Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation of objection, let me say that I recognize that the decision on that question is above the gentleman's pay grade and above mine, but I would nonetheless simply take this occasion to inform the Chair and the House that in the event that there is no objection made to this request, that after this is disposed of, I would ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk H.R. 1643, the Dole proposition, in order to permit immediate consideration in the House, because that would reopen all of Government and it would pay everybody for work that they are doing, which might seem a quaint idea, given the Alice-in-Wonderland atmosphere that this House has taken on, but nonetheless, I think would meet with considerable support on the part of the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation of objection, let me simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I am troubled by this, because while I think we want the District government to remain open, that there would be no need for this specific resolution, as narrowly drawn as it is tonight, if the House leadership would simply allow us to bring up the Dole resolution which passed the Senate yesterday, which opens up all of the agencies of Government. We have the ridiculous situation under which some Federal workers have been paid for work which they were not allowed to do, and other Federal workers are being required to perform work for which they are not getting paid. The District is not the only jurisdiction with problems. There are 10 States, I am told, that are about to run out of needed funds to administer unemployment compensation programs. There are 95 percent of workplace safety inspections which are not taking place. There are 2,500 mortgage applications a day under SBA that are not being attended to. Veterans' education benefits are in question for 170,000 veterans. Pension fraud cases are not being pursued. The Older Americans Act and Meals on Wheels are being put at risk, all because of the arrogance, it seems to me, of some Members of this body who put their political and economic ideology ahead of the right of taxpayers to receive the services for which they have already paid. Therefore, I am extremely troubled by the narrow nature of this proposition, but I would simply suggest that I do not see any useful purpose that would be served for anyone on this side of the aisle to engage in the same kind of childish leverage games that we have seen go on on the part of the leadership of this House and the Speaker, so I very reluctantly will not object. However, I would ask, in the process of not objecting, I would ask when the House Republican leadership would allow us to bring to the floor for a vote the resolution sent over by the Senate, sponsored by Mr. Dole yesterday, which would open up the entire Government.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of this bill is hardly new news to people. The President made clear his intentions to veto this bill in July if it passed without continuing the President's program under which 31,000 cops on the beat positions were filled in communities all throughout the country because of action of the Congress in the previous year. So there is no reason to be suddenly shocked or chagrined by the President's simply doing what he told us many months ago he would do if this bill did not pass in its present form. I think we need to really be frank about what is happening here today. What is happening here today is that we are going through a series of meaningless exercises, pretending to have an effort to override the previous veto that was considered by the House. Now we are going through the charade of pretending that we are going to try to override the President's veto on this bill because the House does not have any other legislative business to perform. That is what is going on, and that is what the taxpayers ought to know. What ought to be on the floor today is the motion to continue the bipartisan action that was taken in the Senate yesterday by Mr. Dole and Mr. Daschle, when, on a bipartisan basis, they passed a resolution to open up the entire Government. That is the motion that should be before us today. Instead, we face the ridiculous spectacle of first seeing Government workers paid for work that they were not allowed to do, then we see Government workers being forced to do work for which they are not yet being paid, and the Congress sits here and allows that to continue. Do not kid anybody. The President did not shut down the Government. The President exercised his constitutional right to veto a bill which he thought was haywire, and the President has asked on every occasion that the Congress pass legislation to keep the Government open while differences are being resolved. The Congress has shut down the Government because the Speaker and the Republican majority have made a conscious decision that they want to gain leverage over the President of the United States to force him to make cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and education that he simply is not willing to do, and that is why the Government is shut down. What I really believe ought to happen--instead of this meaningless consumption of time here today on this veto override that is going nowhere--what ought to happen is we ought to take note of the quote in the newspaper this morning by the Senate majority leader, who said, ``I can't see any sense in what we have been doing. I would hope we would have quick action in the House. People have been gone from their jobs long enough. Enough is enough.'' I want to say to my moderate friends on the Republican side of the aisle, sooner or later you are going to have to decide whether you are Gingrich Republicans or Dole Republicans, and that time might as well be today. Because what ought to happen here today is that you ought to bring on to this floor--and only you can do it, only you have the votes--you ought to bring onto the floor a resolution which will open up all of the Government so that Government can stay open while we continue to work on the other differences between us. After that resolution is passed, then what ought to happen it that appropriation bills ought to be separated from the other debate going on about long-term budget policy. We ought to reach a bipartisan, reasonable consensus on the dollar levels in those appropriation bills. Those bills should be stripped of extraneous language, and then we should try to pass those compromise appropriation measures. We are supposed to be public servants. We are supposed to be looking for ways to provide service to the public, not to deny that service, and yet by your refusal to follow the Senate lead, to follow Senator Dole's lead in opening up the Government, you are insisting upon denying to the public services for which they have already paid. What you have here, in my view, is an incredible display of arrogance. We are being told that the majority in this House believes that their political ideology is more important to them than providing the services to the taxpayers who we are all supposed to serve. What we ought to do is, on a bipartisan basis, the same as the Senate did: pass the Dole motion and get on with the business of opening up the Government. Open up the Government, that is what we are paid to do, and we should not be paid until we do it.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I trust that no one at this point will object, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1643) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of Bulgaria in order to permit the immediate consideration in the House of the Senate amendment to the House amendment that is the Dole appropriation.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is what I am trying to do. What I was simply attempting to say is that I think that certainly the dignity of the House and the integrity of the House are brought into question when a situation is allowed to continue which, in effect, has taxpayers' money provided for work that Government employees have not done and when you have workers required to perform work for which they are not paid--that is certainly not meeting the standard of dignity and decency and honor which we have a right to expect in this House. I think, on those grounds alone, rule IX would dictate that we ought to be able to proceed with this resolution.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention, there is a technical problem with this bill which the majority leader's office would like to correct. For the purpose of facilitating that, I ask unanimous consent that debate be extended by 3 minutes on each side, until it can be worked out.

Mr. OBEY. Is it possible, after the last speech, the American people finally understand what we are up against?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the effect of this motion would be to end this childish partial Government shutdown. It would open up not just the functions that are contained in the base resolution. It would open up all remaining functions of Government so that taxpayers are not forced to look at the silly situation in which their taxpayers' money is being used to pay Government workers who are not being allowed to actually work for the money they receive. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious by my comments.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I again want to repeat that the motion to recommit will be a motion to open all of the Government so that workers who are being paid will be paid for working rather than not working.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, let me simply say that despite the unreasonable position of the majority, I will not object because I do not think that one act of childishness, I do not mean on the part of the gentleman from Louisiana but on the part of the majority in general, I do not think that that justifies an act of childishness on this side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to get this straight. We were given one proposition by the majority a day ago which refused to keep most functions of the Government open except those that they delineated in that proposal. That went to the Senate. It has been screwed up in the Senate and so now we are asked to pass a second selective reopening of the Government. In the middle of the discussion of what should be reopened, we are now being asked to reopen yet another series of functions. I think that indicates the absolutely chaotic way that decisions are being made in this House, but I would ask the gentleman a question, under my reservation of objection. I would ask the gentleman whether as long as his language is attempting to deal with some of the shutdown problems at the VA, I would ask if the gentleman would be willing to deal with all of the shutdown problems at the VA so that we can deal with pending claims for pension and benefits, the employees who work on that backlog are furloughed, so that we can deal with new applications for pension and benefits that are accelerating at the rate of 2,000 a day, so that we can deal with the backlog and new applications for certificates of eligibility for VA home ownership loans and loan guarantees. There are approximately 200,000 Veterans Health Administration employees who are working with the promise of pay once this crisis is resolved but without the assurance of their normal payday. If we are going to selectively deal with the problems of veterans, I would urge that the gentleman allow us to add the following language: (3) all other authorized activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, including processing of existing new applications for benefits and pensions, processing of certificates of eligibility for home ownership loans and loan guarantees, and payment of salaries of Federal Government personnel providing health care for our Nation's veterans are continued at a rate for operations not to exceed the rate in existence on December 15, 1995. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the majority party of this Congress has insisted that Government be selectively shut down, and in that process they are trying to leverage the President of the United States into swallowing their budget outline. Yesterday, the majority voted to open only a part of the Veterans' Administration when that legislation was on the floor. At that time we asked that they open all of Government. We asked that they allow workers to voluntarily come in and work, since the Speaker had announced they will be paid anyway; and we asked that we allow all of Government to be open so that taxpayers can receive all of the services to which they are entitled because they have already paid for them. We were refused in all three of those efforts. Now the legislation which was passed is bogged down in the other body and we have a new proposition before us, which, once again, tries to do everything that was done earlier plus open the Government for AFDC payments and for Medicaid and for the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I know that we have a lot of interests in all of those items, but on this side of the aisle we want all of Government to be reopened so that we can provide all of the services to taxpayers to which they are entitled. We want Government workers to be paid for working, not to be paid for not working. I want to make clear, this debate is not about whether there is or should be a balanced budget. In my view, it is about political arrogance, it is about political bullying, and it is about political childishness. Mr. Speaker, you will find a good many of us on this side of the aisle who will be prepared to vote for a balanced budget, but we will not be blackmailed into voting for a specific kind of budget outline that moves us inevitable into accepting the idea of cutting the amount that Medicare will pay for each beneficiary 7 years down the line by $1,700 per person. We will not be blackmailed into accepting a situation in which, when you combine what is happening with Medigap and what is being suggested by the majority party on Medicare premiums, that seniors will be asked to pay $1,000 more out of their own pocket for health insurance. We will not be blackmailed into dumping defenseless children out of health care insurance under Medicaid. And we will not be blackmailed into gutting the Government's long-term ability to provide a decent educational opportunity for every kid in this country or to provide protection for the environment. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic that especially at the Christmas season we are seeing an act of consummate arrogance on the part of the majority of this House. We are being told that this is all necessary because of their vision that somehow if we just pass their version of a balanced budget over 7 years, that somehow they can guarantee to the taxpayer that there will, in fact, be a balanced budget. I think their own past record in producing on their promises would dictate rather more humility and rather less arrogance than I have seen so far. I would point out that the first time we were told to sacrifice all of our judgment and swallow our promises was in 1981, when we were told that if we just passed the Reagan budget that the deficit would decline from $55 billion to zero over 4 years time. Instead, the deficit went up to $185 billion. Then we were asked to swallow another multiyear promise in Gramm- Rudman 1. Our Republican friends told us they would guarantee us the deficit would go down from $172 billion to zero if we would just swallow their budget prescription. The Congress did. They only missed the deficit reduction target by $220 billion. Then the Republicans passed Gramm-Rudman II, and they said if we do that, we will take the deficit down to zero over a 5-year period of time--represented by these green lines on the cart. Instead, unfortunately, they only missed by $290 billion. It would seem to me, given the past track record of the majority party in producing results that match their promises, that we have a right to take with some skepticism their promises that this time around they are going to hit better targets and actually get us to zero. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that all of those arguments there are irrelevant. Their judgment may be correct; it may not be. Our positions may be right; they may not be. I do not know. But the one thing I do know is that we should not hold hostage 300,000 Government workers just for them to be able to prove a point. There is something very, very wrong with the attitude of people in this House that says we should go home to Christmas with the comfort of our families, but, meanwhile, we should continue to disrupt the Christmases of 300,000 Government workers and their families. There is something wrong, Mr. Speaker, with saying we should go home to our families for Christmas, but, by the way, taxpayers who have already paid out the money for these services, taxpayers who have already bought their tickets to see the Washington Monument or see Yellowstone, or whatever, that they should have to have their vacations ruined just so that the Speaker and the majority party can prove a political point. I think there is something wrong with that attitude. It makes a mockery of representative democracy. It makes a mockery of the sentiment that is supposed to pervade in this holiday season. I would urge my colleagues, therefore, when the motion to recommit comes--and I am not asking anyone to vote against the basic bill--but I am asking that when the motion to recommit comes, I am asking my colleagues to vote for it because that will be a motion to recommit which, if passed, would open the entire government until January 3. I would urge support for the recommittal motion.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the committee resolution and oppose the Solomon resolution, and I want to tell Members why. The House has an exemption in the rules which limits outside income for Members. It has an exemption for book royalties, because I agreed to put it there back in 1977. At that time I chaired a commission that rewrote the House Code of Ethics under which 18 Members had been disciplined, a code which was upgraded 3 years ago. At that time, we voted to impose limits on outside income after a Presidential commission, chaired by Pete Peterson, who today heads the Concord Coalition, recommended a congressional pay raise, but they said it should go into effect only after Members had passed limitations on outside income to assure that Members could not trade on their positions for undue personal gain. I had one Member of the House come up to me and he said, ``Dave, I do not understand what you are doing with law practice.'' He said, ``I do not spend any time at my law practice. It is just that as I rise in seniority, the lobbies toss more business our way and I get a piece of the action.'' I said, ``I know. That is why we are doing what we are doing, because we do not think that is right.'' I made an exception in the recommendation to the House on book royalties because at that time we had people like John Anderson, Mo Udall, Dick Bolling, who had written books. They were largely regarded as academic exercises. We never dreamed that any of them would be used to in any way significantly enrich a Member's lifestyle. Today, I think we have a different situation. To me, any individual Member can today exploit that loophole to unduly enrich himself because there is a conflict of interest. The amount of money that you make is going to be determined by the aggressiveness with which the publisher promotes the book. And if that publisher, his firm, has an interest before the Congress of the United States, that is a very troubling potentiality which I think events have shown we have to eliminate. I want to say one other thing. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said that if we do not pass his amendment that Members of Congress will be ``second-class citizens.'' No person who has ever been elected by his fellow citizens to represent them in the halls of the Congress of the United States can ever be regarded in any way as a second-class citizen. The honor that is extended to us by that act far exceeds any monetary value that can accrue to anyone by virtue of any financial gain. Members of Congress ought to be willing to give up something for the greater good. In this instance, it is necessary for us, in my view, to stick with the committee. It is not a pleasant experience to serve on that Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It is the toughest job in this House, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat you are asked to make excruciating judgments every day. That committee deserves to be backed up by the judgment of this House.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Kentucky just said that it is a violation of free speech to provide this limitation. It is not. Senator Sarbanes and I arranged for the publication of a book. We also arranged that neither one of us would make one dime off of it. So did the distinguished majority leader of this House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]. This is not about free speech. This is about money and we believe, and I am happy that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct believes, that Members of the House should not have to make money in order to freely express their ideas.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object. I simply want to again reinforce what the gentleman from Louisiana just said; that this is a way to deal with the CR issues without taking the full hour of debate which would ordinarily be taken in the interest of accommodating Members. I would ask, however, that we could have a modicum of attention so that we do not lose that time by having the Chair gavel people to silence while we are trying to wade through it. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman would yield, I would inform the gentleman there will be two additional votes.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, every day in every way, this place gets sillier and sillier and sillier. This is a shameful, adolescent abdication of responsibility. You are going to be going home to the comfort and warmth of your families for the next 11 days, and abdicating your responsibility to the public to see to it that they get the public services which they have already paid for. You are going to cost the taxpayers $1 billion for nothing. You are going to pay workers for work they have not performed. Last night you would not even let workers volunteer to come in to work. Where is your sense of responsibility? Where is your sense of decency? Where is your sense of judgment? Where is your sense of balance? I have just been informed that families caring for 273,000 foster care children will not receive maintenance payments, and 100,000 adoption assistance children will be affected by delayed grants. Less than half of the second quarter grants for Medicaid could be awarded. If you want to go home to your Christmas under those circumstances, without opening the Government, shame on you.