Ii. History of Omnibus Appropriations

This publication is dedicated to the many members of Congress and staff who do their best in difficult circumstances, and who want to make it better.

ReadtheBill.org Foundation is solely responsible for the content of this report.

ReadtheBill.org Foundation seeks only transparent government and does not support or oppose policy on substance. It is the leading national organization promoting transparent legislative process in the U.S. Congress. Founded in January 2006, the ReadtheBill.org family of organizations is non-partisan and philosophically independent from the two major parties.

Monsters from Congress

a report by Rafael DeGennaro and Rachel Sciabarrasi

October 2007

This report is available free online at: www.readthebill.org/monsters

Paper copies may be purchased from ReadtheBill.org Foundation.

Main Office (send correspondence here): Washington, DC: ReadtheBill.org Foundation 325 Pennsylvania Ave., SE P.O. Box 1070 Suite 275 Branford, CT 06405-8070 Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 203-483-0500 Tel: 202-544-2620

We welcome donations to support this and other research and education activities. Donate online at www.readthebill.org or make checks payable to: “ReadtheBill.org Foundation” and send to main office. (Tax-deductible to fullest extent of the law.)

Factual corrections and feedback on this report are welcome. Email us at [email protected] or fax us at 203-483-0508

This report was created using free software: the OpenOffice.org Writer program on the Ubuntu Linux operating system.

— 2 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Executive Summary

The United States operated for almost two centuries without omnibus appropriations bills. Starting in 1982, Congress began packaging regular appropriations bills together into “omnibus” appropriations bills. The practice has continued under both Republican and Democratic majorities in Congress. Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have all signed and been complicit in the enactment of omnibus appropriations bills. In a class by himself, President George H.W. Bush can take some credit for the fact that he was never presented with an omnibus appropriations bill.

The history of omnibus appropriations demonstrates incontrovertibly that they are inherently unreadable. As such, omnibus appropriations bills are monsters—a profound threat to both deliberative democracy and the rule of law in the United States. Republicans and Democrats have characterized smaller, two or three-bill “minibus” appropriations bills as qualitatively different from omnibus bills and therefore acceptable. ReadtheBill.org believes these mini-monsters are just as bad because they are often large and routinely unread.

While most public attention focuses on the content of omnibus appropriations bills, ReadtheBill.org Foundation is concerned only with the process by which they are enacted. It is far more frightening. Congress enacted 14 omnibus (or minibus) appropriations bills during the fiscal years 1983-2005. Each package contained from 2 to 13 regular appropriations bills. ReadtheBill.org found that 13 of the omnibus packages enacted could not possibly have been read by a human being before floor debate in Congress.

To read these 13 conference reports, House members had fewer than 24 hours to read each, and senators fewer than 48 hours. Many of these were massive documents numbering over 1,000 pages and simply not available to members in a readable form. These 13 omnibus appropriations conference reports together totaled 12,113 pages. Members of the House had a combined total of 65 hours to read all of these 12,113 pages before floor debate began—just seven hours shy of three calendar days. Under the standing rules of the House, bills and conference reports are supposed to be available to members (not the public) for three calendar days before floor consideration. These 13 omnibus appropriations conference reports—among the largest, most important and most costly bills passed by Congress in recent decades—taken together were not even available to House members for the minimum amount of time required for one single bill!

The Senate had a combined total of 196 hours to read all 13 conference reports, or just over eight days. For only one out of the 13 did the Senate have more than 24 hours of reading time before debate began.

To be clear, 72 hours would be insufficient to read such a bill. Even 7 days would not be enough time to find and evaluate many of the questionable provisions in an omnibus bill. ReadtheBill.org believes there was never a good omnibus appropriations bill or a bad “clean” continuing resolution. The key to permanently preventing omnibus appropriations bills is for rank-and-file members of the majority party in Congress to vote against consideration or passage of any omnibus appropriations bill.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 3 — Table of Contents

I. OVERVIEW...... 5 Omnibus bills: a necessary evil?...... 6 Monstrous content...... 6 Scary process: Inherently unreadable by humans...... 7 13 Unread monsters...... 8 Minibus: A mini-monster...... 8 Fiscal Year 2008: The monster lurks...... 9 The only solution: House majority members willing to vote no...... 11 II. HISTORY OF OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS...... 12 Congressional history...... 12 Presidents...... 18 III. BAD PROCESS...... 19 Legislative blackmail...... 19 Undermining committees...... 20 IV. BAD POLICY...... 21 Questionable provisions secretly added...... 21 Popular provisions secretly removed...... 22 V. BAD POLITICS...... 23 Political danger for Democrats...... 23 Smart opposition for Republicans...... 24 VI. CAUSES AND REFORMS ...... 25 Some causes of omnibus appropriations bills...... 25 Some attempts at reform...... 29 Deja vu all over again...... 32 VII. CASE STUDIES: 13 OMNIBUS MONSTERS...... 33 Making Further Continuing Appropriations for FY1983...... 34 Making Continuing Appropriations for FY 1985...... 35 Making Further Continuing Appropriations for FY 1986...... 36 Making Continuing Appropriations for FY 1987...... 37 Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY 1988...... 38 Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996...... 39 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997...... 40 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999...... 41 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000...... 42 VA-HUD Appropriations Act...... 43 Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2001...... 44 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003...... 45 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005...... 46 VIII. REPORT METHODOLOGY...... 47 Counting the pages...... 47 Calculating the time available to members to read the bill...... 48 ENDNOTES...... 49 I. OVERVIEW

“I think failure of some kind like that is a natural product of the system that we are trying to use now in disposing of this huge appropriation in the operation of the Government. ...I not only regret that, but I think we should all recognize it and set out to really do something about it. Our Government cannot operate successfully with a system like this, for it to break up on the rocks for some reason is inevitable when we try to go this route.”

-- Sen. John C. Stennis (D-MS), Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee,19841

“Will any Senator or Representative know what’s in that monster bill when it is passed shortly—as is now inevitable? Of course not. Yet in recent years we are given to feel that even to ask such a question is to reveal an embarrassing naivete.... I rise simply to sound a note of caution, if not alarm....I am troubled that of late we are getting ominously careless with our procedures....I do not assert that in some earlier, happier time, every Member of Congress read every word of every bill. That has never been possible. But only quite recently have the negotiations over, and contents of, our mammoth annual budget measures been kept secret from nearly everyone save the two Republican Leaders and the White House Chief of Staff. We are beginning to resemble a kind of bastard parliamentary system.”

-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), 19982

No member of Congress likes omnibus appropriations bills in theory. Most vote for them only reluctantly in practice. However, the damage to deliberative democracy by these bills is underestimated both in Congress and by many in Washington, D.C.

With the possible exception of one enacted bill, no human could ever have possibly read any of the enacted omnibus appropriations bills before their consideration on the floor of Congress. Indeed, the history of omnibus appropriations demonstrates clearly that they are inherently unreadable. As such, they are monsters—a profound threat to both deliberative democracy and the rule of law in the United States.

Omnibus bills are alien to the American system of government as practiced for almost 200 years. Omnibus appropriations bills may seem normal to many in Congress and the news media, who have experienced them for their entire professional lives. In fact, the congressional practice of packaging together unreadable spending bills is The United States managed for about as old as singer Michael Jackson's record-breaking almost two centuries without album Thriller, which was released December 1, 1982. On omnibus appropriations bills. December 20, 1982, Congress passed H.J. Res. 631, which ReadtheBill.org believes to be the first true modern omnibus appropriations bill. (A deliberate, one-time omnibus experiment in 1950 was not repeated.)

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 5 — Congress seems to regard omnibus appropriations bills as if they were an extreme sport. Congress acts as if these bills are a politically dangerous sport involving great speed and difficulty in which serious mistakes are possible, but an acceptable risk for those with suitable experience and the right attitude. Perhaps that is why omnibus appropriations bills have become common under congressional majorities of both parties.

Omnibus bills: a necessary evil?

By the beginning of each fiscal year on October 1, Congress must pass bills that appropriate money to fund the government. During the 1980s and 1990s, there were 13 appropriations subcommittees that each passed a separate spending bill. After recent experiments with fewer subcommittees, the 110th Congress has settled on 12 subcommittees with rearranged jurisdictions. When Congress cannot enact some of these regular appropriations bills separately, one or more may be combined into what is called an “omnibus” appropriations bill. When two or a few regular appropriations bills are combined, these are sometimes called “minibus” bills. There is no firm definition of omnibus appropriations bill, but ReadtheBill.org distinguishes them from “clean” continuing resolutions based on funding formulas and containing few specific details. Such “clean” continuing resolutions usually have only a few pages, and can last a few days to an entire year.

From a readability perspective, ReadtheBill.org believes there was never a good omnibus appropriations bill or a bad “clean” continuing resolution.

Others value omnibus appropriations bills as a necessary detour around political gridlock. For his 2001 book Hitching a Ride, University of Oklahoma Professor Glen S. Krutz built a database of bills enacted through omnibus measures. He argues that omnibus bills generally (including omnibus appropriations bills) are one of several tools that allow Congress to get something done when it is otherwise impossible to do so. He wrote, “[B]icameral disagreements lead to legislative gridlock. Omnibus bills help congressional chambers avert such a stalemate.”3 The appeal of the omnibus or minibus is that it enables members to “logroll” bills together in pass needed measures, including appropriations. Professor Krutz acknowledges the tradeoffs involved but comes down slightly on the side of “getting things done” rather than adhering to the “ideal deliberative process.” Nonetheless, he also said, “If I had a reform wand to wave, I would assure member knowledge of the legislation beforehand.”4

Monstrous content

Most public attention to omnibus appropriations bills focuses on their content, which is indeed truly monstrous. To say that an omnibus appropriations bill contains spending is like saying that a hotdog contains meat. These bills may spend To say that an omnibus hundreds of billions of dollars and include controversial policy appropriations bill contains riders or whole authorization bills. In addition, they may spending is like saying include whole bills by reference only. This means that the text that a hotdog contains meat. of the included bill is not in the conference report, part of which then becomes a “glorified table of contents” in the words of Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). Contrary to both House and Senate rules, items in omnibus appropriations conference reports may not have been included in either the earlier House or Senate versions of the bill. Included provisions may never have been discussed in any congressional hearing or committee report. Finally, the omnibus appropriations conference reports may quietly drop a popular provision that had been in earlier versions of the House or Senate bill.

— 6 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS In 2006, former senior Republican aid Don Wolfensberger described how omnibus bills pick up questionable provisions in Roll Call :

Omnibus bills are the last train to leave the station – must-pass legislation – and lots of folks, both inside and outside Congress, want to hitch a ride and stow their baggage aboard.

Pressures are brought on party leaders to allow “just one more item” to be included in the omnibus bill. Sometimes these pressures involve pleas that a Member's re-election depends on it. Others cite promises made to important individuals or groups to get something done before adjournment. Sometimes leaders themselves initiate new items they deem important to the party and its allies. Whatever the reason, the final catch-all bill begins to attract all sorts of things – like lint on a cheap suit.5

Scary process: Inherently unreadable by humans

But the process by which omnibus appropriations bills are written is even worse. Omnibus appropriations bills are The House had 65 hours to read passed in a spasm at the moment when the process has all 13 bills—over 12,000 pages failed and Congress believes time is up. They usually are considered at the end of the congressional session or before a major recess, and often at night or on a weekend. The House routinely votes to waive all points of order against the omnibus appropriations conference report. This means the conference report is not required to be made available to members, let alone the public, and other procedural protections are suspended.

While each omnibus appropriations bill represents the outcome of a unique situation, reviewing the history of these monster bills induces feelings of deja vu. Year after year, members decry the process but vote to consider and pass the omnibus appropriations bills.

In her book Unorthodox Lawmaking, Barbara Sinclair notes:

Informed floor decision making requires that members not directly involved in the crafting of legislation nevertheless have available sufficient information to make a considered choice. When Congress legislates through large omnibus measures, the likelihood increases that members will not know about or understand all of the measures' provisions.6

This is an understatement.

Even if they wanted to, members of Congress could not read omnibus appropriations bills. The task is humanly impossible. In 2004, the House had about 14 hours to read a 1,645-page omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 4818) that Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) described as unreadable, even by “the most accomplished speed reader:”

[M]y colleagues and I were given only a few hours to read the bill which funds 13 government departments, dozens of domestic agencies, and is one of the largest government funding bills to come before Congress. Not even the most accomplished speed-reader could have gotten through the bill in time, which is exactly what its authors were counting on when they rammed the bill through in one day.7

To be clear, 72 hours would be insufficient to read such a bill. Even 7 days would not be enough time to find and

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 7 — evaluate many of the questionable provisions in an omnibus bill.

Congress enacted 14 omnibus (or minibus) appropriations bills during the fiscal years 1983-2005. Each package contained from 2 to 13 regular appropriations bills.

ReadtheBill.org’s research reveals that that only one of these was remotely readable – the fiscal year 2004 bill. But even in that case, the conference report was filed the day Members adjourned for the Thanksgiving recess, and consideration began the day they returned.

13 Unread monsters

As for the other 13 enacted conference reports, House members had fewer than 24 hours to reach each, and senators fewer than 48 hours. Many of these were massive documents numbering over 1,000 pages. That assumes a member could even get a copy of the conference report after it was filed. In 1996, House members had less than two hours to read a 1,198-page bill. In 2000, House members had a theoretical six minutes to read a 1,103-page conference report before debate began.

These 13 omnibus appropriations conference reports together totaled 12,113 pages. (This is in their clean form from the U.S. Government Printing Office. In their raw form as considered on the floor, many of these bills were much larger—sometimes nearly double in size.)

Members of the House had a combined total of 65 hours to read all of these 12,113 pages before floor debate began—just seven hours shy of three calendar days. Under the standing rules of the House, bills and conference reports are required to be available to members (not the public) for three calendar days before floor consideration. These thirteen omnibus appropriations conference reports—among the largest, most important and most costly bills passed by Congress in recent decades—taken together were not even available to House members for the minimum amount of time required for one single bill!

Minibus: A mini-monster

A mini-monster is a monster. The process of packaging appropriations bills together involves an inherent dynamic that ensures the death of deliberation. Once Congress starts wrapping packages, members seem to think its Christmas and the rules quickly evaporate.

Both Republicans and Democrats have characterized smaller, two or three-bill minibus appropriations bills as qualitatively different from omnibus bills and therefore acceptable. For example, in late 2005, when asked about the possibility of an omnibus bill, then-Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) said that he opposed them—but that there could be a “mini-bus now and then.”8 Likewise, in September 2003, Congressional Quarterly reported that one Republican aide offered an “optimistic” possibility that all but three of the appropriations bills could be completed separately, resulting in a three-bill minibus. CQ noted that the aide said the word minibus “with a smile.”9

In 2007, Democrats may consider a series of minibus acceptable. National Journal’s Congress Daily explained in August 2007:

Preferable to an omnibus for Democrats might be a series of “mini-buses” by which Democrats

— 8 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS could combine politically sacrosanct spending on veterans or homeland security with measures with less bipartisan support, like the Labor-HHS spending bill.10

Two months later, Congress Daily reported October 24, 2007 that:

ReadtheBill.org Foundation believes that minibus bills are omnibus bills, and manifest the same faults. First, so-called minibus bills can still be “humongous,” in the words of a November 2005 editorial in Roll Call:

The good news is that Congress has passed and sent to the president nine of the 11 appropriations bills needed to fund the federal government in fiscal [2006], so the specter of a monster omnibus funding bill has been averted. The bad news is that a still-humongous mini-omnibus seems to be in the offing.12 (emphasis added)

Second, even if a minibus has fewer pages or covers fewer bills, it is no more likely to be read. For example, in late 2000, lawmakers passed two minibus measures to wrap up FY2001 spending. The first was passed in October, shortly before the election. The conference report on H.R. 4635 combined the VA-HUD bill with the Energy & Water bill. House members had little more than 18 hours to review the 307-page conference report before consideration began. Senators had fewer than 21 hours to read it. Two months later, Congress passed H.R. 4577, the Consolidated Appropriations Act. This so-called “minibus” measure packaged Labor-HHS appropriations with the Treasury and Legislative Branch spending bills, previous versions of which had been vetoed by President Clinton. The 1,103-page conference report was filed six minutes before the House began consideration. Senators had fewer than three hours to read the bill.

Fiscal Year 2008: The monster lurks

President Bush has threatened to veto at least five of the regular FY2008 appropriations bills scheduled to clear Congress during fall 2007. The conventional wisdom is that Democrats will then consolidate them into an omnibus measure. The National Journal’s Congress Daily quoted the President saying:

“Now, I believe these bills need to be passed one at a time because the alternative is to pass a massive spending bill that no one can read, and into which anyone can hide wasteful spending.”13

An August 13 article in Roll Call said:

Bush, of course, has drawn a line in the sand and promises vetoes for bills that exceed his spending levels. Democrats almost certainly will decide to roll most of the bills together into a giant omnibus, although they may not get around to it before, say, Thanksgiving.14

Congressional Quarterly Today quoted Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ):

The obvious plan of the Democrats is to not do appropriations bills but put everything together in a giant omnibus appropriations bill in a kind of legislative blackmail with all of the policy and increased spending, to in effect threaten the president to either sign the bill or be accused of shutting down the government.15

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 9 — Republican minority leaders held a press conference on July 26, 2007 to discuss the expected omnibus spending bill. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) said, “Make no mistake about it, the pieces are being put in place for a trillion- dollar spending train wreck in the fall.”

Congress scholar Norman Ornstein, speaking at a September 4, 2007 Brookings Institution event, acknowledged this possibility:

[A]s time passes, as they get closer to the end of their effective period of being able to legislate, as the desire to move to that final stage of getting something through but there is no time to deal with it takes over, then those trains that are leaving the station that you are pretty sure will reach a destination are going to end up loaded with all kinds of additional baggage. So I'm fearful that what we are going to see is another of these rushes and a bunch of catch-all omnibus bills that include a lot of extraneous stuff.16

Recently, Senator Reid hoped to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. Market News International reported October 18, 2007 that:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that Democratic leaders in Congress don't want to place all 12 of the fiscal year 2008 spending bills into a large omnibus spending package and send it to the president this fall. At a briefing, Reid said Democratic leaders want to pass each of the 12 spending bills individually. "At this point, I don't think we're going to combine them," Reid said.17

But then National Journal's CongressDaily reported October 24, 2007 that an omnibus appropriations bill seemed more likely:

Senate Majority Leader Reid said today the Senate was unlikely to consider the remaining five FY08 appropriations bills on the floor, raising the possibility that several bills could be wrapped into a year-end omnibus package or several packages. The chamber Tuesday night approved its seventh of 12 bills, the Labor-HHS measure, which will be sent to President Bush individually along with several other bills. But with Democrats and Bush separated by about $22 billion in domestic discretionary spending, it remains unclear if the appropriations process will be resolved this year. Approval of seven spending bills improves on last year's record by Senate Republicans, who pushed through three in a truncated election year. But none of the bills has been signed into law nearly one month into the fiscal year. .... The remaining spending bills are mostly smaller and less controversial than the big-ticket measures the Senate has approved. They include the Legislative Branch, Interior-Environment, Energy and Water, Agriculture, and Financial Services bills. The House approved all 12 of its bills.18

Should an omnibus bill move, it will attract non-appropriations measures. For example, the Des Moines Register reported October 19, 2007 that one Senate Appropriations Committee member proposed adding a $35 billion, five-year expansion of the children's health program:

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., suggested that the [SCHIP] children's program could be attached to an omnibus spending bill later this year if Congress and the White House continue to disagree over appropriations bills.19

— 10 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS The only solution: House majority members willing to vote no

As of Halloween 2007, the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. is again wrong. The conventional wisdom is that one or more omnibus or minibus appropriations bills are both inevitable and acceptable. Neither is true.

The key to preventing omnibus appropriations bills is for rank-and-file members of the majority party in Congress to vote against consideration or passage of any omnibus appropriations bill. In recent history, House Democrats have done this but House Republicans have not.

In 1988, 49 House Democrats (including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA) wrote House Speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat, that they would no longer vote for year-end catch-all spending bills. This helped prevent them for years. From 1995-2006, House Republicans in the majority mounted no similar effort and instead voted for frequent, huge omnibus bills.

In 2007, rank-and-file House Democrats are again the best bulwark against omnibus monsters.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 11 — II. HISTORY OF OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

Congressional history

1787-1981: Two centuries without omnibus appropriations

Omnibus bills were long unthinkable. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), “For nearly two centuries, regular appropriations acts were considered by the House and Senate as individual measures and enacted into law as freestanding laws.”20

The exception that proves the rule was in 1950. In that year, an omnibus appropriations bill was produced. It was tried as a conscious experiment in reform, after years of urging by Sen. Harry Flood Byrd (D-VA), who advocated it to improve “efficiency and economy.”21 According to Glen S. Krutz, “Members found the method helpful for simplifying a more complex legislative process always susceptible to stalemate.” However, the experiment was not repeated because “too many members complained about the massiveness of the bill and their inability to comprehend what they were voting for.”22

1982-1987: Birth of the omnibus monster

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress began passing continuing resolutions that funded substantial portions of the government for parts or even all of a year. But these continuing resolutions were relatively clean—they had only a few pages and relied on a funding formula rather than item-by-item appropriations. ReadtheBill.org Foundation believes that the first true omnibus appropriations bill was passed on December 20, 1982. H.J. Res. 631 was called a “continuing resolution,” but it was several hundred pages in length and accounted for fiscal year 1983 appropriations normally covered by ten individual bills. (Four of the bills would later be enacted separately, but the remaining six were ultimately enacted through the package.) Weary of political gridlock and eager to return to their home districts for the holidays, members approved the massive conference report without taking any time to review it.

For the next four years, Congress wrote omnibus appropriations bills and President Ronald Reagan signed them into law. In late December 1987, Congress passed three large bills, among them an omnibus appropriations bill. During floor debate, Rep. John Porter (R-IL) announced he would seek signers for a letter to President Reagan urging him not to sign such omnibus appropriations bills in the future.

A month later, passage of these omnibus bills became what former senior Republican aide Don Wolfensberger describes as a “dramatic embarrassment to Congress” when “in his 1988 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan slammed down on the rostrum three giant stacks of budget bills weighing 42 pounds”23 and scolded the Democratic-majority Congress, saying:

The budget process has broken down; it needs a drastic overhaul. With each ensuing year, the spectacle before the American people is the same as it was this Christmas – budget deadlines delayed or missed completely, monstrous continuing resolutions that pack hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spending into one bill – and a federal government on the brink of default. ... [L]et's recall that in seven years, of 91 appropriations bills scheduled to arrive on my desk by a certain date, only 10 made it on time. Last year, of the 13 appropriations bills due by October 1st,

— 12 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS none of them made it. ...And then, along came these behemoths. This is the conference report – 1,053 page report weighing 14 pounds. Then this – a reconciliation bill six months late, that was 1,186 pages long, weighing 15 pounds; and the long-term continuing resolution – this one was two months late and it's 1,057 pages long, weighing 14 pounds. That was a total of 43 pounds of paper and ink. You had three hours – yes, three hours – to consider each, and it took 300 people at my Office of Management and Budget just to read the bill so the government wouldn't shut down. Congress shouldn't send another one of these. No and if you do, I will not sign it....Most of you in this Chamber didn't know what was in this catch-all bill and report.24

1988-1994: A return to regular order

Reagan’s speech came after 49 Democratic members initiated a letter to House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX) saying they would no longer support omnibus appropriations bills. After Reagan's speech, Wolfensberger wrote, “Both parties erupted in a standing ovation.”25 As Steven S. Smith wrote in his 1989 book Call to Order:

In January 1988, in the aftermath of embarrassing news stories about items included in the 1987 continuing resolution, forty-nine House Democrats wrote Speaker James Wright that they would not “support the use of the continuing resolution as an end-of-session fiscal year catch-all legislative vehicle.” ....Wright agreed to do what he could to avoid another massive continuing resolution. With the help of President Reagan's subsequent vow to veto future omnibus continuing resolutions, all thirteen regular appropriations bills had passed the House by the end of 1988.26

Under the subsequent rule of a Democratic Congress and Republican President George H.W. Bush, all of the regular appropriations bills were enacted separately during his entire presidency. While many Republicans scorn George H.W. Bush as a pro-government moderate, it is a fact that he is the only president since Jimmy Carter never to sign an omnibus appropriations bill.

There were no omnibus appropriations bills during the first two years under Democratic President Bill Clinton, during which the U.S. experienced one-party control of Congress and Presidency.

Nonetheless, during these years the Democratic majority in Congress habitually passed other bills (including regular appropriations bills) without allowing time to read them. This practice was highlighted in a report by Republican members of the House Rules Committee issued in April 1993. Entitled The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in the People's House, the frustrated minority criticized the Democratic leadership's habit of waiving the three-day layover requirement for bills. In May 1993, House Rules Committee member Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) testified before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. A May 24, 1993 article in Roll Call cited his legitimate concern about waivers of the three-day layover requirement:

“This is especially important today because, over the past 20 years, the average bill has quadrupled in size. ...Increasingly, Members are forced to vote on complicated legislation they have never seen.”27

Rep. Dreier was absolutely correct. House practice was about to change, especially on some of the largest bills of all – omnibus appropriations bills.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 13 — 1995-2000: Return to gridlock

In 1995, Republican majorities took power in the House and Senate. The new Republican majorities quickly discarded the principle of legislative transparency promoted in their 1993 report. In 2006, Washington Post columnist David Broder quoted Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's book Broken Branch, which said, “[I]t did not take long before [Republican] promises went by the boards, and practices that were more unsettling than those of the Democrats became the norms.”28

Similarly, in the 2007 edition of her respected book Unorthodox Lawmaking, Barbara Sinclair noted:

One might thus expect a change in party control would have brought with it major alterations in how the House functions. In fact, the Republican House did operate differently than its Democratic predecessor. However...Republican control resulted not in a change in direction but rather in an amplification of preexisting trends.29

In his 2001 book Hitching a Ride, Glen S. Krutz found that “bills considered in times of divided government are 17 percent more likely to be attached to omnibus bills than bills considered in times of unified government.”30 In 1995, intense policy and spending disagreements between the new Republican Congress and Democratic President led to a showdown between House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and President Clinton. As former Rep. Henry Reuss (D-WI) wrote in his 1999 book When Government Was Good:

In late 1995 the Republican Congress threatened to close down the government if the president refused to accept its budget. President Clinton refused, and the government was closed down.31

Under Republican majorities in the House and Senate, Congress lapsed into frequent use of omnibus appropriations bills. Six omnibus appropriations were passed during this period—one for each fiscal year, except FY1998, and two for FY2001. The following senator's cry from the heart is typical of many floor speeches in Congress during this era during floor debate on omnibus appropriations bills:

Who has read this pile of programs and pork? Not a single Senator has....

We didn't get a peek at a summary of this government colossus until Monday afternoon, just two days ago. We won't see it in the Congressional Record until after the vote.

The truth of the matter is, no one knows what is in this colossal creation, and no one claims to be its “Today, it feels like I was asked father. It is said that victory has a thousand fathers, to be nothing more than but defeat is an orphan. This forsaken monstrosity, a rubber stamp.” which no one claims, nor has anyone read, deserved defeat today....

Who is responsible here? Who can be accountable when they do not know for what they are accountable? Today, it feels like I was asked to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for a deal made by a handful of individuals who assume they had the power to speak for all of us.32

These words were spoken in October 1998 by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO) – a member of the Republican majority, which was passing a 1,602-page omnibus bill in haste before adjournment. During that same brief debate, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said:

It is my hope that we will not repeat this year's process. I firmly believe that if the people of America are given the opportunity to understand precisely what is happening, they will demand

— 14 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS that we follow regular order in the appropriations process as set forth in the Constitution and the long-established practices of congressional legislative action. 33

Echoing Reagan's scolding from 1988, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) pointed to the same omnibus appropriations bill during consideration in the House and said:

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan stood in this Chamber nearly a decade ago and attacked the Congress for sending him a massive last-minute appropriation bill. Well, here we go again.

This bill is 4,000 pages long and weighs over 40 pounds. And at that time Ronald Reagan said Congress should not send another one of these and, if you do, he said, I will not sign it.

Well, here they go again.... Ronald Reagan was right. It was a bad way to do business in 1988, and it is a bad way to do business in 1998.34

During this era, Republicans in Congress might have claimed they were the victims of President Clinton, forced by divided government to resort to omnibus appropriations bills. If this were true, then electing a president of their own party would have ended omnibus appropriations bills.

2001-2006: Bigger monsters

During 2001-2006, Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all appropriations bills originate. Except for a narrow Democratic Senate majority during part of 2001 and all of 2002, Republicans controlled the Senate. The Republican Congress negotiated spending bills with a Republican president. The result was the largest omnibus appropriations bills (in pages) ever enacted and, ultimately, the failure of the appropriations process for FY2007.

In his September 28, 2007 article, “Engineering a Train Wreck,” Scott Lilly notes that during the six-year period 2001-2006, Congress was slow to act on appropriations:

During that period, Congress never produced all of the appropriations measures on time. In fact, despite one-party control of the White House and both houses of Congress for most of this period, the appropriations process was never completed before December 1, and only twice completed before Christmas. The average date for completion of over those six years was January 8—exactly 100 days after the beginning of the fiscal year.35

Hastily-passed omnibus appropriations bills are perhaps the apex of expeditious lawmaking. Looking back on this period, Barbara Sinclair observed that the lawmaking process generally declined:

[I]n the period since Republicans won control and especially from 2001 through 2006, the balance between deliberation and inclusiveness on the one hand and expeditious lawmaking on the other titled too far toward expeditiousness at the expense of other values.36

During calendar years 2001-2005 (FY2002-FY2006) omnibus appropriations bills were used for three out of the five fiscal years. In calendar year 2006, the FY2007 appropriations process essentially failed, and the Republican Congress simply passed a short-term continuing resolution before surrendering its majority.

While the frequency of their use did not increase from the Republican Congress during the Clinton Administration—when five out of six fiscal years were accounted for with omnibus packages—the omnibus bills unmistakably grew larger in the number of regular appropriations bills they contained, and the number of pages.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 15 — Number of Regular Appropriations Bills Packaged in Omnibus Measures, FY1983-FY2006 House Senate Regular Bills in Omnibus or Fiscal Year Presidential Administration Majority Majority Minibus Measure 1983 Ronald Reagan (R) D R 6 1984 D R 3* 1985 D R 8 1986 D R 7 1987 D R 13 1988 D D 13 1989 D D 0 1990 George H.W. Bush (R) D D 0 1991 D D 0 1992 D D 0 1993 D D 0 1994 William Clinton (D) D D 0 1995 D D 0 1996 R R 5 1997 R R 6 1998 R R 0 1999 R R 8 2000 R R 5 2001 R R 2,3 2002 George W. Bush (R) R D 0 2003 R D 11 2004 R R 7 2005 R R 9 2006 R R 0

Source: Congressional Research Service report 97-684, updated September 8, 2006. The House and Senate majority columns were added by ReadtheBill.org. *While CRS counts this as an omnibus appropriations bill, ReadtheBill.org does not. This package was a relatively “clean” continuing resolution of fewer than 35 pages in length. Note: The above figures represent the number of regular bills in omnibus measures as enacted. As passed by Congress, the omnibus measures for fiscal years 1983 and 1985 originally contained 10 and 9 regular appropriations bills, respectively. Congress was subsequently able to pass five (four from FY1983 and one from FY1985) of the bills separately, and as such they were deleted from the conference reports and signed into law regularly.

— 16 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Nobody Read Most Omnibus Appropriations Bills (FY1983-2005)

# of Regular House Senate Passed Bill Pages Approps. Bills Read Time Read Time* in Measure

H.J. Res. 631 – Making Further Dec. 1982 204 No time No time 6 Continuing Appropriations for FY1983

H.J. Res. 648 – Making Continuing Less than Oct. 1984 420 No time 8 Appropriations for FY1985 12 hours

H.J. Res. 465 – Making Further Less than Dec. 1985 379 1 hour 7 Continuing Appropriations for FY1986 12 hours

H.J. Res. 738 – Continuing 2 hours, Less than Oct. 1986 808 13 Appropriations Act, 1987 50 min. 22 hours H.J. Res. 395 – Further Continuing Less than Dec. 1987 1,194 No time 13 Appropriations Act, 1988 2 hours H.R. 3019 – Omnibus Consolidated 1 hour, Less than April 1996 Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 571 5 24 min. 6 hours 1996 H.R. 3610 – Omnibus Consolidated 1 hour, Up to Sept. 1996 1,198 6 Appropriations Act, 1997 54 min. 48 hours H.R. 4328 – Omnibus Consolidated and Less than 8, plus 1 Oct. 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 1,602 6 hours 21 hours emergency Act , 1999 H.R. 3194 – Consolidated Appropriations 12 hours, Up to Nov. 1999 1,175 5 Act, 2000 38 min. 18 hours H.R. 4577 – Consolidated Appropriations Up to Dec. 2000 1,103 6 min. 3 Act, 2001 3 hours H.R. 4635 – VA-HUD Appropriations 18 hours, Up to Oct. 2000 307 2 Act, 2001 9 min. 21 hours H.J. Res. 2 – Consolidated 6 hours, Up to Feb. 2003 1,507 11 Appropriations Resolution, 2003 7 min 16 hours Dec. 2003 H.R. 2673 – Consolidated Up to 1,186 13 days 7 Jan. 2004 Appropriations Act, 2004 14 days H.R. 4818 – Consolidated Appropriations 14 hours, Up to Nov. 2004 1,645 9 Act, 2005 13 min. 15 hours

*Senate read times are approximate because the chamber does not keep timestamps of its actions. The times listed are the maximum possible amount of time senators could have had to read the bills. Source: CRS reports: Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices (RL32473) and The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction (97-684 GOV). Page number counts from GPO. Read time before floor debate calculated using data from the Congressional Record and other sources. Revised October 4, 2007 Note: The FY1983 measure included 10 bills as passed by Congress, four of which were later enacted separately and deleted from the conference report. The FY1985 bill originally included nine bills, one of which was later enacted and deleted.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 17 — Presidents

Under the Constitution, Congress makes laws and decides how much money to spend. The President's only explicit power is to say yes or no at the end of the process. Therefore, Congress deserves most of the blame for omnibus appropriations bills, and presidents only some. Nonetheless, Presidents Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush have all been complicit signers of some of the largest and least-read spending bills in American history.

Presidents criticize Congress for passing omnibus appropriations bills. President Ronald Reagan’s 1988 State President George H.W. Bush is in a class of the Union remarks are the most famous example. In July by himself. He was never presented an 2007, President George W. Bush began to make strong omnibus appropriations bill. statements against omnibus appropriations bills. Bill Clinton never crusaded against them. But in 1992, he alluded to the dangers of omnibus bills when advocating the line- item veto:

“I can line-item veto a bill here and the legislature can override it by a majority vote. But they have to do it by a separate vote, so that there is a great deal of focus on the issue at hand and you can’t just bury something of questionable merit in a big omnibus bill.”37

ReadtheBill.org Foundation has analyzed the history of omnibus appropriations bills enacted into law to compare the records of these presidents. In a class by himself is President George H.W. Bush. During his single term, no omnibus appropriations bills were presented to him. As for the other three recent presidents, all of them signed several. None ever vetoed one on the grounds that it was an omnibus bill.

During his eight years in office, President Reagan signed into law more regular appropriations bills packaged into omnibus bills than any of his successors. In addition, the average number of regular bills in these omnibus packages was highest during his two terms (9.4).

During his eight years, President Clinton signed into law six appropriations packages—more than Reagan or George W. Bush. But each contained on average 4.8 regular appropriations bills—half as many bills as the average under Reagan and George W. Bush.

During President George W. Bush’s seven years, he has signed three omnibus appropriations packages—fewer than Reagan or Clinton. These packages each contained an average of 9 regular appropriations bills—about the same as during the Reagan presidency. But under George W. Bush, the average number of pages in each of these bills exploded to over 1,400—far higher than under the other two presidents.

Omnibus Appropriations Bills, By President Total # Total # Avg. # Total # bills Avg. # bills President omnibus bills omnibus pages omnibus pages in omnibus in omnibus Ronald Reagan 5 3,005 601 47 9.4 George H.W. Bush 0 0 0 0 0 Bill Clinton 6 5,956 993 29 4.8 George W. Bush 3 4,338 1,446 27 9 TOTALS 14 13,299 950 103 7.7

Note: Data in the above table represents enacted omnibus appropriations bills only.

— 18 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS III. BAD PROCESS

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

James Madison, Federalist 62

In a March 2005 article in The Baltimore Sun, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) said:

We’re headed toward the ultimate Christmas-tree approach here, where you might as well wrap all of the functions and programs of government and all the changes you want to make in law and policy into one must-pass bill. You could certainly save a lot of time and effort. Congress could met for a couple of days a year and be done with it. It is a really crummy way to run the government.38

As Mann and Ornstein wrote in Broken Branch in 2006, the House Rules Committee has facilitated consideration of omnibus bills at a speed that makes them unreadable:

The Rules Committee practice has been employed to facilitate the now-routine process of folding many significant issues into huge omnibus bills and bringing them to the House floor for up-or- down votes without any notice or time for members to read or absorb them.... By forgoing nearly all floor debate, they can pack these bills with numerous provisions that could never pass in separate votes.39

Legislative blackmail

Rank-and-file members of Congress from both political parties regularly protest against being forced under threat of government shutdown to vote up or down on vast spending packages. During floor debate on H.J.Res. 395, which included all 13 regular appropriations bills for FY1988, Rep. Mike Lowry (D-WA) said:

There are many reasons just about everybody in this room ought to vote against this continuing resolution. Like for one, are my colleagues not a little bit tired of being told the Government is going to shut down tomorrow? I have only been here 9 years, and I do not know how many times they have used it on us.40

Rep. John R. Miller (R-WA) echoed:

Hundreds of Federal programs, hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal spending are crammed into one bloated bill. That means we either vote for everything, including programs we just do not need, or we vote for nothing and shut the Government down, and that is Legislative blackmail. That is not the way the budget process is supposed to work and this institution should do better.41

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 19 — Undermining committees

When looking at the relationship between omnibus appropriations bills and Congressional authorizing committees, there is a chicken and egg problem. It’s hard to know which came first—authorizing committees’ failure to enact needed policy provisions, or appropriators aggregating more authority into their bills. Authorizing committee chairmen regularly complain that appropriators encroach on their turf, and then ask the same appropriators to attach needed policy provisions to appropriations bills. Appropriators may complain but they enjoy their power. Because omnibus bills are the vehicles which attract the most policy riders, they do the most harm to the authorizing committees.

Omnibus appropriations bills also undermine the power of the appropriations subcommittees. During consideration of H.J. Res. 738, the FY1987 omnibus bill, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman John C. Stennis (D-MS) said:

I do not approve of the idea of resorting to a method that puts 13 appropriations bills into the same bill before the body for debate and for passage or rejection. I think that will gradually erode and ruin the committee system.

Sen. Stennis was correct. In 1998, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) chaired an Appropriations Subcommittee but found himself powerless. During floor debate on H.R. 4328, a monstrous omnibus appropriations bill, he described the the final negotiations:

This year, the final stages and key negotiations were carried on by only 4 elected members: the Majority Leader and Minority Leader in the Senate and the Speaker and Minority Leader of the Democrats in the House, with the participation of White House representatives.

I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee which has jurisdiction for the bill funding the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. Our bill did not reach the Senate floor for consideration by the full Senate. [W]e were not present when the final, key decisions were made....

[M]y ranking member, Senator Harkin, and I had worked through the figures and [reached agreements on some specific issues.] Again, all of that was lost in the last minute shuffle....

Had these issues on education, for example, been handled in a timely fashion in September with presentment of a Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to the President....[t]he result likely would have been entirely different.42

— 20 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS IV. BAD POLICY

Questionable provisions secretly added

In 2006, former senior Republican aide Don Wolfensberger wrote in Roll Call about how omnibus appropriations bills inevitably contained questionable provisions:

When Republicans were the minority party, we jokingly referred to these bloated behemoths as “ominous bills” because nobody knew what was in them or what dangers they might portend (cue the theme from “Jaws” here): They always had a way of circling back and biting you.

Days after an omnibus bill is signed into law, enterprising reporters, wading through hundreds of pages of statutory language, begin finding hidden goodies that had not been in the bills reported or passed by either chamber. And therein lie the black eyes, time bombs, backroom deals, and sundry other embarrassments that sully the reputation of Congress and infuriate unsuspecting Members and constituents alike.43

Congress scholar Norman Ornstein, speaking at a September The final catch-all bill attracts 4, 2007 Brookings Institution event, said: all sorts of things – [C]atch-all omnibus bills ... include a lot of extraneous like lint on a cheap suit. stuff. And of course, one of the problems with that is that those bills that have not gone through the full deliberative process often include a lot of things that shouldn't be there.44

It has gotten worse, according to Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR). Speaking to Jeff Kosseff of the Oregonian in 2005:

DeFazio, who was first elected to the House in 1986, said he recalls President Reagan pointing to the text of an omnibus bill that was many feet high, saying he didn’t want that to happen again. DeFazio agreed with him.

“Things get put in the bill that no one will take credit or blame for,” DeFazio said. “You get policy issues that can’t stand alone but get stuck into those bills. It’s gotten worse and worse and worse.”45

Questionable provisions could be an earmark of money. But perhaps the most infamous examples are policy riders such as the Sec. 222 (aka “Istook amendment”) rider on H.R. 4818, the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill. This rider would have allowed the congressional Appropriations Committees and their “agents” to see Americans' tax returns with no penalty for revealing them. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) said inclusion of the provision was a “stain” upon his service as committee chairman. The rider was inserted by staff into the 1,645- page conference report, which was passed on the Saturday before Thanksgiving weekend during a lame-duck congressional session after the 2004 elections. Filed 15 minutes after midnight, the mammoth conference report passed the House less than 15 hours later and the Senate a few hours after that. The provision was quickly repealed. But Congress never investigated the incident, which was treated as an aberration rather than the inevitable result of passing omnibus appropriations bills. As Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said later, “[T]he American taxpayers dodged a bullet. The Congress came close, much too close, to passing legislation that would have stripped every American of their right to privacy with regard to their tax returns.”

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 21 — Popular provisions secretly removed

Provisions with broad support can be easily removed from an omnibus appropriations bill without members’ knowledge. For example, the same omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 4818, omitted an amendment prohibiting the IRS from using private bounty-hunters to collect back taxes. The provision had been in the House version of the bill. In her floor remarks on H.R. 4818, Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL) spoke against the omission of the bounty hunter provision:

The Omnibus Appropriations bill includes another serious threat to taxpayers’ privacy, one that we are not fixing today. Behind closed doors, the Republicans stripped from the massive bill a House-passed amendment which would have prohibited the Internal Revenue Service from using private bounty-hunters to collect back taxes. That provision, which enjoyed strong-bipartisan support, would have prevented 2.6 million tax returns a year from being turned over to private debt collectors with personal financial stakes—receiving 25 cents on every dollar in making people “pay up.’’ This policy all but openly condones strong-arm collection tactics.46

— 22 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS V. BAD POLITICS

ReadtheBill.org Foundation is strictly non-partisan. But powerful players in Washington, D.C. may be more likely to adopt good process if they understand why it is politically in their best interest.

Political danger for Democrats

It may seem like smart politics for Democrats to use an omnibus appropriations bill to deliver real results for core constituencies. Against that temptation must be weighed several reasons why an omnibus appropriations bill would be bad politics for Democrats in the next two years.

First, it risks turning differences between Congress and the Bush Administration to mush in voters' minds. Former senior Appropriations Committee aide Scott Lilly (a Democrat, now at the Center for American Progress) explained this in late September 2007:

[B]ecause omnibus bills contain so many complex policy decisions, they are largely indecipherable to the press and general public. As a result, the Congress loses any real opportunity to contrast its judgments on spending priorities with that of the administration when there is disagreement between the two branches of government.47

Polls show voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on most issues. It seems unwise to squander this difference by throwing everything into one or two big kitchen-sink bills that Republicans can legitimately attack as bad government, thus distracting from the issues.

Second, as the party of government, Democrats pledged to run Congress in a more orderly fashion. An omnibus appropriations bill is a symbol of failure, an admission that Democrats cannot run Congress either. If the problem is Republican obstructionism, especially in the Senate, then Democrats can campaign on that theme. But Democrats relied on omnibus appropriations bills in the 1980s when they controlled both chambers. They must guard against falling back into bad habits that pre-date Republican control of the Senate.

Third, it will be awkward for leading Democrats in the House and Senate (including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) when reminded of their signatures on the January 1988 letter pledging to oppose omnibus appropriations bills. (See Reforms section of this report.)

Fourth, because a Democratic omnibus appropriations bill will not be read, it risks forcing rank-and-file Democrats in Congress to vote for provisions that could be politically harmful. These could range from the merely embarrassing, such as an ill-conceived but minor earmark, to the catastrophic. The example of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments rushed through Congress August 3-4, 2007 demonstrates why rank-and-file Democrats may not fully trust their leaders to protect them from hastily-concocted bills.

Finally, a Democratic omnibus appropriations bill will allow President George W. Bush to play Ronald Reagan on television, gleefully reprising the latter's 1988 State of the Union stunt. The traditional news media is unlikely to bother to report that President Bush has signed three omnibus appropriations bills without complaint, and that Reagan signed even more.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 23 — Smart opposition for Republicans

It would be silly to pretend that Republicans in Congress would suffer politically if Democrats attempted to pass an omnibus appropriations bill. In fact, Republicans would benefit politically, for all the reasons above. The question for Republicans in Congress is not whether to oppose omnibus appropriations bills, but how. Credibility is key. Republican congressional leaders should avoid trying to rewrite recent history. For example, at a September 2007 press conference, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said:

[W]e have not had omnibus bills year after year after year.... [H]aving an omnibus bill where it's probably all going to come on one, maybe two bills, is something that we [Republicans] tried to avoid, and I think year after year did avoid. I don't think to suggest that this is exactly how we did it would be the right thing to suggest in your stories at all, because it's not the way it was done, it was never our goal and seldom the result.48 (emphasis added)

Seldom means “rarely” according to Merriam-Webster. Making such ludicrous claims is not smart politics. It would be more effective to frankly admit the past without dwelling on it, then challenge the Democrats to do better. Also, members with more credibility, such as Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), should be given the lead on the issue. (See Reforms section of this report.)

— 24 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS VI. CAUSES AND REFORMS

Some causes of omnibus appropriations bills

It is beyond the scope of this report to perform a full autopsy on the congressional budget process and the causes of omnibus appropriations bills. But it is useful to highlight briefly some possible causes and solutions. Each of the causes below plays a role in the problem. But the solution is not to pass more omnibus appropriations bills. Instead, by refusing to consider or pass them, members might force the emergence of reforms.

Blame the U.S. Senate

House appropriators rightly blame the Senate as a major cause of omnibus appropriations bills. In their 1988 letter to House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX) stating they would no longer support omnibus appropriations bills, House Democrats criticized “the total breakdown in the willingness or ability of the Senate to consider appropriations bills.”49

Almost 20 years later, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), who chaired the House Appropriations Committee in the 109th Congress, explicitly blamed inaction by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) for his party's failure to enact most FY2007 appropriations bills. Months after this failure and the Democratic takeover of Congress, during consideration of H.J. Res. 20, a continuing appropriations resolution normally allocated in nine separate bills, Rep. Lewis said:

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....The Senate leadership did not.50

Fixing the dysfunctional Senate is a major task that will take years. But no serious effort in Washington, D.C. to do so has been undertaken. Meanwhile, Congress cannot use the Senate as an excuse to pass inherently unreadable omnibus appropriations bills, decade after decade after decade.

Blame the Budget Act

Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees routinely blame the Budget Act of 1974 and refinements such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law for causing omnibus appropriations bills. Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA), who was the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee in the 1980s, frequently spoke at length on this point on the House floor during consideration of omnibus appropriations bills. For example, in October 1986, two weeks into fiscal year 1987, Congress passed H.J. Res. 738. This monster bill packaged all 13 regular appropriations bills together for the first time ever. During a heated House debate, Conte said:

I know that many of my colleagues do not look at the continuing resolution in terms of the individual programs that are funded, but rather as a system that has failed. I agree that the system has failed. It is an outrage that we must vote on appropriations of $576 billion with only an hour’s debate, and with no opportunity to offer amendments. It is an outrage that this conference

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 25 — 1988...

“[L]et's recall that in seven years, of 91 appropriations bills scheduled to arrive on my desk by a certain date, only 10 made it on time. Last year, of the 13 appropriations bills due by October 1st, none of them made it. Instead, we had four continuing resolutions....

And then, along came these behemoths. This is the conference report—1,053 pages, report weighing 14 pounds.... You had 3 hours—yes, 3 hours—to consider each, and it took 300 people at my Office of Management and Budget just to read the bill so the Government wouldn't shut down....

Congress shouldn't send another one of these. No and if you do, I will not sign it....

Most of you in this Chamber didn't know what was in this catchall bill and report.”

-President Ronald Reagan State of the Union Address January 25, 1988

— 26 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS ...1998

“Ronald Reagan stood in this Chamber nearly a decade ago and attacked the Congress for sending him a massive last- minute appropriation bill. Well, here we go again.

This bill is 4,000 pages long and weighs over 40 pounds. And at that time Ronald Reagan said, Congress should not send another one of these and, if you do, he said, I will not sign it. ...

Ronald Reagan was right. It was a bad way to do business in 1988, and it is a bad way to do business in 1998.”

-House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) Floor debate on H.R. 4328 October 20, 1998

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 27 — agreement contains numerous legislative provisions, including several complete authorization bills....Although I have now served for 28 years, and am privileged to be the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, I have very vivid memories of my early years as a junior Member of this House. There was frustration, but the legislative process worked, and even the most junior Member could share in a sense of accomplishment and pride in the institution.

Today the legislative process does not work; and this continuing resolution is the most dramatic illustration that I can imagine of terminal paralysis.

But it is only a symbol. These problems are not caused by the Appropriations Committee, or by this continuing resolution. They are caused by procedural gimmicks such as the Congressional Budget Act and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings that we have used to avoid difficult political choices.

Last December we brought a conference report to this House and it was voted down, in large part as a protest against the system. That protest accomplished absolutely nothing, because you will be aiming at the wrong target. Appropriation bills and legislative provisions are in this continuing resolution because they could not be enacted within a legislative process that has been virtually paralyzed for the first 10 months of this year.

If you want to protest, change that process. Repeal the Budget Act. Repeal Gramm-Rudman- Hollings. Liberate the 100th Congress from budget resolutions, 302 allocations, sequestrations, and all of the political fictions that we have constructed to shelter ourselves from individual political decisions.

Let the legislative committees legislate. Let the appropriation committees appropriate. The 100th Congress would go down in history as the Congress that restored the legislative power to its elected representatives.

The most important aspect of Rep. Conte’s speech is that it was 20 years ago. Since then, there has been no major effort in Congress to rationalize or improve the Congressional budget and appropriations process. If the Budget Act and Budget Committees truly paralyze the Appropriations Committees, then the Appropriations Committees have a responsibility to lead efforts for reform. Instead, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees regularly produce omnibus bills, complaining about a process they do little to change.

Blame Republican obstructionism

University of Oklahoma professor Glen S. Krutz wrote in his 2001 book about omnibus bills that “minority obstructionism” greatly increases the potential for bills to become attached to omnibus measures.51 In 2007, such obstruction has been taken to an unprecedented level by Senate Republicans. In late July, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) explained the Senate’s inability to pass the appropriations measures already cleared by the House. “The Republican leadership has filibustered every single time we’ve tried to make it in order to get to appropriations,” she told Congress Daily.52

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) also laid blame with the GOP in both chambers:

“What did they pass last year? The passed nothing. They didn’t pass them individually; they didn’t pass an omnibus, all they passed was a short-term CR to dump it on us. So if you get an omnibus in the end, or you get a series of mini-buses, it will be because they have dragged their feet, kicking and screaming, in the House and Senate.”53

— 28 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Democrats can and should cite the Republican record of obstructionism in 2007. Republicans have tampered with the tracks and must bear some blame for any resulting train wreck. But it is a fact that Democrats also resorted to omnibus appropriations bills in the 1980s when they were dealing with moderate Republicans like Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA).

Blame weakened political parties

Former Rep. Henry S. Reuss argued in his 1999 book When Government Was Good that the weakening of the political parties is a major factor undermining the ability of the Congress to govern and the ability of the public to hold responsible those who cause gridlock.54 It may be true that weaker political parties lead to gridlock, which in turn leads to omnibus appropriations bills. By refusing to pass omnibus appropriations bills, members might encourage the emergence of reforms in party governance that address the new social and technological realities that have fundamentally transformed politics.

Some attempts at reform

“Never again. Never again should we allow America's fiscal policy to be determined by a catchall spending bill.”55

-Rep. Dan Glickman (D-KS), 1987

“I will never vote for another such monstrosity.... I will never again support such a convolution of the legislative process....”56

-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), 1998

“After an omnibus law inevitably is exposed by the press ...the leadership will just as inevitably vow, 'Never again!' – at least not until the next time, when memories have faded. And then the games begin anew.”

-Don Wolfensberger, 200657

Rep. Steve Chabot's two efforts

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) has made two attempts at reform. Most usefully, he has voted against passage of conference reports on all nine omnibus appropriations bills that have been passed since he took office in 1995.

The second thing he has done is well-intentioned but less effective. He has introduced what he calls the “Stop the Omnibus Pork (STOP) Resolution” which would “prohibit the consideration of conference reports on omnibus appropriation bills.” As is appropriate, this would not be a change in law, but rather an amendment to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the House that would simply add the following new clause:

13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference report comprising text that would be within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, except for a conference report on any measure continuing appropriations or on any bill making supplemental appropriations.

In March 2006, during the 109th Congress, Rep. Chabot introduced it as H.Res. 701 It attracted 40 cosponsors, including 38 Republican and two Democrats – Reps. Mark Udall (CO) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX). In March

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 29 — 2007, during the 110th Congress, Rep. Chabot reintroduced the resolution as H.Res. 283. According to a March 29, 2007 press release from his office:

Omnibus bills are usually considered at the end of the legislative session when they are brought to the House floor with little debate and no opportunity for amendments to be offered. The large omnibus bills are often loaded with pork-barrel projects that have not been adequately scrutinized.

"It is time for Congress to get tough and eliminate wasteful spending," Chabot stated. "These enormous omnibus bills have become a breeding ground for unnecessary and costly spending. The federal budget process should be open so that all proposed projects can be thoroughly reviewed and debated."58

Of its 17 cosponsors as of October 2007, Rep. Mark Udall is the only Democrat. No action has ever occurred on the resolution under either Republican or Democratic control of the House Rules Committee.

While Rep. Chabot deserves credit for calling attention to the problem and proposing a solution, neither he nor his cosponsors should exaggerate the impact of this effort. Rep. Chabot has introduced a resolution to prohibit consideration of omnibus appropriations conference reports. However, he has also routinely voted to consider the same omnibus appropriations conference reports whose passage he later opposed. He voted for the “special rules” (the individual, routine procedural resolutions that govern House floor consideration of specific bills) that enabled consideration of, and waived all points of order against, many of those omnibus appropriations conference reports.

Indeed, of the 31 cosponsors of H.Res. 701 who were incumbent in November 2004, every Republican cosponsor voted to consider the omnibus appropriations bill passed that month. The bill was the humongous, 1,645-page conference report on H.R. 4818, which included nine regular appropriations bills and was considered under a process that was patently absurd. But every Republican incumbent at the time who later cosponsored H.Res. 701 also voted for H.Res. 866, the rule that waived all points of order against the conference report on H.R. 4818. Among the later cosponsors of H.Res. 701, only Democratic Reps. Udall and Jackson-Lee opposed H.Res. 866. Finally, of the 31 cosponsors of H.Res. 701 who were incumbent in November 2004, 20 voted for final passage of the conference report itself. Given that its sponsor and most cosponsors voted to consider even the most egregious omnibus appropriations bill as an automatic party-line vote, H.Res. 701 (and now H.Res. 238) was less effective than challenging their own leadership would have been when it wielded majority power.

In the 110th Congress, many Republicans routinely vote against most procedural rules (which is normal for the minority party in the House). In that sense, it is too late for the Republican supporters of Rep. Chabot's resolution to show that they meant business about stopping consideration of omnibus appropriations bills back when their votes could have changed history.

House Democrats' 1988 letter refusing to vote for omnibus bills

In 1988, 49 House Democrats put forth a simpler, more effective reform. As members of the majority, they wrote Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright pledging to vote against any more catch-all continuing resolutions. This letter was initiated by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and others on January 7, 1988, two weeks before President Reagan scolded them in his January 25, 1988 State of the Union speech. A February 1, 1988 article in the Washington Post reported:

— 30 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Forty-nine House Democrats representing the ideological spectrum of their party have served notice they are going on the continuing-resolution wagon.

In a letter to House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) last week, the lawmakers took a pledge to oppose any future omnibus appropriations bills, known in congressional parlance as continuing resolutions, such as the $604 billion catchall measure passed by Congress in late December to fund most government operations.

"It is our intention no longer to support the use of the continuing resolution as an end-of-session fiscal year catch-all legislative vehicle," the signers of the letter wrote. "To do so is destructive of the jurisdictions of the authorization committees and prevents the orderly consideration of individual appropriations bills."

The letter comes as Congress continues to be severely criticized for some of the thousands of provisions in the monstrous bill, one of two measures Congress passed to implement its deficit- reduction agreement with the Reagan administration. In his State of the Union address last week the president singled out the continuing resolution for including pork barrel projects for individual congressmen.

"The current procedures . . . do substantive damage to the procedures, integrity and role of the House of Representatives, its committees and individual members," said the letter, which was organized and circulated by Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.), Buddy MacKay (D-Fla.) and Charles W. Stenholm (D-Tex.).

In a statement, Miller said that the special interest provisions contained in last year's continuing resolution were largely unknown to most members of Congress, who "learned of them in embarrassing inquiries from the press days after the bill had been signed into law by the president."

Miller and his colleagues who signed the letter to Wright also vowed to support a spending freeze this year if Congress fails to approve any or all of its 13 regular appropriations bills and again resorts to a continuing resolution. ...

In their letter, the Democratic lawmakers said that Congress' reliance on huge spending bills results in "the effective disenfranchisement of many members of Congress from the legislative process, and the failure by the Congress itself to give careful and adequate consideration to many critical issues."

Singled out for special criticism by the House members was "the total breakdown in the willingness or ability of the Senate to consider appropriations bills," which they said has diminished the role of the House.59

After this letter and Reagan’s speech, there were no more omnibus appropriations bills for a half-decade. Among the 49 Democratic members who signed the letter, the following are still in the House or Senate: Barbara Boxer (CA), Peter DeFazio (OR), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), George Miller (CA), Bill Nelson (FL), Nick Rahall (WV), Charles Schumer (NY).

Also among the signers were Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY). Two decades later, as Speaker of the House and Chairperson of the House Rules Committee, they have the power to prevent floor consideration of any omnibus appropriations bill.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 31 — Deja vu all over again

No one should pretend that omnibus appropriations bills are unusual in recent times.

Following are quotes from the floor debate on various conference reports on omnibus appropriations bills:

But here we are, presented with a huge package bill appropriating hundreds of billions of dollars and allowed one yes-or-no vote on whether or not to keep the Government running. Some will say that there is nothing unusual about this, and that we do this every year. Unfortunately, this is true. (Rep. Berkley Bedell, H.J.Res. 465, December 19, 1985)

Despite the promises of the Speaker last January, once again we have a bill that was not done on time and was not done in regular order. (Rep. Gephardt, H.R. 3194, November 18, 1999)

Mr. Speaker, well here we go again. Another year and another last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that funds most of the government. (Rep. Sander Levin, H.R. 3194, November 18, 1999)

Mr. President, to quote Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again....One senior Republican, speaking on condition of anonymity about the level of frustration with last year's budget process, said earlier this year: ``We are looking for ways to avoid what happened last year. We are determined not to go through that again this year.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, here we are again--only worse. (Sen. Bob Graham, H.R. 3194, November 19, 1999)

The last-minute, end-of-year budget agreement has become a yearly ritual and a tired cliche. (Sen. John McCain, H.R. 3194, November 19, 1999)

I think it is important to reflect and realize that this action that was taken last year by the House was done at the end of the session, with a lot of unfinished work poured into one huge package, and I am afraid we are going to do that again today. (Rep. John Tanner, H.R. 4577, December 15, 2000)

[A]s has been the case on far too many occasions in the past number of years, the Senate finds itself today in the position of having to deal with a massive omnibus appropriations bill. (Sen. Robert Byrd, H.R. 4577, December 15, 2000)

Mr. President, I am extremely concerned about the process that has brought about this omnibus bill's passage. It is unfortunate that the Senate finds itself in virtually the same position as it did the last two years with appropriations matters. (Sen. Max Baucus, H.R. 4577, December 15, 2000)

Once again the House is being asked to vote on a massive omnibus measure that rolls together the thousands of specific accounts that properly should be included in no fewer than seven separate regular appropriations bills. This is exactly what happened last year. (Rep. Mark Udall of CO, H.R. 2673, December 8, 2003)

Mr. President, here we go again, another omnibus appropriations bil...This has become an unacceptable practice. Less than a year after passing one monstrosity, we are poised to do it again as if it should now be our standard operating procedure. (Sen. John McCain, H.R. 2673, January 21, 2004)

— 32 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS VII. CASE STUDIES: 13 OMNIBUS MONSTERS

Following are one-page case studies of 13 of the omnibus appropriations bills enacted since 1982. All became law. No human could possibly have read any of the 13 before floor debate. Please see the detailed versions of these case studies, including timelines of congressional action, at www.readthebill.org/monsters.

Bills excluded from this report “Clean” continuing resolutions—The following case studies exclude “clean” continuing resolutions that extend funding for the departments using a formula usually based on funding levels from the prior fiscal year. Because ReadtheBill.org Foundation focuses on the readability of bills, this report excludes such formula-based continuing resolutions that are only a few pages in length, even if they replace many regular appropriations bills or last an entire fiscal year. Such clean “CRs” should not be confused with other “continuing resolutions” (as omnibus bills were called in the 1980s) which included hundreds of pages of funding details plus numerous additional provisions.

H.R. 2673, the FY2004 omnibus bill Congress had time to read—The exception that proves the rule, H.R. 2673 (the omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2004) was the only bill ever enacted into law that members theoretically had time to read before beginning floor debate. The conference report was filed the day before the Thanksgiving recess and considered by the House more than a week later, the day members returned. The Senate had even more time to read it. Because ReadtheBill.org Foundation focuses on readability of bills, this report excludes H.R. 2673.

Two vetoed conference reports—For simplicity, this report excludes versions of two omnibus appropriations bills that were vetoed and never became law. Both were during the 106th Congress, under a Republican Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton. In both cases, the vetoed omnibus packages grew much larger before returning to the President’s desk and being signed. Brief summaries of each vetoed conference report follow:

Passed by Congress in early November 1999, H.R. 3064 was a 256-page minibus that accounted for appropriations normally made in two separate spending bills. (House members had fewer than 18 hours to read this bill, and senators fewer than 48 hours.) After the President’s veto, the package returned later that month as a 1,175-page, five-bill omnibus (H.R. 3194) that Congress took even less time to read. (See H.R. 3064 case study.)

In October 2000, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 4516, a 122-page minibus continuing regular appropriations normally enacted by two bills. (Congress had an extraordinary two weeks to read this bill before consideration began!) In December, Congress sent a larger package to the President’s desk. It was H.R. 4577, a three-bill minibus of 1,103 pages that the House took no time to read, and the Senate fewer than three hours. (See H.R. 4577 case study.)

H.J. Res. 20, the FY2007 continuing resolution—After the 2006 elections, Republicans returned for a lame- duck session in November and passed a short-term continuing resolution, leaving the unfinished appropriations business to the new Democratic majority. In January 2007, the House quickly passed a resolution continuing spending for the rest of the year at previous levels, with some adjustments. Representatives had fewer than 39 hours to review the 183-page resolution that approved a total of $463.5 billion in funding normally allocated through nine separate spending bills. In February, senators had two weeks to read it. This not-so-clean continuing appropriations was excluded from this report but a case could be made for its inclusion.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 33 — Making Further Continuing Bill: H.J. Res. 631 Appropriations for FY1983 (P.L. 97-377) “A monument to nondeliberation.” Congress: 97th, 2nd session Passed: December 20, 1982 ReadtheBill.org considers this to be the first true omnibus appropriations bill. At the time, it was one of the largest appropriations bills ever passed, Majority: Democrats (House) and the first spending package that did not use a simple continuing Republicans (Senate) resolution formula, but the actual conference agreements on several President: Ronald Reagan appropriations bills. H.J. Res. 631 was passed at the end of a lame-duck session, the week before Christmas 1982. Only three of the regular Sponsor: Rep. Jamie Whitten appropriations bills for fiscal year 1983 had been enacted. The remaining (D-MS) ten bills were packaged into a 204-page, $379 billion dollar measure that Amount: $379 billion represented 78 percent of the year’s total appropriations. The conference Pages: 204 negotiation was completed in one 12-hour session, and the report was filed the next day at noon on Monday, December 20. Both chambers # Bills: 6 passed the measure that same day, without ever having a chance to review House read time: No time it. (Four of the appropriations bills were later enacted separately before Congress adjourned for the year, so only the remaining six were enacted Senate read time: No time through H.J. Res. 631.) For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said We are our own worst enemy. Sen. John Tower (R-TX): Rep. Robert Edgar (D-PA): I have had only a few minutes to review this [I]t is very difficult to take a document of this size lengthy conference report as it applies to defense. I and review it in the very few minutes that we have think it is irresponsible of us to pretend that we are to review the legislation and make a decision. making an informed judgment on nearly $232 Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY): billion of defense programs. The manner in which we have considered and by Sen. Thomas Eagleton (D-MO): which we will adopt H.J. Res. 631 represents a This hectic, frantic, helter-skelter way of doing the failure of our legislative process. ... By lumping Nation’s business is unacceptable. To rush through, not only appropriations but many authorizations on a last-minute basis, the bill which funds 78 into one omnibus piece of legislation we have percent of appropriated moneys, makes a mockery removed that careful oversight. of the Senate tradition as “The World’s Greatest Rep. David Bonior (D-MI): Deliberative Parliamentary Body.” This year’s I hope that enough Members will be revolted by continuing resolution stands as a monument to the position to which they have been relegated in nondeliberation. the legislative process to put an end to it before Sen. Roger Jepsen (R-IA) this institution loses all credibility as an We received the 540-page report just 3 hours independent, deliberative, and representative body. before we were required to vote on it....[F]or the Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI): life of me, I cannot understand how we can ask any [T]he conference report on the continuing Member to vote either in favor of or in opposition resolution as it sits on each Senate desk today is to this resolution without having had an probably the most voluminous and complex opportunity to read it. conference report ever filed by an appropriations Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY): conference in the long history of the Congress. [T]his is a deliberative body. We were meant by Sen. David Pryor (D-AR): the Constitution so to be. When the processes of I think if one inscription or one thought remains Government and legislation become as hopelessly after this session finally concludes, if it ever does, confused as they have in the last few days, we as a it will be that of the great philosopher, Pogo, who Senate lose that distinction. And we lose it at the said, “I have just met the enemy, and they is us.” peril of the careful procedures that makes our democracy among the oldest on Earth.

— 34 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Making Continuing Bill: H.J. Res. 648 Appropriations for FY 1985 (P.L. 98-473) Congress: 98th, 2nd session “Appropriating by grab bag violates every Passed: October 1984 procedural rule we have.” Majority: Democrats (House) Three weeks before the November 1984 elections, on October 10 at 6:30 Republicans (Senate) p.m., the House waived by unanimous consent the rule against making President: Ronald Reagan the conference report available for one hour before debate began. The 420-page conference report (which was over 1,000 pages in raw form on Sponsor: Rep. Jamie Whitten the floor) was filed at 10:30 p.m. and brought up for consideration (D-MS) immediately. The House agreed to it after little more than one hour of Amount: $470 billion debate. The Senate began consideration the next morning at 11 a.m. and passed it quickly. As passed, the $470 billion measure combined nine Pages: 420 regular appropriations bills not previously enacted, plus a massive crime # Bills: 8 package that included some 60 bills. H.J. Res. 648 contained the full text of five appropriations bills, while the other four were only included by House read time: No time reference. One of the bills was later enacted separately, and removed. Senate read time: 12 hrs, 30 min. For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-MN) First, the procedure is simply awful. Appropriating Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA): by grab bag violates every procedural rule we Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that this is a heck of a have. Second, we don't know what's in the bill. way to run a railroad. It seems clear to me that we Only vaguely do we grasp its exterior dimensions. have to find a way to avoid running into this kind Sen. John C. Stennis (D-MS): of continuing resolution situation. It is simply unfair to the 435 Members of this House, each of I have no words of criticism directed to any whom represents over 500,000 constituents, to individual, but this bill fails in some major bring up these massive spending bills. particulars, and I think failure of some kind like that is a natural product of the system that we are Rep. Thomas Hartnett (R-SC): trying to use now in disposing of this huge I have been amazed, Mr. Speaker, as I sat in my appropriation in the operation of the Government. office for the last few minutes to see the Members ...I not only regret that, but I think we should all of this body beat their breasts and contend what a recognize it and set out to really do something fantastic job they have done in this, the 59th about it. Our Government cannot operate minute of the 11th hour, to bring before us a successfully with a system like this, for it to break continuing resolution....[I]f you graded us, Mr. up on the rocks for some reason is inevitable when Speaker, on a point from 1 to 10...we probably we try to go this route. would be 30 points behind the most sloppily run Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK): legislature...of any small State anywhere in the I believe that the whole confidence of the portion country. Do not go home, Mr. Speaker, and try and of our economy that is dependent upon the convince your constituents that you have done a continued full working of the process that we have good job, because as legislators you should have in reviewing our defense expenditures will erode passed those appropriations bills. They should unless we are able to return to the concept of really have been given a chance to be sent to the an open Government, and by that I mean we have President, given him an opportunity to veto or to been open about the process we have followed, but sign those appropriations bills. You, the senior we have not really had time to distribute the Members of this Congress, have been derelict in product of that, so every Member of Congress and your duty as legislators and do not go home and try every member of the public who is affected by this and convince your constituents that you have been document has time to react to it. That is an anything else but. unfortunate process.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 35 — Making Further Continuing Bill: H.J. Res. 465 Appropriations for FY 1986 (P.L. 99-190) Congress: 99th, 1st session “A terrible, unconscionable, irresponsible Passed: December 19, 1985 way to legislate.” Majority: Democrats (House) Six days before Christmas 1985, with funding for the government due to Republicans (Senate) expire at midnight, Congress passed this omnibus appropriations measure President: Ronald Reagan accounting for seven regular bills not previously enacted. The package, spending a total of $368 billion, contained the full text of four of the bills, Sponsor: Rep. Jamie Whitten while the other three were included only by reference. The 379-page (D-MS) conference report was filed at 11:15 a.m. on Thursday, December 19. The Amount: $368.2 billion House then immediately began debate on a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. One hour later, Pages: 379 debate on H.J.Res. 465 began and the House agreed to it by 1:35 p.m. # Bills: 7 That afternoon, the Senate took it up and passed it by voice vote, enabling President Reagan to sign it into law the same day. House read time: 1 hour For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters Senate read time: Under 12 hrs.

What they said to controlling runaway spending....This is a subversion of the legislative process. Rep. Berkley Bedell (D-IA): Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK): But here we are, presented with a huge package Here we are again considering a catch-all bill appropriating hundreds of billions of dollars continuing resolution created simply to rescue a and allowed one yes-or-no vote on whether or not gaggle of appropriation bills that could not be to keep the Government running. Some will say passed in an orderly fashion....The Pentagon is that there is nothing unusual about this, and that now trying to develop a 1987 budget, and they we do this every year. Unfortunately, this is true. don’t even know what the 1986 budget is. Can you Rep. John Porter (R-IL): imagine running a sizable private corporation with It is a terrible, unconscionable, irresponsible way that kind of fiscal irresponsibility? to legislate. ...And here we are, lumping $370 Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ): billion worth of spending into one bill on one Here we have been in session now nearly 12 vote...this is no way to do business. ...[I]t is high months and we have probably done more business time that responsibility worked its way into this and spent more of the taxpayers money in the last process and that we act in an up-front and 6 hours than we have in those whole 12 months. equitable manner. ...I do not believe that was the way the Founding Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA): Fathers of our country designed this country to be Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Government run. ...[W]e are slowly turning it into chaos. requires for consumers of this country is that we ...[T]here is nothing really wrong with the rules of have a Truth-in-Lending Act. One of the things that this Senate except one thing. We ignore them. We we should follow ourselves is a truth-in-legislation are not supposed to legislate on appropriations bills act. This bill that is before us, it is about an inch nor appropriate on legislation bills. But we do it, thick, is called joint resolution making further and do it, and do it.... I have served here nearly 30 continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1986 years. I do not think I have ever served in a and for other purposes....What we should call this Congress that has served so badly as this one. tome is an act to deny the Chief Executive the ...[W]e just passed by voice vote a bill that ability to exercise the power given to that person contains over $300 billion for defense purposes— by the Constitution; namely, the veto. When we no discussion, no understanding. ...[T]hat is no send to the White House roughly a third of the way to run this body. We are fooling ourselves. Federal spending in 1 year in one document, We are lying to the American people when we try virtually on the eve of Christmas, we are severely to tell them that we are doing the best we can for limiting the options of our President with respect them. We are doing a lousy job. It is time we faced up to it.

— 36 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Making Continuing Bill: H.J. Res. 738 Appropriations for FY 1987 (P.L. 99-591) Congress: 99th, 2nd Session “We’re voting on $600 billion in spending and Passed: October 1986 the ink isn’t even dry on the bill.” Majority: Democrats (House) Two weeks into the fiscal year, with a government shut-down looming, the Republicans (Senate) Senate had not passed a single appropriations bill. Congress quickly President: Ronald Reagan bundled the 11 bills that had previously passed the House plus the remaining two into a major omnibus spending package. The 808-page Sponsor: Rep. Jamie Whitten conference report (which had more than 1,200 pages in its raw form on (D-MS) the floor) was filed at 5:15 p.m. on October 15. Representatives had Amount: $576 billion fewer than three hours to read it before debate began. It passed the House by a one-vote margin. Senators had fewer than 22 hours to read it before a Pages: 808 perfunctory 15-minute floor debate, passing it by voice vote. Spending a # Bills: 13 total of $576 billion, at the time the conference report was the “largest single appropriations measure ever considered by Congress” according to House read time: 2 hrs, 50 min. Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR). Rep. Trent Lott (R-MS) called it the Senate read time: 22 hours “Bloated Omnibus Money Bill, or BOMB.” Even the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jamie Whitten (D-MS) agreed it was “a poor way to run a railroad.” For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said resolution is the most dramatic illustration that I can imagine of terminal paralysis. Rep. John Porter (R-IL): Rep. Vic Fazio (D-CA): Mr. Speaker, the conference report is upon us. It is [E]nacting the entire Federal discretionary budget big, it is ugly, it is irresponsible, and it is probably in one sweeping measure is undesirable. Too many over budget. It’s hard to tell how badly over budget of the issues resolved in this bill will go it may be—it’s hard to even know what’s in it unremarked upon. No doubt there are many which because it was just reported this morning. Many of could be improved upon were we to enjoy the time the subcommittee conference reports aren’t even to focus on them. available. We’re voting on almost $600 billion in spending and the ink isn’t even dry on the bill. Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-MN): Rep. Trent Lott (R-MS): This bill is the largest single appropriation ever, but no one here knows, or can know, what is in it. This is no way to do business. The process stinks. ...We have voted for plenty of irresponsible bills, The procedure stinks and the result probably under plenty of irresponsible procedures, but this stinks, in more ways than I would care to one is about as bad as any I have seen. The bill is a enumerate. foot thick, and no one knows what is in it. Rep. Robert Walker (R-PA): Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR): Many of you may not have had a chance to see it The conference report and the accompanying yet because it has only been out here for about an statement of managers total more than 1,200 pages, hour. It is about a $500 to $600 billion bill, just a and I might raise it for all to see. Over 8 inches minor little item that we bring to the floor here high, it weighs 18 1/4 pounds. ...I agree with those fairly hastily....This is a totally irresponsible who argue we should not deal with the financing of approach to spending. It is a totally irresponsible Government operations in this manner. approach to our own rules. This is a slightly smaller document than what we are considering. It Sen. John C. Stennis (D-MS): is called the House Rules Book. We might as well I do not approve of the idea of resorting to a rip it up. method that puts 13 appropriations bills into the Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA): same bill before the body for debate and for passage or rejection. I think that will gradually [T]he system has failed. ...Today the legislative erode and ruin the committee system. process does not work; and this continuing

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 37 — Further Continuing Bill: H.J.Res. 395 Appropriations Act, FY 1988 (P.L. 100-202) Congress: 100th, 1st Session “[It was] slapped together into a single behemoth bill.” Passed: December 22, 1987 Majority: Democrats In late 1987, Congress passed an omnibus bill containing all 13 regular (House & Senate) fiscal year 1988 appropriations bills just a few days before the government was due to run out of money. This was the infamous President: Ronald Reagan omnibus bill that President Reagan scolded Congress for. In the rush to Sponsor: Rep. Jamie Whitten adjourn, consideration of H.J.Res. 395 began on the same night that (D-MS) Congress was considering an omnibus budget reconciliation bill. Appropriations conferees filed their report at 1 a.m. on December 22. Pages: 1,194 The House had already approved a rule waiving all points of order Amount: $603.9 billion against it 15 minutes earlier, and consideration began immediately. The # Bills: 13 1,194-page conference report (which was perhaps 2,000 pages in its raw form on the floor) was not even available to members, who were given House read time: No time short summaries until the full text appeared during debate. Sen. Daniel Senate read time: No time Evans (R-WA) called the summaries “a scam suggestion, a whisper, of what is in this massive continuing resolution.” The House approved H.J. Res. 395 by a single vote margin of 209-208. At 3:30 a.m. that morning, the Senate passed it by a vote of 59-30. For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said pages, more or less, which contains hundreds of billions of dollars in appropriations, and which in Rep. Delbert L. Latta (R-OH): fact is a matter of only the most general I believe that there is not one single individual in knowledge by any person on Earth so far as I am this Congress tonight who knows everything that aware....I cannot imagine that any Senator or is in this continuing resolution. staffer really knows in detail what is in it. Rep. John R. Miller (R-WA): Sen. Daniel Evans (R-WA): [H]undreds of billions of dollars in Federal [T]his is more that just a bad way to govern; it is spending are crammed into one bloated bill. That an absurdity. We simply are not doing the job we means we either vote for everything, including were all elected to come and do, when we are programs we just do not need, or we vote for willing to sit still and vote for abomination like nothing and shut the Government down, and that this. ...I shall just note that I am not sure how is Legislative blackmail. That is not the way the many pages there are, but the continuing budget process is supposed to work and this resolution is in a box approximately 1 foot by 1 institution should do better. foot by 1 foot, so we have 1 cubic foot of appropriations. I do not know how many dollars Rep. Mike Lowry (D-WA): per cubic inch that represents, but it certainly [A]re my colleagues not a little bit tired of being makes the point that we are going to buy off 1 told the Government is going to shut down cubic foot of appropriation without having the tomorrow? I have only been here 9 years, and I do foggiest notion of the details which lie within that not know how many times they have used it on us. large cardboard box. Sen. William Armstrong (R-CO): President Reagan (State of the Union, 1988): Mussolini’s favorite tactic was to bundle together [It was] slapped together into a single behemoth thousands of laws which he then forced the Italian bill and delivered to me hours before the federal parliament to vote on en bloc, exactly the tactic government was due to run out of money. I was which is becoming increasingly prevalent in this faced with the decision to either sign without time Chamber. In a few minutes we are going to be for careful consideration or see the federal asked to vote on a bill which I guess is 2,000 government shut down.

— 38 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 Bill: H.R. 3019 “The most difficult and trying appropriations (P.L. 104-134) cycle for any fiscal year.” Congress: 104th, 2nd Session Stalled by disagreements with the Clinton Administration, the Passed: April 25, 1996 Republican-controlled Congress failed to enact many of the regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 1996. As a result of partisan standoffs Majority: Republicans over key issues, the government shut down on two occasions. Several (House & Senate) months and 13 continuing resolutions into the fiscal year, Congress finally President: Bill Clinton enacted the five remaining appropriations bills in one omnibus package. The 571-page conference report contained Commerce/Justice/State, Sponsor: Rep. Bob Livingston Interior, Labor/HHS, and VA-Hud appropriations—plus several (R-LA) authorizing items. Conferees filed the conference report at 1:50 p.m. the Amount: $159.4 billion afternoon of April 25, 1996. The House began consideration less than 90 minutes later, and passed it just before 5 p.m. The Senate began Pages: 571 consideration and passed the measure at 7:45 that night. Members were # Bills: 5 so relieved to finally achieve a compromise package and get on with next year’s appropriations that no criticisms of the hasty process by which the House read time: 1 hour, 24 min. report was read and passed were made. During House consideration, Rep. Senate read time: Under 6 hours Tim Roemer (D-IN) summarized: “Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes, if you first do not succeed, try, try again. Well, 2 Government shutdowns later, 13 continuing resolutions later, 6 months after the deadline of October later, we have finally come up, finally come up with a bipartisan solution for this year's budget.” For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL): We are halfway into this fiscal year. There is a Rep. David Obey (D-WI): time to debate, and a time to act. While I believe For more than 7 months, this House held most of we can do far better than this bill, going forward the departments and agencies of this Government with additional temporary funding extensions is in a state of suspended animation. On two separate something I find even more unpalatable, and that occasions it sent Federal workers—who by and is why I reluctantly will support final passage of large wanted to show up and do their jobs—it sent this conference report. them home for what amounted to 27 days of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): forced vacations paid for at taxpayers expense.... Mr. President, enactment of the thirteen Fiscal Today, finally, we can say that that nonsense for Year 1996 Appropriations Bills has been a long the remainder of this year is over, and for that I am and arduous process.... very grateful....It is time to pass this plan and move on. Surely everyone by now should At that point, we will have completed the most recognize this fact.... difficult and trying appropriations cycle for any fiscal year that I can recall in my years of service I would simply say in closing also that I hope that in the U.S. Senate. I look forward to working with we will pass this legislation and move on with the the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on passage of our appropriation bills for the next year the upcoming FY 1997 Appropriations Bills and I in a way which will never again shut down the pledge to him my total cooperation in hopes that U.S. Government. That does not have to happen. we can avoid many of the difficulties we have had Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY): to overcome in fiscal year 1996. I rise in grudging support of this budget deal. This is not a great bill. It is certainly not the bill I would have written. But it is the best bill that Congress can pass this year.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 39 — Omnibus Consolidated Bill: H.R. 3610 Appropriations Act, 1997 (P.L. 104-208 ) Congress: 104th, 2nd Session “Hastily prepared, barely reviewed, and full of Passed: September 1996 who knows what.” Majority: Republicans In late September 1996, five weeks before a major election and (House & Senate) immediately before adjournment sine die of the 104th Congress, President: Bill Clinton lawmakers passed an omnibus appropriations package combining six bills and numerous authorizing items. The House had passed all 13 regular bills Sponsor: Rep. Bill Young on time, but several never cleared the Senate. The 1,198-page conference (R-FL) report was filed at 6:42 p.m. on Saturday night, and brought up for Amount: $600+ billion consideration in the House less than two hours later. Senators had fewer than 48 hours to read the conference report, which they passed Monday Pages: 1,198 evening by voice vote. Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged passage of the bill, # Bills: 6 even though he criticized its process and contents—particularly the authorizing provisions. He said, “In addition, there are a huge number of House read time: 2 hours other authorizations....In fact, there are some 31 separate major Senate read time: Under 48 hrs. authorization provisions being attached.” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also took issue with the authorizations: “I am one of those, like so many before me on the other side of the aisle in the eighties, who said, the omnibus appropriations or continuing resolutions are not the appropriate vehicles in which we ought to legislate, and I think that is true. This process is not one that ought to be emulated. This process is one that will leave many people in the dark as to what this final product is.” For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said is in this bill nor who put it here. If a measure had been debated, supported by a majority of members Rep. David Obey (D-WI): and then offered for inclusion in this bill, that I have been asked by many Members of the House, would have been one thing. But it is entirely `Dave, can you guarantee that there is not some something else to include proposals which have provision in here which we will regret when we never been scrutinized. hear about it in the weeks to come?' Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-IL): My answer is simply to invite you to take a look at This omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year the stack on that table...That bill is not measured in 1997 is a huge Christmas tree, folks. The truth of pages, it is measured in feet. It is about a foot and a the matter is that this huge Christmas tree can hide half long. I do not know how much it weighs, but a multitude of errors and policy surprises if we you could get a double hernia lifting it. ...You have pass it in our hurry to get out of town. Here we are, an immense amount of legislation that has never being asked to cast a vote on behalf of our been considered by either body, and, as a result constituents on a hastily prepared, barely reviewed, ...this legislation is a case study in institutional and full of who knows what. failure. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL): We should not be backed up against the wall here We do not like omnibus bills. Nobody does. They on the last day of the fiscal year, facing a are big, they are huge, you do not have time to go Government shutdown unless we adopt this through them, and we have reason to fear them. massive resolution. No Senator, and I dare say no Rep. John LaFalce (D-NY): staff person, has had the time to carefully review [T]he procedure we followed on this continuing the thousands of programs funded in this resolution should outrage every Member of resolution, or to read and comprehend the many Congress and the American public if they but non-appropriations, legislative matters contained in knew. I am outraged because no one knows what this resolution. ...I abhor the fact that it, once again, has come to this.

— 40 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999

“Only God knows what's in this monstrosity.” Bill: H.R. 4328 (P.L. 105-277) Two weeks before the November 3, 1998 congressional elections, and shortly before the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, Congress had Congress: 105th, 2nd Session passed only four of the 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 1999. A Passed: October 1998 preoccupied Congress assembled a giant omnibus bill containing nearly one-third of all federal spending. The 1,602-page conference report, H. Majority: Republicans Rept. 105-825, encompassed eight regular (and one emergency) (House & Senate) appropriations bills. It was formally filed Monday, October 19 at 9 p.m. President: Bill Clinton but it is unclear when it became available to members. On Wednesday, October 21, the Washington Times reported, “Last minute changes to the Sponsor: Rep. Frank Wolf legislation were made as late as Monday and copies of the final draft did (R-VA) not appear until noon yesterday [Tuesday]. The 16-inch-tall, 40-pound Pages: 1,602 document includes handwritten notes in the margin, e-mail printouts Amount: $500+ billion inserted into the bill, and misnumbered or unnumbered pages.” House consideration began at 6:08 p.m. Tuesday, so representatives theoretically # Bills: 8 (plus 1 emergency) had just six hours to read it. In reality, few members had access to the House read time: 6 hours document. The Senate took up the measure early the next morning, passing it Wednesday at 9:02 a.m. Congress adjourned for the year the Senate read time: Under 21 hrs. next day. Bipartisan majorities in both chambers voted for the conference report. For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said decisions that led to this ridiculous process.... [W]ait until you see the stories that the press will Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR): write for weeks and weeks on some of the Who among the rank-and-file members of the provisions that are in this bill, and more House can say they've read and understood the importantly, some of them that are not, and we will entire package? Heck, half the members couldn't get a clear idea of just how low this Congress has even lift it, let alone read it. sunk. Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO): Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan stood in this Chamber I dare say no member understands completely what nearly a decade ago and attacked the Congress for is in this legislation. It is a creation without a sending him a massive last-minute appropriation mother or father – rather more like a Frankenstein bill. Well, here we go again. This bill is 4,000 creature – a being patched together from old pages long and weighs over 40 pounds. And at that legislative body parts that don’t quite fit. time Ronald Reagan said, Congress should not Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO): send another one of these and, if you do, he said, I This is wrong. Who has read this pile of programs will not sign it. ...Ronald Reagan was right. It was and pork? Not a single Senator has. a bad way to do business in 1988, and it is a bad We didn’t get a peek at a summary of this way to do business in 1998. Government colossus until Monday afternoon, just Rep. David Obey (D-WI): 2 days ago. We won’t see it in the Congressional We are in this mess because this Congress did not Record until after the vote. The truth of the matter do its job.... And now we have this god awful mess is, no one knows what is in this colossal creation, on the floor, which...represents an incredibly and no one claims to be its father. It is said that outrageous way to do the country's business.... I victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an think this product, at least the process by which we orphan. This forsaken monstrosity, which no one got here, is a national disgrace, and I think the claims, nor has anyone read, deserved defeat today. House ought to be ashamed of itself for all of the

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 41 — Consolidated Appropriations Bill: H.R. 3194 Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-113 ) Congress: 106th, 1st Session “Most Members would fail a pop quiz on the contents of this legislation.” Passed: November 1999 Majority: Republicans Congress cleared all 13 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2000, (House & Senate) but five were vetoed. In November 1999, Congress rushed an omnibus package through the day before adjournment for winter recess. The President: Bill Clinton 1,175-page conference report was formally filed at 3 a.m. on November Sponsor: Rep. Ernest Istook 18, but did not became available until “late morning” according to Rep. (R-OK) John Dingell (D-MI). House floor debate began at 3:45 p.m., giving representatives fewer than five hours to read it. Senators had fewer than Amount: $395 billion 10 hours to read it before beginning debate at 9 p.m. that night. Even Pages: 1,175 among omnibus appropriations conference reports, this one was # Bills: 5 extraordinary for legislating by reference. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) explained, “The text of four appropriations bills and four authorizing House read time: Under 5 hours. bills appears nowhere in this bill. Instead, this bill provides for their Senate read time: Under 10 hrs. enactment by referring to them by number and date of introduction, which just so happens to be less than 48 hours ago. ...I believe this is a very dangerous process.” Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) called H.R. 3194 “little more than a glorified table of contents.” For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said of this body would fail a pop quiz on the contents of this legislation, given that it only Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL): became available for review late this morning, This bill is a travesty, a massive symbol of the failure replete with handwritten additions, deletions and of this Congress to accomplish its most basic goal— elisions. passage of the 13 appropriations bills by September Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS): 30, on time and in order. Instead, we have lumped We are asked to vote based upon sketchy together numerous pieces of legislation, as well as summaries of a huge piece of legislation that five appropriations bills, and slapped them together was filed as a conference report at 3:00 a.m. this like a giant Thanksgiving turkey to present to the morning. Is it too much to ask that we have 24 American people. ...This bill—over a foot high, hours to review and consider a $395 billion hundreds of pages thick and in its final form with appropriations bill before voting? This bill has only a few copies available to all 435 members—was not even been printed or placed on-line for our filed at 3:00 a.m. this morning. Members of this review or for the public’s examination. This is Chamber have not had the opportunity to read or wrong and none of us should be a party to it. even review this legislation. No one knows what kind of special-interest boondoggles lie in the text of this Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): bill, and no one will know for days to come. Sadly, we seem never to learn. The last-minute, end-of-year budget agreement has become a Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI): yearly ritual and a tired cliche. [W]ell here we go again. Another year and another Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): last minute, take-it-or-leave-it, catch-all budget that funds most of the government. The Republican This bill is the “poster child” of the 106th Leadership didn’t do its homework all year and now Congress. Unable to meet the budget deadline, they expect a gold star because they got a C on the we are once again presented with an omnibus final exam. appropriations bill. ...Chances are there are provisions in this measure that I, too, would Rep. John Dingell (D-MI): support, but how would I know? ...the normal It is fair—and accurate—to say that most Members procedures of the Senate and the other body have been run over by a steamroller.

— 42 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS VA-HUD Appropriations Act Bill: H.R. 4635 (P.L. 106-377) “Congress is flying blind, and our plane has Congress: 106th, 2nd Session no global positioning system.” Passed: October 19, 2000 Majority: Republicans To complete the fiscal year 2001 appropriations, Congress passed two (House & Senate) minibus measures, one of which was H.R. 4635. It contained both the Veteran’s/Housing/Urban Development and the Energy & Water bill—a President: Bill Clinton previous version of which had been vetoed. The 307-page conference Sponsor: Rep. James T. Walsh report was filed at 6:52 p.m. on Wednesday, October 18. House members (R-NY) had 18 hours to review it before consideration began the next day at 1 p.m. The Senate passed the measure by 4 p.m. Debate was perfunctory. Amount: $130.9 billion This was two weeks before a major presidential election. An October 18 Pages: 307 Washington Post column by David Broder entitled “So Long, Surplus” summarized the appropriations being finished by Congress during the # Bills: 2 2000 presidential election year: “To grasp what is happening—those now House read time: 18 hrs, 9 min. in office grabbing the goodies before those seeking office have a chance —you have to examine the last-minute rush of bills moving through Senate read time: Under 21 hrs. Congress as it tries to wrap up its work and get out of town. ...‘The budget process,’ [Sen. John] McCain said, ‘can be summed up simply: no debate, no deliberation and very few votes.’” For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said desire to avoid the traditional legislative process in order to protect against having to take any Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): votes at all, particularly any votes on The House of Representatives just passed this report, controversial issues. …I am concerned that we despite the fact that most of the voting members did are operating without a blueprint. Congress is not have adequate time to fully review its contents. flying blind, and our plane has no global And now, the Senate is being asked to do the same. positioning system. In fact, we do not even have How can we make sound policy and budget decisions a hand compass to give us general direction as to with this type of budget steam-rolling? where we should be going. ... Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL): I urge my colleagues in Congress, as well as those in the White House, to stop acting as the The House and the Senate are slowly closing the proverbial children in the candy store and start curtain on the 106th Congress. As the curtain draws acting as statesmen and stateswomen. to a close, we are in the midst of an orgy of spending and tax cuts. ...Worse than the decisions that are Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): being made, however, is the process that is being The new fiscal year is now nearly 3 weeks old, used to make those decisions. ...In the place of this and Congress has still failed to have signed into normal legislative process, we now have a process— law 9 of the 13 appropriations bills. To if it deserves that word—where a handful of compensate for the failure to do our work, we individuals make far-reaching decisions on pass these continuing resolutions. ...We have legislation. Those decisions are then rushed to the been through a Government shutdown. We know House and Senate floors for final votes, often without it can happen. We will now consider in a few the actual language of the measure being considered minutes another continuing resolution. That is available to the Members of the House and the too bad. ...I understand the importance of the Senate. ... upcoming elections as well as anyone else. ... I suggest we all need to grab hold of our aspirin However, no election is more important than the bottles because we are likely to need plenty of those election that takes place here in this Congress pills when we find out what is in these measures, a every day when we, in effect, vote on disclosure that is likely to occur several weeks after legislation. ...That is why we were sent here—to we have adjourned. ...It appears there is a strong do the work of the people. We are not doing it.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 43 — Consolidated Appropriation Act, Bill: H.R. 4577 2001 (P.L. 106-554) Congress: 106th, 2nd Session “A huge package of bills that we have not seen, we have not read.” Passed: December 15, 2000 Majority: Republicans To complete fiscal year 2001 appropriations legislation, Congress passed (House & Senate) two minibus measures at the end of 2000. One of them was H.R. 4577. It was passed during a lame-duck session, three days after the U.S. Supreme President: Bill Clinton Court issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. H.R. 4577 contained three Sponsor: Rep. John Porter appropriations bills. It also contained more than 100 authorization bills (R-IL) added by reference—meaning their actual texts were not in the report. Amount: $351.8 billion The $351 billion conference report was filed, considered and passed within three hours on December 15—the day Congress adjourned for the Pages: 1,103 year (sine die.) Conferees filed the 1,103-page conference report at 4:48 # Bills: 3 p.m. on Friday, December 15. The House had a theoretical six minutes to review it before consideration began. The Senate passed it by unanimous House read time: No time consent before adjourning for the year at 8:03 p.m. Senate read time: Under 3 hours For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said try to do with our limited staff is to try to make certain that they were not supremely Rep. Patrick Toomey (R-PA): objectionable. ... And I have to say that this is a I am concerned about what we are doing here today. spectacular example of how not to run a We are being asked to vote on a huge package of bills railroad. that we have not seen, we have not read, and we Rep. John Porter (R-IL): certainly do not know what is in them. We are being In early 1988, Ronald Reagan came to the floor asked to agree to dispense with the regular order of of this House to give his State of the Union the House and simply vote “yes” on a combination of address and slammed down on the Clerk's desk a bills, despite the fact that we do not know for sure bill that was probably twice the size of the one what bills they are, we do not know how they may or that is sitting there right now. It was an omnibus may not have been changed if we did know them, bill that had been passed about this time of year and we do not know what private dealings were in 1987. President Reagan said, “Never again. struck and may have been inserted into those bills as ....Omnibus bills are never a proper way to recently as this afternoon. ...I know this certainly is legislate. not the first time we have been asked to vote on a package of bills that we have not seen, but that does Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): not make it right. And I know we all want to go And here we are again, passing Labor-HHS home. We all want to be with our families for the along with Treasury-Postal and Legislative holidays. I certainly also want to do that. But do we Appropriations—all in one bill, with the input of not have a responsibility to our constituents to at least very few members of Congress. Despite know what we are voting on when we vote on the statements in 1998 and 1999 that such a process largest nondefense appropriation bill in the Federal would not happen again, we find ourselves in Government? the same position as the last two years. ...[W]e Rep. David Obey (D-WI): already face a population that is increasingly cynical of government and those who serve it.... This bill has been a poster child on how not to run a People believe more and more that government legislative body. ...[T]here are dozens of items in this does not look after their interests, but only after bill that have nothing whatsoever to do with the special interests. And the more we operate appropriations bill. In fact, there are well over a behind closed doors, without an open, public hundred different authorizations that are being added process, the more we feed that cynicism. That is to this bill by reference. We did not negotiate those not healthy for our democracy or our people. items. We are not responsible for them. All we can

— 44 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Consolidated Appropriations Bill: H.J. Res. 2 Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7) “A god-awful mess brought to the floor by a Congress: 108th, 1st Session god-awful process.” Passed: February 13, 2003 Majority: Republicans In February 2003, after four long months of negotiations, House (House & Senate) members had 6 hours and Senators fewer than 16 hours to read the 1,507 pages of a $389 billion omnibus spending package. With Republicans in President: George W. Bush control of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate, most Sponsor: Rep. Bill Young appropriations bills had been stalled. Only the Defense and Military (R-FL) Construction appropriations bills were enacted separately. After the House passed a continuing resolution at the end of January 2003, the Amount: $397.4 billion Senate attached all of its remaining FY2003 appropriations as an Pages: 1,507 amendment and sent the bill to conference. In January 2003, majority control of the Senate switched from the Democrats to the Republicans. # Bills: 11 House and Senate negotiators filed the conference report on H.J.Res. 2 on House read time: 6 hours Thursday, Febuary 13, 2003 at 6:02 a.m. However, Members did not receive the report until “late morning,” according to Sen. John McCain Senate read time: Under 16 hrs. (R-AZ), and “around noon” according to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Assuming that meant 11 a.m. at the earliest, House members had only six hours to read it, and Senators fewer than 16. The Senate took up the conference report that night and passed it at 10:15 p.m. At the time, Sen. McCain said it was the “largest bill in the history of Congress,” though ReadtheBill.org believes the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had more pages. For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said we could get a hard copy. That indeed was difficult as it was. So we have that amount of Rep. David Obey (D-WI): time to go through this. [B]efore Members decide how they want to vote, I I disagree that if one flips through this bill a think they need to understand that this legislation is a person can find a few things wrong. It is tough god-awful mess brought to the floor by a god-awful to find much right about this bill. I object to the process. process as well as the product. About $360 billion, or 90 percent, of the $400 billion We had a House rule which says that we ought in spending contained in this bill, never came before to have 3 days to review any omnibus bill like the House of Representatives until it arrived in this this. We are given a couple of hours. We waived one huge take-it-or-leave-it package today. That that provision. We should not have. means 90 percent of the domestic budget involving Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): hundreds of individual programs was never subjected to debate or amendment in the United States House I hope Members understand we did not receive of Representatives. this bill until sometime late morning and it is… the largest bill in the history of Congress. …I What you have here, as I said earlier, is the biggest think it is several thousand pages. I believe, in back-room deal in terms of spending in the Nation’s all candor, in order to review it, my staff would history. And when you have a back-room deal which have to stay up all night. … is not ever aired in public that means a lot of people are going to get hurt, and a lot of people are going to We are not finished by a long shot reviewing the get things that they should not get. bill. It is the largest appropriation in the history of this country. At least in my mind, it deserves Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): scrutiny and comment. The bill and conference report beside me, I would lift it but it is tough. It is about a foot and a half tall. We were given this document around noon today, if

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 45 — Consolidated Appropriations Bill: H.R. 4818 Act, 2005 (P.L. 108-447) Congress: 108th, 2nd Session “The legislative equivalent of painting a room Passed: November 20, 2004 in the dark.” Majority: Republicans At 1,645 pages, the conference report on H.R. 4818 had more pages than (House & Senate) any bill to pass Congress, except the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It was President: George W. Bush passed 51 days into the fiscal year on the Saturday before Thanksgiving during a lame-duck session after the 2004 elections. Filed 15 minutes Sponsor: Rep. Jim Kolbe after midnight, it passed the House less than 15 hours later. Realistically, (R-AZ) few members had access to the conference report when it was filed. In Amount: $388.4 billion raw form, it was more than 3,000 pages and stood 14" tall. The $388.4 billion bill contained nine regular spending bills, plus numerous legislative Pages: 1,645 riders. Many sections had never been discussed or read by even the most # Bills: 9 powerful members. Committee staff worked on the bill for two or three days without sleep. Perhaps that is why it contained the infamous Section House read time: 14 hrs, 13 min. 222 (aka “Istook amendment”) authorizing the Committee and staff to Senate read time: Under 20 hrs. access the tax return of any American. Rep. David Obey (D-WI) called H.R. 4818 a “poster child for institutional failure.” For full article, see www.readthebill.org/monsters

What they said Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-WI): I think the American people would be appalled Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA): by the process under which the Senate is Mr. Speaker, here is the bill. I hesitate to lift it. I considering this bill. ...It is thousands of pages think it is an OSHA violation. This is it. It became long, and yet the Senate has had only a few available to us at 12:15 last night. It is less than 12 hours to read the bill. hours later, and we are going to be voting on this in a Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): very short time. Something is wrong with our democracy. [T]his omnibus bill was largely written under a shroud of secrecy—a shroud so thick that it Rep. Diane DeGette (D-CO): became apparent this afternoon that not even the A lot of mischief can come from a bill that is a Senate leadership or Senate Appropriations $388.4 billion bill, 14.75 inches thick, I measured it, Committee chairman knew fully what was which was filed sometime after midnight. I will contained in this legislation. guarantee my colleagues not one Member...read this Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): bill, even on the Internet. There is not a single Member in this body who Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD): can say that he or she has read this bill.... Yet This clearly is not how our appropriations process here we are on a Saturday, 51 days into the fiscal should work, with this House rolling nine separate year, forced to vote on this monstrosity in the appropriation bills into one and giving the Members form of a $388 billion unamendable, unread just a few hours to review it. ...It is, I judge, at least conference report. The bill is entitled two feet tall...an extraordinary document. “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.” It Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI): should be entitled “Lame Appropriations Act, 2005.” It is not a good procedure, under any circumstances, when we are required to vote on a bill with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): insufficient time for review, especially a bill as The bill before us is written in a process that is important as appropriations for most of government the legislative equivalent of painting a room in funding. the dark. You don't know exactly how the room will look until you turn on the lights, but you can be sure that it will be a mess. And, of course, that is what has happened. This bill is a mess.

— 46 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS VIII. REPORT METHODOLOGY

Counting the pages

This report looks at the conference report for each bill. The number of pages in different prints of conference reports may vary. ReadtheBill.org Foundation uses the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) PDF format print as the authoritative page count. These GPO files can be accessed through THOMAS and are available for all congressional activity back through the 104th Congress. For earlier conference reports, page counts are taken from the paper copies of the Congressional Serial Set. Conference reports are one document that include both the bill language and the statement of managers—the latter being essential to understanding the bill.

Confusion can arise among three different page counts.

First, the most pages are in the raw, original working master that the relevant congressional committee brings to the floor. This is a stack of paper that can include printouts from different computer files, handwritten edits, inserted pages with only one sentence, and wide variations in spacing, fonts and formatting. Also, it is often double-spaced. This is the page count that members cite during floor debate. For example, H.J. Res. 631, passed in December 1982, was 204 pages in length as printed in the Serial Set. However, members on the floor cited a page count of over 500. This page count is impossible to verify later and cannot be used for standardized comparisons between conference reports.

Second, there are fewer pages in the GPO print of the conference report. For bills passed in haste, the GPO print of the conference report is often printed after Congress has passed it. In it, the text is homogenized, with standard formatting and full pages. This version is easily obtainable years later and is a good standard for comparisons between bills. That is why ReadtheBill.org uses page counts from this version.

Third, there is the enrolled bill print. This is the version prepared by the House Clerk's office for signature by the President. It is a separate document from the conference report, and does not include the statement of managers.

MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS — 47 — Calculating the time available to members to read the bill

When does the reading clock start?

As do the official House rules, Readthebill.org Foundation starts the clock when the bill and accompanying report “are made available to members” of Congress. There is no official record of when a bill becomes available. The THOMAS system provides a time stamp for exactly when a report is filed. The delay before a filed committee report or conference report is posted on THOMAS can range from several hours to more than a day. Filed conference reports are often first made publicly available on the website of the House Rules Committee. In addition, members on the floor can sometimes spend a few minutes looking at a shared paper copy of a bill on the floor. But the omnibus appropriations conference reports are often simply unavailable in any meaningful sense. ReadtheBill.org Foundation starts the reading clock as soon as a conference report has been filed unless there is credible information that shows it was not available until later (such as members indicating during floor debate that they have not been able to access a copy). This is generous.

When does the clock stop?

As in the official House rules, ReadtheBill.org stops the clock when a bill or conference report is brought up on the floor for consideration and debate. Like the House, ReadtheBill.org believes members should have had a chance to read the bill before they debate it, not after.

Why don't you stop the clock when the House/Senate votes on a bill, rather than when debate begins?

This very weak standard was adopted by the Senate in 2007. It invites abuse and is much harder to enforce.

Why don't you calculate exact time for beginning of Senate consideration?

Unlike the House, except for a brief Senate experiment during the 1980s, the Senate does not keep exact timestamps of its actions (except recorded votes). However, there are occasional clues to time of day in the Congressional Record—such as announcements of recess and adjournment or members indicating the time during their debate speeches. To calculate when Senate floor consideration began, ReadtheBill.org uses the latest possible time that a bill could have been considered.

How meaningful is the read time?

The read times listed in this report are often generous estimates of the maximum possible amount of time that members had access to the bill and/or conference report. Sometimes, this period of time occurs completely overnight, when most members and staff are asleep, or on weekends, when many staff are at home. Even when the reading time is during waking hours, members may have other bills to read or other business they must attend to. This is especially true during the end of the session, or before a major recess, when members are busiest and omnibus bills are almost always passed. ReadtheBill.org does not account for these factors, but gives members benefit of the doubt.

In short, the reading times cited in this report are often high estimates, and members and their staff are unlikely to actually be able to read the bills during the available hours.

— 48 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS ENDNOTES

1 Sen. John C. Stennis speaking on H.J. Res. 648, Making Continuing Appropriations for FY1985, Congressional Record, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., October 11, 1984 2 Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan speaking H.R. 4328, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Congressional Record, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., October 21, 1998. 3 Glen S. Krutz, Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2001; 73. 4 Glen S. Krutz, personal communication with Rafael DeGennaro, September 20, 2007. 5 Don Wolfensberger, “Omnibus Spending Bills Portend Ominous Consequences,” Roll Call, September 25, 2006. 6 Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007; 280. 7 Rep. Janice Schakowsky speaking on H.R. 4818, Congressional Record, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., November 20, 2004. 8 Don Wolfensberger, “Omnibus Spending Bills Portend Ominous Consequences,” Roll Call, September 25, 2006. 9 Joseph Schatz, “GOP’s Appropriations Wrap-Up Slips Into Well-Worn Groove of CRs and Omnibus Bills,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, September 26, 2003. 10 Peter Cohn, “Senate Aims to Avoid Omnibus but Road Ahead Unclear,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, August 8, 2007. 11 “Hill Briefs: Appropriations,” National Journal's CongressDailyPM, Wednesday, October 24, 2007. 12 Editorial, “Hello Goodbye,” Roll Call, November 28, 2005. 13 “House Approves C-J-S Legislation as Republicans Ratchet Up,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, July 27, 2007. 14 Steven T. Dennis and Emily Pierce, “Summer Dreams Likely to Fade Quickly in September,” Roll Call, August 13, 2007. 15 Bart Jansen and Alan K. Ota, “Democrats Say GOP Complaint of Spending ‘Shutdown’ Strategy Doesn’t Add Up,” Congressional Quarterly Today, July 25, 2007. 16 Norman Ornstein, “Is the Broken Branch on the Mend? A Congressional Report Card and Fall Preview,” The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2007. 17 John Shaw, “US's Reid: Dems Want To Pass FY'08 Spend Bills Individually,” Market News International, October 18, 2007. 18 “Hill Briefs: Appropriations,” National Journal's CongressDailyPM, Wednesday, October 24, 2007. 19 Jane Norman, “House fails to reverse SCHIP veto,” Des Moines Register, October 19, 2007, p. 10A. 20 Robert Keith, “Omnibus Appropriations Acts: Overview of Recent Practices,” Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., April 27, 2005. 21 Glen S. Krutz, Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2001; 91. 22 Glen S. Krutz, Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2001; 99-100. 23 Don Wolfensberger, “Omnibus Spending Bills Portend Ominous Consequences,” Roll Call, September 25, 2006. 24 Ronald Reagan, “Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the State of the Union,” January 25, 1988. 25 Don Wolfensberger, “Omnibus Spending Bills Portend Ominous Consequences,” Roll Call, September 25, 2006. 26 Steven S. Smith, Call to Order: Floor Politics in the House and Senate, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1989; 58-59. 27 Karen Foerstel, “Moakley Offers Rules Compromise of Sorts but Republicans Still Press for More Open Rules in Their Joint Committee Testimony,” Roll Call, May 24, 1993. 28 Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, The Broken Branch, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; as quoted in David S. Broder, “Fixing a Broken Congress,” Washington Post, September 3, 2006. 29 Barbara Sinclar, Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007; 132. 30 Glen S. Krutz, Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2001; 73. 31 Henry S. Reuss, When Government Was Good, Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1999; 143. 32 Sen. John Ashcroft, speaking on H.R. 4328, Congressional Record, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., October 21, 1998. 33 Sen. Arlen Specter speaking on H.R. 4328, Congressional Record, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., October 21, 1998. 34 Rep. Richard Gephardt speaking on H.R 4328, Congressional Record, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., October 20, 1998 35 Scott Lilly, “Engineering a Train Wreck,” Center for American Progress, September 28, 2007. 36 Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2007; 285.

— 49 — ENDNOTES

37 Stephen Buel, “Clinton warms to Foley's veto proposal”, United Press International, November 16,1992 38 Jeff Kosseff, “Big bills hide devilish details,” The Baltimore Sun, March 6, 2005. 39 Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, The Broken Branch, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006; 172-173. 40 Rep. Mike Lowry speaking on H.J.Res. 395, Congressional Record, 100th Congress, 1st sess., December 22, 1987. 41 Rep. John Miller speaking on H.J.Res. 395, Congressional Record, 100th Congress, 1st sess., December 22, 1987. 42 Sen. Arlen Specter speaking on H.R. 4328, Congressional Record, 108th Cong., 2nd sess., October 21. 1998. 43 Don Wolfensberger, “Omnibus Spending Bills Portend Ominous Consequences,” Roll Call, September 25, 2006. 44 Norman Ornstein, “Is the Broken Branch on the Mend? A Congressional Report Card and Fall Preview,” The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., September 4, 2007. 45 Jeff Kosseff, “Omnibus Bills Hard to Digest,” The Oregonian, February 7, 2005; A01. 46 Rep. Janice Schakowsky speaking on H.R. 4818, Congressional Record, 109th Cong., 1st sess., November 20, 2004. 47 Scott Lilly, “Engineering a Train Wreck,” Center for American Progress, September 28, 2007. 48 Roy Blunt, “House Republicans Hold a Media Availability Following a Closed Conference Meeting,” CQ Transcripts, September 5, 2007. 49 Tom Kenworthy, “49 Say No to Catchall Spending Bills; Hill Democrats Send Pledge to Wright,” Washington Post, February 1, 1988; A13. 50 Rep. Jerry Lewis speaking on H.J. Res. 20, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007; Congressional Record, 110th Cong., 1st sess., January 31, 2007. 51 Glen S. Krutz, Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2001; 73. 52 “House Approves C-J-S Legislation as Republicans Ratchet Up,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, July 27, 2007. 53 “House Approves C-J-S Legislation as Republicans Ratchet Up,” National Journal’s Congress Daily, July 27, 2007. 54 Henry S. Reuss, When Government Was Good, Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1999; 141. 55 Rep. Dan Glickman, speaking on H.J. Res. 395, Further Continuing Appropriations Act, FY 1988; Congressional Record, 100th Cong., 1st. sess., December 21, 1987. 56 Sen. Robert Byrd, speaking on H.R 4328, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,1999; Congressional Record, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., October 21, 1998. 57 Don Wolfensberger, “Omnibus Spending Bills Portend Ominous Consequences,” Roll Call, September 25, 2006. 58 “Chabot Reintroduces Bipartisan Legislation to End Omnibus Spending Bills,” March 29, 2007; http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/oh01_chabot/STOP.html 59 Tom Kenworthy, “49 Say Nay to Catchall Spending Bills; Hill Democrats Send Pledge to Wright,” Washington Post, February 1, 1988; A13.

— 50 —