Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we inform the Members on what is happening here, because I am concerned that some Members may have gotten the impression that there will not be votes yet tonight and unless something else happens there will be. So we need to get this tied down. I wonder if we can do that before we have lots of Members on both sides of the aisle in massive confusion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers in opposition to this amendment said that my priorities were wrong. Well, I think I have the same priorities as the people who I run into when I visit with them in Wausau, or Stevens Point, or Chippewa Falls, or Wisconsin Rapids, or Superior, or any other place in my district. My priorities are the 80,000 displaced American workers who will be cut out of worker training programs in the next appropriation bill to come before this House. My priorities are the 50,000 kids who are going to get tossed out of Head Start programs they would otherwise be able to be taken into in the next appropriation bill that is going to come before this House. My priority would be the young people who are going to lose their college loans in the next appropriation bill to come before this House. My priority would be the 600,000 Americans who will lose any help whatsoever from their Government to help heat their houses in winter and cool them in the summer so you don't have 800 more deaths like we had 2 weeks ago. The Clinton administration just released emergency fuel assistance money. There will be no emergency fuel assistance money next year if the Republican majority has their way on the appropriation bill coming before this House next. My priorities would be the disabled veterans who are being chiseled on their disability benefits, 12,000 of whom will wind up being squeezed so that we can make more room in this budget for other priorities. I make no apology for putting those folks first. My priorities would also be science right here on Earth, at NIH, NSF, just [[Page H 7856]] name it: Cancer research, Alzheimer's, heart disease; we have plenty of science that we need to support right here on Earth. I would also just close by reading one paragraph from the letter I received from the Disabled American Veterans. It simply says this: America's service-connected disabled veterans and their families are deeply disturbed by recent actions taken by the House Committee on Appropriations which would terminate compensation payments to certain service-connected mentally disabled veterans in order to provide additional funding for Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] health care. DAV certainly understands the need to put our Nation's financial house in order; however, this proposal is ill-advised and strikes at the very heart of our Nation's sacred obligation to provide compensation to all citizen-soldiers disabled in defense of the freedoms all of us enjoy.'' I agree with that statement. So I would simply urge you to support the Obey amendment. It saves almost half a million dollars on the deficit. It helps meet our commitment to veterans, a commitment which this bill welches on. This amendment corrects that. It also helps us to provide some decent housing for additional Americans who are elderly and disabled. Mr. Chairman, I make absolutely no apology for those priorities at all. Those ought to be the priorities of this entire Congress. I urge Members support the Obey amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to object. We have been asked time and time again by the majority to cooperate in closing down debate so we can get out of here.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Owens Family of Frederic, WI, operators of Owens Farms, Inc., one of five Wisconsin families selected as regional winners in the 1995 Dairy Farm Family of the Year Program. The Owens Farm involves 10 family members: Wilfred and Linda Owens, Walter and Joyce Owens, and Roger and Kim Owens; the brothers' parents, Harold and Agnes Owens; and grandsons, Stevens and Douglas Owens. Together they milk 312 Jersey cows on their farm which is located in Polk and Burnett Counties in northwestern Wisconsin. Despite dairy prices that have remained around $12 per hundredweight for more than 10 years, the Owens farm has found ways to remain profitable through the adoption of more efficient machinery and better management. In addition to their hard work on the farm, the family has been active off the farm, with the local 4-H Club, local churches, dairy organizations, and other community organizations. The Owens family has been recognized by the University of Wisconsin Centers for Dairy Profitability based on their farm business performance, dairy industry and community leadership, management systems, and business innovations. The Owens farm has proven itself a well-managed, progressive, and profitable business. The Owens family, along with the other regional winners from Wisconsin, will be recognized at a banquet in Madison, WI, on July 27. To all the winning families, and especially to the Owens family, I want to extend my congratulations.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The market promotion program is a program that is supposed to help provide funding for the promotion of U.S. agricultural products in foreign countries. Its original intent was to help the American farmer, I emphasize farmer, compete against heavily subsidized producers in Japan, Europe, and elsewhere. This amendment is very simple. This amendment does not cut any money from the program. It simply says that you qualify for this program only if you are considered a small business under SBA definition, if you are a company with less than 20 million in annual sales, or if you are a cooperative representing a large number of small producers or companies and would under qualify the Small Business Administration standards for small business. I have 10 top reasons for wanting to pass this amendment. They are as follows: Ernest & Julio Gallo received $6.9 million out of this program the last 2 years; Dole Corp., 2.4 million; Pillsbury, 1.75; Tyson Foods, 1.7; M&M Mars 1.5, Campbell Soups, 1.1; Seagrams, 793,000; Hershey's 738,000; Jim Beam Whiskey, 713; Ralston Purina, 434. As I said last night, I have nothing against any of those products. I enjoy every last one of those products, every last one of them. But I would simply, while I like them, I would simply like to know that I am not subsidizing them with my tax dollars. I am happy to purchase them, but I do not want to subsidize them. This amendment is not perfect, and I am sure opponents of it will find some reason to attack it for being imperfect, but I simply want to say to folks on both sides of this issue, to those like the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] who attacked this amendment during the discussion on the earlier bill, I would simply say this: Your amendment clearly overreached, but this is the only chance you have to send a signal to both the Committee on Agriculture and the Department that we want this program reformed. To those of you who, like me, represent farm districts and would like to see no change in this program, I would simply say, sooner or later, if you do not reform it, you are going to lose it. With the kind of budget squeeze coming at the American people, with the cuts we are making or being asked to make in Medicare, with the cuts that are being imposed on us for education, for health, for job training, we have no business giving corporations on this list money to subsidize the exports of their own products. I urge Members to support this amendment as a reasonable compromise. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply say, I am amused at the fact that some of the same Members in this House who will vote for a farm policy which will throw hundreds of thousands of small farmers over the cliff will bleed all over this floor for some of the largest corporations in this country. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield under his reservation, I simply ask a question. Mr. Chairman, the situation, as I understand it, is simply that we are trying to work out a mechanical problem. We are trying to facilitate the completion of all of these appropriation bills this week. The difficulty we have is that I cannot be on the floor at the same time I am supposed to be in the committee helping to move forward the Labor-HEW appropriations bill. I do not believe that the gentleman's amendment is in any way inconsistent with mine. Frankly, I had expected that there would be a very truncated discussion on mine, vote up or down, and then we would proceed to the gentleman's, which I think has probably much more interest than mine. But I think the gentleman misunderstands if he thinks that our amendment in any way precludes his amendment. It does not. The gentleman's amendment is simply much more restrictive than ours and can be offered, even though ours is offered, even in the unlikely event that mine is adopted.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will not make any bones about it. I do not like BST. I do not like BGH. I think its effect on the economy and rural sociology will be profound. But we do not have to get into that to assess the desirability of the gentleman's amendment. My good friend from Illinois says that the consequence of BGH use is to increase dairy production. That is true. That is the problem, because that leads to other consequences. And when you have a large increase in dairy production, you are going to also have a large increase in turmoil in rural communities and a great disruption of the rural economy and rural sociology. I hate to see anything happen which further weakens rural areas, which further weakens small towns, and which, therefore, further weakens the work ethic, which I think is rooted more deeply in those small communities than any other place in America. I would observe that all the gentleman is asking, if I understand the amendment correctly, is that in the context of an amendment which saves $1 million on the deficit, he simply asks that a study be done to determine what the economic impacts of this chemical will be. Now, I know that many farmers in my district think that if you took every agriculture economist in the world and laid them end to end, that it would be a good thing. But nonetheless, I think that it would be very good for everybody on all sides of this issue to have a full understanding of the impact of this chemical. All the gentleman is asking for is that we know not only what the scientific effect will be in terms of increased dairy production, but what that will lead to in terms of the dairy economy, the consequences that has for rural America, and the consequences it has for the Federal budget. Regardless of how you feel about the chemical, there is nothing wrong with this amendment. In fact, it could put a lot of political arguments about it to rest. I would urge that Members support the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I have already debated mine. I do not need any more time on mine. I would offer another substitute.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out that if we are going to start cross-walking these things, I have an amendment to the gentleman's amendment, and that also ought to be included in the discussion. I would simply prefer to have a five-minute debate on my amendment on the other side. I do not care if the vote is taken tonight or tomorrow, and as far as I am concerned, I do not care how long we stay here tonight debating the gentleman's amendment. I would suspect that they could all be rolled until tomorrow.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do is to offer an amendment which I expect will be opposed by both sides for opposite reasons. I am simply rising today to offer an amendment that is trying to put some rationality in the export marketing program, which is going to be debated a good deal tomorrow or later this evening as well. I simply am offering an amendment which suggests that it does not cut any money out of the marketing program. All it suggests is that support under this marketing program should not be allowed for any corporation that has sales of $20 million or more unless it is essentially a co-op. That is all the amendment does. I have 10 reasons for proposing this amendment. They are the Ernest and Julio Co., the Dole Co., Pillsbury Co., Tyson's Foods, M&M Mars, Campbell Soups, Seagrams, Hershey, Jim Beam Whiskey, Ralston Purina. I enjoy virtually all of those products. I just do not want to have to subsidize all of them. At the same time, I think there is room for an export marketing program provided that it is not gobbled up by the big boys. Now I recognize that those who want the program to stay as is are going to oppose my amendment because they think they have a better chance of killing an amendment to cut off the program. I also recognize that some Members think they have a good chance to cut off the entire program, and they do not want to vote for my amendment because they think it gets in the way. I apologize for that inconvenience. But I do think that once in a while around here there is room for a middle way. That is all I am trying to do. With that, in an effort to simply try to move this forward so that Members can go home and the committee can continue to debate the rest of the amendments and roll the votes until tomorrow, I thank the chairman.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. We will not go beyond title I?

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, I also thought the understanding was that there would be no further action taken after 10:15 p.m.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that we would not proceed past the end of title I. Is that correct? [[Page H 7240]]

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we had a needless blowup here Thursday night for a variety of reasons, which I am not going to go into. I would very much like to see that not happen again. But if we are going to have outrageous pieces of garbage like this peddled by individual Members of this House at the door [[Page H 7215]] which smear the reputation of individual Members, then I think we ought to have a rule that requires every Member who circulates something like this to have their name on the sheet. We just had an amendment offered by a Republican, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson], a distinguished and honorable Member of this House, and yet the scandal sheet that was distributed at the door reads, ``Defeat the Hoyer substitute; Hoyer equals illegal drug use; Hoyer equals sex training; Hoyer equals new age cult training; Hoyer equals condom training; Hoyer equals religious indoctrination.'' These are five dirty lies. I want to know which Member of the House takes responsibility for bringing this garbage to the House floor. We have to treat each other with respect. It would be kind of nice if at least you had the right name on the sheet. I would also suggest that there is not a single Member of this House who would want to see the things happen that this sheet allegedly describes. Whoever did this ought to be ashamed of themselves.