Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with that understanding, I would be happy to withdraw my reservation of objection and wish Mr. Knollenberg good luck.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I find this debate most interesting, especially the statement made by the previous speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica). It has been my experience on this floor through the years that the most baffling moments come not when we are talking about things we do not know, but when we are talking about things that we do know that ``ain't'' so. I think the gentleman from Florida just illustrated what I mean. He stood here on the floor and suggested that somehow those of us on this side of the aisle who are skeptical about Plan Colombia had blocked all kinds of initiatives. He also suggested that this plan was a plan which had been forged into a successful program by President Bush and Speaker Hastert. Well, the fact is that I remember when Plan Colombia was first pushed through the Committee on Appropriations, because I opposed it vehemently. I thought, based on my experience in chairing the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, for 10 years, that our drug interdiction programs were largely a flop. I know that I had officials from the Reagan administration tell me privately that we had intercepted less than 5 percent of the drugs that came across the southern borders from not just Mexico, but from elsewhere in this hemisphere. I would ask what initiatives did we block? I wish we had blocked some, but what I remember is getting run over. And I was not run over by President Bush and Speaker Hastert, I was run over by President Clinton and Speaker Hastert. They were the two who pushed it down the throats of the Committee on Appropriations, each trying to compete with each other to show who was most zealous in their resistance to the drug problem. So I would simply say I do not mind each of us rewriting a little history, if it is on purpose, but I hate to see history being rewritten by accident. That gets to be more than a little dangerous. So I would simply suggest that on the merits, this program has had a long time to prove itself. In the end, the only way it could succeed is if you had a Colombian society that was determined to make it succeed, and that society has not been willing to do that. They have not been able to muster the forces necessary to deal with the problem effectively. So we are left to ask what is ordinarily spoken of as a good conservative question, and that question would be: No matter how desirable this program is, does it work? And the answer is clear. This program has, at best, had only marginal success, very hard to see certainly, night or day. So I would simply suggest that with all of our challenges in the foreign aid area, even if we confine those challenges just to the Western Hemisphere, there are a lot of other places where we could more productively spend this money than we are in this initiative.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply say I appreciate the oversight hearing but what we need is not so much a hearing but action. Secondly, I would grant to the gentleman that the preferred place to deal with this problem is not on this bill. The problem is we tried to deal with it on the bill where it belongs and we were blocked by the majority for doing so. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill spends a lot of money on foreign aid, but there is a major problem with this bill today. And that problem is not money that the bill contains. It is money that the bill does not contain. Last week we were told by the Veterans Administration that after continually resisting efforts to increase funding for veterans health care, they were finally admitting that there was, in fact, a $1 billion shortfall in veterans health care funding for the present fiscal year. My understanding is that at the hearing of the Subcommittee on Military Construction this morning, the VA amended that number and they are now telling us that in addition to the $1 billion shortfall which they said they had in this fiscal year, they are saying that they are going to need $1.5 billion next year, plus another $1.1 billion if the Congress does not take action with respect to co-payments and enrollment fees that the Congress has already decided that it will not support. So in other words, there is a huge hole in the Veterans Administration health care funding and it is growing. Now, we have had to endure a lot of cynical comments from some Members on the other side over the past 2 years because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I and several others have tried at every opportunity to get more money into the budget for veterans health care. In fact, I recall at one point the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was called a demagogue by a member of the majority party because he stood up and insisted that we fund veterans health care at least a billion dollars higher level than it was being funded. I think now we recognize, and I would hope our friends on the other side of the aisle would recognize, that the numbers which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and others have been citing are correct and that the numbers that the Veterans Administration has been citing are not. I find it ironic that the majority party even removed from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairmanship, the gentleman who last year recognized along with us that we need higher funding for veterans health care. He was rewarded for being frank about the needs for veterans by being bounced out of his committee chairmanship. I think we ought to take a look at what the facts are. Right now medical facilities are literally falling down around their patients. One veterans medical clinic had to put up scaffolding around walls to protect patients from falling bricks. Physicians at VA hospitals have reported that they had to visit neighboring hospitals to borrow supplies that they needed to carry out specific medical procedures. The VA is proposing two solutions to the problem: diverting $400 million that was to be used for medical services next year, and using $600 million that was supposed to be used to improve hospitals. This, in our judgment, is just digging the hole deeper, and it is not the first time that we have seen this resistance. In fiscal 2002 the administration would not allow the VA to spend $275 million that Congress had provided to meet the needs of veterans. In fiscal year 2004, the VA Secretary testified that the administration had cut his own request by $1.2 billion. They now admit there is a shortfall. For 2006 the VA bill adds only 2 percent or $661 million for the Veterans Health Care Administration. Not nearly enough in light of today's revelations. I will place into the Record, Mr. Speaker, a listing of our efforts over the past 2 years to raise veterans health care. In short, I simply want to urge each and every Member of this House on both sides of the aisle to vote against the previous question on the rule on this bill so that we can try to respond to what is obviously an emergency situation and add to this bill the money that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) tried to add on the floor last week to a previous bill so that we can clean up the shortfall in the VA health care budget for this year, and so that we do not dig the hole deeper for the following year. Even the money that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was asking for last week will not be sufficient for the 2-year problem, but it is a whole lot better than hiding the problem under the rug as the administration has done for the past 2 years.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. 3 million jobs that have been destroyed in the first place by the policies of the very administration that you are bragging about. You destroyed 3 million jobs and then gradually the economy recovered and you built back so you came back to about square one. I would not brag about having the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. If you think that is a great achievement, that puts us in a different league.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for two reasons. One is because of this, a little piece of plastic called a credit card. All too often, little cards like this are issued by bloodsuckers. This bill, as it went to the Committee on Rules, contained a provision to defend average consumers from some of these credit card companies who abuse their privileges under the law and wreak havoc on people's financial rights. Right now, there are a number of credit card companies who feel no compunction whatsoever about the idea of changing your interest rate on your credit card, even if you have never missed a payment, even if you have never been a day late with that company. They still reserve the right to jack up your interest rate to the default rate called the universal default rate if you have missed some other payment on somebody else's bill. Example: if you go on a vacation and you are a week late paying a mortgage bill, or you are a week late paying a light bill, if that gets reported on somebody else's credit report, a credit card company can make you pay 30 percent interest, no questions asked, even though you have never been late with a payment for them. As Linda Sherry of Consumer Action said, ``It is the only industry in the world to reprice something you have already paid for.'' Now, the bill, as it went to the Committee on Rules, contained an amendment which I offered which passed by a 10-vote margin on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations. Yet, the rule does not protect that provision from being stricken on a point of order. So under this rule, any one Member out of 435 in this House can come to the floor and, for any reason they want, can knock this provision out of the bill. Now, we will be told by friends on the majority side of the aisle, ``Well, this provision belongs under the jurisdiction of another subcommittee, or another committee.'' There are dozens of provisions in the bill before us that require waivers of points of order, but this one was singled out to be not protected. It will be very interesting to see whether any individual Member has the chutzpah to come on to this floor and knock out this provision, which is a protection for consumers that is long overdue. The second reason that I will vote against this rule is because it does not make in order the Olver amendment. The Olver amendment is very simple. It says that instead of giving people who make a million bucks a year a $140,000 tax cut next year, we ought to scale that back to $131,000 so you have enough room in this bill to meet our national obligations in funding Amtrak and in funding the other high priority plans in this bill. Now, the Republican majority has steadfastly insisted on hanging on to those super-sized tax cuts for the most fortunate people in this society. And that is why we had to have a hearing in the Subcommittee on Military Construction this morning when we find out that even though the Veterans Department is now admitting that they are more than $1 billion short in veterans health care funding this year and they are going to be more than $2.6 billion short next year, even though we face those shortages, the majority is insisting that we not treat that problem as an emergency because, ``oh, it will put pressure'' on them to reduce the size of those tax cuts. These are minimal actions that this Congress ought to take to protect the public who needs decent transportation, to protect veterans who need decent health care, and to protect consumers who are sick and tired of being bullied by shysters who take advantage of little print on their forms that charge people an arm and a leg on their credit cards. These three little things the majority could have helped out. They have not. Those are three good reasons for voting against this rule.

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me say that thank God there were some jobs added in the last few months of the Bush presidency, that made up for the 3\1/2\ million jobs that were lost from the first 3 years of his presidency.

Mr. OBEY. You came within 100,000 jobs of being first President since Herbert Hoover not to add a single job in his term. It was the most anemic job growth of any president since Herbert Hoover.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I certainly will not object. I simply want to take this opportunity to explain to the House that what this timetable means is that if all of these amendments are indeed offered and debated to the full extent allowed under the unanimous consent request, we will be fortunate to be out of here by midnight tonight. That is how much time it will take, assuming that we have about one-third of these amendments that proceed to roll calls. So for those Members who are asking what time we intend to get out tonight, I think it depends upon the zeal with which Members push forward with their amendments and with requiring recorded votes. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one point to the membership on both sides of the aisle. As has been the case with most appropriation bills this year, we are trying to work our way to a unanimous consent agreement that will limit time for discussion of amendments to this bill in such a way that we can finish this bill today. Right now, the unanimous consent agreement which is being worked on would result, if you take into account the debate time plus the slippage time that occurs between each speech, we would probably be on the floor for about 6 to 6\1/2\ hours, not counting vote time. That means that we would be very lucky to finish this bill by 10 o'clock tonight. We are being asked to do so earlier if possible so that we can finish the transportation bill by debating it on Wednesday and Thursday, trying to avoid a Friday session before the July Fourth break. We are getting, frankly, crossed signals from Members. Some Members want to see to it that we get out by Thursday; other Members want to see the time on their amendments extended. We cannot accomplish both goals at the same time. So I ask Members to choose for themselves what they want, whether they want to be here Friday or whether they would like to reach a reasonably congenial agreement on time limits so that we can finish this bill at a reasonable hour tonight and finish the remaining appropriation bill by Thursday. But this is really up to Members. We cannot control what Members offer on the floor; all we can do is deliver the bad news.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as this amendment is considered, I think it would be useful to remember what the committee has done with respect to our assistance to Egypt. As the gentleman from Arizona has indicated, the committee adopted an amendment offered by me which earmarked ESF funds for Egypt, doubling the amounts spent on democracy, governance, and human rights and providing additional funding for education within that account. The amendment earmarked $50 million in ESF for democracy, governance, and human rights and $50 million for education. Both categories were projected at about $25 million in the administration request. So this essentially doubles that amount. The reason for that has already been stated. We were looking for a way to send a clear signal to Egypt that we find their human rights record to be an embarrassment without thoroughly upsetting the administration's ability to continue to negotiate in that region, to try to move what is left of the peace process forward. I have no idea whether the administration will be sufficiently serious about the issue. I have no idea whether or not they will be successful if they are serious, but I do just want to say one thing. I think every Member of this House would like to be able to vote for this amendment because we like where the money would be put; but we also have a responsibility, regardless of party, to try to see to it that in the attempt to send messages we do not blow things up in different regions of the world. So I have absolutely no doubt that this amendment would produce a most irresponsible result in the region, but I think it will be interesting to note who supports the administration's position on this roll call and who does not. I intend, for one, to watch very carefully to see whether or not the leadership of the President's own party is going to be sticking with the President or not, and whether they do or not will send an interesting signal to those of us on this side of the aisle.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say, I would be most curious to know what the administration is clearly saying on this subject. I have just received a message which indicates that the administration is pleased with the language in the committee bill. I hope that they continue to clarify their position to make clear exactly where they stand on this amendment. If they do not, they will be the ones who have to explain the consequences.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we cannot hear. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection, and I support the gentleman's motion.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, let me simply say, I would be willing to let this amendment go by and have it temporarily accepted by the House, provided that there is an understanding that the committee reserves the right to change its mind during the conference process if we learn that the public interest requires us to oppose it. I do not want acceptance to be interpreted as the committee's willingness without examining this further to allow this to continue until the authorization bill is passed. That might be a good idea, but I think we ought to keep that as an open possibility rather than make it as a commitment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I somewhat dubiously will withdraw any objection to this amendment for the moment and hope that we can clarify it further as we go to conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that while I am dubious about the content of several of these amendments, in the interest of moving the bill forward, I would also urge that we accept the en bloc amendments and move on to the others.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, straight motion to recommit so that the committee can repair the shortcomings in the education, health care and worker protection programs in the bill, and so that the committee can respond to the announcement of the Veterans Administration yesterday by adding a billion dollars to veterans health care programs. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the motion to recommit. I will be voting against final passage, and I would hope a good many others will, too.

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

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