Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I was horrified to learn of Wayne Owens' death last week when I was at C- SPAN, just about to go on their morning program, and saw the news come across the bottom of the screen that Wayne had died the day before. Wayne and I were neighbors when I was first elected to Congress. He and his wife lived right next door to my wife and I in Arlington in rented homes. He was then chief staff assistant to Senator Kennedy. I got to know Wayne first as a friend and then I got to know him as an even stronger friend when he became a colleague of so many of us in the House. And after he left this House, as has been mentioned, he devoted a good deal of his time to the cause of peace, especially in the Middle East. He was a strongly religious man. He prided himself on being a Christian and he took the responsibilities that come with that very seriously. One of those responsibilities, in his view, was the obligation that all of us have as the more comfortable members of the human race on this planet to reach out to try to help those who are not in such comfortable circumstances. He would have been appalled to see the lack of a sense of shared sacrifice that so often permeates what political leaders do these days. But he never forgot his obligations to himself, to his maker, and to his fellow man to take into account always the needs of others. He was one of the least selfish human beings I have ever known, and he believed passionately that in the Middle East, the center of so many of the world's religions, that there ought to be a way to bring the parties closer to each other to avoid the violence and bloodshed that has plagued that region of the world for so long. He is a tremendous loss not just to his family, but to all of us who took daily inspiration from his lack of cynicism and his profound human decency. I thank the gentleman very much for holding this special order, and I appreciate also the comments of my colleagues in tribute to this wonderful man.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Exactly, with one critical difference. The difference is that the people who are going to be helped by the unemployment compensation extension if we get our way, they need that help immediately. That is an immediate crisis for them. Whereas with the homeland security bill, this is simply a reorganization of boxes that will begin to take place sometime next year. And, I would point out, they do not even have a building selected yet where the new agency is going to be located. So there is no immediate action that would be prevented by the delay in the passage of homeland security, but there most certainly is an immediate consequence of not taking up an extension of unemployment benefits for those almost million souls who need help.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as a practical matter, the only thing that stands between providing these needed unemployment benefits, the only thing that stands between our doing that is the refusal to approve bringing the bill up by the House Republican leadership and the House Republican committee chairman.

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

Mr. OBEY. Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. OBEY. Absolutely. As I said, a belated Christmas present to those who need help the most.

Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I am informed that H.R. 3529 is at the desk, so all we would have to do to solve this problem is to take that bill up immediately and pass it.

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

Mr. OBEY. Continuing under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying that the Senate did not pass its version of the unemployment compensation bill? My understanding is that the Senate version is at the desk.

Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, but it is my understanding that the Senate did pass the Nickles proposal, which is a 3-month extension, and that H.R. 3529, as amended, is at the desk.

Mr. OBEY. That is correct. I guess the congressional slogan would be, ``Have a worried Christmas and an unhappy New Year.''

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I know concern has been expressed that if a Member objects to this motion today that somehow that will endanger the homeland security bill. I do not believe that to be the case at all, because nothing is more pitiful than a flock of politicians in full flight, and the fact is that politicians are scared green to vote against this legislation, despite the fact that it is masquerading as something that it most surely is not. I thank the gentleman from Texas, because the gentleman has played a constructive role in improving the bill considerably than the one originally brought down from the White House, but I question the assumption that if an objection is lodged today that somehow this bill will not pass. Because, in my judgment, any bill labeled homeland security is going to pass, regardless of what is in it because politicians are afraid to look at the details, and they are afraid to go to the public with the details. But, in fact, if we take a look at this legislation, and I want to state explicitly I am opposed to this legislation as it now stands. The major reason I am opposed to it is because of what it does to our ability to defend the homeland. Now we certainly do need a reorganization, but the fact is that we did not reorganize the Pentagon during World War II, we waited until the war was over because we recognized that there would be incredible turmoil associated with trying to reorganize the military during a war. Well, we are in a war now, and the fact is that, despite the fact that we are in a war against terrorism, we are simply going to see thousands of bureaucrats over the next 2 or 3 or 4 years be focused on where their new offices are, where their desks are, who is their new boss, how they are going to get along with their boss, and I think it is going to create substantial vulnerability during that window of time. I am not all that panicked about when this reorganization passes. What I am almost panicked about is the fact that this reorganization will move the boxes without putting the resources necessary into homeland security to actually see to it that these agencies can do their jobs. Example, we are still substantially underfunding the FBI's computer system. Example, we are not doing nearly what is necessary to protect our ports from the kind of terrorist attacks that could befall us at any moment. Example, we are not doing nearly enough to deal with the problems that we have on the Canadian border. And there are many other examples of financial shortcomings that we have in our homeland security effort. All Members have to do is look at the comments of the Secretary of Energy and his plea to OMB to provide additional resources to deal with radioactive material. I think there are plenty of solid reasons to question the lack of content in this homeland security reorganization package. This is not a homeland security bill. This is a homeland security agency reorganization, but it will not be made effective policy until dollars are put into these agencies to meet the challenges that we have been told by the people who run these agencies must be met if they are to do their jobs. I think, therefore, that it would not be a bad thing if we had more time to deal with this issue to actually put the resources in that are needed. But, even getting beyond that, I want to suggest that there are several other reasons why the public interest is not served by passage of this bill. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) just cited one of them. I find it ironic as I listened to him this morning that the first issue that I became involved in when I came to the Congress a long time ago was the issue of mercury poisoning. I remember Wright Patman from Texas also being concerned about the issue at that time. I do not know what the facts are with respect to the mercury issue that the gentleman from Indiana raised this morning, but I do know that provision insulating the drug companies on that issue has no blessed business being in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I suppose in a way this bill is a fitting end to this Congress. It is a shameful end to a pitiful and neglectful Congress, so I suppose it is a fitting emblem to summarize the work of this institution over the past 2 years. But I find it outrageous that the Congress is going to find room in its heart to help the poor downtrodden drug companies on the issue just mentioned by the gentleman from Indiana but will not find room in their hearts to deal with the problems of the long-term unemployed. I have a very simple question that I will ask the majority leader at the end of my comments, and I will let him know ahead of time what it is going to be. My question is, if I withdraw my objection to consideration of the technical amendments to this bill, would the majority party leadership allow a motion to allow H.R. 3529 to come before this body, which is Senator Nickles' proposal on unemployment compensation? Or would they allow it to come to the floor in the compromise form that I am told Senator Nickles and Senator Daschle indicated they would agree to yesterday in an effort to try to salvage something for the unemployed at the Christmas season? The problem is that without action on unemployment compensation to extend the Federal program, 830,000 people will be cut out of unemployment benefits on December 28, a belated Christmas present from a very comfortable and neglected Congress, and yet every week after that, an additional 95,000 people will lose State unemployment pension benefits. And that will happen because of a disagreement within the Republican Party about how to handle the unemployment compensation proposal. As I understand it, the Senate proposed a bill in the form of their amendment to H.R. 3529 which would extend temporary Federal benefits to March 29, a 3-month bridge. The House Republican leadership, I understand, has been insisting that they will stick to the House-passed bill, which provides relief for only three States, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, for a very short period of time. The Senate, in an effort to compromise, I am told, had agreed to cut back the extension in their proposal to 2 months, and when the House GOP leadership objected, according to the reports that I have seen in the paper, then the Senate leadership agreed to cut back their proposal to a 1-month extension, and still we are told that the House Republican chairman of the committee of jurisdiction objected even to that compromise proposal. So the Congress is here insisting on playing Scrooge at Christmas time when we ought to be showing a little mercy. I do not understand that kind of logic. I do not understand that kind of priorities. If you take a look at the bill to which we are asked to provide unanimous consent this morning, not only does it contain the special favor to the drug industry that does not belong in the bill, it also relaxes a ban on the issuance of homeland security contracts to companies that establish foreign tax havens in order to avoid U.S. taxes. That is also outrageous. So we have room to allow corporations to change their mailing address to Bermuda so they can avoid pulling their fair share of the load for the expenses incurred by the United States Government in defending those corporations and everyone else in this society, but we do not have enough room to take care of the unemployed workers who are stuck here without jobs at home. That is to me an incredible contrast in what this House is willing to allow and what it is not. I frankly do not know what I should do at this point, because I am told that if I refuse to withdraw my objection, that all that will happen is that the House will come back and they will pass this bill and the House Republican leadership will still do nothing on the unemployment compensation front. So I am not quite sure what the right course of action is to take at this point. But at this point, I would ask the majority leader whether or not if I withdraw my objection to the motion pending, the House Republican leadership would allow H.R. 3529 to also be brought up under unanimous consent so that we can provide the additional unemployment compensation that was attempted by the other body?

Mr. OBEY. Well, of course it is no answer.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I would ask the majority leader another question. Would he be willing to recess the House in order to check once again with the rest of his leadership to determine whether or not they would allow H.R. 3529 extending unemployment compensation benefits, the bill which is now at the desk having been received from the Senate, whether they would be willing to allow that bill to be reconsidered yet today?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to make certain that my understanding is that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is going to be recognized first on a reservation of objection. I just want to make certain that I will also be recognized under a reservation of objection.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation, what the response of the majority leader demonstrates to me is that in the mind of the Republican leadership of this House, it is perfectly all right to include in the homeland security bill a provision that stops lawsuits now pending in State courts regarding injuries that some people feel are caused by the preservative mentioned by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) in his comments. They feel evidently that it is all right to stop those lawsuits currently pending in court and require the families to instead start all over by going through a Federal compensation program. But it is not all right for us to try to deal with the problems of the unemployed. We must allow an additional 800,000 plus people to lose what meager income they have under unemployment, because of the priority warp that we hear from the other side of the aisle. I just find that amazing. I would also say that I disagree with the gentlewoman from Texas in one respect: there is a very definite difference between the President and the Congress on homeland security, and the difference is that I have more than 100 pages that lay out the record of congressional efforts to add more money to homeland security above and beyond the amount requested by the President so that we can make this reshuffling of boxes meaningful and actually deliver some security product to the American people, rather than just a juggling of the administrative and bureaucratic boxes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would simply say I respect very much the majority leader's determination protecting the rights of each individual Member of this body, but I also think those Members have obligations. I am here today because I have serious reservations about proceeding without dealing with the problems of the unemployed, and if there are other Members who are opposed to dealing with the problems of the unemployed, then they ought to be here to express those objections. I continue to be frustrated by the fact that they are not.

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I would simply say that I find it quaint indeed that somehow, those of us who have tried for over a year to do substantially more to beef up our financial efforts against terrorism that somehow, our raising questions about the organization of that effort somehow indicates that we do not care as much as the President of the United States about defending the homeland. We obviously do. But I would point out that the record demonstrates that as long ago as a year ago, the President resisted the efforts on a bipartisan basis that were made in the Congress to add $4 billion to the President's budget for homeland security operations, and in July of this year, he effectively vetoed about $3 billion in additional funding for homeland security efforts, and yet today, somehow, it is terribly urgent that the boxes be reorganized this month rather than next month. Mr. Speaker, it has been made crystal-clear by the majority leader that in his words, it would be ``to no avail'' for us to ask that the House be recessed in order to try to gain approval of the majority leadership to proceed with the unemployment compensation legislation. So I guess what he is saying is that any effort to delay this bill, in an effort to accomplish that would be futile.

Mr. OBEY

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