Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. I find it quite humorous to think that we are doing these Guantanamo prisoners a favor by exposing them to the ``gentle niceties'' of the prison population in our high-security prisons. In fact, I would suspect that those prisoners at Guantanamo, if they knew what kind of people they would be finding, would much prefer to stay in Guantanamo than wind up in some of those high-security

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Let me say this is a very interesting institution, and we have all kinds of demands placed upon it which are often contradictory. Example: many a Member in this Chamber will loudly request that we limit earmarks. And then they will also ask when we go into conference that their own earmarks be funded at the highest possible level. I've had two Members of the House talk to me just today about those matters. Didn't seem to be at all bothered by the conflict in what they're asking. We have people who say these bills should be available for 72 hours before we vote on them, but some of those same people will not want the House to meet on Monday and they will not want the House to meet on Friday. And if that's the case, then that means that this bill, for instance, even if it is conferenced tomorrow could not be voted on any day in the remainder of the week. We have people who want us to push these bills through before the end of the fiscal year, and yet, when we say, Well, can you go to conference at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, we were just told today, no, they couldn't; can you go to conference at 9 o'clock, no, they can't; and then when we talk to the Members of the other body and say can you go to conference at 11 o'clock tomorrow, no, we can only go to conference at 2, if it's in the afternoon. So anyone managing a bill, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut is going to have to manage this one, is faced with all kinds of conflicting demands from Members who seem to be almost unconscious about the fact that their demands, in fact, are conflicting. And all I can say as chairman of the committee is we will try to give Members the maximum time possible to review the bills, consistent with our obligation to get the work done. So I think if anyone is concerned about a specific item in the bill, I'm sure the gentlewoman and I'm sure the gentleman from Georgia will be willing to walk them through what the committee has in mind. But in the end, I would simply--I'm not going to vote for this motion because I can't with a straight face both promise to make these bills available for 72 hours and meet all of the other conflicting demands that Members of the House are making. We've got an obligation to try to balance those requirements, and we will do that to the best of our ability. And in the end, I think we will have reasonable bills, and we will let the public be the judge of just how reasonable they are. I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Madam Speaker, our principal obligation on this bill is simply to keep the government open. We've got enough problems in the economy right now without adding to people's uncertainty. We had concluded that the least disruptive way to do that and the way with the least delay was to attach this continuing resolution to the one appropriation bill that was ready to be conferenced, the Legislative Branch Appropriation bill. This is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR. As far as funding levels are concerned, we are simply allowing agencies to continue fiscal 2009 levels, with three exceptions: First, we are following the House's lead when it voted 388-32 to allow the postal service to cover a budget shortfall by postponing a payment intended to prefund its retiree health benefits; Second, we're funding the census at a somewhat higher rate to allow it to ramp up activities so the 2010 census can proceed. The calendar is not going to change to suit congressional convenience; Third, we are providing additional funding for the Veterans Health Administration. The VA expects to treat over 6 million patients in 2010, including almost 420,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. The CR also extends a number of authorizations that would otherwise expire: transportation programs, child nutrition, stop-loss payments to our troops, E-Verify, and various other programs. So, as I said, this is a relatively routine CR which keeps the government open for the next 30 days. Outside of those items, we make no policy judgments. We change no existing policy except that, in accordance with the House vote last week, we also say no more funds for this 30-day period for ACORN. There have been some objections by the minority to this process. They claim it is procedurally outrageous because we are attaching the continuing resolution to a specific appropriations subcommittee bill. This is certainly not out of the ordinary. In fact, in September of 2006, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they controlled this House, attached the continuing resolution to the defense bill. I have the roll call on that if anyone cares to take a look at it. If you do, you would find out there were only two Members of the other party who voted against it, and in the Senate, the vote was 100 to nothing in support of it. So there is no difference in what we are doing today, but there is a difference in how we do it. We are up front with what we are doing. We included this action in the conference notes, and voted on it in the conference. That was certainly not the case in 2006 when the action of adding the CR was not flagged or noticed in any way during the conference or in the conference notes. I have a copy of those conference notes here if anyone wishes to see them. So the action that was taken then was simply taken after the fact in contrast to our doing it up front and in full view. So I believe that, in comparison to that, this action is, certainly, totally transparent. Now I need to take this opportunity to note one other point: Until last night, we were not in a position to move other appropriations bills because of a dispute between the House and the Senate over how to deal with for-profit earmarks. As I think the membership knows, we have put in place in the last few years significant reforms to the earmark process. When we took over control of the Congress in 2007, we put in place a moratorium on earmarks for that year until we could reform the process and make it much less susceptible to wasting taxpayers' money. Since then, including this year's bills, we have cut the dollar amount of earmarks by 50 percent. We require every Member to request earmarks publicly, ending the practice of anonymous earmarks in the House, and to certify that they have no financial interest. This year, we have gone one step further. Recognizing the potential for abuse in sole-source contracting, we have insisted that all House earmarks designated for for-profit entities must undergo a competitive bidding process. We still allow those entities to be named so we can help, for instance, small businesses get a foot in the door so that they can be noticed by Federal agencies, which all too often simply notice people with whom they are familiar in their inside processes, but we nonetheless require that those entities still submit a bid and compete in a fair competition. The Senate did not do that this year, and up until last night, was objecting to even allowing the House to follow this policy. Last night, we reached an agreement that will allow us to proceed with House earmarks subject to that new policy. There is still one small area of disagreement that remains. There are a small number of projects, approximately 5 percent, which have been included in both the House and Senate bills. Until last night, the other body was refusing to allow those to be competed. Under the agreement we reached this year and this year only, those projects will be dealt with according to Senate policy. Next year and thereafter, they will be managed by House policy. So they, too, will be subjected to competition next year. We reached this agreement because the other body insisted that, because they had proceeded all year under their policies, it was too late to change the rules of the game for them. We recognize that changing policies at this point would be a procedural problem for the other body. We do appreciate their agreement that, starting next year, we can all agree on how to handle for-profit projects and that they will be handled in accordance with the House procedures. This will enable us to now proceed to conference on a number of other appropriations bills which have been passed by the Senate: We have had a motion to go to conference on energy and water. We expect next week, after two small matters are resolved, to also be able to go to conference on the Agriculture bill. We hope that, within a week, we will be able to resolve a few remaining differences on the Homeland Security bill and to also go to conference on that and other bills as the Senate grinds through them in their processes. So, having reported that to the House, I would simply urge an ``aye'' vote for the legislation before us, and would simply note that, given the calendar, a vote against this proposition would be a vote to shut down the government. With that, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply note, in light of the gentleman from Kentucky's comments, there are at least seven outstanding issues on homeland security that, to my knowledge, have yet to be resolved. One is the border fence. Another is the National Bio and Agricultural Defense Facility. There is an argument about where that's supposed to go. We have the Gitmo issue. We have immigration issues. We have FEMA. If the gentleman wants to resolve those by agreeing with our position on each of them, I would be happy to see them go to conference right now.

Mr. OBEY. The fact is that no one has suggested that they delay the Homeland Security bill in any manner whatsoever. We are noting that there are significant substantive differences. Under the rules of the body, we can't bring a conference bill back to this House until we've reached agreement on all of those differences.

Mr. OBEY. So I think it's patently preposterous to suggest that this bill is being delayed in any way. The only thing that is delaying it is honest disagreement and, until last night, the disagreement that we had with the Senate which precluded us from bringing up virtually any other bill. Thankfully, that is now gone.

Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. The gentleman would not yield to me. I don't see any reason to yield to him.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, what we just heard came from a Member of the then-majority party, which turned $6 trillion in inherited projected surpluses into a $2 trillion deficit. We heard that from a Member of the party that provided $2 trillion in tax cuts primarily aimed at the wealthiest people in the country, all paid for with borrowed money, from the same folks who gave us almost $1 trillion in spending on the most ill advised war in the country's history, also paid for with borrowed money. They ran the country's economy into the ditch with record collapse of consumer spending and record collapse of unemployment. Then they are now complaining when Mr. Obama and the majority party are now trying to pull the country out of the ditch. Someone else can take that seriously if they want, but I won't be one of them.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I want to fully support the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida. Some of the language in this motion is perfectly acceptable, but the most serious defect in the language is that it would simply tell the committee that it cannot do what the then-majority party did in September 2006. In September 2006, the other party--then in the majority--attached the continuing resolution to the Department of Defense appropriation bill. Only two Republican Members of the House voted against that. Mr. Aderholt voted for that process at that time, so did Mr. Lewis, so did Mr. Boehner, and so did Mr. Cantor. So it would seem to me considerably ill-advised for this House to say that in order to keep the government open, we are not allowed to follow the very same procedure which was followed by the other side of the aisle and for which the gentleman voted. I think that's enough said, and I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, let me say, there are only two instances in which this is not an absolutely straight, clean CR. We do make an exception for veterans. We fund them at a higher level than we would ordinarily fund them in the continuing resolution. Secondly, we do make an exception for the Census because 2010 is coming at us whether we agree on this House floor or not. Those are the only two legislative items that depart from the traditional CR.

Mr. OBEY. Virtually every judgment made in the contemplated CR is the judgment which is simply that of the authorizing committee of jurisdiction, and that's what CRs are supposed to do.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for the time. Let me simply say that I see Bill in two ways. First of all, I see him as a legislator. He was a good, solid legislator, a member of the Appropriation's Committee, and I watched him day after day conduct his business with grace and with courage. It was not popular to oppose some of the tax and budget proposals that President Reagan was pushing, for instance, in the 1980s. I know in my district at the time, 70 percent of the country favored those changes. Bill Hefner had courage enough to point out that the numbers just didn't add up and that he carried on his conviction, and eventually facts proved him to be correct. Bill was also a person who respected this institution. He respected the Congress, he respected the country, he respected his party, he respected the other party, and he respected virtually every person in this institution, and it showed in the way he dealt with others in this body. But my greatest and fondest memory of Bill is rooted in his gospel singing. I happen to like bluegrass, and I belong to a bluegrass band called The Capitol Offenses, and I learned to love gospel music. And on many occasions, Bill would sing and I and members of my band would back him up. And I have to say, he was one of the best singers we ever performed with. He knew a wide range of gospel but he also had a solid voice, and he had fun doing it. He loved it, and anyone who listened to him knew that he loved it. He was a man of courage. He had a terrific sense of humor, and he could find a lot of ways to get things done by simply charming people in this place. If logic wouldn't work, if substance wouldn't work, there was always the Hefner charm to push things over the edge. I was greatly saddened to learn of his death last week. I have to say that I am proud to have served in the same institution with a man of his courage, with a man of his integrity, and with a man of his good humor. I'm certain that he will be missed by his family and his friends. I very much am grateful for the fact that I was able to know him and to work with him for all of those years. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3435) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3435.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, late yesterday, it came to our attention that the cash for clunkers program, which went active just a few days ago, has proven even more wildly popular than its strongest supporters had predicted. Just last month, Congress passed the program, which provided up to $4,500 if you trade in your old gas guzzler for a new car that gets better mileage. That was done in the hopes of spurring some new car sales and encouraging people to be a little more environmentally friendly. We provided $1 billion in the supplemental to get it going, enough for about 250,000 sales. The program kicked off Monday, and it has already officially received 40,000 requests for reimbursement, worth about $160 million in rebates. A survey done by the National Automobile Dealers Association this week suggested that at least 200,000 deals have been completed but not yet officially submitted. If that is true, and we are being told it probably is, then the entire $1 billion is just about exhausted. So we have before us a bill to provide stopgap funding for cash for clunkers by allowing the administration to transfer up to $2 billion from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee program, which doesn't expect to award funding until late next year. Some would call this letting the markets work. Consumers have spoken with their wallets, and they are saying they like this program; and clearly it is doing what it was intended to do, to spur car sales in this sluggish economy. This action will keep it going, hopefully; and I would urge support for the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I'm not going to give any political speeches. We are simply trying to react to one program that the public has latched onto. The demand for this was so great that within 3 days of its inception, the funds were, apparently, totally used up. That indicates that we need to do something if we don't want the program to shut down 3 days after it begins. That's what we're trying to do today. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. OBEY. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, I share the gentleman's view that the Renewable Energy Loan Guarantee Program is of vital importance to creating a new, green economy. We have talked with the White House. We have talked with the Speaker, and I want to assure you that all of us certainly have every intention of restoring these funds.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that what we have heard several times here today about this action are complaints from the people who helped wreck America's economy and are now complaining because of the way this President and this Congress are trying to pull the country out of the ditch and restore economic growth. We've come to expect that, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei). (Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)