Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Frankly, there is, in the human situation, always a lot of leeway. The Congress does not have the ability to serve as a nanny in dealing with every agency of government who might get out of hand to do something illegitimate. The language of this amendment is pretty clear. The agency is expected to provide education, not advocacy. I would think that any time that the agency engages in an activity which goes beyond the line of the objective of providing information, I would think that people on the side of the issue who think that they have been skewered by it would bring it to the attention of the Congress, and I would think the Congress would react accordingly. I am not in the business of censorship, and I cannot be in the business of defining ahead of time whether some idiot in some agency is going to do something which they are not supposed to do under the law. All I can say is that the language is quite clear. My comments in explaining the amendment are quite clear. And if the agency goes across the line into advocacy, it does so at its peril.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I do not want to comment on a conference that I was not in attendance at. I do not know whether the gentleman's characterization of that meeting in Indianapolis is accurate or not. I assume it is, but I do not know that to be the case. And so I simply am reluctant to provide an adjective describing anything that I do not know anything about.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once again, I would simply note that nothing in this amendment would change the underlying law which prohibits Federal agencies from lobbying for or against legislation pending before Congress, and I assume that applies to indirect as well as direct lobbying.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I did not hear what the gentleman from California said and I am not certain what he meant by what he said.

Mr. OBEY. Does that mean that the gentleman intends to finish the debate on this amendment tonight?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me be very frank about this issue. I happen to believe that there is a severe problem with global warming. I am no scientist, but I think that there is a significant problem. I do not know what the correct measures are to deal with that problem. I think that the most serious environmental problem we face in the long term is probably climate change due to greenhouse gases, and if that trend is sustained, there is no question that our conifer forests, within a few generations, will no longer be in this country. They will be residing in Canada. And there is no question that if the trend continues the grain belt of today will turn into the dust belt of tomorrow. The Kyoto conference was meant to try to discuss what the world ought to do about that. In my mind, the product that came out of Kyoto was flawed. And because it does not deal with what China and other major Third World polluters contribute to the problem, I have great doubts that that protocol will be ratified until it is changed. That does not mean that we do not have an obligation to avoid extreme reactions in the meantime. I think when it comes to gagging the ability of the agency to even conduct educational seminars to provide not advocacy but explanation of the underlying issues, I think that is not only a right of the agency, I think they would be negligent if they did not. And I think that a Congress that did not allow them to do so would be in craven supplication to special interests in this country. So that is why I offered this amendment. Those of my colleagues who know me know I often quote from my friend Archie the cockroach. Archie was a poet who died and came back to life in the body of a cockroach. He lived in a newspaperman's office. He would often write little messages which would appear in the newspaper the next day. He would dive from the carriage of the typewriter onto the keys and type his little messages and they would appear the next day. He wrote something which is I think appropriate to this entire debate. This is what he said: ``America is a paradise of timberland and stream, but it is threatened because of the greed and money lust of a thousand little kings who slash the timber all to hell and will not be controlled and change the climate and steal the rainfall from posterity.'' Now that really is what this issue is all about. My amendment does not seek to allow the agency to lobby anyone. In fact, I would be offended if the agency did, because I do think that Kyoto Conference needs substantial repair before it is considered for modification. But this Congress, which pretends it is interested in freedom of speech, when it protects the ability of big business or big labor to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed millions of dollars in independent expenditures to congressional campaigns, when they pretend that they are protecting freedom of speech because they will not put reasonable restrictions on the ability of special interests to buy this House, for them to then pretend that somehow it is legitimate to say that an agency charged with the responsibility of dealing with the environment cannot even provide educational material and activities to its public, I think that is going a real stretch. That is why I have offered this amendment, and any rational view of that amendment would require its adoption.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me say that people come and go, and they either add or subtract from the places in which they work, but now and then somebody comes to this place who does his work, learns his craft, who demonstrates total dedication and produces service that, indeed, is worthy to be remembered. Lou Stokes has many achievements. He served as chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, he served as chairman of the Assassinations Committee, after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy; he served as chair of the Committee on Intelligence, he served on the Iran Contra Committee, he served as subcommittee chairman of this subcommittee, and, I think his most valuable service has come on a subcommittee on which he has never been chair, and that is the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Education. It is there that I think the gentleman did the most to demonstrate that he has never forgotten his humble beginnings, unlike many other people that we often see in this society. I referred to my good friend Archie the Cockroach once earlier today, and I would simply refer to him again. There is a piece in this book that I think sums up Lou Stokes' service to this House. It says: The lordly ones, the haughty ones, with supercilious heads held high; The up stage stiff pretentious ones, miss much that meets my humbler eye; Not that I meddle perk or pry, but I'm too small to feel great pride; And as the pompous world goes by, I see things from the under side. I think Lou's entire career here demonstrates he understands that. He understands there are millions of people in this country who are stuck with seeing life from the other side, and in a city of 1,200 suits, Lou has never forgotten the people who wear work clothes. I think that he has also demonstrated an interest far beyond just the interest of the poor. In a me-first era, he has remembered the answer to the question of Cain: ``Am I my brother's keeper?'' must very often be yes. So I think in almost every way I can think of Lou Stokes' service here is a daily affirmation of the Judeo-Christian ethic which underlies our society. I want to say on behalf of all of the people in this country who need champions in Congress, even if they never know that they have them, I want to thank Lou Stokes on behalf of each and every one of them and on behalf of every Member in this House for the way in which he has graced this House with his years of service.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I know that this has taken a long time tonight and I know that it has made some people nervous who want to get on with the business of the House. All I would say is with all of the matters that come before this House that divide us, I think it is good and crucial that from time to time we have moments of grace like this which make this place in the end a much better place for all of us to work in.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone here has enjoyed the comments that we have heard about our colleague, Lou. As my colleagues know, we have a lot of business yet tonight. There is no desire on the part of anyone to prevent anyone from speaking, but in order to avoid some time problems, I think it would be useful if we could get an agreement. I asked Lou if he thought it would be appropriate so that we do not unfairly shut this off, and yet can move on with our business, to ask unanimous consent that this continue for another 10 minutes with the time being divided equally among those who still would like to make comments, and then we can move on to a call of the House so that Lou can respond to all of these comments when we have a full House, and then we could move on with the rest of the evening. Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) if this meets with his approval, and it does.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Chair to ascertain how many speakers remain so that we can divide the time?

Mr. OBEY. Five people, all right. Mr. Chairman, let me explain to my colleagues. All we need is to know how many people want to speak and then we will divide the time equally so that everyone gets a fair shot at it.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Since the gentleman used my name, I want the gentleman to yield to me.

Mr. OBEY. Thirty seconds is all I need. I would simply point out that money was taken from the fire fighting account because that was where money was intentionally parked by the committee, which they knew was above the amount that they were going to be asked to be spent on that item anyway. So we took the money from the account that the gentleman's own committee leadership planned to take it from to do the very thing that we did. I do not know how we can be blamed for that.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor today not so much in anger as in bemusement. This rule is the most blatantly partisan manipulation of the House rules that I have seen in my 29 years' service here. And I guess what I feel more than anything else is simply sorrow for those who feel that they have to engage in such manipulations in order to claim political victories. I think we ought to take a look at the history of the arts to understand what is being done here today and why. The history is that, for the last 2 years and really for a number of years before that, a large segment of the Republican Caucus in this House has had as its number one mission the elimination of all Federal funding for the arts. Last year no money was provided for funding for the arts in this bill by the majority party, and it took a clear veto threat from the President and a clear bipartisan resistance to their position by the Senate and an insistence by House Democrats that funding be restored before the conference committee on this bill last year did in fact restore the money. This year, the Republican majority gave zero dollars for the arts in the original bill that came before our committee. In committee, I offered the amendment to restore funding. It was adopted by a virtually unanimous Democratic vote with, I believe, 5 additional Republican friends supporting us to create a bipartisan majority for funding the arts. This rule under which the bill will now be debated simply allows a single Member to eliminate the funding for the arts under the excuse that they are not technically authorized. And then it makes it in order to restore the very money which they will have just stricken, but only if that amendment is offered by a Republican. Is there anyone on the House floor who does not see through that charade? Is there anyone who does not understand that what this indicates more than anything else is that this House, in the closing days before the election, is being turned by the majority leadership from a legislative body into a reelection machine? Does anybody really believe there is any other game but that going on? It is really, in my view, this kind of manipulation that makes so many people back home think that politics in this Congress has become more a question of what politicians do to each other rather than what we are supposed to be doing for the people we represent. And in my view, it is a regrettable chapter in the history of the House. The rule has only one purpose. It knocks out funding put in the bill on a Democratic motion for the purpose of giving a Republican Member a chance to claim credit for putting it back, and it also has the parliamentary effect of raising the number of votes required to preserve the arts because we have to have a majority to put the money back in rather than a majority to take it out. That is all it does. And all I would say to my friends on the Republican side is that if that is what it takes to make them feel good, if that is what it takes to make them feel a little bit more secure from public opinion, by all means, go ahead. But it is not going to fool anybody, not on this floor and not anybody watching. So go ahead, play the partisan games. It is amazing to me to see what some people will do in order to try to claim a political victory. But in the end, what counts is not these partisan manipulations; it is whether or not the arts are funded. That is a grace note this society needs. And so, regardless of the ludicrousness of the rule, I expect to support the amendment when the time comes.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the author of the language which is proposed to be stricken under the point of order, I would simply ask, is this the point of order that would allow the House to put back by recorded vote exactly what will be stricken 5 minutes earlier so that one party can claim victory over another, or is this a serious legislative approach?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that this amendment simply restores funding to the NEA that my amendment originally placed in the bill last week, funding that was just stricken by the Republican point of order. Of course this amendment should be supported, even if the procedure being used is Mickey Mouse. If we have to support a Mickey Mouse procedure in order to provide funding for the arts, then that is what we will have to do.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. At a later point, I will make the appropriate comments concerning my own views of the shortcomings of this bill and the administration's views of the shortcomings of this bill. For a moment, I would simply like to say something about our good friend the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Sid Yates). As everyone understands, he came to this House in 1948. And were it not for the fact that he ran for the Senate and lost by 1 percent and so had 2 years of interrupted service before he returned to this body, were it not for that fact, he would be recognized as the Dean of the House today. He has served this House with extraordinary skills on at least two subcommittees. Since the beginning of the Marshall Plan, he has been involved in foreign policy. Sid was one of the Members here who helped shape the Marshall Plan in its early years. And also, on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, he gave a lifetime of effort to assure the national security of the State of Israel. He recognized that the United States, having been a party to the creation of that country, that we had undertaken a long-term obligation to defend the security of that country, and he has done so with fervor and grace in all the years that he has been a Member of this Congress. At home he has been a champion of civil liberties. He has understood that the Constitution's most important provision is that it guarantees citizens the right to be wrong; it even guarantees Members of Congress the right to be wrong. And I can think of few Members whose passion for individual liberty and whose passion for constitutional rights have been more fervent. I would also say that more than any Member I have known, Sid has been a champion of what he felt to be sensible budget priorities, almost without exception putting the needs of regular working people, putting the needs of education, putting the needs of health care, putting the needs of the environment before the needs of wasteful weapons systems or aid to foreign dictators or other provisions of money that did not as well reflect our national values. He has served this subcommittee as chair for 20 years, and in the last two Congresses as ranking Democratic member; and in that time there has been no greater defender of the public interest in terms of protecting the environment, in terms of protecting public lands, in terms of recognizing our obligations to Native American tribes. And he also has, in my view, been the single best debater I have ever seen in the years I have been in this House. He has stood for a decent and just society. And in connection with this bill, most of all, he has been the quintessential champion of Federal support for and funding for the arts and humanities, recognizing that even with their occasional faults those programs make a great contribution to giving society the grace notes that make this society a little better and a little more human society in which individuals can function. So I am grateful for the years of service he has provided here, as we all are, and we wish him Godspeed in his retirement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do so only to make clear to the House what the concerns are of the administration as we move into the consideration of this bill. The Statement of Administration Policy indicates that on the committee bill as modified by the rule and associated motion, if it were presented to the President, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill at this point. They do so for a number of reasons. First of all, they obviously object to the rule which has put at risk the funding for the arts. Secondly, they object to the shortchanging of a variety of programs in the jurisdiction of this bill because of the inadequate allocation to the subcommittee which results in a serious shortfall of funds in a number of key programs. They specifically object to, for instance, the fact that funds are reduced by more than half of the $270 million administration request for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They object to the fact that there is provided no funding for the millennium program protecting artifacts of our national heritage. They object to the fact that the bill denies most of the requested $128 million increase for Interior and the Forest Service to implement the Clean Water Action Plan. They object to the lack of adequate funding to deal with the Year 2000 computer problem. And they object to a number of legislative riders in the bill, as well, as they affect various environmental programs. They also object to the fact that the administration's requested increase in energy conservation for development of technologies to improve industrial transportation and building efficiencies and to reduce carbon emissions are also significantly reduced. So I would simply say, as we move into this debate, this bill has a long way to go before it reaches a condition in which it would receive a Presidential signature. I think the committee needs to recognize that point today. I would also question the earmarking of several projects in this House that are a very low priority given the very deep reductions that were made in the overall accounts in which those same projects are found. It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, this bill, at this point, despite the best efforts of the chairman of the subcommittee, the bill is not in the condition at this point that it would receive a Presidential signature. I urge the House to correct that as it moves through the process if it wants to avoid yet another appropriations bill which seems to be headed for a confrontation with the White House rather than a compromise.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.