Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential motion at the desk.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I regret very much that this legislation is before us this afternoon. In my view, this is a badly conceived and most especially a badly timed action which will weaken the nonproliferation regime over the long haul and, in the end, wind up encouraging the production of more nuclear weapons by Pakistan, China and India. It also is, in my view, spectacularly badly timed because it will give Iran a greater excuse, as if they needed any, but it will give Iran a greater excuse than they now have to continue to proceed with their own nuclear program. I believe it is a profound mistake. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Madam Speaker, for 9 years there has been no increase in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, CEOs of the largest corporations in this country have seen their pay rise to record heights, almost 200 times the size of the paycheck for an average worker in this country. For the last month, we on this side of the aisle have been trying to get the majority party to allow for a simple, straight up or down vote on increasing the minimum wage. We tried over a month ago to attach it to the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, and we succeeded. When we did, the majority party decided they would not allow that bill to come forward because they didn't like the results. We are now told, if you read Congress Daily put out by the National Journal, we are now told that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, is against the minimum wage increase; we are told that the Majority Leader of the House, Mr. Boehner, is against the minimum wage increase. But they don't want to evidently face this issue up or down. So the article in CQ this morning says, ``It is unlikely that GOP leaders would allow an up-or-down vote on a wage increase. Rather GOP aides say that if they craft a bill, it would likely include so-called sweeteners.'' Madam Speaker, I am proud of the fact that on this side of the aisle, our Members do not have to be maneuvered and cajoled and enticed into voting for a minimum wage increase. I am pleased by the fact that on this side of the aisle, Members do not need sweeteners in order to do what is right on this issue. So we are trying today to attach the minimum wage increase to this bill. There are those on the other side of the aisle who will say that is inappropriate. Well, the previous speaker just recited part of the Pledge of Allegiance. When we stand on this House floor every day and take that pledge, we pledge to provide liberty and justice for all; not for most, not just for CEOs, not just to the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country, but for all. This Congress has provided $50 billion in tax cuts this year for people who make $1 million or more a year, and yet it is steadfastly refusing, on the direction of the top Republican leadership of this House, it is steadfastly refusing to do anything at all on the wage front for people who live life on the underside. I think it is disgraceful for a Member of Congress, or for this Congress, to allow a pay raise for Members of Congress to go through at the same time that they are trying to block an increase in the minimum wage for the poorest people among us. We have 15 weeks between now and the election. Do you realize, Madam Speaker, that we are going to spend 4 of those weeks in town here, and 11 weeks we are going to be spending back home campaigning for reelection? Meanwhile we will have taken no action to provide a Manhattan-like project on the energy front so that we are not stuck with $3 and $4 gasoline prices. This Congress will have taken no action to provide health care for every child in this country. It will have taken no action to guarantee that we provide as much protection for the average worker in a company as we do for the board of directors and the CEO if that company goes bankrupt. We are taking no action to make college more affordable for every family in this country. We are not doing any of that. Cannot we at least provide a minimal increase in the minimum wage for people who are living on life's edge? That is what we are asking you to do. I am amazed that we are told that we cannot do it. Oh, you have time to strip a court from jurisdiction, just like you had time to call the Congress back to stick your nose in the family affairs of the Terry Schiavo family, but you do not have time and you do not have the will to provide some decent economic help to people who need it more than virtually anybody else in this society. Shame on every one of you who will not move on this issue.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we are being asked why we are raising the issue of the minimum wage on this legislation. The answer to that is very simple: The way this House works, absolutely nothing can be brought to the floor for a House vote unless we have the permission of the majority party leadership to do so. And the fact is that for the last month they have been absolutely stonewalling every single effort to bring an increase in the minimum wage to this floor. So that is why we are raising this question on this rule. This President and this Congress, this year, are going to provide $50 billion in tax cuts for people who make more than $1 million a year. This year, the Congress has virtually voted to repeal the inheritance tax on the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society. This year, the Congress has also voted to make further cuts in capital gains, a huge portion of which go to the wealthiest 10 percent of the people in this country. This year, the Congress is apparently willing to allow the cost-of-living increase to go through for Members of Congress, but for those stuck at the bottom of our economy on the minimum wage, they are being told, ``sorry, suckers, you have got to wait for the ninth year in a row without an adjustment in your wages.'' That is not right, it is not fair, and it is not moral. The value of the minimum wage is at a 51-year low. The gap between the wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society and everybody else has never been broader than it is today. It is far worse than it is in merry olde England with its monarchy and its House of Lords and its House of Commons. This economy is working fabulously well for the Shaquille O'Neals of this society or the CEOs of our Fortune 500 corporations. They are making at least 200 times as much as the average workers do in this country. Under Jack Kennedy, that ratio was about 16 times as much. That shows you what has happened over the past generation. A minimum-wage increase can help make this economy work for everybody, not just those at the top of the ladder. It can help lift all boats, not just the yachts. This Congress has had time to name dozens of post offices, it has found time to tell Terry Schiavo's family in Florida how to handle their own private business, but somehow the Republican leadership of this House can't find the time to respond to the needs of people on life's underside. It is about time we have a change in direction on that score in this country. It is about time we have a change of heart in this place. It is about time that we do something about the wage needs of the poorest people in this society. And that is why I would urge people to vote against the previous question in protest to the Republican leadership's stonewalling of this issue.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was indeed organized originally by Les Aspin when he was chairman of the Armed Services Committee in this House. It is an organization that helps many new companies who are new to the procurement process figure out how the Federal procurement process works. Instead of providing money to individual companies, this money is used to create an institute to educate all kinds of companies so that they can compete for Federal business, especially in the procurement area and most especially in the defense area. I would make one simple point: Right now, large corporations have the resources and they have the experience to seek Federal business, but many quality companies do not because they are unfamiliar with how the Federal procurement process works. There are a number of organizations who rank States in terms of how much Federal money they get each year. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan always rank near the bottom. Ninety percent of the difference between them and the number one State in the Union in terms of Federal money occurs because of a difference in the number of Federal employees and because of differences in defense contracts. The gentleman comes from the State which is the number six State in the Union in terms of getting money out of procurement. You have large companies, such as Raytheon, which produce huge numbers of missiles, so that gives you a lot of Federal procurement dollars. You also have many talented electronic companies like General Dynamics, a huge company that also gets a large amount of Federal dollars. You have large military installations such as Fort Hauchuca, which contains the Army intelligence operation. In Federal procurement, unfortunately, the way it usually works is ``Them what has gets more!'' This initiative, the Wisconsin Procurement Institute, which I fully confess that I and the other Members of the Wisconsin Delegation support, this initiative is to help other corporations who are not experienced in the ins and outs of Federal procurement policy, so that we can end the insider advantage that the gentleman's constituents have. What we are trying to do is to open up the process so that you can enable a large number of companies to come in and compete. I make no apology whatsoever for that. Wisconsin has a right to expect that its corporations should be able to compete, and so does every other State in the Union. I would simply ask the gentleman, do not begrudge the efforts of Wisconsin to close the gap between our State and yours. Your State gets $7 billion more in Federal procurement than mine does. This operation is a small operation to try to enhance the ability of companies in our State to close that gap somewhat. We have chosen not to provide money directly to companies but instead to provide an ability for companies to learn how the procurement process works. We also, under this process, have created a Web site which will enable Federal agencies to review the talents and the qualities of many of the companies in Wisconsin so that if they are looking for particular projects or products they know where to go to find them. I think that what that will do in the end is help enhance competition, and it will help save taxpayers money by cutting some new companies in on the deal that so many large companies in the gentleman's State enjoy.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it has been 9 years since this country has adjusted the minimum wage. During that time, the food prices have gone up almost 25 percent. Health care costs overall have gone up over 40 percent. Insurance has almost doubled. Gasoline prices have doubled. Energy prices have gone out of sight, and yet people are still struggling along on the same minimum wage that they were paid 9 years ago. To try to do something about that, we offered an amendment to the Labor-Health-Education-Social Services bill in the full committee. Every Democrat voted for that amendment, and so did seven Republicans. But after that happened and the amendment had passed, the Labor-Health- Education appropriations bill was blocked from consideration by the leadership of this House and by the Rules Committee. Therefore, when this bill came before the full committee, we attempted once again to adjust the minimum wage in three increments of 70 cents each, because we believe that no one who works 40 hours a week ought to go home in poverty. We, this time, did not receive the support of those same seven Republicans. Five of them voted against us. The other two missed the vote, and so that amendment was lost. We, therefore, asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment on this bill which would adjust that minimum wage, and that is what I am trying to do today. I recognize that if the point of order is lodged against this amendment, that we will once again be blocked from our effort to provide an increase in the minimum wage, but I just want to say to those who say this is not the proper vehicle and we should try to do it on some other bill, that for 9 years we have been waiting for the majority party to find the right vehicle to accomplish this. And for 9 years, nothing has happened. The issue comes down to this: Whose side are you on? Are you willing to help adjust that minimum wage upward or are you not? This is one effort to find out. For those who think this is just a political or an academic exercise, I told the House on the debate on the rule that I recall, after my parents were divorced and my mother was trying to get along on the minimum wage, and I remember how it was to run out of money before you ran out of days on the calendar each month. So she would find some household item that she could take down to Etzkin's Pawn Shop and pawn to get the family through the week. The outrage is that today that minimum wage has far less purchasing power than it did when she was earning it years ago. I think that is an absolute disgrace. The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country have 33 percent of the Nation's wealth. The poorest 40 percent of the people in this country are struggling to hang on to 3 percent of the Nation's wealth. That kind of gap is wrong. This is one of the few things the Congress can do to directly impact the size of that gap. I think we have an economic obligation. I think we have a moral obligation to make this happen, and I am not interested in playing jurisdictional dunghill niceties about which committee is supposed to handle this bill. This bill ought to be out on the floor. This amendment ought to pass. I would ask that the majority party not offer a point of order against the amendment so that we can finally bring some justice to people who are struggling in the shadows of life, who are struggling on life's underside. We can make their lives just a little bit more pleasant by passing this amendment, and I would think that, given the fact that the Congress has just in this House determined to accept a COLA for itself, I would think that we would have significantly less embarrassment if we would recognize that it takes 4 months for someone working at the minimum wage to make the same amount of money that Congress will gain by way of a COLA. It is outrageous to adjust congressional COLAs and not adjust the minimum wage. So I would urge that no one lodge a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rules of the House normally indicate that this legislation would be handled by the authorizing committee, but I would note that on the appropriation conference report just several months ago, the majority leader in the Senate added 40 pages of authorizing language to the Defense bill, language which protected the pharmaceutical industry in this country from suit. And it would seem to me that if it is legitimate for the majority leader of the Senate to do that, in order to protect a privileged industry in this country, that we could find a way in the House rules to protect the interests of the lowest-income wage earners in the country, but I must reluctantly concede the point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise now because of the reference to China in the previous amendment. I had intended to give a 1-minute speech this morning on this issue, before I was cut off by a motion, but let me simply make an observation about China. I am one of those Members of the House who wants the administration to track bank records and financial transactions of terrorist groups or individuals who are suspected of belonging to terrorist groups. That is why, while I had great misgivings about the original PATRIOT Act, I voted for it because I wanted to see a tightening up of our ability to go after those records. But I wanted it to be done in a legal fashion, in a way which guarantees the privacy and civil liberties of people who do not fall into that category. I note the fact that there is a very strong similarity between the Communist Chinese Government and our own administration in one respect. I have two headlines in my hand here. One says, ``GOP Measure Slams New York Times for Bank Story.'' The other says, ``China May Fine News Media to Limit Coverage.'' I would simply note that the Chinese Government appears to have something more in common with our administration in addition to their desire to undercut American wages through trade agreements with slave and cheap labor coming out of China. I would note that both the Chinese Communist Government and our own administration appears to be interested in doing almost anything in order to prevent legitimate news organizations from reporting activities of the people who govern each country. Now, I do not know the details of The New York Times revelations with respect to banking transactions, but I do know that the administration and some of their supporters in Congress have been extremely interested in embarrassing The New York Times since The New York Times uncovered a number of other activities that were being conducted by the administration which, in my judgment, are illegal, and those have nothing to do with the banking transactions that we saw referenced the other day. So I just thought it might be of interest to note the similarity between these two headlines, one an administration from supposedly a democratic country and another a government from a communist country, both of whom seem to be eager to clamp down as much as possible on their journalistic critics. I would hope that those similarities would decline in the future.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for being willing to help draw attention to this serious problem. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of the amendment. This is a Congress and this is a President which has decided we are going to blow $400 billion on the dumbest war since the War of 1812 in Iraq. This is the Congress that has decided that every other priority has to be scuttled so that we can provide $50 billion in tax cuts for millionaires this year. And yet there is no room in the Budget Inn for improving the health care of our people. We are actually going to be funding fewer grants next year at the National Institutes of Health for medical research than we were 2 years ago. We are squeezing health professions training. We are providing an education budget that is $1.5 billion below last year in terms of No Child Left Behind education programs. We are cutting law enforcement grants by over $2 billion below the year 2001. We are providing a squeeze on Legal Services, despite the amendment that was adopted last night. Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland just made a compelling argument about the need to spend a lot more money to protect our oceans. We don't have money for any of that, and yet, oh, we've got money to go to Mars. I am as excited as anybody else about the prospect of sending a man to Mars. I think that would be wonderful. But not if you have to do it on borrowed money and not if you are putting tax cuts for millionaires ahead of educating kids. I get excited about the space program, but I get a lot more excited about the prospect of providing clean water for every community in this country. I get a lot more excited about cleaning up school districts and fixing up schools and training teachers so that every kid in America is trained by a competent teacher, rather than having a huge percentage of our kids trained by teachers who were never educated in the field that they are teaching. So I guess it depends on what you are most excited about. It seems to me that the gentleman is pointing out that we ought to have a little common sense in deciding what ought to be put first in this country. I would prefer that we put Earth-based science ahead of sending somebody to Mars. If you want to clean up the deficit, if you want to clean up the deficits we have in investments in education and investments in health care, if you want to take care of the fact that 44 million people in this country are without health insurance, you get that done, then, baby, I am all for you if you want to go to Mars. Until then, I would like to send to Mars every politician that thinks that the existing priorities are the right ones. They are not. They are wacky. This amendment isn't even a close call. We ought to adopt it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. I simply want to say this: If I am terminally ill, it is not anybody's business on this floor how I handle the pain or the illness or the sickness associated with that illness. With all due respect to all of you, butt out. I did not enter this world with the permission of the Justice Department, and I am certainly not going to depart it by seeking their permission or that of any other authority. The Congress has no business telling people that they cannot manage their illness or their pain any way they need to. I would trust any doctor in the country before I trust some of the daffy ducks in this institution to decide what I am supposed to do if I am terminally ill. The idea that somehow this is a gateway that we are creating for a drug like meth is a joke. I detest meth. I have seen what it does. It is a plague on my district. It is especially horrendous in the midwest, and it is getting worse every day. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the management of pain and misery for people who are sick and who are dying. When is this Congress going to recognize that individuals in their private lives have a right to manage their problems as they see fit without the permission of the big guy in the White House or the big guy in the Justice Department or any of the Lilliputians on this Congressional floor? Wake up.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that if we were not immersed in this stupid war in Iraq, the money that we are spending in just 2 months would correct all of the problems we have in all of these appropriation bills and we would not be facing this tradeoff. We could, in fact, afford to do both the COPS program and the space program that others in this chamber would prefer to see us pursue. But the fact is, our Republican friends have voted for a budget resolution which has imposed these kinds of tradeoffs, and given that fact, I worry a whole lot more about Chinese products wiping out American jobs than I worry about Chinese flags somewhere else in the world, although I do not like either. Some people attack Members of Congress for having Potomac fever. I think some Members of this House have Mars fever. The fact is, if we are going to make a choice about where to put the best money, right now, I think a far better bet is law enforcement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the Hinchey amendment, but I do want to make one observation: We have just been told by my good friend from Virginia that we should not overturn a Supreme Court decision. I don't disagree with that. But just a few minutes ago this House considered an amendment overturning another court decision or insisting that no money be allowed to enforce that decision, and a few weeks ago you had this House vote to deny funds to enforce another court decision on eminent domain. Now, I happen to disagree with that court decision on eminent domain. Demagogues, when they attack me on that, will forget that fact. But I would just say it is interesting to me to see the selectivity with which we produce sudden concern about vacating court decisions. I don't think this institution has any business trying to, by law, deny funds for the enforcement of any court decision, even if I disagree with those court decisions, because I respect the processes of law defined by the Constitution. But if we are going to attack this amendment, then I would suggest we go back and take a look at the other amendments that this House has whooped through without a modicum of thought about what it means if politicians start arbitrarily refusing to support funding for any court decision. That crosses the line. I attended a meeting at the Supreme Court, a luncheon called by the Supreme Court, where the previous majority leader, Mr. DeLay, informed Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor, roughly this: You need to understand we are coming after you, and we are going, we are coming after you with your jurisdiction, and you need to listen to us because we are the only ones connected with public opinion. That is what Mr. DeLay said to Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor. So although I greatly respect the gentleman from Virginia, I don't think we need to hear any lectures suddenly expressing concern for this Congress trying to withhold support for court decisions. It is a little late, given the track record of the majority on that score.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that the Supreme Court said that the actions that were taken were wrong. That is what the Court said. They just suggested there were other remedies.

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say, without getting into the merits of the Hinchey amendment, I would simply suggest that if arguments are going to be made on that side of the aisle, that they not be based on the question of whether we should be vacating court decisions, and the majority has already tried to do that on two separate occasions

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I am urging every Member to vote ``no'' on the rule as a protest against the Rules Committee action in refusing to allow a minimum-wage increase amendment to be attached to this bill. I know that there are some people that say it shouldn't be on this bill; but the fact is, Mr. Hoyer and I and several others tried to have it attached to the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, and after we won, with the help of seven Republicans and 1 Democrat, the House Republican leadership decided to prevent that bill from coming to the floor of the House. So now we are trying to attach it to this bill. I make no apology for that. The majority leader of the Senate attached 40 pages of unrelated language to the defense bill last year, language which insulated the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits. This issue is not about committee jurisdiction. This issue is about whose side are you on. For more than 9 years, we have seen no increase in the minimum wage. I take that problem personally, because after my parents were divorced, my mother worked for the minimum wage, and I can tell you how it feels to see a woman work 40 hours and come home with less than $40 in the check. It doesn't feel very good. I can tell you how it feels to see you run out of money before you run out of days of the month, so at the end of every month, you have to take a household item, a table or a lamp or a radio, down to Etzkins' Pawn Shop to get a little money to get through the month. And the outrageous fact is that today, the minimum wage buys less than it did when my mother was earning it a number of years ago. This Congress has an obligation to do something about that, but it hasn't. In the meantime, food prices have gone up by 20 percent, housing costs have gone up by 25 percent, medical expenses have gone up by 40 percent, and gas prices have doubled. Last week, this institution voted to take no action to block a cost- of-living increase for Members of Congress. It takes a woman working at the minimum wage 4 months to earn the equivalent of that congressional COLA. Four months. What is the matter with people in this institution if they can justify a COLA increase for Members of Congress at the same time that they have been blocking a minimum-wage increase for 9 years? I find it outrageous. I don't want to hear this baloney about, ``Oh, President Clinton warned that he would veto the minimum wage a few years ago.'' President Clinton was a strong proponent of the minimum-wage increase. He was forced to warn the Congress that he would find a bill fiscally irresponsible if the Congress took the minimum wage and attached it to over $200 billion in tax giveaways and tax cuts that were paid for totally with borrowed money. So let's not have any nonsense on this floor about how President Clinton, after all, resisted the minimum wage. What President Clinton did was to resist the taking of the minimum wage hostage to the tax writing, borrow-to-pay-for-tax-cut schemes of the majority party. So, Madam Speaker, this, to me, is a matter of elemental decency. It is a matter of equity. A Congress that does nothing to stand in the way of a cost-of-living increase for itself is a Congress that certainly ought to have the decency to pass a minimum-wage increase for the people we are talking about.