Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I would simply say that what the Solomon amendment does is simply to restore the pay-for. It still leaves food stamps open to being vulnerable to a single point of order objection by a single Member, and it is gone. That is why I say that this process is designed to create another needless political confrontation. We ought to be here trying to deal with the problems of workers, the problems of farmers, the problems of food stamp recipients, the problems of agriculture research. Instead, another needless political argument is being fashioned, and I think it is incredibly unfortunate. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been standing on the floor for 3 days objecting to that conference report.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. Let me explain why I am asking the question, to be perfectly fair. What I am confused about is as follows: The gentleman indicated a minute ago that there were a number of things wrong with this conference report. I agree with him. I have made known my concern about the fact that this conference report contains new mandatory spending. I think that ought to be discretionary. But I also recognize that there has been a compromise struck between the traditional agricultural interests and the nutrition program supporters and so each side has had to swallow some things they do not like. While the chairman indicated his concern about the entitlement that is created under this bill, he, in fact, has not allowed any point of order to be lodged against that, as I understand it. The rule that is brought to the House at this point only allows a point of order to be lodged against the food stamp provisions and the crop insurance. I am sorry. I am wrong on that. Let me ask the gentleman this: Is it the intent of the Republican leadership by what they are doing here today to take that $818 million, which is supposed to be used to reinstate food stamps for the neediest immigrants in this country, and instead move that over in order to pay for the ISTEA package that is coming up here later today? Is that the game that is going on?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of objection, I certainly want to say that in addition to my suspicion about ISTEA, I think what is going on here is that there is an effort being made to once again set up a needless political confrontation under which a poison pill is inserted in this agreement. That will necessitate the White House vetoing this bill, and then that side of the aisle can claim that it is the White House that has shut down the crop insurance program. That is what I believe is going on. I think it is incredibly outrageous. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman wants me to object, I will object.

Mr. OBEY. The gentleman created this situation. I do not think he should object to people who are stuck with it. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply wanted to say that I find it quaint, indeed, that there are objections being made to the fact that this conference report creates a small amount of additional mandatory spending for agriculture when they intend to ram through this place $220 billion in new mandatory spending on the highway bill, and we will not be able to in any way prevent that from becoming mandatory spending. I think that is absurd. Mr. Speaker, I object to the gentleman's unanimous-consent request.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, my question remains. Is it not true that if one of those scenarios occurs, that, in fact, that money will be on the table to be used later today for ISTEA? BESTEA?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I take this time on the rule to simply announce to the House that I intend to oppose the conference report and, if I have the opportunity, I intend to offer a motion to recommit. I do so for the following reasons: Number one, this bill is a budget buster. It is a veritable pork bonanza. It now contains not the 1,500 special projects which we were told about yesterday. I am told that it now contains about 1,800 special projects. That is 80 percent more projects in 1 year than was provided by the Congress in the previous 42 years of the history of the Highway Act combined. There are projects in here that have been scrutinized by no one other than the Member who requested them. There are a number of projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. There is funding for museums, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, grants to medical schools, direct subsidy payments to private corporations, money paid to trade schools, renovations for historic buildings. A lot of that may be worthy, but it has no business in a highway bill. I would say that I do not know how many Members know it, but this bill actually authorizes a $120 million project for a highway in a foreign country, $120 million for a highway in Canada, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. The worst thing about this bill in my view is that it is financed out of the hides of veterans' health care and now, as of early this morning, out of child care for our kids, Meals on Wheels for our seniors, foster care, and adoption services for orphans, because the bill provides for a $2 billion cut in the title XX block grant. So we are again pummeling the most defenseless people in this society in order to provide more concrete. I am a strong supporter of highway construction, but I do not want to build roads on the backs of kids who need child care and poor seniors who have difficulty getting their wheelchair to the sidewalk and are not going to be getting congregate meals and will not have the luxury of using the public highways. It just seems to me that this is an irresponsible bill, a spectacularly irresponsible bill. I would close by reading two paragraphs from two letters from veterans' organizations. One from the Disabled American Veterans reads: ``We strongly urge a no vote on the previous question for consideration of any such recommittal motion. Defeat of the previous question will allow the veterans' recommittal motion to be offered and give veterans the straight up or down vote on this proposal to cut compensation, which simple fairness dictates they be given.'' Paralyzed Veterans of America says as follows: ``It has been purported that veterans do now agree to the offsets due to the inclusion of certain other increases in benefits.'' This is patently untrue. Paralyzed Veterans Association, and I am sure other veterans' organizations, have never supported the increase of one benefit at the expense of another. The conferees should reconsider their actions in using veterans' funds as offsets to pay for transportation highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's Balanced Budget Amendment. That is why, Mr. Speaker, if I have the opportunity, I will plan to offer a motion to recommit this conference report and ask the conferees to take out the cut in veterans' funding. If someone attempts to preempt my motion with a sweetheart motion that denies the House an up or down vote on the veterans' issue, I will ask for a rollcall on the previous question. Veterans' groups have indicated in writing that they strongly support the motion that I will offer.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). He is, without question, I think one of the most effective chairs in this House, and he certainly knows how to run a railroad. I also have considerable respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the subcommittee chair for surface transportation. As far as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is concerned, my friend from the wrong side of the bridge in Minnesota, he and I vote against each other about, I think we voted against each other more in the past week on this issue than we have in all of the time we have been here. I have great respect and affection for him. But I stand here today because I believe it is important to recognize that there are certain principles which are being grossly violated by this bill that should not be violated. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota just said that there is something in this bill that every Member can take back home to their districts. That is certainly, certainly true. There are some 1,800 projects in this bill. To put that into perspective, in the entire history of the highway program, we have only had 1,022 projects for Members. In this bill, in one year, there will be 1,800. That is the most spectacular example of excess that I can recall. There is even in this bill a $120 million authorization for a highway in Canada. Now, I know a lot of citizens in a lot of States who would prefer that those dollars be spent in their own States. I did not know that Canada had become attached as another State, but evidently, despite that, we are going to spend money there any way. The main reason to oppose this bill is that it is simply a budget buster. As I understand it, it is $32 billion over the CBO baseline over 6 years, and as a consequence of that, to find ways to pay for that excess, the committee has taken, we are told, about $15 billion out of the hides of veterans' health care perhaps. They have also taken out $2 billion out of the title XX block grant. That is the program which pays for child care, for child protective services, for foster care, for home base services for the elderly, for services for at risk youth, for Meals on Wheels for the home bound. $2 billion coming out of that over three years. And then the bill says that for every year thereafter, there will be a continued reduction in that program. I do not believe that home bound senior citizens expect us to build highways by running over their needs, and I do not believe that veterans think we should do so either. I have two letters which I read earlier and I will read again a portion of them. The Paralyzed Veterans Association of America says as follows: ``It has been purported that veterans have now agreed to the offsets due to the inclusion of certain increases in other benefits. This is patently untrue. The conferees should reconsider their actions in using veterans funds as offsets to pay for transportation and highway projects that far exceed the levels established in last year's budget agreement.'' The Disabled American Veterans urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on this bill because of their objections to the veterans' cuts. It just seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that while highways certainly deserve to be a top priority, they do not deserve to be the only priority, and we should not be funding concrete in another country. Certainly, we should not be paying for 1,800 special congressional projects by taking it out of the hides of veterans' health care and title 20 block grant, which is needed by our most needy and defenseless citizens. So that is why I will be offering, if I have the opportunity at the end of the bill, I will be offering a motion to recommit to at least eliminate the cuts for veterans that are used to finance a portion of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that this bill has a sense of the Congress resolution that if there is a tobacco settlement, that funds from that settlement should be used to restore benefits for veterans which are being cut in this bill. To me, that is like promising to bring somebody back to life after you have shot them. It just seems to me that that language is clearly a fig leaf. It is about as useful as the previous sense of Congress resolution which was in the original highway bill when it left the House. That sense of Congress language said that the conferees should not cut veterans, and yet they did. So I think we can see that a new sense of Congress resolution in this proposal is not worth the paper it is printed on. Let me also say that I think we ought to understand that we are about to go home on Memorial Day and rub shoulders with veterans' groups all over the country, and tell them, yes, sirree, boys, we really appreciate what you done for us, and yet, we are about to stick them with a $16 billion reduction in veterans' health care. We are also about to say to seniors who need home-based services for the elderly, we are about to say to families who need help to deal with foster children, we are about to say to women who need child care, we are about to say to them, we are going to cut you by one-third in the social service block grant. I have a letter which I received from 49 Members of this House just 2 weeks ago asking us to maintain the full level of funding for the same title XX services which this committee cuts by $2 billion. I want to see how many Members are going to vote for this bill today, and then go home and tell their veterans that they are for veterans' health care, and go home and tell their seniors that they are for home health care, and go home and tell women of this country who need child care help that we are going to cut that block grant by 20 percent. I just do not think we ought to do it. I would point out there are 1,800 special projects in this bill. That is 80 percent more than we have provided in the history, in the 42- year-history, of this highway bill, and we are even providing $120 million to build a shiny new road through Canada.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) was thinking of attaching part of Minnesota to Canada, but I did not know it was going to be accompanied by $120 million for a highway for our Canadian friends. You will have to ask somebody who favors it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the national defense of the United States needs a new highway in Canada about as much as each of us needs a case of pneumonia. I would suggest that I do not think our taxpayers are going to be very impressed by that explanation. Let me simply, in closing, read one paragraph from the American Legion. It says, ``Members who support rescinding future veterans' benefits to pay for roads and other projects should be ashamed of their actions. It is unfortunate that Congress is willing to redirect veterans' monies to pay for highways and mass transit. This is truly disturbing, since CBO estimates there will be a $636 billion surplus. On the eve of the Memorial Day weekend,'' the American Legion says, ``remember that a government which cuts veterans' benefits relinquishes the right to ask its citizens to serve in the Armed Forces to protect the country. This is especially true when their government shares responsibility for their service- connected disabilities, their illnesses, in the first place.'' I agree with that and that is why, Mr. Speaker, if I have the opportunity, I will be offering a motion to recommit which would eliminate the cuts in veterans benefits that are proposed in this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman tell me how many Canadian citizens use that highway every year versus how many U.S. citizens use the highway?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the assumption that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is in favor of the conference report, I rise in opposition to the conference report and pursuant to rule XXXVIII, I request one-third of the time.

Mr. OBEY

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