House Proceeding on Feb 7th, 2008 :: 1:01:57 to 1:21:57
Total video length: 1 hours 28 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:401 Duration: 0:20:00 Discussion

Previous speech:

0:58:57 to 1:01:57( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Rob Bishop

1:01:48 to 1:01:57( Edit History Discussion )

Rob Bishop: rules committee not to make that in order i think is wrong. i yield back the balancef my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman

1:01:57 to 1:02:03( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: from ohio. ms. sutton: i would inquire of the gentleman from washington if he has any remaining speakers. mr. hastings: i have several speakers that want to remark on this. ms. sutton: i reserve

1:01:57 to 1:04:43( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: David Dreier

1:02:03 to 1:02:10( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio reserves the balance of her time. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member

1:02:10 to 1:02:16( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: of the rules committee, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and

1:02:16 to 1:02:26( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. this is a very important piece of legislation. we all know and i was happy to hear my

1:02:26 to 1:02:35( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: friend from ohio talk about the importance of our global competitiveness and we have to have the best educated people as we proceed to make sure we can compete in that global economy. i have to say,

1:02:35 to 1:02:46( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: mr. speaker, that the process around which we are considering this very important legislation is just plain wrong. we had 61 amendments that were submitted to us in the rules committee.

1:02:46 to 1:02:58( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: now, the last time that this was successfully authorized, as mr. hastings has pointed out to our colleagues, was 10 years ago. it was done under a modified open rule. we had four democrats

1:02:58 to 1:03:08( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: sit before us on one of the panels last night and they complimented the rules committee members for the hard work and the very distinguished chair of the committee on rules proceeded to talk about how life

1:03:08 to 1:03:18( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: was tantamount to a living hell when we as republicans were in control versus this great new day that we have. well, mr. speaker, let me tell you just a little bit about this great new day we

1:03:18 to 1:03:30( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: have. there have been more than double, i repeat that, more than double the number of closed rules in the first session of the 110th congress and during this month of january leading up to

1:03:30 to 1:03:42( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: the first of february than we had in the first session and leading up to the first of february in the 109th congress. more than double the number of closed rules. as i said, the last time we

1:03:42 to 1:03:52( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: authorized this bill was in 1998 and it was done under a modified open rule. yes, there was an attempt two congresses ago to do it and when we had a structured rule it failed. why don't those

1:03:52 to 1:04:04( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: colleagues of ours who are in charge learn from the mistake of having not done this under an open amendment process? so we continue to hear, mr. speaker, this is a great new day and all

1:04:04 to 1:04:16( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: these wonderful w changes have taken place. we actually have had democrats and republicans, democrats and republicans, prevented from improving this bill. mr. hastings correctly pointed to the

1:04:16 to 1:04:27( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: fact that the administration has raised a number of concerns. dozens of new programs that are duplicative included in this bill. the president wants to work with us to improve this legislation.

1:04:27 to 1:04:35( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: doing it under the structure that we have today undermines the potential to see that happen. reject this rule and let's come back with at least a modified open rule so we can prepared with

1:04:35 to 1:04:43( Edit History Discussion )

David Dreier: something that in a bipartisan way we very much want to see happen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from ohio. miss suton: reserve my time. the speaker

1:04:43 to 1:04:51( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio continues to reserve her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: how much time on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from

1:04:43 to 1:07:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: John Kline

1:04:51 to 1:04:57( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: washington has 13 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from ohio has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, also a member

1:04:57 to 1:05:11( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: of the education and work force committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota i recognized for three minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for

1:05:11 to 1:05:22( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition toos this rule. the bill under consideration today is a product of a multiyear bipartisan effort by the education and labor committee.

1:05:22 to 1:05:34( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: democrats and republicans worked together to craft this legislation. now the rules committee has thrown this bipartisan effort to the wind. and revealed the true partisan colors that are flying there.

1:05:34 to 1:05:43( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: by allowing 20 democrat amendments and only four republican amendments, the rules committee has effectively announced that the minity party is not to be a player. folks, it isn't fair. it's not a democracy.

1:05:43 to 1:05:56( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: i submitted an amendment to the rules committee early this week but my colleagues will not even have a chance to consider its merits because it was not made in order by the rules committee.

1:05:56 to 1:06:11( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: it is a particularly sad statement given the nature of my amendment. on january 29, the city of berkeley passed resolutions that among other things state that the united states marine corps recruiting

1:06:11 to 1:06:22( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: office is not welcomed in their city. if recruiters choose to say they do so as uninvited and unwelcomed intruders. i'm appalled. my amendment addresses this action by denying federal funding

1:06:22 to 1:06:33( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: to college that is contract with an entity that takes action to discriminate or condones discrimination against the military by denying equal public access. the amendment essentially holds

1:06:33 to 1:06:43( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: colleges and universities accountable for maintning agreements or contracts with entities that allow this open discrimination. mr. speaker, during the vietnam era, i'm old enough to have not

1:06:43 to 1:06:56( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: only remembered it but experienced it, many of our service members and veterans received shameful treatment at the hands of those who opposed our nation's foreign policy. we must protect our current

1:06:56 to 1:07:07( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: service members from the same treatment by showing that the berkeley city council's appalling behavior is unacceptable in this great nation. demonizing the men and women serving our country in

1:07:07 to 1:07:16( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: the military as demonstrated by the berkeley city council has no place in our nation's political discourse. as a graduate of the rotc program and 25-year veteran of the marine corps i am

1:07:16 to 1:07:25( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: profoundly disappointed with the appalling actions of the berkeley city council. institution that is continue to maintain contracts and agreements with this city are in effect condoning this

1:07:25 to 1:07:40( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: discriminatory and unjust treatment of our service members. they deserve better from us, mr. speaker. this structured rule excluding my amendment dethose in favor will vote aye nyes this body

1:07:40 to 1:07:47( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: the opportunity to -- denies this body the opportunity to discuss this amendment. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule and i yield back the balance of my time.

1:07:47 to 1:07:55( Edit History Discussion )

John Kline: the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentlewoman from ohio continue to reserve her time? the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i am pleased

1:07:55 to 1:08:03( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: to yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, former member of the rules committee, mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes.

1:07:55 to 1:11:21( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Phil Gingrey

1:08:03 to 1:08:15( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman fkor yielding. mr. speaker, i rise not in opposition to the bill. i there are some good things in the bill. i was a former member of the education

1:08:15 to 1:08:29( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: and work force committee. i know our ranking member, mr. mcke on, is a supporter of the bill. i rise in strong opposition to this rule, mr. speaker. the gentlelady on the rules committee

1:08:29 to 1:08:42( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: of the majority side, the gentlelady from ohio, has mention add couple things in her remarks. talking about what we did, we republicans did when we controlled this body and indeed the rules committee

1:08:42 to 1:08:55( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: and how restrictive we may have been. but what i want to remind her is that i sat on that rules committee during that time. and i can remember the comments that were made from the minority,

1:08:55 to 1:09:05( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: the then democratic minority, if they had an opportunity to control this place, then rules would be opened and fair and people would be treated fair so that each member would have an opportunity.

1:09:05 to 1:09:19( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: they didn't say well, when we get the majority we are going to stick it to you just like you stuck it to us. i think they should live by what they said they would do. and the other thing i want

1:09:19 to 1:09:32( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: to point out the gentlelady from ohio, she talked about the bipartisanship of this bill and a 45-0 vote. well, 45 members of this body is 10%. 90% of us don't get an opportunity to speak

1:09:32 to 1:09:47( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: on the bill and to offer what i think are very good amendments. 47 were submitted. 27 were made in order. how many republican amendments? four out of 27. it wasn't one of mine. i had a very good amendment,

1:09:47 to 1:10:02( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: mr. speaker. this is the only opportunity i get to talk about it. it's bipartisan. basically, mr. speaker, this amendment deals with the family education privacy rights act of 1974. the tragedy

1:10:02 to 1:10:14( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: at virginia tech where we lost so many lives was i think because colleges and universities misintertret that law. my amendment would simply say that if a parent lists a child, a student on

1:10:14 to 1:10:30( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: their tax return as a dependent, even though they might be over age 18, maybe they are a junior and age 20, but they are a dependent as verified by the tax return, then those parents should have

1:10:30 to 1:10:39( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: access to academic records, disciplinary records, drinking on campus, whatever. and many of us i'm sure have had college students where, because of ferpa, we could never find out how

1:10:39 to 1:10:49( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: our youngsters were doing until they were in dire trouble or flunking out of school or having a substance abuse problem. i commend representative tim murphy for his work in regard to

1:10:49 to 1:11:00( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: mental health issues along this same line. but this was a very good amendment, mr. speaker. and one that i would think, the democrats would want to join republicans and vice versa and

1:11:00 to 1:11:08( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: have unanimous support of that. i'm very disappointed. i'm very disappointed not only for myself but for the american people, my constituents. students and parents all across this country.

1:11:08 to 1:11:21( Edit History Discussion )

Phil Gingrey: so i -- again it's not the bill i'm opposed to. i'm opposed to this restrictive rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. th

1:11:21 to 1:11:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: e gentlewoman continues to reserve her time. the gentleman from washington. as mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. the

1:11:21 to 1:13:03( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jack Kingston

1:11:30 to 1:11:42( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. es mr. kingston: thank you very much. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule so that we can amend it

1:11:42 to 1:11:56( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: or offer an amendment on earmark reform. as we heard the president last week speak about earmarks in the state of the union, to my knowledge no president has ever talked about something that's

1:11:56 to 1:12:10( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: ordinarily a house and senate procedure in his state of the union comments, but in it he declared war, you may say, on earmarks. now we believe in the prerogative of the legislative branch to

1:12:10 to 1:12:22( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: put things in the budget and take things out of the budget. indeed the white house earmarks all the time, but the reality is, mr. speaker, we need to have a discussion on earmarks. we do need to

1:12:22 to 1:12:33( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: stop the practice of air dropping earmarks into conference committees, earmarks that haven't been debated, discussed, or had hearings held on them on the house or the senate level. i think that's

1:12:33 to 1:12:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: a first step. i think there's a whole lot of other things we should do. for example, there are earmarks routinely in the transportation bill. there are earmarks in trade bills. earmarks all over the

1:12:47 to 1:13:03( Edit History Discussion )

Jack Kingston: place in any tax bills. we believe that earmarking should be reformed on all committee levels. we always talk about appropriations, but there's lots of committees that do it. if we allow this amendment

1:13:03 to 1:13:16( Edit History Discussion )

to come to the floor, we will set up a joint bicameral, bipartisan select committee on earmarks that will come uple with recommendations on how to do a better job with them. this would require or we

1:13:16 to 1:13:30( Edit History Discussion )

would urge a moratorium on earmarks until the select committee comes back to congress with recommendations. but there's so many things that we could do that would improve this process. for

1:13:30 to 1:13:42( Edit History Discussion )

example, financial disclosure earmarks -- on earmarks. does the mber have anything at stake to personally gain? transparency, so that when an earmark is added on a subcommittee or full committee

1:13:42 to 1:13:54( Edit History Discussion )

or floor level -- will the gentleman -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. kingsston:

1:13:54 to 1:14:13( Edit History Discussion )

-- mr. kingston: transparency. so members can ask why is it in there, who put it there, and why should the people of idaho have their tax dollars go to something that happens in florida?

1:14:13 to 1:14:26( Edit History Discussion )

we want to have that debate. i think that is so important. . and, again, there are tax loopholes that are basically in the specific earmarks. who puts them in? we know who puts them in. on tax earmarks

1:14:26 to 1:14:36( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: we do not. the white house. the white house does all kinds of earmarking and we, and certainly the press, lets them get away with it because they're the white house. under the constitutional

1:14:26 to 1:19:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Doc Hastings

1:14:36 to 1:14:48( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: concept of equal branches of concept, particularly when spending bills originate in the bill, we have a right to be earmarked but we should auble measured by the same yardstick. the only thing

1:14:48 to 1:14:58( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: that's important, what is the impact of earmarks on the budget? when you take an earmark out of a bill, it does not reduce the bill. is that something that we should look at? there are all

1:14:58 to 1:15:08( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: types of things that a biatpartisan, bicameral committee could look at that would improve this process. i urge a no vo on the rule so we can come back and have an opportunity to vote on this

1:15:08 to 1:15:23( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: amendment. i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, i have one remaining speaker that will close debate

1:15:23 to 1:15:34( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: for this time. i will reserve the time until the gentleman has yielded. mr. hastings: i understand she's prepared to close. the gentlelady has one -- -- ms. sutton: i have a speak that will

1:15:34 to 1:15:42( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: close. mr. hastings: that will close for you? ms. sutton: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: let me be clear, there's only one speaker on that side, is that

1:15:42 to 1:15:53( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: correct? ms. sutton: that's correct. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has 4 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i

1:15:53 to 1:16:03( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: people are talking about the unfair closed rule. that seems to be a recurring pattern.

1:16:03 to 1:16:15( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: i wish that would change, but i don't hold out any hope that th will happen. but, mr. speaker, since house earmark rules were changed just last year, loopholes and concerns have been raised.

1:16:15 to 1:16:25( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: questions remain, such as what and what is not an earmark, when do earmark rules apply and how are earmark rules enforced? we've seen examples of members trying to enforce the earmark rules

1:16:25 to 1:16:38( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: only to be told they can't because the rules don't apply. and we have seen earmarks reportedly -- repeatedly air dropped in bills in the last minute that were not subject to transparentsly

1:16:38 to 1:16:49( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: and scrutiny. time and time again members are coming to the floor advocating for earmark reform including enforceability. taxpayers recognize the earmark process is broken and are outraged with

1:16:49 to 1:17:00( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: wasteful spending. this has led to an erosion of perfect confidence in congress and could explain part of the reason why congress' approval rating is so low. it's clear that americans want congress

1:17:00 to 1:17:15( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: to fix the broken earmark process. an earmark time-out is needed in order to get our fiscal house in order and restore public confidence. in january, house republicans united together and called

1:17:15 to 1:17:27( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: on democrats in joining us on an immediate moratorium on earmarks and an appointment of bipartisan, bicameral process and eliminate wasteful spending. house democrat leaders were joined in with

1:17:27 to 1:17:38( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: republicans to reform the broken earmark process. but the democrats have remained silent and chosen to continue the brobalingen -- broken status quo. so today i'm going to give all o members

1:17:38 to 1:17:51( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: of the house an opportunity to show their support for a bipartisan solution. mr. speaker, i'm asking my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that i can amendment the -- can amend

1:17:51 to 1:18:01( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: the rule and agree to house concurrent resolution 263 which would establish a joint selects committee on earmark reform. the joint select committee would hold hearings and make recommendations

1:18:01 to 1:18:14( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: for the comprehensive reform in the earmark process. the resolution would also prohibit bills, resolutions, and conference reports containing earmarks requested by members or the administration

1:18:14 to 1:18:28( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: to be considered until the joint select committee has filed its report. considering and adopting the house concurrent resolution is a sensible solution that will bring transparency to the spending

1:18:28 to 1:18:40( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: process and will restore taxpayer trust and integrity in congress. let me be clear, with my motion every member of this house will have a chance to publicly vote and take a stand on earmark abuse

1:18:40 to 1:18:54( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: and earmark secrecy. every member will vote on whether they believe the earmark process must be es reformed. so, mr. speaker, we will do all that we can on our side to challenge the leaders

1:18:54 to 1:19:09( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: to adopt this resolution. until a moratorium or a bipartisan committee is in place, house republicans have adopted already a series of earmark reforms that we will adhere to, including

1:19:09 to 1:19:22( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: barring members from using taxpayer moneys to using projects named after themselves and prohibiting earmarks being airdropped into bills to avoid transparency. so, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

1:19:22 to 1:19:32( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: consent to insert the text of the amendment, the letterent from the republican leaders to speaker pelosi on january 25, 2008, and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the

1:19:32 to 1:19:46( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to join me today in acting to permanently change the way in which washington

1:19:46 to 1:19:55( Edit History Discussion )

Doc Hastings: spends taxpayers' money. vote no on the previous question so that we can address this very important house concurrent resolution. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. the

1:19:55 to 1:20:03( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from ohio. ms. sutton: mr. speaker, it's my honor to yield the balance of my time to

1:20:03 to 1:20:20( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: the gentleman from wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, who will close for our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is

1:20:20 to 1:20:39( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: recognized. mr. obey: mr. speaker, to listen to the last two speakers one would think that they have rip van wrinkled their way through the last year in this house. for the republican party leadership

1:20:39 to 1:20:58( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: to give us lectures on earmarks is in my view akin to reformed alcoholics giving lectures on temp rance. the higher education bill being debated today is through the labor-education appropriation

1:20:58 to 1:21:11( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: bill. the last year i chaired that subcommittee, that bill contained virtually no earmarks. by the year 2000, that same bill contained 4691 earmarks. and by -- 491 earmarks. and by 2006, it had 2,031

1:21:11 to 1:21:25( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: earmarks. the previous republican leadership was notorious for using earmarks as enticements in order to get their membership to vote for bills that individuals would otherwise not be inclined

1:21:25 to 1:21:41( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: to vote for. for example, newspapers at the time reported that the previous republican leadership used earmarks in the transportation authorization bill as rewards for several repuican members

1:21:41 to 1:21:56( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: who switched their votes and agreed to support the medicare part d provision to provide lower costs for seniors under medicare. under the republican leadership, the cost of earmarks quadrupled,

1:21:56 to 1:22:09( Edit History Discussion )

David R. Obey: and we were treated to stories about mr. cunningham, mr. nay, mr. abramoff abusing the process, as well as several others. when democrats took over the process, we suspended earmarks