Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has unanimously voted to close the loophole on outside income limitations for Members of Congress from book royalties. Now the Speaker and the majority leader and the Committee on Rules chair all inform us that there will be a stall in that reform. I think that is a very sad day. I wrote the code of ethics under which 18 Members of this House have been disciplined, and at that time, at the request of people of the highest integrity, we made an exception for book royalties because we wanted to make room for legitimate exchange of ideas, and we had in mind books by people such as Mo Udall, Dick Bolling, and John Anderson. But we never dreamed that that exception would be used by any Member to cash in big on his public fame. The Speaker's book deal has done such incredible damage to the public confidence in this House by making it appear that all of us are money grubbers, that that rule must be changed to eliminate it, and it must be changed now.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if NATO had acted and punished Serbian aggression when it first occurred 4 years ago, we would not be here tonight; the West would not have repeated the mistakes of Munich; and, more than 200,000 people would not have died. After almost 4 years of NATO drift, Croatian military success and NATO bombing of Serbian forces have enabled the Clinton administration to stop the killing and negotiate a peace. I steadfastly opposed the use of American ground forces there during the wartime situation, but our troops and our allies' troops are now going to police a peace. Mr. Speaker, if they go under the Buyer approach, we will be sending a signal of uncertainty that will in my view increase the risk of attack on our troops by those who read congressional opposition as a signal that if they just kill a few Americans, we will pull the plug, just as we did in Somalia. If my colleagues vote for Buyer, it seems to me they logically should have voted for Dornan in order to prevent the financing of the operation in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to lay down that uncertain trumpet and pass the Hamilton amendment clean without Buyer. Send a clear message that we will leave no doubt about the strength of our resolve. Mr. Speaker, but by the grace of God, our souls at birth could have been infused into a body born in Bosnia rather than one born on American soil. Only an accident of birth makes us lucky enough to live out our lives as Americans. Now our troops are going to make peace, not war in an act of mercy toward many of our fellow human beings on this globe. Do our duty tonight. It may not be popular, but it will be right and it will make our troops safer. Support Hamilton clean, defeat Buyer. That is the best way to help our troops.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is not the position of the gentleman from Wisconsin. The position of the gentleman from Wisconsin is that if we have budget ceilings, we ought to live by them. But in my view, as you know, I tried twice or three times in the committee to try to adjust those ceilings in the proper way so that we could get that money from another place. I do not believe in busting the budget in order to fund the Interior bill. What I do believe is bills that are too high should be brought down to make room for the spending in this bill. I do not believe in spending $7 billion more than the White House asked on the military budget and then also exceeding the spending authority in this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member of the House needs to know that if you vote for this rule today and if you vote for this bill today, you will be voting to bust the budget. Just a week ago, on December 5, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] filed on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations the Report on Budget Allocations Between Subcommittees as required by 602 of the Budget Act. That act sets the ceiling above which no appropriation bill may go without being subjected to being knocked off the floor by a point of order lodged by any Member. Yet 1 week after they did that, and just a few short days before we are going to confront the need for a continuing resolution, or else see the Government shut down because the Speaker of the House is still at this point talking about using the leverage of the continuing resolution to force settlement of the overall budget issues, in the long-range budget talks that are now taking place, after being told that that is important enough to shut the Government down to get to a balanced budget, we are being asked to pass a proposition here today which busts the budget. The filing by the committee on December 5 indicated that the ceiling for spending in this bill would be $12,213,000,000 in budget authority. The ceiling reported in this bill, 8 days later, is $12,234,476,000. That means it is $21.5 million above the allowable ceiling. Now, we tried on three different occasions to get the committee to adopt a different 602 allocation to make room for additional funding in this and other bills. We were turned down by the majority in the committee, and yet today we are being asked to put that limitation aside. I would ask Members of the House on both sides of the aisle, how many times do you remember having the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] come to the House floor and berate the then majority Democratic Party for waiving budget rules when they brought rules to the floor under which appropriation bills would be debated? the answer is time and time and time again we were told by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and many others that we were waiving the Budget Act. Now, today, we are being asked not only to waive the Budget Act, but to waive spending ceilings within that budget. If you take a look at the history of this House on regular appropriation bills, you will find that it ha been a rare experience, indeed, when we were asked on a regular appropriation bill to waive those ceilings. It just seems to me that when we are facing a situation which may lead again to a Government shutdown, it is a very odd thing, indeed, for the committee to ask us to bust the budget ceiling to the tune of $21.5 billion. I do not think that is the orderly way to proceed. A much better way to proceed would have been to adjust those 602 allocations so that we are behaving as we are supposed to behave in a situation like this. I also make the point this rule will allow us to proceed to consideration of a bill which allows for a significant increase in timber cutting in the Tongass Forest, one of a handful of temperate rain forests in the entire world, and yet this bill is going to accelerate that cutting. I do not believe we ought to do that. I do not think most persons concerned with preserving the environment think we ought to do that, certainly not in this appropriation bill. So I would urge both on environmental grounds and because this bill breaks the very budget ceilings which were imposed on us just 8 days ago by the majority party, I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if one ever wanted an example of why this Congress has failed to pass its appropriation bills on time, necessitating plunging the country into a needless Government shutdown and silly political arguments about continuing resolutions, this bill, and the way it is being handled today, is a spectacular example. First of all, in terms of scheduling, we were told this bill was going to be up this afternoon. Now with virtually no notice to the committee, we find it on the floor. Second, we are told on this side of the aisle that the committee intended to offer a compromise proposal which contained compromise language. Instead, what we get is the most confrontational approach that could possibly be taken, virtually assuring that this turkey is going to go nowhere. Now, we have a serious problem in this country. The problem is that this Congress has not finished a number of appropriation bills, and because of that, we face an imminent Government shutdown again on the 15th of this month. I had thought that the proper way to address that problem would be to try to find ways to compromise out these bills so that you can get more of them signed by the President and reduce the lack of performance on the part of this Congress. We have already had the Foreign Operations bill tied up for over 2 months because Republicans in the House have not been able to agree with the Republicans in the Senate on what to do on family planning. Now the wizards who put together this strategy this morning are now saying, ``Well, I'll tell you what we're going to do. What we're going to do is to send over, not compromise language to the Senate, but language which shuts down all family planning funds internationally.'' What is more, this rule proposes to make in order an amendment on international programs which the House already turned down on domestic programs by a vote of 221-207. Obviously family planning programs are important within the borders of the United States, but they are even more important on a substantive basis internationally because population growth in many countries around the world is flatly out of control, and if we do not find a way to rationally reduce that curve, that upward curve, we are going to have an even greater hunger problem, an even greater environmental problem, an even greater problem of social disruption than you have today in many parts of the world. Yet today the wizards who proposed this language are saying the way out of it is to send over to the Senate language you know they will not accept in 100 years. There is not a chance of a snowball in you know where that this language is going to be approved by the Senate, and yet the House, at a time when we ought to be working out ways to compromise our differences is in essence throwing a ``Hail Mary'' to the Senate knowing full well that the Senate is not going to swallow it. That is not a constructive way to do business. This rule is going to inflame the situation. This approach is going to inflame the situation. It is going to make it much harder to pass a bill than it has been to date, and I see absolutely no constructive purpose whatsoever for proceeding in this manner. Now, I think my record shows that whether this House has been controlled by Republicans or Democrats I have tried to help further the passage of this legislation in a bipartisan way, but the approach that is being taken here this morning is tactically idiotic, and I would urge the Members of the majority, if you are interested in finding any way at all to reconcile your differences with Members of your own party in the other body, you ought not to be doing this this morning.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the objector has to stand so we know who it is.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, again we are here because the committee has still not finished its work. We are here because there are still six appropriation bills which have not yet crossed the finish line and become law. The foreign operations bill which we are discussing today is one of those bills. We are going to be in a big fight over whether or not we should pass the CR come Friday, a continuing resolution to prevent the Government from closing down. And we are going to be in that fight because we have not yet finished our appropriations work. I would think that under those circumstances what we would be looking for is ways to find compromise between the House and Senate so we can move more of these bills forward. That is what I very much want to do on this bill, but this language, as the gentleman who just spoke clearly indicated, this language has no chance whatsoever of being accepted by the Senate or becoming law. So my question is, why on earth should we do this? Mr. Speaker, this proposal meets somebody's strategic idea that what we have to do is send another piece of legislation to the Senate which we know will not pass. I think all that does is to harden each side, rather than make each side more flexible. I would point out, the practical effect of this strategy is to ask 221 Members of this House from both sides of the aisle who voted against this proposition on the Labor-HEW bill to vote for it today. What this proposition essentially does is to eliminate all international family planning money. This is not an abortion issue. I support efforts, for instance, to shut off funding for the U.N. population program if it continues to operate in China. I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] on that issue. However, I do not agree with, and I do not think most Members of this House do, and I know that many Members on the Republican side of the aisle do not agree with the idea of eliminating all authority for any family planning programs internationally. The following Members voted against this amendment when it was offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, from the HEW bill. I am going to read everybody's name: Messrs. Abercrombie, Ackerman, Baesler, Baldacci, Barrett of Wisconsin, Bass, Becerra, Beilenson, Bentsen, Bereuter, Berman, Bilbray, Bishop, Blute, Boehlert, Bonior, Borski, Boucher, Browder, and Brown T1of California, Ms. Brown of Florida, Messrs. Brown of Ohio, Bryant of Texas, Cardin, Castle, Chapman, and Clay, Ms. Clayton, Messrs. Clement, Clinger, Clyburn, and Coleman, Mrs. Collins of Illinois, Miss Collins of Michigan, Messrs. Condit, Conyers, Coyne, and Cramer, Ms. Danner, Mr. Davis, and Mr. de la Garza. I am reading now the names of all Members of the House who voted against this proposition last time: Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeLauro, Messrs. Dellums, Deutsch, Dicks, Dingell, Dixon, Doggett, Dooley, and Doyle, Ms. Dunn of Washington, Messrs. Durbin, Edwards, Ehrlich, and Engle, Ms. Eshoo, Messrs. Evans, Farr, Fattah, Fawell, Fazio of California, Fields of Louisiana, Filner, Flake, Foglietta, Foley, and Ford, Mrs. Fowler, Messrs. Frank of Massachusetts, Franks of Connecticut, Franks of New Jersey, Frelinghuysen, and Frost. Continuing reading the names of all Members who voted against this last time: Ms. Furse, Messrs. Ganske, Gejdenson, Gekas, Gephardt, Pete Geren of Texas, Gibbons, Gilchrest, Gilman, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gene Green of Texas, Greenwood, Gunderson, Gutierrez, and Hamilton, Ms. Harman, Messrs. Hastings of Florida, Hefner, Hilliard, Hinchey, Hobson, Horn, Houghton, and Hoyer, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Johnston of Florida, and Mr. Kanjorksi, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mrs. Kennelly, Messrs. Kleczka, Klink, Klug, Kolbe, Lantos, Lazio of New York, Leach, Levin, Lewis of California, and Lewis of Georgia, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Longley, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Luther, Mrs. Maloney, Messrs. Markey, Martinez, Martini, and Matsui, Ms. McCarthy, Messrs. McDermott, McHale, and McInnis, Ms. McKinney, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Meehan, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Messrs. Mfume, Miller of California, Mineta, and Minge, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Moran, and Mrs. Morella. Continuing to read the names of all Members who voted against this proposition the last time: Messrs. Nadler, Neal, Obey, Olver, Owens, Pallone, Pastor, Payne of New Jersey, and Payne of Virginia, Ms. Pelosi, Messrs. Peterson of Florida, Pickett, Pomeroy, and Porter, Ms. Pryce, Messrs. Ramstad, Rangel, Reed, Regula, Richardson, and Riggs, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Rose, Mrs. Roukema, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Messrs. Rush, Sabo, Sanders, Sawyer, and Schiff, Mrs. Schroeder, Messrs. Schumer, Scott, Serrano, Shaw, Shays, Sisisky, and Skaggs, Ms. Slaughter, Messrs. Spratt, Stark, Stokes, Studds, Tanner, Thomas, Thompson, Thornton, Torkildsen, Torres, Torricelli, Towns, Traficant, and Upton, Ms. Velazquez Messrs. Vento, Visclosky, and Ward, Ms. Waters, Messrs. Watt of North Carolina, Waxman, White, Williams, Wilson, and Wise, Ms. Woolsey, Messrs. Wyden, Wynn, Yates, Zeliff, and Zimmer. All of those Members voted against this proposition when the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] offered language which in essence cut off funding for all family planning domestically. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that cutting off all family planning funds for international programs is even worse, because if you do, you know that that will disarm us in our ability to try to do something about uncontrolled population growth in many sectors of the world. If you are for compromise, you ought to be looking for compromise language. You should not swallow language which the manager of the bill himself indicates has no chance whatsoever of becoming law. All that is going to do is guarantee that we have to have a continuing resolution for this bill. I do not think we ought to be doing that. We ought to be trying to find ways to pass this bill.

Mr. OBEY. I would be happy to buy the gentleman the biggest scotch in town if all of those bills are passed by Christmas.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not normally these days take special orders because, as everyone understands, there is no legislative business to be conducted, but I do today take this time to simply announce that I am introducing the Health Security Partnership Act of 1995 because I think this Congress is going in a totally wrong direction on the issue of health care and I think we ought to start talking about how to reverse that. Last year the country missed a historic opportunity to reform our health care system by getting a handle on costs and strengthening the health security of every American family. The public wanted action but Washington became so polarized that the opportunity was missed. That does not mean that the problem has gone away. Since the failure of Washington to provide health care reform last year, 1 million more Americans have lost health care coverage and Americans concerned about being able to hold on to affordable health insurance have seen that concern intensify greatly. At a time when we ought to be reducing insecurity and increasing access to quality health care, Congress is going in the opposite direction. Instead of reducing the number of uninsured Americans, this Congress is moving millions of people to the rolls of the uninsured by shredding the Medicaid safety net for millions of poor families and working families who need nursing home coverage for a loved one. It is making Medicare more insecure for millions of recipients. The median income for women on Medicare is $8,500 a year. And it is increasing the cost for the uninsured, a cost which will therefore be shifted to families who do have insurance and to employers who provide that insurance. That is morally wrong, it is economically wrong, and the bill that I am introducing today goes against the prevailing tide in this Congress in order to try to correct it. I know that we are moving against the tide, but this is a matter of principle and it is well worth the fight. I should say also that I am being joined in this effort by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Last year's health care battles have made it quite clear to me that while the public wants reform, they do not want reform that creates new huge Federal bureaucracies. There are some things that the Federal Government can and should do, and this bill would do them. For example, the National Government can and should insist on insurance reform so that people with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage. It can and should expand the Community Options Program such as we have in Wisconsin, so that home and community-based health care can be an affordable option to institutionalized care. And we can attack the inequity that allows corporations to deduct the full cost of providing health insurance to their employees but only allows the self- employed businessman to deduct 30 percent of the cost of coverage. There are nonbureaucratic reforms that can and should be made at the Federal level. But we can also create a Federal-State partnership that will leave to the States the major choices about how to deal with the shortcomings in today's health care system. That is why the bill I am introducing today, beyond the issue of insurance reform, will have only one Federal requirement. The requirement will simply be that States ensure that every citizen in each State has health insurance coverage, and that such coverage is comparable to that which is now available to Members of Congress, Federal employees and their families. Under the plan, States could establish whatever system they want, be it public, private or a mixture of both. Each State would decide whether to use devices such as risk-sharing pools or subsidies to provide coverage for those who are unemployed, those who are working but unable to afford health insurance, and those who are high risk and unable to get insurance from carriers. In the best Progressive tradition--and I mean that in a capital P because the Progressive Party was born in Wisconsin--in the best Progressive tradition, we can use States as laboratories of democracy to help find alternative health care reform models that work. The elements of the plan would work like this. States would be required to submit a plan by July 1, 1999, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services which would have to show that every citizen in that State is covered by health insurance which has benefits comparable to those available under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Second, the rules of the insurance game would be changed to guarantee that people could no longer be turned away because of preexisting conditions, income, employment, or other health status. Insurance companies could no longer deny, cancel, or refuse to renew coverage unless the premiums had not been paid, unless fraud or misrepresentation had been involved, or the plan is ceasing coverage in an entire geographical area. Home and community-based care would be provided as an option to institutional care when it would be medically appropriate. Third, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would annually certify the plans. Only those States that participate will be eligible for Federal Medicaid funds, and participating States would be eligible to share in the Federal pool of funds created in the bill to assist States in the effort. As I said earlier, currently self-employed individuals can deduct 30 percent of their health insurance costs on their Federal tax return. This bill would increase that deduction to 100 percent, and it would also allow workers whose employers do not provide health insurance to deduct up to 80 percent of their health insurance cost. Congress is right to want to reform Medicare and Medicaid, but health care for persons struggling to make ends meet should not be squeezed in order to provide a rich man's tax cut. Medicare and Medicaid reform should not be done in isolation. They should be done in the context of overall care reform, to effectively and fairly control costs, and to minimize cost-shifting to persons who are insured and to employers who do provide insurance. Until we can ensure that everyone has health coverage, the problem of cost-shifting will not go away. Cost-shifting is a hidden tax that continues to drive the cost of health care higher and higher. Until we get a handle on cost-shifting, prices will continue to rise forcing more people out of the system and escalating the problem. No one can convince me that in last November's election the public was telling us that they wanted us to weaken health care coverage and increase its cost, especially to the most vulnerable among us. They want us to make health care more affordable and more accessible. They do not want us to go in the other direction. This is a proposal which would help move us back in the right direction. Right now 40 million Americans are being left behind, and that is a disgrace. It is an even larger disgrace that if the Medicaid reforms, so-called reforms being pushed by the Republican leadership in this House go through, that you could almost double the number of those who are uninsured in this country because of the loss of the Medicaid guarantee. These are problems which this Congress ought to be willing to solve. We ought to be including more people in the blessings of this country when it comes to health care, not fewer. I would hope that someday the Congress will get about doing that, because that indeed is the people's business.

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, on December 7, we are being asked to pass a bill which reduces veterans funding by $900 million, and which cuts environmental protection funding by $1.6 billion below the amount requested by the President. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we ought to do that on any day. I certainly do not think we ought to do that on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor. That is not the message I want to send to veterans. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that on the environmental side, while the committee has removed, after the House voted to instruct them to do so, while the committee has removed the 17 antienvironment riders, the polluter's dream list, from the bill, they have, nonetheless, retained some of those same provisions in the statement of the managers, which still puts pressure on EPA to follow those misguided suggestions. I do not think we ought to do that on December 7, or any time. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of charts displayed by our good friends on the Republican side of the aisle. I would simply make two points. If those charts compared agency-to-agency funding from one year to another, they would show that total VA funding is $43 million below last year, and $915 million below the President. In a very simplified chart, if this line across the page is represented by the President's budget, veterans are cut by $915 million. Or if I can use a comparative chart, the bill which came back from conference had $1.5 billion more than what was contained in the House bill, represented by this baseline. But, in fact, veterans got $213 million less in funding, even though the bill was expanded by a billion and a half dollars. Now, that hardly sounds to me like veterans are being given high priority. Mr. Speaker, we are being told on the Republican side of the aisle by my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], that, after all, we have a 2-percent increase in here for veterans. There is a nominal increase for veterans health care, but the fact is the inflation rate in health care is 10 percent a year. Mr. Speaker, when we provide only a 2 percent adjustment, that means in real purchasing power there is a significant decline in what we are going to be able to provide for veterans. That is why 50,000 veterans will be denied treatment at VA facilities; nearly 20,000 inpatient visits will not occur; 430,000 outpatient visits will not be accommodated; and, 2,700 personnel-years will be lost. Mr. Speaker, we are also told, ``Gee whiz, you folks did not prepare any offsets.'' There are a number of offsets that the committee could provide. They know where they can find them. But let me suggest that we did ask the Committee on Appropriations to provide a different outcome, because we offered a motion in full committee where the allocations are made between the 13 various subcommittees. We offered a change in allocation from that adopted by the Republican majority which would have provided significant additional assets in this bill. I believe the number was around $200 million additional in outlays. Mr. Speaker, In my view, if we want to correct the problem, we ought to go back and provide a different 602 allocation. That is what we ought to do. What my Republican colleagues have done is to short-sheet this bill in order to enable the country to buy twice as many B-2 bombers as the Pentagon wants, and in order to enable the country to go down the road in spending $70 billion on an aircraft that we do not need for another 15 years in the case of the F-22. In order to finance those additional funding requests that the Republican majority has, we are being told we ought to cut education, squeeze veterans, squeeze health care, squeeze environmental protection. I do not think that is what this Congress ought to be all about. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, in closing, that in addition to the problem which we have in veterans, which can be corrected by the motion to recommit, we need to have a substantial increase in environmental funding, and this bill simply does not provide it.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say I find this debate ironic. This is December 7. A fairly significant military event happened on that day, as all of us know. I think it is ironic that on December 7 we are being asked by our Republican friends on this side of the aisle to adopt an appropriations bill which will reduce funding for veterans medical care by $213 million below the amount originally provided in the House bill. Do we want that money restored? You betcha. Do we want more money in this bill in general? You betcha. I make absolutely no apology for that. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said that those who brought this motion to the floor, in the gentleman's words, had voted against providing aid to the Contras. You bet I did. It was an illegal war. The gentleman said that we voted against aid to Salvador. Not me. I voted for a significant amount of aid to Salvador. The gentleman said we voted against the Pershing missile. No, I did not. I supported the Pershing missile. I thought that was the one missile that was necessary to bring the Soviet Union to their senses. I think the gentleman ought to get his facts straight. Second, let me point out that the President is going to veto this bill. It is $900 million below where the President wants it on the Veterans' Administration, and $1.6 billion below on the Environmental Protection Agency. While my colleagues have very reluctantly eliminated the antienvironmental riders in the bill, they still have included many of those same riders in the statement to the managers, which still puts pressure on the EPA to follow those antienvironment suggestions being made by this committee. Mr. Speaker, I would make the point that this bill, when it comes back from conference, has $1.5 billion more to use, and yet the account for veterans medical care is reduced by $213 million. We do not believe that makes sense. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can talk all they want about there being a nominal increase in the funding for veterans medical care, but the increase provided will not keep up with inflationary cost increases to provide VA medical care. I think the committee understands it. Mr. Speaker, this reduction will mean that nearly 50,000 veterans will be denied treatment at VA facilities; nearly 20,000 inpatient visits will not occur; nearly 430,000 outpatient visits will not be accommodated; more than 2,700 personnel years in the VA will be lost. Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that is the kind of present we want to give our veterans on December 7. I would urge, after this rule is disposed of, that we vote for the recommittal motion when it is offered again, to insist that the committee do what this House said they ought to do in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this committee does not have to reduce EPA funding in order to facilitate this request of ours. What they do need to do is go back to the drawing board and get a new budget allocation from the Committee on Appropriations central office so that they do not have to skewer the progress we want to make in veterans health care and in environmental protection.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. I think it ought to be beaten. I am in favor of the motion to recommit that will be offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] to require the retention of the Cops on the Beat Program. The President has clearly indicated he will veto this bill if the Cops on the Beat Program is not restored. This program is putting 26,000 cops in 175 communities all around the country, including 32 in my district. Forty-nine percent of the police agencies in communities under 50,000 people have applied for funding under the COPS Program. I think this indicates this is not just a program which is popular in urban areas. The Justice Department has requests for over 9,000 more to be funded right now. That, to me, indicates that communities are highly desirous of obtaining help under this bill. I think the block grant program is a mistake. We have seen in the past outrageous examples of waste in that program. We do not want to repeat it. I urge Members to support the Skaggs motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation with the inclusion of the Great Lakes cargo equity provision in the managers' amendment to the bill. Since 1985 when cargo preference on Federal food aid was expanded from 50 percent to 75 percent, Great Lakes ports have operated at a disadvantage because 75 percent of that cargo was taken off the top to be reserved for U.S.-flag vessels. Great Lakes ports don't enjoy regularly-scheduled ocean-going U.S. flag service because U.S. flag vessels are simply too large to fit through the locks on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Further, the Federal agencies that administer the program have always placed meeting the cargo preference requirement ahead of any concern for port range equity. Consequently, the cargo preference requirement has effectively shut our ports out of the program. Often, after the 75 percent cargo preference requirement was satisfied, there was insufficient cargo available to make it economically viable for Great Lakes ports to bid. In some cases, when Great Lakes ports did successfully bid for cargo, it might still be diverted to another port range to satisfy cargo preference. Over the past 10 years, we have sought to restore some equity to the Federal maritime program, and legislative provisions were enacted in 1985 and 1990. Unfortunately, those efforts turned out to be either temporary or ineffective. Last year, a Great Lakes equity provision which I authored was included in the House-passed maritime security bill, but that legislation was not enacted. This year, with the assistance of the American Great Lakes ports and representatives of the maritime industry, we have developed a new provision to ensure equity for the Great Lakes region which is included in the managers' amendment to the bill. This provision will establish a new contracting procedure whereby our ports will get to bid on 100 percent of Public Law-480 title II cargo. This is the most labor- intensive type of cargo to load and unload and it represents the greatest job-creating potential for our workers. If shipping that cargo via a Great Lakes port is the most cost-effective option, then the Great Lakes will be awarded that cargo. Furthermore, unlike current law, once awarded, that cargo cannot be taken away and diverted to another port range to satisfy cargo preference. Nothing in this provision will diminish the 75-percent cargo preference requirement for the food aid program. To accomplish this, the provision requires a two-step procedure be utilized by the Department of Agriculture in allocating cargoes to ports. First, after commodity suppliers and vessel operators have submitted quotes or bids to the Commodity Credit Corporation, an initial evaluation will calculate the port allocation for 100 percent of the quantity to be procured on an overall lowest landed cost basis without regard to the flag of the vessels involved. In this environment, absent cargo preference requirements, if a Great Lakes port has won a cargo based on lowest landed cost, then it is allocated to that Great Lakes port and cannot be diverted. A second evaluation is then performed to determine the specific port allocation for the remaining cargo to be purchased on the basis of 75-percent overall cargo preference requirement. Other than a more competitive bid from another port range, the only restriction, then, that will be placed on the allocation of Public Law 480 title II cargo to Great Lakes ports is that the total may not exceed more than 25 percent of the annual tonnage which represents the non-U.S.-flag share. During the 3 months of the year when the Great Lakes are frozen and closed to commerce the initial calculation will not be necessary. This is also true if no vessel operator or commodity supplier has offered a quote or rate through a Great Lakes port. Clearly, this provision moves our region of the country to a more level playing field. If it works as designed it will enable vessel operators serving our ports to fairly compete for cargoes without being disadvantaged by cargo preference. I wish to thank the majority and minority members of the National Security Committee for their help in reaching agreement on this Great Lakes cargo equity provision, especially Chairman Spence, subcommittee Chairman Bateman, and ranking Democrat Ron Dellums. I would also like to thank the staffs of each of these members, the representatives of maritime labor and U.S.-flag vessel operators who have been involved in the development of this provision, and representatives of the Great Lakes ports. Each of them was an essential element in the crafting of this provision. [[Page H 14078]] As such, I urge you to join with me in supporting the important job- creating Great Lakes cargo equity provision in the maritime security bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I wonder if the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] would explain to the House the effect of his motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY

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

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, when I first came to Congress and later joined the Committee on Appropriations as a very young Member of Congress, in fact the youngest Member of Congress at that time, I was asked why I had tried so hard to get on the Committee on Appropriations rather than some of the other committees around here. I said at that time that the reason I did that is because I thought that, more than anything else that Congress does, our budgets define what it is that we value. I think this bill tells a very sad story about what this Congress apparently values because, as the previous speaker on our side of the aisle indicated, this bill makes huge reductions in housing, it makes huge reductions in our ability to enforce environmental cleanup legislation. In that sense I think it will leave this country much poorer, both in terms of the housing stock available to low-income people in this society and most especially poorer in terms of the quality of the air, the quality of the water, and the quality of the living environment that our kids and our grandkids will be living. This bill is going to be vetoed and it should be vetoed because it is, I think, an abdication of our responsibilities to be stewards of the environment and to be stewards of the entire ecosystem. I also think it abdicates in many ways the responsibilities that we have to our veterans. It cuts $900 million from the VA request. It eliminates, it is true it eliminates 17 anti-environment riders which were earlier attached to this bill and then later stripped out by a motion on the House floor, and that is good. But as the previous colloquy indicated, many of those riders have found their way back into the statement of managers. While those riders in the statement of managers do not have the force of law, they certainly do place a considerable burden on the agency, in that they require the agency to try to take into account the opinion of the committee when they drafted that statement on the part of the managers. When we are dealing with an agency such as EPA, which has tended to follow guidance provided in statements of the manager in years past unless they are forbidden to do so by law, I think that what it really does is put the Congress on record in support of a good many anti-environmental positions which I do not believe the Congress wants to do, given its vote on those riders just a few weeks ago. Let me also note with respect to veterans that despite the fact that this bill had about $1.5 billion more to work with in reality than the bill had when it left the House, that despite that fact, veterans' medical care is funded $213 million below the amount originally contained in the House bill. I think that is wrong. Let me state that again. Despite the fact that the committee and $1.5 billion more to work with than the House bill, veterans got $213 million less than they would have gotten in the House bill for veterans' medical care. I congratulate the committee for dropping its plan to reduce benefits for what are known as incompetent veterans. That was also mentioned by one of our friends on the Republicans side of the aisle earlier. I congratulate the committee. As Members know, we offered an amendment on this side of the aisle to try to require that that provision be eliminated. It was not accepted on the floor. I am happy it was accepted now. But nonetheless, I do not think that we can justify cutting veterans' medical benefits by $213 million. My motion to recommit will eliminate that reduction and would restore that $213 million. I would urge that Members vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and then ``no'' on the bill.