Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly not quite sure what to say on this rule. I think we need to explain what is involved in our opposition to it. Last week the Committee on Appropriations expressed the fact that we were fed up with corporations who, having received support services from our communities, law enforcement services, highways, transportation, police protection and the like, we simply got fed up with corporations who were ostensibly moving their legal locations from the United States of America to other more exotic countries in order to avoid paying taxes. We adopted the DeLauro amendment in committee, which I was pleased to cosponsor, to try to say that if you are a company and you walk out on your obligation to pay your fair share of taxes in this country, then you cannot expect to get contracts with the government of the country that you are abandoning. At the same time, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) tried to point out in this bill that there is a study pending in the Joint Committee on Taxation which relates to the same nefarious practices, only those practices are being engaged in apparently by individuals rather than corporations. So the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) tried to see to it that that Joint Committee on Taxation study being done was released because it has been held up. Now what the Committee on Rules has done is to eliminate the protection under the rules for the Moran amendment so that the House can hide from this issue by having somebody move to strike that language on a point of order. I do not know what the majority is trying to hide, and I do not know why after the steady stream of revelations that we have had about the nefarious conduct of corporations by hiding the true nature of their balance sheets, I do not know why the House is continuing to coddle individuals who are engaging in those practices; but evidently the House seems compelled to do that. As long as that is the case, we feel compelled to vote against this rule because we feel that language should have been protected. It would be funny if it were not so sad. What I am reminded of, with apologies to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), I was reminded yesterday by the gentleman of the lyrics of a song done by the Beach Boys years ago. Part of those lyrics go as follows: Aruba, Jamaica, ooo I wanna take you, To Bermuda, Bahama come on pretty mama, Key Largo, Montego, baby why don't we go. Ooo I wanna take you down to Kokomo. Mr. Speaker, that seems to be the motto of the people in this House who are hiding the activities of the jet set, both individual and corporate. To me it is a pretty sad day in the House. So we will be voting against this rule, not because of our objections to the core bill itself, but because sooner or later we believe that the majority party leadership ought to join us in pursuing the public's right to know which individuals and which corporations are welching on their obligations to support the government that has given them the opportunities to make all of that money that they are now trying to hide and protect.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, every week when I go home to my district and also here in my office, I talk to business people who work hard, who worry about their communities, their investors, and their workers. They try to produce a good product. They do their duty as citizens. They pay their fair share of taxes and they help pull the wagon, as a Senator from the other body often describes it. They help pull the wagon and meet their share of community and national responsibilities. When they see corporations maneuver the Tax Code and avoid paying taxes by ostensibly moving their address while they do not move their operations, they move their address to exotic places such as Bermuda, they ask me, What in God's name are you guys doing? When are you going to put a stop to it? They resent carrying their fair share of the load while somebody else is ducking their responsibility to carry theirs. So the DeLauro amendment which was offered in committee, which I was pleased to cosponsor, simply said, and it is an outrageous idea to some Members, I suppose, it simply said to these companies, Look, buster, if you are going to ignore your responsibilities to this society and the taxpayers who help see to it that you get police protection, the transportation system that you need to sell and move your products, if they see those folks abandoning their duty, they want us to do something about it. And most of all, they do not expect Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sucker by continuing to do business with the companies that refuse to pay taxes to the United States Government. Now, the rule under which this bill is going to be considered will not protect the language of the DeLauro amendment, so there will be an easy way for this House to avoid bringing those companies to heel. That is why you are going to see a good many of us vote against the rule, because we believe that one of the first responsibilities of the most privileged of the taxpayers among us is to meet their own obligations to this society. It is unpatriotic for those companies to change their address in order to avoid pulling their fair share of the load, and it is outrageous that this Congress does not have enough anger and enough guts and enough determination to stand up to those actions and say enough is enough, buster, this is not going to happen any more. We ought to be taking that stand immediately on this and every other appropriation bill so that no company that welches on their responsibility to this country can do a dime's worth of business with Uncle Sam. Until we take that position, these kinds of outrageous things are going to continue. I hope this House does the right thing on the rule.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. What we have heard on this floor for years on this subject is that we should not fund amendments like this simply because at some time in the past the arts program was not perfect. Well, I grant that. But for how we ought to view them today, I once again consult my sociological bible, my friend archie the cockroach, and here is what archie said about the arts. ``They are instinctively trying to hand the public some kind of stuff that wins the audience away from the often sordid surface of existence. They may do it badly, they may do it obviously, they may do it crudely, but they do have the hunch that what the millions want is to be shown that there is something possible to the human race besides the dull repetition of the triviality which is so often the routine of common existence. . . . And every now and then they have blundered into doing something with the touch of the universal in it.'' That, to me, is what is so great about this little program. I do not much care about what this program does for the big cities in this country. I do not represent a city over 40,000. What I care about is what these programs help to deliver by way of cultural experiences, door-opening experiences for kids and for working families who, in the rural parts of this country and the small towns of this country, would otherwise never be exposed to it. And sometimes it may not be perfect, but a lot of times it is awfully good and it has a profoundly enriching experience on young people's lives. That is why this amendment ought to be passed.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to address and comment on two things that I have heard, if I could. I am somewhat bemused as I sit here tonight listening to some of the comments about the sanctity of open debate and legislative alternatives. Some of the same people who have been uttering those platitudes are the same people who voted to deny the minority an alternative on prescription drugs. They voted to deny us the opportunity to debate and produce an alternative to the very budget resolution which has this place wrapped around the axle. They voted to deny us the opportunity to debate and offer an alternative to the economic stimulus package, to the airline bailout, to the antiterrorism bill, to the fast track trade bill, and they have engaged in incredible legislative legerdemain in order to avoid the regular processes of this House, but now suddenly express tonight their concern for open debate. I find that quaint, to be polite. Second, I would simply note a comment of my old friend, Archie the Cockroach. Archie said this once: ``Man always fails because he is not honest enough to succeed. There are not enough men continuously on the square with themselves and with other men. The system of government does not matter so much; the thing that matters is what men do with any kind of system they happen to have.'' The fact is that the reason we are having such problems here tonight is because the budget resolution that passed this House early in the year was not on the square; it contained tricky accounting. It rejected CBO accounting after, several years earlier, our Republican friends were willing to shut down the Congress in order to require it. I would simply say that if Members feel that they are on the hook tonight, they have not been put there by the Committee on Appropriations; they have been put there by their own votes on their own budget resolution. That budget resolution essentially picked a number of numbers out of the air in order to pretend that there was room to do everything for everybody and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost. That is why tonight what we are seeing really is not a mini filibuster; we are seeing a philosophical war within the majority party between the realists, those who are still trying to function and produce bipartisan product that this House can pass, even though none of us may be thrilled by what it produces; and those who would like to reject realism. It will be interesting to see how that fight comes out. I hope it is decided in time to get some productive work done in this institution, but we do not have very many days to go before that August recess. But only time will tell.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to note, since we have heard of this so-called spending spree that the Committee on Appropriations is engaging in, I want to simply note that since 1980 through today, the percentage of our total national income which we spend on domestic discretionary programs financed by this committee and approved by this House has dropped by 35 percent. It seems to me that a 35 percent contraction as a percentage of the total national family income that we spend on domestic needs is some pretty hefty fiscal discipline, no matter how myopically some other Members might view it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my grandfather used to be in town politics and county politics for about 30 years. And one of the things that he always told me is that the most dangerous thing you could do in politics is to believe your own baloney. And I think the problem that we have in this House is that there are a number of people who are so enamored of their own baloney that they do not even recognize it is baloney, and let me explain what I mean. I appreciate the kind personal comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin made about this gentleman from Wisconsin. But I think we need to fairly analyze why it is that we have people with their noses out of joint tonight. We have a group of people in this House (and I do not attack them for it, I am simply stating fact), we have a group of people in this House who honestly believe that they can maintain the fiction that somehow the budget resolution which passed this House is a real instrument in divided government. It is not. And the problem we face is that when you start the budget process with an erroneous initial set of assumptions, then everything that happens after that point is a colossal waste of time. And so because we started with a budget resolution, which for the third year in a row makes an unrealistic assumption about what in the end the collective judgment of people on both sides of the aisle is going to be with respect to the budget, we wind up starting from a false base to begin with. And now you have a number of people in this House who are upset because we will not stick to that false base. Now, the previous gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who spoke has me confused because he talks about the Committee on Appropriations unraveling the budget process. I would say that if he wants to look to a committee that has unraveled the process, he ought to start with his own committee. Our committee operates in an unusually bipartisan fashion. We do not agree on everything, but we often resolve our differences. We had some major differences on this bill which we resolved. In contrast, my observation is that the Committee on Ways and Means, the other side of the financial ledger, is so polarized that they often are barely speaking to each other. And the products that they bring to the floor demonstrate that as well. Because those products have essentially said that over the next 10 years we are going to spend $1.7 trillion on tax reductions, and that is going to come largely out of borrowed money. Now, I happen to think that tax cuts in the short term make sense because if the economy is sagging, you need to give the economy a kicker. And I do not think there is anything wrong with in the short run having some stimulus in the tax side as well as the spending side. But the problem with the markets is that they are looking at the long- term result of that decision, and that $1.7 trillion in lost revenue over the next 10 years makes the differences on appropriations bills appear to be minuscule by comparison. Does anybody really think the budget is going to be balanced if this amendment is passed tonight? Come on, give me a break. The other thing I would point out is that I am, frankly, a little baffled because I have one gentleman from Wisconsin on that side of the aisle say we are going to spend too much money; and yet we are noticed by another gentleman from Wisconsin on that side of the aisle that he is going to ask us to spend more money on a program that is important to him and to me, Chronic Wasting Disease. Now he has an offset for that amendment, and I congratulate him for it; but the problem is that offset is going to be met with bipartisan opposition because the program that is being cut means as much to the folks who want that program as the program that the other gentleman from Wisconsin wants to see money added to, the Chronic Wasting Disease for the deer herd and the elk herd means to us. So the Committee on Appropriations has committed the unpardonable sin of bringing to the House floor a realistic document which represents our best professional judgment on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. Let me simply say that, with respect to the bill, that I fully support it. I am especially pleased by the funding level for the new conservation trust fund, which is consistent with the agreement that was first worked out on that item 3 years ago when we converged with the Senate in conference. The result will be that it again will be fully funded, and that commitment will be honored. I would like to spend the remainder of the time simply discussing our good friend Joe Skeen. I said in committee and I want to say again publicly on the floor that many of us are familiar with Will Rogers' comment that he never met a man that he did not like. But as I said in committee, I do not believe there is ever a person who met Joe Skeen who did not like Joe Skeen. Joe Skeen has brought to this Chamber honesty, integrity, straight dealings with everyone in this institution. He has brought to this institution a love for the processes of democracy, and he has brought to this institution a fundamental decency which shows through in virtually everything that he does. After you serve in this place for a while, you get to understand what is behind the partisan label, what is behind the ideological label, and you can tell whether someone in this House puts their ideology first, puts their party label first, or puts their duty to this institution first. We can all be partisan, we can all be strongly ideological from time to time, but in the end, what this institution needs from each and every one of us is respect for the processes of this institution, respect for people who we work with every day, and a recognition that from time to time there is nothing wrong with trying to make the work a little bit easier for each other, and Joe Skeen has brought that attitude to this Chamber every day that I have known him. I am proud to have served with him as a colleague, and I am pleased to have had him as a friend. We wish you Godspeed, and I think it is fair to say that there is a great deal of love in this Chamber on the part of all of the Members directed to you, Joe, and I hope you recognize that.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, our best professional judgment about what the realistic level is that Members want to see provided in this bill. Now, we may have been on point. We may have missed it a little bit. Who knows? Nobody is perfect. But the fact is that I think the problem we have here is that on that side of the aisle there are a number of people who resent the fact that the Committee on Appropriations in the end has to deliver a reality message to both sides of the Capitol and both parties, and that is what this bill is attempting to do. If people think it is wrong, then they ought to vote for this amendment. If they think we have made a reasonable effort to get through the week and move the process forward, then they ought to vote it down. I hope they vote it down.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to, in a continuing comment on the previous subject, note that this committee has been quite generous, I think, in helping us to meet our responsibilities in dealing with this problem, chronic wasting disease. Last year, the committee provided $2.25 million for the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control. In the supplemental appropriation bill, which passed the House and the Senate, the committee provided $12 million in the House version, and thanks to the efforts of the other body, Senators Kohl and Feingold, they have provided $21 million in the Senate bill. In the Interior bill so far we have $2.7 million, and in the Agriculture bill, which will follow on, we have $16.4 million. So I think we have received fine cooperation on the legislative end from the committee, and I appreciate it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. I simply want to say, a lot more money will be required in the future, not just in Wisconsin but in a number of States around the country. We will have to deal with this as a national problem, because it is a national problem.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in the tumult of recent events, the passing of a great man did not receive as much attention as it should have. Monsignor George C. Higgins died on May 1. More than any other clergyman in this century, Monsignor Higgins personified the moral obligation that a just society has to honor work and workers. To me he more than anyone else over his long lifetime personified the demand for justice that should permeate our whole society. E.J. Dionne, the thoughtful Washington Post columnist, wrote a splendid column on the death of Monsignor Higgins. I commend it to my colleagues. The Great Monsignor There is no such thing as a timely death. But just when you thought all the stories on American priests were destined to be about evil committed and covered up, one of the truly great priests was called to his eternal reward. Monsignor George G. Higgins was the sort of Catholic clergyman regularly cast as a hero in movies of the 1930s and '50s. He was an uncompromising pro-labor priest who walked picket lines, fought anti-Semitism, supported civil rights and wrote and wrote and wrote in the hope that some of his arguments about social justice might penetrate somewhere. He got attached to causes before they became fashionable, and stuck with them after the fashionable people moved on. Cesar Chavez once said that no one had done more for American farm workers than Monsignor Higgins. In the 1980s, he traveled regularly to Poland in support of Solidarity's struggle against communism and became an important link between American union leaders and their Polish brethren. As it happens, even the day of Monsignor Higgins's death, at the age of 86, was appropriate. He passed from this world on May 1, the day that many countries set aside to honor labor and that the Catholic Church designates as the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker. If Higgins had been there when that famous carpenter was looking for a place to spend the night with his pregnant wife, the monsignor would certainly have taken the family in. He would also have handed Joseph a union card, told him he deserved better pay and benefits, and insisted that no working person should ever have to beg for shelter. Yes, Higgins sounds so old-fashioned--and in every good sense he was--that you might wonder about his relevance to our moment. Let us count the ways. One of the most astonishing and disturbing aspects of the Catholic Church's current scandal is the profound disjunction--that's a charitable word--between what the church preaches about sexuality and compassion toward the young and how its leaders reacted to the flagrant violation of these norms by priests. Higgins, who spent decades as the Catholic Church's point man on labor and social-justice issues, hated the idea of preachers' exhorting people to do one thing and then doing the opposite. And so he made himself into a true pain for any administrator of any Catholic institution who resisted the demands of workers for fair pay and union representation. ``These men and women mop the floors of Catholic schools, work in Catholic hospital kitchens and perform other sometimes menial tasks in various institutions,'' he once wrote. ``They have not volunteered to serve the church for less than proportionate compensation.'' ``The church has a long history of speaking out on justice and peace issues,'' he said. ``Yet only in more recent times has the church made it clear that these teachings apply as well to the workings of its own institutions.'' Where some religious leaders complain that they get caught up in scandal because they are unfairly held to higher standards, Higgins believed that higher standards were exactly the calling of those who claim the authority to tell others what to do. It bothered Higgins to the end of his life that the cause of trade unionism had become so unfashionable, especially among well-educated and well-paid elites. For 56 years, he wrote a column for the Catholic press, and he returned to union issues so often that he once felt obligated to headline one of his offerings:: ``Why There's So Much Ado About Labor in My Column.'' His answer was simple: ``I am convinced that we are not likely to have a fully free or democratic society over the long haul without a strong and effective labor movement.'' To those who saw collective bargaining as outdated in a new economy involving choice, mobility and entrepreneurship, Higgins would thunder back about the rights of those for whom such a glittering world was still, at best, a distant possibility: hospital workers, farm workers, fast-food workers and others who need higher wages to help their children reach their dreams. He could not abide well-paid intellectuals who regularly derided unions as dinosaurs, and he told them so, over and over. It is one of the highest callings of spiritual leaders to force those who live happy and comfortable lives to consider their obligations to those heavily burdened by injustice and deprivation. It is a great loss when such prophetic voices are stilled by scandal and the cynicism it breeds. Fortunately, that never happened to Higgins. He never had to shut up about injustice and, God bless him, he never did.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a perfectly reasonable bill and I intend to support it, but I must bring to the attention of the House certain facts that relate to the overall budget situation of which this bill is only a part. Because while the bill itself has been put together by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in a perfectly responsible way, the allocation process under the Budget Act, under which it comes to the floor, is in my view a charade, and I want to explain that. We are now for the third time going through the same drill that we have gone through the previous 2 years. The Committee on the Budget has imposed on this House a budget ceiling for domestic discretionary programs which is about $748 billion. Everyone understands, except perhaps 30 or 40 people in this House, everyone understands that, in the end, appropriation bills will wind up costing considerably more than that $748 billion. So this is a question of truth in packaging. The problem that we face, what is happening this year, as was the case in the last 2 years, is that the larger bills which are going to be coming later, the VA-HUD bill, the Labor-Health-Education-Social Security Services bill and the Commerce-Justice-State bill are all being cut by very large amounts below the levels that both sides of the aisle recognize will be needed to eventually pass those bills, in order to, on a temporary basis, free up money which can be put into bills like this one to make it look as though we can pass bills like this and still remain consistent with the overall Budget Act. Now, the fact that that is being done is not the fault of the Committee on Appropriations. It is the only choice left open to the chairman because of the unrealistic spending levels that are provided for in the budget resolution. But what this means, in the end, is that (while we will be able temporarily to hide from the truth, unfortunately, and we will be able to pass the smaller bills, such as the Ag bill, the Treasury Post Office bill, the military construction bill, this bill, and a few others), come September, guess what! Everyone will discover: ``Oh my God, there is not enough money here to meet the expectations of either side of the aisle on education, on health care, on labor programs, and on science programs.'' The VA-HUD bill, for instance, has been cut $2.7 billion below the budget request of the President in order to temporarily free up room for bills like this. The Labor-HHS bill is going to be cutting teacher improvement programs. It is going to be cutting Pell Grants and other programs if it is going to comply with the overall spending limits. So, in essence, we have a charade. And I think the House ought to be facing up to it now versus later. But we are not going to do it because, I realize, that the House leadership has only one play that they know how to run. And as I said in committee, it kind of reminds me of my high school football team, when Dick Gumness was the quarterback and Jack Bush was the half back. We were unscored on the first seven games of the season. Then, in the last game, the opposition, Eau Claire, scored 14 points the first half, we scored 7 points the second half and were driving for a second tying touchdown. We got to about the 20 yard line, and Jack Bush, the half back, had his bell rung on a play. He came back into the huddle, and Dick Gumness, the quarterback, recognized that Jack could not remember any other play, except the one we had just run. So we ran that same play five straight times in order to cross the goal line, because that is the only play Jack could remember. That is what it reminds me of when I look at what the leadership is doing here. This is the only play they can figure out, so they are going to run it again, again, and again, even if in the end it results in a futile effort and no score. That is the only difference between our game and this one. There is not going to be any score until people face reality. So sometime between now and October 1 people are going to have to recognize that the budget resolution is a fiction. That does not mean there should not be a budget resolution. There should. But it should be an honest one which honestly, up-front, ahead of time estimates what the cost will be rather than hiding the true cost until the end game. That is why this Congress is being delayed in so many other aspects of its work. It is a shame, but it is the only play, evidently, that the leadership knows how to run.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan rule. Both ought to be supported. The bill itself will pass overwhelmingly after the House is finished disposing of it. I want to congratulate all of those who had anything to do with putting it together, most especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). Having said that, I cannot help but noting how ironic it is that on the same day that the House will be debating the bill that provides the resources to enable our military to defend this country and to take the battle to terrorists around the world, how ironic it is that this House on another bill coming up later today will not stand up for the very values that we are today buttressing by the funding that we are providing in this bill. What will happen today, in my view, on the rule on prescription drugs will demonstrate that the biggest threat to this democracy and the biggest threat to the average citizen just trying to get through the day and pay their bills, the biggest threat to them is not from any foreign power. The biggest threat is from some of their own representatives who will refuse to practice democracy here at home. We are shortly going to be considering a prescription drug bill which is of, by, and for the pharmaceutical industry. It is designed not to solve the problem of seniors who face mounting drug costs. It is designed to block us from being able to provide any comprehensive, meaningful relief by providing a guaranteed benefit under Medicare. It is apparent to me that those who run this House have determined that the only way they can win with their proposal is to avoid giving the elected representatives of every senior in America an opportunity to choose how we can most effectively solve the problem of runaway prescription drug prices. It seems to me that a Congress which can produce legislation such as we have before us this morning is a Congress that ought not to be afraid to provide choice in the way we deal with the problems of our senior citizens. We hear the Republican leadership of this Congress prattle on to an almost nauseating degree about the need for us to provide choice programs in schools; but they are apparently afraid to give us the opportunity to choose among alternatives when it comes to dealing with what is probably the biggest financial crisis that our senior citizens have today. I am going to support this rule, and I will support this bill; but it is a sad day when the elected leadership of this House, who more than any other have a responsibility to defend democratic values, decide instead that the only way they can win is by crushing those same democratic values. Make no mistake about it, the prescription drug bill which is coming at us today is not designed to solve a problem. It is designed to prevent Members of this House from producing a comprehensive alternative that will solve the problem. It says to America's seniors, you are going to have to accept the fact that we have decided in our infinite wisdom that the only solution we will provide for the problem is a subsidizing of insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, that is not what the average senior expects. It is not what our constituents, regardless of age, elected us to come here to do. Before this day is over, it will be a shameful day in the history of democracy in this House.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair could inform us how much time this bill has taken today in comparison to how much time the defense appropriation bill took earlier in the day. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania was interested.

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

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees directs the House Members serving on the conference to convert what has been all too often merely a rhetorical assault on terrorism into a real war. It requires that we go to the higher dollar figure on any item directly related to the war on terrorism, and it also directs that we delete from the conference report funding for any item that is earmarked for a specific project or individual Member of Congress. That is to ensure that this supplemental remains focused on the job before us, fighting terrorism, and that those engaged in that war on behalf of the American people have the resources that they need to conduct that war. I find that ordinary people are somewhat amazed when they find that, despite all the rhetoric about a war on terrorism, we often continue to decline to provide the resources needed to actually conduct that effort. One example is the fact that the Pentagon called up 80,000 Guard and Reservists following September 11. We need those Reserves because our regular force is overwhelmed with all of the requirements being placed on them. If you do not believe me, Secretary Rumsfeld has made that statement. We do not have enough mechanics to keep all of our planes in the air, we do not have enough MPs to protect our bases and guard prisoners. But, remarkably, when the Pentagon told the White House budget office that it would cost $5.8 billion more than was contained in the regular fiscal 2003 appropriation bill to pay the cost of those Guards and Reservists called up to active duty, the White House budget office told them they could only have $4.1 billion. As a result, many of those reserves will have to be sent home early, unless we appropriate a considerable amount above the White House request. In my view, this is ludicrous. It is one of those situations that continues because it is so outrageous that nobody really believes it is going on. The truth is that some of the same people at the other end of the avenue who give lectures about the war on terrorism, particularly in the OMB, are particularly stingy when it comes to providing cash that is actually needed to conduct the effort. As a result, the resources needed by those who are actually engaged in that effort are not getting there and will not get there unless Congress acts to reverse the request. I would give the House another example. We have heard a lot of talk in the last several days about a dirty bomb. The President and Secretary of Energy, a former Republican Senator, a man named to that office by the President and confirmed by the Senate when it was still in Republican hands, a man respected on both sides of the aisle, Secretary Abraham, has asked that we spend some money in this bill to deny terrorists access to the radioactive materials that could be used to build a dirty bomb. He asked that we clean up sites where we used to make nuclear weapons and increase security at those sites. He asked that we relocate low level radioactive materials in a central depository. He asked that we provide more security for the movement of nuclear weapons. This the White House Budget Director did not say no to, they said ``hell, no.'' I would like to insert in the Record at this point a letter written by the Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Budget to OMB in order to demonstrate what I just said. The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, March 14, 2002. Hon. Mitchell Daniels, Jr., Director, Office of Management and Budget, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Daniels: This letter and accompanying enclosure transmit the Department of Energy's proposal to request supplemental funding to meet urgent and compelling requirements for safeguards and security, emergency response, and energy security and assurance activities. The Department of Energy is entrusted with the mission of designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling, stockpiling, refurbishing, decommissioning, and most importantly protecting the Nation's critical nuclear complex. To meet the Department's critical security mission, we are storing vast amounts of materials that remain highly volatile and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed in the wrong hands. These materials permeate the Departmental complex including sites under the programmatic jurisdiction of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Environmental Management, and the Office of Science. The events of September 11 resulted in heightened security throughout the complex. Our sites were directed to conduct vulnerability assessments based on an evaluation of potential consequences of the type of event that occurred on September 11. These security vulnerabilities were assessed on a site- by-site basis and immediate action was taken to mitigate many of the concerns. As a result, the Department issued Interim Implementing Guidance to the Design Basis Threat document that outlined the basis for initial physical security measures. In conjunction with this guidance, I directed the Departmental Elements to reassess their security requirements and associated costs with a view towards maintaining the highest level of security commensurate with the revised threat and response strategy. Although the initial supplemental and funds appropriated by Congress helped respond to the most urgent near term security needs, the Department now is unable to meet the next round of critical security mission requirements. The funding request of $379.7 million identified in the enclosure is a critical down payment to the safety and security of our Nation and its people. Failure to support these urgent security requirements is a risk that would be unwise. I appreciate the time your staff has spent with us in discussions about the Department's security concerns and needs. However, as you can see, we need your financial support to continue addressing the critical security requirements that face the Department and our Nation. Accordingly, if you and your senior staff need a more detailed classified briefing of our requirements, threats, and strategies, please have your staff contact Mr. Joseph Mahaley, the Department's Director of Security, at 202-586- 3345. My point of contact on the specifics of this funding supplemental request is Dr. Bruce M. Carnes, the Director of the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer, who can be reached on 202-586-4171. Sincerely, Spencer Abraham.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply like to say that I completely agree with the remarks made by the gentleman with respect to the Transportation Security Agency. There is no question that that agency so far has been without a clue, and they are out of control. I think the gentleman has played an excellent role in trying to introduce them to reality. Let me simply say that obviously that agency needs to be straightened out, but I am sure that he understands as well that eventually that agency is going to have to receive more money than is in either bill, probably. I would be, for instance, very interested in working out a proposal under which we would appropriate the money that is needed to that agency, but hold it in reserve until they meet the standards that the gentleman has laid out, because I think both of us want to deal with the problem. We simply want to make sure we are not throwing money at an agency that does not know what to do with it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.