Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time under the reservation, let me simply say that is not so. The question is not whether we object. The question is whether somebody can take 5 minutes to tell us. I mean, the motion can be renewed at any time, but, frankly, the gentleman from Louisiana and I are totally in the dark about what is happening, I think every other Member here is totally in the dark about what is happening, and I think Members have some right to know what the situation is. And so I would again ask whether anyone from the gentleman's leadership can tell us what the plans are for tonight, for tomorrow and for Veterans Day.

Mr. OBEY. Again, further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I really do not want to object, but my leadership on this side of the aisle has asked that we try to elicit some understanding of what the schedule is tonight. Members have a right to know what the expectation is about when fast track is going to be taken up, they have a right to know whether further legislation will be taken up after fast track tonight, and they also have a right to know whether we are intending to be here tomorrow, whether Members will, in fact, be able to get back for Veterans Day or not, whether there are going to be further conferences tonight. Mr. Speaker, I would ask is there not someone from the leadership on the gentleman's side of the aisle who can tell us what the story is, because, frankly, I have had two or three Members over here who are indicating they are inclined to object to consideration of the CR without that information.

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

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, under my reservation it is my understanding that the gentleman is attempting to bring to the House a 1-day CR. I would like to ask a number of questions so that all Members might understand where we are at and where we expect to be about 2 days from now. Could I first inquire if the gentleman could inform Members what the expected schedule is tonight?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam 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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is fine. The gentleman can live with the objection. I was trying to do him a favor. Forget it. No, I do not want to speak now. If the gentleman does not want to work it out, then I object.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to arbitrarily cut this off, but at the same time I do not want the House to engage in needless conversation when this proposition is going to be objected to, and I am going to object. The fact is that we have been told by a lobbyist on good authority that he has already been told what number he is going to get under the conference agreement. It seems to me that there may not have been a preconference, but it appears to me that there is a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen once that conference takes place. I do not want this House to be in a position where Members, regardless of which side of the issue they are on, find the committee coming back in the dead of night with a done deal and having this bill pass with virtually nobody on the floor. To try to help save Members from that, I do object.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House in the last 2 years has offered more amendments to cut military spending than I have. I think that we spend an obscene amount on military spending. I think it ought to be cut back deeply. Last year I offered an amendment to this bill to cut a number of projects out which were not on the administration's 5-year plan. I had originally expected to oppose this resolution because I felt that justice might best be served by making the White House and the Congress live with the consequences of their action on the line-item veto. But I think the manner in which the White House has handled these line-item vetoes in recent weeks is an affront to responsible government and deserves the type of public repudiation that this resolution provides. It is true that Members of Congress sometimes add items to legislation that are inconsistent with the overall purposes of that legislation and items that serve purposes too narrow to warrant the use of public funds. The same I would say can be said of many of the proposals contained in each of the budgets of each of the six Presidents I have served under. The question which the line-item veto raises was whether or not wiser decisions about the use of public funds could be made if the executive were given significant additional powers with respect to Government spending. I believe the experience we have had with the Clinton White House this fall answers the question. The President's exercise of the line-item veto has been objectionable for the following reasons in my view. First, staff incompetence. With respect to military construction, the first appropriation bill on which the line item was fully exercised, fully one-third of the projects vetoed failed to meet the criteria established by the White House in the first place. Second, executive arrogance. The criteria established by the White House displayed wanton disregard for the constitutional role of the Congress in making decisions about spending. They were not narrow- purpose items, they were of limited public use. In fact, the overwhelming majority were contained in the administration's own 5-year construction plans. The purpose of the veto, therefore, was clearly a matter of insisting on administration priorities in spending over those of the Congress. The White House may want the Government to work that way, but the Founding Fathers did not. Third, political dealmaking. The White House has made it very clear from the outset that its use of the line-item veto is a matter of political discretion rather than objective policy. The Defense appropriation bill which contained nearly half of all discretionary spending and, in my view, more than half of the items that might have demanded the most scrutiny in an objective application of the line-item veto, that bill was the subject of the first administration offer with regard to the line-item veto. On that bill conferees were told by the White House that they would exempt the defense appropriation bill from line-item vetoes altogether if the Congress added more money to fund the very questionable Dual Use Program which gives Government research grants to private for-profit corporations. Fourth is the blatant disregard for eliminating the most wasteful items. While the White House has at times been willing to exercise the line-item veto on items where a clear public purpose was beyond dispute, they willfully neglected to use the veto in numerous instances where lack of a clear public purpose was beyond dispute. What we clearly have here is an effort on the part of the White House to leverage greater political power to the executive branch carried on under the guise of imposing fiscal restraint. But what the executive branch wants under this administration is no different than we have seen under previous administrations. They not only want more power, but they also very often want more money. And line item vetoes are being used to leverage in some cases more spending and to give the executive branch more leverage on nonspending items as well. I believe that is illegitimate. The President is the most powerful office in the world, and as Americans we should be proud of that, but the President should not be too powerful. We elect him to be a President, not a king. In my lifetime the greatest abuse of powers of government have come from the executive branch. If the Congress does not maintain its constitutional responsibility to be a coequal branch of Government, we risk having a Government which increasingly abuses its own citizenry and in which decisions about policy and resources are dominated by unelected staff elites or only marginally subject to popular will. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I have no objection. Free at last, free at last.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to do two things. First of all, the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Porter, was gracious enough to mention the contributions made by all our staffers on both sides on the committee. I would also like to add, in addition to my staffers who have already been cited by the chairman, I would also like to add Christina Hamilton, from my personal office, who worked very hard on this bill. I would also like to express our best wishes to a very dedicated staffer who has worked for the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for the past 10 years on this bill. Dr. Steve Morin is moving back to San Francisco. We will miss his expertise on many health and labor programs, most notably, his great work on the issues relating to AIDS, and trying to minimize the terrible damage that that disease causes, and giving researchers the resources they need to search for a cure. I think this is a very progressive bill, and I would point out once again, if I could have had my way, this bill would have at least $5 billion more in this devoted to education and health and worker protection. But this bill is $900 million above the bill as it left the House. That is not bad, under these circumstances. I again congratulate each and every member of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and all of the Members on my side of the aisle, for working so hard to both define their views and to resolve their differences.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker,, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], also a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I frankly have misgivings and mixed feelings about this continuing resolution. People who know me know that I have a black Irish soul and that I often worry about the downside of life, but even I, until 2 days ago, was very optimistic that we would be able to get out of here with all of our work done on the appropriation bills without the need for a continuing resolution. Indeed, up until 2 days ago, I think we were on that track. But then something happened, because all of a sudden the flexibility which we thought we saw on the part of that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle all of a sudden seemed to disappear, and now we have heard disturbing rumors about the linkage of fast track legislation with the remaining appropriation bills. And I must say that I find it disconcerting to go into a conference on the State-Justice-Commerce appropriation bill today and to discover that the conferees are being told that they must begin the conference without knowing what the language is that we will be asked to vote on issues such as the census, for instance. Now, I happen to be in a peculiar position. I have supported the Republican Party position on the issue of sampling on the census, but it is apparent to me that there is a deal or near deal between the Republican leadership and the White House on that language, and yet rank-and-file Members on neither side of the aisle have so far been given access to whatever that language is. Now, regardless of one's position on the issue, Members have a right to know what it is, and it seems to me that we would not have this CR before us if games were not being played. We were, in fact, told that one Member of the leadership today indicated that the language on the census could not be made public until the vote on fast track because it would, quote, cost votes on fast track. Now, I do not know which side of the aisle is likely to be sold out on that issue, whether it is our side of the aisle or their side of the aisle, but somebody apparently is, and it seems to me that what is happening is very simple. These other appropriation bills are being stalled out in terms of our getting any full information until fast track votes have been achieved. Now, that greatly complicates the appropriations process, it greatly adds to the mistrust in this place, and it is, in my view, the only reason why we even have this CR before us tonight. The issues on appropriation bills were easily resolvable before they became linked to the fast track train, and it just seems to me that rank-and-file Members need to know that we are in the position of needing yet another CR not because of any failure of the Committee on Appropriations to do its work, or certainly not because of any failure of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, or to see to it that these appropriations bills are done, but simply because people at higher levels are linking things that ought not be linked, and, as a result, this committee once again is prevented from doing its business in a timely fashion. I find that very much regrettable and very much not in the public interest, and I am tempted to call a roll call on this because of that, but in the interests of accommodating the Members who would finally like to get out of here, and get a decent meal, and get some sleep, I will withhold. But I do not think Members ought to be fooled. There is very clearly linkage that certain parties are trying to establish on these issues, and I think that is unfortunate because it gets in the way of our ability to deal with these bills straight up and on the square.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.