Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, we have been mired in a god-awful war in Iraq for almost 5 years. What bothers me most about it, except for the deaths that occur on a daily basis, what bothers me most about it is that there is virtually no sense of shared sacrifice in this country in dealing with that war. The only people who are being asked to sacrifice are military families, and they are being asked to sacrifice again and again and again. They are being sent back to Iraq and to Afghanistan again, again, and again. Not much sacrifice is being asked of anybody else. We hear politicians prattle about the need to stand behind the troops. You betcha, we certainly should. But we need to stand behind the troops not just when the bands are playing. We need to stand by those troops when they come home, and they are injured, and they are sick, or they may have lost their job, or they may have lost their spouse; and that's what this bill tries to do. I think we need to put in context how we got here. It has been a struggle to see to it that we have adequate funding in veterans medical care programs. Two years ago, on this side of the aisle, we were given information from people within the Veterans Administration that their veterans health care budget was going to fall $2 billion short. We tried to put that money in the budget. We were then in the minority. We were blocked by the majority then, except for one fellow. The Republican chairman of the Veterans' Committee sided with us, he agreed with us that we needed that $2 billion in additional money. What happened to him? Not only did the then-majority party leadership fire him as chairman, they took him completely off the committee because he told the truth. We finally got that money, but we had to get a double hernia to finally pry that money out of the administration. Then we had, as you know, the budget process collapse last year, and no domestic appropriation bills were passed by the then-majority party. In fact, this very bill, the Military Construction bill, was held up in the Senate by two Members of the Republican Party who put a hold on it because they didn't like certain earmarks that were on the bill. So the bill never passed. When we took the majority, the very first thing we did was to make veterans health care a number one priority, and we added over $4 billion to that account, made it the number one priority. Then we added additional funding of over $3 billion in the Iraqi supplemental, and now we have added this money today to make this the largest increase for veterans health care in the history of the country. When we did that, the White House announced it was going to veto the bill. Now, finally, they have had a St. Paul conversion on the road to Damascus. I welcome the White House on board the bandwagon. But as Golda Meir said to Anwar Sadat when he finally came to Jerusalem a long time ago: ``What took you so long?'' I am glad the President has finally changed his view. But the President continues to say, ``Well, now, I may not veto the bill, but you have got to have offsets. You have to find compensating savings.'' Why do we single veterans out for that requirement? There were no offsets that the President required when he decided that this year we were going to spend $57 billion to provide tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year and pay for it all with borrowed money. No offsets around then. Do you see them? I don't see any offsets in sight for that. So what do we get? Finally, we get grudging acceptance from the White House that after they stuck us in this miserable war, and after they sit there with no clue about how to get out, at least they are now grudgingly going to recognize that we need the funds in this bill to deal with veterans medical care. This bill ought to pass unanimously. It is far past the time that we put our votes where our mouths are in terms of long-term funding for veterans health care. I am proud of the fact that I provided the allocation to the subcommittee so that they could do that. We are taking funding from $49.7 billion last year to $64 billion this year. Now, green eyeshade people may say, ``Oh, that's too much.'' You know what? In my view, nothing is too much for people who have risked everything on behalf of this country. Finally, over the last 2 years, we have been able to get funding up to begin to meet our obligations in this area. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas for helping to lead the way, and I want to express my appreciation to people on both sides of the aisle who stood up for veterans when it was tough, including Mr. Smith of New Jersey, the former Republican chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who paid a high price for his dedication to the needs of veterans, who paid a high price for putting truth ahead of the partisan wishes of the Bush administration.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who just spoke has expressed a certain degree of unhappiness with the remarks that I made previously on the floor. I treasure his unhappiness. The fact is that when Harry Truman was President, he was out giving a speech one day, and someone in the crowd hollered, ``Give 'em hell, Harry!'' And Truman responded, ``I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.'' The fact is, I am very comfortable with the fact that the previous speaker did not like my comments, because I think maybe that means they hit home. The fact is the previous speaker was the person who was selected by the then Republican Party leadership to replace Mr. Smith after Mr. Smith was, in essence, fired from his job by the majority because he told the truth about the VA health care needs. So I will be happy to endure the unhappiness of the gentleman with my comments anytime if we can use that unhappiness to get more money for people who sacrificed everything for this country.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that: (1) the Committee on Appropriations be permitted to file supplemental reports to accompany H.R. 2641 and H.R. 2643, respectively; and (2) during further consideration of H.R. 2638 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 473, the pending amendment offered by Mrs. Drake shall be debatable for 10 further minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida regarding funding for border fencing and technology; An amendment by Mr. McHenry regarding funding for Citizenship and Immigration Services; An amendment by Mr. Ferguson regarding funding for Buffer Zone Protection, which shall be debatable for 5 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding funding for Secure Flight, which shall be debatable for 5 minutes; An amendment by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida regarding funding for the Office of Inspector General; An amendment by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida regarding funding for FEMA management and administration; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for Drug Smuggler Lookout Posts; An amendment by Mr. Pearce regarding funding for Customs and Border Protection; An amendment by Mr. Shays regarding funding for sharing information with Interpol; An amendment by Mr. Kuhl of New York regarding a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative study; An amendment by Mr. Kuhl of New York regarding a northern border study; An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding funding for invasive species removal; An amendment by Mr. Hunter or Mr. Royce, Mr. King of Iowa or Mr. Franks of Arizona regarding the Secure Fence Act; An amendment by Mr. Carter regarding border fencing requirements; An amendment by Mr. Souder regarding a report on use of air and marine interdiction assets; An amendment by Mr. McCaul of Texas regarding unmanned aerial systems; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding for worksite enforcement; An amendment by Mr. Souder regarding funding for Deepwater; An amendment for Mr. Bilbray regarding funding for REAL ID; An amendment by Mr. Dent regarding funding for Secret Service protective missions; An amendment by Mr. Jindal regarding funding for FEMA disaster relief for hurricane preparedness; An amendment by Mr. Davis of Kentucky regarding funding for Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance grants; An amendment by Mr. Langevin regarding funding for cybersecurity research and development; An amendment by Mr. King of New York regarding funding for domestic nuclear detection; An amendment by Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida regarding airport employee screening pilot program; An amendment by Mr. McCaul of Texas regarding the MAX-HR project; An amendment by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi to strike section 537(b) relating to small business; An amendment by Mr. Deal of Georgia regarding limitation on use of funds to put out to pasture horses and mules; An amendment by Mr. Ellsworth regarding limitation on use of funds for contractors delinquent on Federal debt; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding limitation on use of certain FEMA grant funds; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding a report on pipeline and refinery vulnerability; An amendment by Mr. LaTourette regarding the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative; An amendment by Mr. Ortiz regarding limitation on funding for border fencing; An amendment by Mr. Poe regarding limitation on use of funds to implement plans under section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act; An amendment by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky regarding a reduction in funding; An amendment by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky regarding limitation of total number of airport screeners; An amendment by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky regarding the Davis-Bacon Act; An amendment by Mr. Tancredo regarding limitation on use of funds to carry out visa waiver program; An amendment by Mr. Tancredo regarding limitation on use of funds in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Reform and Responsibility Act; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia regarding limitation on use of funds for research on global warming; An amendment or amendments by Mr. Price of North Carolina regarding funding levels; An amendment by Mr. Obey prohibiting funding for earmarks; and An amendment by Mr. Forbes prohibiting use of funds for temporary protective status. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Homeland Security each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, my understanding, and if the gentleman will shortly yield to the distinguished minority leader and the distinguished majority leader, but my understanding of this provision is that it seeks to assure that there are two kinds of remedies available to items that are in conference. My understanding is that if the Senate adopts an amendment and the conferees do not like that amendment, then their remedy is to oppose the Senate amendment in conference and refuse to accept it. The question then becomes, well, what is the remedy of each individual Member if something is airdropped that was not in either the House or the Senate bill? My understanding of the provision is that at that point, any Member has the right to raise a point of order against consideration of the conference report, and if that point of order is upheld by the House, then the conference report is sent back to the conferees for correction or adjustment.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it had been the intention of the minority leader, the majority leader, and myself to try to get the House moving on this bill tonight so that we aren't here until 4 in the morning. Then, while this bill is proceeding, we intend to sit down and to lay out an additional colloquy which will walk Members through all of the other items that reflect any additional understandings that will be attendant to the appropriations process. Let me simply say to the gentleman, for the convenience of the House so we don't keep them here until 4 in the morning, we would like a little time so that we work out a clear understanding that we are all saying the same thing, that we will shortly be back to the House for an additional briefing on those matters, if that still meets with the approval of the two leaders.

Mr. OBEY. That's not correct. There is an understanding that has been reached. It is a little more complicated than the gentleman has expressed. But the intent is that all of the bills will, by the time the bills move to the Senate, have an opportunity for earmarks to be attached to the bills. Let me just walk you through what my understanding is with respect to all of the subcommittees.

Mr. OBEY. That is correct, as I understand the agreement. As the majority leader has pointed out, the only exception to that is that the Energy and Water bill needs to proceed, but it takes a longer period of time to prepare the earmarks. So we will complete action on the Energy and Water bill except for the question of which earmarks would be attached to that. We will then have a separate report which is reported to the House, and the House will then have the opportunity to consider those earmarks. And after that consideration is completed, then, only then, will that bill be sent to the Senate. So when it goes to the Senate, it will be one document.

Mr. OBEY. Yes.

Mr. OBEY. Yes. The understanding is that, as we have in the past, the intention is to reach unanimous-consent agreements under which each of the bills will be considered. And it is our hope that that time will be reasonably reflective of what it has been in the past. It is also the intention that the bill managers will be expected to be reasonably flexible in establishing those time limits as some modest additional flexibility is required.

Mr. OBEY. That's our understanding. As a practical matter, last year, if you take all of the appropriation bills, the House expended approximately 108 hours of debate. We think that somehow within time reasonably close to that and with reasonable flexibility between bills, we ought to have sufficient expression of views by the Members to make intelligent choices and move the people's business forward.

Mr. OBEY. That's above my pay grade. That's up to the Rules Committee and the leadership. Let the leadership respond.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, let me make clear, I requested an open rule for the bills that have been approved by the Rules Committee so far, and I intend to keep doing so unless we think that those open rules are so abused and so far a departure from what we have expressed as our general intentions that some other course is required.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. OBEY. It is our intention with respect to open rules to make virtually the same request of the Rules Committee with respect to each bill that was made by your party when you were in the majority. And it is our hope that you will respond as we did in the minority by agreeing to reasonable time limits on each of those bills in return for that.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. It has been suggested to me that we can clear this up by my simply reading the statement that we had intended to read to the House at a later point. If the gentleman would indulge me so I could do that, I think it will answer virtually all of the questions that people have. This is that statement.

Mr. OBEY. The House is now proceeding under a unanimous-consent agreement which in addition to the hours already covered will limit total time for consideration of this bill to 24\1/2\ hours. This is a limit of an additional 6\1/2\ hours which we will have to endure tonight. The UC agreement also allows the filing of supplemental reports to enable earmarks to be added to the Interior and Energy and Water appropriation bills without returning the bills to committee. It is expected that this will slow down consideration of the Interior bill by about a week. We will complete action on the Energy and Water bill on the floor next week, but will not send it to the Senate until the House has an opportunity to act upon the projects that will be attached to that bill. That bill will probably not be sent to the Senate until July. This agreement is part of a larger agreement that contains the following additional understandings: There will be a unanimous-consent agreement for Military Construction that limits consideration of amendments and time on that bill. With respect to the Homeland and Military Construction bills, both bills will be allowed to proceed without earmarks, which, if they are provided, will be added in conference. The intention is that when those bills come back from conference, a point of order against consideration will be in order against any projects that were not in the House or Senate bill, and if those points of order are upheld by the House, the report will go back to the conference for adjustment. The Financial Services, Foreign Operations and Legislative Branch bills, three bills that have already been reported out of committee, will briefly be sent back to committee so that earmarks can be added. The minority party has agreed to expedited procedures to consider these bills once the earmarks have been attached. That will slow consideration of the bills by up to 2 weeks. CJS will not be considered until the proposed earmarks are ready for attachment, hopefully before the July 4 recess. The Labor-HHS, Transportation, HUD and Agriculture bills will be considered after the July 4 recess, that is a change, in order to give committee staff more time to include earmarks for those bills. The minority has agreed that they will help facilitate reasonably speedy consideration of the remaining bills. The expectation is that the House will adopt UC agreements to place reasonable limitations on the time for consideration for each of the appropriations bills which are expected to be roughly and generally similar to the overall time agreements that were adopted for consideration of appropriation bills in the past. The bill managers will be expected to be reasonably flexible in establishing those time limits if modest flexibility is required. This is the understanding of the Appropriations Committee and the House Democratic and Republican leadership. The House should be pleased with this agreement because it recognizes the reality that there is not enough time to responsibly include earmarks in the earliest appropriations bills to be considered by the House. While providing that recognition, it assures a reasonable process that will provide an opportunity to question earmarks.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. OBEY. Let me correct the gentleman in one respect. There was no change of heart on the part of the majority leadership on anything to my knowledge. Secondly, if we are talking about trust, the fact is that I have been asked in this agreement to trust the word of the minority leader that when we describe what the conduct will be during future appropriation bills, that that conduct will be reasonably close to what is described on this paper. There is no guarantee in this paper to me that that conduct will be appropriate conduct. In this case, however, I am simply taking the word of the majority leader and the minority leader. If it is good enough for me, I hope it is good enough for you. And when the day comes that we cannot trust the word of the majority leader or the minority leader in this House, then this House is really in sad shape.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, I was not part of the agreement on the point of order. I am simply trusting the majority leader and the minority leader, and I would suspect that virtually every Member of this House has that same trust towards both of them.

Mr. OBEY. I think that question has already been answered in the affirmative, so long as the conduct of the House justifies open rules.

Mr. OBEY. No. If the gentlewoman would yield, it is not going to be attached to another bill. The bill is already out of committee. It needs to proceed. It takes a great deal of time. There are a lot of things in that bill besides earmarks, thank God. We are trying to move the business ahead as fast as we can. What this agreement states is that we will finish all of the nonproject-oriented issues in that bill. We will complete consideration of the bill except we will then rise, and when the report is finished that will be attached to the energy and water bill, it will be reported to the full House. When it is reported to the full House, we will then have before the House for consideration the projects that are included in that report and that will be during consideration of the energy and water bill itself. So it will not be a separate bill, it is the energy and water bill. We are just allowing the projects to catch up to the bill. And then before the bill goes to the Senate, you will have a full opportunity to deal with the report and the energy and water bill simultaneously.

Mr. OBEY. I honestly don't know what the gentleman is talking about. All I was saying is we were trying to get Members home before 2 in the morning by allowing this bill to proceed. We wanted to simply perfect the statement which I just read to make certain that everyone agreed, and we thought when we had more time to review that and check for any changes, we would come right back to the House. Instead, Members wanted to discuss it now. So forget everything I just said with respect to that other statement.