Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Is it correct that the organization of the standing committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted statutory laws?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of a farm State, one of the leading ethanol producers in the United States and proud to be part of this new movement of using renewable fuels to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and I think it is important that we broaden our portfolio of fuels so that we can meet our ultimate goals of energy independence. Now, there has always been, particularly with two States, California and New York, a traditional, and I have to admit I do not understand the depth or the reason behind those States' bias toward biofuels, but I find it odd as we stand here today trying to promote biofuels to lessen our dependence that we now have a secondary amendment that puts some restrictions on the use of biofuels that will actually slow the promotion of biofuels. I think it is odd the contradictory nature of let us have a biofuels bill, but then let us put in amendments that will eventually slow it. Make no bones about this, this secondary amendment is an attempt to slow down the process of rolling out biofuels. It is a poison pill to a reasonable approach to the issue, the base bill from Burgess and Ferguson. If you represent a State that is a major player or a player in biofuels production, you will want to vote against this poison pill amendment.

Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TERRY. Is it correct to state that the standing committees of the House are authorized under rule X of the rules of the House?

Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. And is it also correct that the organization of the standing committees of the House were organized pursuant to previous enacted statutory laws?

Mr. TERRY. One last parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. So under the rule adopted by the House last week giving Delegates and Commissioners voting rights, the standing committees of the House and the Committee of the Whole House have the same legal standing under the rules of the House?

Mr. TERRY. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I could not hear you.

Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. Is it also correct that the Committee of the Whole House is provided for under rule XVIII of the standing rules of the House?

Mr. TERRY. And, Madam Speaker, is it true that the Committee of the Whole is not a standing committee of the House?

Mr. TERRY. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. And is it correct that under rule XVIII, the Committee of the Whole House was not created by statute, but instead comes from previous rules of the House adopted in 1789, modified in 1794, and later adopted by the House in 1880?

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TERRY. So as I understand this secondary amendment on the infrastructure, would it also apply, then, to tanker trucks that would haul the biofuel to determine if there are any emissions from the evaporation? That is what I understand.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The gentleman from Massachusetts is really one of my heroes on the floor, and I really appreciate and respect his sense of humor. With that, the silliness in this that I see is the silliness when about a year ago, during the height of the energy crunch, a member of the Kennedy clan, who was not a Member of Congress, flew to New York on his private jet to talk about conservation of energy and global warming. It reminds me of the silliness of those who ride in limousines to and from their dinner engagements while whining about mothers using SUVs to drive. That is the type of silliness that I see in this debate. It isn't just about having a plane for security, it is the opulence of the plane that is at discussion. But I have got to tell you, I see something deeper in this than the type of plane, and that is comments published in the San Francisco Chronicle, made by the subcommittee chairman of Appropriations on Defense such as: ``Don't need to put pressure on them, just tell them what they need to do.'' This gentleman is the one that has been bidding for our Speaker on what type of plane. Then when this became a story, mentioned also, I guess, with some sort of pride that was also quoted in many newspapers, CNN, San Francisco Chronicle, reminding the Defense Department that it is them that will make the decisions on appropriations, leaving the insinuation that if the correct plane is not given to the Speaker, that they will cut the Defense Department. Now, I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in our Chamber, and I would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain which part of the defense budget he intends to cut or not appropriate if she does not get this specific plane that she wants. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Announcement By The Chairman

Mr. TERRY. I am sorry. I yielded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. My remarks are to the Chair. I am yielding to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to answer the colloquy that I put forward to him. I see the gentleman is not moving.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry in that regard.

Mr. TERRY. A question was posed by a parliamentary inquiry during the Committee of the Whole earlier asking specifically if secondary amendments could also be revoted, and the answer from the Chair was all amendments. It appears that the ruling from the Chair or the answer to the whip's parliamentary inquiry is different from an answer previously given to a similar question. Could the Chair please clarify?

Mr. TERRY. So the clarification from the earlier ruling is not all amendments, but all first-degree amendments, even though the question earlier was posed on second-degree amendments. I thank the Chair.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, yes, we enjoy, ranking member, former chairman, Michigan Stater, having that 1997 national championship trophy prominently displayed when you walk into the athletic facilities. It is too bad that we weren't able to leave that game on the field back then, but I am sure that Nebraska would have won by 30 or 40 points. Now, I have to defend the football team, Mr. Speaker, when challenged like that. But I am so proud of our women's volleyball team and to be a cosponsor with Adrian Smith of this resolution. What an incredible achievement. Our volleyball team started the season ranked number one with high expectations and ended the season number one in a hard-fought duel with Stanford, the number two rated team in the Nation. And some even had the audacity to think that Stanford was a better team. But, boy, it was the match of a century, two titans battling it out. And the University of Nebraska in the fifth game prevailed for the national championship. Not only are we proud of the University of Nebraska women's volleyball team for their play on the court but also those in attendance. My hometown of Omaha hosted the national championship tournament, and we now hold the record for attendance for a women's volleyball match in America; 17,200 fans attended each session. I think that speaks well of the sports enthusiasm in Nebraska. I also want to acknowledge one of the players on that team, Sarah Pavan, a junior, who has become the second player in NCAA history to be named the American Volleyball Coaches Association Player of the Year and Academic All-American of the year from ESPN Magazine. That is truly a student athlete. I urge all of my colleagues to join the Nebraska delegation today in recognizing the outstanding play of our volleyball team, the coaching and the support that this volleyball team has from its fans in Nebraska.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the process used by the majority party to write and debate the bill under consideration today. Ranking minority members were not consulted on this legislation or provided an opportunity for input. In fact, most of the majority party's own members had no input in this process. Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey instead directed his staff members to write major budget legislation behind closed doors without involving elected Members of Congress. It appears staff members of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Byrd conducted negotiations on behalf of the Senate. As reported in CongressDaily AM today, ``most of the negotiations were conducted by staff.'' This information came from Chairman Obey, who also said that Members of Congress only became involved in the negotiations ``when matters became difficult.'' Let me repeat that: Unelected congressional staff for Chairmen Obey and Byrd conducted negotiations on 9 of 11 major spending bills that make up the annual budget of the United States Government. Why do we have an Appropriations Committee if the committee members have no input in the appropriations process? I propose the next legislation this Congress should debate is a bill to dissolve the House Appropriations Committee. It is clearly unnecessary since major budget negotiations can be conducted by staff instead of elected Members. Apparently, the Appropriations Committee consists entirely of Chairman Obey, who can single-handedly dictate the legislative process and assign his staff to take the place of elected Members of Congress. Handing responsibilities for major budget negotiations to congressional staff for Chairmen Obey and Byrd is an abdication of responsibility. It also sets the stage for corruption on many levels. These staff-level negotiations were unknown to the public and the majority of elected Members. I am deeply concerned that damage and corruption to our laws will occur if Members of Congress are not thoroughly involved in the creation of legislation and knowledgable about the contents of bills brought to a vote. In addition, allowing only 1 hour of debate and no opportunity for amendments on major $463.5 billion legislation that Members had only 1 day to review is further evidence of the majority party's lack of consideration for our system of government and the responsibilities of elected Members. I also wish Congress had completed the budget process last year, but this fact does not excuse the closed process used to write H.J. Res. 20 this week. I sincerely hope the majority party will begin including elected Members of Congress in the process of lawmaking, as the Constitution intended, and as the American people rightly expect. Our system of government of the people, for the people, and by the people depends upon our ability to work together to accomplish the business of the American people. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in calling for a return to the regular committee process and more fair and open debate of legislation with opportunities to offer amendments.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TERRY. In all due respect, the Speaker's microphone was not on, and we could not hear your ruling. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair. Just because the Chair wasn't listening to the gentleman doesn't mean he wasn't making it in a timely manner.

Mr. TERRY. So if you want to solicit bribes, this is not a part. And there is a glaring gap here that needs to be filled, and we have not been allowed to fill it.

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I will help answer the gentlewoman from California; in the sense that this is a decent bill, but it could be much better if it was brought through a regular order where we were allowed to participate and offer improvements by way of amendments. But the process has been shut down to us, and that is why we are upset. We can make a decent bill better if given the chance. It was brought up on suspension with the intended purpose of forbidding us from offering any amendments to make it better. And I just want to say that Mark Steven Kirk, John Shadegg, and myself, we have been very concerned about people who have violated the people's trust, accepted bribes, broken the law, and getting their pension. That is why all three of us joined together over a year ago and offered bills; but yet the bill that has been brought up today isn't one of the Republican bills. Is that civility? I doubt it. Now, the interesting part is, after working with the Speaker a year ago, it was brought up for a vote, and almost all of the Democrat leadership and 173 other Members of the Democrat Party voted against the bill that they are now saying, well, geez, it is your bill that you brought up a long time ago. But there is one area I have amendments prepared, because I thought when we were going to get here that we would go through regular order. And one of them was solicitation of a bribe, which is not part of this. Mr. Speaker, can I enter into a colloquy with the author of the bill, the gentlewoman from Kansas? My inquiry to her would be, why did you not offer solicitation of the bribe when you authored this piece of legislation? Solicitation is not in there.

Mr. TERRY. I thank the gentleman. Parliamentary Inquiry