Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I simply want to suggest that I do not think that the juxtaposition that the gentleman from Indiana laid out between spending in space and spending here on the planet is at all illegitimate, as the gentleman seemed to suggest. I remember being thrilled when Alan Shepard went into space, and I am still thrilled by the prospect of space exploration. But times have changed and budgets have changed. When Alan Shepard went in space, we were meeting our obligations to house people on the ground, we were meeting our obligations to our environment, we were meeting our obligations to the poorest among us. We still had national standards for the treatment of persons who were not in the winner's circle. Today, we have none of those. It just seems to me that when we see that this system has been redesigned seven times, when we see that the cost has exploded, when we see that this Congress is apparently willing to kill the low-income heating assistance program to keep houses warm for four million people on the face of the Earth, then I feel no guilt whatsoever in suggesting that we ought to shut down that fancy house in the sky for eight people.

Mr. OBEY. Well, I see 140.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will get a list and I will yield to everyone 1 minute. Could I start by yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

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

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that, to me, frankly, is irrelevant. The fact is that none of these discussions have taken place on this floor since the gentleman reported out on his side of the aisle the labor, health, education and social services bill, which guts services to the most defenseless and vulnerable people in this society. And we need in that context to debate the issue that the gentleman from Indiana is trying to debate tonight. When we are willing to kill 500,000 summer jobs for kids who started out in life just like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Lou Stokes), then I apologize not one whit for suggesting that the money that is being spent on the Space Station, for now, perhaps, ought to be spent down here on the ground. When the gentleman indicates that he is willing to cut, to absolutely wipe out reading and math help for 520,000 kids in our society, then I make no apology for saying perhaps the Space Station ought to take the back seat. When the gentleman is going to kill safe haven after-school centers for 400,000 kids on the ground, then I make no apology for trying to take on or to raise the question of whether the spending in space ought to be cut back. We talk about making tough choices here. Oh, yes, we are really tough if we are willing to take on the kids, if we are willing to take on the poorest people in this society with no lobbies. But, boy, I do not see anybody very tough when it comes to taking on the contractors who are behind this, or behind the C-130s, or behind the F-22s, or any of the other hardware that produces the glitz and produces the campaign contributions. Not many campaign contributions for supporting help to low-income kids. And I think that is why we will have a quite different outcome on these votes. And I could not help but say that after I heard the direction that this debate was taking.

Mr. OBEY. That the debate will continue on this amendment until it is finished tonight, but no more amendments?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, has that arrangement been cleared with our leadership?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, does he think we might get more votes for this amendment if we move this debate from the air-conditioned Chamber today to the steps of the Capitol?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to speak on this amendment but, frankly, we have had a good day filled with a lot of congeniality and camaraderie, but one of the observations made by the subcommittee chairman frankly got my dander up a little bit.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is to supersede language in the report on page 59 which states that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality are thus directed to refrain from conducting educational outreach for informational seminars on policies underlying the Kyoto Protocol until or unless the protocol is ratified by the Senate. This amendment would allow such educational outreach and informational seminars to proceed. I think most people would agree that there is considerable difference of opinion concerning the Kyoto Protocol and global warming and climate change. I think most would also agree that the only possible way to reach an understanding or potential compromise on such an emotionally charged issue is if there is a full and free exchange of information and ideas. Having said that, though, there is truth in the statement in the committee report that there can be a fine line between education and advocacy on an issue. Assuming adoption of the amendment, I would still encourage the EPA and the CEQ to pay close attention to the line between education and advocacy and stay on the right side of that line. Now, as to what the amendment does not do, it does not change any of the statutory language in the bill regarding Kyoto. The limitation on page 58 of the bill still prohibits the use of funds to develop, propose or issue rules or regulations or decrees or orders for the purpose of implementation or in contemplation of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. I am not fully satisfied with that language because I think it in fact may block some activities that it should not block, but I recognize that there should be no imposition of rules or regulations or decrees until and unless the Kyoto Protocol is actually ratified. Regardless of the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol, we all need to know much more about the issues of potential global warming and climate change. In order to have an informed public policy debate, the Congress should be encouraging, rather than stifling, education and outreach and informational dissemination activities. This amendment does exactly that. It takes no position on the merits of Kyoto; it just allows for the educational process and the free flow of information to continue. I think that any objective person would recognize that there is nothing wrong with that, and I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in its present form, I certainly am.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, since the day I came here, Sid Yates, more than anyone else, has been associated with this bill year after year. I think it is safe to say that, without Sid Yates' leadership, there would be no funding for the arts and humanities in this bill. On the environmental front, in dealing with public lands, no one can question that Sid Yates has, indeed, been Mr. Public Interest on those issues. In so many fields, he has set the highest example of what public service is supposed to be all about. He has been fighting for justice. He has been fighting for humanity and decency in the actions that our government takes both at home and abroad. In defense of the individual against both government and corporate power, Sid has had no peer. He has graced this institution and honored this country with his service here. He has enriched the lives of each and every one of us who have served with him. He is indeed the Gentleman from Illinois. I want to say to the House the greatest debate that I ever saw in this place never took place in this Chamber. It took place in the full Committee on Appropriations, a debate of titans between Sid Yates and Eddie Boland on the SST many years ago. I remember Sid opening up that debate with a magnificent attack on the committee position. Eddie Boland responded with an incredibly able and eloquent defense of the committee position. With each speaker, we knew that the other could not possibly top what had just been said; and, yet, they continued to do so for well over an hour. At the end of that debate--and this is the only time I have ever seen this in all of the years I have served here--the committee stood and gave each of them a standing ovation. In my view, that is what the gentleman from Illinois deserves right now.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I most reluctantly withdraw my motion to recommit.