Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Friedman, the respected international affairs columnist for the New York Times, has written an excellent column questioning the wisdom of the expansion of NATO. He raises important concerns about whether or not the expansion of NATO will, in fact, dilute it, making it less likely that NATO will serve as an effective military instrument to defend any of the countries under its umbrella. It is a sobering article and I urge every member of the administration to heed the concerns raised by Mr. Friedman: [From the New York Times, Apr. 14, 1997] Bye-Bye NATO (By Thomas L. Friedman) Brussels.--Some enterprising Russian p.r. experts recently visited NATO headquarters and suggested a novel way to ease tensions between an expanding NATO and Russia: Just change NATO's name, the Russians suggested, because NATO is a four- letter word for Russians. So how about calling it TOMATO (Trans-Oceanic Military Alliance and Treaty Organization), or POTATO (Peace Organization for Trans-Atlantic Ties and Operations), or maybe VODCA (Vanguard Organization for Defense, Cooperation and Assistance)? NATO's savvy boss, Javier Solana, laughed off the Russian proposal. But discussions with officials here left me convinced that if NATO goes ahead with its expansion, just about everything other than its name will be changing--and that's too bad. I rather liked NATO the way it was--a tightly knit group of like-minded democracies capable of taking on any military foe in the world. Everyone is assuming that NATO can expand and keep that focused identity. Don't believe it. The real truth is NATO is now locked on a path of expansion that will dilute its power every bit as much as baseball expansion diluted Major League Pitching and made every 90- pound weakling a home-run threat. It didn't have to be this way. NATO has always had two core functions. One was defense management--the commitment by each member to defend the others in the event of attack. The other was peace management--the commitment by NATO's 16 members to share their defense plans and budgets so that everyone knew what his neighbor was up to. Mutual defense kept peace between NATO and Russia and peace management kept peace among NATO's 16 members. The question NATO asked itself after the cold war was: How do we preserve our defense strength while expanding our peace management capabilities to stabilize newly liberated Central Europe? It came up with a solid idea: Partnership for Peace. P.F.P. was a junior NATO in which 27 non-NATO European states--including Russia--engaged in joint exercises, sent ambassadors to NATO, were educated on NATO standards, discussed problems and participated with NATO in peacekeeping in Bosnia. The one thing P.F.P. members didn't get was NATO's commitment to mutual defense, which was confined to the core 16. The beauty of P.F.P. was that it preserved NATO's core strength while creating a framework to fill the power vacuum in Central Europe--without threatening Russia or setting up a competition over who gets into NATO and who doesn't. So what happened? Unfortunately, in 1996 the Clinton team abandoned P.F.P. in favor of expanding NATO's core members. It was a clinical effort to attract votes from Polish, Czech and Hungarian Americans by promising their motherlands membership. This silly decision set NATO on a slippery slope to who knows where. NATO now has three options. One is that it eventually expands to Russia's border, including the Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. If that happens, it will be the end of NATO as a mutual defense alliance because there's no way the U.S. Army is going to guarantee the Estonia-Russia border. In this scenario NATO becomes just a mini-U.N. Or as a senior NATO military officer told me: ``The more nations that come in, the more NATO becomes just a collective security organization, in which members watch each other--not a collective defense group against a common enemy. That's not the NATO we have now.'' Scenario 2 is that NATO doesn't expand beyond Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic and tries to maintain its current defense and peace management functions, with just three new members. But then we'll have a permanent gray zone of states between NATO and Russia. The states left out will fight to get in and Russia will fight to keep them out. Scenario 3, the one the White House is counting on, is that NATO begins to expand now but simultaneously deepens NATO- Russia cooperation and aid to Russia. This creates so many incentives for Moscow to be nice that NATO will be able to steadily creep toward the Russian border, and fill in the gray zone with new members, without alienating Moscow. Which will it be? No one at NATO can tell you. In other words, NATO expansion is a swan dive into an unknown future. What a reckless way to deal with the most successful military alliance in history.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I yielded to the gentleman. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield further, not at this time. The gentleman can come here and read the names. I would ask unanimous consent again to be allowed to place this in the Record so that the names can be in the Record.

Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to allow the gentleman to read the names. I am not going to mention the name of any person on the floor who is not here to defend himself.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] has asked why I do not want to read the names of the lobbyists in the article. It is very simple. They are not Members of the House and they cannot defend themselves. He can, and he ought to. I would suggest that if he wants to discuss these names, I am happy to discuss them with him publicly or privately any time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office when I saw the incident that just occurred on the House floor involving the meeting that was discussed by the gentleman from California which he indicated had taken place in the majority whip's office. The majority whip has said that the newspaper article to which the gentleman from California referred contained no names of lobbyists. I have in my hand, as the Senator from my own State used to say, a copy of the article in question, and if my colleagues examine the text, there are the names of seven lobbyists listed.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I prefer truth over courtesy any time.

Mr. OBEY. I thought the gentleman would.

Mr. OBEY. I thought the gentleman would. I find it interesting that the truth is being suppressed on the floor of the House in the name of the rules of the House.

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 offer a preferential motion.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the ban on partial-birth abortions last year. I expect to do it again. But I am against this rule because it prevents me from voting in a way that fully expresses my own conscience. My conscience tells me that this procedure ought to be prevented. But it also tells me that in cases of serious, long-term physical health damage--not temporary emotional or physical inconvenience--that the choice ought to be made not by politicians but by the woman involved. If there are not any cases where such a drastic choice exists, as is suggested by those on the Republican side of the aisle, then there would be no exceptions. So there would be no harm in allowing the House to vote on the Frank amendment. I believe the problem with this rule is that, among other things, it does not allow for a vote on the Frank amendment and it should. Some will say it is not right to trade a life for health, that a woman who is in that situation should suffer long-term physical health problems in order to preserve a life. I might very well agree with that. I probably do theologically. But the fact is that what is being missed here is that, even in that case, it is not my choice. Who anointed me or you or any of us to make that choice in those circumstances? The essence of adulthood is that adults are supposed to be allowed to make their own moral choices. That is what I was taught and that is what I deeply believe. This rule is nothing but a gag rule. It ensures that we will have to choose between the two political extremes on this issue. It does not allow us to search common ground, and that is dead wrong.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite Members of the House to join me in sending a letter to the Director of the FBI asking that he consider appointing our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], as the new head of the FBI forensics lab. Given the problems the FBI is having, he obviously has the ability to do the job. He discovered, when noboby else did, that Vince Foster's body was moved. Second, he obviously has the experience because he used his backyard to fire a bullet into ``a headlike object'' to test his forensic theories. And certainly, in light of the revelations in the Washington Post yesterday about conversations with Pakistanis, he certainly can be counted on to run that lab with at least as much evenhandedness as he apparently will run the congressional investigation. Of course, given his decision to exempt Congress from the review of his committee, that is indeed damning with faint praise.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the administration policy on Mexico. I certainly do not agree with their policy on NAFTA. But I am going to support the committee proposition because I think this entire process is ridiculous. Under the certification process, what happens is that the Congress requires the President to certify that the world is perfect and the conduct of other people in the world is perfect. Then when he has to do that to further the interests of American foreign policy, the Congress as an institution then poses for political holy pictures because he has to do it when we put him in a box and virtually require him to do it in the first place. It seems to me the question is not whether Mexico has cooperated. Of course they have not, certainly not to the degree we would like to see them cooperate. But the question is whether or not we will take an action which will make it more difficult to obtain the goal we want with respect to drug control, because we give additional arguments to those in the struggle against drugs who are not our friends. That is the issue. The issue is simply what action can be taken by the Congress today which will produce the best results for our kids and for our country. I submit that that action is to stick with the committee, not to get into other political arguments. So I would strongly urge that we support the committee's position.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition of the House to take note of milestones and passages in our Nation. Mid-last year the world of music lost Bill Monroe, who was widely regarded as the founder of bluegrass. I take this occasion to call attention to the fact that sadly on December 10 we lost another giant in that musical tradition with the passing of John Duffey. He was a remarkable singer of bluegrass, possessed of a powerful vocal instrument, one that could soar to impossibly high notes or become the soul of harmony and touch the heart. He was a good performer with mandolin and guitar, and he was the prince of wit and laughter. He was a founding member of two bands that influenced string band musicians and singers across the Nation and around the world--the Country Gentlemen and the Seldom Scene. For more than 20 years, John Duffey and the Seldom Scene could be heard Thursday nights at the Birchmere in Alexandria. I had the pleasure of hearing them perform there often. When my constituents would come to town and asked me if there was something different they could see, I would always tell them if they wanted to see the people's music at its finest they should head down to the Birchmere and see John Duffey and his friends perform. John Duffey did not like being boss and he liked being bossed even less, so these bands were composed of partners. A John Duffey comment about band structure can be applied to other aspects of life. He said, ``Democracy doesn't work all that well, but it keeps a group happy longer than any other way of doing business.'' He knew that from spending almost 40 years in just two bands. A flamboyant performer famed for spoofs of whatever needed spoofing and a general irreverence on stage, John was modest, genial, and almost shy off stage. Like all great artists, John Duffey was aware of the beauty around him. He grew up in a family with a father who was a professional singer, performing at one point for the Metropolitan Opera. John seems to have never rejected any music that was in tune, and he had a good ear. He heard and was attracted to the music of Appalachian migrants to the Washington area from the upland South. Music is judged as often for its social connection as its sound, and this music had no status. But Duffey was not concerned about such things and he gave this music a new milieu. Here was a tall man with a crew cut and rapier wit performing brilliant bluegrass and able to put any heckler in North America in his seat. Duffey loved the Appalachian sound, but he was not from the area and did not care to pretend that he was. So he helped enlarge the reach of the music. He chose songs from modern and ancient sources; he worked on vocal harmonies new to the genre. Thousands of younger players were impressed. In an interview on Washington's great WAMU radio station, host Jerry Gray recently asked Duffey how he wished to be remembered. The answer was Duffeyesque: ``Well, I hope no one will think I was a klutz.'' When the passage of time allows a broader perspective, I believe John Duffey will be considered one of the most important creators of this music. Through his wit, laughter, extraordinary musical gifts and passionate performance, he said, ``this is a great American working class music.'' I extend condolences to his family, his fellow members of the Seldom Scene, and the thousands who will miss him as I will. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record at this point four articles. The first, the obituary for John Duffey, written by Bart Barnes, which appeared in the Washington Post. Second, the accompanying newspaper article, written by Richard Harrington, which appeared in the Post that same day. Third, an article written for Bluegrass Unlimited by Dick Spottswood. And fourth, a tribute to John Duffey written by Dudley Connell for Sing Out! magazine. Mr. Connell is lead singer in The Seldom Scene, which was cofounded by Mr. Duffey. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 1996] Musician John Duffey Dies; Led the Group Seldom Scene (By Bart Barnes) John Duffey, 62, a singer and mandolin player who founded and led the Seldom Scene bluegrass group for 25 years, died Nov. 10 at Arlington Hospital after a heart attack. Mr. Duffey, who was known to music lovers for a high, lonesome and lusty tenor voice that was once described as ``one in a million,'' had been a fixture in Washington's musical community since the 1950s. The Seldom Scene was probably the premier bluegrass band in the Washington area, according to Pete Kuykendall, the publisher of Bluegrass Unlimited magazine and a former bandmate of Mr. Duffey's. For 22 years, the Seldom Scene has played regularly at the Birchmere in Alexandria. The group also has toured oveseas, played in most of the 50 states and produced dozens of recordings, tapes and compact discs. The group's most recent album is ``Dream Scene,'' released this fall. The Seldom Scene played with other bluegrass bands on the Grammy Award-winning ``Bluegrass: The World's Greatest Show.'' Over the last quarter-century, the group has played for the likes of President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Gore, as well as for members of Congress. The group was formed in 1971 by Mr. Duffey and four others: Tom Gray, who worked for National Geographic; Ben Eldridge, a mathematician and computer expert; Mike Auldridge, a graphic artist with the Washington Star; and John Starling, a physician and ear, nose and throat specialist. The five men initially intended to sing and play together only occasionally, hence the name, Seldom Scene. ``They started as a fun thing, like a Thursday night poker game or a bowling night,'' Kuykendall said. But the group soon progressed from occasional basement gettogethers to regular Thursday night appearances at the Red Fox Inn in Bethesda, where they played to standing-room-only crowds, and, from there, to the Birchmere, where they became a weekly fixture. The Seldom Scene's 15th-anniversary concert was held at the Kennedy Center, and it included a presidential citation from Ronald Reagan, whose press secretary, James Brady, was a regular at the Birchmere. It featured guest appearances by the likes of Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris. Mr. Duffey, a resident of Arlington, was born in Washington and graduated from Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School. His father had been a singer with the Metropolitan Opera, and the son inherited an exceptional singing voice with a range said to be three of four octaves. As a high school student, the young Mr. Duffey developed a love for the bluegrass music he heard on the radio. His father taught him the voice and breathing techniques of a classical opera singer, despite what was said to have been the elder Duffey's lack of enthusiasm for ``hillbilly music.'' As a young man, Mr. Duffey worked at a variety of jobs, including that of printer and repairer of stringed instruments. But his avocation was music, and it soon became his vocation as well. In 1957, with Bill Emerson and Charlie Waller, Mr. Duffey founded the Country Gentlemen, a bluegrass and folk music group that for about 10 years rode the wave of folk music enthusiasm that surged through the 1960s. The group disbanded in the late 1960s, and Mr. Duffey went to work as an instrument repairman at a music store in the Cherrydale section of Arlington, which was how he was making a living when the Seldom Scene was formed. ``When we started the Seldom Scene, we all had jobs and we didn't care if anybody liked what we did or not,'' Auldridge told The Washington Post's Richard Harrington last year. ``We just said, `We're going to do some bluegrass because we love it, and some James Taylor or Grateful Dead, and if people buy it, great. If they don't, what do we care?' '' Mr. Duffey was a large and imposing man with a precise and soulfully expressive voice, and his singing was invariably moving. But he also had an engaging, irrepressible and sometimes off-the-wall style of stage chatter and a superb sense of timing that could break up an audience with a one- liner. ``What people love about him is that you know he's one of these guys stuck in the '50s, but he's so happy with himself, so confident, and he's also nuts,'' Aulridge said in 1989. In the quarter-century since its formation, the Seldom Scene built its reputation on flawless harmony, instrumental virtuosity and a repertoire that included traditional bluegrass and modern popular music, rock tunes, swing and country, gospel and jazz. Over the years, there would be changes in the group's composition, but until last year, the instrumental core remained the same: Mr. Duffey on mandolin, Eldridge on banjo and Auldridge on dobro. But Auldridge left the group in December, leaving only two original members. In September, Mr. Duffey was inducted along with the original Country Gentlemen into the International Bluegrass Music Association's Hall of Fame. Survivors include his wife, Nancy L. Duffey of Arlington.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the gentleman's motion, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to object, but I simply do so to enable the gentleman from Louisiana to explain his request.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Let the Public Decide Campaign Finance Reform Act. Two developments over the last year have demonstrated that for all practical purposes there are no longer any campaign finance rules in this country. One development is the series of court decisions which have resulted in special interest groups being able to get around virtually all limits of existing campaign finance law. They are allowed to do so by engaging in so called independent expenditures or by issuing promotion schemes which maintain the fiction that such groups are not involved in individual campaigns. The second development is the recent series of news stories involving large contributions of so-called soft money to both political parties. The result is that wealthy people and groups can skirt the intention of Congress to limit the amount of influence that wealthy individuals or organizations can have on the political process. Merely tinkering with existing campaign laws will have no real effect. It will do no good for instance, to pass feel good legislation which would cut the $5,000 limit on contributions by political action committees if companies who finance those political action committees can make indirect expenditures 20 or 30 times as large through other means. For me, the last election was the last straw on campaign finance. I honestly believe that this problem can only be addressed with a flat out elimination of all private money in general elections. That will eliminate the soft money problem and many of the other spectacles we have seen recently. The legislation I am pushing contains a congressional finding that the existing system has so corrupted public confidence in its own form of government that Congress must take major steps for campaign finance which so far have been blocked by the courts. We are doing so because some constitutional scholars suggest that we may be able to move the Supreme Court to change its mind if Congress makes such a finding. But, if the Supreme Court continues to block the kind of reforms I have in my bill, the bill provides for an immediate consideration by the Congress of a constitutional amendment which would give Congress the authority it needs to regulate campaign spending. The only way to fundamentally change the current system is to take out all private money from financing general elections. I make no apology for reaching that conclusion. In a democracy, elections are not private events; they are the most public events that occur in our national life. Elections belong to the people and they should be financed that way, not by the well-heeled and well-connected. The Let the Public Decide Campaign Reform Act would: Forbid all private funding in general elections. But, the public must understand that political campaign cannot be financed through immaculate conception. Elections would be financed by voluntary contributions from individuals to a Grass Roots Good Citizenship Fund. To raise the necessary funding, the Federal Election Commission would be required to conduct a major national television advertising campaign informing the public of the opportunity to eliminate the influence of interest groups on elections by making voluntary contributions to that fund. Those voluntary contributions would be supplemented by a one- tenth of 1 percent to be paid by all corporations with profits above $10 million. Eliminate the ``soft money'' loophole, which allows huge amounts of money from wealthy individuals and corporations to go to political parties and benefit congressional candidates. Establish spending limits on how much congressional candidates can spend, with some flexibility because of the different costs to run for office in different parts of the country. Allow the American public to determine the amount of money each candidate receives in the general election by basing the amount on the electoral support that the candidate or his preceding party nominees received in that district over the last 5 elections. It would also allow third-party and independent candidates to receive public funding based on their demonstrated public support. Allow private money to be contributed only to primary elections based on the principle that each political party has its own basic constituencies, and that the parties themselves have a role in deciding how their own nominees are chosen; Distinguish in primary elections between broad-based ``little people'' PAC's and ``High Roller'' PAC's, and limit contributions from ``High Roller'' PAC's. Under my bill, the American people themselves would actually be able to decide how much will be spent on congressional campaigns and how much each candidate will receive. Democracy cannot function if American citizens do not themselves take responsibility for supporting the most public events that occur in this country--our own national elections.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take note of the fact that this is a significant anniversary for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. That agency has been crucial in making progress on a number of fronts that affect the national interests of the United States. Thirty-three years ago, at the height of the cold war, President Kennedy announced in a speech at American University in Washington that talks would begin shortly in Moscow on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. This week at the United Nations, President Clinton became the first leader to sign the treaty. He said he was proud that after all this time the signatures of the world's nuclear powers and the vast majority of its other nations would ``immediately create an international norm against nuclear testing, even before the treaty formally enters into force.'' During all of those years, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA] has worked tirelessly to bring some sanity to the escalation in the number of weapons of mass destruction. Today, as it observes its 35th anniversary I would like to congratulate the Agency and its director, John D. Holum. Despite the recent success, Holum points out that the dismantling of the Soviet-American arms race has been overshadowed by ``a danger perhaps even more ominous: Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--whether nuclear, chemical or biological, or the missiles to deliver them--to rogue regimes and terrorists around the world.'' To his credit, President Clinton has said repeatedly that he is determined to pursue ``the most ambitious agenda to dismantle and fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction since the dawn of the nuclear age.'' On this 35th anniversary, we would all do well to remember that there is no more important task than to continue to try to control these horrible weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 12 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful for us to take just a few moments to analyze just how different this appropriation bill is from a number of appropriation bills which this House was considering just about a year ago. A year ago, the majority tried to force the Clinton administration to sign a budget that set us on the path to cutting real levels of support for education by 30 percent, by cutting real levels of support for training by 40 percent, by cutting real levels of support for the environment by 30 percent. This year, that will not happen. This year, the Government is not shutting down, and this year we are not seeing in the bill before us today those kinds of deep reductions in the investments that are necessary to make this country grow. Last year, the Government was shut down on purpose in order to force the President to sign a bill which made very deep reductions in these investments. This year, we came within 3 days of seeing the Government shut down by accident. Thank God, it did not happen. I think a lot of people are due credit for that. First of all, I would like to point out why we are here in this position tonight. Four months ago the House passed appropriations bills which asked the President to spend $11 billion more than he wanted to spend in the area of military spending. They put us on the road to a 5- year real reduction in support for education of 20 percent. They put us on the road to similar reductions in support for training, for Cops on the Beat, and other critical areas. This committee did its job in passing all 13 appropriation bills, but half of the appropriation bills never finished their passage through the Congress, as the chairman has indicated. In addition, there are a huge number of other authorizations which did not make it through the Congress. This bill must pass tonight because all of those others didn't. I support the bill because it is the only way that we can keep our obligation to keep Government open and to make some of the investments necessary to help our people. I also support it because it does restore some of the reductions in those investments that are so important to our children and our workers. For instance, Head Start will now add children rather than dumping them off the rolls, as this Congress was asked to do just a year ago. Title I, the most important education program we have to help young children learn how to read, to deal with math, to deal with science, title I will be helping an additional 400,000 children, rather than dumping almost 1 million of them off the rolls as we were asked to do just about a year ago. School-to-Work under this bill is strengthened rather than being eliminated, as this Congress tried to do just a few short months ago. Safe and Drug-Free Schools is also strengthened under this bill in comparison to the very deep reductions that this Congress was asked to make just a few months ago. Pell grants, the major grant to enable the children of working families to go to college: there will be 150,000 more working-class students who will get help under Pell grants. There will be over 700,000 young people who will receive Perkins loan help, rather than zeroing out the program. Job training is 6 percent stronger than the original House bill this year alone, not to mention the deep reductions that were made in it a year ago. The Older Americans Act: we will be providing adjustments in the minimum wage for 74,000 seniors who work part time at minimum wage salaries trying to do public service work and staying off the welfare rolls at the same time. The attack that we saw in this House earlier this year on the enforcement of labor laws which protect workers from abuse at the bargaining table is turned back in this bill. There will be no crippling of the National Labor Relations Board. There will be no handcuffs placed on government efforts to strengthen health and safety protections for workers in the workplace. And thanks to the insistence of the Clinton administration, working people and kids are going to be put at the top of our priority list again, rather than near the bottom, as we feel they were a year ago. These restorations are paid for and will not add to the deficit, the taxpayers will be happy to hear. But this bill also contains a string of other authorizing legislation. In fact, there are some 31 separate major authorization provisions being attached. I have been asked by many Members of the House, ``Dave, can you guarantee that there is not some provision in here which we will regret when we hear about it in the weeks to come?'' My answer is simply to invite you to take a look at the stack on that table, or on the table in front of the gentlewoman from Ohio. That bill is not measured in pages, it is measured in feet. It is about a foot and a half long. I do not know how much it weighs, but you could get a double hernia lifting it. I would simply say that I think I know most of the legislative decisions that were made by the Committee on Appropriations, but I certainly cannot verify that there are not some provisions in these other portions of the bill which we will wish we had not seen because they were managed by many other committees, there were not managed by the Committee on Appropriations. This is simply the vehicle by which all of that other legislation is getting done. You have an immense amount of legislation that has never been considered by either body, and, as a result, I think that in many ways, unfortunately, this legislation is a case study in institutional failure because of the massive amount of somebody else's unfinished business that had to be attached to the appropriations legislation. As a result, we have had a huge number of Members, the vast majority of the people's Representatives, who have been cut out of the process, and I think that that is a terrible abuse of the legislative process. It has also meant, frankly, that the administration has played a much heavier role in the direct drafting of legislation than I am, frankly, comfortable with. But I think that was made necessary by the lack of ability of the Congress as a bicameral institution to pass all of the legislation that it was required to pass without that kind of involvement. Having said all of that, I simply want to say a few things about the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. The House Committee on Appropriations did do its job by finishing its appropriations bills on time, even if the Senate did not and even if the Congress, as an institution, did not. You may have noticed that Bob Livingston and I disagree often. You may have noticed that we have strong views, often in the opposite direction. We have different priorities, I think it is safe to say. But I would like to think that he and I have demonstrated a relationship that shows that people of the opposite political parties can have a relationship that demonstrates respect and even deep friendship, even while differing over very important and fundamental issues. I think our relationship demonstrates that opponents do not have to be enemies. I certainly regard the gentleman as being one of the strongest and closest friends I have on Capitol Hill. I would simply like to congratulate him for all of the work he has done. It has taken an immense amount of work to get to this point, including coordinating an awful lot of issues about which we knew absolutely nothing because that responsibility was thrust upon us. I would also like to thank every single member of the Committee on Appropriations staff, and especially on the Democratic side, Greg Dahlberg, Mark Murray, Nancy Madden, Bob Bonner, Cheryl Smith, Mark Mioduski, Scott Lilly, Tom Forhan, Pat Schlueter, and Del Davis. Many of them have, indeed, gone 2 and 3 days without sleep. Others perhaps have been able to catch an hour or two at the most. I think the American public would be profoundly impressed if they could see the dedication which all of them have brought to their jobs. I would also like to thank Leon Panetta, the President's Chief of Staff. Without his involvement we would be facing a government shutdown. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, anyone who watched those meetings this week understands that Mr. Panetta truly has a profound understanding of the way this Government does work and the way it is supposed to work, and without him we would never have been here with this legislation tonight. I would also like to especially thank Senator Mark Hatfield and Senator Robert Byrd, two truly fine gentlemen, two truly outstanding public servants. They helped us over many a rough spot, and without their help, we also would not be here tonight. So Mr. Speaker, at this point I would simply like to stop my remarks. I know we have several other Members who would like to make short comments on our side of the aisle. I would again like to thank everyone who cooperated. I am sorry we could not help a lot of Members on a lot of items they would have liked help on, but we felt we could not do it because we, frankly, did not have the time to examine each of those items and we did not want to embarrass this institution by accepting many items that we knew very little or nothing about. So I thank all of the Members of the House for their understanding. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add additionally my thanks to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for the cooperation which he has given us in handling the labor, health, education, social services bill. He is a good chairman, and we very much appreciate the courtesies that he has shown our side of the aisle. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Martha Foley from the White House and also to Jack Lew, to Barbara Chow, Charles Keiffer, to John Hiley and to Franklin Raines, the new OMB director. A special thanks to Jim Dyer, who in his capacity as staff director has worked very well and very closely with all of us on both sides. Also from the committee, Jack Kole, and from my personal staff Christina Hamilton, Anne Georges, Joe Crapa, Paul Carver. Without the work of all of these people, we would not have been able to finish this monstrous effort without all winding up in the hospital. I appreciate their efforts very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].