Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would simply point out, Mr. Speaker, the administration has asked for the FEMA money. The Congress is rescinding it. The gentleman says this money for agriculture was pulled out of the air. This is the administration request that we are simply trying to comply with. Thirdly, the radiation item is an item which is owed people who are dying, at least in part because of the action of their own government. I think it will be very difficult for Members to explain their opposition to any of these three items. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would like me to respond, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, let me simply say I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I think that demonstrates that even he understands that we need to reject what the House originally did with respect to FEMA. But I would say that I cannot accept the gentleman's offer because I think there is no rational reason whatsoever for the House not to do what the Senate has already done and to provide the money that we badly need in the agricultural area, and to provide the money that we know we have a moral obligation to provide to the victims of radiation poisoning. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I do want to tie the hands of the conferees on these three items, because I think there is absolutely no reason for us to use these items as leverage. I think the people who are eligible for these funds and need these funds need to know that they are going to get them, and the sooner we do that, the better off everybody is going to be. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

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. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think more than a few Members of this House and a lot of people outside of this institution have been pleasantly surprised at the relative unity this House has had on a bipartisan basis on appropriation bills this year. Last night we passed the agriculture appropriations bill with 95 percent support in this House. We had similar majorities which supported the transportation bill, the energy and water bill, the interior bill. And it seems to me that that kind of consensus we have been able to develop on each of those bills has been good for both parties, it has been good for the House, it has been good for the country. It helps us to get our work done, and it helps us to build a foundation for cooperation on other items. I think it has been a very positive thing and something we have not seen enough of in this House in recent years. However, the legislation which the majority is asking us to pass today in this bill does not represent that type of consensus. It is not bipartisan legislation. It has been handed down from on high. I think it is severely constrained by a narrow, partisan, ideological judgment about how we spend our money and how we meet the country's needs, and I think the current situation illustrates clearly how misguided that judgment is. There are a few people on the other side of the aisle and people in the White House who have taken the position that once Congress has passed a budget plan, we have to put together our bills through the year, and that we cannot address any other needs beyond those anticipated in the original plan. It does not matter how much circumstances change; it apparently does not matter what the magnitude of natural disasters are that strike; it does not matter, I suppose, if we decide to go to war. If we have only a few months left in the fiscal year and a hurricane strikes, we can wait until October 1 to provide assistance, or we can fire IRS agents or close down some other badly needed program in order to find the money to pay for that disaster assistance. That, in essence, is the point of view that is controlling the consideration of this bill. Now, some people are having difficulty understanding the term ``faith-based initiative.'' I think an example might be our disaster assistance program. We are praying that we do not have any more storms. We are trying to preclude acts of God from getting in the way of our budget process. I think that is an arrogant way for human beings to go about legislating, but so be it; that apparently is the mindset around here. Mr. Speaker, I would point out, and this chart demonstrates one example, which shows what happened to one highway in Houston after the reign of terror in June of 2001. Currently, we are trying to cope with that huge gulf storm. Damage in a single county in Texas was estimated to be $4.8 billion. The director of FEMA called me and told me that he thought that it could be possible that they would need significant additional money above the amount already appropriated by this Congress, and when contacted by the Houston Chronicle, OMB director Daniels stated, and I quote, that ``It is highly likely'' that FEMA's budget will need another boost this year. What is going to happen with this bill? OMB told my office last night they are not planning to make a request. They are hoping to slide by on existing funds. If everything goes right and if God decides that the weather is not going to operate the way it normally does, we may just make it through. But if we have a normal year and we have a couple of hurricanes after we leave here in August, what then? We are not going to have the money to respond to those disasters. What are we going to do then? Are we going to go down to Texas and deobligate money that we have initially provided? I would hope not. But whatever happens, without additional funding, we will not be providing normalcy to people who are affected by those storms. Why is that? The reason is that all of the needs facing the Federal Government apparently must be met within a $6.5 billion package. Why is that? That is because that number was picked out by Congress last December when we were trying to get out of here in time for Christmas. Does that number have any relationship to the current projected surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare? No, it does not. Did we know at the time how much rising fuel costs would affect steaming costs for the Navy or training exercises in the Air Force? No, we did not. Did we know how much those costs would deplete spare parts inventories for aircraft, tank, and ships? No, we did not. Did we know we were going to face major electricity blackouts in most of the western United States? No, we did not. Did we know we were going to have a severe storm hit the gulf coast in the month of June? No, we did not. I did not know that a tornado with 250 mile-an-hour winds was going to hit a town in my own congressional district. We did not know any of those things. Yet, we are being told that we have to stick within that magic number because that is what the number was defined as last summer. That is a ridiculous way to legislate. When this conference report comes back, it will be the last train through the station for the year. If Mitch Daniels or others at the White House think there is a high probability or even a significant probability that additional FEMA funds will be needed, and evidently they do, then they ought to ask for them, rather than to pretend that this problem does not exist. In my view, we are playing a stupid numbers game with the lives of people who have already gone through a great deal just to insist that the numbers concocted in the middle of the night 8 months ago are the right numbers. So consequently, I will be asking the House in this motion to do three things. First, I ask that we accept the Senate judgment and eliminate the action of the House in rescinding previously-approved money for FEMA. Everybody in this House knows that we are going to need that money. Let us fess up. Secondly, I am going to ask that we instruct the conferees to recede to the Senate and accept the funds which the administration requested but the House deleted to deal with foot and mouth disease and mad cow disease. Thirdly, I will ask the House to instruct conferees to recede to the Senate and accept the money needed to process the checks that are owed to victims of radiation exposure. Some of those people are extremely ill. Some have already died. These are people who were exposed, in many instances unknowingly, to radiation as a result of the development, testing, and transportation of radioactive material by the Federal Government. In other words, those people were fried by their own government. It seems to me that a government that can spend $30 million on a political mailing to tell people that they are going to get a tax cut is a government that should not be simultaneously denying already- earned benefits to people who are dying and need that money now, not after they are in the grave. I would also point out that the administration itself sent a letter commending the Senate ``for not including the provision in the House- passed version of the bill that would have rescinded $389 million in disaster relief funding for FEMA.'' I would urge Members to listen to the administration on this item, and listen to us on the other two items, do what we know we are going to have to do, and instruct the conferees to accept these three items. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, when the vote comes, I will join my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and ask the people to vote yes on the motion. I will also ask them to vote yes on a later motion that we will make to add three items to this proposition. We will simply be asking the House to approve three Senate actions that would eliminate the rescission for FEMA, that would fund the administration request for mad cow disease and for hoof and mouth disease, and to fund the claims for radiation victims, many of whom are sick or dying and some of whom have already died. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, I would prefer to go by what we know. We are told by the Republican Justice Department, not us, that we need $81 million. In each of the three cases, what we are asking you to do is to put in what your own administration has said we will need to spend. This is not about spending levels. It is about truth-in-budgeting. It is about fessing up to what we actually will have to spend in the end. There is no point in hiding from ourselves what the actual costs of these items will be. Every single one of these items has been requested by the administration. Every single one of these items is in the national interest. Every single one of these dollars will have to be spent in the end. We might as well be honest and face up to it now.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tell the gentleman. The White House itself announced they were not going to send down the request for the supplemental until after the tax bill was finished because they did not want to upset the apple cart on their tax bill. The last time I looked, the White House was in Republican hands, as is the majority of this House.

Mr. OBEY. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the administration itself delayed the request for over 2 months until they could get their precious tax gift to rich people out of the Congress.

Mr. OBEY. Absolutely, no problem with the timing. I have a lot of problems with the timing of the White House on this one.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would point out it is the majority in this House that held this supplemental up for 4 months. This debate does not have one whit to do with whether our military personnel will get the help they need or not. They will. They will have virtually unanimous support on both sides of the aisle. To suggest that aid to them will be delayed by 1 day is absurd, preposterous, nonsense. Everybody on both sides of the aisle is going to be for that aid. What we want to see in addition is other obligations of the government also met to American citizens, including the American citizens who were literally killed by their own government through the use of nuclear testing and other problems associated with conducting nuclear tests. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether our military personnel will get the funds they need. Of course they will. I challenge the gentleman to name one person involved in this bill on either side of the aisle who is opposed to that money. He cannot because there are not any.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Florida has indicated what is in this bill. There is no argument about what is in this bill. I intend to vote to go to conference. The problem is what is not in this bill. It does not contain the roughly $1 billion that we have been given indications from the administration itself that in the end we will need to meet our obligations in dealing with the disasters cited by the gentleman from Florida, including the huge disaster in Houston and several in other States, including my own. It does not contain the money requested by the administration to protect this country from foot and mouth disease and from mad cow disease. And it does not contain the money that is needed to pay the victims of radiation poisoning who are entitled to that money. We will have a motion to instruct asking that those three items be included. With respect to the other point made by the gentleman, I fully grant that this issue does not involve campaign finance. But when what I believe to be a majority of this House, composed of people on both sides of the aisle, when that House majority has been denied the opportunity by the Committee on Rules that runs this House, when they have been denied the opportunity to vote on the package that they believe ought to pass for campaign finance reform, except in piecemeal fashion, then there are only so many tools available for that majority to protest what is going on. That is why we are having this additional debate this morning. I regret the fact that it takes the time, but not nearly as much as I regret what the Committee on Rules did to what I believe is the majority will of this House.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely believe that we need to control the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, but this is a terribly misguided way to do it. I understand that the people who speak for this amendment are very well motivated, but the fact is that they run the risk because they are tackling this issue indirectly rather than directly, they run the risk of allowing large numbers of adulterated drugs into this country. It is one thing to fight for access to affordable drugs for seniors; it is another thing in the process to open our seniors up to the dangers of adulterated or expired drugs, and that is exactly what this amendment does. If we take a look at what happened last year when we ran into a similar approach, try though the Congress did, we wound up producing an importation process which the Secretary of Health and Social Services said she could not certify as to efficacy or safety, and so that proposal could not go forward. I would point out that every Member of the House has a letter from the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, and various other members of the committee, which says the following: ``Despite anybody's best intention, if the Sanders amendment becomes law, our citizens will have no idea whether the source of their pills is an FDA-approved facility or an unregulated warehouse rented for the weekend by big business counterfeiters and larcenists seeking to penetrate the U.S. market. Drug counterfeiters present a severe and growing threat to the health and safety of the United States consumers.'' If we want to deal with this problem, in my view, the correct way is to support the Allen legislation, because that attacks this issue directly. It directly lowers the price that is charged to seniors; it does not force seniors to have to rely on questionable products introduced into this country by larcenist sellers and winds up threatening the health of senior citizens. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.