Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment for my friends on the majority side of the aisle: Two years ago, when you took over this House, you indicated that you wanted to see an end to business as usual. You indicated that you wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy. I would point out that if you cannot tonight or tomorrow, when this vote takes place, at least vote to eliminate this tiny program, then indeed your revolutionary trumpet has turned into a piccolo. I urge Members to vote for the amendment. This is one of the wealthiest industries in the country. It does not need this subsidy. This program was supposed to be helping develop nuclear reactors in this country, not in Taiwan. I urge Members to vote for the amendment in the interest of saving the taxpayer a dime. This investment is something that has outlived its usefulness a long time ago.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman is leaving a wrong impression with the House. First of a kind funding is limited to 4 years. The gentleman is talking about other pieces of the Energy Act. The first of a kind funding, which is the subject of this amendment, is limited to 4 years. If we do not pass this amendment, we are providing it for a fifth year without authorization.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana said they have already cut the program because they have only provided $17 million out of the $40 million. The fact is the Senate has already funded the other two portions of the program. The game plan in conference is to fund all three pieces, and, smackaroo, you have $40 million bucks right back in the bill again. Do not kid yourself, this program is not going to be cut one dime without this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It eliminates the $17 million in this bill for the advanced light water reactor. The arguments against this funding are many. They have been articulated on this floor in the past. Many Members have voted against it in the past. Last year we voted on this amendment. If failed by a 191 to 227 vote. This year we have a number of additional cosponsors, including the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. Obviously, with a crowd like that, there ought to be some additional attention paid to the amendment above that which was paid to it last year. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act authorized the funding of efforts to design, engineer, and obtain regulatory approval for new evolutionary nuclear reactors. Since then, through fiscal 1996, DOE has given away $295 million to companies such as General Electric, Westinghouse, and a number of others. The 1992 act specifically states that ``No entity shall receive assistance under this subsection for a period greater than 4 years.'' Mr. Chairman, both Westinghouse and General Electric will have already completed 4 years of funding in the fiscal 1996 budget. They should not get any further funding in this bill. Let me make it clear, I have absolutely nothing against those companies. They are fine companies. That is the point. They are very healthy companies, with billions in annual revenues. They do not need the corporate welfare provided for them in this bill. They have already enjoyed 4 years of funding, as authorized. It is time to terminate the program. The authorization has expired. This is the 5 year of funding for what was supposed to be a 4-year program. Mr. Chairman, we might wonder why there is no new authorization. I suspect it might be because no American utility has successfully ordered a nuclear power plant since 1973. Second, I suspect it might be because an overwhelming majority, 89 percent, in a recent poll of utility executives, said that their company would never consider ordering a nuclear power plant. It also might be that the current reactors that are being funded through the program, the 600 megawatt size, are not commercially viable in this country. In fact, in February of this year GE, who received $50 million from DOE, announced they were abandoning further design work on the SBWR reactor because it was not commercially viable. Why does DOE continue to fund the program? I suppose on reason is that the agency seems to be generically incapable of terminating any program. The official reason seems to be that the designs could provide the basis for future commercial orders. The official reason seems to be that the agency thinks that there might some day, in the far distant future, be somebody who would change their mind and order one of these turkeys. Frankly, the likelihood is quite dim. The Secretary of Energy, in recent testimony, has said, ``For the foreseeable future, we do not expect new nuclear power plants to be ordered or built in the United States.'' I would point out that the Energy Policy Act stipulates that the recipient of these funds must certify that the reactors are designed for sale in the United States. The fact is, the most likely markets for these reactors are abroad; most likely Indonesia or China. There is a ban on the export of nuclear technology to China at the moment, and I do not see any circumstances under which that is going to change in the foreseeable future. So I would simply make the point, this program was authorized under the premise of licensing nuclear power plants in the United States. That is no longer happening. No serious person expects it to happen. I would simply say that a Congress that is big enough to get tough on kids is a Congress that ought to be tough enough to say no to more corporate welfare to the nuclear power industry. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to push this to a rollcall vote. This motion to recommit simply increases funds for peacekeeping with appropriate offsets in the bill. I am offering the motion to indicate my concern about the level of funding for that program. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I think that those of us in the Great Lakes region who are concerned with the lamprey program agree with the intent of the gentleman in terms of who ought to be administering the program. We also agree with him in terms of the inadequacy of the funds provided for the Weather Service. But we do not like the third result of the gentleman's amendment, which would be to eliminate the program, because the lamprey eradication program is absolutely crucial to the retention of a healthy Great Lakes fisheries industry. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I for one, and I know many others, would be very happy to work with the gentleman from California to work out the problems that he has indicated; but we appreciate the fact that he recognizes that it also has an additional result which would not be acceptable to us in the region, given our concern about the Great Lakes fisheries in general.

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

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply make a few brief observations. I have some concerns about a number of items in this bill, including the international nuclear issues, the squeeze which is created on fusion research by earmarking, which means that you have left only $16 million to fund $51 million worth of demand from research universities around the country. I am concerned about the reduction in solar and renewable energy and about a number of other items, one of which I will be dealing with in an amendment which I will be offering later in the game on the advanced light water reactor. My purpose in rising at this point, however, is to simply note with considerable regret the decision to retire that has been reached by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. We have seen a number of stories written lately about why this institution seems to be so much more partisan and why it has become a much less pleasant place to work. It certainly has. I think if you want to know why that is happening, I think two reasons are simply that Members like Mr. Myers and Mr. Bevill are retiring. I think that will be a great loss to this institution because they both bring to this institution not only their considerable expertise in the programs with which they deal, but they also bring considerable grace to the way in which they perform their jobs. I have admired John Myers' ability to get along with everybody for as long as I have known him in this body. I do not think there is a mean bone in his body and I do not think there is a partisan bone in his body. He has, I think, genuinely shown that good guys can finish first, despite the admonition to the contrary by Leo Durocher a good many years ago. I think the same is true for Tom Bevill. Every one who knows Tom Bevill understands that he is a consummate gentleman. They understand that he is first and foremost interested in getting the job done and does not much cotton to partisan arguments one way or another. He has helped many a Member and many a community in this country to deal with problems that otherwise would have been beyond their reach. I will very much regret next year seeing that neither of them will be here, but they have done honor to this House. They have done honor to this country and they have done honor to their respective parties by the manner in which they have served their constituents in this body. I think we all owe them a standing round of applause.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, the existing welfare system is broken, it needs radical overhaul. There is no doubt about that. But in doing it, I ask every Member of this House to please put the politics aside. Taxpayers are tired of people who will not work taking a bite out of their tax dollars. They want us to be tough, but they do not want us to be mean. They do not want us to say to a worker who is laid off because his company moved out of town or out of the country, ``Tough luck, Charlie, you're on your own, baby.'' They do not want us to say to a sick or hungry kid, ``Sorry, kid, God gave you the wrong set of parents. You're on your own.'' They do not want us to pass a political document that will never become law, that is just designed to define the differences between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole one more time. They want us to work it out. They want us to get it done. That is what Castle-Tanner does. It is a bipartisan package. It does work it out. It is tough, but it is not mean. A friend of mine in the legislature used to say, ``You know, the problem with politics is that all too often it gives the poor and the rich the same amount of ice, but the poor get theirs in the wintertime.'' That is the difference between the Castle-Tanner bill and the committee bill. Vote for Castle-Tanner. It is a tough, good welfare reform bill that gets the job done without being mean.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not known that this point of order was going to be raised, and I think that it is on sound grounds for the gentleman to raise the point of order. I would simply say that I do not think the point of order should be determined on the basis of a judgment that the Durbin amendment would in fact narrow the scope of what is happening here. In fact, the language in the committee bill would keep us closer to the court decision which was produced some time ago. It makes some exceptions for felons who are not convicted of a violent crime, who were not convicted of firearms violations or drug-related crimes. And it seems to me, therefore, that the Durbin amendment would go further than the language in the bill in overturning existing law. I would simply state that if any Member of this House feels that there are no people in this society who committed a nonviolent crime 20 years ago, who have lived an exemplary life since that time, that they are not entitled to have the slate eventually wiped clean, I think most people would happen to disagree with. that And I think that the grounds the gentleman has cited for the point of order are correct.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the chair is about to rule that the amendment as offered is not consistent with the unanimous-consent agreement, then I would have no further comment. I simply was intending to rise to make the point that, if we cannot count on the fact that amendments that are going to be offered are those which are discussed prior to unanimous-consent agreements, then it is going to be impossible to get unanimous-consent agreements around here.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, I do not have a dog in this fight, and I do not care what we do on these amendments. All I know is that there are a considerable number of Members on both sides of the aisle who are very much pressing to have a time agreement tonight because they have serious scheduling problems. They were expecting, and indeed hoping, that all of the votes would be rolled until tomorrow. I have no problems. I can stay here and vote on all of these. But I know a number of Members who are extremely exasperated about it and I wonder if the majority leader has any specific reason as to why we could not do that.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that suggestion?

Mr. OBEY. We are talking about the two votes in question that the gentleman is suggesting be voted on right now.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will not take time to debate the motion.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBEY. I do not write legislation for any lobbyist.