DOCSLIB.ORG

Ii. History of Omnibus Appropriations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 © ReadtheBill.org Foundation 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 Cover art by Seth Kaplan © 2007 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 No. 25 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend Monsignor Richard W. O’Keeffe, Im- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the Monsignor O’Keeffe to the House of maculate Conception Church, Yuma, gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Representatives. Arizona offered the following prayer: BLUMENAUER) come forward and lead Ditat Deus, God Enriches. Those the House in the Pledge of Allegiance. f magnificent words are found on the Mr. BLUMENAUER led the Pledge of seal of the State of Arizona as we cele- Allegiance as follows: ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER brate today our 96th birthday as enter- I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the PRO TEMPORE ing into the States of the United United States of America, and to the Repub- States. And so this morning we thank lic for which it stands, one nation under God, The SPEAKER pro tempore. The God for all those enriched graces that indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Chair will entertain up to 10 further re- He has given to each and every one of f quests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. us. WELCOMING MONSIGNOR RICHARD As we pray here this morning, we ask O’KEEFFE the Lord of all our endeavors to give f The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without our elected Congress men and women objection, the gentleman from Arizona the courage to follow noble aspirations, GO TIGERS, GO (Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Process 101
    Federal Budget Process 101 The United States Congress holds the purse strings for the nation’s spending and is responsible for producing an annual budget that funds all federal programs. This federal budget process provides Congress with the opportunity to shape our nation’s priorities through the allocation of federal resources. The White House starts the process with the President’s budget proposal, a detailed blueprint and wish list for specific programs. Congress is free to either follow or disregard the President’s budget, but it is a valuable look at upcoming policy priorities from the White House. The budget process also gives advocates the opportunity to make their voice heard on the importance of protecting programs that help end childhood hunger and protect families from hardship and need. Terms To Know Appropriations Process: Congress has the power to fund the federal government through the appropriations process, which sets spending levels for specific programs each year. Mandatory Spending: Making up two-thirds of the federal budget, “mandatory spending” is funding for entitlement programs. Mandatory program funding happens automatically and is not dependent on the annual appropriations process. Instead, this spending depends on the policy structure of the entitlement program and how many people are eligible for the specific program. Examples: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), School meals and Social Security. Discretionary Spending: Making up one-third of the federal budget, “discretionary spending” includes funding for non-entitlement programs. This funding must go through the annual appropriations process and cannot be allocated without Congressional approval. Examples: Head Start, WIC, public health and education programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Learning Approaches to Hybrid Music Recommender Systems
    Submitted by Andreu Vall Portabella Submitted at Institute of Computational Perception Supervisor and First Examiner Markus Schedl Second Examiner Dietmar Jannach December 2018 Machine Learning Approaches to Hybrid Music Recommender Systems Doctoral Thesis to obtain the academic degree of Doktor der technischen Wissenschaften in the Doctoral Program Technische Wissenschaften JOHANNES KEPLER UNIVERSITY LINZ Altenbergerstraße 69 4040 Linz, Österreich www.jku.at DVR 0093696 ISTATUTORYDECLARATION hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own unaided work, that I have not used other than the sources indicated, and that all direct and indirect sources are acknowledged as references. This printed thesis is identical with the electronic version submitted. Linz, December 2018 Andreu Vall Portabella MusicABSTRACT catalogs in music streaming services, on-line music shops and private collections become increasingly larger and consequently diffi- cult to navigate. Music recommender systems are technologies devised to support users accessing such large catalogs by automatically identi- fying and suggesting music that may interest them. This thesis focuses on the machine learning aspects of music recommendation with con- tributions at the intersection of recommender systems and music information retrieval: I investigate and propose recommender systems that observe and exploit the particularities of the music domain. The thesis specializes in hybrid music recommender systems, so called because they combine two fundamentally different types of data: (1) user–music interaction histories (e.g., the music that users recently listened to, or “liked”), with (2) descriptions of the musical content (e.g., the genre, or acoustical properties of a song). The pro- posed hybrid music recommender systems integrate the strengths of these two types of data into enhanced standalone systems.
    [Show full text]
  • DOE HEP Budget Planning and Execution
    High Energy Physics Budget Planning and Execution HEPAP Meeting 29 November 2018 Alan Stone Office of High Energy Physics Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Long-Term Particle Physics Strategy The global vision presented in the 2014 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) report was the culmination of years of effort by the U.S. particle physics community 2012 – 2013: Scientific community organized year-long planning exercise (“Snowmass”) 2013 – 2014: U.S. High Energy Physics Advisory Panel convened P5 to develop a plan to be executed over a ten-year timescale in the context of a 20-year global vision for the field P5 report enables discovery science with a balanced program that deeply intertwines U.S. efforts with international partners U.S. particle physics community strongly supports strategy U.S. Administration has supported implementing the P5 strategy through each President’s Budget Request U.S. Congress has supported implementing the P5 strategy through the language and funding levels in appropriations bills International community recognizes strategy through global partnerships 29 November 2018 HEP Budget Planning and Execution 2 U.S. Administration Supports P5 U.S.-CERN Agreement, signed May 6, 2015, in D.C. By U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, and U.S. National Science Foundation France Cordova Aligns European and American long-range strategic plans in particle physics UK-U.S. Science & Technology Agreement, signed Sep 20, 2017, in D.C. By UK Science Minister Jo Johnson and U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Judith Garber First major project under this agreement is UK investment of £65 million ($88 million) in LBNF/DUNE DOE-DAE (India) Project Annex II on Neutrino Research signed April 16, 2018, in New Delhi By U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Media – History
    Matej Santi, Elias Berner (eds.) Music – Media – History Music and Sound Culture | Volume 44 Matej Santi studied violin and musicology. He obtained his PhD at the University for Music and Performing Arts in Vienna, focusing on central European history and cultural studies. Since 2017, he has been part of the “Telling Sounds Project” as a postdoctoral researcher, investigating the use of music and discourses about music in the media. Elias Berner studied musicology at the University of Vienna and has been resear- cher (pre-doc) for the “Telling Sounds Project” since 2017. For his PhD project, he investigates identity constructions of perpetrators, victims and bystanders through music in films about National Socialism and the Shoah. Matej Santi, Elias Berner (eds.) Music – Media – History Re-Thinking Musicology in an Age of Digital Media The authors acknowledge the financial support by the Open Access Fund of the mdw – University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna for the digital book pu- blication. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National- bibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http:// dnb.d-nb.de This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeri- vatives 4.0 (BY-NC-ND) which means that the text may be used for non-commercial pur- poses, provided credit is given to the author. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ To create an adaptation, translation, or derivative of the original work and for commercial use, further permission is required and can be obtained by contacting rights@transcript- publishing.com Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder.
    [Show full text]
  • A “G N ” H 2017 B B P S
    Student Newspaper of John Burroughs High School - 1920 W. Clark Ave., Burbank, CA 91506 Halloween 2017 - Volume LXVII, Issue II A “G N” H 2017 B B T roughs High School senior, says, S S S “My favorite part of homecoming The 2017 JBHS Homecoming was hanging out with my friends. Dance was held in the school’s It’s fun to get dressed up too! big gym on Saturday, October After the dance, I went to Yard 21. The theme was a dazzling, House with a bunch of my friends Grecian-theme and it did not dis- and it was a good time.” appoint those who came. Another senior student, Mi- Many students attended the kaela Kaekul, told us “My fa- dance, which started at 6:30PM vorite part of homecoming was and lasted until 10PM. When dancing with my friends and then people walked into the dance, going to Wingstop after. I thought they were greeted by Greek dec- the decorations were pretty, and I orations that fi lled the hallway, thought the dancing statue was a consisting of strings of leaves little weird. Overall, it was a lot of hanging all over. fun!” Once one got through the se- Towards the end of the dance, curity and the ticket check, the they announced the fi nal home- dance had begun! ating a Greek goddess, dancing self, snacks and water, and even had fun dancing. coming court. Congratulations Right outside on the stairs later on. a DJ joining us from Power 106 Valery Saravia, a student at to: Leah Davis as Homecoming leading out to the dance, was a Activities for students were FM.
    [Show full text]
  • Magical Amanda Lindroth
    INSIDE WEEK OF JUNE 7-13, 2018 www.FloridaWeekly.com Vol. VIII, No. 32 • FREE Floridians love their staghorn ferns, which thrive in the Sunshine State At Home The island flair of designer Magical Amanda Lindroth. INSIDE BY ROGER WILLIAMS rwilliams@fl oridaweekly.com Behind the Wheel T FIRST IT WAS FUN, HE RECALLED — back when Thomas Hecker The GMC Acadia is a family-style worked for the new Naples hustler. A13 Botanical Garden steward- A ing a variety of plants that included ferns. Staghorn ferns in particular (Platy- cerium spp), with 18 known species in the world, almost inadvertently became one of his central early duties. Not because they’re hard to grow, but because some of them aren’t. Then it got to be distracting work for him, but a continuing joy to peo- ple throughout South and Central Florida who admire the breathtak- ing ferns in formal gardens, or cultivate them at home, some- times for decades. Or until they can’t. SEE FERN, A12 PHOTOS SPECIAL TO FLORIDA WEEKLY Maltz season Lineup includes ‘West Side Story,’ ‘Steel Magnolias.’ B1 INSIDE: Folks with their ferns. A12-13 Collector’s Corner FWC: Boaters should pay better attention, wear life jackets A picture from the day Judy Garland played baseball. B2 BY EVAN WILLIAMS data showed, while falling overboard and ewilliams@fl oridaweekly.com drowning was the leading cause of death. Eighty-one percent of those who fell into Download A report on boating accidents in Florida the water and died were not wearing life our FREE shows that boaters are too often failing to jackets.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antarctic Sun, January 13, 2002
    www.polar.org/antsun The January 13, 2002 PublishedAntarctic during the austral summer at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, Sun for the United States Antarctic Program All tied up in Palmer Little AGO on the big plateau By Kristan Hutchison Sun staff The scene at the Automatic Geophysical Observatory is straight from Laura Ingalls Wilder, as translated by aliens. An orange box of a cabin sits alone on a sweeping snow prairie. At odd angles from it is a matrix of posts and wires, like a clothesline waiting for washday. And in the field on the other side, someone pulls a small plow back and forth all day long behind a snow machine. Scott Freeman, part of the team maintaining the AGO sites, even calls himself a snow farmer, for all the hours and days he's spent towing the groomer. "You're just out in this flat, white plain with lots of time to think," Freeman said. "There's very little evidence of the hand of humans." Humans are hardly ever at the six AGOs scattered across the most remote regions of Antarctica. Teams of three to four people visit each AGO for a few weeks to do See AGO on page 10 Time capsule celebrates new South Pole station By Mark Sabbatini Sun staff The new South Pole station isn't finished yet, but it's already history. A time capsule intended to be opened January 2050 - a few years beyond the station's expected life span - was placed in one of the building's support beams Friday. The wooden box contains literature about the South Pole and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Copy 4/2/18 Template Copy
    e-Ticker News of Claremont, Section A A!1 Boat Landing Mired in Mud Again e-Ticker News This Year; page A12 [email protected] of Claremont www.facebook.com/etickernews www.etickernewsofclaremont.com June 4, 2018 Stevens High School Alumni Association Celebrates Its 147th Annual Reunion June 9th Submitted by Carolyn Bowles LeBlanc’62 Stevens Alumni Association CLAREMONT, NH—Our 70th annual “Broadway” themed parade lineup is set and ready to go. A proclamation was offi- cially signed by Mayor Charlene Lovett and presented to Alumni Officers at the Claremont City Council meeting on May 23rd proclaiming the week of June 4th as Stevens High School Alumni Week. A street banner will be hung on Pleas- ant Street welcoming back Stevens alumni graduates from across the country. The five-year classes are well into their class reunion plans working on their floats and anticipating gatherings with classmates to reminisce those never to be for- gotten special memories from their years at Stevens High School. For some, it will be the first time they have returned to Claremont in many years and excitement is running high. Alumni Day starts with the annual parade now in its 70th Alumni logo in front of the school at the start of last year’s parade year. The following classes have registered floats: 1953 (Stephen C. Fitch photo, courtesy of the Alumni Association). “Broadway Old Timers”, 1958 “Our Sixtieth”, 1963 “Phantom of the Opera”, 1968 “You’re a Good Man Charlie Brown”, 1973 “Oklahoma”, 1978 “Beetlemania”, 1983 “Grease”, 1988 “Into the Woods”, 1993 “Rock of Ages”, 1998 Peter Pan Never Grew Up”, 2003 NHMS tram, 2008 “Wicked”, 2013 “The Little Mermaid”, 2018 “Lion King,” and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Diminished: State and Local Threats to Voting Post-Shelby
    DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED AS OF JUNE 22, 2021 State and Local Threats to Voting Post Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder 1 naacpldf.org above: A supporter of the Voting Rights Act rallies in the South Carolina State House on February 26, 2013 in Columbia, South Carolina. Photo by Richard Ellis/Getty Images DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED above inset left: Photo by William Lovelace/Express/Getty Images above inset right: Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Image Introduction For nearly 50 years, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Alaskan Native voters from racial discrimination in (VRA) required certain jurisdictions (including states, voting in the states and localities—mostly in the South— counties, cities, and towns) with a history of chronic with a history of the most entrenched and adaptive racial discrimination in voting to submit all proposed forms of racial discrimination in voting. Section 5 placed voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. the burden of proof, time, and expense1 on the covered DOJ) or a federal court in Washington, D.C. for pre- state or locality to demonstrate that a proposed voting approval. This requirement is commonly known as change was not discriminatory before that change went “preclearance.” into effect and could harm vulnerable populations. Section 5 preclearance served as our democracy’s Section 4(b) of the VRA, the coverage provision, discrimination checkpoint by halting discriminatory authorized Congress to determine which jurisdictions voting changes before they were implemented. It should be “covered” and, thus, were required to seek protected Black, Latinx, Asian, Native American, and preclearance. Preclearance applied to nine states 1 naacpldf.org DEMOCRACY DIMINISHED (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia) and a number of counties, cities, and towns in six partially covered states (California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and South Dakota).
    [Show full text]
  • Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations
    TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 Methodology....................................................................................................................................2 The Violators A. Members of the House.............................................................................................3 I. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) ...............................................................................4 II. Ken Calvert (R-CA).....................................................................................9 III. John Doolittle (R-CA)...............................................................................19 IV. Tom Feeney (R-FL)...................................................................................37 V. Vito Fossella (R-NY).................................................................................47 VI. William Jefferson (D-LA)..........................................................................50 VII. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)...................................................................................62 VIII. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)...................................................................................81 IX. Gary Miller (R-CA)...................................................................................86 X. Alan Mollohan (D-WV).............................................................................96
    [Show full text]
  • Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions
    Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions Updated for the 112th Congress March, 2011 Introduction Rumors of the death of earmarks are premature. Many developments have occurred since publication of Taxpayers for Common Sense’s first Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions in February, 2010. Earmarks continue to be a topic of interest amongst the electorate, and earmarks and the earmark process continue to significantly impact management of taxpayer dollars. And while there is currently a moratorium on earmarks during the 112th Congress, this is only temporary. Many in Congress express a desire to return to the business of earmarking. As the 112th Congress begins, we think it is important to update Congress and the public on the state of earmarking, the progress that has been made, and the requisite challenges that advocates of transparency and accountability continue to face. Therefore Taxpayers for Common Sense has updated its February, 2010 Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions. Much progress in bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process has occurred, but much more still needs to happen. Reducing the influence of earmarks through the existing moratorium provides an opportunity for better management of taxpayer resources. It creates the opportunity for Congress and the President to design systems that utilize tax dollars for projects based on need rather than political power. The current situation, however, poses challenges as well. The fate of earmarks and the earmarking process is not pre‐determined. Many lawmakers, lobbyists, and local recipients of earmarked dollars have expressed a desire to return to “business‐as‐usual” and are simply waiting for the public to lose interest.
    [Show full text]