Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentleman (Mr. Hoyer) another minute.

Mr. OBEY. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I won't take the full 4 minutes. Let me simply say that it is necessary for the House to move forward with this legislation. It is easy to nitpick. It is interesting to me that the minority today has chosen to chastise us for decisions that we made not to go back 2 years and repeal some of the mistakes that the minority made when they were in the majority. They argue that we should have done that; they argue that we should have lived with a simple continuing resolution at '06 levels. If we do that, that would mean we would not have the added funding for veterans health care, we would not have the added funding for BRAC, we would not have the added funding for the National Institutes of Health; we would not be able to raise the Pell grant by $260 for the maximum grant; we would not have the extra funding for energy research. I would ask Members to recognize that after a full year of the Republican minority not being able to produce and finish their work, it is time for us to finish their work so we can move on. The President is producing his new budget on February 5, which is next Monday. We need to clear the decks so we can deal with that afresh. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this is simply a nit-picking motion which, if adopted, would kill our chances of passing this resolution in the United States Senate and result in us living on an '06 continuing resolution, which would deny us the ability to provide additional funds for veterans health care, for education, for veterans housing and the like. I would point out, this resolution already adds $500 million to the basic allowance for housing. This CR already increases family housing construction by $210 million and funds military construction at the level of the President's request that have been authorized. This motion would eliminate the weapons research account that has been of some controversy today. I would point out, we have already cut that account by $94 million. I doubt that the House wants to eliminate that nuclear weapons research. I would also say that in a new found and sudden burst of false piety, we are now being chastised because we did not reach back and eliminate an item that was approved 2 years ago for the State of Iowa by the majority. In fact, the gentleman who was chairman of the committee when that item was approved is none other than the gentleman offering the motion right now. I don't mind clearing up the mistakes for last year, of the gentleman, I do mind being asked to go back 2 years to clear up your mistakes. That is asking too much, even for us. Secondly, I would say that some of us may not like the Denali Commission, but it is a perfectly authorized program. And as much as I might like to see a project like that in my district, I don't have one, neither does the gentleman. I think it is illegitimate for us to single out one legitimate program for elimination that would require us, I think in the interest of fairness, to go back and look at hundreds of other programs that have been approved in the past. So I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks during debate on H.J. Res. 20.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the rules of the Committee on Appropriations for the 110th Congress, adopted on January 16, 2007. Committee on Appropriations--Committee Rules Effective for the 110th Congress (Approved January 16, 2007) Resolved, That the rules and practices of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, in the One Hundred Ninth Congress, except as otherwise provided hereinafter, shall be and are hereby adopted as the rules and practices of the Committee on Appropriations in the One Hundred Tenth Congress. The foregoing resolution adopts the following rules: Sec. 1: Power to Sit and Act (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee and each of its subcommittees is authorized: (1) To sit and act at such times and places within the United States whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it deems necessary; and (2) To require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, reports, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and documents as it deems necessary. (b) The Chairman, or any Member designated by the Chairman, may administer oaths to any witness. (c) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or its subcommittees under subsection (a)(2) in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee voting, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subsection (a)(2) may be delegated to the Chairman pursuant to such rules and under such limitations as the Committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairman or by any Member designated by the Committee. (d) Compliance with any subpoena issued by the Committee or its subcommittees may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House. Sec. 2: Subcommittees (a) The Majority Caucus of the Committee shall establish the number of subcommittees and shall determine the jurisdiction of each subcommittee. (b) Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the Committee all matters referred to it. (c) All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred to the sub committee of appropriate jurisdiction within two weeks unless, by majority vote of the Majority Members of the full Committee, consideration is to be by the full Committee. (d) The Majority Caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members for each subcommittee. The Chairman is authorized to negotiate that ratio with the Minority; Provided, however, That party representation in each subcommittee, including ex-officio members, shall be no less favorable to the Majority than the ratio for the full Committee. (e) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee are each authorized to sit as a member of all subcommittees and to participate, including voting, in all of the work of the subcommittees. Sec. 3: Staffing (a) Committee Staff.--The Chairman is authorized to appoint the staff of the Committee, and make adjustments in the job titles and compensation thereof subject to the maximum rates and conditions established in Clause 9(c) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. In addition, he is authorized, in his discretion, to arrange for their specialized training. The Chairman is also authorized to employ additional personnel as necessary. (b) Assistants to Members: (1) Each of the top twenty-one senior majority and minority Members of the full Committee may select and designate one staff member who shall serve at the pleasure of that Member. Effective as of such date as the Chairman may determine, all other Members of the Committee may also each select and designate one such staff member. (2) Effective as of such date as the Chairman may determine, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee and of each subcommittee may each select and designate one staff member, in addition to the staff member designated under the preceding paragraph, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Member making the designation. (3) Staff members designated under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate, determined by the Member, not to exceed 75 per centum of the maximum established in Clause 9(c) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Effective as of such date as the Chairman may determine, the limit on compensation under this subsection shall be increased to 80 per centum of such maximum. (4) Members designating staff members under this subsection must specifically certify by letter to the Chairman that the employees are needed and will be utilized for Committee work. Sec. 4: Committee Meetings (a) Regular Meeting Day.--The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the first Wednesday of each month while the House is in session, unless the Committee has met within the past 30 days or the Chairman considers a specific meeting unnecessary in the light of the requirements of the Committee business schedule. (b) Additional and Special Meetings: (1) The Chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (2) If at least three Committee Members desire that a special meeting of the Committee be called by the Chairman, those Members may file in the Committee Offices a written request to the Chairman for that special meeting. Such request shall specify the measure or matter to be considered. Upon the filing of the request, the Committee Clerk shall notify the Chairman. (3) If within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairman does not call the requested special meeting to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the Committee Members may file in the Committee Offices their written notice that a special meeting will be held, specifying the date and hour of such meeting, and the measure or matter to be considered. The Committee shall meet on that date and hour. (4) Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the Committee Clerk shall notify all Committee Members that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered. Only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at the special meeting. (c) Vice Chairman To Preside in Absence of Chairman.--A member of the majority party on the Committee or subcommittee thereof designated by the Chairman of the full Committee shall be vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, and shall preside at any meeting during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are not present at any meeting of the Committee or subcommittee, the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall preside at that meeting. (d) Business Meetings: (1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the Committee and its subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the Committee or the subcommittee concerned, in open session and with a majority present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed. (2) No person other than Committee Members and such congressional staff and depart mental representatives as they may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed. (e) Committee Records: (1) The Committee shall keep a complete record of all Committee action, including a record of the votes on any question on which a roll call is demanded. The result of each roll call vote shall be available for inspection by the public during regular business hours in the Committee Offices. The information made available for public inspection shall include a description of the amendment, motion, or other proposition, and the name of each Member voting for and each Member voting against, and the names of those Members present but not voting. (2) All hearings, records, data, charts, and files of the Committee shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the Chairman of the Committee. Such records shall be the property of the House, and all Members of the House shall have access thereto. (3) The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House, except that the Committee authorizes use of any record to which Clause 3(b)(4) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House would otherwise apply after such record has been in existence for 20 years. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to Clause 3(b)(3) or Clause 4(b) of Rule VII of the Rules of the House, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination upon the written request of any Member of the Committee. Sec. 5: Committee and Subcommittee Hearings (a) Overall Budget Hearings.--Overall budget hearings by the Committee, including the hearing required by Section 242(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and Clause 4(a)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be conducted in open session except when the Committee in open session and with a majority present, determines by roll call vote that the testimony to be taken at that hearing on that day may be related to a matter of national security; except that the Committee may by the same procedure close one subsequent day of hearing. A transcript of all such hearings shall be printed and a copy furnished to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. (b) Other Hearings: (1) All other hearings conducted by the Committee or its subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee in open session and with a majority present determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security or would violate any law or Rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those present at a hearing conducted by the Committee or any of its subcommittees, there being in attendance the number required under Section 5(c) of these Rules to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, (1) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security or violate Clause 2(k)(5) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or (2) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in Clause 2(k)(5) of such Rule. No Member of the House of Representatives may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or its subcommittees unless the House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or any of its subcommittees, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members by the same procedures designated in this subsection for closing hearings to the public; Provided, however, That the Committee or its subcommittees may by the same procedure vote to close five subsequent days of hearings. (2) Subcommittee chairmen shall coordinate the development of schedules for meetings or hearings after consultation with the Chairman and other subcommittee chairmen with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings. (3) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any of its subcommittees as the case may be, insofar as is practicable, shall file in advance of such appearance, a written statement of the proposed testimony and shall limit the oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary, except that this provision shall not apply to any witness appearing before the Committee in the overall budget hearings. (4) Each witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity before the Committee, or any of its subcommittees as the case may be, shall to the greatest extent practicable, submit a written statement including a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. (c) Quorum for Taking Testimony.--The number of Members of the Committee which shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence in any hearing of the Committee shall be two. (d) Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses: (1) The Minority Members of the Committee or its subcommittees shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, by a majority of them before completion of any hearing, to call witnesses selected by the Minority to testify with respect to the matter under consideration during at least one day of hearings thereon. (2) The Committee and its subcommittees shall observe the five-minute rule during the interrogation of witnesses until such time as each Member of the Committee or sub committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness. (e) Broadcasting and Photographing of Committee Meetings and Hearings.--Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the full Committee or any of its subcommittees is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and still photography, as provided in Clause (4)(f) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Neither the full Committee Chairman or subcommittee chairman shall limit the number of television or still cameras to fewer than two representatives from each medium. (f) Subcommittee Meetings.--No subcommittee shall sit while the House is reading an appropriation measure for amendment under the five-minute rule or while the Committee is in session. (g) Public Notice of Committee Hearings.--The Chairman of the Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any Committee or sub committee hearing at least one week before the commencement of the hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member of the Committee or respective subcommittee, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman or subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this subsection shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest and promptly entered into the Committee scheduling service of the House Information Systems. Sec. 6: Procedures for Reporting Bills and Resolutions (a) Prompt Reporting Requirement: (1) It shall be the duty of the Chairman to report, or cause to be reported promptly to the House any bill or resolution approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. (2) In any event, a report on a bill or resolution which the Committee has approved shall be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days in which the House is not in session) after the day on which there has been filed with the Committee Clerk a written request, signed by a majority of Committee Members, for the reporting of such bill or resolution. Upon the filing of any such request, the Committee Clerk shall notify the Chairman immediately of the filing of the request. This subsection does not apply to the reporting of a regular appropriation bill or to the reporting of a resolution of inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department. (b) Presence of Committee Majority.--No measure or recommendation shall be reported from the Committee unless a majority of the Committee was actually present. (c) Rollcall Votes.--With respect to each roll call vote on a motion to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the measure of matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be included in the Committee report on the measure or matter. (d) Compliance With Congressional Budget Act.--A Committee report on a bill or resolution which has been approved by the Committee shall include the statement required by Section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and clearly identified, if the bill or resolution provides new budget authority. (e) Constitutional Authority Statement.--Each report of the Committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. (f) Changes in Existing Law.--Each Committee report on a general appropriation bill shall contain a concise statement describing fully the effect of any provision of the bill which directly or indirectly changes the application of existing law. (g) Rescissions and Transfers.--Each bill or resolution reported by the Committee shall include separate headings for rescissions and transfers of unexpended balances with all proposed rescissions and transfers listed therein. The report of the Committee accompanying such a bill or resolution shall include a separate section with respect to such rescissions or transfers. (h) Listing of Unauthorized Appropriations.--Each Committee report on a general appropriation bill shall contain a list of all appropriations contained in the bill for any expenditure not currently authorized by law for the period concerned (except for classified intelligence or national security programs, projects, or activities) along with a statement of the last year for which such expenditures were authorized, the level of expenditures authorized for that year, the actual level of expenditures for that year, and the level of appropriations in the bill for such expenditures. (i) Supplemental or Minority Views: (1) If, at the time the Committee approves any measure or matter, any Committee Member gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, or additional views, the Member shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after the day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) in which to file such views in writing and signed by the Member, with the Clerk of the Committee. All such views so filed shall be included in and shall be a part of the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. (2) The Committee report on that measure or matter shall be printed in a single volume which-- (i) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional views which have been submitted by the time of the filing of the report, and (ii) shall have on its cover a recital that any such supplemental, minority, or additional views are included as part of the report. (3) This subsection does not preclude-- (i) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, or additional views has been made as provided by such subsection; or (ii) the filing by the Committee of a supplemental report on a measure or matter which may be required for correction of any technical error in a previous report made by the Committee on that measure or matter. (4) If, at the time a subcommittee approves any measure or matter for recommendation to the full Committee, any Member of that subcommittee who gives notice of intention to offer supplemental, minority, or additional views shall be entitled, insofar as is practicable and in accordance with the printing requirements as determined by the subcommittee, to include such views in the Committee Print with respect to that measure or matter. (j) Availability of Reports.--A copy of each bill, resolution, or report shall be made available to each Member of the Committee at least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) in advance of the date on which the Committee is to consider each bill, resolution, or report; Provided, That this subsection may be waived by agreement between the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee. (k) Performance Goals and Objectives.--Each Committee report shall contain a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding. (l) Motion to go to Conference.--The Chairman is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the Chairman considers it appropriate. Sec. 7: Voting (a) No vote by any Member of the Committee or any of its subcommittees with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. (b) The vote on any question before the Committee shall be taken by the yeas and nays on the demand of one-fifth of the Members present. (c) The Chairman of the Committee or the chairman of any of its subcommittees may-- (1) postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting an amendment; (2) resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time after reasonable notice. When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. Sec. 8: Studies and Examinations The following procedure shall be applicable with respect to the conduct of studies and examinations of the organization and operation of Executive Agencies under authority contained in Section 202 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and in Clause (3)(a) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives: (a) The Chairman is authorized to appoint such staff and, in his discretion, arrange for the procurement of temporary services of consultants, as from time to time may be required. (b) Studies and examinations will be initiated upon the written request of a subcommittee which shall be reasonably specific and definite in character, and shall be initiated only by a majority vote of the subcommittee, with the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking minority member thereof participating as part of such majority vote. When so initiated such request shall be filed with the Clerk of the Committee for submission to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member and their approval shall be required to make the same effective. Notwithstanding any action taken on such request by the chairman and ranking minority member of the subcommittee, a request may be approved by a majority of the Committee. (c) Any request approved as provided under subsection (b) shall be immediately turned over to the staff appointed for action. (d) Any information obtained by such staff shall be reported to the chairman of the subcommittee requesting such study and examination and to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, shall be made available to the members of the subcommittee concerned, and shall not be released for publication until the subcommittee so determines. (e) Any hearings or investigations which may be desired, aside from the regular hearings on appropriation items, when approved by the Committee, shall be conducted by the subcommittee having jurisdiction over the matter. Sec. 9: Official Travel (a) The chairman of a subcommittee shall approve requests for travel by subcommittee members and staff for official business within the jurisdiction of that subcommittee. The ranking minority member of a subcommittee shall concur in such travel requests by minority members of that subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member shall concur in such travel requests for Minority Members of the Committee. Requests in writing covering the purpose, itinerary, and dates of proposed travel shall be submitted for final approval to the Chairman. Specific approval shall be required for each and every trip. (b) The Chairman is authorized during the recess of the Congress to approve travel authorizations for Committee Members and staff, including travel outside the United States. (c) As soon as practicable, the Chairman shall direct the head of each Government agency concerned not to honor requests of subcommittees, individual Members, or staff for travel, the direct or indirect expenses of which are to be defrayed from an executive appropriation, except upon request from the Chairman. (d) In accordance with Clause 8 of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and Section 502 (b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, local currencies owned by the United States shall be available to Committee Members and staff engaged in carrying out their official duties outside the United States, its territories, or possessions. No Committee Member or staff member shall receive or expend local currencies for subsistence in any country at a rate in excess of the maximum per diem rate set forth in applicable Federal law. (e) Travel Reports: (1) Members or staff shall make a report to the Chairman on their travel, covering the purpose, results, itinerary, expenses, and other pertinent comments. (2) With respect to travel outside the United States or its territories or possessions, the report shall include: (1) an itemized list showing the dates each country was visited, the amount of per diem furnished, the cost of transportation furnished, and any funds expended for any other official purpose; and (2) a summary in these categories of the total foreign currencies and/or appropriated funds expended. All such individual reports on foreign travel shall be filed with the Chairman no later than sixty days following completion of the travel for use in complying with reporting requirements in applicable Federal law, and shall be open for public inspection. (3) Each Member or employee performing such travel shall be solely responsible for supporting the amounts reported by the Member or employee. (4) No report or statement as to any trip shall be publicized making any recommendations in behalf of the Committee without the authorization of a majority of the Committee. (f) Members and staff of the Committee performing authorized travel on official business pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be governed by applicable laws or regulations of the House and of the Committee on House Administration pertaining to such travel, and as promulgated from time to time by the Chairman.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I very much thank the gentleman for the time. Madam Speaker, I observed that the minority is complaining about the fact that this approach has not been sufficiently bipartisan. As I recall, during the 10 years that the Democrats were in the minority, or more, I asked the Rules Committee almost 100 times to make specific proposals in order. The last time I checked, the record demonstrated that they had made them in order exactly two times.

Mr. OBEY. I didn't hear what you said, but I don't have the time to yield anyway, I am sorry. The fact is that the 9/11 Commission recognized two problems that in their words rendered congressional oversight of intelligence ``dysfunctional''. The first was that the intelligence authorizing committee was routinely ignored by the administration and the intelligence community because they didn't provide the money. In this town, people follow the money. Secondly, the Appropriations Committee, frankly, was negligent in its responsibilities for oversight. Example: When Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld established an independent intelligence operation outside of the purview of his own agency's intelligence shop, I tried to find out what was going on. I requested that the Appropriations Committee do a thorough Surveys And Investigations study of what was going on. My efforts were blocked by that same committee. The third problem we faced is that there was grossly insufficient staff on the part of the Appropriations Committee to have decent congressional oversight. Example: The Democratic minority had exactly one staffer to deal not only with all intelligence issues but also with the entire defense budget. How much do you think you can get done with one person? The other problem was that there was not sufficient emphasis on intelligence matters by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee because they had a lot of other things to do dealing with ``little'' problems like the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. So the 9/11 Commission suggested one way to correct that problem. They suggested that we merge the authorizers with the appropriators, and that the authorizing committee, in fact, do the appropriating. We concluded that there was a better way to accomplish the same goal. We felt that the problem with the initial recommendation was that it doesn't make much sense to consider intelligence funding requests standing alone, because in the real world those requests have to compete with other national security imperatives, again, funding the Army, the Air Force, and the other agencies. Instead, we chose to follow a different model, that of the Joint Committee on Taxation. That committee conducts an annual review of the strategic plans and the budget of the IRS. This bill follows, with some variation, that pattern. It creates a hybrid committee composed of members from the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations Committee. They are all appointed by the Speaker because, in technical terms, whenever task forces are created around here, it is the Speaker who does the appointing. Speaker Pelosi has already made crystal clear that she intends to appoint whatever Republicans are suggested by the minority leader. But there was another reason that the Speaker is listed as appointing all of these people, because we want to make clear to the intelligence community that if they try to ignore what this task force is trying to do, that they are not just messing around with individual Members of Congress; they are messing around with the leader of an independent branch of government who has the authority to inflict consequences if they don't provide information the Congress is entitled to have. This task force will be given the obligation to prepare an annual assessment of all intelligence activities and to make budget recommendations, which will serve as the basis for the preparation of the intelligence budget, the classified annex to the defense appropriation bill. The reason the subcommittee needs to have at least the ability in theory to change some of those recommendations is because it has a job which that panel doesn't have. It has the job of measuring the needs of intelligence against other national security needs, and it needs to have that flexibility. But this bill would also lead to a beefed-up staff for this task force, and that task force will be buttressed by the subpoena power of the Appropriations Committee. That means that at long last we will have at least one panel which the intelligence community cannot ignore. We will have one panel which even the Republican members of the commission, like John Lehman, have indicated is a great step forward. I would just suggest that if the gentleman had preferred a different approach, it would have been nice if he had produced one in the 2\1/2\ years he had the chance. I urge support for this proposal.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend, wants to hyperventilate over the fact that I simply verbally referred to this as a ``task force'' rather than a ``panel,'' be my guest. I guess his threshold of excitement has been considerably lowered these days. Let me simply say, the gentleman says this is an insult to Mr. Murtha and to Mr. Young. No, it is not. He asked, does the Defense Appropriations Committee need oversight? It certainly did the last year, and let me tell you why. When Mr. Rumsfeld set up his separate stovepiping operation for intelligence, I went to Mr. Murtha, asked him to sign a letter instituting a surveys and investigations study because, under our rules, under our practices, we needed the support of the full chairman, the full ranking member and the subcommittee chairman and the subcommittee ranking member. I went to Mr. Murtha. He signed on to the letter calling for the investigation. I went to Mr. Young. He signed on to the letter calling for the investigation. But I was blocked by the full committee chairman. So if you are asking me, does the Appropriations Committee, based on its record of the last 2 years, need some additional oversight on this issue? You bet it does, because as a result of that refusal to proceed, we never did learn what Rumsfeld was doing until we read it in the press. That is not the way it is supposed to work. This is the first time that we have created any kind of a panel that will force the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee to work together like adults rather than worrying about dunghill jurisdictional issues. And the security of this country is a whole lot more important than the feelings of any one committee.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is to take some time on the floor today to separate fact from fiction with respect to earmarks. Let me start by saying that I think my record is clear. I have tried as long as I have been in this Congress to restrain both the dollar amount spent on earmarks and the number of earmarks that we have had. But I want to make certain that if we are looking at earmarks we are asking ourselves the right questions. I do not want anyone on this floor, or anyone else, including the White House, to suggest that if you eliminate funding for earmarks you save one dime. You do not. The right question to ask about earmarks is simply whether that money is put in the right place or not. And let me explain what I mean. When the Appropriations Committee, for instance, brings out its appropriation bills, each subcommittee operates under a spending ceiling. And if that bill exceeds that spending ceiling, then a single Member can knock the entire bill off the floor. That means that earmarks, if they are provided, are provided within the predetermined ceiling for that bill. So, for instance, if the committee decides that it is going to earmark 50 after-school projects, those after-school projects are financed within the predetermined ceiling, not above that ceiling. So if people want to pose for holy pictures on the issue of earmarks, be my guest. Just make sure you have your facts when you do so. That is all I ask. A second thing I would point out. If we are going to talk about earmarks, then let us talk about the guy who does the most earmarking. That is the guy in the big White House at the other end of the Pennsylvania Avenue. He is called the President. And I want to give you an example of what happens with the President's budget. The biggest earmarker in the land is the President of the United States of America. Let me give you one example. Last year, the administration provided 18,808 FIRE grants in districts represented by Republican Members of Congress. It provided 11,470 FIRE grants in districts represented by Democrats. Every single one of those FIRE grants is the functional equivalent of an earmark. Now, does anybody believe that that ratio of FIRE grants in Republican versus Democratic districts was not political? If you do, I have got a lot of things I would like to sell you after the session is over. Let me also make one additional point: What is an earmark? If the President sends down an Army Corps of Engineers' list of projects, let's say he suggests 800 projects for the Army Corps of Engineers. Let's say the Congress, after its hearings, determines that 16 of them don't make any sense and so they substitute other projects. Are the 16 which the Congress substituted the only earmarks in that bill? What about the original President's list? He has selected those. Doesn't that represent an earmark on the part of the executive as well? So I would simply ask, if we are going to start talking earmarks, let's not have the pot calling the kettle black. Let us remember that the Congress has a right to make policy judgments, indeed it has an obligation to make policy judgments, that direct money to one place or another. When I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee 12 years ago, the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill didn't contain a single earmark. Last year, our Republican friends on the other side of the aisle were planning to have 3,000 earmarks in the Labor-Health bill. I think that is a gross exaggeration of what our staffs have the ability to review. I don't want a single earmark in any bill that the committee staff cannot review to make certain that the reputation of this House and the reputation of the committee is protected. That is why we have the provision in this language that says if any Member asks for an earmark, he also has to certify that that earmark will provide no financial advantage to him or his spouse. To me, that is the way you protect the integrity of the institution and still protect the power of the purse and still protect the prerogative of the Congress. That is the way you protect the prerogatives of the Congress, while also protecting the reputation of this institution. So, please, keep your terms straight. Keep your facts straight. Let's not claim things that are not so about some of these changes. Let's recognize what the definitions are and the fact that this is a very complicated matter.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this resolution tonight is a blatant admission of abject failure by the most useless Congress in modern times. That we do not have a budget before us is certainly not the fault of the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the committee. This House passed every single appropriation bill except the Labor- Health appropriation bill, before the July 4 recess. The problem is that the budget resolution which defined what would be contained in those appropriation bills was so wildly unrealistic that moderate Republicans in this House rebelled and would not, for instance, agree to support the budget resolution until a promise was made that $3 billion in additional funding would be found in order to correct some of the shortfalls in education and health and worker protection programs. In addition, as the gentleman from California has said, when these bills went over to the other end of the Capitol, the United States Senate, they ran into the decision of the Republican majority leader to avoid having the Senate take votes on any controversial issues in the domestic portion of the budget. As a result, we are here tonight 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. I want to contrast that with the condition that we left the government in when the Democrats lost the majority in 1994. In 1994 I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and when we lost the election, we had still managed to complete every single appropriation before the end of the fiscal year. We did that because we had reached a bipartisan agreement between the then-majority Democrats and the then- minority Republicans on the allocation of appropriated dollars to each of the subcommittees. And it was that bipartisan cooperation which allowed us to pass every single bill in the allotted time. Now we are here with Governors unable to plan, State legislatures unable to plan, mayors being unable to plan, families being unable to plan, because they do not know what the final disposition of the entire domestic budget is going to be. And so now the Congress is going to leave town and when the Democrats assume control next January, we are going to have to pass 2 years of appropriation bills in 1 year. We will do our best to do that; but I must say to my majority party friends that I think that by this act of abdication, they have given up any right to criticize in any way whatever devices we have to use in order to dispose of the unfinished business of this Congress come next January. We will do our best, but we have very few decent options. And I find it ironic, as the gentleman from California at least obliquely referenced, I find it ironic that the Senate majority leader found time to publicly diagnose Terri Schiavo's case from the Senate floor. I find it ironic that the majority leader in the Senate found the time to insert 40 pages of language into the defense bill last year indemnifying the entire pharmaceutical industry. He insisted on having that language inserted, although it had never been cleared by anyone in the conference and the conference had already finished its work before that was inserted. So he had plenty of time to do that, but he didn't manage to find the time to schedule the appropriation bills on the Senate floor, and as a result, we are here with this mess tonight. The most fundamental obligation of the Congress under the Constitution of the United States is to decide what activities the government needs to engage in and to provide the financing for those activities. That is the purpose of appropriation bills. And when the Congress fails to pass that legislation, it fails in its principal obligation to the taxpayers. So I simply want to say that Senator Byrd and I expect to have an announcement next week on how we will attempt to deal with the leftovers from this congressional session. But I would simply ask one thing of my friends on the majority side of the aisle: Please spare me. Don't have the gall to go to the American public 2 years from now and ask once again to be put in charge of handling the Nation's budget when the decision has been made at the highest levels of the Republican Party tonight to walk away from our collective responsibility to pass this legislation before we adjourn. The President is entitled to have his new budget considered anew. He is entitled to have the decks wiped clean so that he can start fresh; and with all due respect, I think we are also entitled to be able to start fresh so that come January, we can consider the President's new budget and not have to turn to last year's problems. We are not going to be given that opportunity, and the President isn't going to be given that opportunity. That is a shame. But at this point we have no choice but to support this resolution. I do want to say one thing. Speaking of unfinished business, I am pleased to see that this resolution at this point does contain the suspension of the congressional COLA until such time as the minimum wage is increased. I know the distinguished minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, had asked that that be done. This resolution does not complete the linkage, but it does suspend that COLA until February 17, I believe the date is, which gives us an opportunity to pass the minimum wage bill in January before it goes into effect. I hope we meet that obligation so that we can see to it that as Congress receives its COLA, the lowest-paid workers in this country also get a benefit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to congratulate the gentleman from California for doing his dead-level best to fulfill his duties in getting all of these bills through, even though he received precious little cooperation from many other key players on Capitol Hill. I would simply point out that it is not his fault that the budget resolution which was adopted by the majority party was so highly unrealistic that, in the end, the majority party in this House could not convince their Senate brethren to vote for the same legislation that was required by that budget resolution. And I want to simply say that I think the Record demonstrates that both of us on both sides of the aisle did everything that we could procedurally to get these bills through the House. We reached time agreements on amendment after amendment, on bill after bill. Sometimes time agreements were so tight that Members were significantly angered by how little time they had to debate these bills. But even though we often opposed the content of the bills, we worked together to move them because we recognized that we had a responsibility to make decisions and to finish the job, whether we won or lost. Unfortunately, the gentleman did not have enough allies on his side of the aisle, and so we are stuck with this leftover mess. We will do our best in January and February to clean it up, but it is not going to be a very pleasant couple of months.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in joining my colleagues tonight in recognizing the service of Lane Evans. Lane is one of those people who came to Congress willing to work and not very interested in getting much attention or claiming much credit. All the work he did demonstrated his beliefs that we are here not to make a name for ourselves, but to make life better for the people who make this country strong. He was an advocate for the American worker and an advocate for the American Veteran. Since 1995 when Lane became Ranking Member of the House Committee Veterans Affairs, no one has tried harder to honor our obligations to those who have served our Country in uniform. Like the lighthouses on the Great Lakes, Lane has been a beacon of wisdom. When you follow Lane Evans, you know you are going in the right direction. In addition, he is just a first rate human being. I wish him well and offer my sincere gratitude for his service.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to understand where we stand at this point. At this point, we have completed the Defense bill and the Homeland Security bill, but we still at this point have not seen the Congress complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill. So what we are facing is the need within the next 2 weeks, in my view, to try to finish our work, and I think we have a responsibility to do so. The Congress left town for almost 6 weeks for the election. Now because of that long period of time, we face the fact that we still have a huge amount of appropriations work to do. The House produced final action on every single one of the appropriation bills except the Labor-HHS, and the Senate is in the process, I hope, of moving those bills forward. The Senate passed the Military Construction bill yesterday. It is my understanding that they are taking up the Agriculture bill this week and will also perhaps take up the Energy and Water bill. I hope that is the case. I agree with the gentleman that I would much prefer to see these bills handled in regular order, one by one, on a separate basis. Having said that, my primary purpose is to see to it that they move, and I care less about how they move than whether they move, and I think most American citizens feel the same way. I think we have a duty to finish action on all of these bills, and I think it would be sad, indeed, if we were to adjourn this Congress with local units of government, local school boards, local program managers and State program managers not having any idea what the final resolution of these bills will be. So while I certainly agree with the gentleman that it is preferable to move individual bills, I am open to any suggestion procedurally in order to finish that work. We have cooperated on the minority side of the aisle. We have cooperated procedurally with the majority on every single appropriation bill, even though we have not agreed with the contents on some of those bills. I am willing to entertain procedural compromises. I am willing to entertain substantive compromises. But we need to try to move all of these bills by whatever method makes it possible to do so. I would simply note, there is one bill that remains in the House for us to act on, and I am perfectly willing to try to work out additional compromises on that bill if that will help the bill to move. I don't like the idea that the Senate might wind up moving first on that bill, but even then, I think our primary obligation is to get this work done. So I would urge the leadership and I would urge the gentleman and anyone else interested to please recognize that it would be irresponsible for this Congress not to finish its work. I would like to see a more productive closing to this session of Congress than has often been the case, and I am perfectly willing to work with anybody on any day in any way in order to get that done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on the vote on H.R. 5441, the voting bells in my office malfunctioned, did not go off, causing me to miss the vote. I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I am pleased to be able to support this bill. I very much regret the fact that we will only have completed two out of the 11 appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year. That, in my view, is not the fault of the Appropriations Committee on either side of the aisle. It is very much the fault of the fact that this institution chose to adopt a budget resolution which did not accurately reflect the political center of gravity in the Republican Party, much less the Democratic Party when you take a look at the positions of each House. Having said that, I want to take this opportunity to comment on something the President said yesterday because the President told the country that those of us on this side of the aisle were, in effect, soft on security and soft on defending this country. I regret very much that the President has chosen to govern this country by dividing it rather than uniting it. I took a great deal of pleasure in working with the President's father in working out many a legislative compromise. We did the same thing with President Clinton. We did the same thing with President Carter. We even on many occasions did the same thing with President Reagan and President Nixon. But this is the first President I have known who has seemed to purposely divide the country in order to govern, and I just want to trace what the facts are with respect to defending the homeland. I remember, in August of 2001 when I was at home in Wisconsin, receiving a call from my staff director telling me he had just been briefed by the CIA and that they were extremely concerned about the traffic that they were intercepting around the world, and they thought something big was up, did not know if it was domestic or international, but the intelligence community was very worried that something was coming. That was in August, just before 9/11. The day before 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft met with his staff to set out their priorities for the year, and in that meeting, he was presented a spreadsheet with various boxes indicating which would be his preferred activities and activities of focus for the coming year. He declined to check any of the boxes that had anything to do with antiterrorism. He was, in fact, urged by his staff to reconsider and rejected that advice and told the staff, ``No, I want to focus on drugs.'' The Attorney General denied that in a hearing of our committee, but in fact, my office had been leaked the documents by his own agency that showed exactly what he had done in that meeting. Then, after we were hit by anthrax, I called Bill Young, who was then the chairman of the full committee, and suggested that since we could not get into our offices, we talk to the security agencies to see what they felt they needed in order to respond to the threat represented by 9/11. We talked to the FBI, the NSA, CIA, you name it, all of the security agencies. On a bipartisan basis, we put together a listing of action items, and then we cut it and we cut it and then requested to see the President. We went down to see the President. He came into the room. Before we could say a word, he said, ``Well, I understand some of you want to spend more money than I have requested for homeland security.'' He said, ``My good friend Mitch Daniels here from OMB tells us that we have got enough money in our budget, and so I want you to know, if you appropriate a dollar more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill. I have got time for four or five comments and I am out of here.'' Senator Stevens said, ``Mr. President, I do not think you understand, we have already agreed. We will knock off any item you do not want. We are not trying to have an argument. We just want something done.'' Senator Byrd made the same point, and then I asked the President, I said, ``Mr. President, I have been coming down here for 30 years, this is the first time any President has ever told me his mind was closed before the subject was even open.'' I said, ``I want to ask you four questions about Federal installations, which we have been told by your own people, your own security people, are gravely at risk of terrorist attack, their words, not mine.'' I asked him about them. It was clear he had not been briefed on them. I did not expect him to. He is a busy man. But we walked out of there after being told by the President that he would veto any additional efforts to provide funds for homeland security. Despite that fact, we went back up to Capitol Hill and eventually added more than $2 billion to the President's request, and he signed the bill. The following year, the President held a press conference bragging about the fact that the Customs agency had this new port security arrangement, new inspection of cargo coming into this country, and he had a press conference bragging about it, and then pocket vetoed the money to make it happen. I felt that that was enough to give hypocrisy a bad name. So that is very basically the early history of what the President's record is in terms of resisting bipartisan efforts to strengthen homeland security funding. I remember going out to the CIA and watching in real-time as we could see what the Predators flying over in Afghanistan were seeing when they were looking for bin Laden, and I know what the CIA people thought about the President's decision to divert a significant portion of our resources from the job of nailing bin Laden to preparing for the war in Iraq. They were not very happy about it, and we were not either. Since that time, on seven different occasions on this side of the aisle, we have tried to add funding to the President's budget for homeland security and to the committee budget. I want to make clear I think the subcommittee has done the best it could, given the allocation that it was given under the Republican budget; but that does not mean that the allocation was adequate. The record is clear that the President on numerous occasions offered inadequate budgets which had to be augmented by this committee on a bipartisan basis. So I think it comes with considerable ill grace and with considerable reinventing of history for the President to suggest that there is any difference of opinion between the two parties with respect to our dedication to protecting the homeland. He knows it is not so, but campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of the facts as far as he is concerned. So I just want to make the point that I do not question the President's patriotism because he chose to put tax cuts as a higher priority than even additional funding for homeland security. That is a judgment he made, and that is a judgment he will have to defend. I do not question his patriotism. I question his judgment. I think that it comes with considerably ill grace from a man who has the track record of refusing efforts of this Congress to strengthen homeland security on various occasions, to have that man question anybody else's dedication to this country, question anybody else's dedication to defending this country. The record does not bear out his claims, and I think if you check the record, you will find out that every statement I have made today is fully true and accurate. With that, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to follow up on the remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky about the gentleman from Minnesota. I remember when Martin Sabo first walked into this institution in 1978. He and his wife, Sylvia, epitomize more than any people I know what are regarded as midwestern values, most especially the value of modesty. You will never find Martin Sabo bragging much on himself. In that sense, he is a true Norwegian. I also think that he exemplifies the thoughtfulness and the caring for one's neighbor that people in the Midwest have come to take as being the natural course of things. He is probably the closest friend I have in this body. I very much regret to see him leave. I question his judgment profoundly on that. As the gentleman from Kentucky has said, while today the gentleman from Minnesota deals with homeland security issues and is certainly an expert on those, in the past he has dealt with transportation issues most ably. As a matter of fact, there is no one in this body who has made a greater contribution to the cause of responsible budgeting and deficit reduction over the years than has the gentleman from Minnesota. He chaired the Budget Committee when we took the action under President Clinton that finally began to get the budget deficit under control. I just want to profoundly express my appreciation to him, not just for his accomplishments but for the way he has achieved those accomplishments, for the way he has dealt with the needs of this body as an institution, for the respect that he has shown for the values and the traditions of this institution and the respect that he has shown for persons on both sides of the aisle. He is truly a gentleman. He is a great legislator. I hate to see him go. I hope he is back to visit us often. I thank the gentleman profoundly for the quality of his service.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.