Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to thank the gentleman for bringing to our attention the important work that the U.S. Forest Service has done in running its 19 Job Corps centers. I have reviewed the provision in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill. I support retaining the language in conference that directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to execute an agreement to transfer the three Job Corps centers currently administered by the National Park Service to the U.S. Forest Service. I hope the Department of Labor will recognize the merits of this approach which I understand was successful in another case involving the Mingo Job Corps Center in Missouri several years ago. I also understand that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture support this approach and expect to work cooperatively with the Secretary of Labor on this matter.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, frankly, I am looking for my ranking minority member. But until he gets here let me take a little time and say that I would simply suggest to the gentleman, if he thinks this is a good idea, that he take this idea up with the President of the United States. What this committee has tried to do both on this subcommittee and on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee is to respect and work with the administration in their effort to provide global leadership to deal with the AIDS epidemic around the world. And the fact is that this item in this bill is a critical piece of the President's program. Given our disarray around the world because of Iraq, I think it is a wonderful exception when we can be seen to be providing constructive leadership in the world on something. And certainly, although I have many differences with the President, this is one area where I think he has exercised significant leadership. And I think it would undercut our standing yet again in the world if we were to withdraw this funding. I just think that we've struck a good balance with respect to this program. I think both subcommittees have tried to see to it that we meet our international responsibilities. You and I are very lucky human beings. Our souls were, thanks to God, infused in a body that lives in the United States. If they had been infused in a body that was born in Africa or in Asia or in some of the other hot spots in the world in terms of these diseases, I think we would take a look at this issue in a quite different way. This program provides the only real leadership in the world to attack this program. I think it would be a horrendous mistake if we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment. I would urge defeating the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I understand the motivation behind this amendment. The gentleman wants to provide additional funding for a very legitimate purpose. It is something we should have done a long time ago, and I understand that. But having said that, I am simply tired of having to defend administrative accounts from people on both sides of the aisle. So I am not going to object to the amendment, but I do want to point out to the gentleman, as I will point out to many other Members who offer similar amendments today, that this committee is being whipsawed. We are being told by the White House that there is too much money in this bill, yet virtually every amendment that has been offered, save one, has been motivated principally by a desire to increase rather than decrease funds in this bill. This is another similar amendment. While I recognize that it has an offset, it is a ``let's pretend'' offset, just like a number of the offsets were last night. Anybody who understands how government works needs to understand that if an agency is a grant-making agency and if you gut its administrative budget, then there ain't going to be nobody in the agency to issue the grants in the first place. Therefore, I want Members who offer these amendments to understand that even if they are accepted, when we go to conference we are going to have to make very large adjustments, and a lot of what is adopted on the House floor, if it is based on some of these ``let's pretend'' offsets, will in fact wind up on the cutting room floor by the time we get back from conference. That is just a practical fact of life. Madam Chairman, as I say, I will not object to the gentleman's amendment, but I don't want anyone to be under any illusion that we can fund all of these additional wonderful things by simply going to the administrative budgets of the agencies, because occasionally you need somebody in that office to turn on the light.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 3043 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 547, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; An amendment by Mr. Pascrell regarding funding for Traumatic Brain Injury programs; An amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding eligibility for 9/11 health programs; An amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding funding for 9/11 health programs; An amendment by Mr. Barton of Texas regarding funding for the National Institutes of Health; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding funding for certain autism programs; An amendment by Mr. Holt regarding funding for math and science partnerships; An amendment by Mr. Cooper regarding funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Historically Black Graduate Institutions; An amendment by Mr. Flake reducing funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service; An amendment by Mr. Conaway limiting funds for the LIHEAP program until certain conditions are met; An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction; An amendment by Mr. Dingell regarding the Deputy Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; An amendment by Mr. Gingrey limiting funds for Social Security totalization agreements with Mexico; An amendment by Mr. Hare regarding Critical Access Hospitals; An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 4.6 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma or Ms. Shea-Porter regarding the Upward Bound program; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill by 1 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California reducing funds in the bill by 0.25 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; An amendment by Mr. Scott of Virginia regarding funding for student drug testing; An amendment by Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Welch of Vermont, or Mr. Weller of Illinois regarding certain Medicare regulations; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education; An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding Education for the Disadvantaged; An amendment by Mr. Upton or Ms. Harman regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs; An amendment by Mr. Pence limiting funds for Planned Parenthood; An amendment by Mr. Ehlers regarding funding for math and science partnership programs; An amendment by Mr. Gingrey or Mr. Jordan of Ohio limiting funds regarding requirements for HPV vaccinations for school admittance; An amendment by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin limiting funds for certain Centers for Disease Control Activities; An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting funds for certain international conferences; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting the use of funds to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa limiting the use of funds to sponsor certain events at the Sundance Film Festival; An amendment by Mr. Davis of Kentucky limiting performance bonuses for certain employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration; An amendment by Mr. Davis of Kentucky limiting performance bonuses for certain employees of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social Security Administration unless certain requirements related to Medicare part D are met; An amendment by Mrs. Schmidt limiting funds for title X grantees; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the American Ballet Theatre in New York; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Portugese and Lusophone studies at Rhode Island College; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Kansas Regional Prisons Museum; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Corporation for Jefferson's Poplar Forest in Virginia; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the South Carolina Aquarium; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Burpee Museum in Rockford, Illinois; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for a college preparatory pilot program at Missouri State University; An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Exploratorium in San Francisco, California; An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave limiting funds for attachment therapy; An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting CMS funds for certain Medicare payment activities related to hospital transplant programs; An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds of the National Labor Relations Board to recognize a union as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees that has not been elected by a secret- ballot election; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling reducing funding for the Centers for Disease Control; An amendment by Mr. Westmoreland limiting funds for the publication of certain student loan applications; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for the Charter School Development Foundation; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for the City College of New York; An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for all projects requested by Members of Congress and disclosed pursuant to the rules of the House, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Camp of Michigan regarding the Medicare Advantage program; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the North Carolina Technology Association Education Foundation; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for Alleghany Memorial Hospital; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for Caldwell Community College and Technical Institute; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the North Carolina Center for Emerging Technologies; An amendment by Mr. Crowley limiting funds for the Southeastern Center for Emerging Biologic Threats; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding education for Native Hawaiians; An amendment by Mr. Barrett of South Carolina regarding Byrd Honors Scholarship program; An amendment by Mr. Lamborn regarding the Corporation of Public Broadcasting; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding Twin Cities Public Television for the Minnesota Digital Public Media Archive; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding West Los Angeles College, Culver City, California; An amendment by Mr. Hensarling regarding Families in Schools, Los Angeles, California; and An amendment or amendments by Mr. Obey regarding funding. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies in each such capacity each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate); and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, this is I guess what I would call a put up or shut up amendment for the House. It is difficult for the press to cover budget stories because they are complicated. It is difficult for the press to cover stories about policy because they are complicated. But it is a whole lot easier for the press and for individual Members of this House to complain about some other Member, or in the case of the press any Member, trying to do something in his district, or in the case of a House Member complaining about somebody trying to do something in a different district. We have a constitutional right to direct spending. In fact, that is the primary power of the Congress, to direct the executive branch in the spending of the taxpayers' money. The executive branch in fact directs far more spending than does the Congress, and yet I recognize a Member's individual right to object to any direct spending that is engaged in by the Congress or the executive branch. I would like to put that discussion in perspective. The last year that I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee this bill had no earmarks when it left the House. During the 12 years that the Republicans controlled this House, earmarks exploded to over 3,000. In this bill, we have cut earmarks back to 1,300. We have cut the dollar amount in this bill for earmarks back to a very small amount, less than half of the amount that was in the bill 2 years ago. In fact, as the percentage of the total bill, earmarks make up two-tenths of 1 percent. Two-tenths of 1 percent. And yet, the debate on that two- tenths of 1 percent has dominated in the press and dominated the congressional debate. That is ridiculous. But I am tired of having the committee serve as a punching bag for members of the press or Members of this body. I will be happy to play this issue flat, or I will be happy to play it round. I'll be happy to bring a bill to the House floor with these earmarks, or without them. Those who know me well in this House know that I deeply resent the time that we have to take dealing with earmarks, and they know that the reason that I urged that we cut earmarks to 50 percent of the previous level 2 years ago is not because I thought they were impure, but because I thought they were beginning to be so numerous that they were unmanageable. So today I'm going to give the House a choice. We've got lots of amendments pending before us on individual earmarks. I'm going to give the House a choice. I want the House to choose whether it wants to proceed with earmarks or not. If it does, then it will reject the amendment that I sent to the desk. If it doesn't want to proceed with these earmarks, then you can save a whole lot of time by knocking them all out with one vote. I invite you to put up or shut up, and make up your mind. I will be a neutral player in this. I will offer the amendment, and I will vote present so that I'm not pushing people to vote either for or against eliminating these earmarks. But I want, before we move to individual earmark debate, I want to know whether the House itself takes responsibility for the decision to move ahead with earmarks, or whether it doesn't. And if they want to decide no, be my guest. It will make my life a whole lot easier. It will do one thing that will bother me at night.

Mr. OBEY. It will give total authority to the executive branch, and that is not a healthy thing.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am not sure we have this amendment. Would the Clerk designate and read the amendment, please?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, is this a multi-page amendment, could I ask? If it is, I don't want to delay the House.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Just answer one question. Does it affect every project in the bill?

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

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