Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. That is safe to say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to something the gentleman just said. First of all, let me say that yesterday at 1:30, when the President's Chief of Staff came down to meet us in the office of Senator Dashle, I was very pessimistic that in fact an agreement would be reached. But the two compromised proposals that were developed, which the White House then took to Senator Domenici, wound up producing a happy result for everybody, and I think we all ought to be very grateful for that. But in light of what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] just said, I want to remind my colleagues that the language says that the balanced budget shall be reached by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. That does not mean that the Congressional Budget Office baseline is the one that will be used. And it points out in (b) that that budget agreement shall be estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. That always occurs. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas had also better remember, however, that in balancing a budget within 7 years it will be necessary, as the agreement says, to ensure that Medicare, or to ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. Now it is clear that we will not be able to do that on a 7-year timeframe and still provide the large unnecessary tax cuts which the majority party wants to give to people who are making a lot more money in this country than are the people whose taxes they want to raise in their reconciliation bill. So I think we had better remember that this agreement is a balanced agreement which will not just balance the budget, but balance the economy in society along with it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to respond to the last gentleman by saying we did pass such legislation in this House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it was filibustered in the other body by the now majority leader, Mr. Dole, as the gentleman knows. I am speaking, of course, about the lobby reforms and about the legislation making us live under the same laws as everyone else. We did both of those by rule after, or we did one by rule after we were prevented from doing it by the Senate, and we passed the other through the House and it was filibustered by the Senate.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is recognized for 4 minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I think, in light of that previous comment, it is interesting to note that until the Democrats insisted there was no language whatsoever guaranteeing the protection of Medicaid, education, the environment, and so forth, I think those are Democratic principles. I do not know what Republican principles he was talking about, but those are Democratic principles. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here under these conditions today because this ends a fight which, in my view, never should have taken place in the first place. At the time that this fight started Congress had passed only two of its appropriations bills, military construction and agriculture. During the time that the fight ensued, two more were passed and signed by the President, and the President indicated just this weekend he would sign two more, which the Congress has now sent down to him. We still have a long way to go for the Congress to finish its appropriations business, but at the time this fight ensued, over 90 percent of the appropriations required for the next fiscal year had not yet been passed by the Congress. Therefore, we had to pass a continuing resolution to keep Government open while the rest of the bills completed their way through the Congress. The Speaker, as we now all know, tried to use that need in order to require the President to walk away from deeply held principles and beliefs. First, the continuing resolution which was passed by this House required the President to accept the idea of a doubling of Medicare premiums. The President said no. Then the Speaker told the press that the continuing resolution was made more confrontational because he had wanted to receive more attention than the President's plane to the Middle East for Mr. Rabin's funeral. That Government shutdown that ensured cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars. I guess we could say that is the most expensive plane ride in Government history. Thank God that is now all behind us and the Government is again open, and this bill will keep it open until December 15. This continuing resolution will allow the real negotiations to now begin. Next week, Mr. Speaker, the Government will remain open while we debate the real issues. The language in the continuing resolution reads that it will ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment, and that we will adopt tax policies to help working families. [[Page H 13367]] I think that makes clear that the issue has never been whether the budget would be balanced. The issue has been whether or not the budget would be balanced in a way that unites society by being fair rather than in a way that divides society by being unfair. I think this language makes it clear that we on this side of the aisle, and the President, will insist that Medicare be strengthened, not crippled; that the safety net for children will not be shredded when they need a doctor; that education and environment will not be crippled; that taxes on working people with modest incomes will not be raised in order to provide tax cuts for the well-off and the wealthy. This debate, Mr. Speaker, has never been about accounting. This debate has been about values. We simply do not want just a balanced budget. In addition to a balanced budget, we also want a balanced society and we want a balanced economy. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that fairness is not an ornament. We believe it is a core value, and that is why I am delighted that the resolution before us today finally, properly, recognizes those core values. We will, as we move into negotiations on the budget bill to come, insist that those values be respected on behalf of all of the people we represent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time so we can pass this thing and put people back to work.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute and five seconds 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 yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this proposition is what I would call the I- can't-take-the-heat amendment. What has happened, and I have turned this chart on its side so that people can see it from a little different perspective, what has happened is that so far four appropriation bills have been passed by the Congress. The White House has asked that the Congress send the additional two which are ready to be sent up to the White House up to the White House so they can sign them. That will still leave over 80 percent of the Government unfunded on the appropriations side, not because the President did not sign any bills, but because the Congress has not sent them to him yet. I do not know how the President can be expected to sign bills that have not gotten to him yet. Then, because of this huge performance gap in this Congress, what the Speaker and his allies are doing is saying: OK, Mr. President, because we have not done our work, we are going to see to it that these hundreds of thousands of Federal workers do not report to their jobs until you agree to blackmail, and until you agree to take our negotiating position on another piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Members on the Republican side of the aisle are feeling the heat, and so what they have done is produce what I consider to be essentially a political document. They say: Well, Social Security is a hot button, so, all right, we will let Social Security go. VA is a hot button, so we are going to let VA go. Medicare is a hot button, so we are going to let some of the activities in Medicare go. That is, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], has said, a good political decision. But the right substantive position is to let all of those programs go, and let the entire Government function while we work out our differences on the other piece of legislation which is not even supposed to be involved in this fight. Now, last night the President's representatives made a reasonable offer to [[Page H 13332]] the Senate, and Mr. Gingrich turned it down. Now Mr. Gingrich and his allies are saying it is not negotiable; we must have a 7-year balanced budget, on CBO guidelines. The President is simply saying: I would like to see a balanced budget. But if you fellows are going to insist on whacking Medicare, and if you are going to insist on whacking Medicaid, if you are going to insist on smashing opportunity for kids who are trying to go to college, and if you are going to insist on a huge tax cut, than you cannot responsibly get there in 7 years, and so we may have to talk about a different timeline. Because of that rational difference, you are saying we are going to hold up the entire Federal Government. I think this performance has been absolutely, incredibly, incredibly disgraceful. I would simply like to say this: When the American people voted to put you folks in charge in November, I think what they thought they were doing is that they were going to force both parties to work together. I think they thought they would end gridlock by putting both parties in charge of opposite branches of Government so that we had to work together. Instead, what we are getting is a very different record. I will repeat what I said on the floor last week: When I chaired this committee last year, all 13 of these appropriation bills were passed on time, they were signed by the President, there was no need for a continuing resolution, not a single Government worker was held out of work. Do you know why? Because I had a Speaker who allowed me to cross the aisle and talk to the ranking Republican and say ``Let's work this out on a bipartisan basis.'' That is exactly what we did, and because we had a bipartisan, functioning House, we were able to get that done. The reason that has not happened this year and we have this performance gap is that we have a different kind of Speaker. We are not going to have a different Speaker, but we had better get a different attitude out of him if this country is going to survive this petty food fight which he has started and insisted on keeping going.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY

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