[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17397-17398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 IMPACT OF UPCOMING VOTE ON RULE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to speak out of order so that 
the gentleman from Florida and I might be allowed to explain a 
procedural matter before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that Members who were not on the floor 
for an earlier discussion not be mouse-trapped on the coming vote. I 
think it is important for them to understand the following, and I want 
to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney) whether this is correct.
  It is my understanding that a vote for the rule on the legislative 
branch appropriations bill will enable Members to express their desire 
that the previous provision which was discussed on the floor in the 
earlier vote, which would have had the effect of expanding dental care 
for Members of Congress and our staffs, will be eliminated from that 
bill. So if Members want to be on record opposed to that proposition, 
they will need to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  I would ask the gentleman from Florida if that understanding is 
correct.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly correct. 
We made a correction that was necessary; and as the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder) when he presented the rule acknowledged, we agree 
with that. A vote for the rule not only passes the rule, but it also 
eliminates the matter that we were concerned about.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was on the floor when this 
happened and knows that we tried to explain at the time that the 
amendment to the rule was effectively a striking amendment that said 
that, if the rule passes as amended, in no way will any expansion of 
vision or dental benefits occur.
  The gentleman made it very clear he would not mind debating that on 
the floor of the House and having an open discussion of it and maybe 
passing an expansion of vision and dental benefits, but to pass this 
rule as amended would allow us not to sneak it in. So to pass this rule 
as amended is a striking amendment to prohibit any expansion of 
benefits without a vote by the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
that explanation.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. As has been described 
by the two previous speakers, I want to frame very quickly one side of 
this that I think we need to discuss.
  Someone asked who put this in, that they ought to be fired. I did it. 
Now, anyone that can fire me, there are some 600,000 people in the 18th 
congressional district, so I want to make that clear. This has 
transcended about a year and a half period of time.

                              {time}  1745

  I want to frame the argument here, and that is that it extends to the 
full

[[Page 17398]]

staff, Democrat and Republican or Independent or Natural Law Party or 
whatever they are, of the entire House.
  Now, when I say that, I would argue to anybody in this country that 
the staff of this House on either side of the aisle are not second-
class citizens of this country, and they have the right to dental and 
eye vision as any other person, and I hope we can take care of the 
entire country that way. But to single out the staff of the U.S. House, 
as we have for a period of years, I do not think is fair. I hope down 
the line we can discuss this.
  Now, as far as someone not knowing what went where, this was not done 
at midnight, I discussed this, I brought it forth. So there are some 
misunderstandings, and I accept that, but I hope that we can also, in 
the calmness of debate on this down the road, realize that our people 
have every right to some type of benefit, and they have children, and 
they have families. And again, I hope we can help the entire country 
also, but let us not penalize the U.S. House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
those comments. I would simply point out that as was pointed out on 
both sides of the aisle, the issue was not whether our staff should 
have those benefits or that we should have those benefits; I want every 
American to have those benefits. The issue is whether or not that 
provision should be slipped into this bill without the knowledge of the 
Committee on Appropriations on either side of the aisle, without any 
single Member of this House, except the Member who just spoke, knowing 
about it, evidently. We simply did not want Members to wake up after 
they have voted for this bill to find out that they were going to be 
subjected to a 30-second TV spot because something had been slipped 
into the bill. Not a single reference was made in the budget 
justifications to this item.
  So the point that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and I were 
making is not that this benefit should not be provided. It should not 
be provided without Members of Congress knowing what it is they are 
voting on, and it should not be provided without open, public debate.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member 
of the subcommittee of jurisdiction.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. As the gentleman said, I am the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Legislative branch appropriations, and 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Legislative branch appropriations.
  One of the most objectionable things about this, and I know the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) recognizes this at this point, is that we 
had a full set of hearings; Mr. Eagan testified, as did all of the 
officers of the House. At no point was it ever mentioned that this 
provision was going to be added. So neither the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) nor I were aware that this was part of the bill.
  I grant my colleagues, it is not a whole lot of money, but it could 
have a whole lot of political impact if we get hit with a 30-second ad, 
and any of us on either side of the aisle are liable for this, that 
here we just passed a prescription drug benefit, and there are a lot of 
people complaining about limited coverage under Medicare, and then, 
within the same week, we take care of ourselves by expanding benefits 
for dental and vision. That is the problem.
  Again, we have no question but that the gentleman's intentions were 
not only honorable, but we appreciate the fact that the gentleman was 
looking out for all of the Members of the House, the staff, and their 
families, et cetera.
  But in the course of the discussion, the debate that occurred earlier 
today, we wanted to emphasize, we are not opposed to expanding and 
adding this coverage; it is just that we do not want to do it just for 
ourselves, particularly at this point in time. It just does not seem to 
be the principled way to go about it. And we would love to have that; 
at least on this side of the aisle we would love to have that coverage, 
but for everybody, not just for us.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House at 
this late hour. I yield once more to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I just want to make this clear: It was in a document. I appreciate 
what the gentleman is saying about we will work on this, but this was 
in a document that I requested, in the CAO's document. So maybe it was 
not mentioned. It was not intentional, but it was in a document that 
was presented. The CAO's budget was in writing, and I need to make that 
clear.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the point is simply that 
it is up to Members how they want to vote, but if Members want to be on 
record opposed to that expansion under these provisions, they would 
vote ``aye'' for the rule.

                          ____________________