Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the rule contains a waiver of all points of order against the bill and its consideration. Therefore, it is in violation of section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office says that there are unfunded mandates in this bill, but we really don't know what's there because we got this thousand-page bill, thousand-page bill, just about 12 hours ago.

As we know, we have a House rule that says we are supposed to get a bill like this 72 hours before instead of 12. Common practice has been if you can't get 72 hours, then at least 24. We've cut that in half, just 12. And most of that was during the time when most of us were asleep. I can guarantee you that few, if any, in this body have read this bill; yet we are voting on it, a billion dollar bill that virtually nobody knows what's in it.

We do know, however, and that's the reason this point of order lies against the bill, there are unfunded mandates in the bill.

We also have rules with regard to earmarks air-dropped in a bill like this. It's not a conference report of an appropriation bill but an actual bill where they are dropped in at the last minute. The truth is, with a bill that's over a thousand pages long, we simply don't know what's in there; yet we are being told we have got to pass it, we've got to move this thing today. That's simply wrong.

I would like the assurance of those from the Rules Committee that there are no unfunded mandates in the bill or there are no earmarks that have been added to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would gladly yield to the gentleman if he will answer the question if there are any unfunded mandates in this bill in violation of the rules, had the rules not been waived, or if there are any earmarks in the bill.

Would the gentleman answer that question? Are there unfunded mandates in the bill or any earmarks in the bill?

I thank the gentleman.

Let me read from the CBO: ``These provisions also contain several private sector earmarks. CBO estimates that their aggregate costs would well exceed the annual threshold established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act for private sector mandates, $131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation.

There is the answer to the question of unfunded mandates. They are in the bill. We're waiving those points of order so we can get around that.

I would suggest that at some point you've got to say, are we living up to the promises that were made at the beginning of the year?

Now, the majority has made a habit, and I don't blame them, of saying this is what you Republicans did while you were in the majority. That is true. Many of us stood here and raised these same points of order when our own party did it. I would love to see on the other side somebody stand up and say this is the wrong thing to do. If it was wrong when Republicans did it, it's wrong when Democrats do it.

With regard to earmarks in this legislation, nobody has been able to do anything more than a cursory read of a thousand-page bill that we got just 12 hours ago. But in the biofuels subtitle, we've found a university-based research and development competitive grant program. This grant will be for universities to conduct research and development of renewable energy technologies for ``trees dying of disease or insects infestation as a source of woody biomass.'' This grant is for universities that are near ``trees dying of disease or insect infestation as a source for woody biomass.'' That smells a lot like an earmark to me. It sounds like there is probably just one university, a particular university, or two that meet that qualification. That is certainly an earmark. And that's why these rules were waived again to get around that kind of thing.

The Democrats put in some good earmark rules at the beginning of the year, but your rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And that's the problem here. We are not enforcing our own rules.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I have no clue.

Thank you. I know it's a very difficult thing. That is a very large bill.

That earmark is somewhere in here. We have no idea where. My guess is there are a lot more of them.

Let me just talk about one other one. Another questionable provision that looks like an earmark to me is a provision terminating the remaining portions of the New York Liberty Zone tax incentives program. The House-passed previous version of the energy bill gave New York a tax credit of $2 billion to build a rail line from JFK to Lower Manhattan.

The bill now purports to reduce the cost of the New York tax provision to $1.1 billion, but the result is only true thanks to some very creative drafting.

In fact, passage of the bill would still let New York keep a total of $2 billion of Federal taxpayer money, with at least $900 million of that coming between the year 2018 and 2019.

Again, that creative drafting is somewhere in this document that we got last night, 12 hours ago. And we're expected to go through this and make sure that it complies with the rules. Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when we have very specific rules?

And as I mentioned, I was the first to commend the majority for putting in some good transparency and accountability rules in January. I felt they were better than what we did last year. But your rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce them, and there seems to be no willingness here. That's the problem.

So I would be glad to hear from the other side. I will retain my time and hope to hear an explanation of whether or not there are actual earmarks in the bill or unfunded mandates.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady's comments that we have finally removed special interests from the energy field with this bill, when you have a bill like this, I guarantee you it's full of special interest provisions, many of which we haven't discovered yet.

I mentioned you have one earmark in here, a grant for universities that are near ``trees dying of disease or insect infestation as a source of woody biomass.'' I would suggest it's probably one particular university in mind, or some special interest, that an earmark will be going to. The New York Liberty Zone provision is another special interest provision.

I would also make the point that this is technically not a conference report; there wasn't a conference. This is a House amendment to a Senate amendment to H.R. 6, if I'm not mistaken. What that means is the point of order that I would have liked to have raised against the provisions that may include earmarks in the bill doesn't lie against the bill because it's not a conference report, because it's a House amendment to a Senate amendment. That's another creative way to get around the rules that the majority themselves have put in place.

If you say that there are no problems with this bill, why are we waiving all points of order against it? Of course it's to hide things in it. People should be skeptical whenever they see something a thousand pages long, a thousand pages long that nobody, not anybody on the Rules Committee, not anybody anywhere has had the opportunity to read, 12 hours, 12 hours to read that. I don't think Evelyn Wood, with a speed-reading course, or anybody could get through this. And when the majority can simply say, We're not aware of anything, I mean, you can take the Fifth, you can plead the Fifth in court, but I don't think you can do it here. I don't think that that flies, certainly not outside of the Beltway. Certainly people around here should be skeptical of a multi-billion-dollar bill with special interest provisions rife throughout it that we've had 12 hours to review before voting on.

When all the majority can tell us is, We're not aware of things in there, let me remind the majority that we had an instance earlier this year, or several instances, where the chairman of the Appropriations Committee signed off on an appropriation bill saying, There are no earmarks in this bill, which prevented us in the minority from actually lodging a point of order against the bill, after Members had already issued press releases claiming credits for their earmarks in the bill.

So clearly you can pass some good rules, which you have, but you have got to enforce those rules, and they're not being enforced here. That's why we should uphold this point of order and not move forward and proceed with this bill. You cannot put a thousand-page bill, give it to us with 12 hours to review, with problems rife throughout it, and not have problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reclaim my time.

Let me just make one point with regard to special interests, that they have been removed from this process. Because we were trying to get copies of this legislation and couldn't yesterday, we couldn't get it from the majority, so many of the Republicans were actually getting excerpts and pieces of this legislation from firms along K Street, from the special interests themselves. They seemed to have copies before we in the majority did. There is something wrong with this process. We only get it last night from the majority, but we were getting it yesterday from special interests downtown who already had copies of it, or portions, at least.

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.

Madam Speaker, I got a kick out of a recent warning made by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He cautioned Members that if congressional negotiators were forced to make additional cuts in

this year's spending bills, that he just might do away with all earmarks in the bill. Well, that may pass for a threat here in Washington, but taxpayers all over the country are applauding.

Despite the perception that many in Congress seem to have that taxpayers are eagerly awaiting the completion of appropriation bills to see if their earmarks ended up in the bill for their hometown, taxpayers, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, are applauding. They think that earmarks are a waste of money.

Chairman Obey has said on many occasions that if it were up to him, he would do away with earmarks altogether; they are a waste of his time and his committee's resources. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I can't think of a better Christmas present to Chairman Obey than releasing him from the stress and hassle of having to deal with our earmarks. I'm sure he would be grateful, and our constituents would be grateful even more.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have enjoyed working with Representative Schiff on this, and I thank the committee for addressing our concerns. Our concerns had to do mostly, my own concern in particular, with making sure that we are not involving a court when you are talking about foreign-to-foreign communications or communications between persons who are not known to be U.S. residents or not known or reasonably believed to be within the U.S. I believe those concerns were addressed here, and I appreciate the work that was done to do that.

As mentioned, our language also requires that if a U.S. citizen is inadvertently tripped up in the communication, that proper procedures are taken to deal with that and that the information is disseminated to the right people and committees. So I appreciate the committee's work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 817 under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

I thank the Speaker.

And while the Speaker of the House is actually in the Chamber, I want to read a quote from March of this year. In March of this year, the Speaker of the House said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to read it. That should be a matter of public record. If there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''

Let me just ask, if I can, the representative from the Rules Committee, don't we have a rule that says that we are not to consider a bill or a rule until 24 hours after the bill is actually out there? I would yield to the gentleman to answer.

My understanding is that this bill was posted on the Web last night at just after 7 o'clock, yet here we are at 1:35 already considering the rule. I think that is important, because when you look at the bill, we didn't just get it on the Internet where it would be searchable, where we could find things in it. We got a PDF file that is not searchable.

When you look at the bill itself, you find complete sections that have been X'd out, or little insertions with little notations here that are barely legible. You have another big insertion here of an entire page. Again, there are little insertions there within the insertion. You have within it ``3 percent'' stricken. It says ``4 percent'' now. To what?

This is really difficult to wade through. And when we don't even get 24 hours? I mean, 24 hours, frankly, is far from sufficient to consider a bill that is 531 pages long. Then when you consider the bill itself is not searchable, it was given in a PDF file, and then you also have 141 pages of earmarks that are part of the report. That is not a searchable index, either. It is just given. You can wade through it.

The earmarks that are air-dropped into the conference report are supposed to be asterisked. You can see some of those. We identified 21. But is that all there is? We're not sure. But when you look through that list of earmarks that were air-dropped in, you have to be suspicious of why in the world we waited until now to air-drop these earmarks in when nobody can challenge them.

Keep in mind, this is a point of order against consideration of the rule. Because the majority has chosen to waive the rule against points of order on the bill, we can't challenge any of the earmarks in the bill, so we have 21 earmarks air-dropped into the bill at the last minute that we have no ability to challenge.

You might think that, well, if they were air-dropped into the bill, then they certainly must be vital spending, vital projects, that we just couldn't do during the regular consideration of the bill.

I will read a couple of them and you can make your own decisions on whether or not this was vital spending, something that couldn't wait, something that was so important that you had to, at the last minute, in the last 24 hours, include it in where nobody could see it.

One is for $200,000 for the Intergenerational Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. The Intergenerational Research Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. This is part of the Economic Development Initiative.

Another one: Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in Pennsylvania for a multipurpose facility. That is $300,000 there.

Tell me, please, somebody tell me, what was so vital here that we had to violate the rules that we have had in the House to insert this at the last minute, when nobody has the ability to challenge it?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, we've waived other requirements as well here. What this point of order is about is transparency. Again, we got this bill last night, less than 24 hours ago. It has always been the understanding you would have at least 24 hours, and we are violating that even.

When you look at the bill itself, here I found another page, section 409, we're not sure what was there, because it is now gone. It is gone from the bill. It is very difficult to go through a bill that is 534 pages that is not even searchable and wade through the earmarks.

The gentleman mentioned this is vital spending we have to get done. Let me give you an example of some of what is in the bill itself. $150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia. $275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Let me get back to this list of these vital projects that we somehow have to rush through here. There is $400,000 for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Bel Alton, Maryland. Again, $400,000 for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association. Why in the world is this in the bill at all? Is it any wonder that somebody wants to move this bill through quickly and without following the rules?

$500,000 for the Los Angeles Fire Museum in Bellflower, California; two earmarks totaling $300,000 to revitalize downtown Clearwater, Florida; $150,000 for the Edmunds Arts Center in Edmunds, Washington; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, Alabama; $100,000 for the reuse of the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Romney, West Virginia; $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; and $300,000 to the Houston, Zoo in Houston, Texas.

Again, this is just a tiny sliver of the 141 pages of earmarks in the bill, more than 1,000 of them. And again, 21 air-dropped earmarks that we have never

seen before, never had the ability to challenge on the House floor for such vital things as the Grand Teton National Park Pathway System in Wyoming. This may be a good project, but it should receive the scrutiny it deserves, not air-dropped into a report that we are given less than 24 hours to consider, that we have no ability, none, to amend out.

Or $500,000 for Park Street Streetscape Improvement in Alameda, California. Why in the world was this that vital where we had to violate our own rules to bring this to the floor and hide these earmarks where they don't see the light of day?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Campbell from California.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

How much time remains on this side?

I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

In my remaining 30 seconds, let me just say, in January when we passed transparency rules on earmarks, I was the first one to compliment the majority on what they had done. We put some decent rules into play. But rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And we have seen a pattern over the past several months culminating in this kind of thing, breaking the rules so we can bring a bill to the floor with 21 air-dropped earmarks into it where we are simply not following our own rules.

This institution deserves better than this. I plead with my colleagues to vote to stop this bill from moving forward until we can actually see what's in it.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke talked about how the committee had done so well with such limited resources and makes it sound like this is positively a skinflint bill, that we're just making do with what we have.

The truth is we are well over the President's budget that he submitted. Let me just give people a flavor for what's in this bill. This is just a slice of the 150 pages of earmarks, more than 1,000 earmarks that were in this bill, 21 of them air-dropped last night that we had no idea were here until today, but here is just an example of some of them in the House-passed version:

There is $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; $300,000 for the Houston zoo; $200,000 for the Huntsville Museum of Art in Huntsville, Alabama; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Fashion District in Los Angeles, California; $150,000 for the Louis Armstrong House Museum in Flushing, New York; $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, California; $150,000 to the Renaissance Art Center, Inc., in Rupert, Idaho; $200,000 to the Fruitvale Cultural and Performing Arts Center in Oakland, California; $100,000 for the 1924 Vaudeville Theater in Plattsburgh, New York; $200,000 for the Hunting and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania; $100,000 for the Lincoln Museum in Hodgenville, Kentucky.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

That is correct.

No. These were all in the House version, the House version that we had just a couple of days to digest, and we were only able to offer in reality few amendments in keeping with the comity of the House.

This shouldn't substitute for real vetting or real scrutiny when you have earmarks like this. And particularly, I didn't mention and I could read the 21 air-dropped earmarks, the ones that were put in last night that because the majority has waived the rules, we have no ability to actually challenge. We don't know if these earmarks are meritorious or not because they were air-dropped in last night. I'm reading these that were in the House-passed version of the bill.

Let me read through a few more and maybe this will clarify it: $150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia; $275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts; $400,000 to the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Maryland; $500,000 for the Los Angeles County Fire Museum in Bellflower, California.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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.

Madam Speaker, the day after the House passed the Labor- HHS spending bill containing more than 2,000 earmarks, we got a look at the Defense bill. What we're finding is troubling to say the least.

Again, there are more than 2,000 earmarks in this bill, a bill that is intended for the military. Now, we all know that earmarks draw funds away from more urgent priorities. Nowhere is this more clear than with the military spending bill. Simply put, every dollar that Congress has earmarked in the Defense bill is a dollar that troops won't have for critical equipment.

What's so important that it diverts money away from soldiers? Well, air-dropped into this conference report and this Defense appropriation bill, $3 million for a golf program for kids. This earmark might be par for the course in any other bill, but in the Defense bill, it's clearly indefensible.

I don't believe that earmarks like this represent the sentiments of the country when it comes to military spending, and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill until the earmarks are removed.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 806 under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

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

H. Res. 491 says it shall not be in order to consider a conference report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a list of congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that were not committed to the conference committee by either Chamber.

It's unfortunate, just like the Labor-HHS bill, the majority has reported a rule that waives all points of order. Yet, I have to ask here: if we've done everything right, if we've done the transparency that we committed to earlier in the year, why are we waiving all points of order against the bill? Why are we doing this again, second time this week?

We have these transparency rules that we hyped at the beginning of the year that we aren't going to have air-dropped earmarks into a conference report that can't be challenged; yet here again, here we go, waiving all points of order against the bill. That is why I am raising the point of order against the rule; it's the only option I have to highlight what is going on here.

In a press conference in March, the Speaker of the House said: ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''

The majority leader, in March, said: ``Let no one be mistaken, after the earmark explosion under Republican leadership, Democrats have led the way in bringing transparency and accountability to earmarks.'' It appears that we're not doing that now.

The majority leader also said: ``This is a new day and a new Congress. The days of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil are over. This Congress embraces its constitutional responsibility to conduct real, meaningful oversight, as well as our values of openness and transparency.''

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when you have a conference report and we finally get a look at it last night, less than 12 hours ago or so, and there are more than two dozen earmarks air-dropped into it, this is the first we've seen of them, we haven't seen any of them before this time, that is not the model of transparency. That is not openness. We have no ability to challenge those earmarks. None. We can't highlight them and say you vote up or down on this earmark.

The joint explanatory statement says that there are 24 Defense earmarks that were not passed by either Chamber, costing $59 million. Let me give you just one example of what's in there. There is one of these earmarks, $3 million earmark in the Defense bill, remember, this is the Defense bill we're talking about, a $3 million earmark for a program, according to The Hill newspaper, intended to attract disadvantaged and minority children to the game of golf. This is the game of golf in a Defense bill. Is it any wonder, should anybody be surprised that this was an earmark that was air-dropped into the conference report when we don't have the ability in this Chamber to challenge it? This is the only opportunity we have, a procedural vote, as to whether to move forward on the rule. Now, that is not openness, that is not transparency.

It's often brought up that the Republicans, when we were in charge, we did the same thing. We did, and we played the political price for it. We shouldn't have done it. It shouldn't excuse what's going on today. This is supposed to be a new day in Congress. This is business as usual. This is par for the course, to use a bad pun, to put a golf earmark in a Defense bill, and to hide it until the last day, until nobody can challenge it anymore.

Now, we may think that that's cute here, but I can tell you people across the country have got to be incensed with it. And we felt the brunt of it, as Republicans, last year. I would suggest that, unless the majority party sees its way clear to change this practice, they're going to feel the brunt of it as well.

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

I would be glad to yield time to the gentlewoman if she would inform us as to why all points of order were waived against the bill itself. This is not a parliamentary ruse here. This is a response to a parliamentary ruse. The parliamentary ruse is air-dropping earmarks into a bill and then waiving all points of order against or waiving all points of order against that bill so all we can do here is raise a point of order against the rule itself. So the parliamentary ruse here was actually used by the majority party to hide these earmarks, in particular a $3 million earmark for golf in the Defense bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

May I inquire as to the time remaining on my side?

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's get down to the bottom line about what this is about. At the beginning of the year, we were promised transparency. We were promised that if earmarks were dropped in to a conference report, if they weren't considered by either the House or the Senate, that we would have the opportunity to challenge those earmarks, that we would have the opportunity to shine a light on them, to actually see what they are about. We are not getting that opportunity because we have waived the rule. What good are rules if they are waived routinely?

Let me say, this is not our rule on this side. We were glad to see it. But it is the majority's rule, and it is being waived. It is no surprise here when you look at the earmarks that are in, 24 earmarks, some of them are to private companies. These are sole-sourced contracts, single-source contracts, no-bid contracts to private companies and to universities. We have no opportunity to see what they are about. None. We just got the list 24 hours ago. We don't have the opportunity to challenge those.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, many media outlets over the past couple of weeks have raised issues about these defense contracts, the ones that went through the House and the Senate, whether or not they are appropriate, whether they are linked to campaign contributions coming back, a whole host of questions are raised; yet we have no ability here, because the rules are waived, and we can't even challenge these.

And then when you see an earmark for golf in the Defense bill, you have to say, you know, did they intend on hiding this? Would that withstand the scrutiny when it comes to the floor? We have the Woodstock earmark over in the Senate, the hippie museum that didn't withstand the scrutiny. We had one over here on this side this year that didn't withstand the scrutiny. I raised a couple of earmarks, one of which the sponsor came to the floor before I could get here to withdraw his own earmark. In another case, the majority party Appropriations Committee went to the Rules Committee and said remove these earmarks because there is questions about them. That is just on a few earmarks we were able to challenge.

So there may well be those questions here, as well. Or, you have to wonder if this Caddyshack earmark would have made it through the scrutiny that would have come had we been able to challenge it in the House. Or would enough Members say, you know, maybe we shouldn't be funding golf in the Defense bill.

Is it any wonder that an earmark for golf is hidden in the Defense bill? That is what we have to ask.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to pay tribute at this time to Mr. Rangel, Mr. McCrery and everyone who has put this trade deal together. This is a difficult thing to do. It is always easier to see the shuttered business and to say that's because of trade rather than to look at the opportunities and jobs that are created because of free trade. Free trade lifts our standard of living. It lifts the standard of living for those in other countries that enjoy its benefits as well.

This is the best part of Congress, to see on a bipartisan level people coming together to do what is best for people everywhere. I just want to commend those who put this together. This is a good rule. This is a good bill. Let's move forward with this. Let's move forward with the other free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea.

Madam Speaker, people may wonder why we are doing this, combining these two bills, the Veterans bill and also Labor-HHS. It is easy to see when you look at it.

There are some 150 pages of earmarks in this conference report, including nine air-dropped earmarks. Now, these are earmarks that weren't considered by either the House or the Senate. They were simply air-dropped into the bill that we have no opportunity to amend out. We have violated our own rules. We are violating our own rules to do this: $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy. We are spending $1 million in this bill, air- dropped into the bill, with no opportunity to amend it out, a center for public service and representative democracy at a university somewhere named for a former Member of Congress.

This simply isn't right. This isn't right. We shouldn't be doing this. This institution deserves far better than we are giving it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I want to thank the President for vetoing this bill. We Republicans promised a new era of fiscal responsibility, and I don't think it is very fiscally responsible to add $750 million in earmarks in the conference report alone.

The Senate passed a $14 billion WRDA bill. The House passed a $15 billion WRDA bill. And when the conference came back, you would think that they would split the difference, maybe 14.5. But, no, it came back at $23 billion. So $14 billion, $15 billion, you compromise and you get $23 billion. There is something wrong with this picture.

So I think we should sustain the President's veto. We need to be fiscally responsible not just with appropriations but with authorizations as well. We simply can't continue to add to the backlog of projects that are already out there. It will simply mean that more will go unfinished and priorities will be diverted off into doing studies that will never be done.

So I applaud the President for vetoing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to sustain that veto.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 794 under

section 2 of H. Res. 491, because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

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

H. Res. 491 says that it shall not be in order to consider a conference report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a list of congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that were not committed to the conference committee by either Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that, on the first general appropriations bill since the adoption of H. Res. 491 and its improvements to the earmarks rules, that the majority has reported a rule that waives all points of order.

I object to using veterans spending to grease the skids for a pork- laden Labor-HHS spending bill. A cursory look through the more than 150 pages of earmarks in the conference report reveals such earmarks as $320,000 for the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri; $130,000 for the First Ladies Museum in Canton, Ohio; $85,000 for the Los Angeles Craft and Folk Art Museum in Los Angeles, California.

But beyond taking exception to the bill, I raise this point of order as the only means available to highlight the alarming trend toward opaqueness rather than transparency. Rather than allow for a full debate on whether this conference report complies with the earmark rule, this rule actually prevents it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a little experience challenging earmarks on the floor. It's not been a pleasant experience at times. We don't know much of what are in these bills that get to the conference. And then when you have a conference report that comes with earmarks air-dropped into it after that, and you only get that bill just a few hours before you vote on it, then I think it behooves us to slow down a bit and say what are we doing here.

I should note that when I challenged earmarks in the House version of the bill, on one occasion we had an earmark withdrawn before the earmark amendment could be offered because there was a problem with the earmark.

In other cases we had the Committee on Appropriations go to the Rules Committee and actually withdraw some of the amendments before they could be challenged. So it is obvious that these earmarks have not been vetted through the process very well, and those are the earmarks that actually went through the House process.

We have here at least nine, nine that are identified, nine earmarks that were air-dropped that were not either part of the House or the Senate version. Mr. Speaker, this just is not a good practice.

One example of the air-dropped earmarks that we just found out about just hours ago, $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy. Now, if we are air-dropping amendments like that into this bill, what else is in the bill? We really haven't had time to go through it. Outside groups are trying to go through this bill and simply haven't had the time. And you are going to have problems; we are going to be learning for weeks or months what's in this bill unless we slow down a bit here.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it begs the question, if there was total transparency here, why did we waive all points of order against this rule? I would have liked to have challenged the conference report itself, but I couldn't because the Rules Committee had decided to waive all points of order. Now, you have to ask why. If everything is transparent and everything is known, why did we waive all points of order? Why am I forced to bring a point of order against the rule itself rather than the conference report?

And I would submit that I would like to believe that it is a transparency, but when you have air-dropped earmarks dropped at the last minute, again, if we are working so hard for America's hardworking taxpayers, as was just said, then why are we air-dropping an earmark for $1 million for the Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service? Naming a center after a former Member, why is that so urgent that we have to break all the rules that we have laid out and sneak it into a bill at the last minute, with less than 24 hours, in fact, less than 12 hours to actually review it? That's not proper vetting.

I should mention that there have been statements made by the majority, and I have liked what I have heard about what we are going to do this year in terms of earmarks transparency.

The Speaker of the House said back in June that Members need to have time to read through these reports and that every earmark should have to be defended.

These nine air-dropped earmarks into this bill today don't have to be defended. They are untouchable. We can't even go at them. We can't offer an amendment to strike them out because they are air-dropped into a conference report where you have no ability to strike them.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, I am not here to defend the Republican record on earmarks. It's abysmal, frankly. I think that's one of the main reasons we are here squarely in the minority today.

But I took great heart, as did many of us, at the promises that were made with the new Congress, that we would have real transparency, real accountability. And, unfortunately, what we are seeing today is a move away from that.

Let me read a statement that I mentioned. In June of this year, the Speaker of the House, in a press conference, said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it should be a matter of public record. And if there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''

When you have nine, at least, that we have been able to find, and when the gentleman says that they are all marked with an asterisk, how do we know? We have 150 pages of earmarks that we were given just this morning. We only got the hard copy of this this morning. We simply don't know. So it behooves us to move a little slower here.

If we really believe in transparency, if we really believe that these earmarks need to be there, then let's have a rule that actually allows for a point of order to be lodged against the conference report, not just against the rule.

Again, I have to say if there was complete transparency here and we didn't have anything to worry about, I think we would have had a rule that did not waive points of order against the bill. And that's why we are here today.

We need to do far better. This is a wonderful institution. There are wonderful people here. It has a great history. We need to do better by it. And I would submit that this legislation before us today with 150 pages of earmarks and nine air-dropped earmarks at the last minute does not do this institution the good that it deserves.

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

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, Democrats wisely seized on earmark reform as an issue during last year's elections. I believe that their promises of reform, coupled with the Republican Party's inability to control earmarks, directly contributed to the Democrats' success in last year's elections. However, the majority party does not appear to be following through with the substantive reforms that were promised.

Take the Labor-HHS bill that will soon be considered in conference. It contains more than 1,300 House earmarks, more than 1,000 Senate earmarks. It goes without saying that few of these earmarks have received even a cursory screening, let alone a thorough vetting. We need to remember that we are only halfway through the process and it is in the conference that much of the earmark mischief occurs. Public confidence in our ability as stewards of their taxpayer dollars will further erode.

Madam Speaker, while watching the Democrats make the same political miscalculations as we did in the majority may delight us as Republicans, it has to be sorely disappointing to taxpayers. I urge all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to support legislation to impose an earmark moratorium until we can scrutinize all earmarks.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have an amendment that has been made in order which I plan to offer later.

When I came on the floor yesterday, I was approached by several Members who pointed out that my amendment was, perhaps, overly broad. I went back to the office and took a look, and I

happen to agree, it is. And it might confuse people. Because in my original amendment I said nothing in the action will relieve any sovereign entity within the jurisdiction of the United States, including the Native Hawaiian governing authority, from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution.

And so I would like to see if the proponents of the measure would agree to a unanimous consent request to narrow the amendment so that it would simply apply only to the Native Hawaiian governing authority, as opposed to the Native American or any sovereign entity within the United States.

I would yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

I thank the gentleman.

Let me just state what the narrowed one would do: ``Nothing in the act shall relieve the Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.''

I'm not trying to play a game of ``gotcha'' here at all. I have the utmost respect, and that respect has grown over the years, for the gentleman from Hawaii. No Member of Congress works harder for his constituents and is more thoughtful in legislating than Mr. Abercrombie. But for those of us who have some concerns that this goes beyond land disposition or other smaller issues, this is not an idle concern that we have.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission noted recently that this legislation ``would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according to varying degrees of privilege.''

I would be glad to yield.

That would be fine with me.

Yes.

I would.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for providing the text of ICRA yesterday. I did read through it and was convinced and compelled that my original amendment was overly broad, and that's why I sought to restrict it here.

Seeing that we cannot restrict it, I will withdraw the amendment. But I will offer the motion to recommit later. And the motion to recommit is pretty much similar to what the amendment would have been, further restricted.

I take the gentleman's concerns. We don't know what the implications will be with the amendment, but I would submit that we don't really know what the implications might be without the amendment. And what the motion to recommit will do will simply have three sections. It's just one page here. It will say that what will apply is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, the Federal civil rights laws, and that no racially defined burdens of immunities, so we will make sure that no persons shall, as a result of the operation of this act, be exempted from any Federal or State law, regulation tax or legal burden that is the basis of the law.

I would say that it is true, this needs to go to the Senate and then come back here. And if there are problems in that this is overly broad, the motion to recommit, then that, perhaps, can be fixed as the bill works its way through. But I think that, because we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, that we should endeavor to make sure that what we pass does not run afoul of, in particular, the 14th amendment.

I understand the gentleman's concerns in talking about ICRA of 1968, but I think we can all agree here that the sovereign nature of Native American tribes in the United States is a little different than what we're talking about here.

So, I think it would behoove us to be careful here and to make sure that we aren't doing anything that might upset the applecart, that we need to make sure that we're not creating something here that might run afoul of the Constitution. I think that's our obligation.

So, that's what the motion to recommit will be. It will be ``forthwith,'' so this will not take any time. It won't have to come back to committee. And I will be glad to give copies across so people can be familiar with it before we're voting on it.

But, again, this is not a game of ``gotcha'' at all. I have great respect for those on the other side of the aisle who have worked hard on this legislation.

With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern about motions to recommit. They are sometimes by their nature political. I don't always vote for the ones offered by my side because of that. However, I am only going to the motion to recommit now because I can't offer my amendment as modified. I would be glad to forgo offering the motion to recommit if I could get a commitment under unanimous consent to restrict my amendment to what I outlined, and I will be glad to read it again. If it is true that the legislation does address this concern, it would be redundant at best, or at worst, but it would at least give us here, and I think, frankly, there is a pretty safe harbor I would think for those of us who are concerned about the constitutionality in saying that this legislation should have the Bill of Rights apply to it, Federal civil rights laws, and there would be no racially defined burdens or immunities. So that is a pretty safe harbor, and I am not seeing it as political. But I would be glad to withdraw that if we could go back and have my amendment accepted as modified.

I thank the gentleman.

I think that we can work with this in the quiet if we simply accept the motion to recommit or preferably the actual amendment that simply says, and let me read it again, ``Nothing in the act shall relieve the Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.'' That's a pretty safe harbor. And I think that if it goes to the Senate and we find there is something in there that needs to be modified or tweaked, we can do that as the bill comes back. But we ought to have at least that, I would submit. And so with the knowledge that we can't modify that, then we will offer the motion to recommit later.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I originally had an amendment that I would have liked to have offered which would simply say that we would add the following: ``Nothing in this act shall relieve a Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.''

This motion to recommit is very similar to that.

As I mentioned before, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission has concerns about the legislation. They said, ``This would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.''

I think there is sufficient concern that we should find the safe harbor here of making sure that the 14th amendment applies. This motion to recommit, I will read the entire thing, it is not long. So I will read all of it.

It simply says: ``Page 44, after line 22, insert the following: Applicability of

the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Native Hawaiian governing entity shall be subject to United States Constitution's Bill of Rights and other protections in the same manner and to the same extent as a State or local government of the United States.

``Section (i). Applicability of Federal civil rights laws. Shall be subject to civil rights and antidiscrimination laws in the same manner and to the same extent as a State or local government of the United States. Section (j). No racially defined burdens or immunities. No person shall, as a result of the operation of this Act, be exempted from any Federal or State law, regulation, tax, or other legal burden on the basis of that person's race or ancestry or on the basis of any classification that is defined by race or ancestry.''

This is a pretty good default, a default back to the Constitution, and says that nothing in this act has to be compatible, has to fit within the Constitution. That is all that this motion to recommit does. Some will raise the concern that this might apply to Native American groups here on the mainland. It does not. This only applies to this act, to the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very narrowly drafted motion to recommit. It is drafted ``forthwith'' so it will come immediately back so it won't spend any more time in committee. Then, if there are issues unforeseen, when it goes to the Senate and comes back, we can work on them. But in the meantime, I think it is a much better option to actually have this default and to go back to the U.S. Constitution.

The gentleman mentioned earlier that the act provides that the Secretary of the Interior has to certify that we are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. I would just state for the record that we haven't had the best record relying on the Secretary of the Interior to manage trust accounts or other things. We shouldn't delegate that authority here. We shouldn't delegate our responsibility to uphold the Constitution to an official in the executive. That is our purpose here. We make the laws. We should ensure that they are given the guidelines and given the protections here that the Constitution affords.

So I would urge adoption of the motion to recommit. As I mentioned, I offered it reluctantly. I would have rather, because motions to recommit sometimes become political, and this is not, so I would have preferred to offer this as a straight amendment narrowed to this specific act, but wasn't afforded that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say again that I want to commend those on the other side of the aisle for working so hard on this legislation and for their diligence in working to make sure that this is a good bill. This will improve it. This will simply say that those under this act are afforded the guarantees and the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

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

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