Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we need to understand what issue advocacy campaigns are and what independent expenditures are. What happens is, if a corporation or a union or any other private interest gets mad at any Member of this Congress, they can run an unlimited amount of ads savaging their reputation without ever telling who they are, where they get their money or what their real agenda is. They pretend that these are not campaign ads when they are, to the core, efforts to influence campaigns. They are public lies that slip by because nobody on the Supreme Court ever ran for sheriff. If any member of the Supreme Court had ever run for public office, they would understand what an idiocy they have performed when they produced Buckley v. Valeo. They would understand the scams that routinely go on to pretend that you are not involved in a campaign when you are going hell-bent to savage the reputation of one of the candidates in a campaign. So what I believe is that if any money is going to be contributed to affect the campaign, it ought to be contributed on top of the table, not under the table. My first preference is to have no private money at all, because that is the only way that you truly do assure one-man one- vote. Shays-Meehan cannot do that because they are trying to be very careful, so they produce something which lives within the constraints of Buckley v. Valeo and the other decisions. I respect them for their efforts, and I applaud them. But somebody in this Congress has to speak forthrightly about the stupidity of those court decisions and how the big money interests of this country have been able to manipulate those decisions through the years. And that situation is getting worse, it is not getting better. I would hope that passage of Shays-Meehan will lead to creating more pressure and more awareness in the public of the need to have fundamental reform. If it were accepted by the other body, it would be a welcome first step forward. Let us not kid ourselves, it is a modest, modest approach in comparison to what really needs to be done if this country is going to some day, some day, for at least a moment or two in our history, have truly equal access to government on the part of every American, regardless of connections, regardless of economic circumstances, regardless of who you know. Your ability to influence government ought to be based on what you know, not who you know and what you have in your bank account. Right now, the system is just reversed, and that is why it is so sick. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, the system the gentleman is proposing as an alternative would simply say that the way you solve the problem is by letting the big guys contribute more than they contribute today. I do not find that to be much of a solution at all. I would also point out, again, the system the gentleman is defending by way of independent expenditures allows people to affect the outcome of elections secretly rather than having their contributions on top of the table. The best way to relieve politicians from the need to go after those thousand dollar contributions is to simply take away their ability to take any money, period. Elections are supposed to be public events. They are not supposed to be a competition between private interests. They are supposed to serve the public interest, not the private interests with money. That is why we will never truly have a government ``of, by and for the people'' until there is no private money at all allowed in campaigns and we have 100 percent public financing. That may not be stylish, but that happens to be what I believe. I believe it with all the fiber of my being. I am not going to be like the country preacher that Mo Udall cited once, who says, ``Well, folks, thems my views, and if you don't like them, well, then I will change them.'' I am not going to change my views. I believe this is the only way to truly give us a truly Democratic system. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all that demonstrates is what Will Rogers meant when he said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is really doing is defending the status quo. I respect his right to do that. But what he is defending is a system which says on the books that individuals can only contribute $1,000 to a candidate in a general election, and political action committees can only contribute $5,000 in a general election, but if some rich guy gets his nose out of joint, he can spend a million dollars affecting the outcome of a political campaign. Now, that, on its face, is ludicrous. You talk about guaranteeing the supremacy of elites, you have got to be kidding if you do not think that that guarantees the supremacy of economic elites in this country. All you have to have in order to destroy a decent balance in politics in this country is a big ego and a big bank account and a big grudge against somebody who is trying to behave in the public interest. That is why I think we need the fundamental reform I am talking about. Mr. Chairman, absent any speakers on my side, if the gentleman is willing to yield back, I am willing to yield back.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to state from the outset that the intent of this amendment is a blatant attempt to negate the United States' obligation to continue to adhere to the antiballistic missile treaty so that proponents of deployment of additional missile defense systems in the U.S. can justify their campaign to deploy just such a system. In my view, the deployment of such additional systems would not only violate U.S. treaty obligations with Russia but, more importantly, would destabilize our national security by setting back ongoing arms control negotiations with Russia and other former Soviet republics, and by encouraging newly emerging nuclear states to proceed without restrictions. Many of the proponents of this amendment continue to be critical of this administration's policies to restrain India and Pakistan from conducting nuclear tests. Now, their efforts may have fallen short of their goals and, indeed, the world has become less secure today as a result. But the question is what is the next step? The proponents of this amendment would have us throw out a standing arms control treaty that has been in place since 1972 so that they can pursue an expensive and widely premature plan to deploy an elaborate missile defense system that is years away from being able to work. The administration's intentions with respect to the Memorandum of Understanding on the ABM Treaty's succession have been made abundantly clear and are enunciated in a letter of May 21st from the President to the chairman of the authorizing committees. That letter says plainly that the administration ``will provide to the Senate, for its advice and consent, the Memorandum of Understanding of the ABM Treaty's succession.'' The letter further clarifies that, ``Despite the breakup of the Soviet Union, the ABM Treaty is still in force with Russia and notification of the MOU is necessary to remove any ambiguities about how the treaty applies to other countries.'' It is also clearly the understanding that the administration intends to submit the MOU on the ABM Treaty's succession after the Russian Duma has ratified START II. The timing of the submission to the Senate is based on the orderly progression of arms control regimes and was, in fact, developed in cooperation with the relevant parties of the U.S. Senate. This amendment stops all activity to bring the Memorandum of Understanding on the ABM Treaty's succession to reality. I wonder how the passage of this amendment will affect the Russian Duma and the prospects of their action? I wonder what signals it sends to India and Pakistan, who are on the verge of war in Kashmir, both armed with nuclear weapons? A vote for this amendment is a vote to unilaterally abrogate the ABM Treaty on the basis of 20 minutes debate in the middle of the night. That is what this supposedly modest amendment tries to do. A vote against this amendment is a vote to recognize that Congress should not take such irresponsible actions without clearly thinking out the consequences. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. With all due respect to the expertise of the gentleman who just spoke, for this Congress, at a little after 10:00 in the evening, with no hearings and no reasonably thoughtful debate on the subject, for this Congress to take an action which prevents this administration from proceeding to do anything to modernize the very treaty that the other side says must be modernized would be the consummate act of arrogance and ridiculousness performed by this Congress in the entire session. It would bring great discredit on the Congress, and we ought not to do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is going to quote me, just for the heck of it, it would be nice if he would quote me accurately. I never said that there was no debate in the Congress on this subject. I said that there was no thoughtful debate tonight, and I stand by that comment. I will simply say, Mr. Chairman, that despite all of the rhetoric tonight, the practical effect of this action is to unilaterally take the United States out of compliance with the ABM Treaty. That is no response that any responsible legislative body would make, and I cannot believe that the gentleman is suggesting that we do anything like it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for closing.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that there are some questions, also, the State Department has with respect to who should be ahead of whom in being able to make claims against countries like Iran. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is my understanding that the committee intends to accept this amendment on both sides. I would simply like to say that, as some Members may remember, this matter was brought up before the House once before several weeks ago on a previous appropriation bill. It was then offered in a form which was technically not germane to the bill and was subject to a point of order. We felt that the Congress had not had sufficient time to examine the amendment and to understand its implications in terms of the administration's ability to negotiate and to conduct foreign policy. So we were concerned at that time. We have now learned a bit more about the status of the law. There are still, frankly, some questions about the advisability of going exactly this route, but, frankly, the State Department has not been as clear as we would like in laying out what other options might be available. So under these circumstances, I think it is advisable for the committee to accept the amendment with the understanding that it will need to be worked on in conference to make certain that it is consistent with U.S. national interests. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not really want to oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time so we can explain why we are accepting it.

Mr. OBEY. Yes; I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just do not know what is wrong with the gentleman from Colorado. I just do not understand why he thinks it is a waste to spend $110 million to produce such a beautiful example of modern art. This, as has been indicated in the debate before, is a picture of the channel 50 as it is being jammed by Cuban authorities. This is what Cubans are learning when they watch the TV channel which is being jammed. I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why on earth the gentleman from Colorado thinks it is a waste of money to produce such a gorgeous picture. I would have to say seriously, Mr. Chairman, it is my responsibility in this House, as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, to review spending priorities, not just in this subcommittee but in all 13 subcommittees across the government, and try to decide where we must have money spent and where it would be nice to have money spent but, nonetheless, cannot afford to have it spent. If ever there was an area that fell into the latter category, this is it. I would simply point out, the issue is not whether we like Mr. Castro or not. The issue is whether or not we think it is worth spending $110 million of the taxpayers' money to get this. I do not believe it is. I was just up in the Committee on Rules, listening to some of our friends on the majority side explain to the Committee on Rules that we must eliminate the low-income heating assistance program in this country because we cannot afford to provide help to people who make $8500 a year or less to heat their homes. I come from a State where we have 40-below-zero winters. I do not think the people in my district would agree with that statement. I do not think they would think it would be better to put money here than it would be to put it in the pockets of seniors and people making less than $8500 a year who need help so they do not have to choose between heating and eating. I do not think that the young kids in this country who are going to be denied summer youth employment would think that this is a better investment than giving them their first experience at dealing with the world of work. This Capitol just came under assault a week and a half ago. I happen to think that putting that money that is wasted on this nonsense would be far better spent if we put it into programs to help children with mental health problems so that they do not grow up to be the kind of nut cakes who just attacked the Congress last week and killed two people who gave their lives to defend the people who work in this place or visit this place every day. We need to make serious choices about where money goes. This, Mr. Chairman, is not a serious choice. Support the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. But the gentleman understands that the agreement that was just reached at this desk with his leadership was that we would go only as far as the amendment on Legal Services and no further tonight in title I.

Mr. OBEY. Well, then there is no agreement. We might as well have motions to adjourn all evening. If the agreements are not going to be stuck to for more than 5 minutes, then there is no reason to agree.

Mr. OBEY. I just think it is important for Members to understand that there will be no votes tonight because of the understanding that we will not proceed beyond the Legal Services amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding, also, that we would not proceed in title I beyond Legal Services; is that correct?