Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago this Congress had a major fight because the majority wanted to cut school lunches. Last year the majority tried to cut the WIC program, which is a nutrition program for infants and young mothers. In this bill they are again falling some $30 million short in the WIC Program of what would be required to maintain our existing case load. What happens in this bill is that the committee is attempting to bring the carryover funds down to around 3 percent or less. That creates a problem because this program needs a certain amount of carryover funds in order to pay the reimbursements that come in after the end of the fiscal year. OMB and USDA both estimate that without this amendment that I am offering tonight that we run the risk of seeing 55,000 women, children, and infants bounced out of the WIC Program. Basically what we do is to restore that funding and pay for it by reducing the increase in this bill, which the committee provided above the administration request for commissions for crop insurance. Before anybody has a heart attack and says, oh, do not hurt our farmers, I want to make quite clear, this amendment will in no way hurt farmers. The GAO reported that under the crop insurance program we had a number of fiscal failures. The General Accounting Office said that they found in the crop insurance program expenses for above average commissions paid to agents by one large company, corporate aircraft and excessive automobile charges, country club memberships and various entertainment activities for agents and employees such as skybox rentals at professional sporting events. The GAO went on to indicate that the problem could best be addressed by reducing the commission that is provided to insurance agents under the program. Now, we have some scare tactics being followed by some people who would like to see this amendment not passed. Members are being told, for instance, in a letter circulated by the American Association of Crop Insurers that this is going to hurt farmers. That is absolutely not true. There are four separate assertions in this letter which are dead wrong. First of all, they say that the cuts that I am proposing will occur in addition to the Meehan amendment. That is in fact wrong. If my amendment is passed, the Meehan amendment cannot even be offered on the House floor. Second, they say that a 10.5-percent commission is insufficient and would cause cancellation of policies. We are not talking about a 10- percent commission. We are talking about limiting these commissions to 24.5 percent rather than the 28 percent in the bill. Third, they claim that the Obey amendment is an attack on farmers. That is absolute nonsense. What is an attack on farmers is the ridiculous farm policy that we have had under both Democratic and Republican administrations for the past 12 years which have driven prices down and driven many farmers off the farm. This proposal or this assertion that this cut in insurance rates or insurance commissions will hurt farmers is, as Mo Udall used to say, straight gumwah, absolute gumwah. All this does is to say that we want farmers and taxpayers to get the best possible deal for the money. This proposal does absolutely nothing to change the crop insurance program. It does absolutely nothing to raise the cost of this program for farmers. What it does do is to stop the rip-off that this program has had to endure from some of the people who have been trying to sell this insurance to farmers, and so it is a simple choice. If you want to continue to support the kind of rip-offs that some of these agents had provided, then you vote against the amendment. If you want to, on the other hand, ensure that we do not knock 55,000 to 60,000 women and infants and children off the WIC Program, then vote for the amendment. That is the sound thing to do.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. Let me simply say that as the gentleman knows, trying to figure out what is happening at any point in this House on any subject, the way it is being run these days, is extremely difficult, to say the least. Let me simply say that for the last 2 days this House has been at a procedural impasse because the majority party in the Committee on Rules arrogantly disregarded the rights of minority managers of the bills. It arbitrarily denied the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] the right to offer a major amendment on the foreign operations bill, a bill which she is supposed to manage on this side of the aisle. It did the same thing to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] several weeks ago on a previous bill. It did the same thing to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] on the Interior appropriations bill. The majority party determined to bring the agriculture bill to the floor without a rule. The procedural protest which this side has been engaging in on the other problems is apparently now being responded to by attempts to go to the Committee on Rules and draft what we understand is going to be a draconian rule which will allow virtually a meaningless 5 minutes of debate on serious amendments, which will apparently eliminate the right to strike items in this bill, which goes to the heart of the congressional prerogative to protect the power of the purse. I would simply say that if that is indeed the case, then it makes the debate which we are having on this amendment at this point tonight useless, because it apparently is simply a time-filler until the majority party responds in exactly the wrong way to our concerns. Mr. Chairman, this is exactly opposite the actions which would be taken by a party that wanted to promote bipartisanship, that wanted to promote collegiality. And in my view, if they do intend to proceed down that road, it will certainly lead to more acrimonious days on the floor of the House. It apparently is not enough that they are cannibalizing themselves in their own caucus. Apparently the legislative process itself is to be cannibalized. I would simply urge the majority party, if they are planning to do that, that they think about it overnight, because that would be a most destructive way to proceed. It would not be a fair outcome. It would be a total misreading of their responsibilities, given the already acrimonious feelings in this House. I would hope that in their own interests, as well as the interests of this House, they would reconsider their apparent plans.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that we are not even asking that we meet the administration's request for funding level for WIC. This bill funds WIC at $184 million below the President's request. We are adding only a tiny portion back. That is hardly excessive.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think, in fairness to the chairman, it is important to point out that the reason that my colleague has had so many women objecting to proceeding under regular order today and the reason he has had so many of us join them is because we have seen what we regard as a routine action on the part of the Committee on Rules to systematically deny to ranking minority members on committees, ranging from the Committee on Armed Services, to the Subcommittee on Agriculture, to the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, to the Subcommittee on the Interior. We have seen routinely requests of ranking minority members denied and then amendments put in order which do extensive rewrite of authorizations. And, so, I think that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] needs to understand that the unhappiness extends far beyond that one amendment. We believe there must be an understanding about how amendments are or which amendments are made in order when asked for by ranking members on all committees. And it is not just that one message which is causing the problem.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the committee allow for any and all amendments to cut spending without limitation to be made in order?

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all I was going to suggest is that it was my understanding right now that the only amendment that is in order offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] at this point is an amendment without what would be language on an appropriation bill. If he withdraws that amendment with the assurance that that same amendment could be offered again, he would, as I understand it, lose nothing. And yet if in the time between now and then, the gentleman and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] can work out the language that I think everybody is in general agreement upon, then that additional language at that point could be added because there would be no controversy about it.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me start by stipulating I know virtually nothing about this program and I have no stake in it. I would like to see the agreement worked out that we have just heard. I think our concern, I want to make sure that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] has an opportunity to put the concept before the House that has just been agreed to in principle. The concern, as I understand, is that we need time to work out the language between these two gentlemen, because they know the ins and outs of this better than anyone else. I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] needs the assurance that we are willing to allow that concept to come to the floor, but we need to understand that that is subject to agreement on the exact language. I do not think there will be a program. The reason we need the time is because we are not certain that the language works. That is the point.

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. First, I would like to simply say that I think that there are no two Members of the House who are more popular than the gentlewoman from Ohio and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. I think everyone understands in these two individuals they have Members who want to work things out, they have Members who want to produce a bipartisan approach and who try to the best of their ability to accommodate the needs of this institution, the country and our individual Members. I want to say that I expected to support this bill with a fair amount of enthusiasm in the early stages of consideration. But, unfortunately, in the full committee a number of amendments were adopted which will make that very difficult. First of all, the gentlewoman has already mentioned the Crop Insurance Commission issue which was raised in full committee. The amount of funding put in the bill for that purpose now greatly exceeds that requested by the administration. I do not believe that that can be justified with so many other competing needs. I am for crop insurance, most definitely, but I am not for providing persons who sell it with a greater commission than they need in order to persuade people to buy what they ought to buy without any persuasion. I would also say that the development in full committee which eliminated the assistant deputy administrator of FSA I find to be an unseemly personalization of differences between individual Members of the Congress and the agency, and I believe that just as it did when similar action was taken by previous chairs of this subcommittee, I think that in this instance it also brings disrepute on the Congress as an institution for acting in a manner that is that extreme. I think that that will have to be removed before it is accepted by the administration. There are some other items as well. I would simply also take note that I do not know what exactly the number is, but I know the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is one of the very few women who have either served as Chair or ranking minority member of an appropriations subcommittee. There have been, as I understand it, two women who served as subcommittee Chairs and three who have served as ranking members. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] for ascending to that position. Again, I express my appreciation for the way that the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] tries to conduct affairs in this place. I would also simply say that in general, at the proper time, I will be trying to insert in the Record a very interesting article from a newspaper in my home town called City Pages, which really traces the depths of despair which has developed on the part of many farmers in rural America because of the economic crunch that has beset them really for the past 20 years. In my view this bill cannot begin to address the damage that has been done to the social fabric of rural America and to the economic welfare of hard-working, struggling family farmers by what I consider to be inadequate and misguided farm policy over the past years, which unfortunately continues today. I will be inserting that article in the Record despite its length because I think it is important, when people are looking at reasons for the tuning out of large segments of our population, when they are looking for reasons why so many people join these misguided militia groups around the country, I think it is important to understand that when people are economically pressed to the wall, that their reaction is sometimes irrational. I would urge all Members, whether they are from urban or rural districts, to read it because it ought to teach us all a lesson.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we will be able to agree to the request tomorrow.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the gentleman is suggesting there.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand the gentleman from New Mexico is making a unanimous consent request to roll votes tomorrow. Let me simply say that at this point I am not at liberty to accede to that request. I would urge the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] to withdraw the request, and perhaps we will be in a position tomorrow when we convene to accede to that request. Right now I have a number of problems on my side of the aisle that will prevent us from agreeing to it at this time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I regret very much that I am offering this amendment under these circumstances. But for anyone who happens to be watching, either Members or anyone else, on C-SPAN, I am afraid what they are witnessing is another step in the gradual destruction of the ability of this House to conduct rational debate. What is now happening is that amendments of substance will be debated with virtually nobody in the room. Members will then be called upon as the first order of business tomorrow to vote on those amendments, not having heard them, not having even had the opportunity to watch them from their offices on their TV screens. They will walk in blind and we will be asked, ``What is in this? Oh, I don't get it.'' And within about a minute they have to make up their minds. I think it is a further debilitating of this House, but there is not a whole lot that I can do about it. Mr. Chairman, let me simply explain what this amendment is. This amendment accomplishes two important objectives. First, it deletes funding for an unauthorized, unbudgeted construction project that appears to be premature at best. Second, it increases funding for veterans' medical care. There are four veterans' services organizations, the DAV, AmVets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and VFW that each year jointly produce an independent budget for veterans' programs. This year's independent budget estimates are that $18.044 billion is necessary for medical care in fiscal 1998 just to maintain current services. So the committee recommendation is $17.56 billion, assuming VA medical facilities can keep third-party reimbursements, which are being dealt with in another bill before this Congress. Those recommendations in the committee are almost $500 million less than the current services amount and $2 billion below the optimum level. So basically what I am trying to do is to add the funding in this amendment to increase that account slightly. To pay for the increased veterans' medical care, we cut $60 million that the committee has recommended for a windstorm simulation center to be constructed at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. There are many questions raised by the manner in which this project has been considered. Let me simply list a few. First of all, the funds were not requested by the administration. The latest statement of administration policy indicates funds should be redirected to higher priorities. Second, the project is not authorized, either for the Department of Energy or for FEMA; Third, the split authority between FEMA and DOE on the project makes it a classic case for mismanagement; Fourth, the project meets six of the seven criteria of the ``porkbusters coalition'' as to items that should qualify for viewing as pork; Fifth, there have been no hearings on the project; Sixth, the company that operates the Idaho lab for the DOE is the same company that is currently in a major dispute with the government over another construction job at that lab. It seems that the contractor, Lockheed Martin, is $150 million over the amount that they were supposed to reach on a fixed price contract. They now want the government to change the terms of that contract to bail them out. Seventh, there has been no peer review at all for this project. Indeed, there has not been any review at all. The American Association of Wind Engineers has raised serious concerns about the construction and operation of this facility. In addition, although the contractor has indicated that $34 million is all they can use in 1998, the committee recommendation is for $60 million. Next, the $60 million is just a down payment. The total is estimated to cost about $181 million. I would also point out that FEMA has indicated its support for the proposal, only to be contingent upon establishment of a broad coalition of financial support. Yet, to date, the industries with potentially the most to gain from this facility, the insurance industry and the home builders' industry, have not contributed one dollar. I would also point out that 2 years ago the Department of Energy had a major study on the future of the national labs. This project flies in the face of nearly every important recommendation made by the so-called Galvin report. I would also point out that this year a draft report was prepared by a DOE working group, which is chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Procurement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, they recommended this lab lose its status as a federally funded research and development center, a condition that allows it to receive government contracts on a noncompetitive sole source basis. I am aware that the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has indicated his intention to offer an amendment that would require authorization before those funds can be spent, but I would submit that that device is merely a ruse. The amendment contains a kick-out clause. It is only operative until April 1, 1998. If the project is not authorized by that time, the limitation comes off and the money can still be spent. Mr. Chairman, I would say that in addition to that, it is not even clear that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction over this matter. A good case can be made that the Committee on Science is more properly the House committee with authorization oversight. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I would simply urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I would suggest that if Congress is to add money above the budget, we ought to be doing so for cash starved programs like veterans' medical care, and not for questionable, unauthorized, premature pork projects like this windstorm simulation center. Mr. Chairman, this operation started out to be a quite different operation. It started out to be a center to evaluate earthquakes. It did not get quite the review that they wanted, and so now the contractor has simply said: ``Well, if we cannot get the money on an earthquake simulation project, we will move it over and we will design a windstorm operation.'' That is what they have done. Mr. Chairman, no one suggests that this work does not need to be done, but before it needs to be done this project needs to be peer reviewed. We need to know we are getting what we pay for. It just seems to me that until we do, we ought to simply put this money where it is needed the most, which is in the veterans' medical care budget. If the House adopts this amendment, I will offer a conforming amendment in the FEMA portion of the bill to delete the proviso earmarking $60 million for the wind facility. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply close and suggest that at the appropriate time tomorrow, the House would do well to adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the way the gentleman is running this subcommittee. But I would simply observe that, as I said earlier, if this amendment is adopted, then under the rules the next amendment that I would be able to offer will indeed eliminate the earmark for the wind tunnel, which is what the amendment is designed to attack. Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if we really want to do something about protecting the Federal Treasury from the cost of disasters, in my mind what we ought to do is to require States to join an experience- rated self-insurance program, so every time there is a disaster States do not come to Uncle Sam with their hand out; that they can simply, on the basis of their own experience, do just as we do in workmen's compensation and prepay for disasters, so every time a disaster comes we do not have to call up Uncle Sam and jimmy the budget.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield further, let me explain that, Mr. Chairman. I was in a Labor-HEW markup all day. I was here all day yesterday working on Labor-HEW, expecting that others on the gentleman's side would also be here. They were not. So today our Labor-HEW mark was extended. I never dreamed that we would be getting to this point in the bill today, given the other legislation we had before us. I expected to give it to you before we had it tomorrow.