Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I did. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Goss

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the committee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) so that the gentlemen might continue their colloquy.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement encourages the Secretary of Labor to spend up to $2 million to answer several questions relating to the costs and benefits of safety and health programs. But am I correct in stating that the conferees do not intend in any way that the Secretary delay her rulemaking on safety and health programs while developing this information?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and I want to say it has been a pleasure to work with him, as usual.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way from where we started in this session. Originally, the Republican budget resolution that was presented in this House maintained the fiction that we could afford a huge tax cut with 70 percent of the benefit going to persons earning over $100,000 a year and still not do damage to the rest of our national priorities. That tax cut would have used every single dollar that could have been used to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. And the public understands that; and in the end they, I think, by their actions in the polls, convinced our friends on the Republican side to begin to walk away from that issue. In September, we were given a different problem because the majority established a budget allocation for the bill containing Education and Health and Labor programs which would have resulted in cutting education funding by almost one-third in real terms. We said no to that. The President said no to that. And the shape of these appropriations bills today is far different as a result. I want to publicly thank the President. I want to publicly thank the Vice President. I want to thank the President's Chief of Staff, John Podesta; Jack Lew, his principal budget negotiator; and all the others who stood with us fighting for smaller class sizes, fighting for quality teachers, fighting for more cops on the beat, fighting against legislation that threatened environmental cleanup, fighting against short-sighted efforts to limit our international leadership responsibilities abroad. I am also proud of the fact that we have in the area of education provided for additional support for comprehensive school reform, for additional support for teacher training, additional support for smaller class size, and additional support to assist local school districts to reduce high school size in order to get a better handle on student violence and juvenile adolescent behavior. I am also proud of the fact that, under this bill, 10 States will be provided planning grants in order to develop plans for a Federal-State partnership to cover all of their citizens with health coverage. I think that is a major breakthrough; and I hope it leads to ending the abomination in this country, the moral abomination of having some 40 million people in this country without health insurance. But I am still going to oppose this bill despite all of those features because someone, I believe, has to stand for the institutional need to present budgets in a forthright way. Three years ago, when the executive and legislative branches of Government agreed on a budget deal, I called it a public lie. I said, if it was not a public lie, it was at least a giant public fib, because it was promising that Congress would live by spending levels that, in fact, it would never live by. And history has demonstrated that to be correct. Last year, Congress spent $35 billion more than that budget agreement provided; and this year it is spending much more than that before the limits. Some of that spending is outrageous, and some of it is perfectly defensible. I do not so much object to some of that spending as I object to the fact that the Congress, in my view, is simply lying about it and pretending that it is not taking place. That, I think, is an even more fundamental problem. It is clear to me that, in the end, after all of their initial efforts to cut all of the priorities that the President has been fighting for, it is clear that the Republican majority in this House, in order to get out of town, was willing to give the President virtually everything he asked for in spending so long as we would adopt accounting fictions that would hide what, in fact, we were doing. And that is the honest truth. So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this. I understand there are many good things in the bill, and I am proud to have helped negotiate some of them. But, in the end, I believe that next year we are going to come back here with the budget problem being fundamentally worse because of the fictions we have in this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes), a member of the committee. (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first of all with respect to the dairy provisions, I would like to publicly thank President Clinton for his personal efforts to salvage dairy reform and keep nongermane dairy riders off this appropriation bill. I also want to thank Secretary Glickman for twice trying to bring some degree of modernization to the 1937 milk marketing practices which have long since outlived their usefulness. I understand that given all the other items in the bill, the President cannot veto the bill over that; but I do appreciate very much the fact that he and his staff went to the well to try to help us when we really needed their help. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think I should explain the motion to recommit. In large part due to the unrealistic budget caps established in the 1997 budget act, both parties agreed early on this year that the budget request for veterans medical care was inadequately funded. The Republican budget resolution this year called for an additional $1.7 billion for veterans medical care, but that increase was for fiscal 2000 only. The next 4 years of the Republican budget plan assumed that veterans health care would decline to a level below that of last year. The Democratic alternative budget provided not only for the additional $1.7 billion in fiscal 2000, it continued that increase in future years. In total, the Democratic budget provided about $8 billion more for veterans health expenses than the Republican resolution that passed. When the VA-HUD subcommittee first marked up the fiscal 2000 bill, it ignored the guidance of the Republican budget resolution. It provided only the 1999 level with virtually no increase. After the hue and cry from veterans groups and the indication from the administration that it would be submitting a budget amendment for an additional $1 billion for veterans health care, the majority added $1.7 billion above the original request. Both in full committee and on the House floor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) tried to add $700 million more in veterans medical care by delaying for 1 year the effect of the Republicans' capital gains tax cut. We were rebuffed procedurally by the majority at every turn on that, with the argument that an appropriations bill could not be merged with tax measures. Let me point out today to my colleagues that this omnibus bill today contains several tax measures. So despite the availability of valid provisions that would have provided offsets negating the need for the across-the-board cut in this omnibus measure, the majority has once again decided to take an action which would provide veterans health care less than I believe they need. Therefore, our recommittal motion will be very simple. It will simply recommit the bill to the committee on conference with instructions that House managers not agree to any provision whatsoever which would reduce or rescind appropriations for veterans medical care. In other words, it would eliminate the $72 million reduction in the Republican budget for veterans health care. It would restore that $72 million. I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. I think it is safe to say that I am.

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. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to explain both the amendment that he is proposing and the resolution.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply address two points, since other Members have also addressed the dairy issue. I believe that in this House a handshake is as good as a contract, and I believe that the day that one's word ceases to be one's bond is the day that we lose something very precious in this democratic institution. I was told in August and again in September, and this was confirmed by one of the two Members of the Republican leadership 3 days ago in a conversation with me, I was told that if I would cooperate procedurally on appropriation bills with the majority, they would assure me that no extraneous dairy provision would be attached to any appropriation vehicle. The three key words were ``any appropriation vehicle.'' That promise has now been violated. I think that says more about the people who violated it than it says about anybody else in this institution. I deeply regret it. I find it incredibly ironic that at a time when people are cheering with great huzzahs over the World Trade Organization-China deal, when they are earnestly pushing for free trade internationally, they are supporting internal trade barriers to the free flow of dairy products in the United States. That is absurdly old-fashioned, and no self- respecting free marketeer should be supporting it. [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 18, 1999] Lott Has a Cow There are a million stories inside the Beltway, most of which the pols don't want you to know. But we thought you might be amused by the one about Trent Lott, dairy queen. As Public Works Chair . . . sorry, Senate Majority Leader, Mr. Lott has already built himself a pork-barrel legacy for the Mississippi ages. But who would have thought his largess was big enough for all New England? There's apparently nothing the guy won't do to re-elect a fellow ``singing senator,'' in this case the liberal James Jeffords of Vermont. Vermont has lots of dairy farmers, most of whom are much less efficient than those in the Upper Midwest. Worse yet, Congressional permission for a six-state price-fixing dairy cartel known as the Northeast Compact is about to expire. So Mr. Jeffords who is running for a third term next November, got hold of Mr. Lott, who promised to jam an extension past an otherwise reluctant Senate. Never mind that this milks consumers to the tune of about 20 extra cents a gallon. (Milk consumed by the same ``poor children'' who liberals like Mr. Jeffords and Vermont Democrat Pat Leahy are constantly invoking to sell their new programs.) Never mind that the Senate voted down and extension earlier this year. And never mind that in the process of helping Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lott is sticking a shiv in the back of another vulnerable GOP incumbent, Rod Grams of Minnesota. ``I guess Jeffords is in a tough race,'' Mr. Grams told us ruefully. ``But it can't be tougher than mine. And this is going to hurt me back in Minnesota, because it will hurt our farmers.'' Mr. Lott likes to complain that he lacks a real conservative majority. Yet Mr. Jeffords is a routine apostate, agreeing with Ted Kennedy on demand, while Mr. Grams is a reliable conservative. It's nice to know how much Mr. Lott values ideological loyalty when he's doling out backroom favors. Not that Mr. Lott deserves all of the credit. He has help in the House, where Speaker Dennis Hastert has caved in to Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt's attempt to gut the free market dairy reforms that Congress urged on a reluctant Clinton Administration as recently as 1996. Mr. Blunt's affront would add another 16 cents or so to a gallon of milk around the country. Mr. Lott wants to ram this into the end-of-session budget bill too. Beyond the muscle politics, all of this is one more embarrassing sign that Republicans seem to have kicked over the reform stool. They're mainly into incumbent protection now. Messrs. Blunt and Lott are supposed to be GOP leaders. But the difference between them and Dick Gephardt is more and more a matter of whose special interest gets gored. As of this writing, Mr. Grams and Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl were promising to filibuster the Lott-Jeffords-Blunt cartel plans. But the way these things usually go, the dissenters get run over by the Members stampeding to leave town to brag about all of the pork they just voted to deliver. Cow-abunga, Trent.

Mr. OBEY

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. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for an answer to that question?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I have been in every single one of those negotiation meetings. And last night, the night in question, I talked to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) twice on questions involving negotiations. I want to tell what is dividing us at this moment. What is dividing us at this moment is one remaining question. The Republican side, after having spent $17 billion of Social Security money, the Republican side is now asking for a ``let's pretend'' fig leaf so that they can point to a tiny, minuscule across- the-board cut as their ``let's pretend'' indicator that they did not touch Social Security. Mr. Speaker, we, in return, are asking if they want that, we are asking them to do something real. We are asking to take whatever money the government might earn in any suit against the tobacco companies, which could be up to $20 billion a year, and we are asking the Republican side to deposit that money into the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare trust fund. That would extend the life of those funds on average by 3 years. And what we have gotten from the Republican side is a flat ``no,'' which means apparently that the Republican leadership would rather protect their friends in the tobacco industry than protect Social Security and Medicare. That is the truth.