Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against section 509 for the same reason as I cited previously.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 411 for the same reasons as I did for the previous section.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 410 because it proposes to change existing law, constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 402 because it proposes to change existing law and again constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. OBEY. It is section 401.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order this is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the House, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Arizona earlier described this amendment as ``big spending at its worst.'' This amendment adds a couple of million dollars to the Federal Elections Commission budget for the purpose of increasing their capacity to protect the integrity of what is left of our campaign finance laws. I would suggest that that is not quite the case. I think big spending at its worst is the rampant cancerous use of soft money to obliterate intelligent debate in political campaigns. I think the big spending at its worst is the use of phony so-called issue advocacy ads or phony independent expenditures, whether it be by labor or by big business or by single interest groups, to influence elections, all the while pretending that they are not involved in elections at all. I think that is what is big spending at its worst, and this money is just a tiny effort to control that big spending at its worst. I would also say that it is, at least to me, apparent what the agenda of the majority party is in this case. They have been engaged in a year-long defense of the status quo on campaign finance laws, and they have been systematically attacking the agency which is trying to preserve the integrity of what is left of the existing campaign laws. They 2 years ago term-limited the FEC so that there is no institutional memory or in the future will be no institutional memory at that body. They are now trying to make certain that the Federal Elections Commission looks more like a pussycat than a tiger, and what they want to do is make certain that they can intimidate the executive director into not antagonizing anybody in order to assure that he can be reappointed. It is clear to me that there is great resentment on the other side of the aisle because the Federal Elections Commission has the temerity to dig into the activities of the use of the Republican Party of GOPAC, which contains, in my view, some of the most socially irresponsible and, at the same time, richest people in America, to influence the economic agenda of this Congress. They are unhappy because the FEC is having the temerity to examine those linkages. It just seems to me that the choice is clear: If you want to continue the status quo, if you want to continue to have a crippled FEC, vote against the amendment. If you want to cast a vote in favor of the public interest, if you want to cast a vote in favor of giving the Federal Elections Commission the additional tools it needs to see to it that everyone is policed more adequately, then vote for the amendment. The issue is clear, and no rhetoric to the contrary will confuse the public on this question.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against section 403 for the same reason as the previous two sections.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, are we taking editorials on points of order?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 610 for the same reason.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I state a parliamentary inquiry so that no Member is mousetrapped on the next vote. Is the next vote the vote on the Hefner amendment, and would a vote for the Hefner amendment eliminate the cap on congressional pay, and would a vote against the Hefner amendment prevent the congressional COLA from proceeding?

Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the point of order, but, again, we are going to be a long time tonight. And if we are going to spend hours debating amendments that the majority has helped make nongermane in the first place, I do not see much sense in it. So I would reserve for 5 minutes a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to reiterate the last statement made by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), that all of the plans specified in this amendment are already known to the administration. There are no additional duties involved whatsoever in identifying them, and I think the amendment is clearly in order, under the rule.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 634 for reasons previously cited.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who just spoke, I am happy to hear he loves this institution. My question is, does he love it enough to tell the chairman of his campaign committee that he ought to quit issuing misleading press releases about this issue?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply again urge Members to make the situation and to make the facts as opposed to the propaganda perfectly clear, that we vote against the Hefner amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for accurately stating the situation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 627 for reasons previously cited.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 623 for reasons previously cited.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 617 for reasons previously cited.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 616 for reasons previously cited.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 615 for reasons previously cited.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the previous speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who has done a lot of very hard good work on this and a number of other appropriation bills. I appreciate his excellent statement here this morning. Let me simply say that this rule should be defeated for a number of reasons. First of all because it adds, against the opposition of the committee that is supposed to handle the bill, it adds a 300-page nongermane housing authorization bill, which is highly controversial, to legislation which had been fairly well worked out with respect to other issues. Secondly, it does not protect from being stricken on a point of order a very important provision that was added by the committee which would strengthen people's ability to buy homes in this country. Because of the strange nature of this rule, there will be cuts in the amounts that homeowners can borrow from FHA to finance a home purchase from $109,000 to $86,000. That will have the effect of knocking 30,000 families out of the ability to buy a home with FHA help this year. And we simply should not be doing that. There are lobby groups around town who might think that is a good thing to do. I do not think homeowners will agree with them. I do not think that realtors, who have to work to put people in homes, will agree with them. I do not think home builders will agree with them either. I would also say that at the same time that the committee provided this huge nongermane attachment to the bill, it prevented us from offering a bill which would correct the fact that this bill cuts $276 million below last year in terms of actual delivered health care to veterans in this country. They prevented us from offering an amendment that would have allowed us to increase funding for veterans' health care by an additional $1.7 billion. As far as I am concerned, those are all the reasons that we need to oppose this rule. I would simply say that I do not understand why on appropriation bill after appropriation bill the Committee on Rules seems to intervene to make those bills more partisan and more controversial than they were when they emerged from the committee. It just seems to me that is not a way to build a constructive relationship which is going to be needed to conduct the rest of this session. It is not a way to defend the public interest of people in this country. And I would urge a vote against the rule.