Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply like to point out small business employment between 1997 and 2003 grew at a faster rate in States with a higher minimum wage than it did in Federal minimum wage States, 9.4 percent versus 6.6 percent.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman says that this is an inappropriate bill to which to attach the minimum wage. The majority party has routinely attached gigantic pieces of legislation to appropriation bills. The Senate majority leader did that, as I just recited a few minutes ago, on an outrageous special interest provision insulating the drug companies from legal suit just a few months ago. Let me tell you what is inappropriate. What is inappropriate is to have a bunch of guys wearing suits in this Chamber sit on their duffs for 9 years and not find a way to increase the minimum wage for the lowest paid workers in this country. That is what is inappropriate. This is what is outrageous, and that is why the ranking of this Congress is less than 23 percent in the public opinion polls. I would like to find somebody in that 23 percent. I cannot believe there are 23 percent of the people who think this Congress has lived up to its obligations to middle-income workers and the middle class. The fact is, you can either help raise the minimum wage or you can stand as an obstacle to it. So far, the Rules Committee has stood as an obstacle to it. The Republican leadership of this House has stood as an obstacle to it. When we did attach it to the most appropriate appropriations bill, your leadership blocked that bill from coming forward. So give me a break. It is not that you do not think this is the appropriate vehicle. It says your party, by a 2-1 ratio, in this House is really against the minimum wage increase; and that is outrageous after you have just voted to give yourself a COLA.

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

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I wish more Members would join him and me.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to alert Members to a practical fact associated with this bill. We have pending, once general debate is over, about 100 amendments. If we assume that each one of them will be debated for only 10 minutes, and that is a risky assumption, but it is nonetheless to be hoped for, but if we assume that we can get that kind of unanimous consent agreement, that means that, with slippage and the time it takes to transact business, we are talking about 25 hours of debate, not counting any time consumed by roll calls. So we could very easily hit 30 hours of activity on the House floor. I think Members need to understand that. If they expect to get out of here at a reasonable time this week, I would suggest that perhaps some people might conclude that at least some of those amendments are duplicative, and that Members would choose not to offer them. I don't mean that about all amendments. I think some amendments are deserving and need to be offered. But I would ask Members to look at this with a very dispassionate eye to see whether or not an amendment needs to be offered and whether any useful message will be sent by its offering. Secondly, I want to repeat or emphasize what the gentleman from West Virginia said about the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Wolf. One of the things I most appreciate about him is that he is not one of those laid back, super cool people who so many people seem to think should dominate politics and government these days. He has passion, and I think that he often has passion about the right things. And I, for one, want to say that I respect greatly the job the gentleman has done as chairman of this subcommittee the last 6 years. I think that we are all proud to have been able to serve with him. And thirdly, I would like to address this bill for just a moment, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I know that the chairman from Virginia has done his dead level best to produce a decent bill. I know the gentleman from West Virginia has done the same. But I want to point out that as the gentleman from West Virginia says, there will be a good many amendments offered in the next 3 days. And I think it is clear, because of the number of amendments, that Members recognize that there are so many useful things, so many important things that this bill needs to do that it will not be able to accomplish because of the budget number assigned to it under the budget resolution. Sometimes I hear people bemoaning the fact that the subcommittee doesn't have enough resources. And you would think that somehow this ceiling was imposed anonymously from on high. It was imposed from on high all right, but it wasn't anonymously. And in my view, every person who voted for the budget resolution has a responsibility for some of the important cuts in law enforcement, in Earth-based sciences, in legal services, and in other areas that this bill is forced to make because of that budget resolution. I want to point to just two. With respect to law enforcement, what has been going on is a Kabuki dance between us and the White House over the past 5 years. The White House proposes draconian cuts; they slash deeply in law enforcement grants. The committee then restores about two-thirds of that funding. We all say, ``Oh, what good boys and girls are we.'' We pat ourselves on the back. But in the end, we haven't been able to salvage those programs, and we see that this bill is $2.1 billion below where law enforcement grants would have been in 2001. Secondly, with respect to legal services, about which I will offer an amendment at a later point in the debate, that bill a decade ago was funded at $400 million. That program today is funded at slightly over $320 million, a slight increase over the President's request, but still a cut from last year, and a substantial reduction from where it was a decade ago. Since that time, inflation has eaten up a significant portion of the purchasing power of that program. We should not be doing that to people in this society who, without this program, will have very little ability to take advantage of the court system when they feel that they have been abused, and they will be boxed out of our justice system simply because they have no money. I don't think that Congress ought to allow that to happen, and I regret that this bill contributes to this problem. Having said that, I respect the work that both gentlemen have done.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I want to make the point again that if all of these amendments are offered, we could be here for as much as 25 hours. So I would hope that Members would consider whether or not these amendments are duplicative and that some of them might not be offered, if we are going to finish this in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply adds $25 million to the Legal Services Corporation, returning it to the 2003 level from which it has fallen since that time. We have a bipartisan letter to Chairman Wolf from Ranking Member Mollohan signed by 160 Members of this House led by Representatives Ramstad and Delahunt, calling on the committee to restore funding for this program. This bill cuts LSC by $12.7 million below last year's level. LSC- funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance to women who are the victims of violence. Seventy-three percent of those seeking assistance under this program are women. This budget has declined from $400 million in 1996, and we are not even restoring it to that level. We are simply asking to restore $25 million of the massive cut that has occurred since that time. Because of the cuts already incurred by this program, 16 field offices have already been closed. I don't think we want to see any more of that. The offsets are very simple. We are taking $6.7 million from the Department of Justice general administration funds. The account is below the request, but the mark funds an 18 percent rent increase for management. We would secondly take the rest of the funding out of the Department of State Administration of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic and Consular Programs. The account includes a $76.9 million increase over the current year. This cut leaves in place increases for Intelligence and Research, Public Diplomacy, Foreign Language Training, Reconstruction and Stabilization and Border Security. Mr. Chairman, we stand on this floor every day, and we recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag. In the process of doing that, we pledge to support ``liberty and justice for all.'' You simply cannot have justice in this country if you do not have adequate access to its court system. It seems to me that this amendment is on its face self-evident. There is no reason why we cannot, with all of the money we spend for so many other programs, there is no reason that we cannot provide such a small restoration of funding for people who have nowhere else to go to be able to participate in what is supposed to be a system that produces equal justice for all. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I don't know how often we have to watch Members pose for political holy pictures on these issues before we start to gag. Well, I am at that point. You have Members coming to this floor creating a great commotion, trying to create the impression that they are oh so much a champion of this program or that program. On this amendment, it is the Byrne grant. On some other amendments, it is another program. My question to you, sir, is how did you vote on the budget resolution? Because if you voted for that budget resolution, you put this committee and this House into a position in which they have no choice but to cut one of these programs or the other. Now you can parade around as a wonderful conservative, but the fact is, don't come to this floor with crocodile tears crying about what is happening to the Byrne grants or any other program if you voted for that budget resolution. At least half the amendments being offered in this House, tonight and tomorrow, are cover-your-tail amendments, Mr. Chairman. They are here because Members who voted for the budget resolution are now trying to escape their responsibility because they want to have a roll call in their pocket that they can go to their constituents saying I didn't mean to cut that program. But when you cut programs, there is not a line item in the budget for waste, fraud and abuse. When you cut the money, as you did in the budget, you are willing to sacrifice everything in order to provide $50 billion this year in tax cuts to people who make $1 million a year. That is the real action. And half this other stuff is phony as a $3 bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I found the last comment from the gentleman from Indiana to be very interesting. The fact is that the unanimous consent agreement was agreed to as a courtesy by the minority to the majority. It is, very frankly, not in the political interest of the minority party in this House to assist the majority party in moving its appropriation bills through the House. We have done so on every occasion as a matter of legislative courtesy to the majority. Now, if members of the majority do not like that, then I guarantee you there will never be another unanimous consent request provided from the minority side of the aisle. If that is the way you want it, you are going to be here a long time struggling with every appropriation bill from here on out. The minority accepted the unanimous consent request with this provision because there are many times when the majority party and the minority party have a different view of amendments. This is not one of those times, but that happens most of the time on these amendments. And so the unanimous consent request is not any conspiracy between members of the Appropriations Committee. It is simply an effort to move the House's vote along. We have 100 amendments. Without this unanimous consent request, we would still be on number 2 or number 3. You would not get halfway through this bill before you go home for the July 4 recess. Now, if that is what you want, I am perfectly happy to give it to you. Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in the end, there are only three essential powers that make the Congress the greatest legislative body in the history of the world. The first is the power to investigate; the second is the power to declare war; and the third is the power of the purse. This Congress has already supinely given away most of its ability to declare war. It ceded that largely to the President. This Congress has also engaged in a pitiful amount of oversight and investigation over the past 5 years. The only remaining power that Congress has is the power of the purse. If Members of this body want to diminish that power and further weaken the ability of the legislative body to do its job, then, by all means, vote for this underlying bill. If you think it wouldn't be a good idea to do that, then you ought to vote against it. Can you imagine what a President like LBJ would have done with these powers to someone like Gaylord Nelson, from my own State, one of the three people who cast a vote against the original appropriation for Vietnam? LBJ would have put his arm around Gaylord's shoulder and he would have said, Gaylord, if you can't see your way through to be with me on the war, you are going to lose an awful lot of things you care about in that budget. I will make your life miserable. I will send down rescissions again and again and again, on the wilderness, on you name it. I believe that the most pernicious aspect of this proposal is that it will further gut the ability of Congress to review a President's foreign policy initiatives in an independent fashion. God knows we have already failed in our responsibilities with respect to keeping us out of the dumbest war since the War of 1812, in Iraq, and this ill-advised proposition will simply make those matters worse. I would urge an ``aye'' vote for the Spratt substitute and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think the House needs to understand the history of this. Back in 1997, when the F-22 was first being contemplated, there was a controversy about whether it should be built, whether it was needed, given the capability of our other aircraft. We were told that we had to go ahead and construct the plane because we had given away so much technology by selling other high performance aircraft, F-15s, F- 16s, that we had to regain our technological edge. So I said, well, if that is the case, if we are going to build the thing, at least let's make certain that we hang onto our technology edge this time. Hence, the language in section 8057. Now, I must confess that times may have changed, but I don't know that we are yet at the point that would justify removing these limitations. My own preference, given my biases about arms sales around the world, my own preference would be to impose the same kind of limitations on new aircraft that we are developing, such as the F-35, as we impose now on the F-22. But I recognize that that is not in the cards, given the mindset of the Congress these days. So given that fact, I would simply say that I have indicated on numerous occasions that I have an open mind and I would be willing to be persuaded, but I am not yet convinced that we are at the point where we ought to relinquish the controls on the export of this aircraft. I recognize what the committee is about to do, but I am significantly uncomfortable with it, and I am certainly not convinced that we have reached the point where we ought to remove these restrictions. I would simply ask the chairman, I would hope that if the committee does intend to accept this amendment, that it will have an in-depth discussion with the Pentagon to make certain that we know exactly what we are doing in terms of the kind of technology that we might be letting loose, that it might not be in the interest of this country to do.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that is useful, but I am still concerned about the fact that we will be allowing a very high- technology aircraft to wind up in the hands of people who may be allies today, but God knows what they are going to be tomorrow.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into the specific debate on this amendment because I think there are equities on both sides. But I must comment on a statement that was just made by the gentleman from Illinois when he said that the reason this information can't be more broadly shared is because people in Congress like to talk. When Mr. Negroponte was before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and I have been an ex oficio member of that committee now for over 12 years, but when I asked Mr. Negroponte, who, after all, is the Director of Intelligence, when I asked him whether or not he could cite a single instance in which any member of the Defense Appropriations Committee had ever leaked any classified information, he indicated he could not. I also asked him, and I think this is an accurate recollection, I also asked him if he could tell me how many times stories had appeared in the Washington Times that his own agency thought had been leaked by the executive branch of government. And I asked him how many times he thought those leaks had been provided by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And his response was, to the best of his knowledge, none. And yet, I want to make clear, not all members of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have been briefed. Now, I believe they should have, because taxpayers dollars go through the appropriations bill, and I think every member of that subcommittee needs to know what the facts are on this case. But the fact is, let's not get into the belief that it is the Congress who routinely leaks. The White House routinely leaks more classified information than the Congress even has. And anybody who doesn't believe that doesn't know the score.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. OBEY. I am going to take back my time. I was prepared to entertain a serious question. That is not a serious question. I am not interested in what happened 200 years ago. I am interested in what is happening today and tomorrow.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, because I think that repetition is important, I want to make certain that Members understand what is expected for the rest of the day. My understanding is that the White House event that was scheduled to take place with Members of Congress tonight has been postponed until tomorrow. That means that we had originally not expected that we would be able to finish this bill today. It now appears that we can if we get the cooperation of all of the Members who had intended to offer amendments. So I would simply urge Members, if they expect to be recognized, to offer their amendments under the unanimous consent agreement. It is important that they get to the floor and actually offer them so that we can get out at a reasonable time tonight and complete action on this bill because tomorrow is expected to be reserved for the Iraqi debate, and I do not think we want to get in the way of that one.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the two previous gentlemen who just spoke, the issue is not whether we like Mr. Castro or not. I think Castro has an abominable human rights record. I think he has an idiotic economic record. The issue, rather, is whether or not we trust our fellow citizens. I would also say that the issue to the question I would ask is why should the United States follow a policy which allows Castro to pretend that the United States and its embargo is one of the reasons for his economic and political failures. I think we make it easier for Castro to survive by our own silliness. That is why I support the amendment of the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain to the House that at this point it appears that there are more than 70 amendments pending, and that if each and every one of them only takes 10 minutes, 5 minutes a side, we will be here through all of today, through all of Wednesday, through all of Friday and perhaps into next week. So I would ask Members to keep that in mind and, if possible, to relinquish their ability to offer conflicting or duplicative amendments. I think points can be made without beating a dead horse five times over.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply under the reservation would like to point out to the House that if this is strictly adhered to, there are 67 amendments that are provided for under this UC request. It will take approximately 11 hours just for the debate time, not allowing for slippage, not allowing for other Members yielding or the natural sliding that we have in the House. That means that it will take at least 13 to 14 hours to finish these amendments plus the time that is needed for voting. Assuming that only one-third of these amendments are put to a record vote, we could have a total of around 16 to 17 hours before this bill is finished. That will certainly take us through tonight, all of tomorrow, and well into Friday and perhaps beyond. So I would ask Members to again think through whether or not they feel the need to offer every one of these amendments. If they are, we will be here for a long, long time with other competing business being squeezed to the end of the week. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, has just described what he believes to be fiscally responsible actions taken by the Congress. Let me simply say that the idea that it is fiscally responsible for this Congress to provide $40 billion or more in tax cuts to persons making $1 million a year, paid for with borrowed money, while at the same time refusing to provide $2.5 billion in essential funding to secure our borders and secure our ports, is, to me, strange logic indeed. I regard that set of priorities to be spectacularly irresponsible.