Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very complicated, as the vote on the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) indicated, so I apologize for the fact that I will have to ask for an extension of time to complete my remarks in explaining it. Mr. Chairman, sometime in the near future, as we all know, we are likely to be in a state of high confrontation a quarter of the world away, in Kosovo and in Serbia. Of all the times, this is the least desirable moment for the United States credibility to be questioned. Yet the action that this Congress is taking today on this bill will bring into question our commitment to the international financial institutions that we built at the end of World War II in order to try to stabilize the world's economy. It will also bring into question our commitment to work out in negotiations with the Russians to see to it that 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium is converted to a more safe use in nuclear power plants. So I am offering this amendment to remove the foremost egregious offsets that the majority party has inserted in this bill. Very simply, Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates the cut of $25 million in the Export-Import Bank funding because I believe that we should not be disarming ourselves in protecting American jobs and in protecting our markets abroad. That is what we do when we reduce the amount of money in the Export-Import Bank war chest, which is there for the purpose of sending a signal to the world that if other countries artificially subsidize exports by their corporations into world markets, we will use that money to do the same, so that we do not lose jobs in the process. The second thing this amendment will do is to say that we will not at a time when our farmers have seen huge drops in their market prices, we will not choose this time to cut back on Public Law 480 funds. This is the device we use to try to facilitate the export of American farm products abroad. The amendment does two other things. It says that we will not add to the uncertainty of international financial markets, by for the first time in our history rescinding previously-appropriated callable capital funds. The Secretary of the Treasury has already indicated if this provision remains in the bill, this bill will be vetoed, and it should be vetoed. We cannot afford to add uncertainty to international financial markets. Fourth, what this amendment would do is to eliminate the $150 million rescission which will in the words of our own Department of Energy and in the words of our arms negotiators make it much less likely for us to be able to resume negotiations with the Russians on the conversion of that plutonium which is now within the borders of Russia, to convert that plutonium to a use other than for the purpose of building 15 to 25,000 more nuclear weapons. I think it is imperative that this Congress support this action this afternoon. What I think is really happening here is this: We know that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) tried to bring a bill to the floor which would have been a bipartisan bill, but he was then given different orders by his House leadership. He is being a good soldier, but we know that if the Committee on Appropriations had been left to its own devices, we would have a far different bill before us here this afternoon.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what we really have here is this: The House could have produced a bill which would have epitomized cooperation between the executive and legislative branches on an item that the President felt was an emergency. Instead, because of the instructions given to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Congress is instead choosing to follow the path once again of confrontation with the President. It is setting up a bill which is going to be vetoed, which will get no help to anybody. Secondly, let me make this observation: We have had various Republican voices say that this administration's foreign policy is faulty. I will be the first to admit it is far from perfect, but I would suggest that this action comes after a series of other actions taken by the majority party which calls into legitimate question its understanding of the world or its willingness to recognize our responsibility to lead. This is the same party that has refused to pay our bills at the United Nations, which brings into question our leadership capacity in that institution. It is the same party which for over a year held up action on the International Monetary Fund request by the President. That action again added uncertainty, especially in the Asian markets, and made it more difficult for us to sell our products in those markets. It is the same party that has really at various times come at the Bosnia and Kosovo questions from both sides. Now it is the same party which is saying that we ought to bring into question our commitment to support the international financial institutions, and their role, after all, is to help stabilize international markets primarily for our benefit. We started those institutions so we would not have to carry the full load. Lastly, the majority party is also attempting to put roadblocks in the way of the administration's ability to negotiate that crucial plutonium agreement. It just seems to me that on that issue alone, this amendment ought to be passed. If this amendment is not passed, the bill before us should be voted down. There is no rational reason to take $150 million off the table at a time when we put that there in order to make certain that the Russians would come back to the negotiating table. I understand that the staff of the subcommittee is unhappy because they were not involved in the original decision to include this money in the Omnibus bill, but I think that staff pique over that issue is not sufficient reason to put our national interest at question when it comes to dealing with this plutonium question. I would urge, in the name of responsibility, that the House vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am confused as to whether the gentleman's party intends to follow the CBO accounting on these issues or not. Is not it, in fact, true that the CBO indicates that $16 million of the funds that the gentleman is rescinding would, in fact, be spent absent the rescission on the PL-480 issue? Is not that the case? Does not that, therefore, demonstrate that those funds are needed?

Mr. OBEY. The point I am trying to make is this: The gentleman is saying this will have no significant programmatic impact, and the gentleman has indicated numerous times that this money is not going to be spent anyway. The fact is the Congressional Budget Office, which scores these items for all of us, indicates that, in fact, $16 million of that would, in fact, be spent without the rescission; that $16 million which is unavailable to assist American farmers in exporting their products, and if ever they need assistance to export their products this is the time. The administration did not volunteer to support the agricultural funds that were provided in last year's supplemental either, but both parties ran to do that because we recognized the severe need out in farm country.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has misstated my position. I am not opposed to all offsets. There are a number of offsets in this bill that I have no objection to. My amendment is aimed at the four that I consider to be the most egregious, but I am not opposed to all offsets.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The comment that we just heard, that without offsets this money will come from the Social Security Trust Fund, is absolutely ludicrous, absurd, and false. The fact is the committee pretends it is going to cut $648 million out of callable capital. There is not one dime saved in outlays. The way we measure what is available for Social Security or anything else is on the basis of outlays, not budget authorities, as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) well knows or should know. The gentleman from Kansas misstated my position, so let me correct it. The fact is that out of the $648 million that my colleagues claim to save, there is not one dime of savings, so that does not cost Social Security one dime. If we take a look at the entire package, unless my colleagues assume that their committee chairman is correct, if they assume their chairman is correct and that the Act will not harm our agreements with the Soviets on uranium, then out of the entire amount of this amendment, only $16 million will ever accrue as outlay savings. That is less than one-half of 1 percent of all the funds that we are talking about. So do not misconstrue this as being an attack on Social Security. That is blatant nonsense.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman is a new member of the committee, fairly new anyway, but I assume he understands the following: When we determine what our deficit is, we determine that not on the basis of what budget authority is, but what is outlaid in any given fiscal year. Would the gentleman grant that?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, let me give my colleagues the numbers. This bill pretends that it saves $853 million for Social Security. In fact, the most that it saves is $19 million, unless the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is wrong on his assumptions about what will happen with the plutonium agreement. The fact is that the $648 million so-called saving from callable capital results in no savings on the outlay side, so that does not put one dime in Social Security. The $25 million which my colleagues cut out of Ex-Im results, according to CBO, in only $3 million of actual outlaid savings. The $30 million which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) said would have no impact, in fact CBO says does have $16 million in impact.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, that means in effect that there may be $19 million in play as far as Social Security is concerned. The rest of it is not, unless the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is wrong on his assumptions on plutonium. I would simply say this. If he is, I would ask every citizen of this country one question: What is more important, to save that $80 million today that CBO estimates will be outlaid for that, or to use it to make sure that we do not have enough plutonium floating around the world for the Russians or terrorist organizations to build 15,000 additional nuclear weapons? I think every Social Security recipient in the world would like to see us, first of all, make certain that we make this world more safe from the possible threat from nuclear weapons. So do not bring that red herring across the table about Social Security. This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with Social Security except in the gentleman's own mind.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) will continue to yield, let me simply point out again on one item that the gentleman from Kansas just cited, he is just flat-out wrong on the facts. He indicated that if we rescind this $150 million in the plutonium and uranium account, that there will still be $375 million left. There will not be. Mr. Primakov is about to sign an agreement with the United States Government which will use $325 million for the uranium agreement that we are working on with the Russians. If my colleagues rescind the $150 million of the $200 million that is remaining in the account, and that is all there is, there will be only $50 million left for us to proceed on our negotiations with the Russians on the plutonium account. That $200 million was put on the table in order to bring the Russians into the negotiations. If we get an agreement from them, that agreement will cost far more than $200 million. It will cost at least $1 billion.

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I would simply make this observation, Mr. Chairman. We have people in both parties in this House who, on a daily basis, are putting out press releases talking about what they are going to be doing to try to help farmers get out from under the collapse of prices for many commodities. I would suggest in those circumstances that what we ought to be doing on both sides of the aisle is pushing the administration to provide more assistance to farmers, more assistance to increase our ability to export farm products to other markets, rather than cutting back on the funds in the budget available to do that. If people are serious about the press releases they are putting out, that is what they will be doing rather than voting for this bill this afternoon.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply observe that there were 71 Democrats who voted for that amendment; there were only 6 Republicans who did.

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We can either look at this issue like we are green eyeshade accountants or we can look at this issue in terms of what will create the most security for the United States. The fact is that what the Energy Department tells us, what the Secretary of Energy tells us is as follows, in the letter he sent today. He said the entire cut, in this bill, ``would have to come from the $200 million appropriated to dispose of Russian plutonium. Such a reduction would have severe consequences for the ongoing negotiations in pursuit of a bilateral agreement with Russia on disposing of enough plutonium to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. It could also severely impact the wide range of cooperative nonproliferation engagement under way and planned in Russia, including efforts to protect, control and account for weapons-usable nuclear material and to prevent the flight of weapons scientists to countries of proliferation concern.'' Now, the facts are very simple.

Mr. OBEY. The administration did not put this in their original budget because at the time they submitted the FY 1999 budget, nobody thought there was a prayer of getting negotiations going on plutonium. Senator Domenici saw an opportunity in October to take advantage of the fact that the facts had changed and it looked like we would now be able to move toward sitting down with the Russians on plutonium. And so he put the $200 million in the Omnibus bill. It now remains available precisely because it is used as a magnet to draw the Russians to the table. It sends a signal to them that we are serious about this issue and we all know that if we do in fact get an agreement, the cost of that agreement is going to be at least five times the amount of the money which is presently available. All I am saying is that it is absurd for us in my view to be arguing about fiscal years and expenditures in this year or that year when the fact is that the overriding concern ought to be to get that fissile material converted before it falls into the hands of terrorists or anybody else. (By unanimous consent, Mr. Packard was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. OBEY. That is not what it says.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what I just heard. The gentleman said that if the administration wants, it does not have to take this money out of the plutonium agreement, it can take it out of the other agreement, the highly enriched uranium agreement. Is he seriously suggesting that it would be in the national interest of the United States for the United States to blow up an agreement-- which Mr. Primakov was ready to sign this week until Kosovo got in the way--is he seriously suggesting that that should be a serious option that the administration looks at?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to rise in support of this bill but I cannot, and I owe the House an explanation why. At the beginning of this year we were told by the new House leadership that there would be a change in the way that leadership operated from last year, in that there would be less political interference from party leadership in committee decisions on substantive matters. But on the first major substantive bill before us in this session affecting the budget, we see a reversion to what happened last year. The budget rules allow for the Congress to pass emergency legislation when emergencies occur. Under that right, the administration sent down a supplemental request which tried to respond to the largest natural disaster in this century in Central America, and the administration also asked for some additional help to deal with the fact that farm prices have slid into oblivion for many commodities. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, originally was going to bring to the committee a proposal which would have had bipartisan support. I would certainly have supported it, and I think the administration would have, too. That approach recognized that the administration was responding to legitimate emergencies. But shortly before our committee put together the bill which it brought to the House floor, the committee leadership was ordered by the Republican leadership in the House to delete the emergency designation for domestic programs and to require offsets in order to finance those programs on a nonemergency basis. Members will be told that those offsets provide no harm and that most of that money was not going to be spent, anyway. That is simply not the case. I will therefore be offering an amendment that eliminates what I consider to be the four most reckless elements that the majority party has used to pay for this emergency supplemental. Let me walk through what they are. First, the committee rescinded $648 million in callable capital to the international financial institutions. Now, callable capital is not spent. It simply serves to assure that the full faith and credit of participating countries stand behind the international financial institutions in the loans that they make to stabilize the economies of countries upon whom we rely as export markets. The Congress has never before in the history of these financial institutions rescinded previously obligated callable capital. I think their doing so at this time could cause great harm. Secretary of the Treasury Rubin, in a letter to us on this issue, described this action as an ill-advised step which carries major risks and should be reversed. His letter goes on to say that the higher borrowing costs and reduced capital flows to the developing countries that could result from this proposal would only hinder growth and recovery in the developing world which in turn would hurt U.S. farmers, workers and businesses. He then goes on to say that the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto if this provision stays in the bill. I am confident the President would veto this proposition as it stands.