Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say I was here for those secret sessions. And I think the great utility of having another one, given the mumbo jumbo that I heard at the last three, is simply to demonstrate the almost total uselessness of secret sessions.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, to listen to the last two speakers, one would think that they had Rip Van Winkled their way through the last year in this House. For the Republican Party leadership to belatedly give us lectures on earmarks is, in my view, akin to reformed alcoholics giving lectures on temperance. The higher education bill being debated today is funded through the Labor-H appropriation bill. In fiscal year 1995, the last year I chaired that subcommittee, that bill contained virtually no earmarks. By the year 2000, that same bill contained 491 earmarks; and by 2006, that bill had 3,031 earmarks totaling $1.2 billion. The previous Republican leadership was notorious for using earmarks as enticements in order to get their membership to vote for bills that individuals otherwise would not be inclined to vote for. For example, newspapers at the time reported that the previous Republican leadership used earmarks in the Transportation authorization bill as rewards for several Republican Members to switch their votes and agreed to support the Medicare part D provision that forbade the Federal Government from negotiating with the drug industry to provide lower costs for seniors under Medicare. Under the Republican leadership, the cost of the earmarks quadrupled, and we were treated to stories about Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ney, Mr. Abramoff abusing the process, as well as several other. When Democrats took over the House, until we could reform the process, we suspended earmarks for a year, over the fierce objections of as many Members of the Republican Party as we saw in my own party. In response to demands from both parties, after we reformed the process, we then resumed the earmarking process with the expressed intention of cutting in half the cost of earmarks in non-project accounts. We made no such commitments for accounts that are by their nature project-based because to do so would gut the very purpose of the bills under consideration. For example, the Army Corps budget is by its nature project-based. In fiscal 2006, the administration sent up a budget request for the Army Corps containing 984 projects. Of the final amount provided by the Corps, 86 percent of the projects were administration-requested earmarks. The Corps is an interesting example. The administration argues that they have a system for selecting projects and that they only select projects that score a 3 or better on their scale. However, in 2006, there were 16 projects requested by the administration that did not even qualify for funding based on the administration's own criteria. After all the shouting was over last year, we essentially met our promise, cutting nonproject earmarks by 43 percent after negotiations with the Senate, cutting it from $16 billion down to $9 billion. So we came pretty doggone close to our goal. I would have preferred a larger reduction than 50 percent, but the 43 percent reduction is a 43 percent larger reduction than any Republican Congress ever produced, and we did it under a reform process. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the new Democratic majority passed unprecedented new rules that required the listing of the sponsors of every earmark, that required that any Member of Congress requesting an earmark disclose in writing the name and address of the intended recipient, the purpose of the earmark, and required that Members certify that he or she had no financial interest in the project. We also required that all matters before a conference committee including earmarks must be subjected to full and open debate and that no item might be added to the conference report after the conference committee had adjourned, as has happened many times in the past. As we moved forward with earmarks last year, I brought a motion to the floor to see if Members wanted to eliminate all earmarks. That motion failed by a vote of 53-369, with a majority of both parties voting against it. I am assuming they did that because an overwhelming number of honorable Members on both sides of the aisle believe that Members should not lose the ability to fund priority items for their districts because of the scurrilous behavior of a handful of renegade Members. During House consideration of fiscal year 2008 appropriation bills, 71 earmark-related amendments were debated and voted on in the floor, including three amendments to eliminate all earmarks from the bill under consideration and 68 amendments to eliminate particular earmarks. Of the 48 amendments on which record votes were taken, only 13 received the support of more than half the Republicans who voted. On those 13, the percentage of Republicans voting ``yes'' never exceeded 57 percent. Every Member knows that even if the House unilaterally suspends earmarks, the Senate will not follow suit. A firm majority on both sides will see to that. I have learned that lesson the hard way. One last point: the resolution introduced by our friends on the other side calls for the suspension of earmarks for 6 months until yet another group offers their suggestions for change. It is ironic indeed that that delay would force us to do the same thing that the Republican leadership so roundly criticized me for last year when I proposed to delay earmarks 1 month until we had more time to review them. The practical effect of the resolution which our Republican friends want to bring up to date, even though it is nongermane to this bill, would be to require the air-dropping of every single earmark in the entire Federal budget. It would guarantee that no earmarks could be discussed or debated while the bill was on the floor of the House of Representatives. It would then give you in spades what our friends on the Republican side said last year they wanted to avoid. I fail to see how requiring every single earmark in appropriation bills this year, I fail to see how requiring all of those earmarks to be air-dropped rather than debated when we consider the bills is reform. It moves exactly in the opposite direction of that which our Republican friends said we should move last year. So as far as I am concerned, the truth is this is not serious reform at all. It is a grandstanding attempt to escape the reputation of previous Congresses. If I had presided over those previous Congresses, I would be running away from their reputation just as fast as the minority appears to be today.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I get to the matter at hand, I would like to, as the minority leader did just a moment ago, I would like to take special note of the fact that the Appropriations Committee in the House is losing a highly valuable member of our staff. David Morrison has served the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with distinction for a number of years. I know I have certainly come to rely on him for many things, and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, has certainly heavily relied on him as well. I hesitate to point out that before he served the Appropriations Committee in the House, he had an errant career. He spent part of that career at the Office of Management and Budget, and he spent another portion of that career in the other body. Despite that fact, he has recovered very well, and he has served us extremely well in the House. We hate to see him leave, and I think we all owe him a round of applause. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take much time. I know people want to leave. Let me explain the procedure that is being followed. I have a ministerial duty to call up this Senate amendment, even though I intend to vote against it. As the House I think understands, yesterday the House considered an omnibus appropriation bill, and what we did was to consider two amendments; one amendment related to the domestic funding for the bill, and the other amendment related to funding for Afghanistan and for certain force protection items. We sent those two amendments over to the Senate, and the Senate has amended the product in one respect. They have substituted for the $30 billion that we sent to the Senate for Afghanistan and for force protection items, they have substituted $70 billion, and sent it back to the House. I have an obligation to allow the House to work its will on this matter, even though I suspect I am going to disagree with the result of this action. In my view, when we sent legislation over to the Senate 3 weeks ago, that legislation provided for $50 billion for the purpose of helping to shut down the war by establishing a timeline, by requiring that all agencies of the Federal Government adhere to the U.S. Army Manual with respect to torture, and would also require that every unit be militarily ready to perform its duties. That is still sitting in the Senate. In my view, all that we had to do to deal with the so-called shortfall that the White House has been talking about is for the President to sign that bill with those conditions. The White House has blocked that legislation in the Senate, and so we have come to this. Members will vote however they choose. I intend to vote ``no,'' but this is an individual vote of conscience. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893, I call up the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman, and I would simply say that I am not going to advise anyone how to vote. This is a conscience vote, in my view.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that probably no bill that the House will consider this year more aptly demonstrates the divided nature of this Congress and this government than does the bill that is before us right now. People often say there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties. My response, at least on this occasion, is you are absolutely right. At least with respect to this legislation, there is a $40 billion difference between the two parties. Because when you take into account what this Congress did in January when it passed the continuing resolution in January, and if you take into account the money that has been moved from the President's priorities into congressional priorities in this bill, you will see that that amounts to almost $40 billion. It is not as much as I would like, but it certainly is worth the fight. So I think there is a very big difference between a Congress run by our friends on the other side of the aisle and a Congress run by the now-majority Democratic Party. But I think there is another significant difference, and that is the way the two parties have approached the war in Iraq. We have tried every way known to man to bring this war to a conclusion. Mr. Murtha has produced out of his subcommittee time and time again language trying to produce a policy change, and on each occasion, that language has either been vetoed by the President or it has been blocked by the President through the use of his friends in the other body. So I think it is clear that if the Nation wants a change in direction with respect to this war, it has only two options: Number one is to elect more progressive voices in the United States Senate; second is to elect a President who has a different set of priorities domestically and a different vision for America's involvement in the Middle East and especially in Iraq. This, in my view, is a conscience vote. As it comes down to us at this point, we have disposed of all of the domestic issues and we have this one remaining issue with respect to Iraq. I would simply say that I think we have provided more than enough money for that war. I would note that earlier today, just a few moments ago, we had some 64 Members of this House vote against the alternative minimum tax fix because it was not paid for, and it added $50 billion to the debt. I would point out that the document before us will add $70 billion to that debt. And so I would hope that persons who felt it necessary to express their concern about the debt a few moments ago would be willing to do so on this occasion as well. I would also point out that Mr. Murtha, Mr. McGovern and I have offered this Congress a way to avoid adding to that debt because we believe that if this war is such a hot idea, then we ought to at least pay for it so we don't shovel yet another bill off on our kids. It is apparent that this House does not have the will to do that. And so not only do I think this is an unnecessary war, it is also an unnecessary add-on to the national debt.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 893, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within to revise and extend their remarks on House Joint Resolution 72.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman from California has to get to another meeting, so I will not take long. Everyone understands what this is. It is a continuing resolution that keeps the government open until the last day of the year so that the President can review other pending legislation. I do want to just take one moment to bring to the House's attention the fact that a good and faithful servant of the House will soon be leaving this institution, John Daniel, who is sitting next to me and who, if he could, would wring my neck because I am even mentioning him. John has served the Rules Committee, he has served the leadership, and he has served the Appropriations Committee for many years with extremely excellent judgment and extreme dedication to this institution. He is a strong institutionalist. There are a lot of people in this institution who demagogue the institution every day. John is not one of them. I simply want to express my profound thanks to him for the service he has given the House in general and most specifically the service he has given to the Appropriations Committee. We hate to see him leave, but sometimes even the best of congressional staffers have a lapse in judgment. That is the only thing that can explain his departure in this case. With that, I am ready to yield back when the gentleman is ready to yield back.

Mr. OBEY. I yield back my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, even though it's not Halloween, I'm concerned that some Members may be seeing ghosts. So I simply want to say that the gentleman from Florida raised concerns that because this is an amendment between the houses that we might not be fully disclosing earmarks. Let me simply point out to the House that the gentleman's claims are misplaced. Early this afternoon I submitted for printing in the Record a lengthy and complete explanatory statement, the same statement that went on the Rules Committee Web site last night. That statement contains full and complete disclosure of all earmarks. We did that disclosure exactly as if this were a conference report. Nothing has been left out that would have been required if this had been a conference report.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out that the last year the Republicans were in control we had $16 billion in earmarks. This bill tonight cuts that by 42 percent. The gentleman squawks about the emergency spending; 86 percent of the emergency funds in this bill were requested by the administration. With respect to his charge that we have 34 pounds in this budget in order to pass the domestic appropriation bills this year, that's absolutely correct. It's very heavy. You can double the weight by only printing on one side, as the gentleman has done, but the fact is, do you know how high the stack was a year ago? Here. Do you see anything? It's because you didn't pass any domestic appropriation bills whatsoever. I'll take this over nothing any time. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 878, I call up the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 878, I have a motion at the desk.