Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request in response to the comments that we had during consideration of the rule on this bill. We've had some of our friends on the minority side of the aisle indicate that they are disappointed that the Appropriations Committee did not provide funding for the western schools program, which is expired, and which is not under the jurisdiction of our committee. In the interest of comity, I would like to respond to that concern by simply asking unanimous consent that the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted. It would have the effect of resurrecting that western schools program for 1 year in the same manner in which it was being operated before it expired.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would simply like to have the Record show that we have tried to respond to concerns expressed on the minority side of the aisle, that the objection to allowing us to do that came from the minority side of the aisle. I regret that, but I guess there's not as much interest in comity as I had hoped today. Having said that, let me explain the bill before us. I think both political parties are seriously misdescribing the economic crisis that we now find ourselves in. I do not believe that this crisis began on Wall Street. I think this crisis began right here in this Chamber. I think it began right here in this town, in the White House. And I think what is happening today is a logical extension of what has happened since the Reagan administration over 20 years ago. The fact is that this Congress and previous and present Presidents have followed economic policies through the years which have resulted in the middle class--and what's called the underclass by some--being squeezed to the wall. Since 1980, the top 10 percent of American families has absorbed 80 percent of the increase in the national income. And in the last 8 years, the richest 10 percent of American families have absorbed 96 percent of all of the income growth in this country. That means the other 90 percent of American families have been struggling for table scraps, struggling to keep their head above water. And one of the ways that they've been doing that has been by borrowing. There is a lot of talk about the increase in the Federal debt over the past decade, which has been over $1 trillion. But the fact is that mortgage debt alone in the private sector in this country has increased by almost $7 trillion at that same time. And at the same time that that huge increase in borrowing was occurring by families trying to stay above the water line, we also had a simultaneous, ill-advised deregulation of the financial sector of the economy. The umpire was, in fact, taken off the field, and as a result, Wall Street took advantage of that, invented all kinds of interesting and complicated instruments, and at the same time, there was very little regulation to protect little people who didn't know what they were getting into. And so, as a result, we've had trickle down economics being followed for 25 years, and now we are experiencing the trickle down consequences. We have, I think, a serious choice to make in this Chamber and in the other body over the next few days. And I hope we make the right choice. All through this year this Congress has tried to do a number of things that would alleviate the squeeze on the middle class. To cite just some of our efforts, we passed the largest expansion of the GI Bill, education benefits, since that program started in 1945. We provided the largest veterans health care funding increase in modern history. We blocked the President's efforts to eliminate all student aid programs except Pell grant and work study. And we, instead, provided an increase in the Pell Grants of $750. And we passed legislation cutting the loan costs of student loans by 50 percent over the next 5 years, all to help middle class families send their kids to school. We increased the minimum wage for the first time in a decade. We extended unemployment insurance benefits to help people who had run out of unemployment benefits and have still not been able to find a job. We provided additional funding to save the SCHIP program, to help keep needy kids on the health care payrolls of our various States. We've provided funding to help States establish high-risk insurance pools----

Mr. OBEY. I yield myself another 5 minutes. To increase access for almost 200,000 people who did not have access to health care. We extended dental care programs for the poor by 50 percent. We passed all kinds of efforts to improve the lot of middle- income Americans. And we had a large dispute with the President of the United States over budget levels for programs in the health, education, science and social services area. The President objected to a number of those programs. He wanted to require Congress to impose $14 billion in cuts in those crucial programs, and he said we simply could not afford that money. But now we are being confronted with a Presidential request to deal with the Wall Street bailout, and that cost will be about 50 times as large as the cost of funding the programs that we've been trying to fund for a year. Meanwhile, this economy is sagging. Jobs, income, sales, and industrial production have all gone down. We have lost 600,000 jobs. Twenty-seven percent more people are unemployed today than was the case just 6 months ago. And so we are bringing before the House today an effort to counter some of those problems. We are trying to provide a major increase in investments in highways, bridges and airports to modernize our infrastructure and to provide well-paying construction jobs at the same time. We are providing a significant increase in funding for construction jobs by helping local communities and States construct sewer and water systems. There is a $600 billion national backlog on that. We are providing additional help to create jobs by moving ahead with flood control projects. As far as schools are concerned, the GAO tells us we have a $112 billion backlog in maintenance, building safety, and technology upgrades for our schools. We're trying to provide a small amount of funding to help begin to take care of that. On the energy front, we've had a theological debate about energy between the parties for the last several months. We are trying to provide some funding here for energy research programs which will create jobs in that area, and at the same time, we are trying to invest a significant amount of money in order to assure that our auto industry, as it converts to battery-driven, dual-technology automobiles, we're trying to make certain that those batteries are developed and produced in the United States. If we can accomplish that, it will be a large number of jobs that we keep here in the United States. We also are trying to extend unemployment compensation benefits for an additional 7 weeks. And we are trying to help State budgets to make sure that States don't have to knock low-income children and low-income families off the health care rolls. This is the main thrust of this legislation. We think it is long overdue. And I would urge passage in the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut, the chairman of the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Transportation appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the public works and infrastructure authorizing committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep going over old ground, but in light of the gentleman's comments, I would like to present a slightly different interpretation of where we are. The fact is that we have passed out of this body and we expect to have sent to the President this weekend the three foreign policy appropriation bills for the year, representing well over 60 percent of the discretionary funding in the budget. We have not sent him any of the domestic appropriations bills for one simple reason, because the White House declared them dead on arrival before they had ever been written. The White House simply made quite clear that if we did not submit to their budget wishes and cut $14 billion out of education, out of health care, out of science, out of energy research and the like, if we didn't do that they would veto the bills. When we asked if they would sit down and talk about it and consider compromise, they indicated they had no interest. It is clear to us that the President means what he says. He often does. So under those circumstances, we had a choice. We could either capitulate to the President's requirements that we cut everything from medical research at NIH to vocational education and the like, or we could say no, we are not going to accept those reductions; we will try to appeal to the public and let them choose. So the public will choose by their selection of either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain. I am sorry, it has been a long day. The fellow from Arizona. Anyway, the public will choose one or the other. And if they choose Mr. McCain, then they will get President Bush's domestic budget, and if they choose Mr. Obama, they will get something quite different. So I think there is a very rational reason for our making this choice. The only other option would have been for us to scream at each other and argue with each other for 6 months, knowing that the bills were going nowhere because of the President's intent to veto the bills. That, in essence, is why we find ourselves where we are on those domestic appropriation bills. But this bill is a different issue. This bill relates not to yesterday's arguments, but to today's problems and tomorrow's solutions. What this bill represents is an effort to respond to the economic chaos that we have seen in this country for the past 8 months or more. It represents an effort. At a time when people are talking about doing a huge bailout for the financial system, we are trying to find discrete ways of making life a little less miserable for people who have been hit hard by the consequences of the economic chaos that has swept over the country. So we make no apology. In a year when we have lost 600,000 jobs, we make no apology for trying to help resurrect the possibility for some more good-paying jobs by adding to construction, to our infrastructure by way of airport and highway and transit development, by doing additional energy research, by doing additional cleanup of sewer and water, again, construction jobs that will mean a good many families will be seeing decent income again where they were not before. That is what this bill tries to do. It is in fact a very modest proposal in terms of what most economists think will be necessary, but it is a whole lot better than doing nothing. FDR warned a long time ago, he said, ``Better the occasional mistake of a government that cares than the constant omission of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.'' And that I think is the choice that faces us today. As Franklin Roosevelt said a long time ago in his inaugural address, ``This country needs action; it needs action now.'' We are trying in a small way to provide that, along with the two other pieces that are now before this Congress, one being the continuing resolution, and the second being the disposition of the huge economy rescue project that the President has proposed. This is a key element in those efforts.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1488, I call up the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OBEY. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker, so I will reserve time until the end.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer the motion at the desk.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the pending legislation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. OBEY. If I yield the gentleman 10 seconds, will he yield to me briefly?

Mr. OBEY. It's never true that the gentleman cannot say a lot in 1 minute.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me first second the comments made by the gentleman from California about our departing Members. They have, I believe, all been professionals. They have been an asset to this institution. They've certainly been an asset to the committee, and I appreciate the many courtesies that we have received from all of them throughout the years and wish them all the very best in retirement. Mr. Speaker, today we have three moving pieces with which we have to deal between now and the closing of the session. The first is the President's unprecedented bailout request or rescue request, however you choose to term it, of $700 billion, which has, I believe, truly astounded the Nation. Second is the need to try to pass a second stimulus package which tries to react to the loss of jobs in this economy by providing funding for programs that will help create additional jobs and also provide funding for programs that help mitigate the pain to families of the loss of employment opportunities. And thirdly, and most immediate, we have to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government functioning. It is important that we pass this and let the other body pass it because we can add at least a small sense of stability to the markets that are in turmoil today and I think also in the process give us more time to address the truly radical proposals that have been sent down to us by the White House with respect to that bailout. I want to congratulate Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young because they both know their bill. They both know their brief. And their staff has provided able support to both of them, and I appreciate the hard work that both of them have done, and I appreciate what they've contributed to this institution over their careers. I want to say the same thing about the Military Construction Subcommittee, which has been ably led by Mr. Edwards and Mr. Wamp, and certainly the Homeland Security Subcommittee, led so ably by Mr. Price and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). I'm especially proud of what's happened in the Military Construction bill. If you take the last year's budget plus this year's budget, we have had the largest increase in veterans health care in the history of the country, and much of that was adopted over the initial opposition of the President. Let me also say that I-- Mr. Speaker, could I suspend and ask the gentleman a question. Did the gentleman yield back all of his time?

Mr. OBEY. I see the minority leader on the floor, and I'm sure that he would probably like to say some words.

Mr. OBEY. If I suspended my remarks, would you like to proceed with the minority leader's comments right now if you could take back your time?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me resume my comments. What I was trying to say is that the item I'm the most proud of in this package is the fact that this Congress will have provided the largest increase in veterans health care in the history of the Republic, and in addition to that, we have also provided by action taken just a few months ago the largest increase in education benefits for veterans since the beginning of the GI Bill. I think that's truly an historic action, and I am very pleased that this House was willing to do that. So this bill does contain the three bills that represent the security-related appropriation bills for the coming year. Having said that, let me make one observation. As I said earlier, I initially did not plan to have the Defense bill in this package. Much has been made today by some Members about earmarks in the bill. The fact is if the Defense bill hadn't been in this package, those earmarks would not have been in the bill. We put the Defense bill in, in the end, at the request of the minority and at the request of the Secretary of Defense who asked us to do so, and I suspect in the end it will probably, from the standpoint of the Defense Department, prove to be the right choice. But having said that, I want to talk about why I believe we have not been able to finish the domestic appropriation bills. The President submitted a budget to us at the beginning of the year in which he insisted that we cut some $14 billion in crucial domestic items. Example: He wanted us last year to cut 50 percent out of vocational education funding, and this year he wanted us to eliminate vocational education. He wanted us in the last 2 years to eliminate all student aid programs except Pell Grant and Work-Study. He wanted us to eliminate the program that teaches medical personnel to deal with the specialized needs of children in children's hospitals. I've never had anybody in my life come up to me and say, ``Obey, why don't you guys in Congress get your act together and cut cancer research.'' And yet, that's what the President and the previous Congress did; they cut almost 1,000 research grants out of the National Institutes of Health. At a time when we've had a 70 percent increase in the cost of home heating, the President asked us to cut the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, to help the victims of those price increases, by 22 percent. So if we had rolled over and accepted the President's domestic budget, that's what we would have had to do. And we felt therefore, that since the President had made quite clear that he would veto any domestic appropriation bills that exceeded his budget request, we felt that rather than capitulate and make those cuts, we would simply say, ``All right, Mr. President, for the 4 remaining months that you're in office, we'll be living at your budget level, but we will kick the can down the road so that if we have a President who will negotiate like an adult at the end of the road next year, then we will try to cut some compromises that will preserve some of these high-priority areas.'' Now, the President made a Federal case out of our desire to spend $14 billion on our own people, and then he has presented to the Congress in the last 2 weeks a request that we spend 50 times that much, 50 times that much, on the bailout of Wall Street. And so I say that to put in perspective the President's stubbornness. The fact is, if he had not taken a ``my-way-or-the-highway'' approach to domestic appropriations, we could have sat down. . . . I told Mr. Nussle many times, I would have been happy to sit down and split the differences right down the middle, compromise like adults are supposed to. But no, the President said, ``My levels or no levels.'' So he gave us no choice unless, of course, we wanted to capitulate. So, by not finishing these bills, we maintained the possibility of providing more support for medical research, more support for energy research, more support for education, and more help to the 50 million people in this country who have no health insurance, and I make no apology whatsoever for doing that. I think it is the right thing to do and the moral thing to do. Now, let me explain just a bit about what's in this bill. We, therefore, straight-lined all of the domestic bills until March 6. In addition, we've included a number of other items. As I've indicated, we have essentially doubled the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. We're taking it up to the full authorization level. We have provided the funds that the gentleman from Michigan just referred to, funds requested to try to enable the auto industry to modernize and retool. We did not give them the $50 billion that they wanted. We have cut it to 25, and we did not change the authorization in the way that the auto industry wanted because we did not want government to be on the hook for 80 percent of the cost of those projects. We also provided the $5 million the White House wanted so that they can conduct their search of e-mails because of subpoenas that have been laid on them. And we have provided $2 billion in this package so that next February, the agency doesn't have to write every family in America and say, ``Sorry, but the Pell Grants for your son or daughter for the next year are going to have to be at a lower level than they were last year.'' We have also provided $23 billion in disaster funding for Iowa, Texas, and all the other States who have been hit by so many bad storms lately. And I will stipulate that I believe that the Community Development Block Grant portion of that disaster funding is inadequate and will have to be revisited next year. These are some of the initiatives we've taken. As the gentleman has indicated, we have also in the process, at the insistence of the White House, acquiesced in the White House's desire to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. That will mean that what happens in the future will be determined by who is elected President. To me, that is what ought to happen in a democracy. When politicians can't agree on something, instead of continuing to try to gut each other and have needless wrestling matches for 6 months at a time, the right thing to do on many occasions is to simply say, ``Okay, we're going to take it to the referees. We're going to take it to the final judges, the American people.'' So that's what we're doing with this package. And it is the American people who will decide whether they're comfortable with the President's deep reductions in health, in education, in science, in low-income heating assistance, or whether they believe that our investments represent a better path for America if we want to see this country grow through the coming years. Basically, that is what we are trying to do with this package. I appreciate the work of the literally hundreds of Members who have had input into this product. I know I have certainly been grabbed every time I turn around by Members who have this idea or that. I'm sure a third of the House is unhappy because of items that are not in the bill and another third is unhappy because of items that are. But that's the way it goes when you have got 535 people, plus a President in the White House who has from time to time been known to have fairly strong views. With that, I would simply say that I would urge support for the product. I want to especially thank the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle. On this side especially led by Rob Nabors, our staff chief. I do not think the average American understands how hard they work. I don't know about last week, but I know this week, many of them have not been to bed in 2 or 3 days. That, I think, is a testimony to their dedication and their willingness to step up and help us do what the country needs. I hope that we will pass this today. But I hope we will keep in mind that we have been asked to do so much with so little in some of these discretionary appropriation bills; and I hope people will keep that in mind in comparison to the huge size of the bailout that the President is asking us to provide for Wall Street. I make no apology for making one last stand to try to preserve our ability to invest $14 billion in our people here at home at the same time that we're being asked to provide 50 times that much to bail out Wall Street for its past mistakes.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply respond to one thing the gentleman said. He said that no one has done any reforming of the earmarking process since the Democratic Party took control of this House. I would point out that the facts indicate quite the contrary. The first year that we were in the majority, we eliminated all earmarks for a year until we could get a handle on the process that had been driven wildly out of control by the previous majority from the other side of the aisle. The second year, we indicated that we would try to cut the amount of money spent on earmarks by 50 percent. The Senate dissented from that. And in the end we were only able to cut it by 40 percent. I would say that is a significant change. We also, in the process, provided the public's right to know by guaranteeing that every Member who sought an earmark would have to sign a letter, publicly displayed, which spelled out who asked for the earmark and which spelled out and made quite clear that the Member would have no personal financial interest in the earmark. We also provided that these earmarks would be posted on the committee Web site. As a result, the public will know who has asked for what and they will know who got what. I call that reform even if the gentleman doesn't want to admit it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out to the gentleman who was expressing concern about earmarks in the Defense bill, that if this CR represented the CR that I wanted to bring to the House floor, it would not contain the Defense bill. The original CR that I brought forward did not contain the Defense bill. The Defense bill was added at the express request of the minority and at the express request of the Secretary of Defense who wrote us the following letter: ``I understand that there is a consideration in the House to not include full year funding for the Department of Defense in the fiscal year 2009 continuing resolution. ``While I understand that some have expressed policy concerns with the bill, I believe it is critical for the orderly operation of the Department of Defense that Congress pass a full year fiscal 09 Defense appropriation bill in order to avoid the significant negative effects of having to operate under a continuing resolution. ``Accordingly, I urge you to include such an appropriation bill in the final continuing resolution.'' When you make concessions such as we did to this letter, I'm sorry if the clock doesn't give us enough time to do so in a pristinely orderly fashion, but we simply had to move this forward to keep the government open.