Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, but under my reservation I want to simply take note of the fact that as I see the situation, counting the votes we have had today, if every amendment is offered tomorrow, there would have been 22 amendments offered and voted upon that originated from the minority side and 21 that originated from the majority side. If you count the debate time just for the amendments that are going to be offered tomorrow, it appears that you have at least 7\1/2\ hours of debate time; and if you account for slippage and the time consumed in voting, I assume that that means it will take at least 10 hours to finish the bill. I think that makes it very difficult to finish tomorrow, if the schedule holds for tomorrow. So I would simply note that to me that indicates that there is apparently as much discontent on the majority side with the consequences of the budget resolution on programs in this bill, including especially the squeeze on local law enforcement assistance, there is as much discontent on that side of the aisle as there is on this side of the aisle. I would note that the membership on both sides of the aisle has been extremely cooperative in reaching time agreements, and yet we have a bill that could very possibly take fully 2 days and perhaps even a portion of the third day to finish. I think that ought to send a message with respect to the inadequacy of funding on the part of a number of these programs because of the budget resolution priorities.

Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would point out if that is the case, we are probably going to be here until 8 or 9 o'clock. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is owned lock, stock and barrel by the pharmaceutical industry. That was made obvious on passage of the so-called Medicare drug benefit last year when the majority party rammed through this place, after a 3-hour wait, a provision which prevented the Federal Government from negotiating with the drug industry to require lower drug prices under the Medicare program. Another piece of evidence of the ownership of this Congress by that industry is the fact that this House will not be voting today on an amendment that would give the FDA the enhanced ability to change the label on drugs that have already been approved if later studies demonstrate that those labels need to be changed. I had a member of my family who almost died because of Vioxx. She took that drug at the suggestion of a doctor, and it virtually ruined her liver. She does not drink alcohol, and yet when the doctor examined her he told her that she effectively had the liver of a 65-year-old chronic alcoholic because of what Vioxx had done to her. It took 14 months for the FDA to be able to change Vioxx labeling. Any Congress with any guts whatsoever would have had on this floor a long time ago legislation to give FDA that authority, but that is a big money lobby, and they sure pass it around. Last year, they had 500 lobbyists telling this Congress what to do on the Medicare prescription drug bill. They may as well have had a baby-sitter for every Member of Congress. That is how many lobbyists they had running around Capitol Hill. On that bill on that issue, instead of being the greatest legislative body in the world, Capitol Hill was effectively a trash heap. I intend to vote for this bill because I think the chairman has done a reasonable job with limited resources, but I do not intend to vote for this rule if there is a rollcall because I think this rule should have made the Hinchey amendment in order. It is about time that this institution and the President of the United States starts talking about and dealing with issues that the American people care about, rather than issues that we care about in terms of our internal operations, such as the filibuster in the Senate or these other nonsense issues that are really inside baseball. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get that off my chest so in case there is a rollcall on the rule, Members will know why I voted against it. I also want to raise one other point. We are not starting on the bill itself until some time after 12. We had other filler on the floor here today before we got to this appropriations bill. There are 11 must-pass bills a session, all of them appropriation bills. We have been asked on the minority side of the aisle, even though we regard most of those bills as being inadequate, we have been asked to provide procedural cooperation in order to facilitate the ability of the majority to do the House's work, and we have provided that procedural cooperation. But I have to say I get very frustrated when we are told that the Committee on Appropriations has to be prepared to work until 10 or 11 tonight because you have certain Members of Congress off on a golfing tournament this morning and early this afternoon. I resent the fact that there are not going to be any votes until after 2 so a few of our colleagues can go off and golf while we are here trying to slog through the 11 appropriation bills that have to pass before this Congress can adjourn. I do not raise that fact because I am a lousy golfer, although I am. I raise that fact simply because sooner or later it would be nice if this place puts the public's business first and puts appropriation bills first rather than dragging in other legislation that is put on the floor simply to delay the time before the Committee on Appropriations gets to the amendment stage of its bills. So, with all due respect, I will vote for this bill, but I think the process by which we have gotten to this bill is a sorry one.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have no problem with the time limit, but I would not want a time limit that boxed the minority out of control of any time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman split the time in opposition to the amendment in two?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, I intend to vote for this bill because I think the gentleman from Texas has done a reasonable job, given the limitations placed on him by the budget resolution. Having said that, I do not want anyone to think that I am enthusiastic about the result. I am not. I think that after we pass this bill today the Food and Drug Administration will still be left with inadequate authority to protect the public health from dangerous drugs. The FDA will still have a terrible time trying to provide new labels for drugs which had been initially approved but which later had been found to be, in some cases, a threat to public health. This Congress has an obligation to fix that. It is being prevented from fixing that by the rule that passed earlier today. Secondly, I want to say that I think the bill is inadequate in a number of areas. I think that with respect to having a full-fledged animal identification program to help protect the public health against problems like Mad Cow disease, I think that the funding for that is inadequate. I certainly think that funding for rural sewer and water is grossly inadequate. There is probably more demand in my district for rural sewer and water grants than any other program in the Federal budget. When one lives in a community in which more than 50 percent of the households are headed either by someone over 65 or by a woman who has no long work history outside of the home, that means that that community has very little tax base and very little economic ability to meet environmental standards for water and sewer, and the Congress is doing precious little to help those communities. I think we are also very negligent with respect to rural housing, and I think that this bill is totally inadequate with respect to International Food Aid. There are a number of other concerns I have about it. But those are the main ones that I would focus on at this moment. I will vote for the bill because I think the major fault for the inadequacies of the bill lies with the Committee on the Budget, not with the gentleman who produced the bill. But I think Members need to understand this bill is not adequate to meet the economic development needs of rural America. It is not adequate to meet the environmental needs of rural America. It is not adequate to meet the public health requirements of the American people. I wish it were. Maybe some day it will.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. There is no earthly reason why consumers should not know where their food is coming from, and I would hope the House would pass the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, it is hard for me to believe that the rules of this House do not help ensure that the people we represent can trust their government. It is hard for me to believe that the rules of the House would mean that this House can busy itself telling other people how they should deal with end-of-life issues for dear ones, telling independent courts that they should not be quite so independent, and yet would not allow the supposedly greatest legislative body in the world to deal with a direct obligation of government, which is to ensure the public safety of the American people. This amendment would be in order if no Member objects to it. The Committee on Rules, as I understand, when they passed out the rule from the Committee on Rules, they did not protect this amendment under the rule. That does not mean that it cannot be considered by the House. The House can only avoid dealing with this issue if a Member chooses to block the House from acting on it. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman from Texas to withdraw his point of order so that we can vote on this most crucial issue. But if the gentleman does not withdraw his motion, then I would, reluctantly, as I am sure would the sponsor of the amendment, have to concede the point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my pleasure with the gentleman raising the issue of animal identification. I would simply like to say that I, for one, believe that we are not moving ahead on this matter nearly fast enough. We need a national program. We need to get to 48- hour track-back as soon as possible, and we should be doing everything possible to move USDA forward. We have a pilot project on this issue going on in Wisconsin which appears to be very successful, but I am afraid that there is much more foot-dragging than we can afford on this issue. I would simply say that I would hope that both the USDA and the Congress would become much more aggressive than it has been so far in establishing a truly effective national animal ID program, so that we can assure the consuming public that every bit of meat that is produced is in fact safe to eat. The sooner we do, the sooner we set up this kind of a system, the sooner every farmer, every rancher, and every consumer will be better off. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I simply want to say that I congratulate the gentleman for offering this amendment. I would say that I greatly respect the chairman of the subcommittee, but I disagree with the implication of one thing that he said. He is evidently suggesting that because of a difference in outlay rates between these two accounts, that we would not get the full amount in the amendment, or that the full amount in the amendment would not be immediately made available for the purposes of the amendment. I would simply point out that whether it is $79 million being redirected or $53 million being redirected, it is still better than nothing. I would also say that BRAC is going to go on for a long, long time. We have no idea how much money we are going to need for BRAC, and this Congress will be adjusting what it provides for BRAC many times over, the next 7 or 8 or 9 years. But the fact is that the troops coming home now need these services now. I do not think that anyone believes that either the budget amount or the amount in the committee is fully sufficient, given the needs of the troops. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply explain the amendment. As I discussed earlier, under existing law given the tax cuts that the Congress has passed this year, persons making a million dollars or more will on average get a tax cuts of $140,000. Meanwhile, we have a significant squeeze on veterans funding. Very briefly, my amendment would simply scale back the size of those tax cuts from $140,000 to $129,000. It would use the $2.6 billion saved by that action to add funding to a number of accounts for veterans health care. It would add $1.5 billion more for medical services for returning veterans. It would add $500 million more for increased medical administrative costs. It would add $300 million to keep the VA medical facilities up and running by refurbishing them. It would add $67 million for VA medical and prosthetic research; $201 million to build medical clinics and long-term care facilities; and $37 million for general administrative costs to assist veterans in receiving the prompt attention they deserve. As has been indicated, the rule that was adopted precludes this amendment from being, or I should put it this way, the rule that is offered makes this amendment subject to a point of order. That means that it cannot be considered unless a point of order is not lodged against it. I would hope that the majority would not lodge a point of order against it so that we might adjust so very slightly the tax cut for those who are already the most fortunate people in our society economically, and allow this money to be added for veterans health care. I do not want to take any more of the House's time. I would simply urge an ``aye'' vote in the event that a point of order is not lodged against the amendment. Point of Order

Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Budget Act, when it was passed several decades ago, was to force Congress to make trade-offs between different spending programs and between revenues and spending. The problem is that the way the Budget Act is being used these days, instead of forcing the Congress to face those trade-offs, the process is being segmented, thereby enabling the House to avoid facing those trade-offs. I think that is unfortunate because it prevents the House from making value judgments that would put veterans' health care, for instance, higher in our value structure than a $140,000 tax cut for somebody making $1 million. I cannot deny that under the rules of the House, as they are being pursued under the Budget Act, this amendment is not in order. And so, Mr. Chairman, I regretfully concede the point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, appropriation bills represent the legislation where we have a chance to put our money where our rhetoric is. On Veterans' Day, I would venture to say that virtually every Member of this House has gone home and spoken about how much we care for veterans, and I am sure on Memorial Day that many Members will be going home and they will put their hands over their hearts and say how much they respect veterans. When wars start, we are very good at having the bands play. We are very good at having the crowds cheer. But all too often, when those veterans come home, they do not get the same treatment. They certainly did not during Vietnam. And I think the test of our concern for veterans is not the kind of speeches we give as we send them off to war. It is the kind of treatment we give them when they get home. Now, we can brag all we want about the fact that this bill is a billion dollars above the President's for veterans health care. Fine. I am glad it is. But the fact is that still does not keep up with the cost of inflation. The fact is there are still waiting lists and waiting lines. The fact is that VA facilities are still badly in need of repair. The fact is we still do not do enough prosthesis research. Next year, the VA expects to handle twice as many veterans as they did in 1995, and medical care inflation is twice the rate of inflation in the regular economy. The reason this bill is so squeezed is because the budget resolution, which this House passed about a month ago, has imposed tight limits on this Congress's ability to fund veterans health care and a number of other areas because the number one priority in that budget bill was tax cuts and we wound up guaranteeing to everybody who makes $1 million a year or more that they will take home a tax cut of $140,000 on average this year. The amendment that I wanted the Committee on Rules to make in order was very simple. We simply wanted this House to reconsider that tax package and to shave that $140,000 average tax cut down to 129,000 bucks. I think every American would be very happy to settle for a $129,000 tax cut this year. If we simply shaved it down to 129,000 bucks for people making over 1 million bucks a year, we would be able to put $2.6 billion more into veterans health care. In the past, this country has always thrived because it believed in the sense of shared sacrifice. How is the sacrifice being shared today? We are asking those who wear the uniform of the United States, whether they be regular forces or Guard or Reserves, we are asking them to bear the full burden of our effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what burden are we asking the folks to bear here at home? We are saying, ``Oh, they have got to sacrifice by taking a tax cut.'' What we are asking is that we adjust that sense of shared sacrifice so that we shave the benefits for people who are already the most blessed in this society, we shave their tax benefits by just a little bit in order to make just a little bit more room for veterans health care. And I make no a apology for trying to do that. I believe that we need to remember Abraham Lincoln's admonition in the second inaugural address: ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' This Congress has taken some initiatives to do that this year. But it is not enough. I plead fully guilty to wanting to have health care for every single American. I think it is a mortal sin that there are 45 million Americans who do not have health care coverage, but at the very least, we ought to see to it that every person who wears the uniform of the United States has whatever health care they need whenever they need it. We do not worry about how much a war is going to cost when we start one or when we get into one. We pay the cost. We should also not worry about how much it is going to cost to provide adequate health care for people who fight that war. Whatever they need is what we ought to provide, and there is not a Member in this House who can demonstrate that this bill is fully adequate. Is it better than the President's budget? Of course. Anything would be. But it is not enough, and we have tried to show a way for us to provide more funding for veterans without doing serious damage to anybody else's interests in this country. And I would hope we would turn down the previous question so that we have a chance to offer that amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as Members of this House know, when I have objections to the content of a bill, I am not shy in stating them. There are certainly portions of this bill with which I do not agree, but I want to say that it is very unusual and it is a very pleasant experience to see a piece of legislation brought to the floor which is not so much a product of politics as it is a product of legislative craftsmanship. I think that is the case with this bill. I think that the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana working together in an absolutely bipartisan fashion have produced a bill which is obviously based on some intellectual decisions about how to approach problems rather than being based simply on political judgments, and that means that this place is performing as it should perform. It is not just being a political institution; it is also being a legislative institution. That is happening in no small measure because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). That does not mean that I do not think this bill does not fall short in some areas. I think that the budget resolution has made it impossible for this committee to do a number of things that it ought to be doing in the area of energy research. Lord knows, that is important these days with rising gas prices and all of the rest; but I just want to say in my view, despite those shortcomings, this bill demonstrates that good government is good politics. The gentleman has brought to the floor a bill which is extremely responsible in terms of the way it deals with the nuclear weapons issues that were referenced by the gentleman from Indiana. It is an extremely bipartisan product. While I have feelings about nuclear power that are very different than some other Members in this Chamber, I want to say I think the gentleman has produced, with the assistance of the gentleman from Indiana, a very responsible bill; and I fully intend to support it. I hope as the process goes along we will wind up having more resources to deal with some of the problems that are shortchanged. But with that exception, I do not think we can ask for a better legislative product; and as someone who appreciates the traditions of this House, I want to extend my personal gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio for his contribution in making this the fine product that it is.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the previous question on the rule, and after the bill is considered, unless it is substantially changed, I will be intending to vote against the bill itself for a variety of reasons. My main reason is this bill represents gross negligence of our responsibility to clean up the Nation's air and water pollution. This bill provides huge cuts, 40 percent cuts over a 2-year period in the clean water revolving fund. If there is any Member of this Chamber who has a district that does not have a community that needs more loans to fix their sewer and water problems, would you please raise your hand. I would like to see one Member who thinks that they have enough money. I note no Member of the House present has raised his hand. Mr. Speaker, I would say there is a great deal of hypocrisy surrounding the budget process. Every time that those of us on this side of the aisle point to the shortcomings in the budget that the Republican majority has just passed, we hear, ``Well, we can't do anything about these shortages in the appropriation bills because, after all, we have limited resources.'' The gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Utah, said the appropriations process, quote, ``should prioritize our needs.'' I fully agree. That is what I wanted to be able to try to do by offering an amendment which this rule would preclude me from offering. Because what I wanted to do is to change the judgment, change the priority judgment that the majority party made when they decided it was more important to give a $140,000 tax cut to someone who makes a million bucks this year, they decided that was more important, that was a higher priority, than cleaning up our air or cleaning up our water. I do not think that represents the priority choice that the American people would make but it is the priority choice that the majority party has made. The only way that we can change that priority judgment is by offering the amendment that I wanted to offer, which would have scaled back the size of those tax cuts for anybody making a million dollars a year or more. It would have scaled back those average tax cuts from $140,000 to $138,000. Imagine those poor souls having to get by with a tax cut of only $138,000. I remind you, those are people who make more than a million dollars. I do not begrudge, I do not denigrate in any way people who have managed to strike it rich and who are managing to make a million dollars a year. I hope everybody in this country at some point in their lives can do that. But I do believe that people who are the most blessed in our society ought to pay their fair share and the budget resolution which was imposed on this committee by this House does not allow us to reach that kind of fair distribution of tax burden. So if we object to that what I regard to be not just ill-advised but immoral allocation of resources, the only device that we have to try to change that is to try to make our point on each of these appropriation bills trying to get the majority party to understand that just as they reconsidered their unilateral actions on Ethics Committee changes a couple of weeks ago, we would also like them to reconsider their poor judgment on the budget resolution. Because the Rules Committee would not allow that amendment, I am going to vote against the previous question, and I am going to vote against the bill because the bill is grossly negligent in dealing with the air and water pollution problems facing this country. I am also not at all thrilled by the fact that for the first time in all the years I have been in Congress there will not be a single dollar provided for land acquisition programs. The gentleman may not want it in his State, but there are key tracts of land that we want the government to acquire in my State, there are key tracts of land we want the government to acquire, for instance, at George Washington's birthplace before real estate developers destroy that beauty for all time. I am an old real estate broker, so I have nothing against real estate developers but I do not think they ought to be able to get their gloms on the most pristine land in this country and turn it into a shopping mall when we have our population increase by one-third since I came to this body and when we have an increased need for resources that the average family can enjoy. But most of all the biggest problem with this bill is that it walks away from our obligation to help State and local governments clean up some of the dirtiest rivers and dirtiest lakes in the country. It walks away from our responsibility to prevent communities like Milwaukee from dumping their surplus sewage into Lake Michigan every time there is a storm. That is an outrageous neglect of our stewardship responsibilities. I think this bill makes it even easier to ignore those responsibilities, and I think that is a disgraceful act.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, at this point I had intended to offer an amendment to the Stupak amendment because I am certainly in support of the content. But given the agreement that has been reached between the two parties, there is no need for me to offer that amendment. I would simply observe, however, that I hope we do not kid ourselves. It is very good that this amendment is being adopted, but it again illustrates the need for, in fact, increasing, rather than reducing, the amount of money that we put into the Clean Water Revolving Fund, and I would hope that we would remember this as the bill goes through the system because we can avoid controversies such as this. We can avoid putting EPA into a position of even considering such an outlandish regulation if we are providing much more by way of financial help to the communities so that they will not be concerned about stiffening EPA regulations to protect public health.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, unlike the previous amendment, which I would have preferred, this amendment is not subject to a point of order. And let me explain what it does. This amendment simply eliminates one-half of the cut that the committee recommendation would make in the Clean Water Revolving Fund, and pays for it by taking $100 million out of STAG grants. Now, I know everyone in this House likes STAG grants. I like them myself. The problem is that if you take a look at last year's committee report, for instance, you will find over 10 pages listing hundreds of individual tiny grants, $75,000, $100,000, $125,000 a piece, tiny little grants to communities all over the country to supposedly help them pay for their sewer and water problems. The problem is that we are fooling ourselves because those STAG grants are being paid for by reductions in the basic loan program that we use to assist communities all over the country deal with the same problem. What it means is that each Member is able to go home and dangle a little grant that we have gotten for our district--and I have done it myself, I will get whatever money I can for my district--but we go home and dangle that tiny little bit of money when, in fact, what we need is to have a major increase in the loan program that every community in this country applies for from time to time. The fact is that the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is the crucial program for helping local communities with sewage treatment plants infrastructure. It is a keystone of the Clean Water Act; and yet this committee is recommending with the cut in the bill this year that we effectively cut this program by 40 percent over 2 years. It was already cut 19 percent last year. I think that is a terrible, terrible decision to make. Our communities have more than $300 billion in backlog requirements to clean up their sewer and water systems. There are communities in my district that right now are having difficulty, for instance, even allowing the Park Service to attach its new headquarters to the sewage system in one of the cities in my district because that system is so out of compliance that the State Department of Natural Resources is urging that they hook up no further users. We have seen, as I said earlier, stories of overflow, sewage overflow every time there is a huge storm. In the Milwaukee Journal, there was a picture of a huge sewage plume in Lake Michigan after heavy storms just last year. We are being incredibly negligent if we do not add money to this fund, rather than cut it; and yet today, because of the budget resolution, we are prevented from adding money. We would at least like to reduce the size of the cut by 50 percent, by moving money over from the STAG grant program. As I say, I have nothing against the STAG grant program, but if you fund STAG grants by cutting your basic loan program, you are literally robbing Peter to pay Peter, and I think that makes no sense whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?