Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as this joint resolution demonstrates, we are in another year that simply refuses to end. Last year we did not see this Congress finish the work that was supposed to be done by October 1 until well into the winter of the next calendar year. At that time the majority party in the House blamed that inability to get the work done on the fact that there was a majority of the other party in the other body. This year they do not have Tom Daschle to kick around anymore. This year the Republicans control it all. They control the White House. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the schedule. They control what gets to the floor. They control how long the votes are held open. They control everything. And yet we are in a situation where tonight, long after the fiscal year is supposed to be over, we still have not seen the budgets passed for VA-HUD, for the State Department, for the Justice Department, for the Commerce Department. We have yet to see the foreign aid budget pass. We have yet to see the budget for the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, social services agencies pass and the agriculture budget. I think we ought to ask why. I do not believe that we are in this box because of any failure of the Committee on Appropriations leadership. I think we are in this box because the Republican House leadership is insisting on having every decision made in a top-down style. That means that the only real decisions that count except on minor matters are those made in the office of the Speaker or in the office of the majority leader. No conferees are appointed unless they agree with the leadership's position on major issues. And yet even after rigging those conferences, even after stacking those conferences, when they still cannot win the votes that they need to win in those stacked conferences, they simply adjourn those conferences and then put legislation together in some off-corner office without any meaningful participation by anybody except perhaps some unelected members of the leadership's staff. So much for the legislative process in what used to be regarded as the greatest deliberative body in the world. This process is about as respectful of rank and file Members as an AARP board meeting is respectful of the senior citizens they supposedly represent. On the same night that legislation is going to be considered that will bankrupt Medicare, we see the ultimate degradation of the legislative process at the same time as it is demonstrated in the appropriations process. It is not often, Mr. Speaker, that one can do in senior citizens and the democratic process on the same night, but the House leadership should be congratulated because they have managed to find a way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida has indicated, the Commerce-Justice bill could very easily have been brought back to this floor separately and passed separately. The Transportation bill could very easily have been brought back to the floor and passed separately. The Foreign Operations bill could very easily have been brought back to the bill floor and passed separately. The Agriculture the same and the VA-HUD bill the same. The problem is, as the gentleman indicated, that there are many other issues that are being drug into the appropriations process. And we also see the situation complicated by the fact that the House Republican leadership, despite votes to the contrary on a number of issues, is insisting on seeing an outcome on a number of these issues which is at variance with the expressed wishes of the Members of the House. And I think therein lies the reason for the delay and delay and delay. I think the problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, indicated that the committee product is serving as a magnet for other authorizations. I think a better metaphor would be that it is looking more and more like a garbage truck. And the problem we have is that this bill has not been allowed to proceed because I think the House leadership is still trying to determine what bags of garbage have to be tossed down to the truck before the truck is driven through here in the dead of night. So that is the choice that we face, Mr. Speaker. It is not a pretty sight, and the outcome is not going to be very good. But there is not much we in the minority can do to affect either the scheduling or to affect how much garbage is tossed on the truck before it is run through the Capitol. I just hope the smell is not too bad before it is over. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I simply take the time to indicate that the House has no choice but to proceed to pass the short-term CR in hopes that the House will come closer to finishing its work by the time we have to pass another one. But let me also say that I would hope that we would use the time constructively so that Members still can get out of here for the year on a reasonable schedule. I note last night, for instance, that we are within a hair's breadth of having total agreement on the VA-HUD appropriations and on the CJ bill. The transportation bill has already been filed, and it is hoped that the foreign ops bill will be filed and acted upon also. That would mean that we could reduce considerably the number of bills that would have to go into the omnibus. I have no particular ax to grind about whether they do or they do not, but it would seem to me that it would be one way to at least assist on unsnarling what remains to be done before we finish. With that, I would simply say when the CR comes, I hope that we could dispose of it in a favorable fashion so we can get on with the remainder of our work for this week.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Madam Speaker, to the uninitiated, people might think that this is a motion that deals with the agriculture appropriations bill. But, in fact, what is happening today is that conferees are being appointed, ostensibly, to deal with the agriculture appropriations bill but, in fact, the agriculture appropriation will then become the vehicle into which all other appropriation bills that have not yet passed the Congress will be dumped, producing one of those glorious omnibus appropriation bills that the Congress deals with at the end of the session when it has not been able to get its work done. So Members can expect to see this conference come back containing not only the material that is appropriate to the agriculture bill, but if the majority has its way, they can expect that the conference report will also contain the State, Justice, and Commerce appropriation, the Labor, Health, and Human Services appropriation, perhaps the VA-HUD appropriation, the D.C. appropriation, and perhaps several others. On this side of the aisle, we do not believe that those bills should be considered together. We believe that each of them should stand on their own merits. We have another complicating factor, because this legislation will be used by the majority to try and pave the way for passage of its ill- conceived and misbegotten Medicare, so-called Medicare Reform Act. Now, that bill started as an effort to provide a prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens under Medicare. Instead, what is being produced on that score is a very weak, badly-shredded, partial benefit that does not even begin until years down the road, and the enticement of that prescription drug bill or that prescription drug coverage, I should say, is being used as an effort to blackmail Congress into essentially vitiating Medicare as we know it today. There are not many people on this side of the aisle who think that that is a good idea either. Now, one of the provisions in the Medicare conference report that will shortly be before this body is a provision which tries to create the impression that senior citizens will be allowed to reimport drugs from Canada as part of the passage of that bill. But, in fact, the FDA has made quite clear that that provision will not work. So what we are going to be faced with is a ``let's pretend'' game. The Congress will pretend in the Medicare bill that it is about to pass that there is a meaningful ability for seniors to reimport drugs at a lower cost from Canada when, in fact, because that provision requires the approval of the very agencies that are opposed to it, no such reimportation will ever take place. So this Congress, in essence, intends on the Medicare reform bill to practice consumer fraud on the House Floor. This bill is part of that scheme, because this bill presently contains a requirement, in the form of the Northup amendment, that drug reimportation, meaningful drug reimportation be allowed to take place. But the intention of the conferees, at least on the majority side, is to deep-six that provision in conference so that the bill will come back stripped of that, and they will pretend that they have taken care of the need in the Medicare bill but, in fact, the Medicare bill will not have taken care of it at all. It sounds complicated; it is meant to be. Because that is the way that the public is deceived into thinking that there will be real action on reimportation of drugs from Canada when, in fact, the majority has no intention whatsoever of allowing that to occur. So, therefore, I am offering this motion which says, in effect, that on this bill, if we are going to have a drug reimportation proposal, and I have some questions about the advisability of some of those proposals, but what this motion says is that if we are going to have a drug reimportation provision, it at least ought to be a real one, and that is what we believe the Northup amendment is, in contrast to the phony ``let's pretend'' proposition which will shortly be coming at us in the so-called Medicare reform bill. So our position is very simple: this language gives people who want to have drugs reimported from Canada, lower-cost prescription drugs, this gives people who want to see that happen an opportunity to vote to require it. This is an effort to keep a real drug reimportation provision before the Congress rather than simply allowing the institution to engage in this widespread charade that somehow there is a meaningful reimportation provision in the Medicare bill which is about to come at us. A lot of things will happen in this House over the last week, in the closing week of the session, or what is expected to be the closing week of the session. A lot of things will happen which will not bring credit to this House. What I would hope is that we could avoid having a broad- scale consumer fraud effort take place on this House floor and, in my view, without the Northup amendment, any pretense that there is a drug reimportation provision that is being made available to seniors will be just that, a blatant effort to defraud the public. I would hope that the membership of this House would recognize that, and I would hope that the members of the general public who have been waiting for years for a meaningful provision on drugs would remember it as well. So for those of my colleagues who are interested in having reimportation actually occur, this motion is in support of the only real proposition that will be before the Congress between now and adjournment, and we will see whether Members, in fact, put their votes where their mouths are. Any Member who votes for the Medicare reform bill and claims that they have provided a drug reimportation plan that will provide lower-cost drugs from Canada will be committing consumer fraud, and I want to say that beforehand so that Members are put on notice as to what that provision really is. If my colleagues want to be real, vote for this motion. If they do not, do not. It is as simple as that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. OBEY. And who has the right to close?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Could I ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), is it his intention not to yield any time?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, is it the intention of the gentleman not to yield any time?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, we have the right to close, so I am wondering when the gentleman is intending to use his time.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, is the gentleman going to be supporting or accepting the motion?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). (Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I think one of the obligations of those of us in the minority is to raise objection when we believe that the majority has not handled legislation correctly and to indicate support when we think it has handled things correctly. I want to stipulate that, in this instance, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) has done a wonderful job in seeing to it that the Congress addresses its institutional responsibilities in the areas under the energy and water bill jurisdiction, and I think he has done an excellent job in involving the minority in reaching those decisions. In the process, it has been very apparent that the primary consideration of the chairman of the subcommittee has been the substance of the legislation, and he has tried to take the conference in a direction which defends the public interest irrespective of what either some people in the Congress or some people in the executive branch of government have felt about these issues. So I simply want to take this time to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, because they have handled this bill in a way which, in my view, all appropriations bills should be handled, all legislation should be handled, for that matter. And in the process, while I certainly do not agree with every provision in the bill, I think the process has been reasonable enough and the substance is reasonable enough that this bill merits support on both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased to report that to the House.