Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the gentleman. I think that the Members will appreciate the information.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his statement. Madam Speaker, essentially for the benefit of the Members, what that means is that we would expect tomorrow after the committee is finished with its work in committee to finish action on the energy and water bill, which is being filed right now, and which will be in the Committee on Rules very shortly. On Thursday, if the agriculture bill is brought to the floor, we will work out time agreements and try to get as much done as possible, hope to finish. If we do not, it can be finished whenever the leadership decides it ought to be dealt with, and that would mean that Members would have notice that we would not be in session on Friday. Is that right?

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we are being told that this amendment violates NAFTA. That is like the old song that we hear so many times about the person killing both of his parents and then throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. What the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) tried to do is to bring to this House an amendment that will prevent Americans from dying by seeing to it that we have an inspection process and a review process before, not after, dangerous trucks hit the highway. I want to remind my colleagues NAFTA is a trade agreement. It is not a suicide pact. Let me repeat that: NAFTA is a trade agreement; it is not a suicide pact. We are not required to allow unsafe trucks on American highways in order to satisfy some pencil-happy bureaucrat dealing with NAFTA. This amendment has no choice but to, for the moment, cut off all Mexican trucks on American highways because the majority party insisted that that was the only option that could be put before this body. So they blocked the effort that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) tried to bring to this House, and which would have been fully consistent with NAFTA. That effort would have said you cannot have those trucks running over American highways until we have the proper review process in place to make certain ahead of time that safety standards are being met. If this amendment technically would become a violation of NAFTA, it is because the majority has forced the House into a position where it can consider no amendment except that kind of an amendment. Everybody on this floor knows, if you want to cut through the bull gravy at the end of the day, this amendment can be fully tweaked in conference so that it is fully consistent with NAFTA and protects the American trucker. The rationale against this amendment keeps changing. We were told earlier in the day, oh, you have to block the Sabo amendment under House rules because the Sabo amendment was not passed by the full Committee on Appropriations. Many a time, many a time the Committee on Appropriations has chosen not to follow that logic. We are also told, oh, we do not have to do this. We do not have to protect American motorists this way because we have got all this money in the bill for these new inspectors. Well, let me remind my colleagues that money is now gone. It was knocked out on a point of order. So the $56 million for infrastructure improvements at the border, the $14 million for added inspections at the border, the $18 million for the State supplements for States around the border, all that money is gone. So your excuse is gone. You have no added protection for American drivers at this point. You know what the problems are. There is no effective oversight. There is no effective oversight on Mexican motor carriers today. There are no motor carrier hours-of-service regulations in effect in Mexico. There is no way to check the driving history of Mexican motor carrier drivers. In testimony last year, the Department of Transportation Inspector General said this: ``I do not think there is any reasonable person who can say that the border is safe when you have an out-of-service rate for safety reasons in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 percent.'' Now, the majority blocked the Sabo amendment that would have allowed us to deal with this issue the way it needed to be dealt with. Now because they blocked us from offering the right amendment, they are blaming us because the language of this amendment is not pluperfect. Well, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is a very smart man. He can easily fix it in conference. We have heard this excuse time and time again. Can fix it in conference. Can fix it in conference. Well, this is one time we are going to say that. We have full confidence in the ability of the gentleman from Kentucky to fix this in conference. But today, we have only one option if we want to protect American motorists.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the only option we have is to adopt this amendment, because this is the only procedural alternative left to us by a rule that prevented us from offering the amendment that should have been offered on this subject. So do not blame us for the shortcomings which the majority itself has caused. I would simply make one other point. We have a choice. We can either insist on having an inspection regimen and a review regimen in place before these trucks are put on the highways, or we can do what the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) says and wait until they are on the highways and then see what happens. Only one difference between the approaches. There are people who will die under the second approach who will not under the first. It is just that simple. So you have got a very clear choice. If you want to do anything at all to protect the safety of American motorists on the highways on this issue, you will vote for the Sabo amendment; and you will give the committee the opportunity to do what it has done thousands of times before, which is to tweak the language in conference so that it can satisfy the procedural niceties of people in this House who eight times out of 10 run a railroad truck over legitimate procedure. You hide behind procedure when it suits your purpose, and you trample fair procedure the rest of the time. We are not fooled by that. American drivers are not going to be fooled by that. The only people you might be fooling are yourselves.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say while we will certainly be debating a number of issues about which there is some disagreement today, including the Sabo amendment, overall, this is a very reasonable bill and it deserves to be supported. I expect to support it, and I expect a large number of Members will do the same. I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota for the job they have done. I appreciate their good work, as I know the House does, and we look forward to disposing of this bill in fairly short order today.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I simply want to rise to express my opposition to this rule because of its failure to include the right of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) to offer his amendment on truck safety. Very simply, what his amendment seeks to do is to require the establishment of procedures to guarantee that Mexican trucks will be safe before they are allowed to travel all over the United States. It just seems to me that we ought to understand that right now Mexican motor carriers operate with virtually no safety oversight to date. There are no motor carrier hours of service regulations in Mexico. There is no way at this point to check the driving records, the driving history of Mexican motor carrier drivers. The out-of-service record for those trucks in the areas where they have been checked near the border is astronomical. Those trucks should not be on the road without severe safety precautions. It is asserted that somehow the Sabo amendment would be a violation of NAFTA. That is nonsense. NAFTA is a trade pact. It is not a suicide pact. We are not required to put the safety of our motorists at risk in order to satisfy some international bureaucracy. We have already had a ruling that makes quite clear that the United States has the authority, whatever authority we need to exercise, in order to protect the safety of American travelers. I find it ironic that this House will spend a lot of time on this Mickey Mouse amendment to require the renaming of a train station in the District of Columbia area and yet will not take the time to fully the debate the issue raised by the gentleman from Minnesota. I think that represents a warped set of priorities. I also find it ironic that the Republican majority has said through legislation that when the question of worker safety is at stake, as was the case with the ergonomics regulations that the Labor Department wanted to put into effect some time ago, I find it ironic that at this point the Republican majority of this House said, ``Oh, no, the regulations must wait. We are not going to worry about safety.'' Yet at this point, when we are asking them again to take into account the safety considerations for American drivers, they are saying, ``Damn the truck safety consequences, full speed ahead!'' if I can plagiarize from Admiral Farragut. It just seems to me that this House ought to come back to a rule of common sense. Just because the committee did not adopt the amendment in full committee is no reason this House should not have the opportunity to take whatever action is within our reach to assure the safety of American drivers on our highways. Madam Speaker, I think the bill itself is basically a good bill, and I intend to support it, but I think it is egregiously erroneous for the House not to allow a debate on the Sabo amendment, and that is why I would vote against the rule and urge that other Members do likewise.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has as much to do with energy as it has to do with my dead dog. All it is is an effort to try to get a second kick at the cat and thereby eliminate a fairly won decision to increase funding for the arts. For those of you who are interested in seeing this bill completed today, I simply want to remind you, if this double-backed maneuver were to succeed, and I do not believe it will, but if it were to succeed, and if this amendment would be adopted, that would require yet another revolt in the full House, again further delaying the adjournment of this House tonight. I do not think you want to do that. I also do not think that you want to have to explain another vote reversal. So I think for the good of all concerned, I would advise you to stick with your final vote. It is consistent; it is fair; and it is a whole lot easier to explain to the folks back home.

Mr. OBEY. That is my interpretation as well, but the language of section 1010 and its cross-reference to section 1001 are sufficiently convoluted, that it has been helpful to make this clarification at this time. I appreciate the gentleman making the clarification. I think it makes quite clear that there is no such authority, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. That is my understanding also. As the gentleman knows, concern has also been expressed regarding language on page 2 of the bill which authorizes $2.250 million for the assessment of the mineral potential of public lands in Alaska pursuant to section 1010 of Public Law 96-487, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Is it the gentleman's understanding that section 1010 provides no authority to undertake the activities in the Arctic Refuge that we all agree are not intended to be funded by this bill?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no reason, other than an ideological one, to oppose this amendment. As has been already pointed out, the Endowment for the Arts as recently as 1995 was funded at $170 million level. This amendment simply seeks to fund it at $115 million. For those people who live in big cities or for those Members of Congress who regularly frequent Washington, D.C., any time they want they can go to the Kennedy Center, they can go to the Folger Library, they can go to the Corcoran, they can go to many of the cultural institutions in this town. It is a lot different if your are a child in small town America. Very often the endowment is the only thing that will introduce children in smaller communities in this country to the fine arts and to many other experiences that come under the rubric of the arts and humanities. I think of one entertainer in my district, for instance, who goes into schools, who helps schoolchildren to write down their thoughts about life and then put those thoughts to music. Then he turns that into CDs for those local schools. The value in that kind of an effort is immeasurable. As far as I am concerned, the Endowment for the Arts is one of those tiny facilities of government that helps children from all over this country dig much more deeply into their own souls than they even know is possible. I think that to oppose this amendment for ideological grounds or on ideological grounds is shortsighted. I think it neglects the fact that the Endowment helps children to grow in many, many ways. I would urge support for the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I still am experiencing some laryngitis, but I want to take a moment to comment on this bill. It is certainly not a perfect bill. And I believe it needs more funding for both arts and energy research and several other programs, but I intend to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and his staff for handling this bill in the way in which every appropriation bill ought to be handled. Information was made fully available to the minority, and strong efforts were made to work out virtually all differences on the bill. In contrast to nominal bipartisanship, this was a truly bipartisan approach. I think it needs to be recognized in this House when that happens because it does not happen nearly enough, as evidenced by the many bills which come to the floor in a state of high controversy. Let me also congratulate the committee for adhering to an agreement made last year when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) was chairman. As Members will recall, a number of groups wanted us to pass a new entitlement for land acquisition called CARA. I strongly favor added funding for land acquisition, but I could see no reason why we should create an additional entitlement which made land acquisition a higher priority than education or health care, for instance. Those are my top priorities. So the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I worked out with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and with the other body on a new agreement under which we essentially doubled conservation funding for a 6-year period, raising what would have been a spending level of about $6 billion over that period to about $12 billion as part of that agreement. We agreed that there would be a $120 million annual ratcheting up of the total amount in the portion of the bill under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. That was our way of demonstrating that we could make land acquisition a very high priority, make these conservation items a very high priority without abusing the budget process by creating another entitlement. Mr. Chairman, I think the committee was extremely wise in rejecting the White House's efforts to change that agreement. We have found the middle ground. We have found common ground on this issue; and if we stick together, we can accomplish a good and noble public purpose without abusing the processes of this Congress. I would hope that as this bill moves through the process, it retains the spirit of this agreement. I appreciate very much the fact that the committee rejected some of the funding reductions that the White House proposed in parts of these programs and returned to the agreement that was reached last year because that can be sustained, in my view, over a long period of time. I would also like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I could. As the gentleman knows, there was confusion regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when this matter came up in committee last week, and I believe that confusion has been cleared up. As I understand it, both the majority and the minority agree that this bill provides no funding to facilitate seismic studies or other predevelopment activities within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and that there is no authority in law for those purposes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat again, this amendment increases a program which we have already increased by 63 percent. It cuts fossil fuels which we have already cut by 4 percent. There is nothing wrong with research for more efficient power plants or distributed generation technologies or pipeline improvement. Those are some of the programs this amendment would cut. This amendment is well meaning but it is ill advised and ill targeted. I have defended weatherization longer than any other person in this Chamber, and I stand here today urging a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, no one in this House has been a more longstanding supporter of the weatherization program than I have, but this amendment deserves to be defeated. I oppose it on two grounds: First of all, we had a major victory in the committee on the issue of weatherization. This bill includes $311 million. That is a 63 percent increase over last year. The committee's original number was $60 million lower. We negotiated it up to double that amount. The gentleman mentions the $24 million by which it is below the President. That is only because that $24 million was used to insulate schools and hospitals which is an equally deserving requirement. None of us should be ashamed of doing that. Secondly, I would point out that this amendment actually reduces funds for fossil energy research. We need a balanced research program in all areas of energy research. That includes research on more efficient power plants and distributed generation technologies which are part of the fossil energy program that this amendment seeks to cut. In fact, the Democratic minority in the committee supported an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) to increase fossil fuel energy research along with energy conservation by $200 million. I think it would be foolish for us to support an amendment today which reduces funding for any energy research program. This amendment seeks to increase a fund which we have already increased by 63 percent by cutting further a fund which is already $4 million below last year. That makes no sense if we are trying to achieve a balanced program. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have two letters in my hand. One letter from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison which reads as follows: ``I ask for your assistance in supporting any efforts on the House Floor to eliminate the provision in the supplemental appropriations bill that rescinds FEMA's disaster relief funds.'' I also have in my hand a Statement of Administration Policy from the Bush administration. It says, ``The administration strongly opposes the proposed rescission of $389 million in disaster relief funds for FEMA.'' Enough said. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OBEY. This Congress may have met its responsibilities to FEMA in the past, but right now it is playing let us pretend with this rescission.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this money will be needed. We might as well admit it now. This amendment does not kill the bill, it simply tells the committee to come back with other actions consistent with House rules to save full funding for FEMA.