Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, two additional questions I would like to have answered. What is the position of the administration? Are they recommending this or are they not? Secondly, what is the budget scoring associated with this proposal? My understanding is that when we were considering loan guarantees for Amtrak, that scoring for loan guarantees was 100 percent. If that is the case, in this instance we are looking at a $15\1/2\ billion package here.

Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, if the gentleman will yield further, we still have not heard an answer to the gentleman from Kentucky's question. It does not mean that we have to go that way, but we would like to know why that option was rejected when he has proposed it and the gentleman from Florida has proposed it. I have two other questions I would like to get out here because we are trying to work this out. We are not trying to block this. We are trying work it out, but we need some cooperation from the people who say they want this. Other questions I have, I still do not know what the position of the administration is, and I need to know from them. I would ask the gentleman from Missouri or anyone else who might know. We are being asked to spend what could be up to $15.5 billion. Good-bye, Social Security.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman from Minnesota consider yielding to the gentleman from South Carolina to answer the question about the Federal Reserve?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me say I do not think anyone who is raising questions tonight is trying to do anything except meet our constitutional responsibilities to know what we are doing before we spend taxpayers' money. Now, the gentleman from Alaska is a good friend of all of ours; and he has conveyed to us a sense of urgency and he has also conveyed the message that somehow if we do not do what he wants, do it on the basis of almost no explanation and something bad happens, it is our fault. I would suggest I would like to have fewer threats and more information. How about less rhetoric and more information. I would like to ask some questions. I would like to ask some questions if the gentleman would yield. We have had no hearings on this. We have had no statement of position from the administration. My staff was told by some proponents of this proposition that OMB was in fact recommending it. When we called OMB, they indicated that while they had a person in the room, that person was there for observation purposes and as a resource only; that they did not have a position. Not a single person from the administration has contacted, to my knowledge, any member of the Committee on Appropriations when we were in the conference last night arranging the dollars which the gentleman now is seeking to spend, or at least was originally. I do not think a single person from the industry talked to any of the conferees last night to explain why this needed to be turned into an appropriation. I do not have any answer to the question of what authority the Federal Reserve has in this situation. I had been given the impression today that the Federal Reserve had some authority to establish a fund to provide loan guarantees. I would like to know what authority the Federal Reserve has. If they have not exercised that authority, I would like to know why people think they have not exercised that authority. These are all reasonable questions that every Member, Republican or Democrat alike, has the right to have an answer to. I would also like to note if it is being proposed, why is it not being proposed as a mandatory under those pay-go rules rather than adding to our discretionary spending? The supplemental that we passed earlier today grew in 2 days' time from $5 billion to $20 billion to $40 billion, and now people want to spend an additional $15.5 billion. That is enough to give Topsy a bad name. Now, we have laid out a lot of questions, and I have one very serious procedural question. The language in the proposal the gentleman seeks to introduce says, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President is authorized from funds made available in subsequent acts to take the following actions,'' blah, blah, blah. Now, that language, as it stands, is reasonable. But what happens if we allow this to come to the floor? What happens if the Senate, when they come back into session, takes this bill, strikes that language and allows my colleagues to take all of the money out of the funds that were just appropriated for the purposes which we appropriated before on the floor earlier?

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, do we have the assurance of all of the bill managers that if the Senate in fact deletes this language that this legislation will not be brought to the floor?

Mr. OBEY. Does the House leadership provide that same commitment?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think if this is to be considered tonight, and I think, obviously, there are other Members with other concerns, and I still have not heard an answer to the Federal Reserve question, which I think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) may have some information on, but I think it would be very important, and I would like to hear what the gentleman from Florida says on this matter; but I think it would be very important to have understandings across the board, including from the leadership, that if that were to occur in the Senate, this vehicle would not be brought back to the House and that we would start anew with new legislation.

Mr. OBEY. That is contrary to the information from my staff.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the final 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, this is a shattering experience of unprecedented proportion; but I say to every American, we have endured worse. We have gone through two world wars, Vietnam, Korea, the burning of the Capitol itself in 1812, the Civil War. I think we need to remember the words of President Lyndon Johnson when he stood at that podium and addressed this Congress on civil rights after the death of Martin Luther King: we shall overcome.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a key member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who represents the area devastated by the act on the Pentagon.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), who has at this moment, as I understand it, a member of his own family missing in New York.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a key member of the Committee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and one of the House's resident experts on aviation safety.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a key member of the committee and the former ranking member of the Committee on Intelligence, a member of the Subcommittee on Defense, and virtually every other committee that has anything to do with military affairs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the distinguished ranking member on the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 14 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a response to the worst attack on U.S. soil in the history of our republic. That attack requires a response which is focused, strong, mature, and lasting. That attack requires a response that is based on solid unity, and that unity must be based upon the recognition of and the overcoming of our differences, not in the ignoring or the papering over of our differences. That is the only way to provide true unity over the long haul. Very frankly, twice in the last 2 days I was concerned that that unity would not come about. This morning I can tell every Member of this House without question that those divisions have been overcome during negotiations on this bill, and I think it is important that some Members who have some misgivings understand the history of this bill. During negotiations on this bill, money has never been an object. Make no mistake about it, this committee, this body, will provide whatever resources are needed to respond to this challenge, not just today, not just tomorrow, but for as long as it takes; but it is crucial in our rush to a response that we preserve and protect the institutional arrangements that have been the very foundation of our liberty since the Constitution was first written. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has essentially only two powers that mean anything in the scheme of things. The first is the War Power; the second is the power of the purse. Very frankly, I am sad to say because of the nature of the times that we live in, the nature of technology and our own history over the last 30 years, the Congress' power to determine when we go to war has substantially eroded. Today, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, it is, frankly, the President who decides whether we will pull the trigger. But that means that Congress has a double obligation under the oath that we all took, to maintain the power of the purse. And we do not do that for turf reasons; we do it because that is the fundamental power that Congress has, to preserve liberty for every American. Let me give some practical examples. These may seem mundane, but they go to the core of the relationship between branches of government. The World Trade Center in New York, I have no idea how that is going to finally be rebuilt, but at some point I think it is safe to say there may be a question about whether the Federal Government plays a role in funding that. I do not know what the outcome of that will be, but I do know that Congress as an institution has a right to be involved in those decisions. This is not a decision that can just be made by one branch of government unilaterally. The subway damage in New York. Decisions about the shape and nature of Federal involvement in repairing the subway must be made on a collaborative basis between the two branches of government. Public safety at airports. That is our first line of defense against terrorism and that failed this week. We are going to have major decisions made about how safety at airports are upgraded. The Congress must be able to take advantage of the expertise that people in this body have, people like the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and others who know a great deal about this. That expertise can be brought to bear only by congressional participation in those decisions. These are just some fairly mundane examples, but they are important in the long-term scheme of things. The first package that was presented to us was, frankly, a blank check; and to the credit of the people involved, that approach was rejected. This bill provides unprecedented grants of authority to the President, but it does retain reasonable congressional ability to make its own judgments about how this money ought to be spent, and I want to describe what it does. This bill is a down payment on the efforts of this country to undertake to find and punish those who committed this terrible act and those who supported them, and it is a downpayment on providing the resources necessary to rebuild this Nation. It provides an initial payment of $40 billion to help the victims repair the damage, upgrade our security, and begin the military preparations to find and destroy the perpetrators of these deplorable and despicable acts. $10 billion will be available immediately upon the signature of the President and will be spent in areas of government that he deems appropriate under consultation with the Congress. A second $10 billion will become available after he has published his plans for its use. The Congress will have 15 days to review those plans, and I fully expect that there will be a respectful relationship between the two branches of government in ironing out any misgivings that Congress might have with respect to any of those plans. Next, an additional $20 billion will be spent based upon the submission of a Presidential budget request and an action by the Congress in the regular appropriations bills that we will be sending to the President in the weeks ahead. Half of this money will be for responding to domestic cleanup, reconstruction, and humanitarian needs. The remainder will be for tightening security in military operations. In addition, Congress will be considering defense appropriations bills within the next few weeks that will contain in excess of $340 billion as well as domestic appropriations which will contain numerous additional commitments to improving and enhancing security. Mr. Speaker, we are in day three of a new world. As a past President indicated a long time ago, we are entering into a long twilight struggle against terrorism. This is going to be a very nasty enterprise. Our country for its entire history has been shielded by two oceans from this kind of threat. Today with modern technology, with modern transportation, it is not only the economy that is global, we also have a global capability of people to take out their hatred on those that they do not like. There is no question America paid a price for world leadership. If it proves to be that the people who perpetrated this act are those we suspect, it will demonstrate that we have also paid a price for the world's failure to find a resolution to the Middle East problems. We have also paid a price for a long period of underfunding a number of critical public service items, including airport security. This is going to be a long fight. We need to be able to stick together for the duration. That means we are going to have to be able to trust each other implicitly. We are going to have to be able to trust each other's word. And we are going to have to have a respectful relationship between the two branches of government. Because it is very easy, once the going gets tough on an issue like this, for people to bail out. The only thing that will keep us together is conscience and unity built on honest agreement. I want to thank a few people. I want to thank Senator Byrd who in my view was fierce in defense of the institutional prerogatives that we must hold dear. These prerogatives are important, not because they make us powerful but because they are the only tools that enable us to protect the liberty of each and every American that we represent. I want to thank Senator Stevens for overcoming his differences and working with all of us. I want to thank Chairman Young. Bill Young and I have a long relationship. We are friends, we are sometimes adversaries, but in all instances we are partners, and we will be partners for a long time to come as we deal with these issues. I want to thank the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, because he intervened on three separate and crucial occasions in order to convey a seriousness of purpose on both ends of the avenue that was necessary to overcome our differences. I want to thank our Speaker. Yesterday on at least two occasions he demonstrated what leadership is all about. And I think it is safe to say that, more than almost anyone, he recognized the need for true unity yesterday and he recognized, as I said earlier, that that unity needed to be based upon the overcoming of our differences rather than the papering over of our differences. I also do want to thank our staff on both sides of the aisle. Many people sitting here this morning have been working for days on this, but I especially want to single out Scott Lilly, the staff director on our side of the aisle, and Jim Dyer on the Republican side of the aisle. As usual, they have helped us to bridge differences and they have helped us protect the prerogatives and the needs of this institution. And the way they do it on a daily basis is a constant demonstration of the day-to-day actions that constitute true patriotism. I am profound in my admiration for them and all of those who work with them. I want to say to the people of New York, there is not a district in this country that is more different from New York than mine. But every person in my district today stands as one with the people of New York. They have experienced a tragedy which is unparalleled. Our hearts go out to every single family who has lost anyone. I want to express our solidarity with those folks at the Pentagon, those folks who work there. They defend our country abroad and at home. Some of them paid the ultimate price and we will not forget. I want to thank those that were on the various airplanes that crashed who gave us fragmentary information about what happened and, at least on several occasions, obviously engaged in struggles which may have preserved the existence of the very building in which we work today. We owe them a lot. And we owe to each other efforts to build a new relationship and a new sense of comity in this town so that we can, in fact, meet the responsibilities that we were elected to perform. I urge support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who was deeply involved in negotiations yesterday with us. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a member of the committee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 20 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Operations, who was deeply involved in negotiations about the New York element of this package. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), who has been on the scene in New York and who gave one of the most moving statements in caucus yesterday that I have heard in the years that I have been in this institution.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)