Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Would the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. OBEY. Could the gentleman tell me who was it that was expected to object to such a proposition?

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply make a point and ask a question. As the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations just indicated, we have been working very hard over the last 2 days in conference to try to get a bill that this House can vote on before we adjourn. I had been under the impression that the motion just described by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] was indeed a very real-life option today, so that we could at least deliver small amounts of funds needed to assure that there are no irregularities or problems associated with any of these relief programs. I, for the life of me, do not understand why that motion is not before us now. And I want to stipulate that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has conducted himself at all times in an absolutely straightforward manner. He has dealt with this in as nonpolitical fashion as possible, given the circumstances. But I honestly feel, as a member of some experience on the Committee on Appropriations, that once again the regular appropriations process has been victimized by bringing into a bill designed to provide immediate emergency relief, a series of other unrelated items, which represent simply portions of other people's political agendas, people who are not on the Committee on Appropriations. Two years ago, this Congress got into a very big amount of trouble because all kind of extraneous material were dragged into appropriation items, and the result was chaos and the Government shut down. Today it seems to me that we are causing Government chaos by accident rather than intent because of the insistence that a number of these other political issues be dragged into the appropriations process. I think it is outrageous that we do not have an opportunity to offer that motion tonight. And I do not know, for the life of me, why we should not have a vote on adjournment under these circumstances.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not about big government. It is about good government and fair government. This amendment as far as I am concerned is far superior than that brought forth by the committee. It does more in deficit reduction. It does a much better job of guaranteeing investments that we need to grow in the 21st century. It provides dramatic rather than token increases in student aid. It does a better job for transportation. It does a better job of targeting tax cuts to the people who need it rather than the people who lust for it. It gives the tax cuts to people who are hardworking, working people, not the richest 5 percent of people in the country. It does a far better job for children's health, for Medicare, for veterans, it is more disciplined on defense, it targets tax cuts to small farmers and small businessmen, and it provides basic health care opportunities for farmers that they have not seen in many a year in this country. It is far superior, it is far more just, and it is far more fiscally responsible. I commend the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I think we need to understand, if I can get the attention of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], using the term ``administrative uses'' is a very tricky way to go about this. We do not want in any way under the guise of preventing this money from going to bureaucratic convenience, we do not want in any way, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will not want in any way, to have a proposition which expresses concern that we do not want money to go to administrative costs to mean that that will get in the way of implementing cost containment to recover $1 billion from infant formula rebates. We do not regard the administrative expenses as items such as blood tests to determine whether a woman is anemic, or we do not believe that it is administrative funding to provide counseling for pregnant women on the dangers of alcohol and drugs to their unborn children. We do not think that it is administrative expenses to promote breast-feeding on the part of new mothers. We certainly do not want to interfere with the printing of vouchers. And the problem is that the way ``administrative expenses'' are defined could very well preclude all of those activities, which would absolutely gut the purposes expressed yesterday. And so we will be very willing to look at the legitimate efforts to see that this goes only to provide needed services or evaluation or needed outreach for and to the populations who were meant to be served. But we do not want a definition of ``administrative services'' that, under the guise of limiting administrative services, actually cuts out needed services to people.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take 30 seconds to reiterate, this motion to instruct is a motion to instruct on the amendment as it passed the House last night, period, with no games played on the question of administrative costs which in any way could undercut the delivery of services to one deserving or eligible human being under the WIC Program.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I appreciate the gentleman's concern for his region. It is perfectly appropriate. I would simply say that I think there are many in Congress who have a different view of the provision in the bill at this point with respect to the CRP. It seems to me that on an emergency supplemental, we should not be making this kind of change in basic law. It insures to the detriment of a good many farmers in the upper Midwest. I trust that at the time it will be properly stricken on a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds. I would simply like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida. The history of this provision is that when we first marked up the supplemental in the Committee on Appropriations, the gentlewoman from Florida tried to offer an amendment which would have provided for a long-term extension of the restoration of the benefits that this amendment covers. She understood fully that it was not the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, and she understood why the gentleman from Louisiana and I had to oppose that amendment. But she then offered this amendment in committee which would provide in essence for a 1-month bridge so that we would not have people lose their benefits in August, be out of benefits for a month, only to then have them resume if the budget agreement passes which restores these benefits. So she agreed to withhold offering that amendment in committee, so long as her right to offer this amendment was protected on the floor, as in fact now has occurred. I simply want to say that this is the responsible way to approach this problem. It would be ludicrous for these people to be bounced off the rolls for one month and then go back on. I appreciate her commitment on the issue. That is why this matter is before us today.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Reyes]. (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson]. (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I understand the gentleman's comments and agree with them. We do want to provide whatever amount is necessary through the CDBG process to enable them to meet their problems. We do also, because of our responsibility to the taxpayers and to other potential recipients from FEMA, want to make certain that in the process we do not hurt FEMA's ability to deliver aid. We also want to make certain that we do not unnecessarily make permanent changes in law that might come back to haunt us.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am in the happy position of being able to say that at least as of this moment, unless we have amendments adopted that change the situation, I think we are at a point where we can have bipartisan support for this bill. I hope it remains that way. I would like to simply raise one concern I have about the Thune amendment. I had hoped that Mr. Thune would be on the floor. I had asked him to be here. I do not see him at this moment, but let me simply, because we will not have time on the Thune amendment, let me raise some concerns about it now. As the Chair of the committee understands, on the Democratic side of the aisle we were concerned about the committee decision not to provide community development block grant funding for the Dakota floods. We had urged that they do so. The decision was made by the majority party to withhold judgment on whether or not there ought to be any CDBG funding provided, and we respected that. Now I am happy to see that there will be an amendment offered, and I do not expect to object to it when it is offered today by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune]. I know that the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] and others are very concerned that that amendment pass, but I must say that there are some problems with that amendment that I believe are going to have to be fixed in conference. First of all, as I understand it, the amendment attempts to fund $500 million in CDBG money by reducing the $1.2 billion contained in the original FEMA money to $700 million, which leaves FEMA with a very tight budget. I am concerned about the robbing Peter to pay Paul, the result that that might produce. I am also concerned that that amendment would run the risk of limiting the Federal response and delaying victims from receiving much-needed assistance through the regular FEMA account. In the Senate, the $500 million was added without reducing FEMA's disaster fund account, and I had hoped that we would be able to simply adopt that approach. I think it would be useful if we could do that in conference. I would also note that I am concerned because the gentleman's amendment apparently seeks to make permanent changes in law which would force the Secretary of HUD to waive the requirement that HUD's disaster assistance benefit only low- and moderate-income persons. I am also concerned about why it is necessary to force the Secretary to waive the requirement to hold local public hearings. I am also concerned that it appears to be the intent of the gentleman's amendment to allow HUD to make grants, not loans, to privately owned, for-profit utilities. I am actually unsure about what his intention is in that regard, and I would simply make this point: It has been Government policy that CDBG funds can be used to assist businesses damaged by disasters, to the extent that such businesses are declined loans by the Small Business Administration or because they need assistance above the SBA loan limits, and I am curious as to whether or not it is the intent of the gentleman in that amendment to change that long-standing practice. I hope that he can respond to those questions between now and the time that we deal with this in conference, because everyone wants to see this amendment go forward, but we want to see it go forward in the right way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I am in a similar position as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. I had seven Members who desperately wanted to speak, none of whom are now here. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Pastor]. (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, if this is being rolled simply for the purpose of the majority to whip because they do not have the votes, then it is going to be very difficult for us to reach agreement.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to do this at this time, but since the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] is here, I would like to get his attention to express a point of concern on his amendment. I do not intend to oppse the amendment of the gentleman when it is offered later on in the debate because on our side of the aisle we supported the President's original request for a supplemental appropriation for community development block grant funding, as well as funding for FEMA; and we were asked by the majority side of the aisle to withhold on that for the time being, and we did. I am happy that my colleagues have now seen fit to support the idea. But I am concerned about a couple specifics in the amendment. As I understand the amendment, if reduces $1.2 billion for FEMA to $700 million, leaving FEMA with many valid claims on its disaster relief fund that it may not be able to pay. I would say, in general debate, I think there are a number of questions I need to ask the gentleman about his amendment, because if they are not fixed up in conference, they will cause a substantial problem for FEMA to FEMA's ability to deliver needed assistance around the country. So I would appreciate if the gentleman would be prepared to answer those questions.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is going to quote me, I wish he would use my words rather than his. That is not what I said. I never indicated that this would apply at all to legislation which had already passed. My point is that with the bills that have not yet become signed into law, you require 100 percent funding, whether we want to continue 100 percent funding or cut out those programs. Some of those old, outmoded programs that the Congress might like to eliminate or cut, this proposition requires that those programs be funded at 100 percent. That does not save any money, that costs money.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the comments just made by the gentleman in the well were absolutely, totally incorrect. I would point out that one of the objections we have to this permanent CR provision is that it would also allow for the continuation of programs at 100 percent of their previous level, even if this Congress has a bipartisan agreement that these programs have outlived their usefulness, that they are wasteful, that they are low priority, that they ought to be reduced so you have more room for other programs that we have reached consensus on that ought to be raised. So this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with saving money. The only thing this amendment does is require the Congress to stop making tough choices. It requires the Congress to stop thinking. It puts Government on automatic pilot. It becomes the Bureaucracy Supremacy Act of 1987. It does not have diddly to do with saving one dime.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Let me say that I think this rule is considerably improved from yesterday for the following reasons: First of all, it no longer contains the extraneous and, in my view, extremely misguided provisions which would have dragged this emergency proposal into a protracted argument on Bosnia and also would have effectively eliminated a very large amount of funding for the Nunn-Lugar program, which has eliminated 4,500 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. I think it is not in the national interests of the United States for us to have bogged this bill down in either debate. The primary purpose of this legislature ought to simply be to get the emergency aid contained in this bill to the people who need it the most, and we should not drag in extraneous issues. I am pleased that as a result of the rule going down yesterday, adjustments have been made to eliminate those two provisions. I am also pleased that we have been told that in conference that the McKeon amendment, which is expected to be added, will be fixed so that we have a more equitably balanced commission to review the question of long-term rises in college tuition costs. I am also pleased to recognize that the amendment restoring full funding for WIC will be debated and that it will be offered by the person who has carried the ball on that issue for so long, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]. I think there are still some problems with this rule, however. I do not personally intend to ask for a rollcall on the rule, I hope no one else does on our side of the aisle either. But we do intend to demonstrate our unhappiness with the rule by asking, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, that my colleagues vote against the previous question so that we might offer an amendment that eliminates the protection in the bill for the otherwise nonlegitimate language with respect to U.S. currency printing and also, and most importantly, will eliminate the waiver of the rule, clause 2, rule XXI, without which this most troublesome amendment on a permanent CR could not in fact even be offered, because it is clearly not germane to this bill. Now, the question is asked, why are we against adding this proposal to this bill? For two very simply reasons: First, because it will again engage us in a protracted debate and it will prevent the emergency assistance from arriving in North Dakota, South Dakota and other areas where it is needed; and I think that that should not happen. Second, if that provision were to be adopted, as I say, it is not even germane under our normal rules. If it were to be adopted, what it would do is to reward Congress for inaction, it would enshrine thee status quo as permanent policy in the U.S. budget policy. What it would do, for instance, is to see to it that initiatives which are recognized on both sides of the aisle that need to be taken in the area of education or in the area of strengthened medical research at NIH would be wiped out. And yet the old, outmoded programs which the Congress has determined that we ought to cut below last year's level, those programs will still be protected. That is not a way to produce an intelligent budget. It is Government without thinking, it is Government without action. As the Washington Post said this morning in its editorial, the effect of this amendment would be to lock in place a new norm in which an agency's appropriation would be frozen from year to year unless Congress acted to raise or lower it. Because of inflation, the freeze is equivalent to a cut each year in real terms. The President wants the issue to be debated anew each year in the same way it has always been. The no-shutdown provision is an attempt to load the dice without quite saying so, a forcing device that has no place in a bill whose main ostensible purpose is to provide food relief in the Upper Midwest. I would simply say, lest there be any doubt about it, the President's message contains the following sentence: The President has indicated that he would veto the bill if such a provision were included in it. That is the direct letter which we received, statement of administration policy from the Executive Office of the President. So I would simply say, what we are going to be asking people to do is not to object to the rule itself, we will be asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the rule so we can eliminate what we consider to be two illegitimate waivers of the rules. If we eliminate that, we eliminate much of the controversy in this bill. Second, if the CR amendment is adopted, we will then be asking Members to vote ``no,'' because we feel that all that is, in addition to having all of the faults I just described, its major short-term problem is that it will simply delay for a significant period of time our ability to deliver the emergency aid to the parts of the country who need it. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we not follow what has unfortunately become an all-too-regular process in this place of loading up these emergency supplemental with items that do nothing except slow the package down. This bill will not become law if that provision is attached to it. We ought to recognize it. If we are interested in bipartisan cooperation, that cooperation ought to start before legislation is brought to the floor, not only after we go through a protracted process, which incurs several vetoes and prevents needed aid from going to the States who need it so badly right now.