John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SHADEGG. If you will answer the question of whether or not there will be an open rule next week, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SHADEGG. All I know is we have been here so far almost 1\1/2\ months and we have been allowed, in 1\1/2\ months, one amendment. And it seems to me that you are frustrated with this debate and you want us to be discussing more important issues. It seems to me we ought to be discussing issues like the importance of the war against global terror.

Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman answer the question I asked, though? Will there be an open rule in the debate on Iraq next week?

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in the Contract with America we offered to the minority 154 amendments. We had a functioning Rules Committee. Every bill in the Contract with America went through the standing committee process. Every bill went to the Rules Committee. The minority was entitled to bring amendments to, I think, all but two of those bills. This was our first effort. This was our first initiative to claim the attention of the American people. We allowed the minority at that time to offer 154 amendments. And in that period, 48 of the minority's amendments were accepted. Now we have been here almost 1\1/2\ months, and we are being allowed the ability to amend only those bills on which there is no controversy. I agree with the minority: the Speaker of the House should be protected. I agree with the minority that whether she is protected or not is an important issue for this Congress. But I do not agree that the minority isn't entitled to debate the expenditure of public funds, as we are doing here. I do not agree that this is an issue where, if the White House says it is a silly issue, we are not supposed to raise it. If that is the rule in this House, then I think there are a lot of things the White House is saying that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are challenging. And it seems to me that if you are unhappy with this debate, then you need to look at the context in which this debate occurs. And I would suggest to you that next week when we begin a debate on the war in Iraq and a debate on the war against the jihadis who threaten our lives in America, who threaten world security, I only hope, I dearly hope, that you will give us an open rule or a rule that allows each of the alternatives to be debated, because if you don't do that, if you continue to repress the rights of the minority, then you are going to have to expect this kind of debate by us whenever we can raise it. It is our duty to our constituents. It is our obligation.

Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman vote for an open rule?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is one of those debates where you are sitting in your office and you are watching what has happened and you have no intention of coming down, and then you hear something said and you feel it is important to talk about that issue. That is how this strikes me, and I think it is important to set the record straight on some important points. I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle challenges the importance of protecting the Speaker of the House and ensuring that she is secure. Indeed, that is a very important point to all people in the Nation. But that is not what this discussion is about. I believe this discussion is about whether or not we are being asked to waste money, whether we are being asked, as has been articulated, to spend an extravagant amount of money, not to fly the Speaker and a few staff members, but to fly the Speaker and lots of staff members, plus family, plus other Members and who knows who. I think that is a legitimate issue to discuss here on the floor and an appropriate issue to discuss here on the floor. One of the things that troubles me in this debate is that people say, well, we shouldn't be discussing this. I would like to invite my colleagues to think about the context in which this debate occurs. I would suggest that it is important to understand that when the majority takes office and brings the first six bills to the floor under what is called a marshall law or some provision that says no amendments will be offered, and that is what happened here, you brought this under a rule or a provision that said we could offer no amendments to the minimum wage bill. Can't discuss it. Can't propose an alternate idea. You then brought the 9/11 recommendations bill to the floor. No amendments. Not allowed. Can't discuss it. Can't offer your own ideas. At that point, in fact, you didn't even have a functioning Rules Committee. You proceeded to bring many other important bills to the floor. The gentlewoman said that Republicans, in her view, didn't address the important issues, and yet your first six bills including minimum wage, stem cell, the 9/11 recommendations, student loans, energy, and Medicare prescription drugs, you bring to the floor, and you do not allow a single amendment by Republicans. And then you say, well, as soon as the 6 for '06 is over, we will allow amendments. We will go back to regular order. But, in fact, that didn't turn out to be true. The seventh bill was the page board. Then the Pension Act, a very important bill that I thought was important for the Nation to pass, no amendments. Then the delegate bill. Finally, we get to bill nine, and you allow one amendment on that bill. Then you come to the CR omnibus bill. On the CR omnibus bill that runs this government for the balance of the year and spends billions of dollars, how many amendments were the minority allowed? Absolutely none. And now you find it odd that we would want to engage in this debate right now. As long as the rights of the minority are repressed by the majority so that we cannot do our job and represent the people of our district then you can expect this kind of exchange to occur on the floor. And for my colleague from Texas who came to the floor and said he was disappointed in the level of debate, I would suggest that you look within yourself. If you repress debate, if you do not allow us to speak and address our issues, then we are going to use whatever tools we can. I want to address another point that has been raised on the other side, and that is that the White House has said that it doesn't view this issue as all that significant or views it as ``silly.'' Well, with all due respect to the White House, I respect Tony Snow and the White House's position on the issue; but, quite frankly, Tony Snow does not hold an election certificate and Tony Snow doesn't represent the taxpayers of Arizona. He does not have a duty, as I do, to come to this floor and to discuss the consequences for our taxpayers. It seems to me that next week we are going to debate an issue of great importance to this Nation.

Mr SHADEGG

Mr SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the bill that comes to the floor under that closed rule. I think it is important to understand that this 137 page bill comes to the floor as a critically important piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will control the vast amount of spending of the Federal Government for the balance of the fiscal year. And yet the process by which it is coming to the floor is no less than stunning. The leaders on the other side said, as soon as the 100 hours are over, we will accord you procedural fairness. I have here the Boston Globe and the Washington Post in which each of them said, ``As soon as that is done, on January 18,'' the majority leader said, ``Republicans will enjoy more rights and power than they allowed Democrats in the entire 12 years the Democrats were in the minority.'' Yet this bill comes to us under a stunning procedure. Indeed, this bill, these 137 pages, at the Appropriations Committee level received no hearing, no hearing whatsoever. At the markup level, no markup occurred. What does that mean? That means no Democrat was allowed an opportunity at the committee level to offer an amendment, and no Republican was allowed an opportunity to offer an amendment to this bill. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are represented by either a Member of the majority or a Member of the minority, you get no say in this bill. So the bill then proceeded to the Rules Committee. Well, at the Rules Committee, the Democrats and Republicans in theory could offer amendments. Would you like to know how many amendments were made in order for the minority party? Answer: Zero. Not one. Not one. How about the Democrats? Were they allowed to offer an amendment? This is not a fair procedure, and this is not democracy.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I want her words taken down. Mr. Speaker, I would like the lady's words taken down.

Mr. SHADEGG. You may not besmirch the motives of a Member of the body. I believe the lady said that my comments were disingenuous. I would like to hear the comments. If she called me disingenuous, I take that as an offense.

Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHADEGG. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, is there a means by which I can appeal the ruling of the Chair in order to allow the Members of the minority the time in the civility clause that is 48 hours to see the language of this bill which was apparently amended within the last 45 minutes?

Mr. SHADEGG. So it has not been reported out of committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, did she not just call me disingenuous? I would like the words taken down.

Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SHADEGG. Can the chairman tell me if this bill was subject to amendment in committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. Point of order.

Mr. SHADEGG. Can the Chair tell me if this bill was reported out of committee?

Mr. SHADEGG. Can the gentleman tell me where and when this bill was amended?

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, it has been widely reported today that this bill has a delayed effective clause which would not make it effective until January of 2009. That is different than the introduced bill, which had an immediate effective date.

Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Has the majority been provided the text of the bill at this time, or can you tell me when it was amended?

Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. We just asked for a copy of the bill, a Member just did, and was not able to get it. Do we have more than one copy?

Mr. SHADEGG. One further parliamentary inquiry.