Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I understand why some Members of the House who have had disasters in their area will want to vote for this bill, but I am profoundly disturbed by the way this bill has developed. I will certainly be casting a ``no'' vote, and I think I owe the House an explanation. Some of the items in this bill were requested by the administration more than a year ago. This bill originally was supposed to do basically five major things and a few minor things. It was supposed to provide disaster relief; it was supposed to provide funding for the cost of the troops' operating in Bosnia and in Kuwait. The administration also asked the Congress to provide replenishment funding for the International Monetary Fund to help them protect the U.S. economy from further currency crunches. It also asked the Congress to provide the arrearages that we have had for many years so that we could more effectively shape the direction of the United Nations. And it had some other items, including a $16 million request to actually make Kennedy- Kassebaum work, providing the Federal assistance necessary to see to it that persons who did lose their health coverage when they changed jobs could actually get the help that they were promised in that legislation. This bill is very different now. It has a laundry list of items that should not be in the bill. And there are major items which should be in the bill which are sadly missing. Here is a sampling of some of the riders in the bill: A six-lane highway through the Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico, a sacred burial ground for the Indian tribes. That is there despite the opposition of the local mayor and many other officials. A second item, a $66 million gift to the oil companies by blocking collection of full royalty payments from oil companies who operate on American lands that are owned by the taxpayer. Third, as I said, the missing $14 million to make Kennedy-Kassebaum a reality. That bill passed with only two dissenting votes, I believe, in this House last year. There was not a politician in Washington who did not break his or her neck running to a microphone or running to a television interview to brag about how much they were doing to help people who were losing their health insurance when they changed jobs and had preexisting conditions, and so therefore could not get new coverage. The money that was needed in this bill to make that a reality for thousands and thousands of Americans is denied because of a strong lobbying job. I think that is enough to give hypocrisy a bad name. The offsets provided in the bill. There are no offsets for the defense expenditures in the bill. But as the gentleman from Illinois just indicated, there are $2.3 billion in additional cuts in Section 8 housing to pay for disaster assistance expenses. In plain English, much of that housing goes, one-third of it goes to low-income seniors whose average income is $7,500 a year. Now, it is said, ``Oh, we don't need that money this year.'' It is true that for technical reasons, that money is not needed in this existing fiscal year. But we will be marking up the bills for the next fiscal year in about a month, and we are told by the General Accounting Office that there is already an existing $4.6 billion gap in that program over a period of time. In other words, we will have to put $4.6 billion of additional resources into that program that are not presently available. This action by the Congress today digs that hole $2.3 billion deeper. So we will have to provide $7 billion in additional money that we do not have. Now, we are told by some on the majority side, ``Well, don't worry, these cuts will never take place.'' If that is the case, then these are phony cuts, and I would ask, if you do not plan to take it out of here long-term, if this is a one-month shell game, then who are the real people who are going to get socked with that $2.3 billion reduction? The fact is, right now, we do not know. There are two other major problems with this bill. The United States leadership on a bipartisan basis at the end of World War II created the United Nations so that we would have an instrument, an international instrument to try to deal with international issues in ways that were consistent with the needs of the United States. For almost a generation, that organization has many times driven me and many other Americans nuts because it has been a Tower of Babel, it has been often the center of demagoguery and irresponsibility and cronyism. But the fact is that now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, we have an opportunity to finally reorganize that organization and make it a more effective instrument that will be consistent with American foreign policy. Yet we are denying our representatives in the U.N. the money that is needed to make our hand more effective in dealing with that reorganization and in shaping their policies on issues ranging from Iraq to you name it in ways which will serve U.S. interests. I think it is a tragedy that that item is being held hostage to an extraneous matter that is not even in this bill. Then we have the case of the International Monetary Fund. In September, the Speaker of this House sent a letter to the administration indicating that the administration was correct to seek that funding. And then in that same letter the Speaker indicated that IMF funding was going to be held hostage to the same extraneous family planning issue that is not even in this bill. Last week, the Speaker took this microphone and told the House that there were so many things wrong with the IMF that he was dubious that we should provide any funding for it at all. That was switch number one. Then today I was amazed to see an article in the Washington Post headlined, Gingrich Threatens White House on IMF. It went on to say the following: ``The Speaker warned that the failure of the White House to cooperate with investigations jeopardized the administration's legislative priorities.'' It then went on to indicate that the Speaker indicated that unless he was happy with the cooperation he was getting from the administration on that front, that they were going to withhold funding for the International Monetary Fund, and then suggested that the President had no moral standing to ask for that money. Let me simply say that I think that that threat takes us back to the good old days 2 years ago when the Speaker indicated that one of the reasons that he helped to shut down the government was because he got a bad seat on Air Force One. I would point out that what comments like that do is to turn what we do in this House into an argument about what we do to each other in Washington, and that is not what this House is supposed to be all about. What we do in this House is not supposed to be about what we do to each other. It is supposed to be about what we do together on behalf of the people who sent us here in the first place, and I would urge the Speaker to remember that and all other Members as well. I would also say that if the Speaker decides to continue to hold the IMF hostage, in the end that is not going to hurt Bill Clinton. This is not Bill Clinton's economy. This is the economy of every single American. If we have another currency crisis, the jobs that will be lost will not be Mr. Clinton's or the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Gingrich) or any of ours, though perhaps they should be. Instead, it will be hard-working U.S. workers or hard-working U.S. farmers who lose export markets and lose their jobs because of it. I would like to read to my colleagues what another Republican said about this issue in a very different time when I was leading the fight for his request for IMF funding. Ronald Reagan said the following in 1983: ``My administration is committed to do what is legitimately needed to help ensure that the IMF continues as the cornerstone of the international financial system.'' ``Let me make something very plain.'' Mr. Reagan said, ``I have an unbreakable commitment to increase funding for the IMF, but the U.S. Congress so far has failed to act to pass the enabling legislation. I urge the Congress to be mindful of its responsibility and to meet the pledge of our government.'' Leonard Silk in the New York Times wrote about Mr. Reagan in September of that same year, saying: ``Mr. Reagan went about as far in his speech yesterday as he could to end the dispute by scolding members of his own party as well as the Democrats for playing politics. He said he did not appreciate the partisan wrangling and political posturing over the issue and urged members of both parties to lay aside their differences, to abandon harsh rhetoric and unreasonable demands and to get on with the task in the spirit of true bipartisanship.'' I would say those words were true then, and they are most certainly true now. So I would simply say I intend to vote no on this bill today for the reasons that I have listed. I believe that this House is engaging in irresponsible and needlessly reckless conduct which is putting at risk the national interests of the United States and is in the process of bringing the actions of this House into considerable disrepute. I thought last year we had gotten over the partisanship and we were going to be able to deal together on appropriation bills in a constructive way, the way I thought we did for most of last year. I regret that we seem to be regressing into an ``election year, anything goes'' mode. That may suit the needs of some people in this body, it does not suit the needs of the people who sent us here. And if this House continues to withhold these items, it should be ashamed of the political way in which it is acting.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I think, in fairness to Members of the House, they should understand that the White House has apparently decided that the President will sign this bill. And I understand why he feels he has to do that given some of the funding in the bill. But I think there are many problems with the bill that will lead me to vote ``no.'' I will be explaining them at a later moment in the debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking member on the Subcommittee on National Security.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, it ought to be understood that we are not limited in debate today because of our choosing. We are limited in debate because we were denied the opportunity on the rule when this bill was considered to have a full-fledged debate on the IMF. We asked for that opportunity. Every person who voted against us on the rule has the responsibility for the fact that we are limited only to one hour tonight. Do not blame us for the problem which you yourself created.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a well-known reactionary, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Minority Whip.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am in a curious position here today. I am offering a motion to instruct to the conferees to defend what would have been considered a core Republican value when I first came to this body. When I came to this body, the Republican Party was a very strong internationalist party, and it recognized that the best way to defend our own economic interests was to make certain that our economy was operating in a world which was as stable as possible. We are being asked to appoint conferees tonight on a bill which is supposed to contain not only supplemental appropriations for Bosnia and for Iraq and for flood victim relief, it is also supposed to contain, at least the administration asked us to include in this proposition, full funding for the IMF replenishment and funding, as well, for the United Nations arrearages so that we can eliminate our debt status in that organization. I have a motion here tonight which would instruct the conferees to at least accept, as an add-on to the bill passed by this House, to accept our obligation to fully fund the administration request for the IMF. I am not doing that because it will help American business, although it certainly will. I am not doing that because I care about what is going to happen in Asian countries around the world. I care, but that is not the reason I am offering the motion. I am offering this motion because we need to be aware of the fact that what happens in our economies around the world can have a crushing effect on American workers and a hugely negative effect on the American economy. We have seen what has happened in Asia when that region has continued to engage in fiscally ludicrous acts. We have seen Japan for years follow an economic policy which has led to a huge over-building in many areas in Asia instead of having led to a growth in Japanese consumption. And we have seen speculative activities, as well, in Asia. And, as a result, a few months ago we saw a huge collapse of Asian currencies. I do not worry about that because of what it means to Asia. I worry about that because of what it means to us. Because what it means is that, as a result of those devalued currencies, we have got every cargo ship known to man being loaded with artificially low-priced foreign goods who are on their way to the American economy and they are soon going to be sold in this economy at cut-rate prices because of currency disequilibrium; and those sales and the accompanying trade deficits are going to cost many American jobs and they are going to close many American factories. We are being told that, in spite of that threat, we should not act upon it because, somehow, an element of the majority party caucus still wants to use this IMF crisis as leverage in order to push their advantage on a totally unrelated issue involving family planning policy known as the Mexico City policy. And so, the American business community is being told that they should wait for another day to have this problem addressed. I do not think we can afford to wait for another day. At any moment, the act of some speculator, the run on country's currency could cause a further unraveling of the situation in Asia, which would present us with even bigger economic problems. At any time, we could have a currency crisis in the Ukraine, in Brazil, in Russia, in India, in Turkey; and, without IMF replenishment, we would not be ready to defend the economic interest of the United States. My motion would simply instruct the House conferees to agree to the administration's request for funding of the International Monetary Fund under the terms and conditions approved by the House Banking Committee. That Banking Committee bill was approved on March 5 with the overwhelming bipartisan vote of 40-89, with the support of virtually all of the Democrats on the Committee and the votes of two-thirds of the Republicans on the committee. And that bill was endorsed by the administration. That bill sets tough new labor rights and environmental conditions on IMF lending, as well as new requirements for increased accountability and transparency at the IMF. It sets up a watchdog group, including representatives from labor and NGO groups, to review the implementation of labor rights and other criteria. And it does a number of other things. I do not think that we can afford to wait, and I do not especially think it is a good idea to allow us to go to the Senate and have only the Senate language on the table, language which was much more favorable to the administration, frankly, but language which I do not believe adequately defends the interest of American workers. That is why I would simply say to those of my colleagues who have told their workers or their businesses or their farmers that they are going to be defending the economic interest of American workers, I think this is the time and this is the vote. This is not a partisan issue. It certainly should not be a partisan issue. It has become wrapped up in partisan hostage politics, unfortunately, but it should not be so. We are here tonight to answer the question whether or not we will defend the economic interest of the United States and to defend the interest of American workers; and I think the best way to do that is to support this motion to recommit, and I would urge the House to do so when the vote comes later this evening. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the distinguished Speaker, those of us who voted against NAFTA and Fast Track want to be involved in the world market, but in ways that are fair to workers and not just investors and CEOs. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress my State got back about 70 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington for highways. Through the years working with Mr. Petri and others we have been able to raise that to just about a dollar. This bill continues that new one- to-one relationship roughly, and for that I am very pleased. But this bill has three problems that lead me to conclude I cannot support it. First of all, the bill increases spending by 44 percent over the last bill. I simply do not think we have the money. Secondly, yesterday this House made a great thing of insisting that the emergency appropriation for Iraq and Bosnia and natural disasters be fully offset to the tune of about $3 billion. Today we are being asked to vote for a bill that is 13 times that large in terms of the amount by which it exceeds the amount that the budget allowed for it last year, and yet we have no idea whatsoever what other priorities are going to have to be cut back in order to pay for it. Highways are a very high priority with me. But they are not the only priority. It seems to me irresponsible, to say the least, for the House to vote on this before we know where the money is going to come from. In my view, this House ought to turn down this bill until the budget resolution is out here so that Congress can make its priority choices and decide how much more funding it wants in education, how much more funding it wants in health care, how much more funding it wants in Medicaid, or how much less it may want in some of these areas. Until we know that, I think it is spectacularly irresponsible for us to proceed to vote for this bill. And even though I am a zealous supporter of highway construction, and I guess in my days in the State legislature I was probably a pretty good imitation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), under these circumstances I simply cannot support this bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, a donor State is better off under Kasich. If my colleagues believe that States can do some things better than the Federal Government, vote for Kasich. If my colleagues want highways off budget, let us really take them off budget, keep the dollars at home and vote for Kasich. There is or there should be a Federal role in the highway area, but this bill is so incredibly irresponsible. Forty-four percent over the last bill, $40 million over the budget; it demonstrates this Congress has lost all manner of self-control on this issue and does not deserve to have its hands on the dollars in this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania said a moment ago, oh, this amendment is not scored. I could not help but laugh. Give me a break. This bill has been scored, and it is a $40 billion budget buster. We are told 50 Governors support the bill. What Governor do we not see in this posture, with his hand out half the time? We had 40 of those Governors last year tell us to pass the same budget that now they are telling us to bust. That is ridiculous. Last year when we passed the welfare reform bill we told people that there was no longer any need to keep Federal standards under how we took care of poor people. If that is the case, there is certainly no need to maintain Federal standards on concrete. Vote for the Kasich amendment. It gets us out of the most irresponsible mess I have seen in this Congress in at least a week.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, our opportunity was by voting down the rule and coming back with a new rule. That is the way the House is supposed to operate under regular order. If the gentleman was not satisfied with the rule, he should have voted against it.