OFFICIALS LEGISLATION INTEREST GROUPS PUBLIC STATEMENTS COMMITTEES VETOES

Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008

Floor Speech

Date: Sept. 15, 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Issues: National Security


FORMER VICE PRESIDENT PROTECTION ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - September 15, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague in strong support of H.R. 5938, the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008.

As my colleague said so rightfully, it is appropriate that we grant to former Vice Presidents, their spouses and children a period of time in transition of protection by the Secret Service.

For the past 30 years, it has been a common practice for former Vice Presidents to receive protections on a temporary basis, via joint resolution of Congress. This act seeks to make that, appropriately, permanent, and I join with my colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I say this in a bipartisan way, that in fact this body, and I know we are not allowed to talk about the other body, the Senate, and so I will only talk in terms of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill came back with a very good piece of legislation attached to a very good piece of legislation; but it came back based on a fundamental problem between the two bodies, and I thought it appropriate to speak on it.

There is no germaneness to the second half of this bill. This is simply the Senate's ability under their rules to take something that is not germane and attach it. I wouldn't have a problem with that except under our rules, Mr. Speaker, even if we are in fact doing an immigration bill in committee, as we were last week, even if that immigration bill deals with the allocation of who gets to come into this country temporarily and permanently, if the bill only deals with one sub, sub, sub-portion of a statute, that is all we are allowed to consider. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

And so I address you on behalf of the inequity between something completely unrelated being attached to a bill and voted out of this body. Both of these pieces of legislation are bipartisan. But if we cannot in fact even consider like information if it is ever so slightly outside of the definition of germaneness, and then we have to accept whole pieces of legislation never voted on because they were attached by the Senate, this body needs fundamental reform as to what our rules of germaneness are.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT


Source
arrow_upward