Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill. I don't think that's the intention, but that's the effect. The fact is that the outlay rate in the NOAA account is 65 percent. The outlay rate in the FBI account is 80 percent. Therefore, the amendment is not budget neutral, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond, the fact is this may be a straight transfer as far as budget authority is concerned, but that is not the impact on the outlay side, and therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair against the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentlewoman wants to do in terms of mortgage problems, and I understand that the source of her money, the offset, is from general administration for the Department of Justice.

Mr. OBEY. And given the performance of the Attorney General in the other body yesterday, I see no great harm in taking $6 million away from him; so I would be happy to accept your amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, and I probably agree with it. But, nonetheless, this committee is not the proper venue and this legislation is not the proper legislation upon which to raise the issue. During the consideration of the Labor-H bill last week, I had to object to a number of amendments and lodge points of order because they were not appropriately offered to that bill, even though some of them were from my side of the aisle and I agreed with them. This amendment, while I would certainly be happy to work with the gentleman, this amendment cannot be accepted by the committee without violating the rules of the House, and so therefore I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for a non-authorized program and therefore violates clause 2, rule XXI, which states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' The amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized and therefore violates clause 2, rule XXI. I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think on this issue there are certainly questions of equity on both sides. I think they need to be resolved. I understand why the FBI wants to follow the policy that they follow. I also understand why agents themselves feel it is unfair leaving them with the reduced retirement possibility. So, again, I would be happy to work with the gentleman to see if we can't persuade the agency to come up with an agreeable solution to the problem.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me summarize the basic facts. The Economic Development Administration budget last year was $250 million. The President's request for this year was $170 million. The committee added $100 million to the President's request to take it to $270 million, and the gentleman's amendment would take it back down to $170 million, which is a 32 percent reduction below the amount provided last year. With respect to the FBI, the committee has already added $148 million to the amount that the President requested. We are substantially above last year's budget. The FBI has been treated very, very well. I find no reasonable justification for saying that we ought to provide the $6 million increase for the FBI when it's already received an increase of $148 million. And I certainly don't find any reason to say that we ought to reduce our efforts to support economic development around the country. Economic development funds are used, among other things, to help localities establish industrial parks. I have to tell you there are literally thousands of jobs that have been added in my own district by corporations who were able to move into these industrial parks to get their services and grow. We have developed a very strong electronics industry in my district through the use of funds through EDA. I think the key to this bill is balance. We have provided a significant increase for the FBI. We've provided a modest increase for EDA. And I think that the country is better off if we stick with the committee recommendations. I would urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it's obvious how reluctant the gentleman is to bring this before the body. He has offered an amendment which does absolutely nothing in order to give him an opportunity to talk about something he says he doesn't want to talk about. Only in Washington would that be believable. Let me simply say that I think I know something about the Code of Ethics in this House. I wrote the Code of Ethics in this House in the 1970s, and I think I know something about what this House regards as a conflict of interest. Let me simply point out that the gentleman from Iowa has objected to a Member of the House chairing a subcommittee which oversees the agencies that he says are involved in an investigation of that Member. The fact is that that gentleman in question has recused himself from all matters relating to the FBI, the Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and U.S. attorneys. That's why I am here on the floor handling those portions of the bill today. The gentleman in question has not reviewed any reprogramming letters. He has not reviewed any Member requests for any of the attendant agencies involved in that investigation. He has not presided over any hearings. He has not participated or made any recommendations with respect to funding either on this bill or in the continuing resolution. So let me simply say that if the gentleman has a strong view about what the House rules ought to be, then the proper place to take that up is not on an appropriation bill. The proper place for him to take that up is with the Standards Committee and with the leadership of both Houses. By taking it up here, it is simply an excuse to bring into question the actions of one Member. And it would be very easy for us to respond in kind with respect to the activities of a number of Members on that side of the aisle. We choose to stay above that and allow the proper committee to deal with the issue. Mr. Chairman, I do, very regretfully, yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to point something out. Last night the committee, while most Members were able to leave for dinner, the committee had to stay here and work until 10 p.m.. Lots of Members didn't show up then to offer their amendments, and so now we have a surplus of amendments that we still have to go through today. Now, today, the committee is grinding through these amendments, and we've just hit a patch in the road where no Members were here to offer their amendments. Under the House rules, the committee could have chosen to rise and we could have moved to final passage without considering any of the other amendments that are still pending. The committee chose not to do that, out of fairness. But I want to point out that if Members want to tie up the committee's time ad nauseam on repetitive amendments, the same amendments on the same bills ad nauseam, then the least they can do is to be on the floor when those amendments are supposed to be offered. The next time there is such a gap, I will move to rise and move to final passage. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I seek to control the time in opposition, and I reserve my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has indicated, this provides funds for a revolving loan fund for North Central Regional Planning Commission. The purpose is to provide small low-interest loans for small business start-ups or expansions. It is targeted to enterprises which have little access to capital and need to change the technology which they use in production. The planning commission is established by county governments under State statutory authority. It provides zoning and economic development assistance to counties. The planning commission covers a 10-county area and three congressional districts, mine, the gentleman from the eighth, Mr. Kagen, formerly Mr. Green, and also Mr. Petri's district. Why are we providing funds for this area? Very simple: this is an economically challenged area. And I make no apology whatsoever in trying to provide some modest assistance to the area. We have a similar fund in two other parts of my congressional direct. In Chippewa County, for instance, 3 years ago we established a similar fund. That fund has saved 58 jobs in the area. They have provided grants, very small grants, to businesses in question, and they have already received $200,000 in repayments. All of the repayments are current. But I want to ask a series of questions about the gentleman's district. I make no apology for trying to provide small loans to domestic small business entrepreneurs. In the 10 years that I chaired the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I learned very quickly the value of small loans rather than large, megadevelopment projects. I see no reason why we shouldn't provide those same lessons here at home. I find it ironic that someone from Arizona would challenge economic development funds in Wisconsin. Arizona ranks 24th in the Nation in per capita Federal dollars spent in Arizona; Wisconsin ranks 48th. So the gentleman is exactly twice as well off in terms of State ranking than my own State. Arizona receives $41 billion in Federal funds out of the budget; my State receives $31 billion. Arizona receives $7,300 per person; Wisconsin receives $5,675 per person. That is a $1,600 per capita difference. Eighty-five percent of the difference in what our two States get is due to differences in Federal salaries and in procurement. Arizona gets $7 billion more out of the Federal Government because of money spent for procurement than does the State of Wisconsin. In fact, Arizona gets a lot more money than all of the States in the upper Midwest. Arizona, as I said, ranks 24th. Wisconsin ranks 48th in per capita expenditure, Michigan ranks 47th, Minnesota 49th, Illinois 46th, Indiana 45th. On a per capita basis, Arizona gets 28 percent more out of the Federal budget than does Wisconsin. It gets 22 percent more per capita than does Michigan, 29 percent more than does Minnesota, 21 percent more than does Illinois, and 20 percent more than does Indiana. Let me also point out that I doubt very much that the Arizona delegation doesn't work very hard to see to it that giant defense contractors like Raytheon, Boeing, Honeywell and General Dynamics together receive almost $4 billion in funding from the Federal Government. I doubt very much that the delegations from those States don't work to get that money in their States. So I make no apology for this tiny pittance that we are trying to provide for my own State. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say, however, I think it comes with considerable ill grace for someone from Arizona to question the expenditure of $400,000 in Wisconsin, when Arizona has been the principal recipient of the second largest Federal earmark in the history of earmarking in this country, the Central Arizona Project. For Arizona, we have already spent $4.3 billion. The total cost of that project is expected to be $5.6 billion. The President's request is at $27 million this year. Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to be the pot calling the kettle black. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to continue my observations about what the gentleman receives from the Federal budget. The Republican Study Committee said that the $1.5 billion that was provided to the D.C. subway was the largest earmark in history. In fact, the Arizona project is almost four times as large as the D.C. subway. Yet the gentleman is complaining about a tiny $400,000 economic assistance grant for my State. I would also simply note that the median household income in the gentleman's district is $48,000. The median household income in my own district is $39,000, a $9,000 difference. A good portion of that higher median income lies in the fact that Arizona has a very large number of Federal installations in the gentleman's State. Fort Huachuca and several other Air Force bases inject enough funds to provide employment for 9,000 additional people, yet the gentleman is objecting to a small revolving loan fund which provides help in keeping about 50 jobs in Wisconsin. I make no apology in trying to get the median family income in my district just a mite closer to the much higher income found in the gentleman's district. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I was here when we went through all of that with the Central Arizona Project, and I assure you that the project was not approved because of the merits. It was approved because of the persistence of the Arizona delegation, and if anyone thinks that a little politics didn't go into determining that $4.5 billion project, I'd like to sell them a couple of bridges. So, all I can say is it is fine for someone who comes from a district as prosperous as yours to belittle or question these modest economic development efforts that are being provided around the country in districts that have a per family income of $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 less than yours. This is, after all, one country. And just as I believe that the most fortunate human beings in this country ought to be willing to extend a helping hand for those who are least fortunate, I also think that those communities that are well off ought to be able to extend a helping hand to the communities that are less well off, and that certainly is the case with the number of the economic development projects that this committee is trying to fund, recognizing that we are, after all, all one country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.