Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I don't either. It would be interesting to find out. That's another expenditure in Arizona.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this issue either, but I feel required to respond to one thing that the gentleman from Arizona said. He indicated that it was too bad that he had only had 2 or 3 days during which time he could review the earmarks in this bill. I simply want to say if he feels badly about that and wants to know why that is the case, all he has to do is look in the mirror along with a number of his other colleagues. Why do I say that? Because I tried about a month ago to make clear to the House that I thought the Appropriations Committee staff had had insufficient time to take a look at and screen a number of these earmarks, especially those that came early in the process. So I offered up another option, and what I proposed is that the committee simply be given more time to screen those earmarks, and that before the Congress adjourned in August, we would then publish all of them, and any persons who had doubts about them would have more than 30 days over the August recess, and our staffs could have reviewed each and every one of them for a much longer period of time. The gentleman and others on that side of the aisle chose to belittle that proposal, suggesting that we were trying to, quote, ``hide earmarks until conference.'' Not so. All we were trying to do was to give the staff and any Members who were interested additional time in which to review those earmarks. Our friends on the other side decided that they would rather criticize than agree to that, and so we acquiesced in their desires to have earmarks in each bill as they came to the floor. We felt that there would be ample protection for Members because we also included a reform that would have required persons in the conference to be present and voting on every single item rather than having to endure what has happened in the past when large amounts of legislation were slipped into conference reports without a vote of the conference after the conference is over. But our judgment was not followed, and so as a result, we have this very limited time for Members to review projects as they come through in regular order. I'm sorry about that. But I would say to the gentleman, no one in this House can have it both ways. We've tried to accommodate the wishes of the House. Either way, we're doing the best we can. And if the gentleman doesn't like it, I think, as I say, all he has to do is look in the mirror because it was comments from people like him that required us to follow this procedure in this manner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into the debate on this specific project, but I again want to simply note that I find it interesting that the gentleman from Arizona is questioning small economic development programs in other States when, in fact, as I said earlier, the second largest earmark in the history of the Congress is the Central Arizona Project, upon which we have already spent not $4.3 million, but $4.3 billion, total cost estimated to be $5.6 billion. And I also have in my hand, as a certain Senator from my own State used to say, 61 pages of military contracts that are let to firms in Arizona. We don't have in our State something like Fort Huachuca or Luke or Davis Air Force Base, and I'm sure that if we did, we would be experiencing the benefit to our economy that the gentleman's State is experiencing. But I wonder if the gentleman has any idea what the $44,000 was spent on in a contract with Two Pals and a Gal?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I do not want to comment on the particular project under question, but, again, I just want to make a point to my friend from Arizona. And I love the State of Arizona. It is a beautiful State. I go there every year to visit some friends. I think it is absolutely wonderful. But when I came to this Congress, I believe there were four congressional districts in Arizona, four Representatives of Arizona in this House, and there were 10 Representatives from the State of Wisconsin. Now, almost 40 years later, Wisconsin has eight congressional districts, eight Representatives, and Arizona, I believe, has a similar number. That means that Arizona has grown at an incredibly rapid rate, and an awful lot of money from a lot of other States has helped finance that economic growth. And I return to the Central Arizona Project. I am not expressing a judgment about that project one way or the other, but I do know that it is one of the two or three most expensive earmarks in history. And I would simply suggest that I find it ironic that the gentleman has chosen to go after several projects today in States whose economies are far less prosperous than the gentleman's own State. I also would question whether or not there is any greater purity in a highway, for instance, being built on the basis of a determination by two or three persons from a given State that knows the area, I don't know why that is any less pure than to have some partisan bureaucrat in the agency decide. Moment of Silence Observed in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson

Mr. OBEY. As I was saying, I don't know why one should assume that a decision to build a highway or any other project, if made by partisan bureaucrats or politically appointed bureaucrats in an agency, I don't know why that is any more pure than a decision being made out in the open by Members of Congress, who I think know their districts as well as any bureaucrat. So all I would suggest is that while I am certainly not fond of the earmarking process, I am also not fond of the idea that somehow those of us from States not quite as prosperous as the gentleman's need to be embarrassed by the fact that we are asking for a little better deal in terms of Federal money spent in our districts, especially when the gentleman's State is above the national average in terms of the amount of Federal dollars spent in his own State. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, as we begin this debate today, I think I ought to take just a moment to explain to the Members of the House where we stand. We have, I believe, 19 amendments still pending to this bill. Four of those amendments will take at least one-half hour and perhaps significantly longer. When you add the slippage time to those debate minutes, if every Member exercises his or her right to offer the amendments that are filed, we could be here for another 8 hours on this bill. I know Members are trying to catch their planes. I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible; I would appreciate it if everyone else would do the same. And if there are those Members who could be persuaded to forgo offering an amendment or two, that would be helpful also in terms of any Members who are trying to catch planes. I think that by now we are well aware of what people's philosophical ideas are about this bill, and I would appreciate it if Members could extend enough courtesy to their colleagues so that our colleagues, especially those on the west coast, will be able to make their planes without staying in town overnight.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment, and I will ask the Clerk to read it.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, on this side of the aisle we'd be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. OBEY. I wonder if I could ask the gentleman a question. In the interest of saving time helping Members get to their planes, would the gentleman be willing to forgo extended comment if we accept the comment?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment. We are not sure which amendment this is.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. And I would simply ask the gentleman, in the interest of time, would the gentleman be willing to shorten his remarks and we would be happy to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Garrett amendment pertaining to the Department of Labor and the National Institutes of Health, which was previously adopted by a voice vote and accepted by the committee, I would like to clarify that the amendment does not specify which Department of Labor programs would be impacted. Adoption of that amendment does not create any legislative intent that would require the Department of Labor to reduce funding for the migrant and seasonal farm worker program. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to get a few things off my chest with regard to this earmarking issue. I know that policy questions are complicated, and I know that budget questions are complicated. I recognize, therefore, that substantial members of the press and some Members of the Congress as well in both bodies seek to find other more simple issues which are small enough to get their mind around. And so we have spent a good amount of time the last 3 weeks talking about earmarks. I want to put some things in perspective about earmarks. In the Financial Services bill, out of all of the money provided in that bill, 1.5 percent was devoted to earmarks. In Interior, 0.43 percent of all the money appropriated was provided for earmarks. In Transportation, 1.4 percent of the entire bill was allocated through earmarks. And in this bill, it is slightly less than 0.20. That is a very tiny portion of the overall bill. The executive branch allocates or directs spending at least 10 times as great as does the Congress and I don't see or hear much squawking about that. I just want to suggest this: I don't happen to be comfortable with the earmarking system because it is a pain in the neck to me, it takes an incredible amount of time, and I would much rather spend that time on policy. But the fact is that it is a constitutional prerogative of the Congress to do so. And I would submit it creates a much more fair system. An example, when Speaker Hastert ran this place last year, here he is the Speaker of the House, and yet if the Congress earmarked no money, all the dollars would go back to Illinois and they would be directed by a Democratic Governor. So Speaker Hastert would be part of the body that raised the money at the Federal level and sent the money back to States and local governments; and yet without the earmarking process, the most powerful and influential man in Congress would have nothing to say about how that money was allocated in his own State. I submit that is not right. Or take myself. I chair the Appropriations Committee. I think I spend more time and, frankly, I think I know at least as much about the Federal budget as anybody in this institution, not because I am so plugged in but because of my job and the fact that I have been here a long time, and even an idiot ought to be able to pick up a fair amount of information as long as I have been here. So I would simply ask the question why should I serve in this body, try to help my district, and then discover that for 16 straight years we had a Republican Governor, I had absolutely nothing to say about funds that were distributed in my State without the earmarking process. The earmarking process, if it is used correctly, allows individual Members to target things in their own district that they think will contribute the most to improving the living conditions or the educational conditions or the cultural conditions in that district. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But I find it incredibly amazing and amusing that we are talking about 0.19 percent of all of the funds in this bill. How much time have we spent talking about basic education philosophy? How much time have we spent talking about which of these education programs really work? How much time have we spent in this debate talking about the programs? The answer is zip because some people prefer to deal with small things.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a couple of short observations. We are told by this gentleman, and we have been told, and we have been told, and we have been told and we have been told for 3 days that somehow it is this bill which is responsible for the outrageous fiscal mess facing the country. I just want to say one thing: Yes, this bill spends $10 billion more on our kids, on our workers, on our obligation to provide access to health care to people who don't have it, than the President does. I plead fully double guilty. I would do twice as much if I could. I would do three times as much if I could because the country needs it. This is the bill that makes the investments that will make our country stronger economically, educationally and socially not just today but for the next 10 years. That's what this bill is about. We have got a 2 percent difference between us and the President in terms of what we are trying to spend in this bill versus what he thinks we ought to spend. I have just told you where we have put it in the right places. Where does the President want to put money? The President wants to spend five times as much as the difference that we have with him on this bill, he wants to spend five times as much giving tax cuts to people who make more than a million bucks a year. He is going to give 57 billion bucks to people in this country who make over a million bucks a year. We think that money, a portion of it, is better spent on kids who need it and on sick people who need it. And we make no apology for it. The other thing I would simply say is that the other place that the President wants to spend it, he wants to spend 60 times as much as that $10 billion on that stupid war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the Republic. So we plead fully guilty to having a meaningful 2 percent difference between the President and us. We plead fully guilty, and I wish it were more.