Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that I have the right to close.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, last week, the majority party in this House posed for political holy pictures and promised spending discipline and bragged about how much spending they were going to cut. This week they have brought to the floor this bill which adds $4 billion to the spending requests that the President has made for a supplemental. And then on top of that, it intends in an amendment that they will shortly offer to add yet another $4 billion in spending. And the reason they are going to do that in the DOD account is simply so they move $4 billion in spending from next year to this year, because that frees up $4 billion for them to add for Members' projects in the coming year. It is very simply a $4 billion end run around the spending ceilings which they bragged about imposing just 5 days ago. They must think that people are not watching. Well, I suspect they are. The net result is that they come in for this entire fiscal year spending $17 billion more than the President asks for. That to me is an indication of just how false those promises have been that we would see straight bookkeeping and fiscal discipline under their budget. That alone, I think, is a reason to defeat this proposition. I have already indicated my concern about the Colombian war effort, but I think this is yet another reason to vote against this budget hocus pocus.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Chairman, at the end of last year, the President had asked for $568 billion in appropriated spending, and Congress had approved $578 billion. In this supplemental as it now comes before us, the President has asked for additional funds which would take his total request for the year to $573 billion. The supplemental has been added to by the committee so that, if this bill passes as it is now before us, we will wind up spending $587 billion over this existing fiscal year, which is $13 billion more than the President asked. In addition, the amendment that will be offered today and which will be supported by the Republican leadership will add yet another $4 billion to this package in the DoD arena. That will take total spending for this fiscal year to $591 billion, some $17 billion above the President's request. That additional $4 billion which is being asked for by the House leadership is there for a very simple reason. There is nothing wrong with what that money is actually being spent for. But the fact is it is being spent on routine items for one simple purpose, and that is to get around the very budget resolution that was passed just 5 days ago on this floor. Because by moving that $4 billion in expenditures into this existing fiscal year, my colleagues make room in the next fiscal year for $4 billion for Members' projects and Members' pork. Nice game if they can get away with it. I suggest Senator McCain get out his pencil. He better get ready, because a lot of stuff is going to come over there he is probably not going to like. This is one major reason to vote against this bill before us today. But there is another, in my view, even more serious reason. We are being asked by the President and the Speaker of the House to support $1.3 billion for Colombia. In my view, that is the camel's nose under the tent for a massive long-term commitment to a military operation in Colombia that has as much to do with the domestic situation in Colombia as it has to do with our drug problems here at home. General Wilhelm from SouthCom has indicated that this is the first year of a 5-year commitment, in his judgment. It seems to me if a can- do Marine like General Wilhelm is predicting that this is going to be a 5-year operation, that it is likely to last a lot longer, because things have a way of getting more complicated than Congress originally expects. As I said in the Committee on Rules, I detest Vietnam analyses under most circumstances, but I believe that, in this case, there is a very real parallel. In fact, there are two. When the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was debated in 1964, it took 2 days in the Senate. It took 40 minutes on the floor of this House. This Congress has rued the day ever since that it did not give more time to consider that proposition. Today, when my amendment comes before us to eliminate the most dangerous parts of that Colombian package, we will have exactly 20 minutes to discuss it, 10 minutes for those of us who are opposed to undertaking that involvement at this time. Let me tell my colleagues what I think the unanswered questions are that we ought to be asking. In my view, this Congress has no real knowledge of what it is we are about to embark upon. I do not see any real plan by the administration. I see a plan to have a plan, but I do not see a real plan. There is no specific authorization for this proposition. Before we slide into this operation, I think we ought to ask some questions. First of all, is this really an anti-drug campaign, or is it a political campaign, a pacification in Colombia? Will this really produce a reduction in drug availability in the United States? The House, in the rule it just adopted, has eliminated its ability to vote on the Pelosi amendment. The Pelosi amendment was an attempt to add additional money to fight drugs here at home by expanding our drug treatment and prevention program. I would point out that the Rand Corporation, in a study financed in part by the U.S. Army, indicated that a dollar spent to eliminate drug use here at home is 23 times more effective than a dollar spent to try to interdict or to reduce supply in some foreign land. Yet we are being prevented from voting on the most effective way to deal with drugs in this country. I also think we need to be aware of the fact that in Colombia itself there is substantial doubt about whether that society is ready to take this issue on. If they are not, we cannot do it for them. I do not know, for instance, how many Americans understand that if we take a look at the ruling elite in Colombia, their sons do not serve in combat. Because if one is a high school graduate, one is exempted from having to serve in combat in the Colombian armed forces. Do my colleagues really think we are going to be able to sustain a 5- or 10-year military operation with that kind of divided duty in that society? I doubt it. What happens if the battalions that we are now training do not succeed? We are training a few thousand men so they can try to root out the narcos in 40,000 square miles of jungle. Let us say we succeed, which I think is highly unlikely. What is to prevent them from simply moving into the other 150,000 square miles of jungle in that country? I do not think very much. I think this is ill conceived and ill thought out. If this does not work, what is the next step? Will we then cut and run, or will we then deepen our involvement? I do not think, given our past experience in Vietnam, that we are likely to just say, ``Oh, well, we gave it the good old college try, so now we are going to yank the plug.'' I do not think whoever is the future president is going to be able to make that decision. That means a long-haul problem. What I am going to be asking this House to do, eventually, is to allow the money for police training to flow, to allow their helicopters to go down to Colombia, but I am going to be asking my colleagues to delay until July the vote on the over $500 million in additional funding that is meant to expand our basic military commitment in Colombia until the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence can hold more hearings on this so that Congress knows what it is doing before it acts. And my amendment will provide expedited procedures to assure that we would be able to vote on it in July. We are being told that lots of very bright professional people have put this package together so we need have no fear. Well, I respect Secretary Albright, I respect General McCaffery, I respect Mr. Pickering in the State Department, I respect the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). But with all due respect to them, every individual Member of this House has a constitutional duty to exercise his or her own judgment on an issue of this gravity, and I do not think we are able to do that under this truncated arrangement. So I would urge, for those and other reasons, that my colleagues oppose this bill today. I have no illusions that my amendment will pass. I think it is incredible we could not even vote on the Pelosi amendment, but I would urge Members not to make the same mistake that was made on this House floor in the Gulf of Tonkin. This may not be the same as Vietnam. There are undoubtedly major differences. But there are some very disturbing similarities, and I would urge my colleagues to take those similarities into consideration and delay consideration of this crucial vote until the Congress knows a whole lot more than it does today about what the proper course of action ought to be. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The microphone of the gentleman from Alabama is on.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not need any reminders from anyone about what illicit drugs do to people in this country. My wife has been a speech therapist. She has been a social worker. She has dealt with people in Saint Elizabeth's and at Georgetown Hospital. She has seen crack babies close up. Once one has seen that, one does not need any lectures about what stupid use of drugs will do in this society. The issue is how we deal with that problem. What I think the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is simply saying to my colleagues is that we think that they are putting all of their eggs in one basket and that the evidence shows it is the wrong basket. We have 3\1/2\ million people in this country who are in severe need of drug treatment and yet cannot get it because of inadequate programs to provide that treatment. We are currently able to provide only 37 percent of the estimated 5.7 million Americans who need treatment with the treatment that they need. Yet, if we look at an evaluation done by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, and it is cited on page 97 of the committee report, we see ``A five-year evaluation of SAMHSA substance abuse treatment services found treatment has significant and lasting benefits. Patients receiving treatment reported 50 percent decrease in drug and alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment, 53 percent decrease in alcohol/drug related medical visits, 43 percent decrease in criminal activity, 56 percent decrease in sexual encounters for money or drugs, 51 percent decrease in sexual encounters with an injection drug user, 43 percent decrease in homelessness, and a 19 percent increase in employment.'' That is what the evidence shows one can get if one puts money in drug treatment. Yet the leadership of this House and the Committee on Rules, which is its agent, denied the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) the opportunity to offer an amendment to put one dime of additional money into drug treatment and drug prevention. Then my colleagues have got the gall to come here and ask her why she offers this amendment. I will tell them why she offers this amendment. It is the only way she can get a discussion of the issue on the floor. We tried not to eliminate a dime for Colombia. All we asked our colleagues to do is to delay $522 million that we thought was going to get us in a war that we did not know how to get out of, and recognize the Rand study, which says that we get 34 more times bang for the buck if we put the money where she wanted to put it as opposed to where the House decided to put it. So if my colleagues want to know why this amendment is here, it is because it is the only way that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) can get an opportunity to ask them again and again why, if they are willing to fight the drug war a thousand miles from here, why are they not willing to fight it in their own backyard by increasing drug treatment. That is where the money ought to go.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I start by reminding the House that there is no authorization for the action that we are about to take. This bill contains $1.3 billion as a downpayment on what will be at least a 5-year war in Colombia. Some say it is a drug war; some say it is a civil war. I think it is both. I hate drugs. They destroy lives, and they destroy communities. But this amendment does not in any way limit funds to help the Colombian police, it does not limit funds for their helicopters, it does not limit funds for their intelligence operations or for the radar that we are supplying. I favor air interdiction. All this amendment does is delay until after July 15 the $522 million downpayment on what will be at least a 5-year expanded military commitment which will involve ourselves unquestionably in a civil war. This delay simply gives the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence time to ask questions that this institution has an obligation to ask before we vote these funds. Now, I understand our Speaker will close debate. I would ask him and I would ask my colleagues the following questions: Do we know what the 5-year full cost will be? We are told $1.3 billion for the first year. Do we know what we are going to have to spend over the entire 5 or 6 years? Second, if U.S. advisors are kidnapped, what are our plans then? My colleagues ought to ask the administration, do they have a plan? If these few troops that we will train cannot control the 150,000 square miles of jungle in Colombia, what will we do next? Will we just quit? I doubt it. I do not know if the administration has an answer to that, and I do not know if the Speaker does. What can we do to make certain that we know what we are doing? I would suggest one thing we ought to ask is why is it that we have not been allowed, through an amendment today, to offer drug treatment to more than 37 percent of Americans who need it? We have been denied that opportunity today. This may or may not be similar to Vietnam, but I do see one difference. The Gulf of Tonkin was debated for all of 40 minutes on this floor. This amendment will be debated for all of 20 minutes. That is the major distinction, I fear. Mr. Chairman, there has been no real debate. We have not had a chance to get into it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) said this bill cuts money for Colombia. It does not cut one dime. It simply delays $522 million until his committee and the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) committee can hold the hearings that ought to be held. We ought to have this authorized before we move ahead. Mr. Chairman, I know the President of the United States is for this, and I know the Speaker of this House is for this, and I have had so many of my colleagues say to me, ``Oh, I think you are right, we probably ought to delay this; but after all, you know the Speaker wants it.'' I respect that. I would just remind my colleagues of one thing. On this issue, on all issues affecting our involvement in war, we are not to be the agents of the President; we are not to be the agents of the Speaker. We owe it to ourselves and our constituents in this body to exercise our own judgment on a crucial, crucial matter; and I beg my colleagues to do that this afternoon. All my amendment does is to delay our decision until we know more about it than we know today. I do not think, given our history, that that is too much to ask. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that everyone agreed with us on the need for more drug treatment. Then I would ask why did the gentleman vote for a rule that prevented us from being able to provide this drug treatment?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Let me observe that the gentleman says that if this money is not appropriated it will be used somewhere else. Well, I do not know who is going to use it. Maybe this chart again gives us a good guideline, because it shows that when we are done with this bill today that the majority will have voted to spend $591 billion for this existing fiscal year as opposed to the $573 billion requested by the President. I am not voting for this turkey. They may be planning to. I would also say that what I really think this amendment is about is this. There is an amendment coming later today which will take $4 billion in regular appropriations for the Department of Defense for routine items that normally would be handled next year. Instead, that money is going to be moved into this existing fiscal year. That is $4 billion more that will be spent this year that the President is not asking for. The effect of that is to give us a $4 billion hole in next year's budget which can then be filled up with congressional pork projects in the Defense Department. That is the intent. The result: $4 billion in added spending. So now this amendment conveniently comes along and gives people a political fig leaf. The rhetoric over there is made quite clear. This amendment is not real. It is symbolic. It is not substantive. All this amendment does is take $4 billion, which is in the Treasury, and appropriate it back to the Treasury. Now, my colleagues on the other side may be impressed with that. I am sorry, I am not.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the former governor of Texas, Ann Richards, observed once that you can dress up a pig, and you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. I think that is sort of the case that we are faced with here this afternoon. This amendment is a transparent attempt to put lipstick on a pretty sad bill that underlies this whole debate. Let me simply explain what this amendment really does. This amendment is Washington at its ``finest'', pretending to do something when, in fact, it does nothing. Now, what this bill does or what this amendment does is to take $4 billion, which right now sits in the Treasury and is scheduled for deficit reduction, and it diverts it for, guess what, deficit reduction. Here is the way it works. Under normal budget processes, dollars that are not appropriated at the end of the year stay in the Treasury, and they are used to reduce the national debt. That is what happened to many billions of dollars last year when the majority party gave up on its misguided efforts to pass huge tax cuts rather than using those dollars for debt reduction. This amendment, in my view, pretends to add to deficit reduction by appropriating $4 billion, which is right now sitting in the Treasury, and it pretends that it appropriates it for a purpose for which it is already scheduled to be used, debt reduction. It then further requires that that amount, in order to be considered for debt reduction, has to be designated as an emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. So, in other words, there is an emergency to make certain that this money is going to be used for the purpose for which it is going to be used. Only in Washington would that be considered a major event. Only in Washington would this transaction be considered real. Then this provision goes further, and it says that the amount of money in this bill for deficit reduction shall be available for that purpose only to the extent that an official budget request that includes designation of an entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is submitted by the President to the Congress. So we are requiring three steps to do what we would normally do in one step. It does not matter, Mr. Chairman, whether my colleagues vote for this amendment or not. If this amendment was never born, the $4 billion under discussion would be used for debt reduction. With the amendment being passed, we have two more steps that we have to go through in order to accomplish debt reduction. If it makes the gentleman happy to substitute motion for movement, be my guest, but it does not do anything real. I find it ironic that we are being given 30 minutes to debate this nonissue when we have only been given 20 minutes to debate whether or not we are going to get sucked into a 5-year war in Colombia. That says something, I guess, about this House. What it says I cannot quite figure out. So let me congratulate the gentleman for making something out of nothing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether we should fight drugs. We should. The issue is what is the most effective way to do that. The issue is not whether we like the president of Colombia. I do. The question is whether his country, his society, and his military are reliable reeds to lean on when we are talking about starting a 5-year or more commitment of military involvement. I would like to once again read some of the comments made by James Hoagland, who I think everyone knows to be an objective, middle-of-the- road, and very sage reporter on international issues. This is some of what he said on March 19: ``In Colombia, the United States pursues unattainable goals largely for domestic political reasons with inappropriate tools.'' Mr. Chairman, I will insert the full text in the Record when we are in the full House, but I am quoting portions now. He goes on to say, ``Questions not being asked, much less answered, now in the rush into quagmire include the following: What happens when it becomes clear of the considered judgment of the U.S. Air Force officers that the Colombian military will not be able to maintain the Blackhawks under the conditions in which they will be flying is shown to be correct? Will the United States replace the helicopters that crash or are shot down at 13 million a copy? Will large numbers of U.S. advisors be provided to maintain the helicopter force? If cocaine exports from South America continue unabated, will 30 more or 300 more Blackhawks be furnished to expand the war? ``Clinton, of course, will not be around to provide the answers. Colombia's first Blackhawks will not arrive until 6 months after he leaves office. His successor will inherent an open-ended military obligation that can be trimmed back or abandoned only at domestic political cost. ``Sound familiar? Do the names Kennedy and Johnson come to mind?'' He then goes on to say, ``House Republicans have championed super- sized aid to Colombia with an eye to blasting Clinton and Gore if it is not passed. They are the true catalysts for this foreign policy fiasco. The Clintonites merely show the courage of their cynicism jumping aboard a train they hope will be derailed in the Senate. ``The House Republicans blithely ignore the fact that American demand is at the root of the drug problem more than Colombian supply. They vote down efforts by Representative Nancy Pelosi to add funds for drug treatment at home in the catch-all bill that provides aid to Colombia. They slice out of that same bill $211 million in debt relief for the world's poorest countries. They will shoot away the problems of the Third World. ``That has been tried elsewhere with similar fuzzy and contradictory thinking in Washington at the takeoff. I can only wonder: Where is the Vietnam Syndrome when we really need it?'' I agree with those statements.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if Members want to know why the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is unhappy, just recognize this: The majority runs this institution. The majority wrote this bill. They used the Budget Act then to fence out amendments. Out of the 14 amendments being allowed under this bill, two are being offered by Democrats, ten by Republicans, and two have a bipartisan tone. That in my view is not a balanced approach. I would also urge Members to recognize that we should not spend a lousy 10 minutes debating whether we are going to be at war in Colombia for the next 5 years. I would remind Members of what James Hoagland, the distinguished columnist, asked; that now, in the rush into this quagmire, what is happening: ``What happens when it becomes clear that the considered judgment of U.S. Air Force officers that the Colombia military will not be able to maintain the Black Hawks under the condition in which they will be flying is shown to be correct? Will the United States replace the helicopters that crash or are shot down, at $13 million a copy? Will large numbers of U.S. advisers be provided to maintain the helicopter force? ``Clinton, of course, will not be around to provide answers. The helicopters will not arrive until 6 months after he leaves office. His successor will inherit an open-ended military obligation that can be trimmed back or abandoned only at domestic political cost.'' It says, ``. . . House Republicans have championed supersized aid to Colombia, with an eye to blasting Clinton and Gore if it is not passed. They are the true catalysts for this foreign policy fiasco. They blithely ignore the fact that American demand is at the root of the drug problem more than Columbian supply. They voted down efforts by Representative Nancy Pelosi to add funds for drug treatment at home in the catch-all bill that provides aid to Colombia. They sliced out of that same bill $211 million in debt relief for the world's poorest countries. They will shoot away the problems of the Third World. ``That has been tried elsewhere, with similar fuzzy and contradictory thinking in Washington at the take-off. I can only wonder: Where is the Vietnam Syndrome when we need it?'' Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. 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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, let me say I am going to vote against this rule for a number of reasons. First of all, if we look at spending issues, we will see that the bill as reported is $4 billion above the amount requested by the President. Before it is finished, this bill will have added to it an additional $4 billion not requested by the President. It is clear that only 1 week after this House passed a budget resolution promising to live within spending ceilings that the $4 billion that will be added under the rule today is simply an attempt to get around those budget ceilings so that there will be $4 billion more room in the defense appropriation for Members' projects. A very interesting exercise in fiscal discipline, it lasted one week. Secondly, we are now being asked to enter into a huge new long-term commitment to underwrite a war in Colombia. We have been told it will last at least 5 years, and I suspect it will last probably 10. For 35 years, the date of August 7, 1964, has lived in infamy in history because that was the day that Congress roared through the Gulf at Tonkin resolution on this very same floor with 40 minutes of debate. Today, we are going to be given only 20 minutes to discuss the advisability of entering into this long 5- to 10-year commitment to underwrite this war in Colombia. That means that those of us who think this is not a good idea will have exactly 10 minutes to make our case. That is amazing. Thirdly, despite the fact that the Rand Corporation has done a study financed in part by the U.S. Army which says that a dollar spent on reducing demand for drugs here at home is 23 times more effective than a dollar spent in reducing drug use through interdiction and supply reduction abroad, this rule denies us the opportunity to even vote on the Pelosi amendment, which would allow us to provide more funding to deal with the drug problem here at home by expanding drug treatment programs. That is, in my view, ill-advised. There is also no provision allowed under which we could even put on the floor the President's request for debt relief for countries such as Bolivia and Honduras. Lastly, I would say that there were over a dozen Democrats who asked to be allowed to offer amendments to this proposition. Only two were given the opportunity to offer those amendments. We have 10 amendments that are going to be offered by majority party Members and two others that are bipartisan, with lead sponsors being the majority party. In other words, the majority party first crafted the initial bill to its liking. Now they insist on being able to offer over 80 percent of the amendments that are going to be offered on the floor on this day. And then they wonder why there is not more support on this side of the aisle. I think those numbers speak for themselves. This bill is a mistake. I will vote against the rule. I will vote against the bill. If we are going to get involved in a long-term war commitment in this hemisphere, we owe it to our constituents to spend more than 10 minutes discussing the consequences.