Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would cut $803 million out of important investments in this bill. Let me point out a few facts. First of all, as I said earlier, the Appropriations Committee allocation has already cut a total of $10 billion from the President's discretionary spending request, and this bill cuts $52 million from that same request. This bill, on a comparable basis, is 3.6 percent above the 2009 limit. That is hardly runaway spending. Furthermore, when you look at program lines, you will see that this bill makes hard choices to terminate programs that are not working, with $1.3 billion in cuts to individual programs below the 2009 level. The bill terminates or cuts 44 programs. The largest single program increase is for the Social Security Administration, effectively one fourth of the bill's entire increase for 2009. With dramatically rising retirement and disability claims facing the agency, nobody would argue that those funds are wasteful. After accounting for the SSA increase, this bill is 1.7 percent above for the rest of the bill, meaning, in real dollar terms, after inflation, it is an increase of .3 percent. That is hardly being spendthrift. If this amendment is adopted, I would point out two problems. First of all, it makes no real spending decisions. It leaves all of that in the hands of the President of the United States. It allows the President to determine this funding level for every single account in this bill. I don't think this Congress should be a rubber stamp for any President. And, then, I think we ought to look at what the implications are for programs in this bill. Applied to the National Institutes of Health, this cut would wipe out more than 900 new research grants and eliminate inflation adjustments for 36,000 new and existing research grants undermining efforts to treat cancer, Parkinson's, diabetes and other deadly diseases. Applied to community health centers, nearly 1.3 million people could see their health care services reduced or eliminated. Applied to special education, IDEA funding would be cut by 7 percent below the 2009 level. Applied to Pell Grants, 7.6 million students could see their grants reduced and the maximum Pell award cut by approximately $135. Applied to LIHEAP, it would reduce the number of households served by over 900,000. Applied to senior nutrition, it would eliminate nearly 240 million meals to 2.5 million vulnerable Americans. Applied to Head Start, over 50,000 low-income children would be denied comprehensive early childhood development services. Applied to the Child Care Block Grant, child care services for over 270,000 low-income families would be eliminated. And applied to the Job Corps, it would deliver a more than 50 percent cut to Job Corps centers. With all due respect, I don't think anybody on this side of the aisle needs to hear a lecture about deficits. I have opposed the Bush policies, both economic and war policies, which led to the unraveling of the budget, which led to a huge amount of debt and which led to the collapse of the economy. I don't think we need more of that kind of medicine. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I make a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions because it includes legislation and is not in order under clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is what I would call the original holy picture amendment. Sometimes we see legislators who think that the way to do business is to cut everybody else's priorities in order to fund theirs. That's not the way 435 people can come to a constructive conclusion. The fact is that this is a recovery or trailer amendment left over from the stimulus bill of a few months ago. Just a few months ago, we had a stimulus bill on the House floor which increased special education by $12 billion. In the 12 years the Republicans were in control of this House, they increased special education by a total of $8.5 billion. We increased it by $12 billion in 1 year, and not a single Member on that side of the aisle voted for it. And now, they're belatedly trying to recover politically by cutting a laundry list of other programs in order to pretend that they found a responsible way to free up money to fund Special Education. I want to point out that this amendment would cut $100 million from the School Improvement account. That could endanger 100,000 kids who, right now, have after-school learning programs. It cuts $148 million from the Innovation and Improvement account, Reach Out and Read, Teach for America, Full Service Community Schools, and Reading is Fundamental. It eliminates $88 million in smaller learning communities. We've learned from research that a lot of high schools need to be downsized. This cripples the program and would prevent 500,000 high school students from benefiting from that program. It cuts almost $170 million from the Community Service and Volunteer Program, including AmeriCorps and Summers of Service--summer jobs. It would also put at risk an effort to bolster the participation of disabled Americans in community service. It would cut the Foster Grandparents and Senior Companion program as well. It would eliminate $300 million from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. If the H1N1 virus has taught us anything, it's that we have to attack these disease problems on a worldwide basis. I think the amendment speaks for itself. I don't think we want to play ``fruit basket upset'' just so that somebody can get better on a rollcall. I would urge defeat of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the project under discussion is a transportation project, and this is a transportation bill. Until 10 years ago, my State, Wisconsin, was a donor State to highway trust funds, at one time getting just a 70-cents-on-the-dollar return on our Federal gas taxes. As a delegation, we fought like the devil for over 30 years to turn that around. We finally have. Despite that fact and the changes we've been able to make, Wisconsin, along with other Great Lakes States, still rank way down the list--45th, 46th, 47th on its per capita return on Federal dollars. In contrast, the gentleman's State, Arizona, does much better. Compared to Arizona, for example, Wisconsin receives about $759 less from the Federal Government per capita. Arizona does very well, for instance, in Federal procurement dollars, getting about $866 per capita more than Wisconsin. In grant programs, such as highway funds, Arizona gets about $130 per capita more from the Federal Government than does Wisconsin. When I came to Congress, Wisconsin had 10 Members in the House. Arizona, I believe, had 3. Arizona has had a huge growth in population during the subsequent 40 years, and it has been financed, in very large part, by Federal dollars. I don't remember how much the Central Arizona Project cost, but it was billions. I think what the gentleman is suggesting is, now that Arizona has got his, that he begrudges somebody else trying to get pennies by comparison. Let me point out that, in this bill, Arizona gets $13 million in earmark funds. He says that Wausau, the community where this highway is being repaired, is not on the interstate. Well, why on Earth should we confine Federal responsibility only to communities lucky enough to be on interstate roads? Why should we tell small rural towns, ``Sorry. Go off in the corner. You don't have a right to participate in Federal support''? With respect to this particular project, we are trying to help the community of Rib Mountain, part of the Wausau metropolitan area. We are trying to fix some problems on that heavily traveled and congested commercial corridor by adding turn lanes and a median traffic signal. On July 4, two 15-year-old girls were hospitalized by an accident in the very location where this road is to be modernized. I make no apology whatsoever for trying to improve that situation. I would also point out, if you want to talk about me, the unemployment level right now in the Wausau area is well over 12 percent. The last time I checked, the unemployment level in Mesa was 7.3 percent. The gentleman from Utah also was commenting on the previous earmark, complaining about that fund. The unemployment level in Utah is 5.9 percent, less than half of what it is in my community. I don't see why I should apologize for trying to get a few items for my district. I would also note one other thing. If you want to talk about earmarks, as the gentleman knows, they make up less than 1 percent of the discretionary part of the Federal budget. I've never seen a Congress change any President's budget by more than 3 percent. That 3 percent difference in congressional decisions versus Presidential decisions is the difference between having a President and having a King. I make no apology whatsoever for the Congress' trying to occasionally exercise its responsibilities in terms of the power of the purse. I would also point out one other thing. If you take a look at the real cause of the deficit, the gentleman goes after these very small projects, and then suggests that they have a major impact on the deficit. I don't know where the gentleman was when the previous administration was turning $6 trillion in projected surpluses into a $1 trillion deficit. I don't know where the gentleman was when the administration was spending $1 trillion on a misguided war in Iraq. Those are the items that raise the cost of government. Those are the items that add to the deficit. Those are the items that significantly add to the debt. I make no apology for this project in that context. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this. I simply think that we are entitled to ask one question: Why on Earth, if we're supposed to take this motion seriously, were we required to listen through the reading of a 55-page amendment, witness it being withdrawn, and then have them introduce an amendment which is virtually the same in an identical form?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I think George will dispute that fact. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a key part of efforts to restore the stability of, and public confidence in, America's financial institutions. For example, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, this bill strengthens its ability to enforce rules that govern investments and financial markets and detect and prosecute fraudulent schemes. Under the Federal Trade Commission allocation, it strengthens the FTC's capacity to protect consumers and combat anticompetitive behavior and prosecute unfair and deceptive practices in areas such as foreclosure and credit repair services. With respect to the Treasury Inspector General, it provides $30 million to help the Inspector General perform mandated reviews in cases where bank failures or other circumstances caused losses for the deposit insurance fund. It also provides a substantial amount of funding, $387 million more than 2009, to target wealthy individuals and businesses who avoid U.S. taxes by parking money in overseas tax havens. I think those are four good reasons to vote for the bill. I also want to speak just for a moment to the LaTourette amendment. That amendment simply is an effort to try to find a way to give auto dealers across the country an opportunity to have a decent review process, a decent appeals process, given the fact that GM and Chrysler have set up their own arbitrary process to shut them down. I would point out the majority of Members of this House are sponsors of similar legislation, and I would also suggest this. This Congress has provided $60 billion in funding to the auto industry. I think to suggest that somehow they have been abused because the Congress is trying to provide some efforts to help local auto dealers get a better understanding of what is happening to them is, in my view, off the point. In addition to the $60 billion we provided those auto companies, we've also provided increased Federal purchases of automobiles to try to get rid of their backlog. We've provided the Cash for Clunkers provision which they wanted to see passed, and we provided $2 billion in research funding to help the auto industry develop new technology. I hardly think that they have been underprivileged in terms of their treatment by this Congress. So I would simply say before people get too exercised about the LaTourette amendment, I don't think anybody expects that language to survive intact. What we do want is to see that language used as an opportunity to get the auto dealers and the auto companies to sit down and work out a better appeals process so that you don't have some significantly profitable auto dealers at the local level being unnecessarily put out of business. That means job losses in virtually every county in this district, and I don't think we have an obligation to support that.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both Mr. Pastor and Mr. Frelinghuysen for an excellent bill. They are both first-rate legislators, and I think this bill is a very effective and reasonable response to the problems with which it deals. I think it's, most clearly, a bipartisan product as well, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate the fact that this bill will continue providing significant assistance to Lake Superior communities who need help with sewer and water in order to be able to provide decent opportunities for economic growth in the future. Communities cannot grow without adequate infrastructure. I also want to suggest that the nonproliferation efforts contained in this bill are important, indeed. I would also note that when combined with the actions taken in the Recovery Act, this bill will begin the long process of trying to make up for the fact that for almost 30 years, this country has had no effective energy policy. That has to change, and this is part of the effort to change that. I also appreciate the fact that, as is the case with previous bills approved by the committee, when this bill is finished on the floor, we will have accepted 24 Republican amendments to appropriation bills in the full committee. We will have accepted another 24 on the floor itself. I think that is testimony to the bipartisan approach taken by the subcommittees on bill after bill. I appreciate the cooperation of all of the Members and the hard work of the staff.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I would like to respond to the fiction that I just heard from the previous speaker. The previous speaker indicated that never in the history of the Congress have we had structured rules for appropriation bills. I would like to suggest that he ought to read a little history. We have 12 appropriations bills we have to bring to the floor each year. He will find that during the Republican control of this House, at least 6 of the 12 bills were brought to this floor under structured rules. He will find that almost 20 times that is the case.

Mr. OBEY. No, I would not. I have 5 minutes. You attacked me. I will respond without interruption. I would ask the Chair to prevent further interruptions. The fact is that I would like to ask the House a question: Why is it that some Members of this House believe that the Appropriations Committee must bring bills to the floor that are totally open when the Ways and Means Committee, when it brings tax bills to the floor, is entitled to have a totally closed rule? Now, there is no inherent difference between the two, but there is one historical difference, and that is that the Ways and Means Committee used to be the committee that handed out committee assignments to Members of the House. And so the message went out: ``Don't mess with the Ways and Means Committee because they determine your career path in this institution.'' There is no great historical or moral or substantive reason to have that differentiation. It is simply a question of power relationships in the House that determined that. I would also like to point out the Appropriations Committee has the right to bring to the floor its appropriation bills without ever going to the Rules Committee, and in fact we have had subcommittee Chairs who have done that. The advantage to the Appropriations Committee in doing that is that when the bills come to the floor without going to the Rules Committee, what happens is that any legislation on an appropriation bill--which under the House Rules is off limits--any legislation will be stricken on a point of order. I remember when Neal Smith used to bring his bill to the floor, and within about 20 minutes the bill was shredded. There were a few paragraphs left in the bill. It took about an hour to finish the bill and then Neal could go off and have a conference with the Senate and do anything he wanted to do because there were no limitations. So it has been an advantage to individual House Members for the Appropriations Committee to go to the Rules Committee, whether or not there's a totally open rule or whether there's a structured rule, because at least then individual Members have some capacity to influence the results. Now, we have made quite clear to the minority side we would like to proceed in as open a fashion as possible. Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, and I went to the Republican leadership weeks and weeks ago and asked them if there was some way that we could work out time agreements so that we can finish these 12 bills before we go home for the August recess. The minority says they want us to do all of these bills individually. Not wrap them up in a CR. But then they proceeded to demand a procedure which will, in the end, result in bills going into a CR. And so we asked the minority leadership, ``Will you agree to time limits?'' And the response was, ``Well, if we did that, our caucus would elect somebody else.''

Mr. OBEY. No, I will not yield. We asked the leadership, ``Would you be willing to go by a process in which we'll give you the opportunity to offer 10 or 15 amendments, the majority party will offer 5 or 6? You pick the amendments.'' And they said, ``No.'' They didn't want to do that. There are a limited number of hours between now and the time we recess. If we want to get our work done, we have to limit the debate time that we spend on these bills. So there is nothing radically new about this. We're simply trying to get the job done. And we're going to do that if it takes all summer.

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say to the gentleman, I don't see any need to continue chewing this cud over and over and over again. We've made our points.

Mr. OBEY. I didn't ask for the time. You offered it to me and I'm accepting it.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I simply have one question for the gentleman from Tennessee. Are you really sure you want us to meet with the Senate?

Mr. OBEY. Does that mean you're running away from the Senate? Madam Chair, let me simply congratulate both the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Texas for the fine work they have done on this bill. I think every Member of the House can be proud of what has happened in terms of our delivering of benefits to veterans on the health care front and on the education front. Over the past 3 years or so, we have had very significant increases in veterans health benefits. We also last year passed a landmark, an historic, expansion of the GI Bill education benefits by passage of the Webb amendment. In the supplemental appropriation bill this year, we enhanced the ability of spouses and children of veterans to receive transfer benefits to allow them to use the education benefits that would otherwise have accrued to a veteran. There had been a hole in the law which did not include the children of veterans who had died, and that has been corrected, and now this bill goes a whole lot more down the road in dealing with their needs. When we go into wars, we have an obligation to provide all the support that's necessary to the warriors during and after the wars, and that's in part what this bill tries to do. And I congratulate both gentlemen for the work they have done and urge support for the bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say I agree with every word uttered by the gentleman and rise also in support of the amendment. The way the system works is that the administration asks the Congress for money. Many times that is not a popular request. Sometimes the only way that the votes can be found to provide the money the administration wants is to provide certain limitations on the use of that money. For any administration to say, Well, we will accept the money, but ignore the limitations is to greatly increase the likelihood that they will not get the money. That is not in the interest of the administration, and it certainly does not respect the rightful traditions and prerogatives of the Congress. And so I very much am in agreement with the amendment and congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas for offering the amendment and the gentleman from Illinois for offering it in her stead.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be very much against the interest of rural America. There is no community in this country that will have a decent economic future if they cannot be competitive by being attached to modern technology, and that certainly includes broadband. The gentleman has mentioned the economic recovery package and the funds that have been appropriated there, and he has made much of the fact that that money has not gone out. We are only 4 months into a program that is supposed to last 30 months, and so I urge the gentleman to wait a few months to see what happens on that project. I think you will see money moving out. The only other point I would make is this: If you think there is too much money for broadband in the budget, the worst place in the world to take it out of is the USDA. When this program was first proposed in the stimulus package, the Obama administration proposed putting all of the money in the Commerce Department. People like me objected because we know the history of rural America. We understand why REAs had to be created to go into rural areas because the big power companies wouldn't bother, because they couldn't make enough money going into rural areas. It's the same score now. Your big companies don't want to go into rural areas without subsidy on broadband. The fact is you can trust the Agriculture Department to focus much more on the needs of rural America than you can the Commerce Department. That's why we put the additional money in. And to take $400 million out of the Agriculture Department now would be a major mistake if you care about the future economic health of rural America.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the House of Representatives who has been intimately involved with the area of biomedical research and health care, to draw the attention of the Congress and the nation to the 20th anniversary of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a national resource for molecular biology information located at the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH). I am reminded at this time of our late distinguished colleague Claude Pepper who, in 1987, introduced H.R. 393, a bill to establish a National Center for Biotechnology Information. As he eloquently described it, the Center would deal ``with nothing less than the mystery of human life and the unfolding scroll of knowledge, seeking to penetrate that mystery, which is life itself.'' A quick study, Claude early on concluded there was a growing need to fit together the pieces of the genetic puzzle so as to benefit humankind. Although the term biotechnology was relatively new at that time, there was clear evidence that the whole biotechnology information infrastructure was overloaded and there was an urgent need for developing a central repository for storing and sharing the data resulting from the explosive growth of research in molecular biology. The information-handling organization envisioned in the bill, the National Center for Biotechnology Information, became a reality with the signing by President Reagan of the Health Omnibus Extension Act (P.L. 100-607) on November 4, 1988. I remember well those early years when a group of Nobel Laureates appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and laid out a vision that revolutionized our understanding of biology and genomics. Chairman Bill Natcher and those of us on the subcommittee enthusiastically supported the Genome Project. Its magnitude was nothing short of President Kennedy's vision of landing a man on the moon for it launched a grand national challenge of utmost importance to human health. NIH Director James Wyngaarden testified that year that we had sequencing data on less than one-tenth of one percent of the human genome. He said then that while the pace of biology research was rapidly accelerating, the ability to analyze and share information was severely constrained and that if we were going to understand the disease process we would need new and better information approaches. Clearly, the organization defined in Claude's bill fit that need and so the Appropriations Committee readily provided the necessary funding for NCBI. Today molecular biology and genomics are the primary drivers of medical progress. And, under the innovative leadership of Dr. David Lipman, NCBI's first and current director, NCBI's molecular biology information resources are empowering hundreds of thousands of researchers around the world to identify disease-related genes and develop strategies for treating and preventing disease. It's amazing that each and every week researchers are downloading data from NCBI that is equivalent in size--I am told--to the entire contents of the Library of Congress. The U.S. Congress has encouraged and generously supported the more than 40 database resources developed by the NCBI. The recent legislative requirement that the results of NIH-funded research be made available through NCBI's PubMed Central database will, we believe, accelerate scientific progress and the discovery of new treatments. Over the past 20 years, the management of biological information has progressed rapidly and has become an integral part of the scientific process. It is now virtually impossible to think of an experimental strategy in biomedicine that does not rely heavily on the kind of resources and tools developed by the NCBI for analyzing molecular and genomic data. In summary, Madam Speaker, under Dr. Lipman's careful planning and creative stewardship the NCBI has responded successfully to the challenge of the mandate of the 1988 legislation by effectively developing a major national resource for molecular biology information that is greatly benefiting medical researchers, practitioners, educators, and the general public. I believe that the era of ``personalized medicine''--including highly targeted individualized treatments-- will soon be upon us, and NCBI clearly will be a driving force in making that a reality. So I want to offer my congratulations to NCBI's visionary leader, Dr. David Lipman, to NLM's excellent director, Dr. Donald A. B. Lindberg, and to the bright and dedicated staff of the NCBI for 20 years of outstanding public service to the nation and to the world.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. The gentleman's motion to instruct includes a limitation not specifically contained or authorized in existing law and not considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that's a very interesting speech. I wish it had something to do with anything in this amendment. Let me simply read the amendment. On page 22, line 8 and on page 22, line 14 and on page 32, line 21 and on page 32, line 22, it says, Insert: Increased by $1 million. Decreased by $1 million. That's all the amendment says. So what does it do? Do you know what it does? It don't do nothing. All it does is give one of our friends on that side of the aisle a chance to talk about an issue. I want to congratulate him. That's the least destructive thing they've done today. I simply want to say that, if this amendment passes, there is no way it can be interpreted by the implementing agency to have anything whatsoever to do with the issue that the gentleman just talked about, because the amendment has no effect on it. Mr. Speaker, we've sat here for 8 hours and have gone through this elaborate charade today. Other committees have brought veterans to town to talk about the problems of veterans. They've brought little kids to town to talk about the problems of children's hospitals. That comment says more about you than it says about anything I say. We've brought American citizens to town to appear at hearing after hearing today about their real life, human problems. Instead, we've watched the other side of the aisle walk around in circles in this well, changing their votes on paper ballots, pretending that they're doing something useful for the country. I am going to accept this amendment because, as I said, it don't do nothing to nobody or for nobody. As I said, that's the least destructive thing you've managed to do today. Congratulations. Maybe there's hope for you yet. I yield back the balance of my time.