Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes. Before I get into the bill, I would simply like to take a moment to also, from the minority side of the aisle, extend our best wishes to Sue Quantius as she leaves to pursue other opportunities in life. As the subcommittee chairman indicated, Sue has been with our subcommittee for 9 years. She has worked for four full committee chairmen during that time, including myself and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. The gentleman from Illinois kindly left out that Sue had the great misfortune to begin her public service by serving as an intern on the Commission on Administrative Review, which was a reform commission which I chaired. We got half of our package through, the ethics package, but the other half of the package, the administrative changes in the House, were abruptly interrupted by a resounding ``no'' vote on the rule, and it took about 10 years for most of those recommendations to be adopted on a piecemeal basis. That was an ignominious beginning to a distinguished career. I simply want to say that her work on biomedical research, on health issues in general and other issues has been superb. The public has been greatly served. Sue is another one of those persons about whom the public never hears much but without whom Government simply would not work. I appreciate the work that she has done for all of us. Mr. Speaker, one of my closest friends in politics is a man from Ireland by the name of John Hume. John Hume has noted on many occasions that politics is supposed to be the settlement of fiercely held differences by peaceful means. As people know, I do not shrink from political fights or arguments, and I do not shrink from fights on substance. But I prefer not to have them. I think that we are all, or we all ought to be, happiest on this House floor when we are pursuing politics not as war but as a method by which we accomplish important things for the people we represent. This bill more than any other bill that the Congress passes does that. This bill affects more human beings, more families in this country than any other bill that we touch. I think it is worthy of note to compare the atmosphere in which this bill was debated just 2 years ago with the atmosphere in which it is being debated today. Two years ago, this bill attempted to cut key programs for education and health and worker protection by some $6 billion. Those efforts to cut programs such as education and health and worker training were a principal reason that the Government was shut down. Two years ago, education was cut in this bill by $3.5 billion, worker protection by almost 15 percent, job training for unemployed workers by almost 30 percent. Assistance to low-income folks in order to heat their homes in the dead of winter was cut by about a third. Today, in contrast, we do not have a Government shutdown. We do not have partisan warfare on this bill. The gentleman from Illinois is right. This bill has been pursued in a bipartisan way with a bipartisan coalition producing very positive results. This bill is $5.8 billion above last year for key programs in it. The National Institutes of Health is increased by 7 percent. That means research that we do on all of the diseases that human beings fear, whether it is cancer or heart disease or Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or you name it. We are trying to make steady progress in attacking all of the diseases that plague mankind. Education is up by 12 percent, over $3 billion. Pell grants have a 24-percent increase. Pell grants are the major program outside of student loans that help working-class kids get a decent education beyond high school. We have provided a $300 increase in the maximum grant for independent students and for dependent students. Special education services for disabled children, up by 18 percent in this bill. We have bilingual education increased by 35 percent in this bill. We have the most important education reform effort since title I, $150 million for comprehensive school reform to give local schools the tools to do the job locally in improving the operation of their schools so that they can raise student performance to meet high standards. On education testing, we have a slightly different proposition from the original committee proposition. The administration can proceed with development of tests. It prevents field-testing in the first year, which originally would have been allowed by the original committee agreement. It prevents test administration for 1 year, in contrast to the original committee bill that would have had a permanent prohibition on testing without new authorization. Worker protection, workers' rights to organize, to bargain for decent wages, to work in decent working conditions are all protected in contrast to the very sharp reductions made in those programs in past years, at least the attempts that were made. We have a needle exchange program in here that may be controversial, but which will save lives, which may proceed after March 31 of next year. This bill repeals the $50 billion ripoff that was being provided in the tax bill for the tobacco industry. It provides a $100 million increase for low-income heating assistance program, a 10-percent increase. Cuts in family planning are fully restored. Goals 2000, we reached a compromise at last year's freeze level. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this bill is worthy of the tradition left to this House by people like Bill Natcher and Silvio Conte who worked for years to make this a bipartisan product. It is, I think, something that Members can be proud of because the fight in the budget, after all, is not really about how much we spend, it is where we spend it, and at least on this side of the aisle, and I think a good many Members on that side of the aisle, as well, recognized that we need to put more of our funds into education, into health, into jobs, into job training, into worker protection. That is what this bill does. It is, I think, a progressive effort to meet the Nation's needs, and I make no apology for the funding that we spend in it. It is spent on the people we represent for their most important long-term needs as families, and I would urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I was remiss in not also indicating my profound appreciation for the way that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has handled this bill as well as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. We have certainly disagreed, sometimes vehemently, many times on many issues, but we have always tried to keep in mind that our obligation was in the end to bridge those differences, and in the case of Mr. Porter we are dealing with a subcommittee chairman who not only feels his strong sense of obligation, but knows this bill and knows the programs in it, and that was always an invaluable help. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if we can cut through the partisan bloviating we have just heard for a few minutes, I would like to note something else. I have voted against every farm bill that has been in front of this House for the last 10 years because those bills guaranteed that the dairy farmers from the upper Midwest would receive significantly lower prices than farmers in other regions of the country. This week a Federal court struck down those milk marketing orders as being arbitrary and capricious. That court is right. They ordered the USDA to no longer enforce those milk marketing orders. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end business as usual on this issue. Congress and the USDA and major dairy organizations need to recognize that major changes must be made in the milk marketing order system. Until those changes are made, the responsible thing to do is to vote against any other farm legislation that comes to this floor.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. In response to the comments of the previous speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], Mr. Speaker, I would like to take note of two facts. I notice a fax from the Office of Congressman Shadegg which says, ``Urgent, Republican leadership is pushing the David Obey proposed compromise, which sells us out on testing.'' That is what I hear from one side. Then I hear from Mr. Ralm Emanuel at the White House that the White House intends to veto this bill ``because Dave Obey has sold the White House out on testing.'' I would suggest that if Mr. Clinton, or the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] or Mr. Emanuel or the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] or anyone else thinks that it is so easy to put together a compromise, they sit down and talk to each other. It seems to me that that is what we need, rather than having both sides cry ``sell-out'' because this committee has tried to draft an honest compromise. I have great respect for the President, and I have great respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], but I would suggest that one of them is spectacularly wrong.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time so that I may ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] a question about the schedule. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members on this side of the aisle who are concerned about what the schedule is for the remainder of the day. Is it correct and can Members be assured that the only remaining business today is the disposition of this conference report, and that we will not be going on to any other legislative matters?

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been around here a long time and I have often seen a lot of peculiar things happen. Many of us have seen on many occasions individual Members of this House drag their feet or oppose a project or do very little to promote the project until that project is going to pass, and then all of the sudden there are an awful lot of instant fathers for the project. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that for the sake of historical accuracy, the Record ought to show that with respect to the creation of the Headwaters project in this bill today that without question the driving force in the Congress behind that project was, first of all, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Resources, and Senator Feinstein, who worked extremely hard to get that project developed. With respect to the comments of the gentleman from Mississippi, I would simply say if this Congress simply stopped funding idiotic projects like the B-2 bomber or the F-22, we would not only have enough money to put every soldier off food stamps, we would have enough money to put them all in alligator boots.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this rule, and I am going to support this bill. If the administration vetoes it, I will speak to override the veto. I do not want to do so because I think that this bill is perfect. It is not. There are many items in this bill that I believe should not be here. I agree with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] on the log export question. I think that is outrageous. I also think there are a number of other giveaways in this bill. But I have to say that I honestly believe that on this side of the aisle we did the best job we could negotiating on this bill, given the fact that the people who are quarterbacking the congressional lobbying for the administration are Little Leaguers. I cannot help that. All I can do is work with what God gives me. So we are doing the best we can under the circumstances. There is no question, in my view, that the administration gave away far more than they should have, both to some interests in this country and to some individual Members of Congress. We hear a lot of talk from the White House about the money that they are going to save on the line-item veto, for instance. This bill is a classic example of how the executive branch of Government, regardless of party, will, in the present and in the future, use the line-item veto and use their other powers in order to leverage more spending in a bill, because this bill contains at least three items which are out-and-out gifts to individual Members of Congress in order to facilitate the ability of the administration to spend almost $700 million in additional money. Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill, because in the public interest it is the best we can do under the circumstances. But I for 1 minute do not want to leave the impression that I in any way am thrilled by the content of much of it. I am not. I think on balance it deserves to be supported because the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] have done the best job they could under the circumstances, but I cannot help the fact that we have had a sometimes pitiful approach from the other end of the avenue.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, a small point, but I would ask the gentleman when he refers to my party to refer to it as the Democratic Party. That is, in fact, the name of our party. We do not call the Republican Party the ``Republic Party.'' It has been a practice of some Members of the Republican Party for a generation to call us the ``Democrat Party,'' but, in fact, it is the Democratic Party, and I would appreciate it if they would remember that.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for this continuing resolution to be here and for that matter there is absolutely no reason for this Congress to continue to be in session. To the best of my understanding, we are continuing to be in session past the leadership's original target date for adjournment for two reasons. One, there appears to be a Senate Republican Campaign Committee dinner with a fundraising target of $5 million which is to take place on November 5 or 6, and I guess certain folks would like to keep the Congress around for that so there is good attendance at that dinner. The second reason is because there are essentially four issues remaining on four appropriation bills which reasonable people ought to be able to resolve and which if left to this committee could be resolved within a week. There is no reason whatsoever why appropriation bills could not be finished yet this week or certainly early next if this committee were allowed to do its work on appropriation items. But we have four issues which are still hanging out there. Until somebody at a higher level than the committee decides which way this boat is going to go, we are going to be continuing to go in circles. Virtually nothing has happened since we passed the last CR with the exception, I believe, of one or two noncontroversial appropriation bills. But we are still being held up on the issue of education testing. It would seem to me reasonable people could come to a compromise on that agreement. We are still being held up on Mexico City policy because the right-to-life folks in the Republican caucus will brook no compromise whatsoever and some of the population groups on the other side of the issue will also brook no compromise whatsoever. Again, it seems if this House is willing to take back its duty and do what it thinks right rather than listening to outside lobby groups, this Mexico City issue could be resolved in about 5 minutes. On the District of Columbia bill, we have those folks on the other side of the aisle who would rather see, as they have already been quoted in the newspaper as saying--and I am not talking about all the folks but some of the folks--we see some of those folks saying that they would rather see the entire District of Columbia budget held up for months rather than to compromise on the issue of $7 million for vouchers. And then on the Interior bill, we have language which was inserted by the conferees with respect to Lake Clarke which was certainly not in either bill and which in my view is a huge threat to that spectacular piece of property, and that is holding up agreement. And so is the fact that the administration has come in with a number of items late in the day expressing their objections about those items when in fact many of them were not raised when we had top level discussions with the leadership on those issues. And so it seems to me that there is no reason whatsoever to continuing this session or to pass this CR except for the fact that we have a few folks around this town and in two cases a few folks in the other caucus in this House who would rather hold their breath and turn blue than get the people's work done. There is not a whole lot we can do about that, but we are essentially getting paid each day between now and the end of this session for doing nothing. It seems that sooner or later, we ought to tell both the hardheads in this House and the Johnny-come-latelies in the administration that we are not interested in their continuing to hold up our ability to finish this session of the Congress. It seems to me that granting further extensions only encourages people to refuse to cooperate. It appears to me that we are not going to be able to shut this place down until the extreme elements in this House on at least two issues have demonstrated that they are willing to go right through the end of the continuing resolution period before they are going to be willing to compromise. As long as we are around here, the administration is going to be continuing to ask for other items that they had not thought of before. It just seems to me what we ought to do is pass this CR and say, ``Boys and girls, no more. No more. Get your work done. Come up here and compromise, recognize that you are not just elected to define differences, you are also elected to resolve differences once those differences are defined.'' As I said earlier, on the Appropriations Committee I am convinced the gentleman from Louisiana and I could reach agreement in about 2 days, maybe 2 hours on these items. It just seems to me it is ludicrous to pretend to the public that anything useful is going on because hardheads will not be reasonable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the name of the party is ``Democratic.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that I certainly do not agree with everything in this bill. In fact, there are items that I have fairly strong disagreement with. But it is a reasonable approach to transportation problems in this country, and I think because of that, it deserves our support. I simply want to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] for the job they did in producing this bill. In politics, we often have two kinds of people: we have the show horses and the workhorses. In these two gentlemen, I think we have workhorses and the House is the better for it. Mr. Speaker, I would also make the point that I think this demonstrates that if these issues are left to the Committee on Appropriations to try to work out in as bipartisan a manner as possible, they can usually be worked out. We have some other bills which at this point are stuck, even though we are well into the new fiscal year, because other outside considerations have intruded and, as a result, the committee is not being allowed to work out its differences the way it would normally work them out. If left to their own devices, I think on all four of those remaining bills the Committee on Appropriations could reach an agreement that could satisfy the country in a week. But even though at this point we have not been fortunate enough to have those bills unleashed, this one is, and it is in no small measure due to the fact that we have persons with the attitude represented by the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from Minnesota, and I for one appreciate their working style, and I thank them on behalf of our Members for the work they have done on behalf of the House.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last session of Congress our friends on the Republican side of the aisle made clear that they were willing to shut down all of Government in order to get what they wanted on certain ideological issues. This year it appears that they have more modest goals and are simply talking about shutting down or severely crippling only portions of Government if they do not get their way. For instance, many of them would like to hold hostage the Labor, Health, and Education appropriation bill unless they get their way on school testing. A number of them have said publicly they are willing to shut down the foreign operations appropriation bill unless they get their way on Mexico City policy and abortion. A number of others have indicated they would just as soon shut down the Interior appropriation bill unless they get their way so they can continue to see Yellowstone polluted and continue to see redwoods cut in California. And now we see that a significant number indicate to the press that they are willing to hold hostage the District of Columbia bill for the next year unless they get their way on vouchers. I would simply suggest that the time for that is past. We are now 1 week into the new fiscal year. We ought to be resolving differences, not continuing to exacerbate them. That is why I support this rule, because it gives us an opportunity to deal with this bill in the fastest way possible. I would hope that after the rule passes, that we pass the Moran amendment, which corrects a wide variety of gross overreaches by this Congress. The Moran amendment would, essentially, simply have the House adopt the House version of the D.C. appropriations bill, which is brought to the House by Senator Faircloth. He is not, as my colleagues know, exactly a left wing liberal. I think conservatives are safe with him. And it just seems to me that that is the best way to approach this issue if we want to do our duty by the District and if we want to get all of our business done across the board. I would invite my colleagues' attention to the Washington Post editorial this morning, which says as follows: The House of Representatives should not dishonor itself today by adopting the long list of wide-ranging riders tacked onto the D.C. appropriations bill by the subcommittee. I agree with that editorial. I think that the proper course is to support this rule and then to support the Moran amendment so that we can overcome Congress's efforts to try to use Washington, DC, as a social experiment for pet ideas of right wing think tanks around the country.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the District of Columbia. As was evidenced by the last speech on that side of the aisle, what we have here is an attempt by a number of Members of the majority party to use the District of Columbia as a pawn for the purpose of reading from the playbook of their well-known pollster, Frank Luntz, who has given them a whole series of sound bites, so they can try to deliver messages on other issues around the country by using the District of Columbia as a political pawn in the process. That is what is going on. Read the Luntz playbook, and we have virtually seen a copy of the previous speech from that side of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I want to show the Members something. We just passed the military construction bill, 17 pages, to spend $9.2 billion. The D.C. bill is so loaded down with legislative proscriptions that it takes 179 pages to spend one-tenth of the amount that was spent in the military construction bill. We passed a defense bill, spending $247 billion, 100 pages. This D.C. bill is 180 pages. We spent 300 times as much in the defense bill with one-half the language ordering somebody else around that we have in the D.C. bill. There is absolutely no reason for this Congress to endanger the safety of the President of the United States by taking away the security that we now have on Pennsylvania Avenue around the White House. Yet, this bill does it. There is no reason to impose our own judgment on education vouchers on the District of Columbia, yet this bill does it. There is no reason for this Congress to tell States that they should handle their own welfare problems, but then take away from the District of Columbia the ability to design their own welfare reform programs. Yet this bill does it. There is no reason for this Congress to get in the way of the Fiscal Control Board's reforming the financial practices of the District, and yet this bill does it. This bill is a political document for political purposes. It imposes once again its plantation mentality on the District of Columbia, to no good purpose, and it is going nowhere. We are already one week into the fiscal year. We are past the time when politicians are supposed to be sending messages. We are at the time when we are supposed to be resolving differences so we can complete our action on the budget. Yet, on the Labor-HEW bill, that portion of the government is in danger of being shut down until they get their way on a key item in that bill, on testing. We are in danger of seeing the Interior Department budget shut down unless they get their way so they can keep cutting the redwoods in California and keep polluting Yellowstone Park. We are in danger of seeing the foreign policy budget of this country under the foreign operations bill shut down unless they get their way on the Mexico City policy. Now we are in danger of seeing the D.C. bill held hostage unless they get their way on their social experiments for D.C. It is about time to quit the political posturing, recognize the President will not sign this bill without the passage of the Moran amendment, and pass the Moran amendment. It is the only fiscally responsible and politically responsible act to take.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my first assignment in this House was the District of Columbia appropriations subcommittee after I went on the Committee on Appropriations, and I have seen the Congress for many years treat the District of Columbia almost as its private plantation. The very first fight I ever had in this House was when the Congress tried to hold up money for construction of the D.C. subway until they could reach agreement that the District of Columbia would proceed to build more highways and another bridge into Georgetown. I thought that kind of leverage was improper then, and I think it is improper now. We have a problem when Congress tries to impose its own judgment on how the city ought to run. We are providing governance without representation, because when we make decisions that affect the lives of people in the District of Columbia, they have no remedy if we make the wrong decision because they cannot vote us out of office. That is why it is essential for the Congress to exercise restraint in its oversight of the District of Columbia. Now, I have seen a lot of efforts through the years to have this Congress micromanage the District. This bill, in my view, is the worst effort that I have ever seen on the part of the Congress in all of the years I have been here, going back to the time when this Congress held up for 2 years needed money to build the subway until the subway became more expensive because of the delay. I do not believe that it is in the public interest of the District or our taxpayers for us to get in the way of the ability of the fiscal control board to try to bring order to District of Columbia affairs. This bill guts their ability to do that. It imposes Congress's judgment on vouchers. It requires vouchers be provided in order to send children in some cases to private schools. Now, maybe they ought to make that judgment, but the Congress should not make that judgment when they have no recourse if they disagree with that judgment. The Congress has overstepped its bounds, in my view, in a good many areas which the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has already described. The issue here in my view is not whether some of these policy judgments should have been arrived at; the issue is who should arrive at those judgments. It is not the Congress; it is the fiscal control board which was appointed to do the job. So what the Moran amendment is going to do, instead of unilaterally imposing actions on the District, the Moran amendment is going to simply ask the House to take the approach already adopted by Senator Faircloth, hardly a raving left-wing radical; it takes the approach which he has suggested and would substitute that for the approach taken by the subcommittee. Under ordinary circumstances, I do not like to do that, because I do not like to adopt Senate judgments without further consideration. But given the gross committee overreaching in this case, by dictating to the District on what it ought to do on airplane flights, what it ought to do on the District of Columbia Law School, what it ought to do on other financial arrangements, it gives us no choice but to look for a more responsible way, and that more responsible way has been pointed out by Senator Faircloth. So in my view, we ought to adopt the Moran amendment. In addition to being the right thing to do, it is the one thing that will produce a real bill. We will not produce a real bill by having the Congress dictate to the District of Columbia. We will produce a real bill, which demonstrates that Congress also knows how to exercise restraint, because that will enable us to get a bill with a presidential signature on it and that the President shall not veto. We are now 1 week into the fiscal year. We should not be continuing to push our ideological preferences, we should be looking for practical solutions. The Moran amendment is that practical solution, and I would urge support for it when the time comes.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Callahan motion. I do not do that because I fully agree with everything in the Smith amendment. I do not. I agree with about half of it. I do not support the gentleman's amendment to impose Mexico City policy. But I do want to see funding cut off to the United Nations population program so long as they remain in China, because I think that they have a coercive abortion policy in China. But that is not the main reason that I support this amendment. I support it because if this amendment is to be attached anywhere, it should be attached to an authorization legislation and not an appropriation bill. My favorite philosopher, as I have said many times on this floor, is Archie, the Cockroach. One of the things Archie said was that, ``Now and then, a person is born who is so unlucky he runs into accidents that started out to happen to somebody else.'' That is the way our Committee on Appropriations feels on this issue, because this is an authorization issue. It is an issue which ought to be dealt with in that committee, and yet we are now told that the authorizing committee may be dropping this amendment because they think it will make it impossible to pass their bill. Well, boys and girls, if you think it is going to make it impossible to pass an authorization bill, what do you think it is going to do to the appropriation bill? It does not belong on the appropriations bill. It belongs on the authorization bill, if it belongs anywhere. So, at least to get this debate in the proper venue, I would urge the House to support the motion of the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear that I think that this bill is very much short of what we need in a variety of areas, including environmental protection, housing and veterans' care. The problem, however, is that this committee was constrained in its ability to meet those needs by the budget agreement, and given that fact, I think the committee has done a perfectly reasonable job. I am especially pleased by the fact that the committee did not do what is often done in this place, which is to dump amendments that are adopted in the House once they go to conference on important matters. I am happy that the committee retained the spirit of the amendment that I offered when this bill was on the floor, which removed a good many millions of dollars for the insider deal on the wind tunnel and instead transferred that money to veterans' funding so that we could do a better job of providing for veterans' health care. I am pleased that the committee retained the spirit of that amendment in conference and wound up providing a higher amount for veterans' health care than was in the original administration request or the committee bill. I appreciate that action on the part of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] and the committee.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give that assurance on this side because I intend to make one of the motions myself. Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] renew his motion? We could not hear it.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here tonight is enough to give abuse of power a bad name. This act brings only one question into my mind: Does this body still believe in the biblical admonition, ``Thou shalt not steal?'' All I have to say about what you are about to do tonight is shame, shame, shame, shame, shame.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, this is not a piece of legislation to extend the Immigration Service. This is a piece of legislation to keep the Government open so we do not shut down the Government, either on purpose or by accident. I would point out that the fiscal year starts in 2 days, and there are only 9 legislative days left between now and the expiration of the concurrent resolution, which we now have before us. So I think we need to find the fastest possible way to resolve differences and finish these bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.