Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express dissenting views to those which apparently generally prevail in this House on this legislation. We are about to vote on the largest appropriations bill that comes before us this year. We will do it in very little time, with very little debate and with very little protest, if you please, about what I consider to be some of the misguided efforts of this Congress in dealing with military budget. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that I heard during the discussion on the rule that there was alarm because there had been a number of years during which we have had a significant real reduction in the military budget. I would point out that is because we have had a significant reduction in the military threats facing this country. The fact is that since the collapse of the Soviet empire we have had about an 80-percent drop in Russian military spending. We have not seen a concurrent reduction in our own military spending to nearly that degree over that same period of time. I would also say that there have been a number of warnings that we are in effect, by what we are buying in the military budget, that we are again getting ready to fight the last war and not getting ready to fight the kind of war we could be facing in the future. Everyone who has studied the military budget knows that we are buying far too many high cost weapon systems in order to fit into the overall budget ceilings which we are being asked to comply with over the next 5 years under the budget agreement. No one who studies the military budget can come away without an understanding that we are going to have to stop the purchase of one and probably two expensive military weapon systems if we want to be able to maintain the level of readiness that will be needed over the coming years and, if we want to, at the same time, actually live within the budgets that are being set by these agreements that are being trumpeted around this town over the last couple of months and, in fact, couple of days. I will be offering two amendments today, one to eliminate the funding for additional B-2's that the Congress has decided that the Government ought to purchase despite the fact that over 20 studies through the years have indicated that we do not need those weapons and, in fact, that we even had the Defense Department itself conclude that it would be counterproductive in terms of maximizing the use of our defense dollars. I will also be offering an amendment which precludes the sale of the F-22 abroad so that we do not get into the ludicrous position of selling our most sophisticated military technology around the world and then using that as an excuse to build yet more sophisticated planes in the future.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank motion. Let me stipulate, I am an internationalist. I for 10 years chaired the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations. In that capacity, I worked with many Members in this institution in initiating and then expanding American assistance to eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was deeply involved in ensuring that we had major debt relief for Poland without which Poland would not, in my view, have been able to make the transition from a captive Communist country to a now economically thriving incipient democracy. I believe deeply in engagement with countries around the world, including those in Central Europe. But I think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is absolutely correct. Uncle Sam cannot be Uncle Sucker. I think frankly, while the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said this debate is not about the expansion of NATO, I wish it were because frankly we have never really had a debate in this country about expansion of NATO. We have had a very lightly once over discussion in this House last year encouraging the administration to pursue the possibilities of expansion, something which no reasonable Member could oppose; but I do not believe that the expansion of NATO has occurred in the right way. I think that what the West has done and the way it has done it in expanding NATO has been one of the most culturally and politically, internationally politically arrogant acts that the West has undertaken. I am concerned it will lead to some long-term problems because, first of all, I do not like the fact that, if you expand NATO selectively, we then leave the Baltic States exposed in a no-man's land. I think if we add three or four countries to NATO, we increase the vulnerability to the countries closest to Russia, Ukraine, Balkans, countries like that. Second, we had in this country our own debate about who lost China more than a generation ago. It was not a healthy debate. I am concerned that the way in which we approach the expansion of NATO will add fuel to the fire and add to the capacity of the most hard-line rejectionist elements within Russia to some year down the road, when the economy starts to slide again, encourage them in their own who-lost-Eastern- Europe debate. I think that would operate to the disadvantage of democratic forces in Russia. Last, and I think most importantly, as stewards of the taxpayers money, it is our obligation both to know and to be frank with the American people about the cost that will be associated with NATO expansion. I do not think that we have had that frankness and that openness. I doubt very much that, if the country knew that we are going to commit ourselves to the concept that an attack on, say, Budapest would be treated as an attack upon Washington, DC, I think the country would want a whole lot more debate about that than it has had to this point. And certainly it would want to know what that could cost us in this era of competing forces and scarce budgets. So I wish we had had a more full debate on that subject, but given the fact that we have not, at least I believe that we certainly ought to do what the Frank amendment does, which is to take at their word what they say the cost to us of NATO expansion will be and to see to it that it does not rise above that ceiling because I believe that will at least force a stronger debate on the issue. If we are going to make this decision, it ought to be made with everybody's eyes open, after a full debate. That is the only way to strengthen rather than weaken the commitment of our society to involvement in international affairs. That is the only way that we can discourage rather than encourage isolationism. That is why I think that the Frank amendment, while it does not come soon enough to generate a full-blown debate on what is happening in NATO, at least gives us an opportunity to be more frank about what it is we are doing, not meaning a pun there. I congratulate the gentleman and support his motion.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I want to correct the comments of the previous speaker. If he will go back and review the history of the D.C. bill, what happened on that bill, and on several other occasions, is that the gentleman in question asked that the Committee on Rules make in order amendments which would otherwise not have been allowed under the rules. It would have been nongermane under House rules, and we asked under those circumstances to deny them. I never said that there were not occasions when the wishes of the ranking minority member were not granted. Go back and read what I said. I never described that in any way. What I urged my colleagues to do was not on a routine basis turn down the request of ranking members. I do not expect the committee to grant all of them, but I do expect them to grant a reasonable number. And the fact is that this year the Committee on Rules has routinely turned down the requests of the ranking minority members, and the record demonstrates that.

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I cannot believe we are here again with this kind of a rule. We have just gone through a very frustrating and acrimonious period because the Committee on Rules chose to turn previously bipartisan bills reported out of the Committee on Appropriations into partisan war zones by the nature of amendments which they did and did not allow on appropriation bills. It took us a long time to work out the arrangement last night on the foreign operations bill which ended that controversy, I had hoped. Now apparently we are right back at it. It is important for the majority to understand that we have our responsibilities to manage these bills just as they have their responsibilities. And it is disruptive of the legislative process when on a routine basis the request of our party's bill managers on these bills is ignored and frustrated. We asked--and we gave them their choice--we asked that they make any one of three amendments in order which would allow us to eliminate or reduce the expenditure of public money under the Speaker's slush fund. And we were denied the opportunity to reach that problem with any of the amendments that we had before us. I think that is a very basic mistake. The fundamental job of this House--we can argue about taxes, we can argue about all other authorizations--the fundamental job of this House, after all, is to get the basic work of the Government done through the appropriations process. Rules like this get in the way of that obligation. They extend the acrimony rather than shorten it. They extend the debate rather than shorten it. They make it more difficult for the House to complete its work in a timely fashion. Most of all, with this rule the House has a clever way to sneak around the staff cuts which were provided in committees 2 years ago under the Republican contract and now under this, committees are able to get large amounts of additional funding for large amounts of additional staff without ever having taken a vote on that on the House floor. That is just plain wrong. They ought not to do this. They ought to listen to what witnesses before their committee said last night. I would hope that this episode will not be repeated on future appropriation bills or, again, the House will not be providing the leadership to this country that it ought to provide.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand that response. This is not a hypothetical situation. This just occurred. I thought there was a requirement for truth on the sheets that are being distributed.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is an outrageous misstatement of the facts. The truth is regular order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, when the majority party tried to cut the School Lunch Program, this Congress and the Nation finally rejected that. Last year, they tried to cut the WIC Program, the feeding program for women, children, and infants. The country rejected that. Now we are back with this bill, and this bill is $30 million short of the amount that is apparently required in order to prevent 55,000 women and children from being knocked off the program. At the same time, this Congress is being asked to approve a tax cut which will provide, on average, a $27,000 tax cut to the richest 1 percent of people in this country. I think that is unconscionable. The bill itself is $180 million below the President's budget for the WIC Program. The amendment that I am offering today simply does not even restore the President's request. We simply try to restore $27 million so that we assure that no person is knocked off the program in the coming fiscal year. Now how do we pay for it? We pay for it simply by eliminating $36 million, which has been put in this bill above the President's budget to pay for subsidies for commissions for insurance agents who write crop insurance. This is not aimed in any way at changing what farmers receive by way of crop insurance. This is not aimed in any way at affecting what farmers pay. It is simply aimed at the abuses in the commissions which were described by the General Accounting Office when they pointed out that they had discovered above-average commissions paid to agents by one large company. They discovered the Government was being charged for corporate aircraft and excessive automobile charges, we were being charged for country club memberships and various entertainment activities for agencies and employees such as skybox rentals at professional sporting events. This amendment is, purely and simply, aimed at ending the rip-off of both farmers and taxpayers by some people who are involved in this program so that we can free up some money for starving and malnourished kids. It is as simple as that. I urge support of the amendment Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Chairman, a propaganda sheet has been circulated by lobbyists who are lobbying against my amendment, claiming that this is an amendment that attacks farmers. That is certainly not true. I represent farmers, I have fought for them all my life; in my view farmers are not hurt by this amendment, they are hurt by two things. They are hurt by the misguided farm policies of the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations that we suffered through for the last three administrations, and they are also being hurt by the failure of the Committee on Agriculture to reform the crop insurance program so that we do not get ripped off by some of the agents involved in this program. Most of the agents involved are perfectly rational, responsible and fair-minded people, but the fact is that nonetheless the program is being ripped off. If we separate fact from fiction, the fact is that nothing in this amendment changes crop insurance for farmers, nothing in my amendment changes what farmers will pay for crop insurance. What we are trying to do is to stop the rip-offs on the commissions that some of the insurance agents are getting. Now the lobby sheet that is being circulated says that 10 percent commission is not enough. We are not cutting this to 10 percent. We are trying to cut the commission from 28 percent to 24\1/2\ percent, which is the amount USDA and the Office of Management and Budget both say is sufficient to run the program. We are not cutting it to 10 percent. And the reason we are doing that, as I said earlier, is because we have a General Accounting Office report which indicates that some of the commissions being charged included charges for corporate aircraft, excessive automobile charges, country club memberships, rental of things such as skyboxes, and they suggest that the best way to tighten up this program is to do exactly what we are doing in this amendment. I know we passed a freedom to farm program last year. I did not vote for it because I thought it was a lousy bill. But the fact is, freedom to farm is not freedom to milk farmers. It is also not freedom to milk taxpayers as some of these commissions are doing. The fact is my amendment is supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it is supported by the Office of Management and Budget, it is an attempt to end the rip-offs of this program, and that is in the benefit of farmers. It is an attempt to use the money we save to help starving infants and to help malnourished mothers who are about to give birth to children who we want to be healthy. That is what it does. Stick with the kids. Do not listen to this propaganda sheet being pedaled by some of the agents. I urge support for the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, what are the remedies available to a Member when the amendment that he has offered to the House is being falsely described in a sheet handed out by another Member?

Mr. OBEY. Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, what are the rules with respect to sheets which are absolutely, totally false and erroneous?

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

Mr. OBEY

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 move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record immediately after my remarks earlier this evening the text of the article to which I referred during the debate on the agriculture appropriations bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Nussle]. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will take the 3 minutes, but I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would simply say this is the kind of rule that I think we should have. This rule will allow the resolution of virtually every difference that I know of in the bill. The administration has some concerns with the number of items. I will insert in the Record at the proper time the Statement of Administration Policy which indicates that there is still a way that this bill has to go before it can receive the blessing of the White House. But I would not expect that in the end that will be a problem. I would simply say that I would hope that we can have the kind of cooperation on other rules that are brought to the House floor that we have had on this one. If we can, we can get our work done a whole lot faster and in a whole lot more pleasant fashion and we will all eventually get to the August recess in a whole lot less tired shape than we will otherwise reach that week. Let me at this point simply thank the Committee on Rules for doing what they needed to do. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy, as follows: Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 2203--energy and water development appropriations bill fiscal year 1998 Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; McDade (R), Pennsylvania. This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, FY 1998, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the Administration's views would be appreciated. The Committee has developed a bill that provides requested funding for many of the Administration's priorities. However, the Administration strongly objects to the Committee's reallocation of national defense funds from Department of Energy programs to Department of Defense programs. These funds are needed for key environmental privatization projects and to provide full funding for Atomic Energy Defense Activities, as requested, which is consistent with fixed asset funding practices in the Government's other defense programs. We believe that this action is an unacceptable deviation from our understanding of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. As discussed below, the Administration will seek restoration of certain of the Committee's reductions. We recognize that it will not be possible in all cases to attain the Administration's full request and will work with the House toward achieving acceptable funding levels. We urge the House to reduce funding for lower priority programs, or for programs that would be adequately funded at the requested level, and to redirect funding to programs of higher priority. Department of Energy The Administration objects to the Committee's providing only $102 million of the $1.006 billion requested for environmental management privatization projects. Based on this mark, several environmental privatization projects would not be funded at all, and it is questionable whether the expected out-year funding would allow support for higher priority cleanup privatization projects at this funding level. Failure to invest in competitive privatization contracts for cleanup activities would force the Department of Energy (DOE) to continue using more costly, traditional contracting approaches, which the Committee Report has strongly criticized. This would result in a substantial increase to DOE's cleanup costs in future years and could jeopardize the Department's ability to comply with cleanup agreements. The Administration strongly opposes the cuts to DOE's Federal staff and management accounts, including Departmental Administration and the Office of the Inspector General. Cuts in Federal staff and support service contractors of this magnitude would make it nearly impossible for the Department to improve contractor oversight or to develop, award, and manage more competitive fixed-price contracts, which are some of the Committee's own recommendations in the accompanying report. The Administration also opposes the Committee's attempt to micromanage the Department, limit its ability to exercise good business judgment, overly restrict its ability to implement sound innovative contracting practices, and limit its ability to participate in procurement reinvention. It would do this by: (1) requiring special reports and notification prior to the start of any FY 1998 approved construction and special congressional permission to make procurement decisions currently authorized by other statutes; (2) inhibiting market research; (3) further restricting the Department's ability to outsource beyond that required in OMB Circular No. A-76; (4) unnecessarily restricting the Department's ability to deviate from the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and, (5) inappropriately limiting the Department's ability to use current statutory exemptions from competition. Additional reporting requirements combined with the proposed staffing reductions would erode DOE's ability to gain better control over its operations and improve management of its complex mission. The Administration also strongly opposes the transfer of the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) from DOE to the Corps of Engineers. In recent years, the Department has placed nearly half of this program under competitive, fixed-price contracts and developed a plan to accelerate cleanup by 12 years. DOE has established an open, interactive dialogue with communities and regulators, through which the Department has developed cleanup standards commensurate with land use plans and proceeded with early removal of contamination at many sites. DOE has completed cleanup at 52 percent of the main sites and 56 percent of the vicinity properties. Between FYs 1996 and 1997, DOE has reduced support costs for this program by 23 percent. Transferring this well-managed program that is nearly complete to another agency would be disruptive and would most likely delay completion and increase costs. The Administration objects to the program cuts in the requests for nuclear nonproliferation programs. For example, the reductions in verification research and development would delay the completion of next generation land-based and satellite-borne sensors for the detection of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. The Administration also opposes the $29 million reduction to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) program. DOE is about to enter into a large contract for D&D and re-industrialization of the large gaseous diffusion plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, using an approach that will expedite cleanup, reduce costs, and create new jobs. The Committee's funding cuts in this program would make it difficult to proceed with this effort, comply with environmental requirements, and provide reimbursements to radium and thorium licensees. The Administration opposes the Committee's elimination of $25 million requested for the Next Generation Internet. While the Administration acknowledges that the private sector has shown the capability and willingness to fund considerable technology development for the Internet, the Next Generation Internet funds requested in the President's budget are necessary to assist universities and national laboratories in implementing advanced, high-speed connections that will not be financed by industry, and to accelerate research in areas where DOE laboratories have particular expertise. The Committee's overall reduction of $30 million from the request for the civilian radioactive waste management program would threaten satisfactory completion of the Department of Energy's viability assessment of Yucca Mountain. Both the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board and independent expert advisers have urged DOE to build and study an ``east-west tunnel'' or ``drift'' through the repository block at Yucca Mountain in order to reduce uncertainty about water moving downward through the site. The $14 million (16 percent) reduction to the request for the core science program would virtually eliminate any scientific input from this important research to the viability assessment. Additionally, the 416 million reduction in support services and personnel costs would severely constrain, if not eliminate, an independent review of critical elements of the viability assessment, including a validation of repository design concepts and operating strategies, as well as refined cost estimates of these designs. The Administration strongly objects to the Committee's $60 million reduction to the Solar and Renewable Energy R&D request (calculated on a comparable basis). The overall funding cuts, particularly in biofuels and solar thermal energy, would seriously set back environmentally promising and increasingly economic sources of energy. Research programs such as these are also the least burdensome way for the Nation to respond to global climate change. Army Corps of Engineers The Administration urges the House to reduce the number of unrequested Corps of Engineers' projects and programs and to restore funds that the Administration has requested for priority Corps projects, including the Columbia and Snake Rivers Juvenile Fish Mitigation Program for salmon run restoration and for construction of an emergency outlet for Devils Lake, North Dakota. The Administration urges the House to use the $540 million in unrequested funds that the Committee has provided for the Corps of Engineers construction, studies, and operation and maintenance programs to restore reductions made in other priority Corps and DOE programs. The Administration appreciates the Committee's full funding of the Administration's request for the Corps' regulatory program. This will allow the Corps to implement its administrative appeals process fully and to continue to process wetlands permits in a timely manner. The Administration urges the House to include the Administration's requested regulatory permit fee, which would allow the Corps to recover its costs for processing permit applications for commercial uses. Bureau of Reclamation The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for funding to restore the California Bay-Delta ecosystem. However, we urge the House to provide the full $143 million that Congress authorized for this program and that was requested by the President in the FY 1998 Budget. This important program plays a central role in resolving long- standing water conflicts that have plagued the State of California. In addition, we oppose the reduction of $14 million in requested Central Valley Project funding, which is an important component of the effort to restore this critical ecosystem. The Administration objects to the Committee's decision to fund a number of Reclamation projects and activities not requested in the FY 1998 Budget, some of which could result in demands for additional funding in the out-years. The Administration supports the Committee's decision to provide funds to cover the estimated authorized Federal share of costs for the purchase of water associated with variable flood control operations at Folsom Dam during FY 1997. Tennessee Valley Authority The Administration objects to the Committee's elimination of all appropriations for the Tennessee Valley Authority in FY 1998. We believe that an abrupt and total elimination of funding for the agency in FY 1998 is premature. The Administration has proposed continued funding in FY 1998 while TVA completes its consultations on potential alternate funding arrangements for future years for its appropriated program. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Administration urges restoration of the Committee's $4 million reduction to the request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) High-level Waste Program. This 24- percent reduction would adversely affect the NRC's ability to maintain a strong scientific capability, independent of DOE, to review high-level waste activities. This reduction could jeopardize the NRC's ability to complete timely reviews of DOE's viability assessment. Timely resolution of the high- level waste issue is important to the Nation as well as to the nuclear industry.