Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, there is an old story about a second baseman for the old New York Giants, Eddie Stanky. Leo Durocher was the manager of the club. And during spring training, Durocher was hitting ground balls to the infield, and Stanky dropped two in a row. And so Durocher said, Kid, give me the glove. I will show you how it is done. So he went out to second base, and the very first ball hit to him Durocher dropped. And he turned to Stanky and said, Hey, kid, you got second base so screwed up, nobody can play. That is pretty much the situation that we face with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. And this bill spends $97 billion because we're in a mess. After 9/11, the Bush administration went after al Qaeda hiding in Afghanistan. That was a perfectly understandable response. They hit us and we tried to hit them back. But then the administration diverted their attention and their resources to a tragically wrong-headed war in Iraq, a country with no connection to 9/11. Seven years later, 33,000 American casualties later, more than 4,000 American deaths later, we now have a new President who has a commitment to try to end American combat in Iraq. He's also confronted with the mess in Afghanistan, which is made much worse because of the diversion of attention that should have been focused on that country over the past 7 years. And that job is made even more difficult because of the impact of events in Pakistan on Afghanistan. Now, the President cannot wave a magic wand and end that war. He has inherited what I consider to be the worst foreign policy mess from his predecessor in the history of the country, a three-country regional mess. Now, he has decided that he will try to refashion our efforts in Afghanistan to give us a better chance to stabilize the situation. I hope I'm wrong, but I am forced to say that I significantly agree with the gentleman from California. I have a profound doubt that he can succeed, not because of any problem with his policy but because I am dubious that there are the tools available in that region for us to succeed using any policy. The tools we have to rely on for want of any others are the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Afghanistan. And I feel that they are both hugely unreliable reeds to lean upon, which is why I think that in that region we are unfortunately in an Eddie Stanky situation, because those governments are corrupt, they are weak, they are chaotic, they appear to lack the focus and cohesion and effectiveness to turn the countries around. Nonetheless, it's clear to me that there is a consensus to try to do something to stabilize the situation. If we're going to go down that road, I want the President to get everything that he asked for and then some to maximize his chances for success. And that is what this bill does. I frankly have very little faith that it will work. I came here in 1969, 3 months after Richard Nixon became President. I was vehemently opposed to the Vietnam War. But Nixon correctly pointed out that he had inherited that war from his Democratic predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. And so I thought, well, it's reasonable for him to ask for some measure of time to see whether he could move the policy forward. So I decided to give him a year before I started speaking out against the war, and that's what I did. I'm pretty much in the same situation today, and that's why this bill contains the following language. It says: ``Because the stability and security of the region is tied more to the capacity and conduct of the Afghan and Pakistani Governments and to the resolve of both societies than it is to the policies of the United States, the President shall submit a report to Congress not later than the date of submission of the fiscal year 2011 budget, assessing whether the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are, or are not, demonstrating the necessary commitment, capability, conduct, and unity of purpose to warrant the continuation of the President's policy. The President, on the basis of information gathered and coordinated by the NSC, shall advise the Congress on how the assessment requires, or does not require, changes to that policy. The measures used to evaluate the Afghan and Pakistani Governments' record of concrete performance shall include the following standards of performance: ``Number one, level of political consensus and unity of purpose across ethnic, tribal, religious, and party affiliations to confront the political and security challenges facing the region. ``Two, level of government corruption and action taken to eliminate it. ``Three, performance of the respective security forces in developing a counterinsurgency capability, conducting counterinsurgency operations, and establishing population security. ``Four, performance of the respective intelligence agencies in cooperating with the United States on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations and in purging themselves of policies, programs, and personnel that provide material support to extremist networks that target U.S. troops or undermine U.S. objectives in the region. ``Five, ability of the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to effectively control the territory within their respective borders.'' So there are no deadlines, no conditions, no timelines. But there are very clear measurements against which we should be able to judge the performance of the Afghanistan and Pakistani Governments. I believe that if this policy fails, it will not fail because of any lack of imagination or effort on the part of this administration.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another 5 minutes. If that policy fails, in my judgment it will fail because of the failure of the two governments in the region to do what's necessary to save their own countries. I hope I can come here a year from now when we are evaluating the President's policy and evaluating the performance of those two governments. I hope I can say my judgment was wrong, these countries have performed far better than we expected. But only time will tell. I think we have no choice but to give the President a shot. It's a miserable situation that he has inherited, and he does not have a good hand to play. Having said that, I also want to note that, in addition to dealing with this problem, we deal with a number of other problems in this bill. We deal, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) indicated, with the need to renew our ability to provide farm loans. We deal with the need for additional food aid around the world. We deal with the need to add $500 million to the President's request to deal with the pandemic flu problem that could be facing us. We've had over 11,000 layoffs of public health officials at the State and local level, and that is not going to stand us in good stead if we have to deal with the flu pandemic, so we're trying to fill those holes. So let me simply close, Mr. Speaker, by saying this is a bill that I have very little confidence in, but I have a responsibility as committee chairman to move the process forward. I think we have a responsibility to give the new President, who did not get us into this mess, the best possible opportunity to get us out of it. So that's what this bill attempts to do. I make no apology for it. I urge support for it. I want to thank the staff especially for their work, especially led by Beverly Pheto of the central office and the staff members on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the hard work done by the Appropriation subcommittee Chairs and ranking members and other members of the committee as well. I appreciate the frustration of each and every Member of this House. This is a no-win bill no matter how you vote on it. It's a mess. And let's hope that with God's help we can get out of it in a reasonably decent time.

Mr. OBEY. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. OBEY. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we have heard many a lecture from the other side of the aisle about spending levels, but this proposal would add $3 billion to the spending levels in this bill, and it would eliminate a rescission that saves us money, a rescission that's been endorsed by Secretary Gates. It also takes $200 million out of the global financial crisis fund, which is the last thing we ought to do at a time when we have a worldwide financial crisis that is threatening our own economy as well as others around the world. Thirdly, it eliminates the Pakistani counterinsurgency fund for next year, which has already been endorsed by Secretary Gates. And lastly, with respect to Mexico, it purports to add $200 million to deal with drug problems in Mexico. The bill already contains $400 million directly for aid to Mexico, plus another $350 million in the Department of Defense. And I would point out that in the stimulus bill, which virtually every Member on that side of the aisle voted against just a few short weeks ago, we provided an over $700 million increase to deal with our border problems. All in all, between the omnibus and the stimulus, we already raised funding for that by 10 percent. So I would suggest this is a financial double game and that we turn down the motion. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 2346, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous and tabular material on H.J. Res. 38.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, this proposition simply keeps the government open until midnight on Wednesday so we can complete our business. I urge its adoption. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I don't know how many of us remember the old song, ``Shine on Harvest Moon.'' I'm reminded this morning more of ``Whine on Harvest Moon'' when I hear some of the complaints lodged about budget practices by our friends on the other side of the aisle. I also am tempted to ask where on Earth is Herbert Hoover, but then I come to the realization, which is obvious, that he is alive and well, and resides in the House Republican caucus. I find it strange to be lectured by folks on that side of the aisle, the folks who did such a ``brilliant'' job of running this institution and in running this economy and in running this country for the last 8 years. I find it interesting to be lectured on fiscal responsibility by people who borrowed $1.2 trillion in order to pay for tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest people in this country, all on borrowed money. I find it interesting to be lectured by people who managed to borrow almost $1 trillion so far to fund what I regard as the most avoidable and dumbest war in American history, in Iraq, who paid for the whole war on the cuff. I find it ironic to be lectured about earmarks by the party that spent twice as much money on earmarks as we are spending since we took over and reformed the earmarking process. I also find it interesting to be lectured about economics by the folks who presided over a government which, in the words of FDR, was frozen in the ice of its own indifference while 90 percent of all of the income growth in this country in the past 8 years went into the pockets of the wealthiest 10 percent of people in our society, leaving everybody else to struggle for table scraps. So I do find all of that interesting, but I don't find it particularly productive, and I think we ought to get back, not to what we don't like or do like about what has happened in this institution, but I think we ought to focus instead on what is happening outside this institution to average Americans all over the country. As has been noted several times this morning, the recent figures out of the Labor Department now indicate that unemployment has now risen above 8 percent. We're told by the most reputable economists in the country that it's liable to rise above 10 percent or even significantly worse. We see almost 700,000 new workers who are unemployed today in comparison to last month. We have lost 3 million jobs since the Democratic Party in the House tried to produce the first economic stimulus bill, modest though it was, in September of last year. We are now debating a bill which is $20 billion for education, for health care, for science, and the like, which is $20 billion above the budget request made by President Bush last year. That sounds like a lot of money until you compare it to the $200 billion that this economy has already lost because of its shrinkage just in the last 3 months of last year, and that $20 billion in increased government funding looks mighty small in comparison to the $200 billion more that we expect to have seen the economy shrink by in the first 3 months of this year, leaving a total hole in the economy for just that 6-month period of $400 billion. We are trying in this bill to provide the funding, which was the base for the stimulus bill that we passed just 3 weeks ago in this place, and they are intimately related to each other. This is an integral part of what we did in the stimulus package, which is supported by the American people in the most recent polls by well over 60 percent of the American public. They understand, when the economy is contracting at a record rate, squeezing millions of Americans out of the circle of prosperity, that we've got to respond to try to reinflate that economy again, and so this bill plays a small but crucial role in doing that. Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle say we should just do a full year's CR. Well, if you do, you will come in virtually, identically, very close, at least, to President Bush's budget request for these programs. I don't think in a time of near economic collapse that we want to do that. I don't believe that we want to eliminate the funds in this bill that are meant to deal with the Social Security/ disability backlog. I don't believe that we want to see the Federal Housing Administration cease to have the ability to issue mortgage insurance in April, as would be the case if we simply provided funding at the level that our friends want us to provide under their motion to recommit. I don't believe that we should follow a course of action which would mean that we could provide no new targeted vouchers for disabled and homeless veterans. I don't believe that we should eliminate the $37 million that we have in this bill to enhance enforcement, oversight and investor protections at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Neither do I believe that we ought to cut these programs to the level supported and requested by President Bush last year. If we did that, we would be cutting the Job Corps by $46 million. We would be eliminating the employment service grants. We would be cutting senior jobs programs by $172 million. We would be eliminating vocational education. We would be terminating the Community Services Block Grant program and so many others. So I think the point is obvious. We really have operating here two different parties with two different visions for the future of this country, and we believe that when the private sector is essentially collapsing, as it is right now, that the government has an opportunity to step in and do what it can through fiscal policy and through supporting crucial programs, such as contained in the omnibus bill, so that we can counter the economic destruction that's going on in the private sector of the economy. That is what this bill tries to do. If Members are more comfortable with the idea that we should simply glide along, do nothing and stick to the way we did things last year, be my guest. I don't think that's going to help the economy very much. I don't think it's going to impress the American people very much. So I would urge the rejection of the motion to recommit when it's offered, and I would urge the passage of this resolution. In the end, the passage of this resolution is necessary in order to keep the government open, and that's what we ought to do today by passing this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the motion, and I urge passage of the resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I think the regular process would have been for the administration not to promulgate a new rule after the election when they were no longer accountable.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I detest the word ``blame,'' and I don't want to use it in these circumstances. I don't want to say that we're here today because I blame President Bush for our differences on these bills. I would prefer to put it another way: The President simply proposed budgets for the domestic appropriations which would have cut the Job Corps by $50 million. It would have eliminated the employment service by $103 million. It would have eliminated senior jobs programs. It would have eliminated vocational education. It would have eliminated Perkins, SEOG and LEAP student aid programs. It would have funded highway infrastructure $800 million below the level guaranteed in the authorization bill. It would have cut airport modernization grants by 22 percent. It would have eliminated the Community Service Block Grant Program. It would have cut health care access programs by $1 billion. It would have cut low-income heating assistance by $570 million. Outside of that, it was a terrific budget. So we simply had a stark disagreement with the White House. We simply had a difference of opinion. The President said he would not sign these domestic bills unless we accepted his level of cuts. We said, ``Sorry, but that's not the way the budget process works. We're supposed to be able to proceed, and so long as we confine the spending to the amount limited in the budget resolution, we're supposed to be able to proceed. That amount was some $20 billion at variance from President Bush's budget.'' So we offered to the White House to at least split the difference. We offered to sit down and to negotiate and to split the difference right down the middle. The White House declined. So we said, okay, if that's the case, we're simply going to wait, take our chances on the election and hope that we elect somebody to the White House who will negotiate like an adult. Now that is what has happened. So we bring this bill here today. It essentially does two things: It provides the base funding for programs that are funded in the recovery act, without which the additional recovery funding could not succeed. Example, of the operating budget for the Social Security Administration. Example, the other half of the 50 percent that we need to keep our promises on Pell Grants. Example, the $40 billion we need to keep our commitments on highway construction. The omnibus also funds numerous critical programs not funded in the recovery act. We only touched about 20 to 25 percent of government accounts in providing funding in the recovery act. The other 75 percent of government did not receive any additional funds in that recovery act, and so we simply provided those funds in this bill. That is what we are doing. With respect to earmarks, I would simply say that the process that we're following today is far more transparent than it was in the so- called ``good old days.'' In the ``good old days,'' subcommittee Chairs would come to the floor. They would pretend that there were not earmarks in these bills, and then they would call up the agency and say, ``Hey, boys. I want you to do A, B, C, D, E, and F,'' and they would do A, B, C, D, E, and F totally hidden from public view. Instead, today, you may not like the fact that Congress participates on an equal constitutional footing, but the fact is, under the process today, every single earmark that is out there has to be identified by name. It is on the Web, and people can examine them to see whether they think they're deserving or not.

Mr. OBEY. I only have 30 seconds. My point is I understand they began the rule a long time ago, but they did not promulgate it until after the election and all this does-- this does not reverse the rule; it simply gives the new administration the latitude to determine whether they should go ahead or not. It leaves the situation in neutral, and I think that's a fair thing to do.

Mr. OBEY. Sure.

Mr. OBEY. Now, from a standpoint of personal convenience, as chairman of the committee, I would much prefer that there would not be earmarks because then I wouldn't have to spend so much time in a hassle about them, but the fact is they represent the hole in the donut. Earmarks today are less than 1 percent of all of the funds in this bill. As a percentage of Federal spending, we have cut earmarks in half in this bill. I think that's doing pretty well. There are some people in this place who think that because Duke Cunningham fouled the nest with his corrupt practices that somehow we should eliminate all earmarks. With all due respect, that's like saying, because somebody gets drunk behind the wheel of a car, you ought to abolish the automobile. The fact is, without the earmarking process, the White House and its anonymous bureaucrats would make every single spending decision in government. So, if you're a well-connected corporation and you've got some buddies in the Pentagon, you can sit down on the inside and work out sweetheart deals, and nobody will ever be the wiser. Earmarking may have its problems like any other human endeavor, but at least it's out in the open. You can measure it. There is a degree of accountability that never existed before we proceeded with these reforms. I am proud of those reforms, and every Member of this body who voted for them on both sides of the aisle should be proud, too.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 184, I call up the bill (H.R. 1105) making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBEY. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).