Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to take this time to note that the Nobel Prize for peace today was given to two Irish heroes named David Trimble and John Hume. I do not know Mr. Trimble, who is the leader of the Protestant groups in Northern Ireland seeking peace, but I do know John Hume. I have known him for a good many years, and I think that his selection today was an absolutely perfect choice. John Hume is a person who, as a very young man, began to peacefully protest the fact that there was a systematic policy to deny employment to Catholic males in Northern Ireland. He began to lead peaceful marches out of the Catholic neighborhoods to try to peacefully protest that fact, in the spirit of Martin Luther King. The Protestant forces reacted violently. He was beaten a number of times. At one point he laid down in front of a tank with his wife standing just a few feet away. She thought he was a dead man. Fortunately, the tank stopped. He also experienced violence at the hands of Catholic forces in Northern Ireland, because he was insisting that whatever actions taken by Catholic forces be peaceful, so his reward was that they tried to assassinate him many times. His home was firebombed at least once, I believe twice, once with his family in it. He even had the experience of being at a country roadside, at a stop sign, when a car plowed into him from behind at a high rate of speed. The car exploded. He walked out of the car without a scratch, and a week later collapsed from post-trauma stress reaction, with his heart in fibrillation, and almost died. Today he has been one of, if not the leading voice in all of Ireland for peace, and he has been instrumental in bringing the IRA together in peace talks with their Protestant counterparts. I think it is safe to say that there would be no peace process in Ireland, were it not for John Hume. I simply want to take this time to note on this side of the Atlantic that a true hero of our age has been nominated or has been named the recipient of the Nobel Prize for peace today, along with Mr. Trimble, who also has been heroic in trying to lead the Protestant forces in Northern Ireland to a peaceful resolution of their differences. In all of the years of public life, I have never met a person as inspiring as John Hume. I have never met a person who has been willing to undergo more physical violence to his own person than John Hume, except perhaps for our colleague in this Chamber, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. John Lewis). It just seems to me that we should today take note of the fact that the Nobel committee made a superb choice. I congratulate John Hume, I congratulate his wife, Pat, who has been with him every inch of the way in helping him through a lifetime of work for peace. If I were asked to name a single person in the Western World who epitomizes what Christian values are supposed to be, I would say that John Hume is that person. I was thrilled to see that he was one of the two winners of that Nobel Prize today.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Continuing under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that is also my understanding. That means that Members should be prepared, as I understand it, to vote on the legislation after 5 p.m. on Tuesday, and they would then be able to get out of town either that evening or the next morning for the duration. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but I would appreciate if the gentleman under my reservation would explain what the understanding is in terms of the schedule for the consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill, that 77,132-page bill that we are supposed to be bringing up next week.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, what I have just heard is absolute total nonsense. The administration does not want to shut down the government. The administration is asking for one thing, full funding of the census. You are holding those programs hostage. They are not. Let us keep the facts straight. Secondly, what is outrageous is not the administration conduct but the expression of opinion of the Republican representative on this issue last night, who told Democratic representatives that regardless of whether we won or lost the Supreme Court case they did not have any intention of following the court case if we won. That is what is outrageous. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. It is simply false to say that the difference between the President and the Republican majority on the issue of class size is that the administration wants to run this program through Federal bureaucracy and the Republicans want to make sure that it is run through State and local bureaucracy. That is not what is at stake. What we want to do is assure that if we are going to spend over $1 billion that that money is used for the purpose for which it is appropriated, which is to reduce class size. It has nothing to do with which bureaucracy it runs through. We do not want that money to be used for noninstructional purposes. If you run that money through title VI, as the Republicans want, that means there will be at least 1 percent available for Federal administration. It means there will be up to 15 percent available for State administration. And there is no limit whatsoever on administrative cost at the local level. That is why we are insisting on this principle. It is not a question of which bureaucracy it goes through. It is a question of whether this is going to be used for a national priority to reduce class size or whether it is going to be frittered away on a dozen other things. We want to follow the same process that we followed on Cops on the Beat, where the Republicans also opposed having 100,000 cops on the beat. The fact is that, today, that is one of the most popular programs at the local level; and certainly in my hometown it has been a very effective program. We do not want to do in education what was done in the 1970s when money was simply thrown out in a block grant, and it was used to make Motorola rich and used to make a lot of other contractors rich in selling a lot of equipment to local communities without having any appreciable improvement on law enforcement, under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act. What we are trying to do is very simply to make certain that money appropriated for reducing class size is used for that purpose, and that is the issue that divides us. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes. Madam Speaker, well, I guess I would say that this debate, as did the debate 2 days ago, also reminds me of Yogi Berra's statement, ``This is deja vu all over again,'' and again and again and again. We are in a situation in which we are now 14 days past the beginning of the fiscal year. This is certainly not the first time this has ever happened in the Congress. We have often seen the Congress not complete its budget work on time. But I think we are in a unique position in terms of why and a unique position in terms of what it is that still divides us. Madam Speaker, in my discussions this morning with the White House and with leadership, as I understand the situation, we are essentially down to a number of issues. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and I have been able, along with our Senate counterparts, to wade through many, many dollar issues. But at this point, we are still divided because the President and the Democratic membership of this House still wants to see movement on the President's proposal for school construction so that we can help some of the poorest districts in the country who simply do not have the bonding resources to modernize their school buildings with Federal help. There are literally some schools, as the President said the other day, that are in such falling-down shape that if they were a prison, they would be condemned by a Federal judge. We cannot allow that disgrace to continue in our view. We also have the division between us on the issue whether or not we are going to provide Federal assistance to lower class size in the first three grades, when early intervention is crucial in getting kids off to the right start in life. And we are at this point still divided on that issue and whether or not funding that would be provided would, indeed, be targeted to reducing class size or would, in fact, be dissipated on other items. In addition to that, we still have some environmental issues which divide us. In my view, especially important are the administration's efforts to begin to deal with the problem of global warming, which could be the most catastrophic problem that any of us have faced in our lifetimes. It could be as catastrophic as war itself if the natural environment which protects us all begins to change significantly. And the scientific evidence certainly seems to suggest that it is. We need more resources in that area. Not to enforce the Kyoto Treaty, about which I have strong objections, but simply to support research and education efforts which are going to be necessary in order for us to deal with that problem of global warming. We also have some other environment issues there. Then we have the issue of what I call Viagra versus the pill. The budget so far has provided millions and millions of dollars to provide for coverage of Viagra at the Pentagon, and yet women who work for the Federal Government are being told that their insurance policies may not be required to cover basic contraceptive services for women. To me, that is a ludicrous position. And the President and those of us on this side of the aisle are working very hard to see to it that that changes before we go home. Next, we have a huge problem on the census where we have really a three-cornered debate going on about how that issue is going to be resolved. And I respect the views of people of both sides. On this one I am in a peculiar position. I do not happen to agree fully with the position of my party or the Republican party. But this institution must find a way to deal with that problem. Then we have the problem of the United Nations. We owe the United Nations some $900 million or so in back funding. If we are going to entertain going to war in places like Kosovo and other places, we need to arm ourselves so that we have all of the possible tools available in order to shape the United Nations response to that and other problems, and we do not have those tools so long as that money is being withheld because of the Mexico City impasse. The Mexico City impasse, in plain language, involves questions of policy with respect to family planning issues abroad. Then lastly, we have the very legitimate issue of what we are going to do to respond to the fact that the market has collapsed for many farmers in this country, and also with respect to the kind of farmers that I represent, the fact that dairy farmers have an income which in real terms is about 50 percent of what it was in 1980, over a year's time. So those are the real issues that still divide us and we are going to have to come to a resolution on them, but we are not there yet and that is why we need this additional time. Now, I would like to also explain why it is that I believe why we are here. And as I said 2 days ago, this is not the responsibility of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston). He is a first-rate chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the committee itself has not created this problem. But the committee has not been allowed to do its work because of external realities. Let me cite the main reality. There are two, as far as I see. First of all, if we take a look at the schedule which the leadership of this House put together, in January, we were in session 2 days. In February, the month that we got the budget from the President, Congress was in session 8 days. In March, when we normally have a very heavy hearing schedule, Congress was in session 15 days and there was very little floor action at the same time. In April, Congress was in session for 8 days. And then in April, we had a 19-day Easter district work period, one of the longest in history. On the day that the budget resolution was due, supposed to be finished in this House, this Congress was in recess. Then in May, this Congress was in session a total of 13 days, and then we recessed. We recessed for an 11-day Memorial Day district work period. In June, Congress was in session 15 days. We did, on June 16 pass the committee allocation to each of the subcommittees so the committee could begin its work. But that was 2 months late, because of the delay on the part of the Committee on the Budget and the House leadership in not bringing that budget debate to a full completion. And when the committee did make its allocation, it did so at the direction of the leadership, absent a budget for the government. We then went on recess for 18 days over the July 4th district work period. That was one of the longest July 4th recesses in history. Congress was in session a total of 14 days in July and 5 days in August. We had a 31-day August district work period. In September, Congress was in session 15 days. So the timetable created by the leadership's schedule made it impossible for the Committee on Appropriations to get its work done on time. And that is why, as of this date, the Congress has still not completed action on 9 of the 13 appropriation bills which we are supposed to finish. That has been complicated by the fact that the majority party leadership has apparently come to the conclusion that not only do we have to reach agreements which can get majority support in the House, but that in many cases those agreements also have to satisfy the most conservative and the most confrontational elements in their own caucus. The example of that that I would use is the issue of contraception, where this House on a bipartisan basis passed the Lowey amendment. I think we had some 50 Republican votes for that, along with most Democrats. We then had an even larger margin in favor of that in the Senate, so that women would have the full availability of contraceptive services. But because a good many Members in the caucus of the Republican Majority have very strong feelings against the pill and the IUD, we are now told that we have to overturn the judgment of both houses in order to reach a compromise on this budget. Madam Speaker, I think that the way that contraceptive issue has blown up the budget is an example of what has happened across the budget on many of these other items. And then we also have the problem compounded by the fact that on the Labor-HHS bill, the majority party brought a bill to the floor which was so extreme, it cut $2 billion out of the President's education budget. It was so extreme that the Senate Republicans would not even accept it. And our friends, our Republican friends in the House could not even pass it on this floor because of opposition in their own caucus by moderate Members. So, if my colleagues want to know why we are here, I do not want to hear any more of this baloney about the fact that the President has been out of town, because as I pointed out the last time, the last time I looked, William Clinton is not a Member of the House. He is not a Member of the Senate. He does not get to vote, and he only gets to sign or veto bills after we send them to him, and so far we have not sent him 9 out of 13 bills. So, if the Congress wants to know why we are at this impasse, all we have to do as an institution is look in the mirror. So that is why we are here. I did not want to take that much time, but I think it is important for us to understand why we are at this impasse as we try to get out of it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I want to take this time to say something that has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. I do simply want to say that when the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) retires, this institution will have lost one of the most thoughtful human beings who has ever walked the floor of this House. Of all of the relationships that I have had through the years in this House, it is hard for me to think of one that has made me feel more rewarded than the relationship I have had with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton) in dealing with our mutual responsibilities in the area of international affairs. When Congresses deal with foreign affairs, usually we are dealing with issues that are not very well understood by our constituents and, frankly, often not very well understood by a number of our colleagues as well. Often in dealing with international affairs, the right thing for our country is to do something which may not be, for the moment, very popular. That has never stopped the gentleman from Indiana from doing exactly what he has thought was right for this country on each and every occasion that I have ever dealt with him, whether the issue is seeing to it that we have a constructive policy in the Middle East, or whether it is searching for ways to open up lines of assistance to the newly emerging democracies that were behind the Iron Curtain, or whether it is dealing with the economic problems that we face in Asia on each and every issue, the gentleman from Indiana has simply asked what is in the best long-term interests of the United States. He has stood on principle, and yet he has not been afraid to look for reasonable compromises that did not compromise those principles. I, for one, will very much miss him, and I am certain that every thoughtful Member of this House would share my views and say that the country is experiencing a major loss with his departure from this institution. But I know that in his next work, he will also be contributing to the long-term interests of this country.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the President has never said he was going to shut the government down. In fact, he has continually said he will sign every short-term CR the Congress sends him, so long as we are doing our work. Secondly, he did not just say now he wanted his class-size initiative. He has been pushing for it all year long. He did not just say now he wanted to have schools modernized. He has been saying it all year long. And he did not just ask for the IMF. He asked for the IMF a year ago, and Congress has been foot-dragging it and tying it to an abortion issue. Virtually every issue in this Congress sooner or later gets tied by the majority party to the abortion issue and the family planning issue. That is one of the reasons that we are so hung up and cannot get anything through here.

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

Mr. OBEY. Further parliamentary inquiry. Does the Chair have a list of the membership of the House of Representatives at hand?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OBEY. Could the Speaker pro tempore tell me if the name of William Jefferson Clinton is listed among those who are a Member of the House?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for making my point. The gentleman simply indicated in his remarks that one of the reasons that the Congress has not finished its work is because the President was out of town too often. I would point out that the President is not a Member of this body. The President has no ability to determine whether this House is or is not going to produce its appropriation bills. Under the Constitution, the last time I looked, the only time that a president can affect an appropriation bill is after the Congress gets the bill to the president. The last time I looked, out of the 13 appropriation bills that we are supposed to finish before the end of the fiscal year, only two of those 13 have gotten to the President. So with all due respect to the gentleman's argument, I would suggest it is passing the buck to suggest that somehow the President is at fault for not signing bills that we have not yet sent him. I would simply note that this Congress has worked the least number of work days in decades. We have enacted the least number of bills in decades. We have no budget. We have only two of the appropriation bills finished. Since 1979, the average legislative session in a nonelection year has been 157 days. Yet, in the previous year, the Congress only met 132 days, five weeks shorter than the '79 average. So all I am suggesting, without trying to get into an argument about who shot John, is to suggest that the reason that we are here today is not because the President was not participating in any sessions. We are here today because the Congress did not finish its work. In fact, in the appropriation meetings which they are having right now, fierce objection has been lodged, as the gentleman well knows, by parties to the very presence of staff representing the President to the United States. All I am asking of the other side is to make one argument or make the other. Either argue that the President has not been sufficiently engaged, or argue that he should not be engaged, but they should not try to argue one thing outside of the room when they are talking to the press, and the other thing when they are inside the room talking to me, because I have a limited capacity to understand that kind of doubletalk.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are here long after we should be because the Republican majority is saying no to the President's request to target funding for reducing class sizes in America. We are here because the Republican majority is saying no to helping the poorest school districts in the country repair broken down and dangerous school buildings. We are here with the Congress having passed no real HMO reform legislation, only sham reform legislation. We are now even told by one of the previous speakers that the majority party is happy that they have not passed a minimum wage increase. We are here because the Republican Party is saying no to insurance coverage for women for basic contraceptive services. There are some who would like to blame the President for everything, including the pitiful shape of the Washington Redskins. I would simply say that I have in my hand, as someone from Wisconsin used to say it, a little booklet called ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' Even Members of Congress, I think, have sufficient reading ability in the English language to understand what the book says. And what that book says is that it is the job of the Congress to pass appropriation bills, and then it is the job of the President to decide whether he is going to sign them or veto them. The fact is, out of the 13 appropriation bills that are supposed to be sent to the President, only four have been sent, and two of those four have been signed. That indicates, to me, that when all the buck passing is over, that the Congress, if it wants to know why we are stuck in this situation, has to look only in one place: the mirror. Because it is the congressional responsibility to fund the government. There are lots of things our taxpayers do not want us to do. And I say to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), I agree with him that there are many, many pieces of legislation that this Congress has passed that I think it should not have passed, but the basic responsibility of the Congress is to fund the government. That is our basic responsibility. For a variety of reasons, this Congress has not been able to do it. That is why we are at the table and at this point, with many, many issues still to go, are asking the Congress to get 2 more days to get the work done. I hope we can get it done in those 2 days, but I want to emphasize that will not be the case unless there is considerably more movement than there has been to date in accepting the President's major priorities. We have had some movement in some areas, and I welcome it. That is constructive. But we must have much more movement on the part of the Congress, and I hope fervently that we get it before this next continuing resolution expires. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)