Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Well, whoever. I have minimum high regard for it, let me put it that way. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to fully understand what is afoot with respect to contracting. I want to cite some other facts, because there is an inexorable and stealthy effort to put much of the activities of government in the hands of contractors rather than in the hands of public servants. And more and more of that contracting is being provided in a noncompetitive manner. That also applies to many, many grants being provided by the executive branch. For example, the Congressional Research Service documented an unusually large number of sole-source grants issued by the Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor, which resulted in 90 percent of discretionary funds for the High Growth Job Training Initiative being awarded on a noncompetitive basis over a 5- year period. It isn't just Halliburton and Blackwater who are getting lots of taxpayers' dollars in a noncompetitive fashion. The administration's use of contracting has increased significantly in the past 5 years. For example, the Department of Health and Social Services' contract obligations have nearly doubled from $5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $8.7 billion in fiscal year 2006. The number of contract employees at the Department of Health and Social Services exceeds 32,000, about half the number of Civil Service employees. A significant share of those contracts were awarded on a noncompetitive basis. In fiscal year 2006 alone, Health awarded nearly 21,000 contracts worth more than $1.9 billion with less than full and open competition. That is four times the total amount of congressionally directed earmarks that are expected to eventually be included in the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill. I won't even bother to get into what has been happening at the Education Department where local school districts have virtually been blackmailed into accepting contracts with book publishers preferred by the administration or else they are frozen out of the program entirely. So I would simply say I think the gentleman's amendment is ill- advised, and when the time comes late tomorrow evening, I would hope that we will have a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana. I was not aware of the fact that he had gotten a medical degree. I don't think he is a doctor, and neither am I, and so I would submit that neither one of us are actually qualified to make final judgments about medical matters. But I am also bothered by something else. You know, I came here to be a Member of the United States Congress. I didn't come here to be a Member of the D.C. City Council. I'm certainly not getting paid for it. I don't know if the gentleman is, but I'm not, and I don't feel like doing double duty as a city councilman at 7 minutes after midnight. I don't even think I would feel like doing that tomorrow. But what I am bothered by is the idea that somehow we think we can come from our own communities, our own States, and then come to this town, because we happen to technically approve the district's budget in a plantation-type style, we, therefore, begin to tell the District of Columbia that we are going to decide what kind of medical advice is relevant. I heard the gentleman say this in debate, I believe it is wrong. Well, the gentleman is perfectly entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion. But the fact is that I don't believe that it makes much sense for either Dr. Souder or Dr. Obey to be telling D.C. how they can use their own money. I think it's the height of arrogance on the part of the Congress. If you want to dictate to communities, would you dare go home and dictate to your own hometown what the city council ought to do? Would you say that because we provide Federal money to your city council, that somehow we should decide what their policy ought to be on medical matters? I don't think so. I am baffled by people, especially by conservatives, who every day will profess to believe in local control, States' rights and the like, but then when it comes to the District of Columbia, they say, well, because we have a special opportunity, we are going to impose our judgment on yours. I don't think this is about the issue of needle exchange or drugs. I detest drugs. My God, look what they have done to Rush Limbaugh. But for God's sake, it seems to me that we ought to have enough restraint to recognize that if we wanted to dictate to the D.C. what their policies ought to be, then we ought to resign from Congress and run for city council for the District of Columbia, or maybe even mayor. But until that time, it seems to me that the District of Columbia government has the right to make their own choices even if they are wrong. Now, Will Rogers said once that when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. I would submit that I don't have to agree with the gentleman's opinion, and he doesn't have to agree with mine to recognize that we have got a right to state those opinions and follow up on them on Federal matters. But we are interfering in the operation of a local city, and we have no right to do that on education, on drugs or anything else. You learn from your own mistakes, and if the District of Columbia is making the wrong choice, then I suspect in time evidence will show they made the wrong choice. But, until then, we are imposing our own judgment on a life- threatening matter. As one layman to another, that makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, I would agree with the gentleman if his amendment was limited only to the money that we are appropriating to the District of Columbia. What I don't agree with is when we impose that same judgment on the use of their local money.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of this House have often heard me refer to my old friend, Archie the Cockroach, who is the philosopher I rely upon. And one of the things Archie said once is that ``an old stomach reforms more whiskey drinkers than does a new resolve.'' And I think we have a perfect example of that in this case. We have seen the minority party, for the past 6 years, zealously and delightedly borrow over $1.2 trillion to pay for tax cuts on the cuff. We've seen them support this year providing $57 billion in tax cuts for people who make a million bucks or more a year. We've seen them blindly and blithely support a misguided war, 600 billion bucks, all borrowed. And now, coming in from a 3-day or 6-year jag, all of a sudden people are sobering up. So they're saying, ``Good gravy, look at the record we've built.'' Mr. Chairman, they have destroyed their credibility with their own conservative base with their profligate borrowing to pay for their pet projects. And then they say, ``Well, how can we cover up that and cover our tracks and pretend that we are taking up the old time religion again of fiscal responsibility? And so what they do is they say, ``Well why don't we attack the appropriations bills and try to create the impression that they are runaway spending.'' Well, let me give you some facts. By the time this House finishes passing each of the appropriation bills that we're bringing to the floor, this House will have cut over 250 programs, saving almost $6 billion. I would also point out that if you take a look at the President's budget, if you take a look at the domestic appropriation bills which he's recommended under his budget, you would see these domestic appropriations shrink from 39 percent of the budget to 36 percent. Under the bills that we're bringing to the floor, they will still shrink from 39 percent to 38 percent. Bob Greenstein, who is probably the most objective budget analyst in this town, respected former OMB official, points out that these domestic appropriations bills, when adjusted for inflation, represent a 1.4 percent increase. I invite you to compare that to the 8, 9, 10 percent increases that we have in the war budgets which the President has asked us to pass. This bill commits the cardinal sin of trying to restore two-thirds of the cuts that have taken place since fiscal year 2001 in crucial programs that defend the cleanliness of our air, that defend the cleanliness of our water, that protect the public health and protect the publicly owned natural resources of this country. And they try to divert attention from their miserable record of fiscal irresponsibility the last 6 years by suggesting that somehow these actions have anything to do with the deficits that they've presented the country, turning a surplus when Bill Clinton left office into the largest deficits in the history of man. Now, you know, I generally prefer to read nonfiction. But I am so used to hearing fiction on this House floor that I guess the next time I want to read a fiction novel I'm not going to go to The Washington Post Book Review or the New York Book Review. I'm simply going to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, ``What's the best piece of fiction that you've been reading and been peddling this week, because I sure would like to take some lessons from you when it comes to peddling fiction.''

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if somebody could call the Attending Physician's office. I'm getting a bad case of whiplash here just listening to these arguments that run in opposite directions. I just heard the gentleman say a minute ago, and I must say, I'm sympathetic to his problem, but I just heard him say a minute ago that he's frustrated. Well, I'm frustrated too because, what I'd like to point out, as the President of the United States pointed out just a few weeks ago, is that the gentleman's knocking on the wrong door. And with all due respect, when Mr. Lewis was chairman of the Appropriations Committee last year, it wasn't his job to reauthorize this program. And as chairman of the committee this year, it isn't my job to reauthorize this program. You need to go to the authorizing committee. We have gotten dozens of lectures through the last month from Members on your side of the aisle who fuss and fume about individual earmarks that they say are not ``authorized.'' Well, this is a case where we on the committee are saying the following: you came to us last year. You said you couldn't get the authorizing committee off its duff, and so you wanted some help to sustain this program until you could get them to reauthorize it. So even against the strong objection of the President of the United States, and the last time I looked, he was a Republican, even in the light of his objection, we put in over $400 million to create a bridge for you until you could get this problem resolved. Now, I'm sorry that this has not been reauthorized. You need to take that up with another committee. All I can tell you is that we're taking time on this bill, on this amendment because you think somebody else, in some other committee, didn't do their job. Well, you can't have it both ways, and neither can we. So I would simply ask the gentleman to please go to the right committee. And I'd be happy to send them a letter. The fact is you're taking up this committee's time, and we're getting squawks from Members on both sides of the aisle saying, ``Why are you appropriators taking so blessed much time.'' Well, with all due respect, it's not the appropriators trying to take the time. It's people who are not on the Appropriations Committee who are aiming at the wrong committee in their search of solution to a problem.

Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to yield to my tire-changing friend from Kansas.

Mr. OBEY. I understand. All I can say is, we did respond. We've just heard umpteen speakers on your side of the aisle kick the blazes out of us because they're saying we're spending too much money. And now you're telling us that you're unhappy because we're not spending enough money on this program, and we're not even authorized to spend it. I have a difficult time following that logic.

Mr. OBEY. Sure.

Mr. OBEY. I understand. And I'm more than willing to cooperate because, unlike some people in this Congress, I recognize this is all one country. And we've got an obligation to recognize different needs and different demands in different districts. I wish we had the same courtesy extended to us by certain other Members of the body.

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

Mr. OBEY. No, I have been watching them on television.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. OBEY. I will be happy to try to assist the gentleman in any way that makes clear that the authorizing committees need to act, because this is not a matter under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee. I've only been around here 38 years; and on occasions, believe it or not, I've seen an authorizing committee object when the Appropriations Committee invades its jurisdiction.

Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Let me simply say, I would not say that it's fair to characterize the authorizing committees as refusing to move. We have only been in charge of this Congress for the last 6 months, and there have been a few other basic priorities, including reauthorization of the basic farm bill that I'm sure have occupied the authorizers. I thank the gentleman for the time.

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

Mr. OBEY. I would like to make a few comments on the remarks of my friend from Missouri. We've just heard an expression of deep concern about the so-called runaway spending in this bill and other appropriation bills. And we've heard deep concern expressed about how this is going to hurt the average taxpayer. Well, I would like to compare priorities. They've talked about our budget. I would like to talk about theirs, although I must admit that in 3 of the last 6 years, they couldn't even pass one. We passed a budget. In 3 out of the last 6 years, they couldn't even pass their own budget because of internal squabbles between themselves. But I want to talk about the budget that they attempted to pass. The budget that we're operating under was signed by the President, passed by a Republican Congress, and this year will give over $50 billion in tax cuts to people who make over a million bucks a year. That seems to be the top priority of folks on the other side of the aisle, to preserve that high-roller tax cut above all else. Well, let me tell you what we think should be higher priorities. They've attacked us because of what we did in the continuing resolution last year and they attack us for what we're trying to do in this bill today. I plead fully guilty of trying to add, in fact we did add almost $4 billion of additional funding for veterans health care. I see no sense of shared sacrifice in this country when it comes to the war. Only military families are being asked to pay a price. We decided that we ought to at least see to it that veterans are taken care of when they come home. So we added $4 billion. Then you bet! We added some more so-called ``runaway spending,'' so that middle-class kids could get more help to go to college by raising the Pell Grants. Now, I've never had anybody in my district say, ``Why don't you guys get your act together and cut cancer research?'' But that's exactly what the Republican-controlled Congress did in the last 2 years. They cut health grants, research grants at the NIH, over 500 grants. So we put $610 million back into that continuing resolution to wipe out those cuts, because we think it's more important to save people's lives from cancer and Parkinson's and heart disease than it is to wear a green eye shade that says ``Mr. Perfect'' on it. Then we added additional funding for community health care. 1.2 million additional Americans are going to be able to access community health centers and get health care without begging. I do not apologize for that. Nobody does on this side of the aisle. When it comes to this bill, we make no apology of the fact that we are trying to restore funds which were cut out of this Interior budget for the last 3 years, cut out of the EPA budget, for the clean water revolving fund. There isn't a bigger need in rural America than clean water and decent sewer systems. I represent all kinds of communities of less than 2,000 people. At least half of the families are headed either by women or people over 65. They do not have the tax-paying capacity on the property tax to meet the standards required of them to clean up their water and their sewer problems. Mr. Dicks has tried to deal with that. We do not apologize for that one iota. We've got some other priorities too. We're going to try to provide additional funding for energy. We have added, in the three bills that have passed this House so far, and including this bill, we will have added more than $1 billion in an effort to increase and strengthen our energy research so that we aren't the prisoners of gas and oil companies and so that we aren't the prisoners of Middle East oil. We make no apologies for that. Admittedly, there are some people in this House who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I'm looking at a few of them right now. But the fact is that we recognize that it is important to make long- term investments so that 10 years from now, we can have the kind of country we want it to be, rather than having the kind of country we don't want it to be. I would suggest I will compare our priorities to yours any time. You can defend those $57 billion in tax cuts for millionaires until the cows come home. I would rather defend increased service at our national parks, increased educational opportunity, increased health care, increased clean water and clean air opportunities. I think the public will take those priorities any time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Thank you for yielding. I was in my office and I heard you make the assertion that a ``promise'' had been made to finish all of the appropriations bills by July 4. I am the chairman of the committee. I certainly made no promise. We indicated that it was our plan and our intent. But I would point out we have had several hundred amendments offered by Members of the minority party. We have spent approximately twice as much time debating each of the bills the last 3 weeks than was the case a year ago, despite the agreement between the two leaderships that there would be every effort made to try to handle these bills in a timetable that was consistent with last year's activities. And so I simply want to make quite clear that there was no ``promise.'' And even if there had been, which there was not, the majority cannot be held accountable for the fact that your Members introduced 188 amendments to a single bill. One Member introduces 188 amendments to a single bill which is simply filibustering by amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to the fact that we have effectively endured filibuster by amendment by the minority for the past 3 weeks, in addition to that fact, we have two other practical facts to face. When we took over this Congress, we had to deal with last year's budget because the folks who controlled the Congress last time just didn't happen to get around to passing the appropriations bills last time. So we had to spend the first month of this session doing the work that they left over from the last session. They had passed not a single portion of the domestic part of the budget. They had not passed a single domestic appropriation bill. So first we had to run that cleanup brigade. Then we had to deal with the fact that in order to hide the full cost of the war, the President declined to request funding for the Iraqi war in the regular defense bill which was supposed to be finished last year. So we had to take the next 3\1/2\ months to clean up that mess left over from last year. So I would say it is really the pot calling the kettle black to somehow suggest that the majority party has failed in its responsibility because it has not met a so-called mythical promise. We laid out what the plan was, and given the fact that the first 4 months of this session was essentially spent cleaning up their mess, I think we have done pretty well.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say that no subcommittee chairman presided over the provision of more financial aid to Egypt than I did during the 10 years that I was chairman of the subcommittee. I think it is also fair to say that I have, on many occasions, tried to see to it that when this body looked at questions in the Middle East that it looked at the interests of all of the parties fairly. But I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. We have a dilemma. Egypt is an important and welcome ally. I have always considered them to be a friend. They have played a very constructive role in the Middle East. But in recent years, I am sad to say, Egypt has displayed an increasingly brutal repression of freedom that is contrary to everything that America is supposed to stand for. We have seen the beating of demonstrators in Bull Connor fashion. We have seen the jailing of political opponents. We have to speak out. Unlike some wildly romantic beliefs of some of the neocons in this country, like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the Vice President, I do not naively believe that we can force democracy down the throats of a region that has had little experience with it. We have seen in the case of Hamas how democratic forms can be abused and subverted by undemocratic means. But, nonetheless, I do believe that we have an obligation to expect that countries with whom we are so closely associated will perform within certain norms of decency when it comes to the question of human rights. To indicate our concern, while still expressing our respect for a treasured friend, we have fenced $200 million in military aid until the administration can honesty certify that Egypt has greatly improved its human rights conduct and has done more to effectively prevent the illicit supply of arms from being smuggled into Gaza. In my view, this is a balanced approach. It does not cut off aid. It leaves options open. It certainly leaves a very large amount of military aid to Egypt unfettered in any way whatsoever, enough to continue all existing ongoing military contracts. It is a balanced approach. It is a nuanced approach. It is aimed at military aid, because only the military in the Egyptian government, in my view, has the influence to make this come to a responsible and friendly conclusion. Mr. Chairman, I would urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment so that America can send a message consistent with our values, while still recognizing our geopolitical relationships. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.