Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Saudis drive me nuts. They drive me to absolute distraction. I think they have a spectacular record of being disingenuous. I think they have played both sides of so many issues that I run out fingers counting them through the years, and I think that they have been incredibly gutless and obsequious in dealing with the terrorist threat, and they have allowed these right wing fundamentalist schools to poison the minds of thousands and thousands of children against the West, in general, and certainly against Israel. I have very little confidence in virtually anything that the Saudi Government says. I want to be very clear about that. I visited their country a number of times, but the issue tonight is not whether or not we like the Saudis. The issue is whether or not this amendment at this time will assist or hinder the administration in its efforts to seek peace in the Middle East and to pursue a tough war against terrorists. I talked to Assistant Secretary Burns tonight, and I told him flatly, I said, look, if this is a minor inconvenience, I do not want you bugging us because this is a tough vote to explain, but if this is a real problem for you, then I want to know it and I want you to let us know it; and they sent a letter which says that it is a real problem. I take them at their word, and I note that since May 12, when al Qaeda bombed Riyadh, that the Saudis have sort of gotten religion, so to speak, on the issue of al Qaeda, and they have been, the administration tells me, much tougher in arresting terrorists and even killing some of them. I welcome that. I am perfectly willing to do my duty tonight and support the administration on this, provided that I am not going to be taken for a sucker in the process. As I said, well, I did not say this yet, but I want to. I have told every President going back to President Nixon that when it comes to the Middle East, I would back whatever play they made and I would do whatever was necessary to prevent their hands from being tied as they pursued peace in that very difficult region, and there are many times when I have done that to considerable consternation of some of my friends on the floor. And as I say, I am willing to do my duty as a member of the loyal opposition; and as a member of the loyal opposition I think I am required to oppose the President when I think he is wrong and support him when I think he is right, and so since I have no reason to think that he is wrong on this issue, I intend to support him, but I cannot in good conscience ask other Members of my party to do the same unless both parties are in this tonight together, because I have seen in the past on foreign policy issues, where we have supported a Republican administration, only to turn around and have the Republican Party's own campaign organization run ads against us for doing so. And you know the old saying: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I have no reason to believe that we are not going to be played straight with tonight by our Republican friends, and I am going to vote against this amendment because I do think all this amendment really does is cut off $105,000. That to the Saudis is nothing; but if it does, as Assistant Secretary Burns says, if it does severely undermine the administration's counterterrorism cooperation with Saudi Arabia, at precisely the moment when it is moving to a new level of effectiveness, and I am quoting from the letter, if it does that, then it is not worth it. I mean, $100,000 or so is not worth it if it puts the administration efforts at risk.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, so I intend to vote with the administration, but I intend to ask other members of my party to watch the board. If we have Republican votes go up there along with ours, then fine, I think we have an obligation to do our duty and support the administration in this request; but if we see a significant number of the President's own party running in the other direction, then my message to people on this side of the aisle is you do not owe the President of the United States any more support than people of his own party. So tonight, let us find out if we are real. Let us deal with each other on a real basis. I have no reason to think that that will not be the case, and I do think we have an obligation, on both sides of the aisle, to listen to what the administration says when it says this will get in the way of the peace process. But I have one message to the Saudi embassy: get your act together because there are very few people on this House floor who believe your words because of the weakness and the duplicity of your past actions. So this is a case, in my view, where we have to vote with our minds and not our spleens; and with that, I thank the House for the courtesy of the extra 2 minutes.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but I do want to correct something that was just said by the gentleman from Vermont. The reason that amendment was not in order yesterday was not because there was some agreement between the two sides that prevented the amendment from being offered. The reason the amendment was not in order yesterday was that the amendment was drafted wrongly. That is why it was not in order. And I think it is important to understand that distinction if we are going to work with each other around here.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been following events in Colombia since 1957, and I would like to think that the money that we are spending there is well spent and will reach a useful conclusion. I wish I could say that, but after watching that government and that society, especially the economic elite of that society for a long time, I have reluctantly concluded that they simply do not have the will to do what is necessary to win their own battles. I think we have drifted little by little into a long-term sustained financial and political involvement with little expectation of real success. Oh, I know, people say we have reduced this production here and reduced production there. Baloney. It is like a balloon. It just pops up somewhere else. I remember when one of the members of the Reagan administration's antidrug team came to me privately and told me in despairing terms what a tremendous waste he thought the money was that we were spending in our antidrug campaign in Latin America. And when he told me how little we actually intercepted at our borders, I was blown away, and that has not changed that much. And so if I thought this money was going to accomplish any useful purpose, I would say, ``Fine, provide it.'' But when I see the economic elite of that country still not making the sacrifices that are required in order to achieve the ends that we say we have, then I think we ought to look for a more useful place to put that money. But I have a second question. My understanding is that the leadership of the Republican Party from the highest levels on down cares very deeply about our efforts in Colombia. So my question is, if that is the case, why are so many Members of the majority party watching ``Seabiscuit'' tonight? Why was this House shut down for a couple of hours to avoid votes on the House floor so that Members of the Republican leadership structure could enjoy a summer movie? It seems to me if this issue is important enough for us to provide our money, then it is important enough for the people who believe in it the most and the people who brought about our investment in the program in the first place to be here on the floor defending it. And if they think it is more important to watch ``Seabiscuit'' than to deal with this program, then I think that says volumes about how useful even they think this money is. So with all due respect to the cries of alarm, I have heard about our antidrug efforts around the world for years and years, those efforts cannot be successful unless they are coupled with a determination on the part of the recipient country to do whatever is necessary to win the battle against drugs. And when that will is absent or when it is weak, then Uncle Sam is simply being taken for Uncle Sucker. So I would suggest my colleagues pay attention to this amendment. At least that money will be put someplace where it will do some good. And perhaps if this amendment passes tonight, in the future we will not have Members of the majority party running off to watch ``Seabiscuit'' when something that is supposedly important to the national security is on the floor of this House.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not have any objection to this amendment being accepted, but I do want it understood that yesterday was not because of some arrangement between the two political parties that this amendment was not in order. It was simply drafted wrongly, and that is not the responsibility of either the Republicans or the Democrats in this House.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that all of us, regardless of how we voted on the original bill, have an obligation to determine whether or not this amendment will contribute to reduced effectiveness of law enforcement or enhanced effectiveness of law enforcement, and obviously 322 Members of the House the last time around recognized it would contribute to a lowered standard of law enforcement, which is what they ought to recognize on this amendment again tonight.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, who has the floor?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the gentleman from Indiana start following the Ten Commandments in terms of the way he treats people on this floor. This is my time. It is not funny. Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying, vote however you want. This is a free vote. It is one of those votes that Members often offer in hopes that the public can be convinced we are actually doing something at 8:15 at night; but with all due respect on this amendment, we are not. So vote any way you want, just do not be under the illusion that when you do so, you are protecting the Ten Commandments. It does not. I could care less what the vote is.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said. Rather than taking a long time speaking against this amendment, I think Members should understand that the House has already turned this proposition down by a vote of 322 to 102. We will have copies of that previous rollcall here at the desk if Members want to know how they voted on previous occasions. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a classic. In the long history of this institution, there have been many amendments offered on the floor of this Chamber. Never has an amendment been offered that did less than this amendment does tonight. It does not matter how people vote. No matter what side one is on on the question of separation of church and State or the Ten Commandments or anything else, it does not matter how one votes, because this amendment does not do nothing to nobody. All this amendment does is to say that the Justice Department cannot enforce the decision that the gentleman does not like. The only problem is the Justice Department does not enforce this decision anyway. The Justice Department has already made quite clear that this is a ``let us pretend'' amendment. It pretends that we are doing something to protect the Ten Commandments. I would suggest that rather than offering amendments that pretend to do that, if we want to protect the Ten Commandments, we will simply start by following them in our own lives and in our own careers. That will do a whole lot more than pretending that we are preventing the Justice Department from enforcing a decision which they would not be enforcing anyway. So I could not care less how one votes on the amendment because it does not have any effect whatsoever. If the gentleman wants to take the time of this body to offer do-nothing amendments, be my guest; but I hope Members are not under an illusion.

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

Mr. OBEY. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that in substance I agree with virtually every word the gentleman just said. He is coming from exactly the right place. Here is my tactical problem. I want this bill to get 290 votes, so that when the White House looks at it, it knows that there are enough votes here to override the veto, if they are ill- advised enough to veto the bill over this provision. And it is my considered judgment that if the Hinchey amendment passes, that there will be significant additional numbers of people who will vote against this bill, and that means we will send exactly the reverse signal. So all I want to say is, I agree with where the gentleman is coming from, we simply have a different tactical judgment about how to get there. I think we need a two-step process and the gentleman wants one.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) who just spoke. It is a cliche in this House that almost no speeches change people's minds, but I think this speech is one occasion when it has certainly changed mine, and I want to thank the gentleman for that. Originally, when I first heard the amendment offered, I thought, well, this is not the right place for this, and it is not; and I thought there may be ramifications to this that we do not understand, and there probably are. But I have full confidence in the ability of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to see to it that that is fixed in conference if this amendment is adopted. The reason I have changed my mind listening to the gentleman from Texas and the reason I intend to support this amendment is because of the history of the PATRIOT Act. When the first act was brought to this House floor, I voted ``present'' because this House had no idea what was in it. We were asked to vote blind. And as a protest to doing that, even in the heat of 9-11, I voted ``present'' to signify that I did not feel that I knew enough about the contents of that bill to vote for it. When it came back from conference, I very reluctantly voted ``yes,'' because I thought there were some things in it that, because of what I had learned in classified briefings, we needed to face. Things like being able to go after multiple telephones rather than just being able to target one telephone number of a suspected terrorist, for instance. So I assumed that given the unifying approach that the administration at that point had been taking after 9-11, I assumed the Justice Department would exercise those authorities with restraint. I was wrong. I believe this Attorney General has far overreached legitimate boundaries. I often disagree with The Washington Post, but I have to congratulate their constant drumbeat of editorials in support of preserving the values of the Constitution that protect individual freedom and privacy. And when I see the Justice Department overreach, as it has, and when I see them assert the claim that they have a right to lock up anybody they want without any kind of court review whatsoever, I am appalled and chagrined and horrified. So in my view, anything that can be done to push the Justice Department back a little bit closer to the Constitution, anything that can be done to reinforce Congress's determination to give PATRIOT II a far tougher scrutiny than it gave PATRIOT I, I am willing to do. So I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), because my first reaction was that we did not know enough about the effect of this amendment to adopt the amendment. But upon reflection, after hearing the gentleman, I conclude that we know far too much about how PATRIOT I has been used not to adopt this amendment. As I say, the gentleman from Virginia is correct, that there may be problems with this; but I really think we have the capacity to fix those problems in conference if there are problems. Mr. Chairman, I want the Justice Department to have to come to us and assure us that the way they are enforcing the law that we have given them the authority to enforce is the correct way. I do not want us to have to go hat in hand to the Justice Department asking them to defend the Constitution. So I would at this point simply say I think the gentleman is right. We ought to adopt this amendment if for no other reason than to send a message to the Justice Department that we want respect for law demonstrated by the Justice Department as well as average citizens of this country. I thank the gentleman for his speech, and I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.

Mr. OBEY. I am sorry, but everyone else knew it. I assume he knew it, too. So, Mr. Chairman, we are obviously going to grind to a halt; and I am afraid that as a result of that, we will wind up going up to the Committee on Rules and adopting a far more limiting amendment which I do not believe we ought to do because I do not believe in shutting down the minority like that. But I do think you have to have some sense of responsibility on the part of all parties, including those who belong to no political party in this House, if we are going to make our way through this week; and with all due respect to the gentleman, who I regard as a friend and have a great deal of affection for, I do not believe that it is fair to hold the House hostage because the gentleman drew an amendment that was not in order.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think I heard the gentleman say this, but I want it repeated again so it is clear. Is the gentleman saying that this amendment would not interfere in any way with any existing patents with respect to stem cells?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the House what is at stake this afternoon. The Federal Communications Commission has recommended a number of changes in ownership patterns for media across the country. One of the changes was to raise from 35 percent to 45 percent the percentage of the national TV audience that could be reached by any one media conglomerate. Another part of the FCC ruling would have expanded opportunities for cross-ownership of media outlets all around the country, so that newspapers could own even more television stations than is the case today. I oppose everything the FCC did, but the problem is that you have to make an intelligent judgment about how much you can bite off and win. The fact is that the Committee on Appropriations adopted my amendment in committee by a 40 to 25 bipartisan vote, and that amendment essentially rolled back the Federal Communication Commission's decision with respect to the national cap on ownership. It did not go the next step, and I hope we do not try to go the next step today in the form of the Hinchey amendment. I favor the substance of it very much, I am totally opposed to cross-ownership. I do not think a newspaper ought to be able to own a single TV station in the country, and vice versa. I believe in the widest possible diversity of opinion. But the fact is that today, even in the committee approach, we are taking on the media giants of this country; and when you do that, you had doggone well better win, and we will not win if the Hinchey amendment is passed. The Hinchey amendment is not intended to be so, but it is a killer amendment. It will load up the camel, and it will break the camel's back. What I think we ought to do is stick to the judgment the committee made and win that one and tie that one down first. We are in a terrible situation today, where five media conglomerates control a 70 percent share of homes that watch during prime time; 80 percent of the major cable owners are owned by the same media conglomerates; and we need to see to it that we do not allow that situation to get any worse. The problem with this amendment is that if it passes, we will not be able to get enough votes on this bill to demonstrate to the White House that they should not veto the bill because of this provision; and I do not think the House wants to do that if it is interested in protecting local news values. The reason I want to protect local news values is because I think that local owners are the only ones who are likely on occasion to preempt national network programming. And believe you me, if you want to see some examples of the kind of programming that I do not think we want in some of our communities, all you have to do is take a look at what happened in radio. In radio, the Congress totally deregulated a few years ago, and what do we have? We have total lack of the ability of local people to have control over news or to have any real say in their programming. No nationally owned television station has ever preempted a network TV program; only locally owned stations have sometimes done so. I do not have anything against networks but I think we need diversity I think we need diversity of decision making, and that is why I sponsored the amendment that the committee adopted, with the support of the gentleman from Virginia and others. If we adopt the Hinchey amendment, we will in essence ruin our ability to win what we have won so far, and I do not think that is a wise thing to do. I am not interested in symbolic statements here today. I want to win. I want to see to it that we roll back the FCC provision on national ownership. If the Hinchey amendment is adopted, we will not be in a position to do it, because this bill will get many fewer votes than it otherwise would have gotten, it will send the wrong message to the White House, and the net result will be that we will be crippled in conference in terms of trying to hold the provision in the committee bill. So I urge defeat of the Hinchey amendment.

Mr. OBEY. I would, but I want to make sure it is a correct point. Go ahead. I yield.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can take back my time to correct that, on two occasions in the past 3 or 4 years, I myself have tried to correct amendments; and I have been denied that opportunity.

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

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