Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify the motion at the desk to include the following amendment at the appropriate place: In section 101, insert ``all authorized projects and activities and programs of the Department of Veterans' Affairs not otherwise provided for in this act.''

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House knows, the gentleman from Louisiana and I are very good friends, although he made the mistake of joining the wrong political party, and I think if our friendship can withstand these differences, it will be quite a testimony to the possibilities in life. But let me simply say that I think we are at a very serious point in the history of this institution. We have seen for the last month an incredibly silly situation in which Government workers were first paid for work that they were forbidden to do, and now they are forbidden to be paid for work which they are being required to do. I have had a situation in my own district where a very large number of people who are not Government employees have had their lives severely messed up by this silly situation. Mr. Speaker, I have such affected persons in Superior. I have a student at the University of Wisconsin in Superior who is Finnish. He is from Finland. He is a member of the university hockey team. He cannot get his entry visa into the United States because the Government is shut down. People like Tyler Radenz in my district, George Rohmeyer of Marshfield, Carrie Linder of Ashland, David Weber of Wausau, Carolyn Hern of Dedolth, Buckley Gilk of Merrill, Robert Vandeslice of Sheldon, Klaus Kroner of Stevens Point. These are real live human beings, with real names and real problems, and all of those problems have been caused by the Congress of the United States. I think we need to make certain people understand why we are in this situation, so let me go back to basics. The fiscal year began on October 1. By October 1, this Congress had not passed a single appropriation bill of the 13 bills before us, so a continuing resolution was required in order to keep the government open. One short continuing resolution was passed. But since then the situation has been quite different. Since then a number of appropriation bills have been passed. Six of them are still not passed. Three of them have been vetoed. Three have not even gotten to the President. We have been told time and time again by our friends on the Republican side of the aisle that the reason the Government is shut down is because the President vetoed appropriation bills. That is simply not the case. We have had Presidents veto appropriation bills throughout the entire history of this Congress. Since the Civiletti memo, which first required the shutdown of Government when appropriation bills were not passed in a timely fashion, and that was in 1981, we have had only 8 working days in 14 years during which the Government has been shut down. Yet today we have gone an enormous amount of time with chaos, not just for Government employees, but for the taxpayers who we are supposed to be serving as well, and that is not because the President vetoed appropriation bills. The President, when he vetoed those three appropriation bills, asked the Congress to keep the Government open while those differences between the Congress and the President were resolved. Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the dollars in dispute on appropriation bills, 70 percent are contained in appropriation bills which have yet to reach the White House desk. The District of Columbia appropriations bill, the foreign operations bill, and the Labor, Health, Education, and social services bill, none of those bills has gotten to the President because of disputes within the Congress itself. So let us not hear any more nonsense about the President shutting down the Government, because that is exactly what it is. That assertion is nonsense. The Government is shut down because this country was told since April by the Speaker of this House, Mr. Gingrich, and a good many others in the Republican leadership, that they intended at the end of the fiscal year to shut down the Government unless they got the President to buy into their budget deal. So that is why the Government is shut down today. Now we have had some new developments. We had Senator Dole, the leading Republican candidate for President, who decided to break with the Republicans in the House, and he offered a proposal to keep the Government open. I applaud him for that. That is exactly what we ought to do. First the Republican House caucus resisted that. Now, belatedly, they have decided to have a partial Government opening. But the problem is that the way they intend to reopen these parts of the Government will deal with some of the problems of Government workers, but they will not deal with the problems of taxpayers, who still will not get the full array of services to which they are entitled. As I said earlier, Pell grants will be held up; 400 cancer research grants are being held up; 300 Head Start programs are going to be squeezed; we are not going to be seeing contractors with the Government paid for the services they are providing. That is irresponsible, and it will be a very expensive decision long term, because contractors will demand higher reimbursement in the future, having seen the mess that has been created by the majority party. Then, the worst of all offenses, in my view, is that yesterday one Member of this House, a distinguished committee chairman, threatened to try to impeach the Secretary of the Treasury if he did everything possible to keep Government open, as he has been trying to do since this impasse first began. As a result of that threat, the stock market went down, the bond market sagged, and I would submit to you that means that millions of Americans have lost some of their own wealth, the value of some of their own hard-earned savings, including a lot of pensioners, because of some of the irresponsible and extreme comments coming at us from the majority side of the aisle. I think the time has come for this Congress not just to provide this limited opening up of Government services, but to open up the Government to provide the full range of services to which the taxpayers are entitled. That is what we wanted to do on the previous motion. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote for this resolution, but I would also urge the majority to bring forward another resolution which fully opens up Government, because if you do not do that, what you are simply doing is engaging in a political retreat, but still shooting American taxpaying hostages as we go.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker has just summed up what is at hand here or what is afoot, is a better way to put it. What this simply is is a very strange and goofy way to provide an opportunity for Members of Congress to get out of town for the next 2 weeks, put Government people back on the payroll, but limit what they can do. It solves the problems of Government workers who are not getting paid, but it leaves an awful lot of problems for taxpayers who are still not getting served. That is a fundamental problem. If that is as far as the majority party will go, then we have no choice but to support it because it is a partial opening up of the Government. I wanted to point out another interesting bit of strangeness. The Prompt Payment Act requires that the Government pay its bills within 30 days. If no payments are made, the Government is required by law to pay interest on those outstanding obligations at a rate of 6 percent. That means that, because these obligations are piling up, we are going to have to pay added interest, added interest at a time of such a large debt, because of the stubbornness of Members in this House who insist on putting their ideology ahead of our obligation to serve all of the taxpayers whether they be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or anything else. I would urge Members to vote for this resolution, but would urge the majority party to bring a resolution before this House that truly opens up all of Government so that we can provide all of the services that we are obligated to provide.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished Democrat leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman should get time from his own side.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if there is no better option available, I will certainly vote for this first proposition. But I have to make clear that this proposition would lead one to believe that last night in the Republican caucus, Goofy and Mickey Mouse got married. I mean, this is going to leave such an incredibly ludicrous situation on our hands. What it means is that the zealots in the Republican caucus are sounding retreat, but they are still shooting hostages as they withdraw. Because this proposal that they are bringing to us will deal with the needs of Government employees, they will take care of the Washington problem, but it will not deal with the rights of the taxpayers. Taxpayers have a right to have their Government fully open; they have a right to receive all of the services for which they have already paid taxes; and this proposition will not do it. This proposition will mean, for instance, that there will still be 20,000 Pell grants per day that will not be processed. It will mean that States will still be left holding the bag for $7 billion a month in Medicaid costs. It will mean that there will be 2,000 NIH research grants which will not be renewed, including 400 cancer grants. It will mean that there will be 300 Head Start projects with 200,000 kids that will be out of luck because those projects will not be able to be funded under the terms of this very limited Government opening. It will mean that NASA contractors will still be left high and dry. It will mean that we will be paying Government workers to do some work, but they will be limited in what work they can do; and we will still not be paying contractors who are doing much of the work that Government contracts with them to do. That will have an immense long-term cost to the taxpayer, because anybody who does business with the Government as a contractor, the next time around when they sign a contract, will charge much higher prices so that they do not wind up taking the kind of financial bath that they are taking so long as we have this continued partial shutdown. So I will simply say that I urge Members to vote against the previous question so that we can offer a substitute which would open up Government in its entirety, so that we do not only just deal with the problems of Government workers, but also provide taxpayers with the full range of services to which they have already been entitled by virtue of the fact they have already paid taxes to achieve those services.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule just passed be amended to read as follows: ``It shall be''----

Mr. OBEY. Can I read it first, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been authorized by the minority party leadership on this side of the aisle to make such a request. When will someone be authorized on the majority side to make such a request?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection, with the expression that I think that the kind of material which has been provided halfway in the debate for one agency is the kind of material that should have been on the floor for every agency being funded in this bill before we vote blind here tonight.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, further continuing to reserve my right to object, so we are still not going to note what the tabular material would be for any of the other programs funded in this bill?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct one statement made by my good friend from Louisiana. The Labor-HHS bill in the Senate has not been subject to a filibuster. In fact, it has never been brought up on the floor. It has never been debated on the floor. There were numerous unanimous-consent requests made to bring that bill up, which were objected to by Members of both parties. The real reason it has taken so long to move that bill is because that bill was so extreme in nature when it left the House that Members of both parties in the other body were so embarrassed by it they did not want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution might as well be entitled the congressional R&R resolution of 1996. That is what it really is. The sad thing about this process is that an immense amount of energy on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, have been invested in trying to restart the Government every 2 or 3 weeks rather than in trying to find real solutions to real problems that affect real people in each of our own districts back home. And now we are asked to do it again. What this resolution really says is that the Congress will be allowed to get out of town, until the 25th, and the Government will be reopened partially during that time period. Then the day after Congress gets back to town, the Government shuts down again, at least those portions that have been opened up by the resolution that just passed. That is clearly not a process designed to relieve the problems faced by taxpayers, or to relieve the problems faced by consumers of Government services. That is simply a process designed to relieve the pressure on Members of Congress to stay here and do their duty and seek resolution of these major issues. That is the problem. I would respectfully suggest to the House that we ought to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I believe that the congressional leadership and all of the rest of us ought to remain in town, working on these problems, until they are resolved, and the Government should be maintained in an open rather than closed status while we are going through that process. All this is simply a device by which Members can either go to their districts or take a little vacation. Someone even said the Speaker is planning a fundraising trip. This simply lets him get out of town while the Government is temporarily opened for the convenience not of the public we are supposed to serve but of the Members of Congress. That is a lousy standard and I think we ought to turn this resolution down.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard many times today, a large portion of the Government has now been closed for 21 days. We have just passed a resolution which partially opens some of those agencies and partially provides some of the services those agencies are supposed to be providing. Now we have before us a second proposition which says that the Government will open fully between now and the end of January only if the President submits a new budget which is balanced in 7 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The justification of our Republican friends for that position is that they claim that the President agreed to do that when he signed the previous continuing resolution. That is not what the President agreed to do. The President and the Congress both agreed to enact a resolution which balanced the budget in 7 years, as scored by CBO, provided that it met certain other tests. This is the text of the agreement reached in the last budget resolution. It says: ``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress,'' and that is already by the boards on both sides, ``to achieve a balanced budget no later than fiscal year 2002, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.'' However, what this resolution would do is knock out the rest of the agreement. The rest of the agreement says that that 7-year balanced budget amendment scored by CBO must adequately protect Medicare, must adequately protect Medicaid, must adequately protect education, must adequately protect the environment, must adequately protect veterans services, and several other items. They assert on the Republican side of the aisle that the President has an obligation to offer as part of his negotiating position what he agreed to sign onto as a final proposition. OK, let us take you at your word. If you say that he has an obligation to do that, then all we want you to do is to buy into our motion which we would offer if we can defeat the previous question on the rule. We want you to buy into the idea that you have a concurrent obligation to meet the same test, because a lot of us on this side of the aisle are tired of seeing you on your side of the aisle each day want to grade the President's performance that day, when you will not be prepared to take the same test you are asking him to take. All we want you to do is to say, ``OK, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.'' If the President is going to be required to submit a 7-year balanced budget which meets the test of this agreement, then so are you. You keep asking, ``Where is the President's 7-year balanced budget?'' We ask, ``Where is yours? Where is your 7-year balanced budget that meets these tests?'' You have submitted no budget so far that adequately protects Medicare, that adequately protects States on Medicaid, that adequately funds investments in education and the environment, and adequately protects all veterans services. You have not submitted any budget that meets that test, so all we are saying is if you want the President to meet his half of that test, you meet yours. You can vote for that by voting down the previous question so we can offer our resolution.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is the same kind of wackiness, it seems to me, that has caused us to miss budget targets each year since Ronald Reagan promised that if we just passed his budget, which we did, the budget would be balanced in 4 years.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to vote against the previous question on the rule so we can have an approach to this which requires the same thing of the Republican majority that they want to require of the President of the United States.