Further Continuing Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2007

FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do something that I have never done before, and that is to oppose House passage of an appropriations bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, and I use the term ``friends' sincerely, have produced an 8-month omnibus spending bill that appropriates $463.5 billion. It is legislation that few have seen, which cannot be amended in any way, and that will pass this House after only 1 hour of debate. It is the first omnibus spending bill that I have seen during my time in Congress written and considered without the input of the chairman or ranking members of any appropriations subcommittee, without the input of any Republican or Democratic subcommittee members, without the benefit of a full Appropriations Committee markup, without the standard three days for circulating the bill to committee members before markup, without the standard 3 days for circulating the bill to all House Members after full committee consideration, without any prior debate whatsoever, and without the opportunity to offer even one amendment on the House floor.

I do not fault my friend, Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for he is doing what he is asked to be done by his leadership. He is in the position today because of the former Senate majority leader's complete failure to schedule and pass the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee did their work last year, and Mr. Obey and I worked very closely in attempting to see it was fully completed. The Senate leadership did not.

As the former chairman of the committee, I know that Mr. Obey feels strongly about maintaining regular order and passing other appropriations bills. I can vividly recall a conversation Mr. Obey had with me shortly after I became chairman when he suggested that perhaps I would be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the breakdown of regular order.

I looked to his comments and have taken them to heart because I committed to him and to our Members that we would pass our spending bills in regular order, and the 2 years I served as chairman we did.

Today, my fear is that Mr. Obey may be the last chairman of the Appropriations Committee because of the very concern he expressed to me, the breakdown of that regular order. Shutting both Republicans and Democrats out of the legislative process is a highly, highly unusual circumstance, but that is exactly what has occurred.

Both Republicans and Democrats are being denied a full and open debate on this legislation that will spend, as I suggested earlier, $463.5 billion, roughly one-half of the annual Federal budget.

Speaker Pelosi and Leader HOYER, both former members of the Appropriations Committee, know that our process is very open and a collaborative one. Historically, appropriations bills are brought to the floor under an open rule to encourage debate and create better legislation. Our spending bills reflect not just the will of the Appropriations Committee but, indeed, the will of the entire bipartisan House. It is not uncommon to have hours and hours of debate and more than 100 Democrat or Republican amendments offered on a single spending bill. That is, until today.

The House will debate this legislation today for 1 hour. Not one amendment has been made in order. The Senate, that is, the other body, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to debate the legislation for up to 15 days and with the potential for an unlimited number of amendments.

Let me repeat, it is important that the Members hear that. One hour of debate in the House with no amendments, 15 days of debate in the Senate with potentially unlimited amendments.

Speaker Pelosi has vowed to run the House in a more open, democratic and inclusive way. A spirit of bipartisanship, she said, would prevail in the people's House. That pledge was put on the shelf so the new majority could complete their first 100 hours agenda.

The new majority then promised that business would soon return to regular order with plenty of opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to participate in the democratic process. Members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, are still waiting for the Speaker to keep her word.

In closing, I would suggest that our country would be better served by extending for a full year the clean continuing resolution the House and Senate passed in December. That legislation, a mere 19 pages long, contained no gimmicks, no policy changes, and did not reward or punish agencies indiscriminately, as is done in this 137-page package.

This omnibus spending bill before us today totally disregards the once proud tradition of regular order within the House Appropriations Committee and violates the longstanding bipartisan customs of the people's House. I urge that my colleagues join me in a ``no' vote.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, somewhat responding to the majority leader's comment, I can't help but be moved to say that he suggested directly that Mr. Obey had spent a good deal of time with the gentleman from the Senate, Mr. Byrd, the two Members involved in this bill, and beyond that, a good deal of contact with our staff. Beyond those two Members, let me say that this has been a very fine product. It is a staff, nonelected staffperson's piece of work that involves $463.5 billion of appropriations.

I must say that it is important for me that the body know that I am committed to reducing the rate of growth of spending. $463.5 billion is a pretty significant rate of growth.

But in the meantime, as we go about reducing spending growth, I will also work in a bipartisan spirit to move our bill through the committee and on time and under budget.

I will not, however, respond to either intimidation or any threats relative to the way we are handling the appropriations process. The Appropriations Committee will not become a small colony in the empire of this new leadership.

We renew our commitment to bills produced by regular order that will serve as a credit to our committee, to the national interest, as well as to the people from our districts we pretend to serve.

With that, the leader and I will work further together on this matter, but I am very concerned about the volume of staff direction here where in the final analysis the people know that they are not elected representatives of the House.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is intended to eliminate earmarks to fund a variety of important Federal programs. In spite of those best intentions, however, a close reading of the bill revealed that earmarks were, in fact, left in.

Additionally, a number of critical programs affecting new law enforcement, military construction and military families have been shortchanged. In an effort to live up to the spirit of what this bill intended, my motion to recommit would eliminate nearly $600 million in earmarks, other unnecessary spending, and also use those funds to fully fund the Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to combat methamphetamines and other illicit drugs, restore critically needed funds to military construction and military family housing accounts, and reduce the Federal deficit.

Specifically, this motion would accomplish the following:

First, rescind the remaining $44.6 million from the Senate's rain forest in Iowa earmark, eliminate $94 million unnecessary and unrequested funding for the Denali Commission, funding that is nothing more than a thinly-disguised Senate earmark for Alaska. Eliminate $400 million of ongoing earmarks from the NNSA weapons activity accounts. Eliminate $49.7 million of spending in DOE's fossil energy account, spending that duplicates mandatory funding by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

My motion would distribute these savings in the following manner:

First, $50 million for the DEA's efforts to combat meth and other illicit drugs; $275 million for basic allowance for housing; $86 million for critically needed military construction and family housing; $178 million for deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to live up to the spirit of this legislation by voting to eliminate earmarks and put those funds to better use by combating meth, supporting our military families and reducing the deficit.

I urge a strong bipartisan vote on this motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov