Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Surely.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me ask another question under my reservation. Assuming that the Senate could pass the Department of Defense bill immediately, how long, in the gentleman's experience, does it usually take for the staff to put together the conference notes so that members of the conference understand what the differences are, and how long does it take usually after the conclusion of the conference for the staff to put together the required papers so that we know that what we vote on is what we actually agreed to in the conference?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation, I would like to ask the gentleman several questions. It is my understanding that the defense appropriations bill, and I do this because I think there are a lot of unrealistic expectations which are being directed at this committee by people who I do not think have sufficient appreciation for the detailed work that is required in order to produce legislation on, for instance, something as complicated as the defense bill. My understanding is that that bill is 197 pages long and is expected, by the time the Senate is finished deliberating on it, to contain literally thousands of differences between the House and the Senate; is that not correct?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply say that I think that is reasonable. That is in line with the original intent of the agreement that had been worked out. It just was not offered soon enough to be offered in a more pure fashion. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, and I were in a room negotiating that original $40 billion package after the events of September 11. We had agreed on about $32 billion, because we had assumed that it was going to cost about $10 billion to $12 billion in New York. Then a note was passed into the room telling us that the President had personally guaranteed the New York delegation that he would provide, in this bill, $20 billion. Later on that evening, when some Senators tried to unravel the deal, those of us who were in the room putting that deal together again remember that at one point they suggested that we ought to substitute language ``up to $20 billion.'' So I asked Mitch Daniels, the director of OMB, whether the language ``up to $20 billion'' would meet the commitment that the President had made or whether the language needed to be ``$20 billion,'' period. He said the commitment was $20 billion, period. Now we are being told that New York ought to settle for less in this bill. So I guess I've finally got this figured out. The commitment to New York is going to be kept, the administration is going to keep its commitment, but I guess they believe in keeping their commitments on the installment plan. That is not the way we do business around here and engender trust. It is a shame. New York ought to get the full $20 billion. The gentlewoman is right to offer this amendment. Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. OBEY. Well, all I can say is it certainly appears to me to do so, and I find that lack of consistency very interesting.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just rise to ask the gentleman a question. As I understand it, the gentleman just moved to strike in the previous amendment because it was legislating on an appropriations bill.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply note that the gentleman earlier today voted in such a way that made not only my amendment not in order, but it also made the very amendment that he is offering tonight not in order. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Now, reclaiming my time, is it correct that the gentleman is proposing an amendment that legislates on an appropriations bill?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what happened to New York was a terrible thing. When it happened, I was one of the four people in this Congress who helped negotiate a $20 billion what I thought was a rock hard commitment to New York to deal with the problems. Since then, the administration has tried to change the deal. Some people in the Congress have been trying to fix it. There is a right way and a wrong way to fix that problem. The wrong way is to try to fix it by stealing money from unemployed people in other States in the Union, which is what the arrangement was. What happened is that the administration's original $20 billion commitment has been chiseled down to $10 billion or so in this bill. Then, when there was a public eruption about that, the White House worked out a deal to take $2 billion, which had originally been requested by the President to help unemployed people in all 50 States in the Union, and instead, they moved that money only to help New York. That solved New York's problem only partially. It still leaves New York over $8 billion short. What it does to my State is take approximately $33 million away from unemployed people in my State. It does the same thing in Minnesota. That is on top of what the majority has already done to my State by their tax bill. My new Republican Governor in Wisconsin indicates that the actions of the Republican House tax bill will cost Wisconsin an extra $300 million on its State deficit. Now, how many times do they have to punch other States in the solar plexus in order to cover up the fact that they are welshing on the deal to New York? That is what they are doing, they are compounding the number of victims. In the end, they are not solving New York's problem, and all they are doing is making the problems of the rest of the States worse. Shame on people who do things like that. In this town and in this body, one's word is supposed to be one's bond. I think we ought to return to that understanding.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. OBEY. How could the gentleman? Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that the Chair is being asked to rule on whether or not this amendment is in absolute compliance with each and every rule of the House. The Committee on Rules, as I understand it, provided the very same waivers so that the underlying bill could be considered that it refused to provide so that this amendment could be considered. Because of that, the sad fact is that while this subject matter should be a part of this debate, we have in fact been gagged by the Committee on Rules because they chose to provide exemptions under the rules for the core bill while denying those very same exemptions to this amendment. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, while I believe deeply that we ought to be able to get a vote on this amendment, because I am confident if we could get a vote on it, it would pass, I must, in all honesty, concede the point of order, misguided though the rule was under which we are now operating.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we also have no objection on this side of the aisle.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, for years, modern military planners, have been telling us that we should be spending less on the big-ticket items that were necessary to fight last century's wars and, instead, do more to prepare ourselves for tomorrow's wars. Well, tomorrow is here and this amendment is trying to take that advice. We have been told we need to do more to deal with terrorism, more to deal with chem-bioterrorism, more to deal with cyberterrorism. That is what we are trying to do. I find it very interesting today that not a single speaker, to my recollection, has challenged the merits of this amendment. All they have said is, ``Wait, be patient.'' Maybe next year. Well, I guess that means we should ring up the terrorists on the telephone and say, ``Folks, we need a little more time to get our act together here at home; would you mind waiting until next year before you figure out where you are going to hit us next?'' I do not think we would get a very receptive reply. That is why we need to do everything that we know we can do, and we need to do it now. The threat today is just as imminent as it was on September 11, and we need to remember that. I am sorry, but I am impatient. I want us to expand our public health capabilities now. I want us to triple the Canadian border patrol as the Patriot bill promised but did not deliver; I want us to do that now. I want us to strengthen port security, not by a token amount, but by a large amount, now. I want us to provide those additional translators now. I want us to provide the FBI with computer upgrade capability now. I want us to take the actions necessary to protect our weapons production plants now. I do not want to wait for a supplemental, because we have no idea how long it will take to pass one, and we have no idea what other add-ons will be added to it, because everybody who loses an argument between now and Christmas, when the supplemental comes, will try to attach their pet projects to that bill. It will be much more expensive then than now. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have told me, ``I know you are right, we should be doing this, but we have to stick with our party leadership.'' I urge my colleagues instead to stick with their consciences, stick with what they know. They know we need to do more and they know we need to do it now. I urge my colleagues to vote that way.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me simply say I think the institution has experienced a great loss with the death of Fred Mohrman. As the chairman has indicated, he served this committee and this Congress for a good many years. He in fact served me for a brief period as staff director after I became chairman, and he was what I would call an institutional man. He cared deeply about this institution, and he cared deeply about the committee. He had that tough, old-fashioned sense of duty that characterized his entire generation, and this country and the world is far better off for it. He would have taken great pride in the fact that this year, despite all of the outside pressures that are brought to bear on this committee, that we managed to produce 12 out of 13 appropriation bills that were passed on a bipartisan basis, and 1 that was pretty close to doing the same. He recognized that we need to define our differences and then we need to find ways to resolve them, and he took great pride in the services that he provided each and every Member on both sides of the aisle. He performed a great public service to this country. He was a man of absolute integrity, and we were saddened and shocked to learn of his passing.

Mr. OBEY. I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, if I understand this correctly, this is what I refer to as a holy-picture amendment. The administration asked for 200-and-some million dollars for the Coast Guard. The bill before us cut it by $58 million. I tried earlier today to defeat the rule under which this bill is being considered so that we could add not just the $60 million that the gentleman is asking to be added to the Coast Guard's budget, but $223 million so that we could fully finance the increased pace of Coast Guard operations to combat terrorism for an entire year rather than the 6 months that is in the bill. I find it interesting that the gentleman voted against our efforts to in fact make in order the amendment which the House could under the rules have adopted, and yet is pursuing today an amendment which is clearly going to be ruled out of order. I find that effort enough to give inconsistency a bad name. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a State which has a number of very serious security threats which we are trying to correct in this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would like to respond to something the gentleman just said. He says that we should not be impatient because the airlines have taken care of their cockpit security. Yes, they have done it, on the cheap, Kmart style. The fact is that this bill contains $250 million less for cockpit security than the President recommended. It contains that lower amount of money because it added to the President's request for sky marshals. I agree that was a higher priority, but in my view both of them should be funded. You ask any citizen in America, Do you want those cockpit doors secured by a temporary device or do you want them secured in a way that will hold against the most professional attacks, and you know what the answer is going to be. They do not want us to be temporizing and they do not want us to be patient. They want us to be impatient, they want us to be aggressive, and they want us to act now.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).