Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate all of the kind words that have been said about me tonight. I must confess that I sometimes am more at ease when I am being pummeled than when I am being praised, but maybe that's just my quirky character. Let me simply say that this is the last time that I will be making any comments on this floor. I want to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle for their courtesies over the past 42 years, and I want to say that it has been a privilege for each and every one of us, whether we have served here one term or 21 or even more, it is a privilege for all of us to have been sent to this place, to the people's House. I can think of no greater privilege and you cannot. This is the only place in the government that you have to be elected in order to occupy our jobs. In the Senate you don't have to be elected. Even in the Presidency, you don't have to be elected under quirky circumstances, and I think all of us can be proud of that distinction. Let me also say, Madam Speaker, that I do think I need to say at least a word or two about the subject at hand, this piece of legislation. John Wesley said that his rule for living was this: do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can. I wish I could say that this legislation lived up to that lofty goal. It does not. It has many, many shortcomings. The only reason for supporting this legislation today--and it is an overriding one--is to keep the government operating. If I were to vote my preferences, I would vote ``no'' because I believe we should have before us today a continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. The only reason we do not is because only in the United States Senate can you get a majority of votes for any proposition and still lose because of their peculiar rules. I think the difference between the way our two respective parties have handled similar situations is interesting. Four years ago, when our party took control after 12 years of rule by our friends on the other side of the aisle, the outgoing Republican majority chose to simply dump most of the work for that fiscal year onto the incoming Democratic majority by passing a short-term CR. That meant that we had to spend the first 2 months dealing with the previous year's business rather than being able to start with a clean slate in dealing with new problems. In contrast, today's outgoing Democratic majority has tried mightily to clear the deck for the incoming Republican majority by producing a full-year CR, which attempts to compromise by producing funding levels that were $46 billion below the President's budget and which amounted to a freeze at the previous year's level. Passage of that legislation would have meant that the incoming Republican majority would be able to start with a clean slate in working with the President on a whole host of major problems. But, instead, we are here today confronted with this legislation, which expires on March 4 and which will require the incoming Republican majority to spend the first 2 months of its stewardship dealing with last year's business. I think that's unfortunate. Through the use of the Senate filibuster, it has been assured that we could not complete a full-year CR. That action simply mirrors the procedural resistance with which we have been faced all year long with the Senate minority engaging in more than 87 filibuster actions in order to grind matters to a halt and frustrate the Congress' ability to do anything on the budget front by majority vote. That is unfortunate; but at this late date, there is no point in arguing. The die is cast, obviously. The only responsible choice at this point is to recognize reality, even though that means that the early days of the next Congress will be unnecessarily confrontational and partisan. It means that, on budget issues, most of next year will simply be about demonstrating political leverage rather than working through honest, substantive differences to reasonable conclusions. Because of that, I most reluctantly, but firmly, suggest an ``aye'' vote. I want to take an additional minute to thank two people in this Chamber who the public will never know, but there are many, many of them over Capitol Hill who work day in and day out to produce a better country, and the public never knows their names. One of them with us tonight is Jeff Shockey, who has done an admirable job as minority staff director on the committee for years. Sometimes I wish he hadn't been so good, but I do appreciate the work that he has done. And, lastly, I do not know what I would have done without Beverly Pheto as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. She is an absolute true professional. She has imagination, she has courage, she has stamina, and most of all, she has an amazing ability to put up with me, and that alone ought to get her the Congressional Medal of Honor. So, with that, I would simply say good-bye to you-all, and I would hope that we would cast a responsible vote so that we can get about the country's business next year, even though many of us will not be here to participate.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the pending legislation.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, we really do need to bring this to a conclusion, so I yield 1 minute to the last speaker, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I have only one speaker on this side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I was in error. We have two speakers on this side. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1782, I call up the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very simple. The continuing resolution under which we are now operating expires at midnight on Saturday. This simply extends that underlying resolution to midnight Tuesday. I urge support. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Don't worry, I am not going to take it all. Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to get into this kind of a discussion today, but I think the comments of a previous speaker from the other side illustrate just another reason why I am glad to be leaving this place. When I came here, I don't think there were very many Members who would reach a conclusion that if someone disagreed with them on substance that somehow they were morally defective. In a civilized, adult, legislative body, Members would recognize that there can be legitimate policy differences that can be highly controversial and that you can have honorable people on both sides of the question engage in honest debate and discussion about those issues. In the main, that is what Members of this House usually do, but I have noticed a tendency in recent years on more and more occasions for Members to substitute hyperbole for thought and to substitute attacks on character for attacks on argument, and I find that sad indeed. I do not know of a straighter shooter in this Congress than Mr. Cole. He is a highly partisan individual. He at one time ran the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, but he did it with honor and, in my view, he has brought honor to this place in the way he has handled himself on a wide variety of issues as long as I have watched him operate. I do not believe that he or any other member of the Interior subcommittee who dealt with the issue at hand demonstrated anything but an honest effort to try to deal with a Court decision which played fruit basket upset on years and years of legal precedent. I am, for one, proud of the service that I have had in this place with people like the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I would simply urge all Members, as I leave this Chamber, to remember that there are good people on both sides of the aisle who have honest, hard-fought views and hard-earned views and have a right to express them without some off-the-wall Member accusing them of corruption. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Don't suggest it's been sneaked. It has not.

Mr. OBEY. This amendment was a Republican amendment offered by Mr. Cole from Oklahoma. It was not slipped in. It was voted in in the subcommittee appropriation bill 5 months ago.