ran into considerable trouble. The Senate has passed four bills. I have asked them to proceed to pass as many additional bills as they can, and I hope that they do. And, incidentally, when they do bring up bills, I was told yesterday that you have between two and three hundred amendments filed to several of the bills, so you face a filibuster by amendment on the part of the minority in the Senate. As you know, under Senate rules, debate cannot be shut down unless you have 60 votes, rather than 50.

So that's the record as I see it. The gentleman from California has recited the record as he sees it. But I would suggest that what is important is what we do now. Where do we go from here?

Even as the Senate makes an effort to complete action on its bills, I would hope that we could shorten the process by sitting down now with the administration to work out compromises on those bills so that we don't have to spend the next 6 weeks continuing to define our differences.

I'm an old-fashioned legislator, and I believe that the way the parties ought to proceed is that we first ought to define our differences and then we ought to resolve them. We've already defined our differences with the passage of the 12 bills in the House. I doubt that the Senate bills are going to get any better from our standpoint, and so it seems to me that time's awasting. It seems to me that we would best serve the needs of the country if the administration would be willing to sit down with us now and begin discussions about how we might reach compromises on these bills so that we can move forward.

Now, let me make one additional point. The President is asking us to spend about $200 billion, every dollar of that borrowed, in order to finance the supplemental for the war in Iraq, and yet he is objecting to the fact that in the House-passed bills we tried to take about 1/ 10th that amount and use it for crucial investments in our country's future.

The job of this Congress, the job certainly of this committee, is to make investments that will benefit the country over the long haul, make us a stronger country, and make us a stronger society over the next 10 years. We don't believe on this side of the aisle, and I think in fact we had significant bipartisan agreement if you take a look at the votes, we don't believe that you accomplish that strengthening of the country by cutting vocational education by 50 percent, as the President does in his budget; by eliminating all student aid programs except work study and Pell Grant, as the President does in his budget; by gutting education technology grants, as the President does in his budget; by actually reducing the number of medical research grants at NIH, as the President does in his budget. I've never had anybody come up to me in my life and say, ``Obey, why don't you guys in Congress get your act together and cut cancer research.'' And yet, that's what the Congress has done the last 2 years. We don't think that ought to happen. So that's why we depart from the President on that score.

We also don't think we strengthen the country when we cut special education by $300 million, and there are a good many Republicans who agree with that. In fact, Mr. Walsh, the ranking Republican on the Labor, Health, Education and Social Services Subcommittee, Mr. Walsh, led the effort to increase the funds that our committee provided for special education, and I commend him for it.

We also don't think it's good to cut mental health and drug abuse funding by $160 million. We don't think that we strengthen the society or this country when we cut minority health professions training by 66 percent. We don't think that we improve health care for children by cutting the training of medical personnel in children's hospitals by 63 percent, and we don't think we strengthen rural America by cutting rural health programs by 54 percent.

We don't think we help make our communities better and cleaner by cutting the clean water revolving fund by 37 percent, as the President does. We don't believe that we meet the needs of our logging industry and the recreational needs of the American people when we cut the forest service budget by 15 percent, as the President's budget does. And we don't believe that we ought to cut housing for disabled Americans by 47 percent or senior housing by 20 percent. In an age of high gas prices and high energy prices, we don't believe that we ought to cut the low-income heating assistance program by 18 percent.

And let me say that Democrats are not the only ones who believe that. If you take a look and analyze the votes on the various appropriations bills that went through the House, you will see that on average we had 65 Republicans who voted with us in support of the appropriations bills that we sent over to the Senate. In fact, if you average out each of the rollcalls for each of the bills that passed, you will see that exactly two-thirds of this body voted for those bills.

So I think we have established a bipartisan foundation in the House for moving forward, and I hope this continuing resolution gives us the necessary time to do that.

I would hope that the Senate can move forward and complete its work on a bill-by-bill basis, but frankly, it is immaterial to me whether the bills are produced one by one or if they are produced in bunches. What counts is not the form. What counts is the substance. What counts is whether we make the right investments to make this country stronger over the long haul. That's our obligation, no matter how we package it.

So I would once again simply urge the administration to sit down with us and begin to talk about how, as adults, we can reach a compromise on these issues.

The President would have the country believe that we are blowing the lid outrageously on budgets and pouring money into the domestic budget. I would suggest that restoring $16 billion in Presidential cuts is mighty small potatoes in comparison to the $200 billion that he wants us to spend in Iraq and the $50 billion that he still wants us to provide for tax cuts for people making a million bucks a year.

Let me remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that in 1980 the appropriations for domestic budgets equaled 4.8 percent of our total national income. Today, they have been reduced to 2.9 percent of our total national income, and the President's budget would take us, by the year 2012, down to 2.4 percent of the Nation's income. That means that we would have cut in half our investments relative to our national wealth. We would have cut in half those domestic investments since 1980. I don't believe, and I think there are many in both parties who don't believe, that that is the way that we build a stronger future for this country.

So I would simply point out what we have here is an effort on our part to add about 2 percent to what the President is doing in the area of education, health care, science, law enforcement and all of that, and I'd simply suggest that, instead of continuing to talk about it, we sit down and have some more productive actions; we sit down and try to work out these differences between us so that we can leave town at a reasonable time, having completed our action on these bills and having met our responsibilities to make the investments that will, over the long haul, make this a stronger country.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm ready to yield back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge support for this motion. As those in this House who know me well understand, I come from the State of Joe McCarthy. And one of the reasons that I changed political parties, because I grew up in a Republican family, is because I saw what the local McCarthy supporters did to the best teacher I ever had when they impugned his patriotism by calling him a Bolshevik back during the McCarthy heyday. And to this day there is nothing that gets my dander up more than to have someone's patriotism questioned on this House floor or anywhere else in the political realm. And if I'm going to get upset when that kind of juvenile activity occurs on the part of the political right, then I've got an obligation to be equally upset when that kind of juvenile debate emanates from the left.

It seems to me that we all ought to recognize that we can have honest and profound differences with the policy that the general was selling 2 weeks ago without getting personal about it. I think what we ought to do is accept this motion, vote for it, send the continuing resolution to the Senate and get on with the business of negotiating out the content of these appropriation bills so that we can do our duty to the country.

I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report H.J. Res. 52 back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee often talks about thoughts and wisdom of Archie the cockroach, but today I am reminded of the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.''

It was 1 year ago that the House passed the first of several continuing resolutions to ensure the continuation of government-funded programs in the new fiscal year.

My friend, David Obey, came to the floor as the ranking member during the debate to criticize Republicans in the House and the Senate for their failure to pass the annual spending bills by the end of the fiscal year. He spoke of the breakdown of the budget process and vowed that things would be different under a Democrat majority.

We are now 4 days away from the end of the 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 am a mere struggling committee ranking member.

At this time last year, we had sent President Bush two appropriations conference reports. This year, not one appropriations conference meeting has taken place between the two bodies, even though there are bills available.

When we passed the first CR last year, my hope was it would provide strong motivation for Congress to complete its work in regular order. I was hopeful that our colleagues in the Senate would complete their work so we could send to the White House the remaining individual conference reports before the end of our legislative session.

I come to the floor today with the same hopeful expectation that the Senate will soon complete its work. But, based on recent history, I'm not holding my breath.

My appropriations colleague, Senator Cochran of Mississippi, could not have been a better partner as we attempted to bring regular order to the appropriations process. Unfortunately, Chairman Cochran was poorly served by his own leadership.

The breakdown of regular order in the last Congress, indeed the failure to get our bills done, was placed squarely at the feet of the former Senate majority leader who failed to schedule floor time for the consideration of appropriations bills. One year later, the failure of the appropriations process can be laid squarely at the feet of the present Senate majority leader.

The House has passed each of its spending bills; and, while I believe these bills spend too much, the House Appropriations Committee has kept its word by completing its work.

During my tenure as chairman, the Appropriations Committee was strongly committed to bringing to the floor individual conference reports for each and every bill. I did not then support, and do not now support, an omnibus spending bill in any form. But that is exactly the direction in which the Democrat majority is now moving.

I am convinced that moving bills individually is the only way for us to control government spending. Lacking regular order, there is a tendency for spending on the remaining bills to grow out of control. That challenge is particularly acute this year with the Democrat majority writing and passing spending bills that exceed the President's budget request by about $23 billion.

We are today passing a CR that continues for the next 6 weeks Federal programs under the terms and conditions established in the 2007 fiscal year resolution.

In 6 weeks, I am afraid we will be here once again to pass yet another continuing resolution, and that will lead us well into the free-spending holiday season.

My colleagues, we are moving ever closer to a massive year-end omnibus spending bill. That course of action would be an admission of failure on the part of this Congress.

At this moment, there is still time for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on spending. There is still time for the House and the Senate to complete its work in regular order. There is still time to pass and send to the White House individual conference reports. But we must act now.

I would like to close by quoting my friend, Mr. Obey, from a past continuing resolution debate: ``This continuing resolution is a monument to institutional failure. This Congress is failing to meet even the most basic and minimal expectations that the country has for it by way of doing our routine business. This is governing in a pitiful way,'' Mr. Obey said, ``and I wish that I could say something more positive about it, but, indeed, I cannot.''

Mr. Speaker, and I would say, ``Madam Speaker,'' if I could find the gentlelady on the floor, ``Madam Speaker, this is deja vu all over again.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to know if Mr. Obey wanted to continue speaking or I can yield back my time. I'm ready to yield back the balance of my time. I just wondered if you were ready to yield more time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, this simple motion is to recommend or recommit. It is a sense of the Congress resolution that recognizes the service of General David Petraeus as well as all other members of our Armed Forces. It expresses our appreciation for his personal sacrifices and those of his family as well as the sacrifices of those who served in the Armed Forces and their families.

Further, this sense of the Congress resolution condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the unfair personal attacks made by the advocacy group, MoveOn.org, on the character, integrity and professionalism of General David Patraeus. Such unwarranted attacks should be strongly condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike in the House.

I strongly urge a ``yea'' vote on the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 677 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 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 677.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against the joint resolution and against its consideration except for clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule also provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, every Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be good stewards of the money sent to us by the American people. 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 of our appropriations bills on time.

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

Of the 12 fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills that passed the House this year, we have garnered an average of 50 Republican votes. In a spirit of working together, we have successfully pushed ahead our bold and new agenda and passed legislation that prioritize veterans, health care, education and energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res 677 provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 52, as I said before, for continuing appropriations for the year 2008.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I have no requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to say simply for the record that there are no earmarks in this bill and that everybody knows it.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 677 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. 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 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; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady and chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in just 5 days, fiscal year 2007 will come to an end and a new fiscal year will begin. I am disappointed that this rule and the underlying continuing resolution are on the floor today. Not one, let me repeat that, not one spending bill has been sent to the President for his signature this year.

Congress has a responsibility to fund the priorities of the government, and here we are, just days before the start of a new fiscal year, and not one of the 12 spending bills that must be signed into law have been signed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will support the underlying continuing resolution because I recognize the government must continue to be funded. It is my strong hope, however, that within the next 6 weeks, 12 separate conference reports will come before the House of Representatives.

I do not believe that omnibus bills are the best vehicles for spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, and I truly hope that that will not be what we end with on November 16.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a disappointing day for the American people. Here we are, nearly 9 months into this Congress controlled by the Democrat majority, and still the majority has failed to live up to their promises by denying every American taxpayer accountability when it comes to transparency of earmarks.

Just yesterday, a challenge was made to an earmark slipped into a bill 299 pages long that had not been disclosed. The Democrat majority certified the bill was ``earmark free,'' but then denied all accountability and scrutiny of this earmark.

It is vital that the House act today to allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, such as the SCHIP bill yesterday, and not just on appropriation bills. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that they may amend the rule to allow for immediate consideration of House Resolution 479, the Earmark Accountability bill.

By defeating the previous question, the House will be able to consider the continuing resolution today, but will also be able to address earmark enforceability in order to restore the credibility of this House.

By considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a strong message to the American taxpayers that this House will no longer turn its head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 52, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2008, and for other

purposes. H.J. Res. 52 provides continuing appropriations for Federal programs, including the aviation investment programs.

H.J. Res. 52 includes a provision extending the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program, AIP. Specifically, section 148 of H.J. Res. 52 provided mandatory AIP contract authority only for the term covered by the Continuing Resolution at a level that, when annualized, equals the amount of mandatory AIP contract authority included in the fiscal year 2008 budget baseline.

The Congressional Budget Office, the House Budget Committee, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the Senate Commerce Committee, and the Office of Management and Budget all concur that section 148 provides mandatory contract authority. Moreover, section 148 is a change to a mandatory program and therefore, the amount of contract authority provided by the Continuing Resolution will ultimately be rebased in the baseline and put on the mandatory side of the budget. The baseline for the AIP program will remain mandatory.

Based on my shared understanding that section 148 will not in any way change the nature of the AIP program, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 52.