Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I used to serve in the State legislature many years ago with a man by the name of Harvey Dueholm. He was a Danish farmer. He looked like a basset hound. He had the strongest character of any human being I have ever known, and he had a lot of observations about life. And one of the things he said once is, he said, ``Did you ever notice that the poor and the rich get the same amount of ice, but the poor get theirs in the wintertime?'' I think that really will be the result of the adoption of this amendment. I think India has a serious human rights problem, and I think we need to hold them to task on it at every opportunity. I greatly respect the legitimate concerns expressed by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. I know he is sincere. But I just have to say that when we pick up a gun, it is nice, if we are hunting a rabbit, that we hit the right target. It does not help if we are trying to reform the conduct of the government that we wind up hurting the folks who are doing the most to try to change some of the nastiest aspects of any society. That is what I think this amendment would do. I am also struck, frankly, by the fact that in this part of the world there are only two or three major players. India is a major player and China is a major player. I have to tell my colleagues that I am a whole lot more frustrated right now by the conduct of China than I am India, with all of the failings that they have demonstrated. I wonder how many people will vote for this amendment tonight and then, when Most Favored Nation status is brought up for China, will then turn and vote to grant China most-favored-nation status, in spite of the fact that they employ slave labor, in spite of the fact that a large number of American workers have seen their jobs put at risk because of products produced by that slave labor that then wind up in this country. It just seems to me that that would be a quaint double standard. So I would suggest that we remember that if we are going to try to change conduct, that we focus on actions which will, in fact, have that effect and not the opposite effect. I think the amendment being offered tonight will have the opposite of that which is intended, and that is why, while I do not think that in terms of a United States-India relationship $8 or $9 or $10 million one way or another is going to make that big an impact, I do think that the mindset that it demonstrates is not one which is easily explainable. I would, therefore, urge that we oppose the amendment, and I would urge that we support the gentleman from Alabama in his resistance to the amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to support cutting off amendments that other Members offer. I have just been asked by a Member of our leadership not to.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not personally have a problem with that, but I have been told that there are a number of Members on this side of the aisle who do. So I would urge that the gentleman withdraw that request, and I would urge that the gentleman consider offering a time limit of 1 hour.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to inform the subcommittee chairman that there was one additional amendment which I was going to offer to title I, which I got permission earlier to offer. But at this point I do not intend to offer that amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, since the gentleman asked me to consider withdrawing it, I simply want to point out that the only reason that this amendment is not drawn to specifically forbid aid to those countries and simply subtracts the amount that is provided in aid to those countries is that, as the gentleman well knows, were I to draw it the other way, it would be subject to a point of order, and I have already had two points of order lodged against amendments I have offered today. So the gentleman is kind of offering me a deal that I have no choice but to refuse.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts $1,525,000 from the IMET account. The amount of the cut corresponds exactly to the amount requested for the high-income countries of Austria, Finland, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, India, and Bahrain. The per capita gross domestic product for Finland is $16,140; for Austria the per capita income is $17,500; for Spain, $13,000; for Malta, $10,700; for Portugal, $10,000; for India, $1,300; for Singapore, $19,900; for Bahrain, $12,100; yet, this committee is insisting that we pay for the training costs for these countries. Mr. Chairman, I would point out there are countries in this bill who receive aid where the per capita income is less than $400 a year. It just seems to me strange indeed that countries like Austria and Singapore cannot afford to pay for the training which we provide. I am not saying we should not provide training to these countries, I am saying we ought to do it on a cash paid-for basis. I do not see why we ought to fund it. I would point out that a number of these countries spend a much smaller share of their gross domestic product on military expenditures than we do. I would point out a number of these countries are knocking our socks off on trade in a wide variety of sectors in the trading economy. I can see no reason whatsoever why I ought to ask somebody in my State or in my district, making $8,000 or $9,000 a year, to support a program which provides military assistance, military training to countries that make $20,000 a year on average. So, Mr. Chairman, enough said. I will not belabor the point, but I urge the acceptance of the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, this amendment goes to the military training account. Last year the military training account was funded at $39 million. This year, despite the fact that the bill is being cut by around $1 billion, this account is going to receive a $6 million increase to $45 million. That is an increase of 15 percent, out of only 3 accounts that have received an increase in the bill, and it seems to me that that is not proportional under the circumstances. With the end of the cold war, it seems to me that we ought to have a greater recognition than we have, that we simply cannot afford to be raising some of these military accounts while virtually everything else in the budget is being cut. I support and continue to support an IMET program in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, places like that. I also think it is useful in developing countries to try to have a military relationship of some kind. But I would ask why on Earth the United States should spend $25,000 or $50,000 for countries like Austria, Finland, Spain, Portugal, countries which are relatively high-income countries? I understand that the basis of these programs is reciprocal training arrangements, and I am all for that. But I see no reason why, if these are so valuable, that the countries who are on the receiving end of the training should not be paying for the cost. We are being asked, under the budget that passed the House some time ago, to cut Medicare, and we are being asked to consider means testing Medicare to require higher income seniors to pay higher amounts. Why on Earth should we be doing that if we are not asking higher income countries to pay for the military training which we are providing under IMET? It seems to me only a rational thing to do. So, I would simply urge, in the interest of some balance and the interest of some fiscal prudence, that the committee approve the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the fact that that legislation has been passed twice by the House and has not been passed by the Senate is not encouraging to me. That does not sound to me like a very good track record. It seems to me that since this is a must-pass bill, we need to keep this language in this bill because it is the only sure way we have of protecting the taxpayers.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do. Mr. Chairman, again, I think the issue here is whether or not a committee's jurisdiction is more important than the necessity to protect taxpayers' money. This provision has been carried for years without the objection of the authorizing committee. It seems to me that it is peculiar at a time when both parties are bragging like crazy to the American paople that we are going to balance the budget and fight waste, fraud and abuse, that we take the two main items in this bill that prevent fraud and abuse and strip them from the bill. That is indeed a quaint way to build support for public aid, and I again cannot do anything about it if the gentleman insists on his point of order, but I do not think the taxpayers' interests are being served by the elimination of the language that protects their hard-earned tax dollars.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the previous amendment. This amendment restores language that has been carried in the foreign operations bill for a good many years. It limits to $100 million the amount that can be spent on non-Israel and Egypt FMF grants for direct commercial contracts. Its effect is to limit the extent to which countries can contract on their own for goods and services and thereby escape the oversight requirements of the Arms Export Control Act. It is again an antifraud safeguard because it assures that the Pentagon will review these contracts. It was stricken again by the Committee because again, it is contained in an authorization bill which has passed the House and is pending in the Senate. Again, I have no idea what is going to happen to that authorization bill, or what mischief might occur along the way. All I know again is that this provision is too important to leave to chance. We fought a good long time to see to it that we had the added protection of Pentagon review of these contracts so that we do not have bribery or fraud that occurs because the Pentagon is not able to oversee what happens in this account. So again, this is a jurisdictional matter, but it would seem to me that the requirement to protect taxpayers' money ought to override any jurisdictional concerns that someone might have. I would urge acceptance of the amendment. point of order

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. Let me simply say that what bothers me is that this reminds me of what my old friend Dick Bolling, who used to represent the State of Missouri in such a distinguished fashion, it reminds me of what he used to call dung hill politics. He used to say that the problem around here is that so often committees are so concerned with jurisdiction that they put that before the substantive needs of the country. It seems to me that I would very much like to see the gentleman's committee be able to pass a bill, any bill. But it is more important to me to protect the taxpayers' interests in seeing to it that these loans are accompanied by an audit to protect the taxpayers' money. If the gentleman insists on his point of order, which will simply remove from this bill an antifraud requirement, I cannot do much about it, but I think it is a sad day.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me simply say, I would rather you withhold the commendation of me personally and instead let the language stand, because I remember how tough it was to get these provisions in the appropriation bill in the first place. I remember shouting at people from several embassies one very late night when we were in our conference on the bill, because they took offense to the fact that we wanted an audit if we were going to provide FMF funding for them. So for the life of me, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I would rather that the gentleman denounce and leave my amendment stand.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it is very nice to hear that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] expects some other legislation to pass which will restore protections for the American taxpayer. However, I do not care if this FMF loan goes to our best friend or our worst enemy, it ought to be audited, and if it is not audited, the loan should not be approved in the first place. But in God's name do we expect to maintain any shred of public support for foreign assistance when we are eliminating in the appropriation bill for foreign assistance the requirement that anyone who receives FMF funds should be willing to accept an audit. For the life of me, I do not see why we ought to roll the dice and risk losing this provision which has been in the law for years.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores the requirement that foreign countries agree to an outside audit as a condition of receiving FMF grants. It has been included in the foreign operations bill for a number of years as a result of a number of notable bribery cases involving U.S. funds and foreign officials. It was not included in the bill by the committee apparently because the language is contained in another bill which passed the House and is pending in the Senate. But the problem is, we have absolutely no idea what the fate of that bill in the Senate will be, and this provision is too important to leave to the whim of the other body. It is a very simple proposition. It restores the proposition that if you get an FMF grant from the United States Treasury that you have to agree to accept an audit. It boggles my mind that we would risk losing that language. I would think we would want to nail this language into every single bill moving through this House that affects foreign aid. I can think of absolutely no constructive purpose that is served by the elimination of language which simply provides for an audit any time a country gets an FMF grant from the United States, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 44.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very straightforward amendment. It would simply raise to $50 million the limitation now in the bill of $25 million on the amount of noncash support that we can provide for the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. For those who are not familiar with it, the International War Crimes Tribunal is the first international tribunal for war crimes established since World War II. It has the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting individuals responsible for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The biggest obstacle, frankly, to the functioning of that tribunal has been a simple lack of funds. We seem to want to spend millions for all sorts of special investigations here at home and abroad, but the U.S. has only made modest contributions to the International War Crimes Tribunal. The victims of atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia, it seems to me, deserve justice, and the war crimes tribunal is the best way to make war criminals answer for their crimes. Moreover, the best deterrent for those kinds of atrocities in the future is for the war crimes tribunal to try and convict these perpetrators now. It seems to me we ought not have a limitation on the amount of noncash support that we can provide for this worthwhile item, and if we do have one, as this amendment would still allow, it seems to me it ought to be high enough so that the war crimes tribunal is in fact a real deterrent to some of the kinds of abhorrent actions that we have seen in that part of the world. So I would simply urge that the amendment be supported in the interest of justice.