Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 611 for the same reason as previously cited.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I again make a point of order against this section for the same reason.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, on section 405, I make a point of order against this provision because it also constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his opening statement. I think it was a very thoughtful discussion of the procedural obligations of the House. I think the gentleman is a distinct credit to the House, and it is a privilege for me to serve with him. I think the gentleman tried to do the right thing on the subject that I am about to talk about. Mr. Chairman, our job as Members of Congress is, first of all, to define differences and then to try to find resolution to those differentials. There are a number of items in the appropriation bills which are always subject to being stricken on a point of order, but they are usually included because they are necessary to build the kind of consensus that one has to have to pass bills like this. The committee knew, for instance, that we had an emergency with government computers with the year 2000 problem that our computer manufacturers have tossed in our lap, and the committee tried to deal with that in a responsible way. But the rebels in the Republican caucus blew that agreement up, and so we had a rule which will allow that to be stricken. On the issue of contraception involving Federal employee insurance, again we had a bipartisan committee consensus on that issue, but the rebels in the Republican caucus did not like that, so they have blown up that agreement. I tried to make my earlier motion because I sought to prevent one Member from being able to strike the language in this bill that treats as an emergency the government-wide computer problems which we have. That motion was objected to. If the majority is insisting on striking that emergency provision and if the majority is insisting on striking of the Lowey language, then it seems to me that, in the interests of equity, I have no choice but to strike most of the language of the bill which is vulnerable to points of order, and I intend to do so as we move through the committee process. I take this time simply to notify the House of that so that they will understand why I will be striking a good many provisions, including a number of those that I happen to personally agree with.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House waive all points of order under clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI against the Y2K provisions of H.R. 4104, to wit: the provisions on page 37, line 12, through page 38, line 14.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.

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. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, many of us remember a few years back when significant reductions were made in committee staffing, which saved a significant amount of money in the House budget. In a very controversial decision, the House majority leadership took about $8 million of those savings that were not sent back to the Treasury, but instead, put into a special fund to be controlled by the House leadership. The House leadership has been able to spend this slush fund in any manner they wanted, without further approval of the House. This windfall spree was thought to be, more or less, a one-time windfall brought about by the committee staff reductions that have now stabilized. But I guess the House leadership has gotten hooked on this free spending, because we find tucked away in this bill extra funds ostensibly for committee staff which in fact are not meant for the committee staff at all, but rather, meant to replenish the Speaker's slush fund. The subcommittee chairman informed the Committee on Rules yesterday that the $89 million included in this bill for the committee staff is based on taking the artificially high levels of 2 years ago, which included that estimated $7.9 million for the slush fund, and simply inflated it by 5.21 percent. That works out to over $8.3 million in this bill that is ostensibly budgeted for committee staff that the majority has no real intention of using for committee staff. The real intention is to be pulling a back-door maneuver to replenish that slush fund. Mr. Speaker, if the majority leadership wants to have more play money, then this House ought to be able to vote on it. They should not try to hide it through this kind of a back-door shenanigan. The truth is committees are not expected to spend $89 million to operate. They can do it with about $8 million less without missing a beat. I would point out that that is comparable to the level of the 104th Congress second session, which was only $79 million. So the level we are proposing is still $2 million higher than the level at the end of the 104th Congress, with no appreciable changes in staff levels. What would this mean for the total bill? According to CBO, the total spending increase recommended by the majority is more than 3\1/2\ percent. This reduction of $8.3 million would still leave us with a total increase over last year of 2.3 percent. Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize for what this body spends in order to provide necessary services to our constituents. But in a day when we are seeing low-income heating assistance programs eliminated, when we are seeing summer jobs eliminated, when we are seeing cuts in health care, education, food safety, National Parks and water quality programs, it seems to me that we ought not to be providing more money than we in fact expect the committees to spend. Mr. Speaker, we can save $8 million and not provide the funds that will otherwise be diverted to the leadership's slush fund. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I think we have a serious problem facing us in this House. I see frankly what appears to be the politics of intimidation being practiced on a broad scale. First of all, we have seen the majority leadership try to intimidate the Congressional Budget Office into bending their numbers so that their budget estimates more neatly fit the political desires of the Republican majority in the Congress. That controversy is well-known. It has been reported in the newspapers. We also have the politics of intimidation being practiced against the Federal Election Commission. We have the majority party trying to turn the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to be the watchdog that keeps every politician honest, what they are trying to do in this bill is to say to the legal counsel of the commission, ``If you are not careful, if you do not soft pedal what you are doing, if you do not play kissy-face with both parties, then one party is going to be able to block you from reappointment.'' That is going to turn the Federal Election Commission into being even a less effective defender of the public interest than it is today. Then we have an effort to intimidate the General Accounting Office. There was an amendment that a number of Members on that side of the aisle sought to have made in order to change the appointment of the Comptroller General from the President, where it has traditionally been, to the Congress, again because they wanted to send a message to the GAO that they did not like some of the investigations that the GAO was conducting. Madam Speaker, now we have seen the Republicans who know the most about this computer problem, the Republicans on the Committee on Appropriations, the Republicans who are supposed to know the most about this problem, we have seen them bring to the House their recommendation that we include in the Defense bill and in the Treasury-Post Office bill the money that is needed so that this country does not have a range of super problems when our computers go out in the year 2000 and shut down our ability to send Social Security checks, shut down our ability to make certain this country is adequately defended militarily. Yet what is happening? Now what is happening is, on the Defense bill yesterday and on this bill today, we now have a new call by the Republican leadership which says, ``Take the money out, boys.'' And we do not see a single Republican who took the action that was necessary in the first place now coming to the floor to defend their original actions, and wonder why. And then I notice an article in Roll Call which says, in the June 22 edition, quote, ``House Speaker Newt Gingrich was one of the first Republicans to sign a petition demanding that the congressional Republicans punish high-ranking GOP Members who team with Democrats on certain votes.'' Now that sounds like intimidation to me. I am wondering whether that does not in fact explain why many of the Republicans who are the most knowledgeable on this issue, and know that this money ought to be in this bill to solve this computer problem, I am wondering if that does not explain why they are not coming here to the floor. I am wondering whether the thought police in this town are winning the argument once again. The fact is this is the most serious mechanical problem faced by the government. I do not want to be around when Russians watching their computers in the year 2000 see their computers go blank and wonder whether America was responsible. I want to know whether they are going to understand that this is simply because of a computer accident. And I want them not to believe that somehow there is some game going on that requires them to urge that somebody push some buttons. Madam Speaker, this is a very serious problem for our defense posture. It is a very serious problem for every person in America who expects the FAA to be able to regulate air traffic. I, for the life of me, cannot see why this money is being taken out of this bill. Some Members say: ``well, it ought to be offset.'' I think it is the height of arrogance for Members of Congress to assume that God ought to have to comply with the budget process. There are going to be natural disasters that are emergencies, whether Republican or Democratic Members of Congress like it or not. And there are going to be other actions that are taken, such as computer companies screwing up computers which they sell to the government, which require us to take action without following the niceties of the Budget Act. With all due respect, the nice, neat, green eyeshade accounting principles that govern the budget process are not nearly as important to this country as knowing that we can deliver quality service, deliver people's Social Security checks on time, protect the military interests of the United States effectively and do all the other things the government is supposed to do with the aid of these technological machines. I think the gentleman from Maryland is exactly right. This rule is wrong. It ought to be defeated. There are a number of things in the rule that I think are reasonable, but this is certainly not one of them. If we are interested in solving problems rather than having more political posturing, we will vote this rule down and allow the Republican majority on the Committee on Appropriations, who did the right thing the first time, to do what they know is right.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, let us talk about who is being partisan. The fact is that when there was a vote in the committee to take this money out, 16 Republicans correctly voted against it, a majority. We are simply asking that we stick to that position on this vote. Secondly, I would point out, if you want to attack the administration, if you look at their budget on page 253, you will see that in addition to the $1.2 billion which the administration asked for on an agency-by-agency basis to deal with this problem, the administration also has $3.25 billion set aside for contingencies, a major piece of which was supposed to be to deal with additional computer problems. I would point out that also the subcommittee, the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) cut $400 million from the specific agencies in his bill because he was going to be providing the $2.5 billion in another way. Now you are going to have both of those numbers gone. That leaves this country naked in dealing with this problem.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, several days ago I introduced House Resolution 473, which will provide for the consideration of the remnants of H.R. 3580, a supplemental appropriation bill funding the International Monetary Fund. Madam Speaker, I would urge all Members to sign the discharge petition which will be available at the desk starting now. Last fall the Speaker of the House decided to use the U.N. and the IMF funding as leverage to force the President to agree to unacceptable changes in international family planning policies, and he has continued to hold this needed funding hostage. Failure to act on the IMF funding continues to endanger the U.S. economy, which is becoming more concerned each passing day with what is happening in Asia. We need to have the debate on the IMF so that the many concerns about how the IMF is run can be resolved and so that critically needed replenishments can be put in place. American jobs are at stake. We cannot afford to allow this threat to the American economy to continue. I urge every Member to sign the discharge petition now.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes Members of the minority have to take time to spell out what the majority is doing, because it appears that the thought police in the majority caucus prevent many people on the majority side from expressing what it is that they are really doing, even those who disagree with what they are doing. The committee originally decided that this computer 2000 problem was so severe that it justified being handled as an emergency, and they put the money in this bill and in the Treasury-Postal bill to deal with it. Now, because of an internal revolution once again in the Republican Caucus, this emergency money is being taken out and we are being told: ``Well, do not worry, we are going to gather it all together in some supplemental bill. We will deal with it at some future time. We do not know how we will pay for it, but it will be out of mandatory programs.'' They leave us wondering, number one, whether they will ever be able to pass that emergency legislation at all. Secondly, they leave us wondering if they do target mandatory programs, whether it will be Medicare or whether it will be Social Security or what programs they will go after in order to fund this emergency when they get around to feeling that it is really an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there was a very good reason why the committee put this money in in the first place. It is a ``little'' problem if all of a sudden in the year 2000 our FAA computers go dark. I would not want to be in a plane flying around the country that day. It is going to be a ``little bit'' of a problem if Social Security cannot write its checks. It is going to be a ``little bit'' of a problem if the veterans all of the sudden do not get their checks. It is going to be a problem if the health care providers do not get their Medicare checks from the government. And as far as the Defense Department is concerned, we are talking about missile-critical systems. The NORAD ballistic missile early- warning system relies on computers and they could have a serious problem. The Global Positioning System is another system that could be in trouble. The military pay system could be in trouble. As Deputy Defense Secretary Hamre testified, ``failure of a microchip in a critical, large or dangerous piece of machinery, loss of air pressure in an F-15 or submerged submarines can be devastating or even life threatening.'' And I would ask, what happens about Russian concerns over the year Y2K problem? What happens if the Russians' early warning attack system goes haywire on January 1, 2000? How will they respond? Will they think that we caused the problem? Are their offensive nuclear systems safe from computer malfunction? Well, I tell my colleagues, we do not know. Because we do not know, this money should stay in this bill, and that is why the responsible vote for national security is to vote against this rule.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I absolutely, totally agree with what the gentleman has just said. That is why I listed this as one of my concerns in the supplemental views that I filed with this bill. Under the normal budget process, proceeds from the sale of an asset are not allowed to be spent again by an agency. They are credited to the general fund of the Treasury under normal circumstances to buy down the national debt. I think it is an incredibly ill-advised action to provide these ships to Turkey and Greece, given what is happening in the Aegean. I think it sends exactly the wrong signal to both sides. I thank the gentleman for raising the point.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this point to discuss a ludicrous priority which I find in this bill, and let me put it in context. Last year, even though the Speaker described our intelligence budget as being inadequate, nonetheless, a Republican-controlled Congress cut the intelligence budget further, to a lower point than the level that the Speaker described as being inadequate. The Congress did that for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was to pay for an additional destroyer that the majority leader in the Senate wanted built in his State. And another reason was to fund a number of C-130s built in the State of Georgia, a matter of some interest to the Speaker. This year, the top priority request of the Navy was to replace its aging F-14 airplanes with the next generation F-18A, E and F aircraft. Instead, this bill cut three of those aircraft in order to provide room for seven new C-130Js which the Pentagon did not ask for. Those C-130s happen to be built in the State of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the issue is not whether the C-130s, which would be going to various National Guard units by and large all around the country, the issue is not whether those planes are good planes. They are. The issue is not whether or not they would be used for good missions. They would be. The issue is whether or not giving the National Guard those seven additional planes, which were built by the contractor before anybody even asked them to build them, the issue is whether those planes are the best use of scarce taxpayers' dollars when we have an obligation to try to make certain that we spend those dollars in a way which will provide the greatest personal security for our military fighting personnel. If this bill were responsible, it would use $35 million of the money that was used for those 7 C-130s, it would use $35 million to modernize some existing C-130s and give those to the National Guard units around the country, and then it would use the remaining dollars to provide the purchase of the replacements for the F-14s that the Pentagon asked for in the first place. Now, replacing the F-14A is the Navy's number one priority for a very good reason. The F-14 has been involved in 138 class A flight problems in the last decade. Since 1991, 32 F-14s have gone down. In my judgment, our front line flyers who use those planes are at risk. Even if we provided all of the funds that the Navy asked for for this plane, the first of these planes would not actually show up on carrier decks until the year 2002. So even with those funds, the Navy will need to live with their old F-14As for another 4 to 10 years minimum. As the Navy said in its presentation, denying these three planes will, ``have a direct negative impact on the warfighters in the fleet, hurting the fleet's operational capability, safety, readiness and maintainability.'' Now, I had intended to offer an amendment today which would have eliminated these additional C-130s and moved that money back where it ought to be so that we can replace these aged F-14s. The problem is that, under the rules, for technical reasons, that amendment would not be in order. And so I am not, under the rules of the House, in a position where I can offer that amendment and still respect the rules of the House. I am not going to offer it. But I would hope that the committee, when they go to conference, will recognize that this is a mistake, this is not where our dollars ought to go if we are going to do the best job possible of defending the physical security of our military personnel. We do not need more pork. We need more teeth. And it seems to me that the committee has made a major mistake in putting the money where they have. I would hope that the committee would change its judgment when it goes to conference. I think that is the least that the Congress can do.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that some of the same people in this House who have lectured us on the need to open trade barriers internationally are now saying, oh, but we should proceed to erect trade barriers within the Continental United States. That is exactly what the continuation of the Northeastern Dairy Compact would do. So this amendment is very simple. It simply strikes the provision in the bill which extends the existing milk marketing order system and prevents the Secretary from offering reforms to it until he has waited another 6 months. It would also follow the original intent of the Northeastern Dairy Compact and end that compact at the same time. If we believe in bringing dairy into a free market system rather than having government dictate the price that farmers are paid, we will vote for this amendment. It will be fair to consumers. It will be much fairer to the farmers in many sections of the country than the existing situation is. It will certainly be fairer to my farmers. I think if anyone votes against this amendment and claims with a straight face to be a free marketer, he has been looking at a different dictionary than I have.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out the problem with the gentleman from Vermont's argument. It is that he intervenes only in support of some of the farmers in this country. Many other farmers are driven out of business by the very action that is being defended on this House floor today.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it requires one to ignore price.

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

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

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