Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, could I ask the gentleman a favor? Because I have only 10 minutes on this amendment, I would like to limit the discussion to my amendment to the Sanders amendment, and then I think the gentleman can deal with other potential problems with the Sanders amendment on the gentleman's time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, no one in this Chamber has been more opposed to regional dairy compacts than have I. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I have exchanged many a strong word about that subject. But I participated in several meetings in the Speaker's office a while back, meetings which he hosted to try to see if there was not some way you could overcome the regional differences on the issue of dairy. At that time, the Speaker was lamenting the fact that the regions did not seem to be able to get together in any way. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has, I believe, brought to the House an approach which, although I believe it needs refinement, could in fact accomplish that purpose; and I want to congratulate him for it. I intend to vote for the amendment, even though I have been totally opposed to the idea of regional compacts, because I think the gentleman offers us a way to raise dairy farm income without discriminating geographically or regionally across the United States. So I would urge that the gentleman's amendment be adopted. It just seems to me that we need make no apology for trying to find ways to raise dairy income. The effect of the gentleman's amendment, I believe, would be to marginally increase dairy income in all sections of the country, and it has provisions that guard against oversupply; and it has provisions which equalize the burden of doing that. I think it is the most imaginative effort to overcome regional differences that I have seen in the last 4 or 5 years. I do think it has one defect, and I have an amendment that would correct that; and I would ask the House, however they intend to vote on the Sanders amendment, to simply adopt my amendment to perfect the Sanders amendment before we proceed to vote on it. As written, the amendment essentially provides for one Class I price, the price of milk for fluid use all across the country. The problem is that currently there are differences in Class I price in different regions of the country. Those differences are used to facilitate the movement of milk between regions, especially during times of short supply. By having a single unified price we would interfere with that process, and my amendment would simply adjust the numbers in the bill so that regardless of the size of the differentials in regions, you would take those differentials into account in setting the different regional prices in the gentleman's amendment. I would urge, however you intend to vote on the Sanders amendment, to adopt this amendment before you vote on that. Having said that, I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if the gentleman would engage in a colloquy. My understanding is that under the gentleman's proposal, a 50- or 100-cow farmer in Minnesota or Wisconsin where a Class I utilization is relatively low would receive the same payment as a 50- or 100-cow farmer in Florida or Vermont, or anywhere else a Class I utilization is higher. Is that correct?

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OBEY. That is right.

Mr. OBEY. No.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think this issue is extremely important for farmers all over the country, because with this kind of a nationalized arrangement, we would, for the first time, enable the gentleman's farmers in his area of the country to receive a higher price for their product without penalizing farmers in my region or any other region of the country. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, I would certainly want his assurances that that national pooling provision would not be eliminated at any time during the process, if he had anything to do with it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the problem that the gentleman has now is that each region has a different differential payment. If you have one uniform price that is paid all across the country, then in effect farmers are not getting the same benefit if they live in a region that has a lower differential as opposed to a higher differential, and you in fact place an undue burden on processors in certain parts of the country who would be making up the difference between, in fact, the floor price and the market price. That was an inadvertent mistake in the gentleman's amendment, and I am simply trying to correct it in the event that it would pass. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think the Chair has been most generous in allowing Members to range beyond the focus of the point of order. Obviously, the point of order raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, because the committee which is considering this legislation does not have jurisdiction with respect to the issue of compacts. With respect to the question of hearings, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I find it quaint that somehow the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is being questioned for the lack of hearings held by the Committee on the Judiciary, when in fact the entire compact arrangement was imposed on the country without ever having had a hearing in either House, and, in fact, without having a vote in this House. The history demonstrates that the only vote that occurred was in the other body, and the other body turned down the proposition of compacts. Then somehow, through the process of immaculate conception, we wound up getting dairy compacts in a conference report in violation of the rules of both Houses. So it seems to me it is time to uphold the rule of the House. After that has been done, Mr. Chairman, then I would hope that we could bring the regions of the country together on this issue, as we are trying to bring all parties in this country together on a wide variety of issues in light of what happened the last 3 weeks. And I would hope that we could actively pursue some kind of a compromise on this issue. I know the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has been working to try to develop a framework around which we might be able to achieve some regional togetherness, for a change, which I think would be a healthy development. Mr. Chairman, very clearly without getting into the merits of the issue, it was clear from the beginning when compacts were imposed on the country through an egregious violation of the rules of both Chambers, and right now it is clear under the rules of this House that this amendment is not germane; and, therefore, the gentleman's point of order should stand. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address the point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Knollenberg has done a good job with this bill, and I thank him. He has approved the overall budget for the use of local funds, judiciously used the Federal allocation to fund required services and boost several local initiatives, cut back the number of general provisions, and worked with Mr. Fattah, the ranking member, to restore a lot of the District's specific spending plans. In full Committee, Chairman Young and I presented an amendment to redirect $13 million in Federal funds to help the District prepare and begin to implement a revised Emergency Operations Plan. In the aftermath of September 11th, it became apparent that many government entities--Federal, state and local--were not prepared for the new reality. In the District, the Police said there was no plan. The fire department said it had a plan--but it was over thirty years old. The Federal government never told the city it was sending its workers home for the day--the District had to learn that from the press. So we took this opportunity to help the District make certain that it had an excellent, coordinated Emergency Operations Plan. The bill withholds about $8 million in unrelated Federal funds until the plan is done to make the point that this was a very serious matter. Those other funds are not needed right away; this will not have any immediate impact on the District or its citizens. Now, it turns out the district does have an emergency operations plan, but it is clear it has some very serious problems. These problems cannot be addressed by a hasty revision. I trust this bill provides adequate resources to do a careful and complete revision of the Emergency Operations Plan, fully coordinated with other entities in the District, like the U.S. Capitol Police, the Federal Office of Personnel Management and other local governments. The District should not rush through the process of developing its Emergency Operations Plan--it owes its citizens and the nation the best product possible.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the continuing resolution brought to the floor by the distinguished gentleman from Florida. As he has indicated, we are about to go to conference on a wide variety of appropriations bills. We expect to finish most of those conferences in short order, but this resolution will allow us to do so in a more orderly fashion than was the case last year when we had a series of 1- and 2-day CRs. I think under the circumstances it is the proper thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I have had the privilege for most of the years of my service here to serve with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton); and, in my view, he is one of the most distinguished persons ever to occupy this body. He has a solid understanding of the economy. He served this House for years on the Joint Economic Committee and served as chair of that committee. He is without question, in my view, the wisest member of this body in dealing with foreign affairs of any Member I have ever served with. Whether he was talking about Central America or the Middle East or the Soviet Union or its successor states, Lee Hamilton at all times came to his positions on the basis of facts, not on the basis of ideology. In the process, he served this country incredibly well. He continues to serve this country well today in this time of crisis as the Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center at the Smithsonian. He has served the people of Indiana with incredible distinction, and he has done great honor to the people of the United States in the manner of his service in this institution. I am pleased today to see that he is getting at least some of the recognition that all of us who know him understand that he deserves.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that we must help the airline industry, but I have some real problems with the way we are going about it. This package says we are going to give roughly $15 billion in assistance to the airline industry, and I have no objection to that so long as it is a fair package, but there is nothing in this package for the people who work for those airlines; nothing by way of extension of unemployment compensation; nothing by way of extending their health benefits under COBRA, even though they would have to pay for those benefits themselves; nothing by way of additional training for them. People are saying, ``Oh, there is a limit of $300,000 in this bill on executive compensation for airline executives.'' That is not true. This proposal says that if you made more than $300,000 last year, you cannot earn more than you made last year and have your company eligible for this loan guarantee. That means that one airline CEO can collect $13 million in compensation next year. Another, $11 million. Meanwhile, for workers, there is zip, zero. If we are going to have everybody get into the lifeboats, we ought to have enough lifeboats. We should not be like the Titanic. There ought to be enough lifeboats so that not just investors and CEOs but also workers get some help out of their government. We ought to be willing to stay here Saturday and Sunday and Monday, however long it takes, to put this package together. There is much talk of unity. God knows how much we need it. But if you want unity, the best way to get it is to convince all Americans that they are going to be treated equally. Do not tell the workers of this country that they will be considered as afterthoughts, and that is what has happened. Yes, we have an urgent need to act, but we also have an urgent need to provide fairness and justice. That is what the American people deserve. This package does not do that. I desperately do not want to vote against it, but it is very difficult to vote for it when it has this kind of rampant unfairness. This bill ought to go back to committee. Our leaders on both sides of the aisle have enough talent and enough dedication to take a couple of extra days and put this package together so that everyone, everyone is helped by it, not just those who have the best connections with Washington.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the final 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this is a shattering experience of unprecedented proportion; but I say to every American, we have endured worse. We have gone through two world wars, Vietnam, Korea, the burning of the Capitol itself in 1812, the Civil War. I think we need to remember the words of President Lyndon Johnson when he stood at that podium and addressed this Congress on civil rights after the death of Martin Luther King: we shall overcome.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a key member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who represents the area devastated by the act on the Pentagon.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has at this moment, as I understand it, a member of his own family missing in New York.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a key member of the Committee.