Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think this amendment ought to be opposed because it is very selective in where it would save the money. Evidently, the sponsors of the amendment do not believe that there is a dime's worth of waste in the Pentagon, so they exempt that from reductions. They allow huge spending to go forward on the F-22. They neglect the fact that since 1989, when the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia has decreased its military budget by 75 percent; the United States has decreased its by at most 15 percent. They neglect the fact that $11 billion was added last year to the President's budget by the Defense Department, and they neglect the fact that if nondefense discretionary was as high as it had been at its peak in this country, it would be 50 percent higher as a percentage of gross domestic product than it is today. Let me simply say that I would urge opposition to this amendment. It also seems to me that it is ill-advised for the Congress to turn total determination as to which accounts are going to be reduced over to a nonelected bureaucrat in the OMB. I see no reason why Mr. Raines at OMB should be given the authority, without any kind of congressional check whatsoever, simply to decide that that program is going to go and that program is going to stay. That to me is the ultimate abdication of responsibility to control the power of the purse. The Congress was given the power of the purse in the Constitution for one simple reason, because keeping the power of the purse in Congress rather than in the executive branch is the difference between having a President and having a king. We do not need any kings in this country.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard]. (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. No one has ever discussed this with me.

Mr. OBEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBEY. It also, as you know, usually is accompanied by a prior notice to the minority, and it is usually worked out on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Chairman, that has not happened in this instance.

Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the Government did not shut down 2 years ago because of some unhappy accident of governance. The Government was shut down because a number of willful Members indicated well ahead of time that it was their intention to do just that, to shut the Government down to make the President of the United States bend to their will. That is why the Government shut down. If we do not want the Government shut down, then we simply have to behave more responsibly than the behavior that we saw 2 years ago. That is the way we avoid a Government shutdown. I find it amazing that in 1960, about 60 percent of all Government programs were discretionary. That meant you could think about them. Today, the discretionary portion of the budget has declined to about 30 percent. And the practical effect of this amendment, if it is adopted, will be to produce a situation in which we have zero portion of the Federal budget which is discretionary. What this amendment says is that it rewards inaction by the Congress. It rewards lack of hard choices by the Congress. And it says that if we do not make choices and do not get an appropriation bill passed, that every program in that bill winds up being funded at last year's level. That means even if there is a large consensus in this Congress that a number of programs ought to be cut well below last year's level in order to fund more well-deserving programs, it means that we are not going to be able to get it done. Let us say we had the fifth year of the budget agreement between the White House and the Congress on the floor today, and let us say that we were therefore facing a $30 billion reduction in domestic discretionary spending required by that budget. The fact is, if we did not pass appropriation bills to accomplish that, this would require us to produce bills far above the spending levels that this House wants to agree to in that arrangement. I do not think that is what we mean to do, but that is the practical effect of it. This amendment is the single-most significant thing the House could do to ensure dumbing down of the Federal Government and the entire budget process, because what it says is, if you cannot get agreement between the President and the Congress on any specific appropriation bill, then all of the programs in that bill have to be funded at last year's level, period. That means we cannot increase the ones that we agree ought to be increased. That means we cannot cut the ones that ought to be cut. That, to me, simply says we are just going to quit thinking, we are going to enshrine the status quo. Now, if my colleagues think that is smart, go ahead and vote for it. If they think it is not, then I would urge bipartisan consideration against that proposition. I would also say that what this really does is to produce the ultimate blessing of the idea that we ought to keep Washington just like it is. We are not going to think about any of these issues anymore. If we cannot reach agreement, then, OK, we have got a magic formula and we will just keep going the way we have gone before and before and before. I do not think that is what we were sent here to do. I do not see why we ought to assure that if we do not pass the Labor- HHS bill and if we do not pass the energy bill that we ought to have to continue every bureaucratic mess of a program at the Department of Energy, but we will be precluded from doing what I know the Republican chairman of the Labor-HHS subcommittee wants to do, which is to substantially increase funding for the National Institutes of Health. We simply could not do that if we adopt this prescription. This, in my view, also has one other major problem. It will make it virtually impossible to deliver the disaster aid, which is the primary purpose of this bill, because this bill is going to be vetoed if it contains this amendment, and if it is vetoed, we are going to be stuck till the cows come home before we can get another bill to the President. So I would simply urge my colleagues, if they are interested in providing rapid emergency assistance to the people who need it, if they are interested in retaining the ability of this Congress to think about any remaining budgetary programs, they will turn this amendment down.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer.]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, just to enthusiastically concede the point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again I want to make the point that we did not have government shutdowns the last 2 years because of an unhappy accident. We had it because of this kind of a mind-set: One of your Members last year said, ``I believe the short-term problems the shutdown caused are a worthwhile price to pay.'' Another Member said, ``The President is at our mercy. With the looming prospect of another shutdown, people might be out of work, all of whom will be in his programs. I think he's going to care more than we do.'' Another of your leaders said, ``The President can run parts of the government that are left or he can run no government. Which of the two of us do you think worries more about the government not showing up?'' Another of your leaders said, ``We should be prepared to close down the government. If we close it down, people will listen. I don't want to see government shut down, but I'm not afraid of it.'' He also then went on to say, ``I don't see the government being shut down as a negative. I see it as a positive.'' One other of your leaders said, ``If we have to temporarily shut down the government to get people's attention to show we're going to balance the budget, then so be it.'' That was the problem. It was not process. It was mind-set. All you have to do to make government work is to change that mind-set. I want to point out to you if you pass this, it will be a special interest dream. Any group that knows its program is about to get cut in an appropriation bill will simply try to lobby to see to it that that bill never goes anywhere. If it does not, then comes October 1, bango, they are protected, they are secure. No matter how many GAO reports point out that the program is lousy, no matter how many newspaper reports or television exposes point out that it is a waste of money, you cannot stop spending it on that program under this proposal. That is not a way to save money. That is a way to make the Congress the laughingstock of the country. You do not need to do this to keep government at work. This is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. If you really want to keep government workers at work, what you ought to be doing, for instance, is simply to look at ways to reverse the Civiletti ruling. That way you can keep the government at work without freezing unnecessary spending into the mix for as long as Congress cannot get together on a rational solution. I would also say that if you pass this, it will be a clear admission that you do not think that you can get your work done and that we cannot get the work of this House done on time. That is a lousy signal to send to the country. If you want to keep the government open, keep it open. You know doggone well that after the experience we have had last year, people in both parties will be killing each other to rush to the microphones to see to it that government is open at that time. But if you do not keep the pressure on for compromise and for making hard decisions now, you assure that every potential loser because we evaluate their programs as being ones that ought to be cut, you will assure they will create mounting pressure not to pass those appropriation bills and the result will be more waste than you have today. The responsible vote on this is no.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Is it the intention of the Chair to try to roll this vote? We have not had votes rolled all day. Why are we rolling a vote without notice to this side?

Mr. OBEY. We just had a rollcall vote on the Neumann amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Could I ask for how long it is going to be rolled?

Mr. OBEY. So we are not going to know how we voted on this amendment when we consider other amendments?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I would simply say that I think this action is responsible, it is needed, it is fair, it is overdue. These people should never have been bounced in the first place. I would also say, as the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] has noted, that I hope that this little patch on our consciences does not suffice to cover up all of the other changes that are needed in the welfare program to make that program in fact balanced and fair and decent to a lot of desperate human beings. For instance, it still is grossly harsh to persons who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs and are, therefore, deprived of long-term food stamp benefits until they can obtain another job. So while we need to do this today, I hope that this is not the full measure of the conscience of the Congress, because we would indeed be found wanting.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not support the amendment as it stands because, while I certainly have no objection to reviewing ways to control the cost of tuition in college, I think that the makeup of the commission as it is presently constituted in the gentleman's amendment, frankly, is a very unbalanced one, and I think because of that the commission would have virtually no credibility as it now stands. Nonetheless, I am willing not to press this matter to a vote at this time because of understandings that we have reached with the majority on the committee that the makeup of this commission will be addressed in conference to assure that we have an acceptable balance by the time we leave conference. I know there is substantial concern on this side of the aisle about both the source of the funding for that commission and the makeup of that commission. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.