Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I am simply going to repeat most of what I said about 40 minutes ago with the sure understanding that almost nobody was listening the first time and perhaps I might catch some more ears this time. I would very much like to vote for this bill. It has, through the years, been one of my favorite bills in this place; but I am not able to and still keep my word to this institution. As I said earlier to the House, in 1964 when the country decided that we were going to begin offshore oil drilling, an agreement was made to put about $900 million dollars a year of that revenue into preservation of key pieces of land around the country with the Federal Government and the States both participating in protecting that land. The problem is over the years that commitment was not kept and gradually about a $13 billion surplus was built up in that funds. That is why 3 years ago 315 Members of this House passed what was known as the CARA legislation. And what that was was an attempt to make that prior understanding finally a reality by turning funding for a number of those conservation programs into entitlements. I opposed that. I thought we ought to be able to make conservation a high priority without turning it into an entitlement superior on claims to the Treasury on items like education or health care for that matter. I did not think they were superior. I thought they should be considered equal. And folks who had those beliefs, folks who had my beliefs essentially won the debate or at least we won the argument, and we shook hands on an agreement. And under that agreement, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), myself, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the minority side of the aisle, at that time serving as chairman of this subcommittee, agreed that we would double funding for those conservation programs and then over time have increments that would raise funding to $2.4 billion. We did that in order to stave off an entitlement; and for the first 2 years this committee stuck to the agreement. But in the omnibus appropriations bill last year, the committee backed away from that agreement; and this bill takes us some $570 million below that agreement; and that is why I cannot support the bill as it stands. We tried in the rule to have the rule defeated so that we would have an opportunity to add that $570 million to the bill and to pay for it by reducing by $3,000 the tax cut that is scheduled to go to people who make over a million dollars a year in this country. We would have reduced that tax cut from $88,000 to $85,000, making hardly a dent in it. I think most people in that bracket would have gladly said, look, the national parks and national forests are a high priority. By all means, make those changes. But the House did not do it; and so in my view at this point, this bill cannot be repaired as far as I am concerned because I believe, above all else, in keeping my word. I promised people on the other side of the debate 3 years ago that if the Committee on Appropriations did not stick to the deal that I would change my position and instead support making these programs an entitlement, and so from this point on that is where I stand on this issue. I must say I am deeply distressed that my committee saw fit not to keep the agreement they entered into 3 years ago. That was not an authorization agreement that was entered into 3 years ago. That was an appropriations agreement. And the Committee on Appropriations, as one of the great committees of this House, ought to keep its word. It has not on this bill, and that is why, regardless of other changes in the bill, I cannot vote for this bill as it presently stands. I recognize some people have other considerations, but I believe it is important that we keep our word to each other and that we keep our word to the American people. This bill is going to be seriously short; and, as a result, we will lose our ability to preserve and set aside forever key pieces of land in places such as Yellowstone, Grand Teton, nine key acres in Valley Forge. It is a shame, but that is what this House has come to on this issue.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1964 when this country decided to allow oil drilling in the offshore oil lands, the decision was made to dedicate about $900 million a year from those receipts to what was called the Land and Water Conservation Fund. And the problem is that through the years Congress then decided not to keep that commitment. And so by about 3 years ago, we had had about a $13 billion surplus built up in that fund. So about 3 years ago, 315 Members of this House, over my objection, 315 Members of this House voted for what was known as CARA. It was a proposal to take programs for Federal lands acquisition, for State wildlife grants, forests legacy historic preservation, urban parks, you name it, and turn those programs into entitlements which means that regardless of the budget conditions, they would have been funded at a specific level. I opposed that. I thought we ought to be able to make conservation programs a priority without making them an entitlement. In the end, I won the argument; and we had an agreement that was entered into by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), who then chaired the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies; by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies; myself and several others which said, okay, we are not going to make it an entitlement, but over the next 6 years we are going to first double the amount of money that we were providing for these activities and then provide regularly scheduled increases until that program could go up from $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion. For the first 2 years Congress kept the agreement. In the omnibus appropriation bill last year, however, the Committee on Appropriations broke its word; and it walked away from that agreement; and this bill is now $570 million below where it would be if the committee had kept its word. At the time that we established that agreement 3 years ago, I told the House, I promised the House that if the day ever came that the Committee on Appropriations welched on the deal that I would then, as a point of honor, change my position and support making these programs entitlements because the Committee on Appropriations would have demonstrated that you could not trust it because they would not keep their word; and I am sorry to say that that is where I am at today. So what I am going to ask the House to do today is to turn down this rule, to vote against the previous question on the rule, so that I may be allowed to offer an amendment which will see to it that Congress keeps its promise and would provide $570 million in additional funds into those programs. We would pay for it by reducing the size of the tax cuts for people who have incomes of over $1 million a year. We would reduce the size of those tax cuts from the $88,000 those folks are supposed to get to $85,000. So for a $3,000 reduction in the size of the tax cut that people who are earning more than $1 million a year would get, we could have Congress keep its promise on this critical national program. This is more than just a theoretical debate about programs. This deals with real problems. It deals with the fact, for instance, that there are nine acres in Valley Forge that will be developed and lost forever unless we do something to acquire that land this year; and it means similar problems will be faced in Yellowstone, in Grand Teton, and in a number of our other national parks. It also means that we will not be keeping our word in terms of dealing with the maintenance backlog of our national parks. So I would ask the House very simply to follow the advice of then candidate George W. Bush who said in the Presidential debate just a few months ago, ``We ought to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provide half of that money to the States.'' The President of the United States recognized the need to do this. The Congress itself recognized the need to do it when it signed on to the compromise agreement 3 years ago. We ought to keep our word. We especially ought to keep our word to each other. So I would urge the House to vote against the previous question on the rule so that we can endeavor to do just that.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, frankly, this bill is a mixed bag. We have a number of items in this bill that I support; but as is the case with so many other appropriations this year, our ability to do many things to help strengthen the economy of rural America is substantially crippled by the fact that our majority friends in this House have already decided to put all of their eggs in the tax cut basket, and that means that there is very little available for a variety of other activities whether we are talking about education or health care or in the case of this bill whether we are talking about rural sewer and water grants, rural development programs, FDA, name it. I am distressed by some of these reductions. The gentlewoman from Ohio has already mentioned them. But just as examples, I would again cite inadequate funding for farm loans, for rural development, for rural water and sewer, for distance learning and telemedicine. We have $540 million in limitation on mandatory programs, and there are a number of other items. But I would like to address just two other points. Number one, I am distressed that this bill contains language which prevents labeling for meat, country-of-origin labeling. I think our domestic producers have a right to be able to communicate to our domestic consumers whether or not food products are produced in this country or somewhere else. I think our consumers have a right to know that information, and I think that very clearly our special interests have weighed in and seen to it that this House will not do its duty to the public by preserving that labeling. Secondly, I would like to discuss for a moment the amendment which purports to allow the reimportation of drugs into this country by senior citizens and some others. That is a well-meaning amendment, I will grant, and in the past I have been tempted on some occasions to support it myself. But I would simply point out that I think that this amendment is not likely to produce the effect that some would hope. First of all, the law requires that for a drug to be reimported it has to meet certain standards, and the problem is that our domestic pharmaceutical companies are very clever, and they can find hundreds of ways to prevent those drugs from meeting reimportation standards. They can prevent the use of a label which would meet U.S. standards and, therefore, prevent reimportation of a drug. They can omit language required in the U.S. on those labels as an easy way to prevent those drugs from being reimported. They can put a drug in a form that is not time released when it is provided in the United States that it be in a time-released form. And so there are many ways which the intent of this language can be frustrating. Secondly, I do not believe that this provision will have any significant impact on overall drug prices still charged to American consumers. And there are a number of other reasons which I will not take the time of the House now to go into, which make it quite clear that while this proposal is aimed at enabling seniors to reimport those drugs, the fact is that our domestic manufacturers, I think, are going to easily frustrate this language. So I would say to the Members to vote however they are going to vote on it. It is not going to have much effect. I respect the intention, but that is about it. But I would simply say that if we want to do something real on prescription drugs, we will simply pass an expanded reliable, adequate, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare so that none of our seniors are reduced to the necessity to drive to Canada every couple of months to get a supply. That is what this Congress would do if it was not owned lock, stock and barrel by the pharmaceutical industry on this issue, but unfortunately it is and so it will not. And we will be stuck with these very tepid alternatives to meaningful action. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to observe one thing. The history of this country has demonstrated that every time there is an effort to provide additional regulation or additional oversight in order to help workers or help farmers, or to help little guys against the big guys, somehow it is always too costly. We cannot provide the minimum wage, we cannot provide wage and hour protection, or this or that because it is going to cost too much. Well, I would bet if we conducted a poll of consumers, that they would, by overwhelming numbers, say that they want this provision to go forward. We have a tremendous debate in this country going on about the virtues of globalization. As far as I am concerned, globalization is inevitable; it is going to happen, and we need to figure out how to adjust to it. But I also note that in that debate you have numerous forces in this country who under the rubric of globalization would lead you to believe that there is still no legitimate amount of room for discussing the virtues and values of home-grown products, whether it is automobiles or farm products. I suggest to Members that even if we take the assertion of the gentleman from Texas at face value, and I do, let us say that this is not a consumer health issue, let us say this is not a food-safety issue, let us say it is simply a marketing issue. This is a marketing tool that our producers have a right to have. This is a marketing tool that I assume is the reason that the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union both have indicated their support for this provision. Our consumers want to know where the stuff that they eat comes from and our farmers want to know that they can demonstrate pride that it is their home grown product. This amendment is the only way that we are going to let them exercise that right.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, years ago Senator Proxmire from my State used to have the Golden Fleece Awards. He was a good friend of mine. One year he made a whole lot of fun of a study on Polish pigs. They had a field day with it. Funny name, strange-sounding grant. Well, guess what? That study led to the development of a new blood pressure medicine which millions of people use today. The know-nothings in the Congress at that time would have eliminated that study. I do not think that would have been a good outcome. I have served on the subcommittee that deals with NIH for a long time, and the one thing I came to understand very quickly is that the day that we politicize NIH research, the day we decide which grants are going to be approved on the basis of a 10-minute horseback debate in the House of Representatives with 434 of the 435 Members in this place who do not even know what the grant is, that is the day we will ruin science research in this country. We have no business making political judgments about those kinds of issues. I would ask the following questions of the gentlemen who are offering this amendment: Can they tell me what score each of the grants received in the peer review process? Can they tell me who is on the peer review committee that takes a look at each of these in the study circles? Do you have objection to any of the persons who are on those study sections? I think the gentlemen have an obligation to answer those questions if they are going to bring something like this to the floor with no notice and no understanding of what these grants do. Now, I would say that I do not have any idea what these grants do. I can imagine, though, that perhaps this study on so-called sexual arousal, that perhaps it is one way of trying to determine how you prevent child molestation or rape. I can also imagine with respect to the longitudinal study on sexual behavior of old men, NIH says this: ``Without a better understanding of age-related changes in men's sexual functions, physicians may assume that declines in function are normal when they actually reflect early symptoms of disease such as diabetes and heart disease.'' With respect to the study that relates to intervention for drug-using women sex workers, let us say you do not have any sympathy at all for the sex workers or their partners. I am concerned about the innocent partners of those partners. What about the wives of persons who go to these sex workers and then wind up getting disease? I think we ought to know as much as possible how to prevent transmission of disease, and what role drug use has in that process. So without knowing anything about these, I return to my basic principle: We have NIH for a reason; we have peer review for a reason. I would rather trust the judgment of 10 doctors sitting around a table than I would 10 politicians sitting around a table when we decide how to allocate taxpayer money for those grants. The reason NIH is there is so none of us bring our political biases to the table, and that is the way it ought to remain.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Here is what this amendment is all about. At a time when high unemployment is causing many Americans to lose their jobs and their job-related health coverage, State fiscal crises are leading States to cut back health coverage, Medicaid and SCHIP programs. According to the Kaiser Commission, 49 of the 50 States have implemented or are planning to implement cutbacks in Medicaid during fiscal year 2003. It is estimated that adoption of those cutbacks will lead to the elimination of health coverage for 1.7 million people. Many of them will be children. This amendment would simply provide a 1 percentage add-on to the Federal assistance to every State for their Medicaid programs. To receive that additional aid, States would have to refrain from any further cutbacks in eligibility for children under both Medicaid and SCHIP and restore eligibility for children to the rules that prevailed on July 1, 2001. We would pay for the amendment by simply reducing the size of the tax cut for persons who make more than $1 million a year, from $88,000 to $72,000. So the choice is simple. If you want to keep children on the health care rolls, if you want to make sure they are not knocked off the health care rolls in order to finance supersize tax cuts for people who make more than a million dollars, you will vote for this amendment. That is what the amendment does. Again, if the majority chooses to exercise its right to offer a point of order, then we will, instead of appealing the ruling of the Chair, we will simply ask that we strike the enacting clause so that this bill may go back to the committee so we may have an opportunity to offer an amendment which tries to prevent children from being knocked off the health care rolls. It is that simple. I would ask for a yes vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply urge the Chairman not to insist on the point of order. If he does, I would concede the point of order and move on to the next motion I have already described.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have already explained the motion and in the interest of saving time and also striking the last word to sum up in the end, I am going to ask that Members vote to strike the enacting clause so that we can repair this bill in the manner I have just described. I hope they do that. In the event that they do not, I am urging Members to vote no, because we do not believe that we ought to say to the country that we have room for $2 trillion in tax cuts, including an $88,000 tax cut for persons making over $1 million a year, but we do not have any room in the inn for children who need health care or need more help in Title I, for school districts who need more help on special education, and all of the others problems we have described today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, we have agreed on the committee that we will each limit ourselves to 10 minutes in the interest of trying to get Members out of here. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor is planning to change the regulations for overtime workers. They would make 1.4 million workers earning less than $22,000 a year eligible for overtime pay. That is a much needed adjustment which we support, but if the administration gets its way, an estimated 8 million workers will become ineligible for overtime because of changes in the rules. These include many of our first responders, firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency medical technicians who will no longer be eligible for overtime pay because the Bush administration is changing the definition of who is being covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amendment would stop the administrations from making those unprecedented change to the Fair Labor Standards Act by revising the regulations. It would save overtime pay for millions of working families. I am offering the amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining under the reduced time for each side?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, although I do not intend to take all of the time. I think we have already had the discussion; we might as well get to the votes just as quickly as possible. Let me simply explain what this amendment does. The Republican majority, as I said earlier, made a conscious decision over the last 2 years to provide $2 trillion in tax cuts, all of which were paid for with borrowed money; and by doing that, they decided they were going to put the Congress in a box and the Congress would, therefore, not be able to adequately fund a number of crucial investments, including education and health. This bill now is suffering from the consequences of that action. What we are trying to do by this amendment is to get the House to reconsider its decision. The gentleman from Texas said that those of us on the minority side of the aisle are desirous of raising taxes. This amendment does not raise taxes. What we are asking this House to do is to limit the size of the tax cut for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. We are asking to limit the size of that tax cut to $44,000 instead of the $88,000 tax cut that they would otherwise get, so that we can use that money for the following: In this amendment, which is one of two, we would simply reduce the size of that tax cut so that we could put $334 million into this bill for title I, which is the main education program that tries to help youngsters who need special help; but to get that help, we provide $334 million more to meet the promises of the Republican Party budget resolution. It is not our budget resolution; it is the budget resolution of our friends on the other side of the aisle. We would also add $1.2 billion to the special education portion of the bill, again, so that we meet the Republican budget resolution promise. We would increase the Pell grant maximum grant by a modest $150 million, or 4 percent over the subcommittee bill. In the health area, we would provide $73 million of additional funding for community health centers. We would continue to rebuild the capacity of our public health system to respond to potential biological or chemical terrorist attacks. We would provide a 5.5 percent overall increase for NIH for biomedical research so that we can continue the progress that we have made on cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, and many other diseases that plague mankind. We would eliminate the cut of the Low Income Heating Assistance Program and provide $450 million more. We would provide $151 million more for community service block grants. We would provide $170 million in recognition of the fact that the Social Security Administration's backlog for approving and reviewing disability cases has risen from 400,000 to 600,000 cases. As I said, what we are trying to do is to reestablish the linkage between actions taken on the tax cuts front and their implications for legislation such as the bill before us today. So with that, Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers on this side and I would simply seek a vote. And let me explain that if the gentleman lodges a point of order on this amendment, then what we will do instead of appealing the ruling to the Chair, what we will do instead is to simply at that point move to strike the enacting clause so that we can have a vote on whether or not you want to put the needs of millionaires for tax cuts ahead of the needs of our children for adequate education and health care. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

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