Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that under the unanimous consent request, pro forma amendments by the managers on each side are still allowed, is that correct?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, my remarks are directed to the staffers of all of those Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who have asked us for time on this bill. Our dilemma is we now have about 40 people on the list. Only two of them are in the Chamber. If they do not want to lose their time, I would suggest that some of them come to the Chamber now or they are going to lose their time forever. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. Harman asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). (Mr. Rahall asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. Owens asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform who has done considerable work on the need for accountability in contracting on this issue.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who can speak in this Chamber, even though, unfortunately, she is not allowed to vote. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have previously appropriated almost $80 billion to deal with the problems in Iraq and now we are being asked to provide $87 billion more. We have had no real accounting of how that previously appropriated money has been spent, and we certainly have no line item information about how the next $87 billion is going to be spent. If that is not a blank check, it is certainly a malleable one. It seems to me that if the administration wants us to consider their aid package today, that we have a right to see to it that we can offer on the House floor a responsible, comprehensive alternative. But under this rule before us, we are being denied that opportunity. The majority Members of this House will say the rule gives us an open rule. That is a meaningless comment. Because the key to understanding our problem is to understand that the rule waives several of the House rules to enable the committee to bring its bill to the floor but then when we want to bring a parallel substitute to the floor, they say, ``oh, no, no, no, you can't waive those same rules to allow your package to come to the floor.'' So that is the way that the majority leadership funnels us into a situation where it is either their way or no way. That is not the way to unite people in fighting a war. What we are asking is to give the minority the same right to offer a comprehensive amendment that was given to the minority in the Senate. Here is what the amendment would say. The amendment would essentially say if this House is hellbent on providing $87 billion, then there is a better way to do it. If any Member of this House votes for the previous question without allowing our amendment to be made in order, that Member will be voting to block our efforts to transfer about $4.5 billion of badly-thought- out reconstruction plans to categories in the budget that would do us a whole lot more good. Example. We want to do something about the fact that 80 percent of American troops in Iraq right now are drinking putrid water, getting dysentary. There is absolutely no reason that we should not provide clean water to 100 percent of American troops in Iraq. If you vote for the previous question, you will be denying us the opportunity to correct that. If you vote for the previous question, you will denying us the opportunity to provide predeployment health and dental services to Guard and Reserve forces who right now have to pay those expenses on their own. If you vote for the previous question, you will be blocking us from extending postduty health care coverage from the 60 days which Guard and Reserve people now have when they are coming off duty to 6 months. That is what you will be doing. You will also be preventing us from providing the money that the Army and the other services asked for to refurbish equipment which was worn out or used up in Iraq. The Services asked for the full amount that they could spend on that over the rest of the year, but the Department slashed those recommendations, in my view, in order to hide from the public the full cost of reconstituting that equipment which will approach $20 billion by the time it is done rather than about the $2 billion asked for by the administration. If Members vote for the previous question, they will be voting against our efforts to relieve pressure on Guard and Reserve forces, many of whom have now been told they are going to have to serve an extra year. You will prevent us from correcting the mess that we now have in our troop rotation schedules. What we try to do to correct those items is to recognize the validity of General Shinseki's warning when he warned us that we should not follow a 12-division strategy if we only had a 10-division Army. So what we do is face up to the need to create another division so that you can restore order to the lives of Guard and Reserve forces and restore order to the rotation schedule for our regular troops. If Members vote for the previous question, they will also be swallowing, swallowing whole, the administration plans to rely on huge contracts with politically well-connected multinational corporations rather than relying on more appropriate low-technology contracts with indigenous groups within Iraq so that we can put Iraqis to work doing something constructive besides shooting Americans. If you vote for the previous question, you will be blocking our efforts to convert one-half of the reconstruction funds in our package to loans by running that portion through the World Bank and having it matched by other international contributors. You will also be preventing us from insulating those contracts against cronyism if you have an agency administering these contracts that is responsive to the political appointees at the White House. And, most importantly, if you vote for the previous question, you will be blocking our efforts to meet our responsibilities to our taxpayers by paying for this adventure rather than putting it on the cuff. We have got two choices on that score. We can either charge this bill to our kids or we can pay for it now. There is a whole lot of talk about shared sacrifice on this floor. We heard a lot of it last night. I would like to ask who on earth in this country is being asked to share the sacrifice except the troops and their families? The Guard and Reserve forces right now face a total discombobulation of their life. Our regular troops face the same thing. They are sacrificing in spades. Yet, if you vote for this previous question motion, you will be denying our effort to say there is a better way to achieve self-sacrifice. What is wrong with asking a millionaire to settle for a $53,000 tax cut rather than the $130,000 tax cut they will get absent our amendment? Persons in the $50,000 to $75,000 range will get on average from all sources perhaps $1,000 if they are lucky under the tax cuts now in effect. Persons in the $200,000 to $500,000 range will get $2,200. Why shouldn't millionaires be happy with 25 times that amount? I ask Members to vote against the previous question to give us a chance to offer an amendment that is a truly balanced, comprehensive alternative.