Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield if I yield him a minute of my time? I ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman a minute of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I would simply ask the gentleman, with the exception of last year when you were chairman, or last term when you were chairman, where were your speeches when your party brought those 56 omnibus appropriation bills to the floor? Where were your objections then?

Mr. OBEY. Are you saying that it didn't make sense when your party did what we are doing today 56 times? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. OBEY. I find the gentleman's conversion interesting.

Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman says that he finds this a precedent. I repeat, we are doing with Military Construction what the Republicans did in 4 of the last 5 years, considering Military Construction in association with other bills. I do welcome, however, the newfound expression of support for veterans by the now minority party. Over the last 2 years, we had to drag them kicking and screaming into voting for higher funding for budgets for veterans' health care than their own President wanted. In fact, when their committee chairman agreed with us 2 years ago that we needed to add a billion dollars to veterans' health care, they responded by removing that committee chairman from the committee because he wasn't following the party line. I don't think veterans will have much trouble determining who has been on their side the last 5 years and who hasn't. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Madam Speaker, there was an old comedian who used to say: When somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money. When the gentleman says it isn't about the Labor, Health and Education bill, it's about the Labor, Health and Education bill. The gentleman objects to the fact that we are doing what has been done in this institution for many years. We are taking the bills that are finished in both Houses at this time and we are trying to get them to the President in the fastest possible way. And the way to do that is to send them down together. Now, the President wants to cherry-pick. He wants to pick and choose. He said you have got to send me 11 separate bills. He didn't send us 11 separate bills. The President sends us one omnibus budget. He put all the departments together in one document and sent them down to us. We are sending him back whatever proposals we can put together in the fastest possible time. Madam Speaker, he says that the Labor-Health bill is bloated. Well, let me compare it to the President's budget. The President says that he is the ``great decider'' and that he is going to decide how much money is going to be in this bill and we have got to live within that limit or else he's going to veto anything else we send him. If we live under the President's budget, we would cut vocational education by 50 percent. Anybody think that is a good idea? If we live under the President's budget, we would eliminate all student aid but Work-Study and Pell Grants. Anybody here really believe that is a good idea? In all my years in Congress, I never heard anybody say: Obey, why don't you guys get together and cut cancer research. Yet, that is what this previous Republican Congress and the President have done the last 2 years; they have cut 1,100 grants out of the National Institutes of Health, medical research grants. If you want to live under the President's budget on law enforcement, we would cut what the committee has in its bill by one-third. The President wants us to cut handicapped kids' education by $300 million. Mr. Walsh, the ranking Republican member of the Labor-Health Subcommittee, led the objection to that, and in fact persuaded the committee to put a higher number in the bill than I had put in in the chairman's mark; yet the President says we ought to follow his budget for Labor-Health. If we do, we will cut rural health by 54 percent. He also wants us down the line to cut the Clean Water Revolving Fund by 37 percent. He wants us to cut disabled housing assistance by 47 percent. He has ordered his Secretary of Veterans Affairs to send us a letter indicating that they don't want the $4 billion that we have added to veterans health care. So you don't think this is about priorities? You bet you, it's about priorities. I submit to you, the teachers of this country, the school kids of this country, the parents of this country, and the veterans aren't going to be fooled. Veterans aren't going to be very thrilled if you take care of their needs so long as they are in Iraq, but the minute they get home you forget the help their kid's need to get an education, you forget the help their wife's needs or husband's needs if they run into medical problems. Veterans are whole people, just like everybody else. This Congress has an obligation to meet all of their needs, not just their needs so long as they are wearing the uniform and then forget them once they take it off. That is not the American way. It shouldn't be the Congress's way. That is why we are proceeding as we are proceeding. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Is the gentleman sure he doesn't want to yield back? Could I inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he intends to have on this?

Mr. OBEY. Then I'm the last speaker on our side. How much time remaining?

Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, I simply want to repeat what the gentleman from Ohio said earlier. We often see politicians try to wrap themselves in the flag, and we often try to see politicians pose for holy pictures every time the issue of veterans comes up. And America's very good at saluting veterans and playing the band when they go off to war. We haven't been as good in dealing with their problems after they come home. And so what we intend to do in the Military Construction bill, in the Defense bill, in the Labor-Health bill, and in a number of other appropriation bills is we intend to deal with all of the problems faced by veterans and their families and other families in this country. When veterans come home, they aren't just worried about whether or not they're going to get veterans health care. They also want to know whether the kids are going to be able to go to decent schools, taught by qualified teachers in decent classrooms. So we are going to be trying to see to it that programs such as title I and handicapped education are much more adequately funded than they would be under the President's budget. Impact Aid, that directly affects many military families. We're trying to make sure that we do a better job funding that program than the President did in his budget. Medical research, believe it or not, veterans need the results of medical research just as much as and probably more so than many other Americans. We're going to see to it, in our bill, that we don't experience a cutback of 1,100 grants in military research around the country. I would suggest that this motion simply says that the new minority does not want us to do something which they did 56 times when they ran this House, namely, combine appropriation bills for the purpose either of efficiency or to strengthen our capacity to meet our obligations around the horn. I also think something else is going on. Under the budget rules of the House, the President does not have the right to veto a budget resolution; he only has the right to veto appropriation bills. But what he is trying to do, by asserting that he, and he alone, will determine what the overall number is for appropriations, he is trying to indirectly position himself so he can veto a budget resolution. He's never had that power. The Congress never gave him that power, and the Constitution certainly doesn't. So I would suggest that one of the probably unintended consequences of the motion of the gentleman from California is that it would, inadvertently, transfer additional power to the executive branch. I don't think that's wise. Having said all of that, I want to make one more point. I know the gentleman from Florida would never want to misstate or misquote any other Member, but I was somewhat stunned to hear him suggest that I have said that we must pass these appropriation bills singly. In fact, I have said many times on this floor just the opposite. I've said that, unlike the previous chairman, who was extremely concerned about passing each of these bills separately, that while I would prefer to do it that way, I would be happy, if that didn't work, to pass them in minibuses or omnibuses or any other kind of bus you can find, so long as we deliver the goods, and so long as the goods are the right goods for the American people. And that's the philosophy I have. So I would simply suggest, we've had more debate than I'd expected today on procedural niceties. I would suggest that we simply recognize that we've got an obligation to get on with completing our appropriations business. This is the most effective way we can do it. All three of these bills passed the House on a bipartisan basis, and I have no reason to expect that they won't do the same when they come back from conference. I do want to say that I agree with not all, but some of the comments made about our esteemed colleagues in the other body, but that's a discussion for another day. And with that, if the gentleman has one remaining speaker, then I'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Can I inquire how many speakers the gentleman has remaining.

Mr. OBEY. Just one?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the purpose of debate only. And I yield myself 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, the motion is self-explanatory. This will enable us to go to conference with the other body on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education bill and begin the process by which we can deal with the conference reports on the seven bills so far completed action by the Senate. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is a good friend of mine. And I don't mind his pulling my leg, but from way over there, it's a little bit of a stretch. Let me simply recite a few facts. If we take a look at the past history to see how these bills have been handled in the past, the gentleman talks about having a separate military construction bill. The fact is, over the last 5 years, when our Republican friends controlled this House, on three occasions they tied the military construction bill to other bills. And on one occasion, they never managed to pass a military construction bill at all. Only once in the past 5 years did they pass a freestanding military construction bill. So, I will stack our record against theirs any time. There is another substantial difference between us on that score. In the 2007 budget and in the bill before the Congress now, we've added $7 billion in additional funding for veterans health care, money which the administration itself opposed. So, I make no apology for what we have done on that score. Let me also point out the gentleman is objecting to the possibility that we will combine the labor, health, education bill, the defense bill and the military construction bill into one piece. If we do that, that would mean that 90 percent of the dollars in the bill would be security related. The President has asked us to send him a defense bill and to send him a military construction bill. That is exactly what we would be doing. In addition to that, we would be sending the largest domestic bill, so that together we would be sending, in essence, 71 percent of the appropriation part of the budget down to the White House. I make no apology for that. I would also point out that, while the gentleman has a newfound objection to omnibus appropriation bills, during the 12 years in which the Republicans controlled this body, 56 times they sent omnibus appropriation bills to the President for his signature. During the Bush administration, they sent omnibus appropriation bills to the President 27 times. The President had no objection whatsoever when they came from a Republican Congress. I find it interesting that he now professes objection because we are doing what his Republican Party did in spades for so long. In fact, last year, the other side, when they controlled this House, they avoided sending an omnibus appropriation bill to the President because on the domestic side of the ledger, they didn't bother to send him any at all. So we had to spend the first 6 weeks when we were in control of this body cleaning up last year's Republican business. I would also point out, lest we take lectures from the administration and OMB, Mr. Nussle, who is the President's new budget director, he was chairman of the Budget Committee for 6 years. Since 1976 when the Budget Act was passed, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution four times. Three of those four times occurred when Mr. Nussle was chairman of the committee. So I don't think I am going to take any lectures about the newfound interest of the new budget director in having timely consideration of any matter related to the budget. I would also point out that during Mr. Nussle's tenure of 6 years, the Republican Congress passed three omnibus appropriations and one omnibus CR. So it seems to me that this is a debate about, if not nothing, at least very little. I would simply say that what we ought to be looking at is not what kind of a ribbon we have on the package, but we ought to be taking a look at the contents of the package. And I make no apology whatsoever about the contents of this package. Now, if we take a look at the President's statement, his veto pronouncement yesterday, he says that the Congress has wasted time voting on efforts to change direction in Iraq. I would suggest that the President has wasted 5 years of the country's influence by the way he has handled Iraq in the first place. The President objects to the fact that in all of the domestic appropriation bills, we are some $20 billion above his budget suggestion, about 2 percent. That 2 percent difference is the difference between having a President and having a King. And I would point out, he wants to spend 10 times that much money in Iraq in just 1 year. The President says that Congress has gone it alone on SCHIP. I would suggest the President has gone it alone in Iraq. He has gone it alone without our allies. He is going it alone now without the support of the American people. So I would be careful, if I were the President, referring to someone ``going alone'' on anything. I would also point out that the President says the Labor-H bill is bloated. Well, as a practical matter, if we were to pass the President's budget, we would be cutting vocational education by 50 percent. We would be accepting the idea that we ought to cut the National Institutes of Health grants by 1,100 grants over the past 2 years. We would be accepting the fact that we ought to allow No Child Left Behind to become a hollow shell in terms of financing. The President is, in fact, objecting to our increase for special education, an item which the Republican Party in this House took the lead on in putting in the bill in the first place. So it seems to me the President, his priorities are not supported by the country. So he is falling back on a process argument. I don't think anybody is going to be especially impressed. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Let me state once more that I find somewhat disingenuous concerns expressed about the so-called delay that this process will provide for veterans health care. I would like to know where that same concern was when last year the now-minority party never even passed a Military Construction bill. Last year, they completed their session, they walked out of town, shut the doors and said good-bye, and they never passed any bill whatsoever to provide veterans health care. So we took over in January, and the very first action we took was to clean up that mess and add over $3 billion to veterans health care. That was our top priority. And then we followed it up in the regular appropriation bill by adding again more than $3 billion. So I will take a backseat to no one in terms of our expression of concern for veterans. But let me say, we're not just going to take care of veterans as long as they wear the uniform. We're also going to try to take care of their kids' needs for a decent college education. We're going to try to take care of their families' needs in terms of medical research. We're going to try to take care of their housing needs. We're going to try to take care to see that there's decent law enforcement so they can live in communities where kids can actually grow up into adulthood. As the gentleman from Ohio said, we're going to treat veterans as a whole person. That's the purpose of trying to pass all of these bills. Let me simply say I think these bills have been bipartisan. The Labor-Health-Education bill, one of the speakers indicated that it was the most contentious bill on the floor. We got 53 Republican votes for that bill. I hardly think that we would have done that if it had been a partisan product. In fact, if you average all of the appropriation bills that we passed in this House, we got 65 Republican votes on average for every appropriation bill that passed. That means that we passed these bills on average by exactly two-thirds, which is exactly what it takes to override a Presidential veto. Now we're simply trying to get these bills to the President as fast as we can and in a way which does not enable him to have an easy time of cherry-picking. That's what we're trying to do. I sat down with the President's budget director, Mr. Nussle, and I said, Look, why don't we right now, even while the Senate is working, sit down and try to work out a bipartisan compromise for all these bills? He said, Dave, I'm new at the job, but he said, so far I don't find anybody in the White House that has the slightest bit of interest in compromise. I said, Well, that's too bad. I hope that changes. Please call me if it does. But meanwhile, if the President wants to veto something, why don't we at least sit down and try to figure out which bills he wants to veto so maybe we can agree on which ones to send him first. I got no takers on that either. So we're proceeding the way we're proceeding because we're playing off what the President of the United States has said and done, and so far all we've heard is my way or no way. I don't believe that the Republican Members of this Congress came here to walk in lock step, and certainly we didn't on this side of the aisle. We will find out as the process unravels. And so with that, I would simply urge that we support this motion. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I yield myself the time simply to respond to something said by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Mr. Wicker implied that the delay that took place in bringing this to the floor today was because of supposedly some turmoil about how this bill was packaged. In fact, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) will tell you, the reason for the delay is because I spent all day defending two Republican amendments to this bill that the Senate wanted to reject. And until I got agreement to quit horsing around with those amendments, I refused to bring this bill to the floor. And now I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OBEY. May I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman have any remaining speakers?

Mr. OBEY. Then could I ask the gentleman to give his summary remarks. I have only one remaining speaker.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. All right. We'll try to do the same. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Let me simply say, Madam Speaker, that what the gentleman is saying is that he wants to prevent us from doing something on this bill which his party did 56 times in the time that they controlled this House over the past 12 years, and I don't find that especially persuasive. He also wants to prevent us from producing more than one bill at a time, and yet the President signed omnibus appropriation bills 27 times since he's been President, when they came from his own party. Now, because one might come from the Democratic Party, he wants to make a Federal case out of it. I don't think people are going to be very impressed with that either. I find it very interesting that out of all of the motions that the minority could have offered, they haven't offered a single motion, and nothing in this motion today would in any way reduce by one dime any of the funds that we appropriated in the Labor-Health-Education bill. They argue that the bill is bloated, and yet when we give them an opportunity to offer motions to reduce spending for any specific item they don't take advantage of it. That is exactly the same experience we had when the subcommittee considered the bill, and in fact, virtually every Republican motion and every Republican speech was on behalf of an effort to increase funding for a number of items, whether it be vocational education, which I agree with, or whether it be Pell Grants or whether it be special education. So I find it interesting that after all of that rhetoric about so- called bloated funding for this bill they choose to argue an arcane process issue. All they're really saying is, when you consider Labor-Health, don't even think of moving forward with Military Construction, don't even think of moving forward with Defense, don't even think of addressing the problem of California wildfires, don't even think of adding additional funding for MRAPs. Well, if they're comfortable with that, fine. I don't think we ought to let procedural theology get in the way of doing what's needed for American families and American veterans and American fighting men and women. So, with that, I would simply urge a ``no'' vote on the motion. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker, so I would ask the gentleman to finish.