Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out one thing. The gentleman indicated that what we were trying to do is to tilt the system in favor of our region of this country. I would point out that right now the law requires farmers in the gentleman's region of the country to be paid several dollars per hundred pounds of milk more than ours. The option favored by the Secretary simply eliminates 25 percent or less of that unfair advantage.

Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply put that chart in context. That chart represents as far as the Secretary is allowed to go under the law in simplifying milk marketing orders. What we wanted to do in our region legislatively, and we were denied that opportunity by the House leadership, we wanted to create a situation under which, under the Gunderson amendment, the colors on that entire map would be the same because there would be only one milk marketing order. You are attacking us for the limits which you yourself have imposed on the agreement. That is the fallaciousness of the argument.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this will take a little time because I need to go back into some history to explain what is happening here today. In 1938, the Congress passed legislation which established a series of milk marketing orders which, in essence, had the government setting prices for fluid milk based on where that milk was manufactured in the country. That made sense in 1938 when we did not have refrigeration, we did not have quality highways; it does not make sense today. It simply encourages overproduction, and it costs the taxpayer, and it hurts the consumers, and it hurts a lot of farmers in a number of regions around the country. In the 1985 farm bill, Congressman Coehlo was instrumental in making a legislative change to that provision in law, first time that the Congress had interfered up until that time. Whatever differentials were provided for a Class I pricing were provided by administrative decision on a neutral basis. But that 1985 law added to the differential, and it raised the cost of milk products in a number of sections around the country. As a result, today a farmer in Florida is required by law to receive $3 more per 100 pounds of milk than a farmer from my neck of the country is. A farmer from New York for fluid milk is required by law to be paid $2 more per 100 pounds on average than farmers in my section of the country. We tried to change that in the farm bill that passed 2 years ago. Our efforts culminated in the amendment being offered that was offered at that time by Mr. Gunderson who was, at that time, the Republican chair of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, and he tried to offer an amendment which would in a wholesale way reform that system. He was rebuffed. He was told by the leadership of the House, no, there will not be any ability to offer an amendment to change this on the House floor. We are going to block you in the Committee on Rules. The only remedy that you will have is administrative. Proceeding under authority in the farm bill to review the situation, Secretary Glickman has reviewed the seven options that he had before him for reforming this monstrosity, and he has proposed two for consideration by farmers. One is called Option 1-A. The other is called Option 1-B. The agency prefers 1-B, which is a tiny modest reform of the existing system. The status quo is represented by Option 1-A. What is happening is that the very people who told us that we could not have a legislative remedy are now saying we cannot have an administrative remedy either. What they are saying is they are, in essence, delaying the ability of the Secretary to produce a reformed recommendation. What that means is the Congress is saying, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Glickman, do not bother to even think about changing the milk marketing order system, because we will override you legislatively. That is why they have this delay in allowing the Secretary to propose his amendment. I think that is illegitimate, and that is why I have a simple motion to strike that provision of the bill. Under the normal rules of the House, I should have been allowed to simply strike the section on a point of order because this section of the bill is clearly legislating on an appropriation bill. It is illegal under the rules of the House. It is not under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. I should have been allowed to strike that. I was not allowed to do so because that illegitimate section was protected by the rule. So now this is the only opportunity we have to have any discussion whatsoever of this proposal. There is one other problem associated with what is in the bill. It also, by indirection, extends what is known as the Northeastern Dairy Compact. I do not blame representatives from any region of the country for trying to get a better deal for their farmers, but it should not come at the expense of farmers in other sections of the country, and it should not come at the expense of consumers. What this provision in the bill provides is that it also allows for another 6-month extension of the Northeastern Dairy Compact. That will continue to raise prices for consumers in that region. It will continue to fence out from that region all dairy products produced in any other section of the country.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield on that point, let me simply ask, does the gentleman really believe that we should be establishing internal trade barriers to milk products in this country while we are being told that we should abandon trade barriers internationally?

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply ask the gentleman, outside of the fact that his State has 31 Members in this House and our State has 9, is there any other reason why his farmers should be required by law to receive $2 for every 100 pounds of fluid milk, $2 more for every hundred pounds of milk than my farmers are allowed to receive under the law? Does the gentleman not believe that the market should determine what the price is rather than which State has the most votes on the floor of the House?

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me simply observe that all through the debate last year, we were told, ``You guys aren't going to get the opportunity to offer an amendment on this floor because we're going to prevent you from doing that by a special rule in the Rules Committee, so you aren't going to get a legislative remedy. You are going to have to rely on the USDA to come up with an objective reevaluation through their analysis.'' Now that USDA has done so and the Secretary of Agriculture has indicated clearly that this system needs some reform, even though the reform he has proposed is the most minimal of the options offered outside of the status quo, we are now being told, ``No, sorry, guys, don't bother. Mr. Secretary, don't bother, because if you try to adjust it, we're going to hammer you down legislatively.'' That is what that provision is about in the bill. We are offering this amendment so that we finally get an opportunity to deal with this issue the way we should have been allowed to get an opportunity when the bill was originally before us.

Mr. OBEY. You bet I did.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman needs to understand that within both options there are variations within the State which neither of those charts demonstrate. The existing system is far worse than you show on either one of those charts.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with a single thing that the gentleman has said. I would simply make the point that despite his best intentions, and mine, we are now operating under a set of laws which in essence, as far as trade is concerned, is a pretty good deal for grain farmers but is a disaster for dairy farmers, because Canada has not been required to live under the same rules that we are required to live under. And so we have been told, ``Sorry, boys, you're on your own.'' It just seems to me that if we in fact are going to be abandoning dairy farmers to the marketplace, then that marketplace----

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make the following point. I understand the gentleman from New York is objecting to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) under clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits legislation on an appropriation bill. I would point out that that is exactly what the bill itself does. If the Committee on Rules had not pushed through a special rule, I would have been able to lodge exactly the same point of order against the underlying bill that the gentleman is now lodging against the gentleman from Wisconsin for his amendment. It seems to me highly unfair to use the rules in one place to enforce the status quo and to use the rules in another place to attack the status quo. It would seem to me that if the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who himself reported out the rule under which I was precluded from offering my amendment, is going to support a rule like that, he would, in the interest of fairness, owe it to the gentleman from Wisconsin to allow the same principle to be applied to his amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the compact acts as a tariff barrier because processors have to pay the higher price to any farmer, whether that farmer lives in the New England region or not. That means if a Minnesota farmer or Wisconsin farmer can produce the product for less price, they have to add to their price before they can sell in that region. That is why it serves as a trade barrier.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, then it seems to me that that market ought to at least be a real market. Despite everything that has been said here today, no one can tell me yet why it is fair, why it is in the tradition of equal treatment under the law, for the law to require farmers in one section of the country, in Florida, for instance, to pay farmers $2 more or $3 more per hundred pounds of milk than they get in our region. That is just not fair.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, the average farm in my district is 50 cows. That is already a giant. The gentleman makes the best possible argument for the worst case that you have on the merits.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I have no objection to protecting people from the unfair aspects of the free market, provided that you protect everybody. But the way this works is you are protecting your farmers at the expense of farmers in every other section of the country, and I do not regard that as a legitimate way to proceed.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I very much thank the gentleman for the time. I simply wanted to come to the floor to really pay honor to the gentleman who is managing this bill on this side of the aisle for the last time, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). I have known Bill since the first day he walked into this institution, and I have never seen a day when he did not bring honor to this House by his service. He has, as our chairman has already indicated, a wonderful sense of humor. He has a wonderful sense of music. He also has a wonderful sense of honor. Those that know him know that religion means a lot to him. But as we have seen him demonstrate often on this floor, he also has a very healthy skepticism about the use to which some politicians put religion, or at least their professed religiosity. The gentleman has indicated time and time again that he recognizes all too often the propensity of some people in public life to wrap an economic or political message in a religious ribbon and call it religion when it is, in fact, something very, very different, something which demeans God and demeans religion. He, I think, understands that there are some things in life that are too important to politicize, religion being one of them. I have admired for so long his ability on an issue to be righteous without being sanctimonious. He has, I think, demonstrated in countless ways on countless days a sense of justice, a sense of outrage against injustice, and most of all, a political courage that we wish would be emulated more often on this floor than it is. In addition to being a first-rate legislator, he is a first-rate human being. I for one will miss him greatly. I will miss his good judgment. I will miss his good temper. I will miss his wonderful sense of humor. I will certainly miss the opportunities that I have had through the years to play my bluegrass harmonica in backup to his gospel singing. His gospel singing is better than my bluegrass harmonica, but we have had a lot of fun doing that. I simply want to say to young people who will be entering this House in the future, they could do a lot worse than to emulate the style of the gentleman from North Carolina. He has brought grace to this House. He has brought determination and courage and guts to this House. As someone else indicated, I have never heard him ask what is the political vote. I have often heard him ask what is the right vote. That is the right question that ought to be asked in this institution. So, Bill, we are going to miss you, but we know that wherever you are, you will be keeping an eye on us. From time to time, I think you will be pulling our leash to let us know when you think we are getting out of line. It has been a pleasure to serve with you.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time to note that this is the last time that the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) will be managing a regular appropriation bill on this floor because of their retirement. I just have to say something about both gentlemen. As far as the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is concerned, I can think of no more decent person who has ever served in this institution. He is not only a person of immense graciousness personally, but he is a person who is willing to take on any task for the benefit of the national interest. He is one of the people in this place who recognizes that there are many times when the job of governing has to take precedence over politics, and has never ceased to act on that assumption. He has also, in virtually every issue that I have ever seen him deal with, consistently insisted on putting public interest ahead of virtually every other interest. He is one of those rare people in politics who is, first and foremost, a workhorse rather than a show horse. I will miss him very much personally. I know the rest of this House will, as well. As far as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) is concerned, he had already established a reputation for legislative quality and leadership when I arrived here as a freshman. I never cease to marvel at the talent with which he handled every responsibility given to him during the years that I have served or watched him in this body. I have to say that he has demonstrated to me time and time again that he is a person of absolute integrity and extreme wisdom, to boot. He has treated Members fairly regardless of their partisan stripe, and he certainly is, as is the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), what people who truly care about this institution call ``institutional men.'' They are both institutional men. They recognize the needs of this institution in the finest sense of that recognition. I am going to greatly miss both of them.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida makes much of the fact that this is an open rule. I defy him to name one year when the Democratic Party, when it was in control, brought to the floor anything but an open rule on the military construction bill.

Mr. OBEY. Can the gentleman name a year?

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is avoiding the question.