Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. You can go to conference on Tuesday at the same time as you could under your motion.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time for just one second to correct something the gentleman said, the fact is the guts of this conference is not solely the provision of the authority that the gentleman is talking about. It is also the intent of the majority party to take domestic accounts to pay for Pentagon bills in a bill which is not even fully paid for and which adds to the deficit. Until we can get an understanding about not adding to the deficit, I am going to object.

Mr. OBEY. Two minutes ago.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I take this time to simply note that for the last 2 days, this side of the aisle has been trying to find out what the process would be by which we would go to conference, who would be on that conference, and when this motion would be made. It was not until literally 2 or 3 minutes ago that I was informed what the decision had been. No opportunity was given to me to consult the members of my committee who would not be contemplated as being conferees and no consultation was made on this side of the aisle about the wisdom of dividing conferees between the defense conference and the domestic conference, even though it is the apparent intention of the majority party to raid domestic programs in order to finance defense add-ons. It was explained to us that the Speaker was even considering the unprecedented action of reducing the number of Democratic conferees below the ratio that we hold on the committee in order to provide a stacked deck for the conference. We had no knowledge about who would be on the conference until just several moments ago. Given the fact that I have had no opportunity at all to consult with Members on my side of the aisle and given the fact that the majority party apparently intends to go to conference on Tuesday and given the fact that they can still do that if they wait until next week to make this motion, I object.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment, but, as Ann Richards, Governor of Texas, said, ``Just because you dress up a pig, that doesn't mean it still isn't a pig,'' and that is what this bill is. I think we are going to make the same mistake that this Congress made a long time ago under President Nixon. President Nixon worked hard. He got through this House on a bipartisan basis a sweeping welfare reform bill, and then, when it went to the Senate, it got killed because it was crunched between extreme conservatives on one side and extreme liberals on the other side. And so this country went for years without welfare reform. Now I am afraid we are going to see the same thing. I think we are seeing in this House the chances of this bill becoming law being destroyed by the extremism of those who are supporting the committee Republican bill. I do not think the public wants us to pursue ideology. I do no think they want us to pursue our pet theory of social engineering. I think the public wants us to focus on how to move people on welfare to work; that ought to be the sole question. They want to know what works in the real world. It seems to me that the crucial difference between the Deal amendment and the base bill which we are debating is that the Deal amendment is more real. It deals with real world situations. It will move more people into the world of work. The committee bill tries to do that on the cheap. It is not going to work. It will fail the basic responsibility that we have to the American people. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge us to support the Deal amendment when we get the opportunity.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to what is being discussed here today, because I think we need every possible person on the House floor to hear some issues being discussed, which I frankly think are being too broadly ignored. One of the reasons I am going to vote against the rule, for instance, is because while I certainly want the existing welfare system to be changed, I am very unhappy about the fact that the Committee on Rules refused to make in order my amendment which would make the Federal Government pay for the welfare and education costs associated with allowing refugees into this country, rather than dumping the costs of educating and training those refugees onto State and local governments. It seems to me that when the Federal Government allows refugees to come into this country, that is a foreign policy decision. I would ask why under that situation local taxpayers should get stuck with paying the tab to educate and train those refugees who are allowed into this country for foreign policy reasons? I appreciate very much the fact that the Democrats on the Committee on Rules and two Republicans voted to allow my amendment to be offered. I, for the life of me, do not understand why the other Republicans did not. There is nothing partisan to this issue. This has nothing to do with whether you are a Democrat or Republican. It has to do with whether or not you think the local taxpayers ought to be stuck with financial responsibilities that rightly belong to the Federal Government. It seems to me they should not. So I think there are a lot of reasons why we need to have people on this floor listening to the debate, because unless we do, we are not going to achieve the kind of understanding that you need in this House so that the Committee on Rules will not continue to make the kind of mistakes that they made in disallowing my amendments, for instance. No one suggested the existing welfare system ought to be kept. It ought to be junked. It seems to me that we ought not in the process increase the burden on local governments.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. I would also withdraw my request to manage time against the amendment. I thought the gentleman was offering a different amendment, and I do not have an objection to this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the Members of the House ought to know before the vote that we have just been informed that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, has indicated that, despite the passage of the Brewster amendment yesterday, that he intends to use the savings in this bill in his assumptions for the tax cut that he has presented to the Committee on the Budget. It seems to me Members ought to know that before they vote.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

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. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple. This House can choose to provide 100 percent of the aid to disaster victims contained in this bill and still at the same time reduce by about one- third the hit that most State and local governments will take as a result of the rescissions proposed in this bill. We can do that and at the same time increase the total savings contained in the bill. You ask how. You simply ask California and other States receiving disaster aid to assume the paper in the transaction instead of the Federal Government. Somebody has to borrow money to pay the victims of disasters. The committee is proposing that the Federal Government do it. We are proposing that the State governments do it. As those on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying, we are in a new era. The old system of disaster aid is no longer viable. We cannot provide the aid outside of the budget targets, and we cannot have Uncle Sam picking up 98 percent of the tab. What this motion would mean is that a lot of victims of other things in this society, namely, a lot of children and old people who live at the margins throughout the United States, will not have to pay for the California disaster. This recommittal motion means big bucks for kids and seniors. It means big bucks for your Governor, your mayor, your local schools. We can restore Healthy Start and WIC, PBS for preschoolers, half a billion to help protect quality in elementary and secondary schools, we can restore drug-free schools, we can restore job training and school-to- work and the summer jobs programs. For the elderly we can restore fuel assistance, housing programs, and older-worker programs. This motion will mean $400 million to the State of New York, $80 million for million for Ohio, $240 million for Pennsylvania, $87 million for Tennessee, $130 million for Texas, $180 million for Illinois, about $80 million for Indiana, et cetera, et cetera. This can happen. You can make it happen. You can take this money and put it back in your home States. It is up to you. All it takes is a decision on your part to put your State ahead of national politics, a decision to put your standing with your constituents ahead of your standing with the Republican caucus, I would say to my friends on this side of the aisle. In fact, this amendment saves $200 million more than the committee bill. You can take that money and totally eliminate the cut made in the next fiscal year by the Human Resources Committee in the school lunch program and still have the same amount of money left to pay down the deficit. It is up to you. It is up to you. I would ask you to make war on the status quo rather than making war on kids and old folks. This simply sets up a loan guarantee system under which States will finance disaster programs. It fully assures that every victim of disasters will get the full amount due to them, but it shares that burden much more equitably. It is an idea whose time has come. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] himself, as the Speaker, indicates there will have to be offsets in the future. This creates a way to provide those offsets in a much more humane way than the bill. It helps you to help your own States. I understand some Members from California may be opposed to it. But if you are from any other State, you are cutting off your own State's interest if you vote against the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].

Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will indicate opposition to the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes in opposition be divided evenly between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me state I fully share the gentleman's outrage that this amendment is not in order, but I do not think that there is any useful purpose to be served by taking out on the Chair the fact that we have a stupid rule. I think all the Chair is doing is enforcing an extremely stupid, ill-advised, vicious, and cruel rule. So I will recognize the justice in what the gentleman from Hawaii is trying to do, but I think it is good if we have the right target, which is the Republican leadership, and not the Member in the Chair. I would urge the gentleman respectfully to withdraw the motion.

Mr. OBEY. Will I be able under these circumstances to ask the gentleman from Hawaii to withdraw his motion?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] who is the real author of the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair: If I am not mistaken, the last three amendments that have been offered to this bill have come from the majority side of the aisle. Would it be possible for me to call up an amendment at this time?