Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer what it will require in specific States. Let me simply say that I agree with the concerns the gentleman expresses. I do not believe that these are the appropriate levels at which education ought to be funded. I think it will cause a great deal of turmoil at the local level. Keep in mind that, while the Federal Government only provides a small share of the overall education budget, it provides a very high percentage, well over 50 percent, in virtually all districts, of the cost of meeting the education needs of children who are served by title I. I think that is going to be a big hole in those local school budgets, and that is something that the Congress ought to do something about. I know the President very badly wants to see that changed.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman if he could withhold. I thought the gentleman had a question of me. I will be happy to yield him time. I do not want to be stuck in a triangular colloquy. I agree with the gentleman's concern on the program, the concerns which he has raised.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to urge support for this proposition. As I said earlier, this is a result of a great deal of bipartisan work with many people involved, and no one who I know agrees with every single recommendation in the bill. I do not. I know the gentleman from Louisiana does not. But I think by passing this bill we will all meet our higher obligation to keep the Government functioning again for at least the next 45 days, and in the case of at least one bill before us, the foreign operations bill, it will dispose of that bill for the entire year. I am happy to report to the House, despite deep divisions which normally accompany the issue, we have with the assistance of many people on both sides of the aisle reached agreement on the family planning/abortion cluster of issues, which so often accompany that bill. And we have managed to reach common ground even though we have many differing views about how those issues ought to be handled. I think we have found a solution which is acceptable to everyone. I would point out there are some concerns about programs such as LIHEAP, which will undoubtedly be raised by the gentleman from Vermont, but I simply want to say that I would urge support. We have had a lot of acrimony over the past several months in this House. This bill should not be an occasion for that acrimony today because it is a reasonable compromise. I do want to say, however, that I think there are several serious problems with it. I do have strong disagreement with the fact that this level will in fact mean that we are funding education at $3.1 billion less that we were funding it last year. If that were to remain the case for the entire year, it would mean that we would be eventually placing a great additional burden on local property taxpayers, and I do not believe that we ought to be doing that. I would point out that whether we are talking about school-to-work programs or title I or professional development programs or safe and drug-free schools or Gallaudent University or vocational education, I do not believe that we should be funding these programs at a level which is this low. I hope that we can get agreement down the line to change that. I do not want to shut down the Government over that. I do not want to shut the Government over that because I do not believe in holding my breath and turning blue every time I lose an argument. But I do think that this is an issue that the House needs to make a choice on. I should announce, therefore, that the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], will be offering in his recommittal motion a proposition which would return these education programs to the 1995 fiscal year level, which means in essence that it would eliminate the $3.1 billion reduction which we have in these education programs. Mr. Speaker, I know the President is concerned about that reduced level of funding; certainly we are on this side of the aisle. I know a great many other Members, including Senator Kennedy, are concerned about it on the Senate side. I would urge support for that recommittal motion when it is offered by the distinguished minority whip. But no matter how that motion goes, I would then urge support for this bill in the interest of demonstrating to the American people that, if we disagree on some basics, we can also agree on some fundamentals. That is what we are supposed to be able to do in a legislative body.

Mr. OBEY. That was absolutely my understanding.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think that sooner or later in this place somebody has to trust somebody, and while we certainly did not have a long conversion, because we did not have the time to give him, there was a time squeeze on people today, it was very clear and explicit that there would have to be widely reached understanding before any number other than $2,440 would be pursued by the administration. Obviously, knowing Mr. Panetta's integrity, he certainly intends to live up to that agreement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the gentleman is correct. We had conversation with the President's chief of staff, Mr. Panetta, and he indicated although the administration certainly would like to go above the $2,440 level which is presently in the bill, and they want the flexibility for that to be considered, that they in fact have no intention of proceeding with any number that is higher than the one stipulated in this proposal, unless it is mutually agreed upon.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say I fully agree with everything that the gentleman has said with respect to this issue. In my view, what you have here is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease, which means that the Blues and a couple of other parties are being taken care of because they have raised legitimate objections about how this impacts them. But I think this Congress is remiss in not recognizing there are many other people who may not be as big, but whose proximity to them will be just as big because of the language, which ought not be in the law in the first place. So I think this is a case here of this proposition being better than the situation that would exist without it, but not nearly as good as it ought to be, because it ought to include everybody who has a similar problem. I would hope that, upon reflection, the Congress would recognize it has made a mistake in limiting it in the future and to correct it. But for now, I think even though I agree fully with the gentleman, I did not think that that objection would be sufficient to justify bringing down this entire proposition.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Continuing my reservation, I would simply observe that we do not have to endorse every provision in this proposal in order to endorse the fundamental idea that the Government ought to stay open to continue to provide services to our tax-paying citizens. I would simply observe that this has been an immense amount of consultation with a tremendous number of people. I think this morning we were at draft number 32. I do not know what number it is now, but whatever number it is, I am glad it is the last one. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I simply want to take this reservation in order to observe that, unlike so many episodes which the public has seen lately in the Congress where divisions among us have caused great turmoil and consternation both on the floor and throughout the country, both sides of the political aisle have worked very hard and very intensively with a great deal of involvement of people on both sides of the aisle in order to assure that we can overcome major differences and keep the Government open. I would simply, in continuing my reservation, make the point that there are some items in the proposition which the gentleman from Louisiana is about to bring to the House with which I have strong disagreement; for example, the reduced level of funding for education and a number of other items in the bill. But I think the overriding need of the country is for us to overcome our differences, or at least manage to live with those differences, especially since this is a CR of short-term duration, with the exception of a couple of items in the bill. So I would simply say that I want to congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana for the way he has handled this difficult task. I am pleased to say that the White House, while they certainly do not agree with every provision in this bill, as I do not, they have signed off on this as a short-term compromise. I very much appreciate both the way they have handled things and the way the gentleman from Louisiana and other Members on both sides of the aisle have handled this.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have served in this House a good many years. I am proud of that fact. But I am absolutely appalled and chagrined at the incredible abuse of the legislative process which is occurring here tonight. This is, I think, perhaps the most destructive action I have ever seen any Members of this institution take. We are supposed to cast informed votes. There is no Member of this House, including the main sponsor of this proposal, who can tell you what it is you are going to be voting on tonight. What has happened is that, in my view, I have never seen more irresponsible, more reckless, more anarchic conduct than I have seen displayed on this proposal. Eight hours ago you rammed through this House a proposal which partially opened the Government so that taxpayers could get at least some of the services for which they have already paid. Then the phones started ringing. Member ``X,'' Member ``Y'' and Member ``Z'' said, ``Man, I am getting heat. You didn't cover this program. You didn't cover that program. You didn't cover that program.'' So you started putting together a laundry list of proposals to fix what it is you did just 8 hours ago. Now, that laundry list has grown into a phone book, and you are taking a whole list of programs and you are providing for some funding levels for them, I guess mostly at the conference level, but there is not a single Member here who has any table showing what program level or what programs will be funded at what levels. We cannot compare them to conference, to the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill. We cannot compare them to last year or to the Administration request. We have no idea what programs are being left out, and yet you are going to vote for this turkey so you can go home. That is, in my view, an incredibly destructive act for which I think we all ought to be ashamed. I wonder how many Members of this House know, for instance, that the abortion limitations which we had in the bills this year are being removed under this proposal? I wonder; yes, they are; oh, yes, they are. If you do not believe me, check. . .Well, you had better check again. Then let me suggest, I wonder how many of you know that there will be no funding whatsoever for Israel under this proposal come January. There will be no funds allowed. I wonder how many of you understand what is happening to foster care activities for children, for food and other contractor-provided services at the Indian Health Service, for 300 Head Start grants around the country, for contract payments for NASA operations, for EPA Superfund cleanup activities, for FEMA disaster relief payments, Community Development block grant funds. Veterans benefits for claims filed after December 15, 1995 will not be processed under this proposal. You are going to discriminate between veterans who were on the rolls before December 15 and those who were not. So I think this is an absolute joke. So what we are going to do is to ask, since we were not even allowed the courtesy of proposing an alternative, what I am simply going to ask Members of the House to do is to oppose the previous question so that we can at least pay for programs which are not covered by this package, at least provide funding levels at 90 percent of last year's level, so that when you go home, you do not have to explain why you left programs A, B, Y, J, and Q off the list, and why you funded the others. I do not even vouch for the wisdom of doing that, because I cannot vouch for the wisdom of continuing the funding levels for the programs designated in this bill at the levels at which they are designated. But because we have had no opportunity to look at that, we have no choice but to accept that sight unseen. But I would urge you, if you have any respect at all for this House, to insist on defeating the previous question on the rule so we can provide some degree of rationality to this process tonight.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask for a better understanding of what the gentleman is asking to have inserted. We have been asking for tables of funding levels all night long and have not gotten anything. Are we now going to pretend, by inserting something in the Record, that Members knew what they were doing when they, in fact, did not?

Mr. OBEY. Surely.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, further continuing to reserve my right to object, this applies only for the Centers for Disease Control; is that correct?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule just passed be amended to read as follows: ``It shall also be in order to consider an amendment by the minority leader or his designee adding at the end of H.J. Res. 334 a new title II, consisting of the text of H.J. Res. 131''----

Mr. OBEY. ``Continuing funding for many critical Federal departments through January 26, 1996, and authorizing----

Mr. OBEY. ``A 2.4-percent pay raise for the Armed Forces of the United States.''

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

Mr. OBEY. Are we at the point in the procedures of this House where Members are gagged before they can even bring a question to the Chair? Are we really at that point, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. OBEY. I hope the gentleman from California will respect that.