Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, indicated that this bill needed ``sensible'' amounts of money. I would say that I would agree with that, except for one thing: terrorists are not ``sensible,'' and that means that we may have to spend more money than we would like to spend in order to stop nonsensible people from terrorizing the world. I think we need to understand exactly what this bill does, cutting through the rhetoric. This homeland security conference bill is 2.3 percent above last year's legislation. That does not even equal inflation. When the President addressed the Nation on September 7, he said, ``We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror to protect freedom and to make our own Nation more secure.'' Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this conference report before us today does not live up to that promise made by the President just 2 weeks ago and neither do some of the President's actions. Let me give a few examples. First, the conference report provides no funding to improve security at the perimeters or backsides of the airports. Secondly, the conference report does not provide sufficient funding to secure ports in anything less than 20 years. Only $125 million is provided to port security grants in the conference report. Third, this conference report does not increase funding for first responders above that provided in the previous year. Fourth, the conference report does not provide sufficient funding to screen all cargo carried on passenger aircraft in anything close to a year. And with all due respect, the proposed conference report provides $85 million for cargo security conference. TSA Administrator Loy said he may need as much as $500 million to implement a cargo screen program. Fifth, the conference report provides no funding for Customs to substantially increase the checking of cargo entering through our ports for weapons of mass destruction. GAO has said that the current low inspection rate makes container shipments a prime target for terrorists. Also, the screening requirement carried in the House bill for cargo carried on passenger aircraft has been weakened in the proposed conference to such an extent that it has no real meaning despite efforts of several speakers today to try to imply that something meaningful was done on this issue. I support the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Sabo) pending recommittal motion because I think it is in the interest of national security to pass it. I would also make one other observation. Words are funny things. They can be used either to clarify or obscure. The subcommittee chairman indicated in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter and again made reference on the floor today to the large amounts of money that we are supposedly spending for homeland security. He suggests, for instance, that we spent more than $75 billion since September 11. That masks the true fact that that assessment includes all of the base funding that existed before 9/11. If you are looking at the additional funding that we have provided since that time, that figure would be $33 billion, not $75 billion. Secondly, it is not true that we provided $29 billion in additional homeland security efforts in 2004. If you subtract the base from that figure, the real figure is more like $18 billion additional funding. That is a lot of money, but given the threat, in my judgment, it is not enough. It has also been suggested that Congress will provide an additional $8.4 billion for border and port security in 2004. Again, that figure includes the base funding that existed prior to 9/11. That is not going to help much to deal with the increased threat. And then we are told by the chairman very often that we could spend every single dollar of the Federal budget and some of us would argue we were not spending enough. I would strongly dispute that, and I would simply ask why should we be spending more in Iraq on a per capita basis than we are spending here at home to defend our homeland from threats such as cross-border threats? I would urge support for the Sabo recommittal motion. I think that we need every dollar contained in that motion if we are to provide adequate security to this country.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think the public has a right to ask the Congress why it sometimes ignores the obvious. This bill today, despite all of the good words said about it, in one respect ignores the obvious. When we passed the conference report on the supplemental, I said I did not believe that it provided sufficient funds for disaster relief, since we knew that Hurricane Isabel was then about to arrive. Well, as we now know, it arrived; and now we know the extent of the damage of Isabel, even though we do not know the precise costs. Mr. Speaker, 34 people lost their lives; flooding and wind damage was widespread. Many people in the hundreds of thousands still do not have electricity. FEMA tells us that a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the cost of Isabel is about 700 million bucks, the cost of Hurricane Fran and Floyd. Yesterday, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported that one official said, ``Too many times Federal, State, and local officials have acted or reacted on the basis of poor information, while FEMA is worried about keeping the headlines down rather than fixing the situation.'' Today it seems to me that we have both the unique opportunity and a unique obligation. Given the funding level for disaster relief of $1.5 billion that was included in the Senate bill to provide funding for Isabel and to help fix the situation, if we wait for the President to submit a supplemental request, it is likely that we will be in the situation next spring where FEMA is out of money, there is a crisis at hand, and people will once again say, well, what in God's Earth? Did those guys think they knew what they were doing? Why did not they anticipate this? Why did they not take care of it when they knew the problem was at hand? In my view, we need action, not reaction. That is why we ought to support the Moran motion. We know this damage has occurred. We know the Federal Government is going to be getting the bill. We should not be hiding the cost today, as we are hiding the costs of so many other items. We should fess up and face up to the problem and deal with it now, not after the fact next spring when it can get in the way of orderly relief when we have more problems.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we appoint conferees and begin the conference on this, the day before September 11, as the gentleman from Minnesota has indicated. It is not appropriate, however, that we will be considering a conference bill in which the budget allocation of the House and Senate equals only $29.4 billion, a mere 2.3 percent above today's funding. That does not even equal inflation. The House and the Senate bills are, in this case, a bit different. The House bill provides more funding for first responders. The Senate bill provides more funding to secure our northern border, as the gentleman has indicated, for airport security and for Disaster Relief. All of that is needed, plus more. The House bill also includes the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to require that cargo carried on passenger aircraft is screened. This is the right thing to do. Today no cargo is screened. According to a TSA public statement there is a 35 to 65 percent likelihood that terrorists are planning to put a bomb in cargo on a passenger plane. But even if we were to do all of the things required and funded in the House and Senate bills, we will still leave many homeland security problems to deal with for another day. Neither the House nor the Senate bill provides any funding to improve security at the perimeters or backsides of our airports. The ability to easily penetrate those backsides of our airports has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, most recently in New York, where fishermen lost due to a storm came ashore on the back side of JFK Airport and no one spotted them. Neither the House nor the Senate bill provides sufficient funding to secure our ports by implementing the port security plans required under the Maritime Transportation Security Act in anything less than 20 years. Neither the House nor the Senate bill provides funding to fully implement the Markey amendment. Neither the House nor the Senate bill provides funding for Customs to substantially increase the checking of cargo entering through our ports for weapons of mass destruction. The GAO has said that the current low inspection rate makes container shipments a prime target for terrorists. So I support the motion to instruct, because it is the only motion that we can offer under House rules which makes sense. I do not support the majority party budget system that has gotten us to this ridiculous situation under which it is apparently fine to move quickly on an $87 billion supplemental package for Iraq, but not fine to add a small percentage of this amount to better secure our homeland, our ports, our borders and our airports. What kind of security do we have, when an individual could recently ship himself in a container from New York to another location in this country and not be detected, even though you had a human being inside the cargo box? I mean, how secure are we when that can happen? We have a long way to go before we meet the promises that so many of us made after 9/11. The President told the country 2 days ago that 9/11 had taught him that we need to provide whatever is necessary for the security of the country. That being the case, I wish that he would accept some of the increases that we have asked for for more than a year-and-a-half on a bipartisan basis in this House. I wish that we did not have a President who was vetoing more than $1.5 billion of homeland security items that were passed in a bill that had 90 percent support of Republicans and Democrats alike in both the House and the other body. I wish we could get together on these items, which are clearly essential to the safety of our public and to the strength of this country at home. I would urge Members to support the motion to recommit. It is the very least that we can do under these circumstances to secure the home front while we are obliterating the budget surplus by what we spend abroad to do the same thing.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the message here is simple: If Members think that our ports are safe enough, our borders are safe enough, our airlines are safe enough, then by all means, vote against this motion. But if you recognize that they are not, then you ought to vote for it. But I would have one cautionary note. I would say to my friends on the majority side of the aisle, please do not vote for this motion if you then intend to scuttle the Markey amendment in conference. If that were to happen, it would be tantamount to deceiving the public and trying to have it both ways. If you voted for this motion, stick to it in conference or else everything that we have tried to do today will be as phony as a $3 bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire if anyone from the attending physician is present? I understand someone's arm is being broken. So the amendment was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the members of the House the following remarks by our former colleague Lee Hamilton: Remarks Honoring Committee Staff Directors, July 17, 2003 It is my pleasure to say a few words in honor of the vital role that you play as committee majority and minority staff directors in the House. Let me thank Ron Sarasin for that kind introduction, and Ron and Susie Dicks for their work in helping preserve and enhance our understanding of this magnificent Capitol. I often thought how fortunate I was to be able to work in this magnificent Capitol complex. Let me also thank them and many of you here tonight for making this dinner possible with your support. The contributions of staff directors to the work of the Congress are immeasurable. I am reasonably confident that every committee Chairman and Ranking Member would say they simply could not do their work without your leadership. I hope that gives each of you a full measure of satisfaction. I want to talk for a few minutes about the role of the Congress in this country, the importance of politicians, and why your efforts are so important and worthwhile. Public Attitudes Towards Congress You are, of course, familiar with those who are cynical about your work and the work of Congress. The brightest wits in American life have had their fun at the expense of the Congress. H.L. Mencken said that, ``with the right pressure, Congressmen would cheerfully be in favor of polygamy, astrology or cannibalism.'' Mark Twain said, ``suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.'' Will Rogers said that, ``Congress was a never-ending source of amusement, amazement, and discouragement.'' Even so, we honor him with that magnificent statue just off the House floor. We have all seen surveys like those showing that 66 percent of Americans can name the hosts of various game shows, while only 6 percent can name the Speaker of the House. When I was a Member, I was never particularly disturbed by such survey results. After all, Americans are busy people with many demands on their time, and it is not easy to put in a full day's work and then read an article about Congress or turn on C-Span to watch the House or Senate in session. Nor was I bothered by the barbs--after all, we have to appreciate that the bashing of Congress is one of America's all time favorite indoor sports. What did bother me, though, was the extent to which people do not understand or appreciate some of the basic concepts that underlie the workings of the Congress, and the role that Congress plays in the life of our representative democracy. Even if Americans don't know the name of their senators or representative, they should know something about the importance of what they do to make the country work. Even if they don't know the players or the details of the legislative process, they should know something about how they relate to our system of government. If too many Americans get those concepts wrong, it does matter to the health of our democracy. Role of the Congress and Committees In my experience, far too few Americans really understand the most important function of the Congress. It is not, in my view, to pass any particular piece of legislation, or even a budget--but its historic mission is to maintain freedom. The great phrases ring through our history--``We the people,'' ``consent of the governed,'' ``a more perfect union.'' These aren't just technical terms of political science. They are words that embody America's civic faith. You and I, above all others, are expected to know them in our bones, and to apply these grand concepts. We rely on elected representatives to identify, sort out, and solve the difficult issues of state. It did not have to be this way. Our country would be vastly different if the Founders had placed power in the hands of a single ruler, or given much less voice to the American people. In the Congress, Americans have a forum for debate and deliberation in which they can feel a stake. Traditional lawmaking is not just a nicety--it's a necessity if we're to remain a democracy. The lawmaking process allows us to resolve differences, and to live together peacefully, productively and successfully. Most Americans may be familiar with the diagram of how a bill becomes a law. Whenever I see those charts I think to myself how sterile they are. They do not convey the dynamics--the frustration, the excitement, the complexity and the necessity of the process. Very few Americans understand that the details of this process of deliberation guarantee that their voices are heard, and freedom is protected. I worry that astute legislators often bypass steps in the lawmaking process, arguing--in effect--that the ends justify the means. This ``unconventional lawmaking'' is increasingly applied to important legislation. But in doing this we bypass and put at risk the very democratic process that defines our system. My view is that important proposals should not bypass the traditional process, including the committee review, because that is one important place where deliberation takes place. That's where Members and staff can ask the hard questions. Committees provide expertise, and an opportunity to consider the merits and smooth out the problems in proposals. This is where we build consensus. Some Americans feel that the legislative procedure is too slow and deliberative--they are annoyed by what they perceive as inside-the-Beltway scuffling, and wonder why Congress can't get things done faster. But do we really want a speedy system in which laws are pushed through before alternatives are considered and consensus developed? We misunderstand Congress' role if we demand it be a model of efficiency and quick action. Our Founders designed a system in which all new proposals get careful scrutiny by going through many layers of review. They were far less interested in moving good ideas efficiently, than they were in preventing bad ideas from becoming the law of the land in the heat of the moment. People may sometimes complain about the process, but they benefit from its legislative speed bumps when they want their views heard, their interests protected, and their rights safeguarded. As former Speaker Sam Rayburn used to say: ``One of the wisest things ever said was, `Wait a minute.' '' That--in a phrase--is the essential role played by Congressional committees. Importance of Politicians Democracy--after all--is a process, not a product. And what our democracy really needs is more politicians. That was one line I used to say that was sure to get a reaction. Very few of my constituents agreed. Showing skill as a politician has come to mean demonstrating the ability to raise campaign funds, engaging in the tit-for-tat of negative advertising, jockeying for public support based on polls and focus groups, or skewering an opponent with a one-liner during a televised debate. People have come to view the word politician--particularly with regard to the Congress--with disdain. Plenty of voters feel that politicians sell-out their beliefs and promises. ``Stick to your guns,'' they urge. But controversy and conflict are unavoidable in a nation as large and diverse as ours--a diversity that is rightly represented in the peoples' House. To avoid ripping apart at the seams, our country needs people who know how to accommodate different points of view and work for common solutions--it needs politicians. You are an essential part of this effort. By working behind the scenes, knowing what Members want, proposing compromises, addressing all the difficult details of legislation, and dealing with all the worthy groups wanting contradictory things, you--as well as your bosses--have to be politicians in order to keep our democracy running. Being a Good Politician For the most part, people don't pay attention to how their hopes, dreams and ambitions are turned into public policy through the lawmaking process. Most citizens and journalists take that very political process for granted. They shouldn't. Constituents often asked my position on a substantive issue. I don't think anyone inquired about my political skills--and, in this world, political skills are essential to get things done. The key to being an effective legislator or staffer is respecting that system and figuring out how to make it work. So what political skills do you need? Does a Member need? First, you know how to consult, particularly with your colleagues--talking to them, listening to them, making sure they feel they are in the loop. Support for ideas is largely built one-on-one, but also in larger forums. Key individuals--inside and outside of the Congress--have their own ideas and valid concerns, and they expect to be able to share them. Lyndon Johnson had his own way of putting this with a sign he had in his Senate office: ``You ain't learning nothing when you're talking.'' Second, you calm--rather than inflame--discussions of controversial issues. Things can get pretty heated in the Congress, and disagreement is inevitable in a House as large and diverse as ours. It is relatively easy to make a bad situation worse. One thing that I'm certain of is that you cannot produce good legislation in a bad atmosphere--you can produce heat in such an environment, but not light. Third, you know how to persuade. It takes an enormous amount of persuasion to build a majority in support of an idea. You all know how much persuasion is involved in getting approval of even a modest piece of legislation. You have to line up support and be in touch with sometimes hundreds of individuals from both parties, in the Congress and outside the Congress. Fourth, you must be willing to share credit. I remember former Speaker Tip O'Neill putting his arm around me and giving me some advice as we walked down the hall. ``Neil,'' he said--he called me Neil for my first decade in Congress because I reminded him of a Boston baseball player named Neil Hamilton. ``Neil, you can accomplish anything in this town if you're willing to let someone else take the credit.'' Finally, you know how to compromise. Compromise is essential to producing law in our system. Good politicians-- legislators and staff--are able to find points of agreement that will allow a consensus to emerge. They will look for solutions that allow both sides to claim--if not victory--at least some gains. Your skills are crucial in finding acceptable solutions. Compromise might involve altering some key words; phasing in a change; inserting a new provision; requiring a study; splitting differences in funding; delaying or postponing implementation of a section. You have to seek these accommodations among rival interests because you know that it is necessary to make the Congress--and country--work. From my perspective, the ability to build consensus is probably the most important single skill needed in the Congress--by Members and staff. Any fool can blow a meeting or discussion apart--it takes real political skill to bring people together. That is why we need more politicians of your skill these days--not fewer. Why is it Worthwhile Well, is this demanding, tedious process of passing legislation worthwhile? You and I know well the frustrations: As a Member, I always felt it was hard to keep on the right side of the voter. When I was in my District, I heard complaints that I wasn't spending enough time in Washington; when I was in Washington, people said I was ignoring the home folks and only paid attention to them during elections. When I drove an old car in my District, people said it looked like something a farmer would use for hauling trash; when I got a new car, they said the lobbyists had gotten to me. When I wore an old suit, people said I had no class; when I wore a new one, I was accused of going high-hat. When I missed church, people said I was an atheist; when I attended church, I was a pious fraud, trolling for votes in church. When Congress passed a lot of laws, we were a meddlesome Congress; when we weren't passing laws, we were an incompetent, do-nothing Congress ignoring the needs of the country. When we supported the president, people said we were a rubber-stamp; when we opposed the president, we were disloyal and obstructionist. You can never please everyone when you are working in Congress, no matter how many hours you put in, no matter how skillful you are. You all know too well what I'm talking about as staff directors when I talk about the frustrations, among them: committee meetings go on without end; the work is tedious, requiring that you go over legislation comma by comma; you are constantly running from one meeting or appointment to another; your daily schedule is always being interrupted, revised, or simply scrapped; if you have a family, you're going to miss many important family events; and you cannot plan ahead, whether for an evening off or for a vacation, because some event or emergency always demands that Congress stay in session longer than planned. All the political posturing, sniping and scrambles to claim credit for good things--or avoid blame for bad--sometimes becomes disheartening, as does the constant maneuvering for partisan advantage. And for putting up with all of this, you get paid less than you could make in the private sector, while facing harsh and frequent criticism. Yet despite it all, most members run for reelection and remain in Congress as long as they can. Most of you worked long and hard to become a committee staff director. Is it all worthwhile? Yes, of course it is. Why? Let's be frank--some of it satisfies the ego. Some like the power and the trappings of power--when you speak, people listen, and that is very satisfying. But most of you, I think, are truly motivated by the belief that, as hard as it is, you can make a difference and enhance the lives of ordinary Americans. Then, too, it is all pretty exciting--and interesting. The sheer challenge of public policy issues attracts us. There is a pervasive sense on Capitol Hill that it is where the issues of greatest importance to the nation are being sorted out. This is where the action is. Sometimes this is misplaced, but often it is not. You struggle over the issues that aroused the passions of this country's founding generation. How much power should the federal government be given? How should powers be separated among the branches? How do we resolve the tension between encouraging individual liberty and security? What role should our country play in the world? These great issues are subject to debate every time a new federal budget comes to a vote, or a major presidential initiative gets introduced on Capitol Hill. When you start working in Congress, you get a chance to take part in this ongoing debate--our great experiment with democracy. Your public service gives you a stimulating, proud and lively career. Conclusion So I salute each of you for the vital role that you play within this institution, and in your service to your fellow Americans. You are contributing to the success and direction of this country. I hope you feel that by working in the Congress you are given the unique opportunity to make a difference in the lives of people and the great affairs of this Nation. I would wager that no matter where your career takes you from Capitol Hill, that you will look back on your public service as the most rewarding of your career. The work is hard, the recognition rare, the monetary reward modest. But your reward is a deeply fulfilling life in public service and a key role in American democracy. What more could you want?

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I am corrected. I am told the energy conference debate would occur tonight.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. I had thought that there would be one additional matter which would be before the House. My understanding is that we were going to have the naming of energy conferees tomorrow, as well as a motion to instruct.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my reservation I would ask the gentleman if this agreement is entered into, what would be the schedule for the remainder of the day and tomorrow?

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

Mr. OBEY. And tomorrow?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I did not say that that provision should be stricken. What I said is that if you want to make money for the taxpayers, you can haul in a lot more money to the Treasury by using that same hundred million dollars to go after people with real bucks in their pockets, the large size corporations in this country. What you will collect on this, if you do indeed have scarce dollars, it seems to me you ought to put them where you get the biggest bang for a buck.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have just been told that this rule is an open rule. That is an absolutely meaningless statement. What the majority has done once again is to waive the rules of the House for the majority product, but then refuse to waive those same rules for amendments that the minority wishes to offer. In my view, that is a gutless way to legislate. It is an unfair way to legislate. It does discredit to this House and discredit to those who impose those kinds of rules. And to suggest that this is an open rule, implying, somehow implying that this is business as usual, if this is business as usual, I think the American public would hang their heads when they understand it. I am against this bill. I am against the previous question on the rule. I am against the rule itself. This bill is inadequate in a large number of ways. It is a joke in terms of what it does to Amtrak. It does not provide sufficient funding to keep Amtrak funded. And whether some people like it or not, we need a national Amtrak system. Secondly, it virtually guarantees that enhancement projects which were a key in moving forward the transportation authorization bill the last time it was on the floor have now been gutted. And that means that municipalities are not going to have the opportunity for many of the enhancements they have had in the past. I think that is a mistake. You have a weird sense of priorities expressed in the EITC precertification provision in this bill. The majority says, ``Oh, we ought to spend $100 million on more IRS enforcement to go after the poorest taxpayers in this society who take advantage of the EITC'', when you could use that same $100 million and go after noncompliance by large corporations and bring many times more dollars into the Treasury than you ever will by the EITC provision. This provision in this bill is not here to save the taxpayers money. It is here for ideological reasons. The Republican majority for years supported the earned income tax credit as an alternative to the minimum wage increase. And now that there is no ``threat'' from a Republican Congress on raising the minimum wage, now they go after the only tax provision in the law to help the poorest taxpayers who ought to get a minimum wage increase but do not get it. We also have the issue of Cuba. I am very much in support of the effort that the gentleman from Massachusetts will make because in my view existing U.S. policy toward Cuba is stupid, capital letter stupid. It is mindless, capital letter mindless. It is ineffective. All it does is give that two-bit dictator Castro in Cuba an excuse to point to somebody else for his island's troubles. Now, I do not mind . . . well, I do mind because it is bad enough when we restrict the rights of individual American citizens to travel where they want to travel, if it is being done on behalf of a good policy; but I really do mind when it is being done on behalf of a stupid policy. This policy is out-moded. It has not worked. If it had worked, Castro would be long gone. Again, what we have here is an ideologically driven policy. It is put together by people who think with their spleen instead of their head. It makes no sense whatsoever. The bill ought to be voted down. The rule ought to be voted down. The previous question ought to be voted down until this committee comes to its senses.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the last vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Reynolds