Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. So, to repeat, we would be finished with consideration of this bill until Tuesday after the votes on amendments are taken in approximately 1 hour?

Mr. OBEY. And then tomorrow it is the gentleman's understanding that the District of Columbia appropriation bill would be considered?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, I invite any Member of this House on either side of the aisle who is disquieted about this to call my office and indicate their willingness to join me in sponsoring the legislation that I have described that would set up an experience-rated fund into which States would contribute, so that the Feds do not always get hit with the cost of these things. But absent that kind of legislation being on the books, I think we have no choice but to provide enough money to meet what we know will be unscheduled, irregular natural disasters.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss this matter before us, I would like to alert Members of the House to the situation we face on the VA-HUD bill. There have been approximately 40 amendments offered to that bill. Perhaps 10 of them at this point will fall by the wayside, people deciding not to offer them. If the others simply take 5 minutes on each side and if about a third to a half of them have rollcalls, that will take us to probably 7 o'clock tonight. I am sorry. I said that wrong. If we have no rollcalls and if we just have 5 minutes of debate on each side, it will take us until about 7 o'clock tonight. If there are any rollcalls at all, then let us say there are rollcalls on about a third of the amendments, that means we would be here until about 9 o'clock tonight. And if you have one-third of those amendments where you take at least 10 minutes a side, then we are going to be here until about 11 o'clock. I want Members to understand that now, because I know a lot of them are assuming that they are going to be able to catch 6 o'clock planes. Unless something happens, that is not going to be true. I would urge Members to think through whether they are serious in offering these amendments. If they are, obviously they have a right to offer them. But I think Members need to understand what the realistic time frame is as well and would urge Members to take that into consideration if in fact they are planning to get out of here on a plane this evening. Mr. Speaker, having given that notice, let me simply say that we have already made quite clear that we think that this supplemental is deficient in a number of areas, especially in the areas of fire fighting and in the area of AmeriCorps, but in my view there is no sense chewing that cud twice. We have already talked about it on the rule.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I agree with the gentleman's observation, but it is obvious we are going to be voting on the amendment so I think I will withhold my comments on it until we are actually at the amending stage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, as I have indicated, we believe that there are a number of other items which should have been included in this supplemental. They were not. The majority determines that; so we have no objection to that which is included in the proposal, and I would certainly intend to vote for it. I would say with respect to the comments of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget, it is my observation that in the world sometimes things change. Events occur, natural disasters occur, matters of a war here and there occur. Things change, except in the world of the Committee on the Budget. So I guess nothing that the Committee on Appropriations does will ever satisfy people who prefer a static world, but I quit worrying about that a long time ago.

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

Mr. OBEY. I have not.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me simply say I am familiar with the gentleman's history on disaster funding. I personally would prefer that there would be no federally financed disaster programs. I have introduced legislation which would require every State in the Union to buy into a federally run insurance plan so that on an experience-rated basis States would, much as they do with Worker's Compensation, prepay for any expected disaster short of a gargantuan tragedy. We have not been able to get that considered by either party, so we are stuck with what is left. I am much more concerned with whether this estimate is real than whether it fits within the niceties of the budget resolution, to be frank about it. I do not think that God gives us 2 weeks' notice before we have a hurricane; so we do not have time to send down a proper budget amendment. So I think we do the best we can. I think the difference between the gentleman from Iowa and the gentleman from Florida is that the gentleman from Iowa is free to pull numbers out of the air on the Committee on the Budget and describe the world as he and as Committee on the Budget think it ought to exist. But then the Committee on Appropriations and other legislative committees in this place have to implement what happens, and I think it is a whole lot more difficult to implement than it is to pronounce. So all I would say is, given the limited nature of the recommendations here, I think this is reasonable. I personally believe that this is not going to be enough money in the FEMA account. I think we should have done something on fire fighting. I think we should have done something to prevent 20,000 people from being fired in AmeriCorps, and I recognize we are going to have to continue to agree to disagree.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, one observation, and then one question. I do not appreciate having to take lectures from the Committee on the Budget. Let me tell my colleague the sleight of hand that that committee played. They pretended that they provided additional money for veterans. They pretended that they provided additional money for education and for special education in order to get the votes of the moderate Republicans in here for the resolution. And then, after they pretended, on an account-by-account basis, that they had provided the money, then that same Committee on the Budget provided $7.2 billion in undistributed reductions and assigned those reductions to our committee, without having the guts to spell out what those reductions should be. And then they squawked when the gentleman from Florida tried to distribute those reductions. That is what is going on here. The difference is that the gentleman from Florida has to run a real railroad train, it is not an Alice in Wonderland train. Now, with respect to the amendment at hand, I simply want Members to know how they are going to vote. I mean, the Republicans are running this show, so it is immaterial to me which of your factions wins the argument on that side. But if this amendment passes, you will be cutting $15 million from the FBI. You will forcing Israel to write a $12 million check back to us because they have already gotten their money. The Drug Enforcement Agency will have to cut $5 million. The Colombian drug initiative, which was just defended in this House this week, you will have to cut $1 million out of that. You will have to cut $15 million out of the Cancer Institute. And you will have to cut $600,000 out of Meals-on- Wheels. Now, I am not going to debate whether you ought to do any of that stuff; I simply want Members to know what they will be voting on if they vote for the amendment. I would also simply say that I hope, and I am confident, that this amendment has more to do with concerns about budget than it does a Pennsylvania Senate primary.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Well, they are still volunteers. They have not been drafted.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that before this year is done, we are going to need a lot more supplemental funding than we have before us in the bill that will be brought to the floor under this rule. There is no question we are going to need money for Iraq. I personally have doubts that the money being requested for FEMA is going to be sufficient, unless we get by with virtually a storm-free summer, and I would not expect that. And as the gentleman from Massachusetts has indicated, if we do not fund AmeriCorp, we are going to have thousands of people who have offered to give their services to their communities in various capacities who are going to get laid off. It is as simple as that. So if we want to ignore that fact, as we earlier today ignored the problem of children from families who get the earned income tax credit, if we want to follow that example and again turn our backs on them, the House has the power to do that. But it should not do that. That is why we are asking the House to vote against the previous question on the rule, so that we could amend the rule to provide for consideration of funding for AmeriCorp, as well as FEMA. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that that is what the House would do, but we shall see when the votes are counted.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my friend that there are 42 Governors of both parties who have asked us to take this action, so I think they must feel that the investment is well worth the cost. I think that most mayors around the country receive the services these volunteers would also approve.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that there is a crisis in veterans health care in this country. All too often a veteran who has prostate cancer will be told that it is going to be 3 months before he can see a specialist. There are delays in seeing almost any specialist in the system. Veterans hospitals are in many ways inadequate for the demand that they face, and there is no question that if this bill passes as is, it will make that situation worse. Now how can I say that? After all, the bill has a 6 percent increase. Here is how I can say it. Inflation, first of all, will cost at least 3 percent more this year to serve the same population. In addition, the population which will be served, or will be eligible to be served I should say, will increase by 9 percent this year. So that means that this bill would need to be 12 percent above last year for veterans health care just to stay even. This bill does about half of that. So if you pass this bill as is, veterans health care will get worse, not better, in this country, and I do not think that makes any sense. Members from both sides of the aisle asked the Committee on Rules to allow amendments to be offered that could fix this situation, and they have been told, ``No, sorry, boys and girls, cannot do it.'' That, I think, means that if you want to do anything meaningful besides send out a political press release or a nice flowery letter, another one of those wonderful resolutions that passed this Congress 430 to nothing, if you want to do something to back up all those wonderful flowery words, if you want to send your veterans, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) says, if you want to send them something other than a get well card, you will vote against this rule, and give us the chance to boost veterans health care in a meaningful way. We want to be able to offer the Edwards amendment which would raise the veterans health care budget by over $2 billion, and it would pay for it by reducing the size of the tax cut for people who make over $1 million a year from $88,000 to about $77,000. So we have a choice. What is more important to the country, an $88,000 tax cut for someone who makes 100,000 bucks a year or putting veterans where we promised we would put them, which is first in line immediately for the medical care they need? Now, I know some people will say, ``You know, this is a bottomless pit.'' I have heard it said this is a bottomless pit. How much are we going to give the veterans? We did not ask how much the veterans were going to give us when they agreed to put everything on the line, and it just seems to me that our position ought to be that whatever it takes to provide people who wore the uniform of this country under any circumstances, whatever it takes to provide them with decent health care we are going to do. To me, that is a whole lot more important than a number of the tax choices that have been made, and I think it is to a lot of people in this Chamber as well. So I would strongly urge you to vote against this rule. If you are not willing to vote against this rule, do not go back home and tell your veterans, oh, man, we put you first, we really did. This committee has done a a credible job with the resources available, but the resources available are pitiful in comparison to need. So I would hope Members would recognize that it is no criticism of the subcommittee itself to vote against this rule. It is a criticism of misplaced institutional priorities in this House, and we ask the House to take the only action you can take if you want to correct those misplaced priorities, and that is to turn down this rule.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly will not object because we have been working on this for a long time, but I would still like to point out to the Members of the House that while I certainly welcome this time agreement for planning purposes, Members need to understand that if everyone included in this agreement exercises the full amount of time listed in this agreement, we will still be here about 9 o'clock this evening. So if people are trying to catch their airplanes and they have amendments, many of these amendments are subject to a point of order and many of these amendments are probably not going to get very many votes. So I think Members need to ask themselves how much time they want to take in situations like that. The committee is doing everything it can to get Members out of here so they can catch their planes, but we will need the cooperation of the individual Members, or it is not going to happen.

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

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I would simply say it most certainly will not work if we do all of this. So people need to think about it. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I had not wanted to speak any more on this, but in light of the comments of my friend from California, I feel compelled to. I want to read some words: ``The fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD appropriations bill as it pertains to funding levels for veterans health care is inadequate and represents a clear betrayal of the assurances promised to America's veterans by the House Republican leadership.'' I did not say that. Ray Sisk, Commander in Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said it on July 17 of this year. I could insert four other quotes in the Record from veterans organization leaders as well. The gentleman from California says that this is a good budget for veterans. Let me explain why it is not. This bill has a 6 percent nominal increase in funding for veterans health care, so it sounds good. But the fact is that inflation eats up 3 percent of that 6 percent and then you have a 9 percent growth in the veterans population eligible for these programs. So when you add 9 and 3, that means that you need a 12 percent increase in veterans health care programs just in order to stay even. This bill only meets half that. While the gentleman is shaking his head, it is simple mathematics. His daughter got a perfect 600 on the SATs. She would know that that statement was right. Let me say, also, Mr. Chairman, that I totally agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has time and time again taken this floor to lead the effort to help veterans. The fact is that veterans are not going to be conned by someone who says, Oh, oh, I was a really good friend of veterans that day when that bill was up. I voted against final passage. Mr. Chairman, the only practical chance that any Member of this House had to get more money for veterans was to beat the rule so you could go back and have made in order the amendment that the gentleman talked about. My friend from California can resent all he wants the fact that we talk about what the tax cut cost us in services, but the fact is the Republican leadership of this Congress put tax cuts before anybody else and the fact is that under those tax cuts if you make a million bucks next year, you are going to get an $88,000 tax cut. The fact is that what we are trying to do with his amendment is to reduce that by $11,000 so they will only get a $77,000 tax cut. We are trying to do that so that there is enough room to fund additional veterans health care benefits. That is what we are trying to do. You may not like the fact that we bring it up, but the consequences of your providing $3 trillion in tax cuts the next 11 years, the consequences are that there will be no room in the inn for adequate education funding, adequate health care funding, or adequate help for veterans. That is a fact. You may not like the fact that we bring it up, but we are going to bring it up every day of the year because it is a hard, cold fact of budgeting. When you make choices, you have to be able to take the heat for those choices; and we are going to turn up the heat, baby, because you were wrong.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. I think Members need to understand if we are to facilitate the agreement that has been described and if we are going to get out of here at a reasonable time tomorrow, we do need to have all of the amendments that are going to be offered to the VA-HUD bill in tonight. So my understanding is on our side of the aisle, the leadership is sending out a bulletin to all Members that they need to have their amendments filed by 10:30 tonight because that is the only way we can work overnight to get an agreement on the universe of amendments and work out time agreements for all of them; otherwise, we will be here until midnight tomorrow.