Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I happen to agree with the Supreme Court decision on the gun issue. I've always felt that those who claimed that there was not an individual protection in the second amendment for gun owners were oddly mistaken. But the issue facing us today is not about guns. It's about the Federal relationship with local communities. The first fight I ever had on this floor was when Bob Giaimo and I pried loose the money for the District subway when the Appropriations Committee was trying to dictate local transportation policy. I didn't like bullying then, and I don't like it now. That's why, since that time, I've generally voted ``present'' whenever the Congress tries to play city council and dictate local business. I do that as a protest against Congress acting like we're elected city councilmen. Most Members of this Congress would fight to preserve local authority for their own communities, but they don't hesitate to destroy it when the District of Columbia's around. Well, I, for one, was not elected to be a D.C. city councilman. I'm not paid to be a D.C. city councilman. If I'm expected to vote on their issues, I want to know where is my check from the District government? If Members of this body want to decide D.C. policy instead of running for the Congress, they ought to run for the district council, and they ought to cut their paychecks to the District council level. That's what I believe, and that's why I will vote ``present'' on the underlying bill, and I will vote ``present'' on any amendment thereto as a protest to Congress idiotically playing city council on this or any other issue.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. If that is the correct understanding, then I simply want to make certain that if we grant this request, that there will be only one speaker on that side on the subject of the amendment that the gentleman from Utah wants to offer and one speaker on that side of the aisle on the amendment that Mr. Burgess desires to offer.

Mr. OBEY. But is that the understanding?

Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, one month ago when we were trying to add funding to provide the largest expansion of the GI bill in the history of the bill since it was first approved in 1945, the House Minority Leader issued the following statement. He said, ``House Republicans believe that loading up the troop funding bill with billions upon billions of unrelated Washington spending is reckless and dangerous.'' Now, it was difficult for me at the time to understand how adding education benefits for our troops was unrelated to funding the troops, but today we are now being asked to consider a nongermane amendment which would bring a divisive energy debate into legislation which is trying to provide for the needs of our military families around the country and which is trying to provide the needs in the health care area for our veterans. If I were to debate energy in the middle of this bill, I would point out that one of the reasons that we have $4 gas today is that we have an administration which has pursued fiscal policies that have borrowed almost $2 trillion to finance tax cuts and to finance the war in Iraq, and that has contributed to driving down the value of the dollar, which has in turn raised the cost of purchasing a gallon of gasoline by 30 percent. If I were to debate energy on this bill, I would point out that, since Jimmy Carter left office, we have had a succession of administrations running from Reagan to Bush that systemically presided over the gutting of energy research done by the government on alternative energy sources. I would also point out that over the last 8 years we have had an energy policy run by an administration dominated by two oil men in the President and the Vice President. I would point out that their national security advisor, Secretary Rice, served on Chevron's board of directors for 10 years and even had an oil tanker named after her; that Interior Secretary Gale Norton started her career at a think tank funded by energy companies; commerce Secretary Don Evans was former president and CEO of a Texas oil company; Deputy Interior Secretary Griles was a former lobbyist for the oil, chemical, and mining industry, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, I would also point out that we on this side of the aisle have worked to pass increased fuel economy standards for automobiles; we have voted to eliminate $14 billion in special tax breaks for oil and gas companies; we voted to crack down on speculation which has driven up the cost of oil and gas at the expense of the American people. I would have pointed out that we have voted to get more oil from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. And, I would be pointing out that we have also asked the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I would also point out that we support drilling on the 68 million acres of public lands that are already leased and not being developed. That is what I would point out if I were in a debate on energy. But, in fact, this is supposed to be a discussion about the needs of our military families for housing, for education, and the needs of our veterans for health care. And I think we would best serve the country in this Chamber tonight if we would focus our remarks on that issue. And that is what I will continue to do. Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it is 9:15 at night. We don't know how long it is going to take us to complete this bill tonight. And what we are being asked to do, as I understand it, is to give unanimous consent so that the gentleman may be able to offer an amendment which he otherwise would not be able to offer because we have already moved past that point in the bill. That is my understanding.

Mr. OBEY. Go ahead.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, continuing under my reservation, I am not interested in the reason why the gentleman's request is tardy. I simply want to repeat, it is my understanding that what the gentleman is asking us to do is to allow him to offer an amendment which we have already passed in the reading of the bill. I will not object to that request, provided we have certain understandings about how long we are going to drone on on these issues. Since this is already a non-germane amendment, I want to make sure I understand what the full request is going to be. My understanding is that Mr. Burgess also has an amendment which he wants to offer which has also been passed in the reading; is that correct?

Mr. OBEY. If I can take back the time. I know Mr. Burgess was here. I saw him sitting here for a considerable length of time, and I am not trying to pin a tail on anybody. My point is simply that this has not been a day noted for its courtesy across the aisle. And I am perfectly willing to grant courtesy, provided that we have a clear understanding that the House is not going to be abused, in terms of its time, in the process. With that, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. OBEY. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I would simply observe that the ruling of the Chair will do one thing and one thing only: it will determine what the rules of the House are and whether this amendment is in compliance with those rules. And I would ask for a ruling.

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, so long as the understanding that was expressed earlier stands and that there will be only one speaker on that side of the aisle on this nongermane amendment, I would not have an objection.

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

Mr. OBEY. Well, the gentleman from Wisconsin does not intend to participate on this one, so it will just be two of you.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to one theme that we have heard here in the last 20 minutes or so. We have heard complaints about the ``outrage'' that is being perpetrated by the passage of this rule because it is alleged that this rule closes up consideration of this bill and in fact prevents Members from offering legitimate amendments. Let me point out this rule does one thing and one thing only. It simply says that if a Member wants to offer an amendment, that that Member should notice the House 1 day ahead of time in the Congressional Record so that we do not legislate by ambush. The only thing that is required for an amendment to be considered on this floor is that it be printed in the Congressional Record the day before it is considered so that no Member of the House is blind-sided by any amendment. We believe that the bill managers on both sides of the aisle have a right to know in an orderly way which amendments are going to be offered to bills. We also believe that any individual Member who happens to have a project in his district which is going to be challenged by another Member, that that Member has the right to notice of that challenge. And we believe that every single Member of this House has a right to know ahead of time what they are going to be called upon to vote on by way of amendments. So this rule simply says any amendment is in order so long as it was printed the day before. Now, the gentleman managing the bill on the other side of the aisle asked the question, ``Will secondary amendments be allowed?'' My understanding is yes. My understanding is that this rule provides--or that this rule does not in any way get in the way of the ability of Members to offer secondary amendments. So, very simply, this bill is attempting to meet the military needs of the country. It's attempting to meet the needs of our veterans in terms of health care. It's meant to meet the needs of our communities in terms of construction on military bases all around the country. This bill builds upon the fact that in the last 2 years we have provided the largest increase in veterans' health benefits in the history of the country. This bill continues in that tradition. It is a terrific bill for veterans. It is a terrific bill for the communities that host military facilities around the country. And instead of having a sham debate about legislation which is not before us today, I think we would do well to confine our comments to the bill at hand, which is the military construction bill. It's a good bill, and I would predict it will be supported on a huge bipartisan basis. It was reported unanimously by the subcommittee. What we ought to do, instead of pretending that there's a procedural problem, when in fact there is none, we ought to get to the subject at hand.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak in general debate on this bill, but in light of some of the comments made by the previous speaker, I feel obligated to. The gentleman said that it was the nature of the rule under which this bill is being considered that prevented him from offering an amendment. The fact is that the only thing this rule did was to require that people publish their amendments 1 day ahead of time so that we were not legislating by ambush. The rules of the House always provide for germaneness. And, as the gentleman knows, his amendment is not germane to this bill. Secondly, I would point out that we put $2.65 billion in the supplemental for Midwest disaster funding and for other disasters around the country. And I would point out that we did that even though the White House never sent to this Congress an official budget request to deal with the disasters not just in Iowa, but Wisconsin as well, my own State. Thirdly, I would point out that the Speaker met today with a number of Members from the Iowa delegation and we made clear that as soon as we get official numbers from the administration that are at all coherent, we will act, and that this Congress will not adjourn for the year without providing needed disaster relief. I just want to make clear there was nothing done in the rule.

Mr. OBEY. Yes. I'd be happy to.

Mr. OBEY. As the gentleman knows, we have been criticized up and down the river by your own leadership for trying to add what they described as nongermane or unrelated items to these bills. As you well know, this bill is probably not going to become law before any supplemental that is passed in September, as the gentleman knows. So there is no rational reason for me to accede to that request. We have dealt with the gentleman above the table, honorably, and fairly. You offered an amendment in the full committee to the energy and water bill, adding money for disaster funding. We accepted the amendment. I would suggest that the gentleman owes the Speaker of the House an apology.

Mr. OBEY. Not further at this time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say I would never apologize for having a rule which requires all Members of the House to be aware ahead of time what amendments they will be asked to consider. It seems to me that the proper time to raise the questions raised by the gentleman who seeks to offer the amendment is before the bill ever hits the floor. It seems to me that if the authorizing committee or any member thereof has some ideas that they would like to see included in the appropriation bill that the best way to work in the legislative body is to talk to people ahead of time about it so that we don't have to make these horseback, half-baked judgments at 10:30 in the evening.

Mr. OBEY. I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of the House finishing its work tonight, I withdraw my request that the gentleman's words be taken down.