Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have the attention of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the distinguished ranking member. Mr. Chairman, on each of the last three appropriation bills, we were asked by the majority to agree to an overall time limit so that we could finish the bills on a reasonable time schedule, and we agreed on all three of those bills. Last night, at the close of business, at the direction of the minority leader, I went to the majority and indicated that we would appreciate it if at the beginning of business today, sometime between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., that the majority would present to us a proposal for time limits on all amendments pending on the bill so that we could get some kind of time agreement so that Members would know where they were, and we could finish this bill at a reasonable time. We did not receive an offer until fairly late, as you can see, this evening. I asked the majority leader why it took so long before we could begin negotiations on this bill, and the response that I got was that sometimes bills have to ripen. I, frankly, think that this debate and this bill at this point is over ripe. And we believe on this side that we ought to vote on the pending amendments, that we ought to rise, and that tomorrow morning we ought to come back prepared to get a time agreement to limit debate on all amendments to the bill. We believe that to prevent amendments from breeding and multiplying that we ought to have an understanding that there would be no further amendments that could be offered from this point on. And we would ask the majority the same request that we asked them last night, if they could present us tomorrow morning with a proposal for time limits on all remaining amendments to this bill. What we would suggest, after we have discussed this with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who, as you know, feels very strongly about his amendment. He has indicated to us that he would be willing to limit debate on that amendment to an hour. There has been some expression of concern that that might be too long; and so, he has reluctantly agreed that he would be willing to debate that amendment tomorrow morning for 40 minutes. And so, what I would urge is that the majority agree to a proposition under which we would vote tonight, come back tomorrow morning, have an understanding yet tonight that when we resume tomorrow morning that the Waxman amendment would be pending for no longer than 40 minutes, and that during that time we could work out a remaining agreement on the rest of the bill so that we could guarantee that the bill would be finished by Monday night. In that way, everyone can have their say in an orderly way, Members can know when they can catch their planes, Members will know when they have to be here for amendments, Members will also know and the Committee will know that there will not be any additional amendments. I am sure the majority does not want amendments to be still coming into the desk over the weekend, which is why we are prepared, in an agreement tomorrow morning, to settle all remaining time differences. I would urge the majority to consider that so that we can be back here at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning ready with an understandable arrangement.

Mr. OBEY. So we would begin the debate at 4 o'clock with no votes before 6 o'clock on Monday.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I could not hear what the gentleman just said.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, it is. The only loose end is the question of when you would want to begin Monday. Because, obviously, Members are going to be coming back on their planes and, so, they will not be able to start until mid-afternoon on Monday. Would the gentleman suggest 4 o'clock, or what?

Mr. OBEY. If that is acceptable to the majority, then I would urge that the Committee rise and we vote on the pending amendments.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that I agree with every word that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has said. I also agree with the words of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). I want to congratulate both sponsors of this amendment. This may seem like a very small thing. But liberty is the biggest thing of all; and if it is not fully provided for every individual, then it is really safe for no one. I really believe that if this is adopted today, this will be the most important thing in what is otherwise a very questionable bill.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman from Iowa who just spoke, but I respectfully disagree with his interpretation. The fact is the administration is in support of the amendment I am offering and the administration was in support of the amendment I offered to provide additional resources to pursue antitrust and anticompetitive activities in the agricultural area as well. This is not a new fight. Three years ago the Senate adopted a number of amendments adding resources so that we could do this very thing, go after anticompetitive practices in the agricultural industry; and in conference the Republican majority unanimously, with one exception, voted against doing that, and we lost the fight. I would point out it is far from the case to suggest that there has been a 40 percent reduction in workload on these cases in the Justice Department. The fact is it does not matter how many cases you have. What matters is how complicated they are. And today, in this new economy, in this very complicated economy, these issues are many times more complicated than they were in 1910. That is why they need more resources, and that is why I have tried to offer the amendment. Point of Order

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the case is clear, we cannot do a lot directly to influence the price being charged to consumers for gasoline or any other product, but we can try to see to it that government has enough resources to keep the rules of the game honest and to enable us to, in fact, find out what the facts are so that we are not all going on myth. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of this amendment. It demonstrates whose side you are on.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, those merger cases draw staff resources away from the commission's nonmerger activities, which often deal with existing continuing harm to consumers. The Federal Trade Commission has a continuing challenge in determining how to divide its resources between its merger and nonmerger investigations. At the beginning of this decade, the staff distribution for merger and nonmerger work was roughly 50/50. At the end of the decade, the ratio had changed to more than 2 to 1 in favor of mergers. When nonmerger emergencies develop that require antitrust investigation, such as the present gasoline price hikes, the merger wave has left the FTC with fewer resources to address the consumer harm as quickly and efficiently as warranted. Investigations such as the gasoline pricing investigation are staff intensive, time-consuming. They require analysis of all facets of a very complex industry. An investigation like this severely strains the competing workload being handled by the Agency's 150 antitrust lawyers. In this same industry, the FTC recently committed similar numbers of staff for its cases involving the mergers of Exxon, Mobil and BP Arco. Based on those recent experiences, it is clear that the FTC needs additional resources to fill its antitrust mission. Let me remind you of one other fact. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has done us a service by pointing out these facts. If we compare the net income of major oil companies first quarter to first quarter, you see that Arco is up 136 percent; Amoco, 296 percent; Chevron, 291 percent; Conoco, 371 percent; Exxon Mobil a mere 108 percent; Phillips, 257 percent, Shell, 117 percent and Texaco, ``Trust your car to the man who wears the star,'' was the old slogan, Texaco, a 473 percent increase. It seems to me that if you want to do something about this, you should heed the words not of me, but of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who signed along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) a bipartisan letter asking the committee to, quote, ``provide full funding for the Department of Justice's antitrust division and the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition for this fiscal year.'' Mr. Chairman, I would just add one sentence in closing. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said this: Antitrust laws sustain free markets and dissipate political pressure for government regulation. For that reason, Republicans and, indeed, all citizens should support it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, some Republicans have criticized enforcement of antitrust laws, claiming that it allows government to regulate the economy and stifle innovation. On the contrary, antitrust law is the antithesis of government regulation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to restore full funding of the President's requests for antitrust activities of the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. We have had a series of efforts in the Committee on Appropriations to try to deal with the fact that we have an every increasing concentration of economic power in all of our areas of our economy. For example, four companies currently control 81 percent of the cattle purchases and beef processing and wholesale marketing, and in 5 years we have seen the margin between the price paid to farmers and wholesale price for beef jump 24 percent. Four companies now control 56 percent of the pork market. The margin between the wholesale price of pork and the price paid to the farmer has jumped by more than 50 percent. We have the same problem with poultry. We offered an amendment in the full committee, when the agriculture appropriations bill was before it, to try to deal with the problem of economic concentration, to give the Agriculture Department more power to do that, along with the Justice Department, and the majority party voted us down. Mr. Chairman, we now are seeking to do the same thing in other areas of the economy. I would like to read something that Justice Marshall wrote a long time ago. He wrote this, Antitrust laws in general and the Sherman Act, in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free enterprise system as the bill of rights is as to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms. And an article which quoted that statement, an article by Peter Carstensen, (who is a professor of law at the University of Wisconsin and with whom I graduated from the University of Wisconsin a number of years ago,) the article says this: With respect to concentration power and agriculture, past failure to enforce antitrust law has resulted in increased concentration in both the markets applying to agriculture and in those that process and distribute its products. These 800- pound gorillas trash the agricultural economy to protect and enrich their present and future position in the market. The farmer and rancher increasingly has no voice in shaping business policy, but simply is bound to obey orders issued by others. Once independent farmers and ranchers are becoming the serfs of the 20th century. Mr. Chairman, I agree that that is what is happening. If we take a look at the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts which were adopted by this Congress a long, long time, it would be well to take a look at a speech made at the time by Senator Sherman who was a Republican from Ohio. He said this, If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competition and fix the price of any commodity. And that brings me to the subject of oil and gasoline prices. This amendment is an effort to restore $29 million to the Federal Trade Commission and $21 million to the Justice Department for purposes of trying to assure that we have a fully competitive marketplace. We have heard a lot of noise about the problem of gasoline prices recently. The Federal Trade Commission has recently been asked to investigate gasoline price hikes across the country. Since spring, Midwest consumers are paying considerably higher prices for gasoline, many pay well more than $2. Price increases of that kind require scrutiny by antitrust enforcement authorities to determine whether they result from collusion or any other kind of anticompetitive conduct. In addition, staff is needed to address this issue. The need for close antitrust scrutiny is particularly clear in the energy industry where even small price increases can strain the budgets of many Americans. These increases also have a direct and lasting impact on the entire economy. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to date, the antitrust arm of the Federal Trade Commission spent almost one-third of its total enforcement budget on investigations related to the energy industry! The FTC's competition mission is to protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct and that job requires substantial resources. The commission is currently hindered by resources inadequate to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. The statutory requirements of merger enforcement during one of the most significant waves of multibillion dollar mergers in U.S. history demand the commitment of significant staff and resources to prevent possible future price increases.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to fully understand just what it is that we are doing here. I very much support this amendment, because it makes a bad bill a little better in terms of this item, but I want Members to understand that there is a little kabuki dance going on here, and that is required by the refusal of the majority party to provide an allocation to this subcommittee strong enough to meet our national responsibilities. Make no mistake about it. This amendment, while it is certainly welcome, will not do the job in restoring the resources we need to ensure equal justice in America, and it will certainly not be enough to justify voting for this bill. Last year the Federal Government spent $305 million to try to give people without adequate resources an opportunity to have their day in court, which is a constitutional mandate. This bill provides $141 million, a savage cut. The President asked us, because we are moving from an era of huge deficits to huge surpluses, to provide just a few dollars more for the very poorest people in this country, as long as this Congress had decided to give $90 billion in tax cuts to people who make over three hundred grand a year. The committee's response was to say no way, no way, Jose; and, instead, they provided $141 million. This amendment now seeks to raise it, not to the President's requested $340 million, not to last year's level of $305 million, but to $275 million. That is inadequate. We cannot do any better under the limitations being imposed by the majority budget, which provide so much money for tax cuts for folks on the high end; but this amendment is the best we can do under those circumstances, and so I will vote for it. But do not let anybody think that a great favor has been done by the Congress when we do this. We will still fall far short of the need. We will fall far short of the legal needs and our moral responsibilities in providing this funding. So what I would suggest at this point is that we vote for the amendment. It will provide a little salve for our consciences, I suppose; but it will do precious little more to provide for the real needs of living and breathing human beings who have legal rights which they cannot exercise because this Congress makes Scrooge look like Santa Claus on a good day.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the assertion of the gentleman from Kentucky is not correct. The President's budget was not brought to the floor. The majority's interpretation of what the President's budget was was brought to the floor, and that interpretation was disowned by the White House as well as those of us on this side of the aisle. My colleagues were essentially bringing a false product to the floor and asking us to assume it as our own, and we were not dumb enough to do it.

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

Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I recognize that. But as the gentleman knows, these bills are all going to be vetoed, so they have not a prayer of getting home. The ball is never going to get out of the park on any of these bills.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let me just simply say, in response to the remarks of my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, I certainly expect that by the end of June the House will have all or almost all of the appropriations bills through the House, but frankly, I think that means almost nothing. I do not know of a baseball game in which we score a run by having 12 or 13 men standing on first base. The way it works in government is passage of the House gets us to first base, passage of the Senate gets us to second base, passage of the conference report after we iron out agreements between the Senate and the House gets us to third base, and signature by the President gets us home. Six of these bills that we have ground through day after day and night after night are stuck on first base. A few of them may get to second base. All six of those are not going to get home. They are not going to get a presidential signature until they begin to reflect reality. The problem is, we have gone through a huge debate taking many, many hours, on bills that we all know are not real. We all know that, in the end, the majority party is not going to be able to provide $90 billion in tax cuts for those who make over $300,000 a year, they are not going to be able to provide $200 billion in inheritance tax cuts for the richest 400 families in this country because the President is not going to sign those bills. When Members finally recognize that, then there will be enough room in these bills to deal with the education needs of the country, to deal with the health care needs of the country, to deal with the foreign policy needs of the country, to deal with the criminal justice needs of the country, to deal with the law enforcement problems of the country, and to eliminate some of the ludicrous shortages that we have here today in the antitrust budget, in the trade enforcement budget, and the like. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that, in a sense, I feel strange even taking the House's time, because these bills are going to be adjusted. Every time a bill comes to the floor we are told by the majority party, ``Do not worry, this is only the second step in the process. Somewhere along the line it is going to get fixed.'' What that means is somewhere along the line, somebody else is going to exercise their responsibilities. That is not much of a way to do business, in my view. But I guess since the bills are here we have no choice but to lay down clear markers about what we consider to be the shortcomings of those bills, as long as we are forced to go through this charade. Eventually I would urge the gentleman to recognize, and I think the gentleman from Florida knows it, I would urge the House leadership to recognize that they can pass these bills in one of two ways. We can either pass these bills, as we just passed the previous appropriation bill, with a broad bipartisan coalition and pass these bills with a margin of three to four to one with a strong bipartisan chorus of support, or we can try to pass them on their side of the aisle with a few token votes on this side. The majority has chosen to do the latter. That gets them to first base, it gets the bills out of the House, but it does not get them any further around the base paths. And until the leadership allows us to legislate rather than produce these ``let's pretend'' bills, we will continue to hear ``Well, we know these bills are inadequate, but we will do better in September.'' It would be much better if we did better now!

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. That is not what I said.

Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why I am going to vote against this rule and against this bill. First of all, we just voted on an amendment that was a nongermane amendment that the Committee on Rules put in order which was offered by a member of the majority side. But now on this bill every single Democratic amendment that was requested to be made in order by the Committee on Rules was denied. That is the procedural reason why I am voting against it. Secondly, it just boggles my mind. If you take a look at this bill, this Congress just voted to give the 400 richest families in America a $200 billion tax cut. Now it has to squeeze out all other programs in order to try to keep that commitment to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in this country. For instance, it says that it is going to slash the Legal Services Corporation, which is the corporation that helps poor people have legal defense when they have a lawsuit. It is insufficient in the area of civil rights. It is certainly destructive in the area of peacekeeping with its budget cuts. We have all Members of this House crying all over the floor about what is happening with gas prices. Yet this bill cuts $50 million below the request for Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission programs to pursue antitrust actions and other noncompetitive actions in the marketplace. I would especially like to focus for one moment on that latter issue. On the agriculture subcommittee bill when it was before the Committee on Appropriations, I offered an amendment to try to do something about the monopolistic practices that occur in the food industry, where you have just literally a handful of companies, four or five, who control the majority of processing for poultry, for beef, for pork and for other food products in this country. That works to make farmers serfs rather than farmers; and it does not do anything very helpful for consumers as well. In this bill, we see the same problem. The primary obligation we have in the capitalist system is to see to it that for consumers and for every business in this country, we have truly competitive marketplaces. You do not have those marketplaces if you do not have the ability of government to check out what practices are endangering those free marketplaces, whether they occur in the computer industry, in poultry processing, you name it. Yet this bill has whacked the Justice antitrust division; it has whacked the Federal Trade Commission and in the process has made it very difficult for those agencies to pursue their job of keeping the American marketplace a truly competitive marketplace. We have to understand that with this changing economy, we have these huge new corporate entities that are being created overnight, and not just on the Internet. You have got one company that has become so big in the last year, its increase in market capitalization, its increase, I am talking about Oracle, is larger than the combined market capitalization for Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors combined. We need to have the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission with sufficient resources to attack those problems. And when we see the oil industry gouging people as they are gouging them today in the Midwest on gasoline prices and we see Members of Congress stumbling over each other to get to the nearest microphone to rise in protest against that, what do we see this body doing? We see them cutting the President's request for the Federal Trade Commission, the agency charged with the responsibility to review not only those anticompetitive market practices but dozens of others by dozens of other companies in the economy. This bill is totally inadequate to defend the rights of consumers, it is totally inadequate to assure every corporation in America that they are competing on a level playing field, and it is antibusiness when it does that. There is nothing more pro-business than seeing to it that an American entrepreneur or an American corporation has the ability to compete in a real marketplace. This bill denies that. We ought to vote down both the rule and the bill.

Mr. OBEY. Market capitalization, but not Oracle. I was using Oracle as an example of increased market capitalization.