Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, this bill allows the continuation of a $10 billion squeeze on student loans, people who have to pay $10 billion more to get their student loans under this bill. Under chapter 1, you are going to have 1 million kids who are going to be squeezed out. You have almost 40,000 chapter 1 teachers who may lose their jobs under Head Start. You are going to have 30,000 kids who will not be allowed into the program. Now, you can call that an increase if you want. But that really is twisting the king's English. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, let me simply make one point in response to what the gentleman said with respect to the troops in Bosnia. I certainly want to join in the salute to them. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Livingston, and I accompanied the President to Bosnia to review the troops just a very short period of time ago, and I must say that I was deeply impressed by the degree of commitment that those young people have. They feel that they have a job to do, and they are proud of it, and they are proud of the way they are doing it. They have every right to be proud of it. They are working in some places in very tough conditions and very tough working circumstances, but they feel that they are doing something that is going to benefit the region and this country, and we owe each and every one of them our thanks and congratulations. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we have long passed 1984, but we have just heard another example of 1984 doublespeak. We hear this talk about how the Republican side of the aisle does not want to shut the Government down, and then they proceed to go on and say, ``But if the President insists on the language that he has in his letter, then he will be shutting the Government down.'' What you are telling us and what I really believe as I watch you march through this useless bill is that you are once again taking actions which are making it much more likely that the Government will shut down, and that is the last thing we ought to allow to happen. Let me put this in perspective: We have seen this Congress add $7 billion in spending to the defense appropriation bill above the amount requested by the President. We have also seen you then make cuts on the domestic side of the ledger totaling $33 billion. The President has asked that $7 billion of those domestic reductions be restored in the education, environment, and crime areas, principally. The committee's response is to provide $1 billion in additional funding in real money for LIHEAP, the low-income heating assistance program, very largely. I am happy about that. I am the original House sponsor of the program. But then they go on and say that we will provide $3.3 billion in funny money. Now, the funny money never gets down to the local communities because under the conditions of this bill, none of that funding ever becomes real until we pass another piece of legislation. And then because of the brilliance of the amendment just adopted to the rule just a few minutes ago, you are also saying that it is not just enough to find funding sources and pass them in another piece of legislation, we now also have to go through another reconciliation process. That means our local school districts are going to get the money they need about the year 2001. This bill is as much science fiction as that movie was. Now, the problem with this bill is that it still leaves us with $3.3 billion in cuts below last year for education. It still leaves us some $200 million for veterans' medical care below the original House bill. It still leaves us $1.5 billion below last year for environmental cleanup efforts at EPA. That is 21 percent. I think we ought to face reality. We can talk all the inside-the- Beltway language we want. The fact is, in the real world you have school districts who are about to have to send letters out to their teachers letting them know they are not going to be rehired for next year because the education funding is clunking along at about almost a one-third cut from last year's level. This Congress should not be doing that. We are going to be moving into the 21st century. We ought to be providing more support for education, not less. We ought to be making it easier for kids to go to college, not harder. We ought to be making it easier for people to get job training, not harder. And we certainly should not be making it harder for this society to clean up its Superfund sites and to provide the other actions that we need to protect the environment. This legislation should not be here at all. It is going nowhere. The President has already indicated that in its current form he will veto it. And so all this bill is, is an effort to create the impression that there is movement when, in fact, there is none. The rhetoric is sweet, but the actions are useless. That is what we are seeing here today. It seems to me if you want real progress, what has to happen is that the very top leadership of this Congress, and I do not mean the leadership of this committee, because this is frankly above our pay grade, the very top leadership of this Congress is going to have to sit down and in good faith and earnestness negotiate with the White House and agree to an arrangement which will allow us to restore this funding for education and for environmental protection and for veterans and the like. Merely acting as though we are passing real legislation today does nothing to contribute to that end. This is another dead end, and especially with the amendment just adopted at the insistence of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], we guarantee that under the process as laid out under this bill it will be a long, long time before anybody sees any money in this bill. So I would suggest this is a very sad waste of time, and I would urge Members to oppose the bill. It is not a real legislative action today. It, in fact, will add to the likelihood of a Government shutdown, and that is the last thing we should be doing.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat, I think that the need for what the Florida delegation is talking about is clear. I think it is environmentally criminal to see what has been allowed to happen to the Everglades over the past three decades or more. But the fact is, if you take a look around the country, you have to get in line for regular appropriations. We have national parks which are being impacted by pollution all around, and we have great need. All you have to do is talk to the Park Service and they will tell you we have a very serious need to expand some of those national parks to preserve their core environmental values, and yet they have to get in line for regular appropriations. But there is no such getting in line with respect to this problem, and that is what is wrong with this approach. I would assure the entire Florida delegation, I will be the first to support this provision if it is subject to appropriations. But I cannot in good conscience support it, even though I agree with the goal, when it is being set aside, being put ahead of virtually every other urgent environmental problem in the country. That is just not the way to do business in a country with as many problems as we have.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair whether there is any Member on the committee who is opposed to the amendment, because if not, in its present form, I am, and I would like to claim the time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, I am really of mixed feelings here today. I think what the gentleman is trying to do is absolutely, perfectly legitimate. I think the Everglades are a great national treasure, and I have consistently in the past supported every effort that has been before us to try to help preserve the Everglades. But I think this amendment is, frankly, walking around under false pretenses today. It is advertised, for instance, in the CQ House Action Report as being an amendment to authorize $200 million to acquire land in the Florida Everglades. In fact, what it does is appropriate $200 million for that purpose. I do not mind the passage of this amendment as long as it would be subject to appropriation. But I do not see why we ought to have a special arrangement under which the Everglades, as precious as they are, will wind up receiving favorable treatment over any other natural resource in any other part of the country because they happen to wind up getting in this bill as an entitlement, as a direct appropriation, I should say, whereas other areas of the country that have environmental problems have to get in line in the regular appropriation process and compete for funds. There is absolutely no reason on the merits to do that, and I regret the fact that this amendment has not been made subject to appropriation. If it had been, I would support it, because I certainly think what the gentleman is trying to do is correct, but the way he is trying to do it puts this project ahead of virtually every other environmental preservation project in the country. That is not a legitimate way to do business, in my judgment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida even though we are on different sides of this issue.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman who just spoke. But let me point something out. This Congress has voted to reduce EPA enforcement by one-third. They have voted to gut an entire string of environmental protection programs. And then, having done that, on the appropriations bill, now they come in and say, ``Oh, by the way, I have got a special, urgent problem in my State, and so forget all of the need to cut the budgets.'' For every last one of you who voted to cut the EPA's budget, who voted to cut the Interior appropriation bill the two budgets for strengthening our environmental protection, every last one of you who voted for it will be putting yourselves in an absolutely hypocritical position if you now vote for this amendment today because you will say that in spite of everything that you did to all other regions of the country, you are going to give this problem a special deal. The American public is tried of special deals. I want to see the Everglades protected. I want to see the Everglades protected. But I want to see the Great Lakes protected, I want to see our ocean shores protected, I want to see the Mississippi River cleaned up, I want to see all of our national parks protected. When you are willing to do that, come and see me. But do not ask for a special deal for one State for one group. That is not fair. It is not right. You ought to vote this down.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote against this rule and against this bill. This is probably the worst farm bill to have hit the floor of the House in the last 25 years. I especially want to address myself to dairy. I do not know if Members are aware of it, but under the rules which have applied in this country since roughly 1934, if you are a dairy farmer and live in Florida, you are paid, courtesy of the Government milk marketing order system, about $3 more for 100 pounds of milk than you are paid if you live in Wisconsin. I do not think that makes any sense. Yet this bill today is going to see to it that that system continues far longer than it ought to. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] tried to provide a compromise approach to the dairy milk marketing order situation, which tried to end that ridiculous milk marketing order system within 2 years. Unfortunately, it did not accomplish its goal. So, in my view, the Gunderson amendment is well-intentioned but ineffective. But now, to make matters worse, the Committee on Rules has allowed the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, which will retain that existing, ridiculously stupid milk marketing order system for 4 years. And there is virtually no mechanism in the bill by which we can end that outrage. There is absolutely no reasonable public policy reason why a farmer from one part of the country should get $3 more for 100 pounds of milk than they get in another part of the country. And in my view, the amendment that Mr. Solomon offers is going to make the situation worse. It seems to me that this bill, with the limited number of amendments that are being allowed, this bill amounts to nothing more than a rip- off of taxpayers and a kiss-off for most upper Midwest dairy farmers. I am not going to have any choice but to vote against the rule, to vote against the Solomon amendment, to vote against the entire bill, because, frankly, this farm bill is a turkey. And what ought to happen to it is what happens to most turkeys on Thanksgiving. It ought to be devoured. It should not be passed by a respectable legislative body. I would urge Members to vote against the bill. If the Committee on Agriculture cannot do better than this, it ought to be disbanded.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this farm bill is the worst agriculture bill in the last 30 years, and the Solomon amendment makes it worse, for two reasons. First of all, if you vote for the Solomon amendment, you are going to add $7 billion in financial burdens to farmers, and you are going to add a $400,000,000 cost to the taxpayers. The amendment is a wondrous gift to the biggest processors in this country at the expense of dirt farmers. Second, since 1934, under the ridiculous milk-marketing order system this country now has, if you are a farmer living in Florida, you get $3 more for every 100 pounds of milk you produce than if you live in the upper Midwest. That whole milk-marketing order system ought to be scrapped. The committee bill tries to do that in 2 years. It does not get there, but it at least tries. The Solomon amendment continues this ridiculous system for an additional 2 years. That alone is reason enough to vote against it. If you believe in the dignity of work, I dare you to look a Midwestern farmer in the eye and tell him that the dignity of his work is worth 30 percent less than the dignity of the work of another farmer simply because of where he lives. There is no reason in terms of fairness to vote for the Solomon amendment. Vote against the amendment, and then vote against the bill itself. They are both turkeys.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me simply say I have heard many a time Members take the floor of this House and object to the fact that the District of Columbia Government often did not seem to know what it was doing. At times I certainly have shared that perception. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But with all due respect, I think certainly on something which is such a major departure from existing law, the Congress ought to know what it is doing. Very frankly, on this issue, it does not. I walked into the meeting of the conference this morning. We voted on this package. But up until the moment that we voted, I had not seen a single page of the legislative language, and neither had the gentleman from California. I think that is a quaint way to do business. I have several objections to this bill. First of all, I am going to vote no because I do not believe that we should be adopting 168 pages of new language without at least having had the opportunity to analyze it, and we certainly did not. Second, this bill is going to be used as a national precedent. And as soon as this bill is passed we are then going to see organizations with an ideological agenda who will begin to pressure each and every school district in the country to follow the same model. With all due respect, I think if we are going to create that kind of a precedent, at least again we ought to know what it is we are doing. I doubt that many Members do tonight. Third, this Congress has already cut well over $6 million in Federal funds for the District of Columbia school system in the Labor-HEW bill. Yet, despite the fact we are squeezing down that money, we are asking that $5 million from a reduced budget level be set aside for this new experiment. As the gentleman from California has already indicated, even though there are about 50,000 youngsters who will be eligible for this experiment, less than 2,000 will probably be able to participate. I think the precedent which is going to be set and the pressures which will then be brought upon State legislatures and Members of Congress to apply this all over the country, I think is a very high price to pay based on the kind of tokenism which this provision provides. So while I have a great deal of respect for many of the people involved, and I have full confidence they are trying to do the right thing, I would simply suggest that this is a very high price for each of our school districts to pay to begin this tiny experiment here in the District of Columbia, and certainly the process which has been followed in bringing this product to the floor tonight does a disservice to each and every Member in this House and to the public we are supposed to represent. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the proposition when we get to the vote.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say that I want to join the gentleman in taking note of Terry's tremendous service to this place. I think Members in both parties who worked with Terry Peel understand that he has really epitomized what the word ``service'' is all about. He has been of tremendous service to this House. He has been of tremendous service to this country. He has been the ``brains'' of many of us for years on complicated foreign assistance programs, and he must have an incredible disposition to be able to deal with that bill as long as he has and still smile as regularly as he does and still find the energy to write the plays that he has managed to write the past few years. I appreciate the time he has taken and I appreciate the time that his wife Ann has allowed him to give us and the country in so doing.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I had not expected that there would be a debate on farm policy on this bill today. Let me simply say, as an upper Midwesterner, I think both parties have done a rotten job of dealing with the problems of farmers, certainly dairy farmers in the upper Midwest. I think the existing dairy law has been a joke. I have not voted for farm bills in almost 10 years because they are wildly discriminatory against the region that I represent. I hope that the new dairy agreement, which has been announced by the Subcommittee on Agriculture, will improve the situation. I remain ready to be convinced and persuaded. I am convinced that the only way we can get a decent dairy program in this country is if we have a radical reform of the milk marketing order system which plagues this country and should have been abolished a long time ago. Having said that, I want to make clear that that issue is not involved in this bill. The failure of the Congress to correct that problem is a failure of the Committee on Agriculture; it is not a failure of the gentleman from Louisiana or anyone else on the Committee on Appropriations, because we do not have the authority to deal with that. I simply want to take the remaining time to discuss the motion to recommit of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. We all want to save dollars, but I think we have a fundamental obligation to, at the same time that we are doing that, do everything we can to try to make the economy grow, and most of all, to try to give working people some greater opportunity than they have had in recent years to raise their own family income by dint of their own hard work. It is tough out there. You have working families who struggle to pay their bills, who struggle to get a little bit ahead in savings, who struggle to find a way to pay for their kids' education, and through all of life's struggles, I think they understand that education and training is one of the few ways that you can get off the treadmill, that you can make something of yourself and your family through your own hard work. I think it is a fundamental mistake for this Congress to make things more difficult for those working families. There ought to be a rule which says that if the Congress cannot help somebody on the economic road that they are traveling, that they at least not make things more difficult; and I think Congress does make things more difficult when they do not meet their obligation to strengthen education and training in this country. And that goes for early education, it goes for elementary and secondary, and it goes for higher education. We have an obligation to help every kid in this country prepare for the economic race that he or she is going to have to run in a very tough world. We have an obligation to help middle-class families find ways to get their kids' college educations and community college and technical school educations, and this bill does not meet that responsibility. We have to pass this legislation, because if we do not, the Government will once again close down, and that would be an immense tragedy for the people of this country. But I do think it is also necessary to try to improve it. That is what the Bonior amendment, or what the Bonior motion will do in the motion to recommit. I would urge very strong support for the Bonior motion, which will restore $3.1 billion in education funding, and then I would urge that you support this bill so we can meet our basic obligation to govern.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat, I think we need to pass this bill today. I hope we can keep things as calm as possible, but I do take issue with the description of what has happened to the Labor-Health- Education bill in the Senate that has just been given by my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana. The situation on the Education appropriation bill is simply this: The bill which was produced, or I mean the 602 allocation, which defines what the spending levels are, that allocation process which defines the ceilings for all 13 appropriation bills, was set so low in that process that the bill that the Senate produced in the committee cannot be brought up on the floor except by unanimous consent, under Senate rules. That is the problem. The problem is that unanimous consent has been objected to by Members of both parties. That bill has not, as has often been suggested, been subjected to a filibuster. I do not support filibusters on anything except constitutional issues. But it seems to me important to understand, Mr. Speaker, that what has been holding up the Education appropriation bill in the Senate is the fact that the bill itself exceeds the spending level allocated to it by the Republican leadership in the Senate and, therefore, they cannot get the bill up except by unanimous consent, and there have been objections to that on both sides of the political aisle. Without getting into a political heat wave here today, I do want to make clear that the record shows accurately what has happened in the Senate, and that is why we will be supporting the Bonior motion to recommit, which tries to do what we can on this side to correct that problem.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)