Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to first of all congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for doing his usual good job in trying to produce a bipartisan bill. As members of the committee know, our committee worked for 6 weeks and produced a bipartisan bill. And I want to tell you some of the things that it did to correct some of the chaos that we see in some of the agencies that are dealing with counterterrorism. We found out that the Department of Energy had asked for $380 million to upgrade security so that weapons of mass destruction and nuclear material would be less susceptible either to terrorist attack or theft. OMB only approved 7 percent of that money. The committee provided the amount that was needed. We also discovered that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had asked for $52 million because they had the reasonable idea that we ought to be able to determine which immigrants, or which persons here on visas I should say, had overstayed their visas; visas had expired; they had been asked to leave the country and, yet, had refused to do so. The INS wanted $52 million to set up a system to stop that nonsense. The OMB denied it all. The committee put in enough money to deal with the problem. The FBI, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has indicated that we discovered after September 11, the FBI had a great need for computer modernization. We discovered, for instance, that less than half the computers at the FBI could be used to send a picture of a suspected terrorist from one FBI office to another around the country. So last year, over the threat of a veto by the President of the United States, we inserted enough money to see to it that that problem was corrected. As a result, Operation Trilogy will be up and running by the end of this summer, and we will have that capacity at the FBI. In January, the FBI asked for an additional $635 million to secure their records and to take other actions necessary to protect against terrorism. OMB denied 625 of the $635 million, and the committee corrected that. In the last bill last year, we provided enough funds so that the Corps of Engineers could provide additional security for the hundred most vulnerable Federal sites in the country. The Corps of Engineers asked for an additional $128 million to deal with threats to additional sites. OMB denied it. The committee moved to take care of it. We also saw the chaos at the Transportation Security Administration, very well described in the committee report. That planning has been so bad that the agency, for instance, suggested that we ought to be paying the guards who are looking over the shoulders of screeners at airports up to $84,000 a year, more than local mayors, more than airport directors would be paid in those same towns. It provided for 650 additional headquarters staff people here in Washington. And yet the budget request provided no money to house the new screening equipment that airports are supposed to install. So there would have been no way that we could have met the deadlines for having that equipment up and running. And the administration requested insufficient dollars to make certain that cockpit doors are fully secure by the end of the calendar year. So the committee took actions to correct that. The OMB also turned down the request from the Department of Defense for $790 million to avoid the demobilizing of 20 percent of the Guard and Reserve forces who presently are filling slots on the border, in ports, on a temporary basis until people can be trained to take their place, and the committee took action to fix that problem. So I think that we had a good bipartisan product. Now, there were problems with the bill after it emerged from the full committee. We did have an amendment offered by the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), which gave the President the authority to use our military forces to invade The Netherlands, if necessary, in order to extract Americans who might be held by the World Court. I have a chart here labeled Tom DeLay's Proposed Invasion of The Netherlands. Gives you some idea of where The Hague is and what will be required by way of carrier capacity, tanker capacity, if we were to invade The Netherlands. If somebody wants to take that seriously, feel free. I think that it leaves us open to considerable ridicule. But in spite of that I was willing to support this bill. But then we had the leadership attach this ridiculous rule to this bill which provided a convenient device by which the Nation's indebtedness could be raised by $750 billion without any Member ever having voted on it directly, and they also imposed the House budget resolution, which will mean, I guarantee you, we will not have enough resources to produce appropriation bills that the House will pass. So we have seen again, and this has happened often in this House, we have seen an original bipartisan piece of legislation emerge from this committee, and we have seen it fundamentally screwed up by adding extraneous items that have no business on an appropriations bill. So I think we are going to be here a long time because some of us feel that the ability of the House to proceed in an orderly and fair- minded fashion is worth arguing about, and we will be doing that through a series of actions that we will be taking and amendments that we will be offering. I do ask one additional question. As I said, we have had 116 of our Republican friends offer a resolution requiring that a three-fifths vote of this House be required in order to raise the indebtedness of the United States, and yet we have seen this flip-flop action here today, and I would ask the following Members, Representatives Aderholt, Bachus, Barr, Barton, Bilirakis, Blunt, Bono, Brady, Bryant, Calvert, Cantor, Chabot, Crane, Culberson, DeLay, Doolittle, Dunn, English, Forbes, Gekas, Goodlatte, Graves, Hayworth, Herger, Baker, Bartlett, Bass, Boehner, I can't read that signature, Cannon, Castle, Chambliss, Cunningham, Deal, DeMint, Duncan, and all the others whose names I put in the Record earlier, I would ask them how they can go home to their constituents and tell them that they are going to vote to require a new higher threshold of votes on this House before the Nation can be plunged into more indebtedness and then engage in the flip-flop that they engaged in today whereby they have guaranteed that we will see a huge increase in national indebtedness when this bill comes back from the Senate? I find that to be quaint and interesting. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to include extraneous material immediately following my remarks on the rule that has earlier passed.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished deputy whip.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we all come here individually as politicians, and as we are assigned committees, as we develop expertise on substance, we become legislators, rather than mere politicians. On the Committee on Appropriations, I think it is safe to say that we can take people with the most extreme ideological differences, and if we send them out in the field to examine a problem, when they come back to this Chamber, 8 times out of 10 they will probably have the same ideas about how to deal with the problem. That is what happens in a legislative body when we have the normal course of give-and-take and the normal willingness to compromise. That is not just true of the Committee on Appropriations; it is supposed to happen on every other committee in the Congress. That is what is supposed to turn us into what we have been called when we have been called ``the greatest legislative, deliberative body in the world.'' But we have fallen a far, far pace from that on this bill. At least 6 times on major legislation, on patients' protection, the energy bill, the Airline Security Act, the Patriot Act, the pension reform, and welfare-to-work, each time, rather than running these bills through the committee process and accepting the committee result, we have seen the majority party leadership instead dictate a different result and dictate that a different package be brought to the floor. We are seeing the same thing here. We had a bipartisan bill which was the product of 6 weeks of hard work between the 2 parties on the Committee on Appropriations. Then when the committee went into full committee, a number of amendments were adopted. Some of them I did not like, but with the exception of the DeLay amendment, which gave the President the authority to engage in a military attack on The Netherlands, I basically had no real problem with what the committee did. But then it went to the Committee on Rules, and the instructions came down from on high that a number of extraneous items should be added to the bill. The first was that the House would deem that the budget resolution brought out by the Committee on the Budget months ago would be deemed now in effect. That produces for discretionary funding in the next fiscal year a level $10 billion below the level being spent this fiscal year. In the end, any knowledgeable Member of this House on either side of the aisle, and most especially knowledgeable Members on the Committee on Appropriations, understands that that is not deliverable. I do not believe that we will find a majority of votes on either side of the aisle for the education bill, for instance, that would be produced as a result of those limitations because I do not believe either party is going to cut President Bush's education budget. But that is what it requires. But the biggest outrage of all is this: We have in this rule a proposition which will allow seemingly innocuous language to be added, which is really the door-opener in order to raise the national debt, the limit on the national indebtedness, the limit on the Nation's credit card, by $750 billion. The plan is to have the Senate insert increased debt, and then have it come back here wrapped in a package so that no Member ever has to actually vote on that freestanding item. Yet they will force an increase in the Nation's credit card debt. And this proposition is being brought to us by a lot of the same people for the last year that have been parading all over this floor, talking about how they were going to support a constitutional amendment. This is a copy of H.J. Res. 86. There are 110 Republican sponsors on this resolution to require that not a dime of additional debt could be added without having a three- fifths vote of this House. Yet today this would facilitate raising the debt without individual Members having to stand up and take the heat for that vote. And if you take a look at the people who are listed on it, I would ask all of them how they can justify putting their names on this resolution and telling their constituents that they are against raising the debt without a full firm vote on it and then engaging in this sleight of hand. This resolution is sponsored by people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode); the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup); the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), my own State; and a variety of others. I would ask each and every one of them, how can you justify going to your constituents and saying you are going pass this constitutional amendment and then you flip-flop and come back here and do this? I do not think this process does a credit to the House, and I do not think it is a real process. I think it delays delivering money to the Pentagon that we need to get to the Pentagon in order to reimburse them for the costs of the war. This day, if we proceed to pass this rule, will not go down as one of the glory days in the history of the House. Bill Summary and Status for the 107th Congress

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not seek to pursue an evenhanded resolution. Mr. Arafat by his conduct does not deserve it. But this resolution makes all of its requests of the Palestinians, and none of Israel. It says nothing about the obligation of both parties under Resolution 242. It says nothing about the needs of Israel in the context of a final settlement to withdraw from settlements. It says nothing about the willingness to support a Palestinian state in the context of a full settlement. It therefore, in my view, makes it harder for us to be seen as a fair-minded broker, and it makes it more difficult for the administration to persuade the Arab world to take the actions they must take to achieve peace; and that in the end hurts Israel, it does not help it. I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can offer an alternative, the text of H. Res. 405, which makes clear our support for Israel in a more constructive way. I fully support Israel's right to defend itself, but I do not support Mr. Sharon's efforts to hang onto the settlements and crush legitimate Palestinian nationalism. This gag rule on the House this afternoon does no credit to this body. Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I include the text of H. Res. 405 that I would offer if the previous question is defeated, as well as the text of a Washington Post editorial on the subject. H. Res. 405 Whereas recent events in the Middle East, triggered by recent Palestinian suicide bombings, have created conditions under which the reestablishment of a nonviolent environment is highly unlikely without the active sustained leadership of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) stands in solidarity with Israel's right as a frontline state in the war against terrorism to take military action to end terrorist attacks, to dismantle terrorist infrastructure, and to provide security for its people; (2) remains committed to Israel's right to self-defense and to assisting Israel in exercising that right; (3) will continue to assist Israel in strengthening its homeland defenses; (4) condemns Palestinian suicide bombings and the ongoing support and coordination of terror by Yassir Arafat and other members of the Palestinian leadership; (5) insists that the Palestinian Authority fulfill its commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas; (6) urges all Arab states, particularly United States allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to declare their unqualified opposition to all forms of terrorism, particularly suicide bombing, and to act in concert with the United States to stop the violence; (7) urges Israel to make clear, in the context of the full settlement described in paragraph (8), its willingness to withdraw from occupied territories; and (8) urges all parties in the region to vigorously pursue efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state to exist within the context of full and normal relationships, which should include termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, Oh, little town of Bethlehem, we witness and we cry, Israelis and Palestinians, both practice eye for eye. Made blind by rage and terror, they make a just God cry, and crush the hopes of all the years while still more children die. Our senators and congressmen produce a rash appeal, selective words of blame are used, instead of words that heal. Put politics and word games before the cause of peace and make it still more difficult to bring the region peace.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan and his 26 years of outstanding public service. Dr. Koplan served as the Director of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention and the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, from 1998 until March of this year when he stepped down to continue his career in public health outside of the Federal government. We are very fortunate in this country to be able to attract some of the best minds and most talented professionals to public service. However, it is typically not their impressive educational training, professional experience, or list of accomplishments that distinguishes their public service careers. What we often remember most is the daily heart and soul that they devote to solving the myriad of problems and challenges that we as a nation expect our Federal, state and local governments to address. Despite the great responsibility we thrust upon leaders in public service, they toil in relative anonymity behind the agency acronyms that the world comes to rely upon. While Dr. Koplan is certainly well known and respected in the public health community and in Washington, there are untold millions of people in this country and throughout the world who he has in some way touched through his leadership at CDC who will never know his name--who will never know how he has given them the blessing of a healthier life through the often invisible efforts of public health programs that he has promoted and the thousands of CDC employees whom he has led. Dr. Koplan will be remembered for passion and aggressive actions he spurred CDC to take in addressing some of the most pressing public health concerns of our time. Not only has he led the CDC response to the tumultuous events of last Fall and our nation's first major bioterrorism event, but be has also called for a national response to an epidemic in obesity, efforts to control infectious diseases, reduce smoking, address chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, expand immunization coverage, and build the capacity and infrastructure of CDC and state public health departments. Dr. Koplan is simply an exemplary public servant who has made many personal sacrifices to advance public health. He is a man of great integrity, dedication, and humor. I, along with many Members of Congress, will greatly miss his leadership at CDC, and I wish he and his family all the best as they move on to other pursuits. In closing, just as Dr. Koplan received a standing ovation by CDC employees upon the announcement of his appointment as Director in 1998, upon his departure, I applaud his distinguished tenure and the honor that he has brought to that position.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there are two provisions in this bill which I think are of note. One is a bad provision which is here because of OMB, and the other is a good provision in the bill which is here despite OMB. This country has a serious need to purchase additional tankers. This bill does that. It meets our national responsibility in doing so. But because OMB would prefer to keep a pretty set of books, rather than saving the taxpayers money, it will cost us significantly more to lease those tankers than it would to buy them. That is unfortunate, but it was the only choice the committee was left with because OMB appears to be more concerned with accounting niceties than it is with fiscal realities or cost realities. And I think people need to understand that that regretful result is not the fault of the committee. I would hope that OMB in the future would recognize the need to allow reality to occasionally interfere with their philosophical biases. Second, as was indicated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), we do have $2.8 billion in this bill above the House bill for homeland security items. After the tragic events of September 11, on a bipartisan basis the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and I tried to put together a list of the actions that both sides of the aisle thought were necessary in order to improve the homeland security of the United States. That process was rudely interrupted, to say the least, by OMB, who informed us in rather blunt terms that they had all the wisdom, that they did not need to provide any additional funding, and that we could put a ``Wait 'Til Next Year'' sign on our homeland security needs. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that despite that resistance, the conferees brought back to this House a bill which contains crucial items that will increase the security of this country at home. I want to congratulate Senators Byrd and Stevens and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for helping to see to it that rationality prevailed over stubbornness. As a result, we have $664 million in this bill that was not contained in the House bill to protect the country against bioterrorist attacks; we have $50 million more in this bill to provide for cockpit security; we have law enforcement additions to the bill of over $407 million, including $208 million for the FBI so that they will be able to modernize their computer system by this coming summer, rather than having to wait until the year 2004. Right now the FBI has a large number of computers that cannot even send pictures of potential terrorists to other FBI terminals because they do not have the adequate computer capacity. This bill fixes that. The most crucial item of all is keeping weapons of mass destruction away from terrorists. We wound up with $382 million in additional funding in this bill above the amount that was originally in the House bill. We have $120 million of additional funding to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union so it does not fall into terrorists' hands. The bill provides $383 million for increased security for our Nation's ports and for our border, especially the Canadian border. For food safety, it increases the percentage of imported food subject to inspection from the present 1 percent to 10 percent, as we have been asking all along. It contains a number of other items which I will insert in the record. Mr. Speaker, I insert the table in the Record at this point.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I think what this bill demonstrates is that when committees are allowed to work in a substantive way, casting aside ideology or political views, the result is good for the country, and it is good for this institution, and I congratulate all of those involved.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman entertain a unanimous-consent request to change the January 10, 2002 date to January 10, 2003?

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

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), also a member of the subcommittee, and our new minority whip.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 20 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, every single American will benefit from the passage of this bill. Every single American has benefited over the last generation from the passage of similar labor, health, education, and social services bills. Every American family that cares about educating children should be pleased with this bill. This bill has also, through the years, absolutely revolutionized our ability to deal with disease. It has totally changed the way we attack disease. It has totally transformed our understanding of human disease, and it has armed us to provide some incredible advances in health care in the future. It is, to me, the most important bill that we pass each and every year in this House. I again appreciate everything that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) has done to help move this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.