Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill continues a 10-year downward trend in financing for foreign aid, and that downward trend is unavoidable, given the existing budget crunch that we face. I think the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done a fine job under the circumstances, as has the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], and I salute them both. Mr. Speaker, I think there are some mistakes in this bill. I, for instance, do not believe that we should earmark funds for any country. I think that the Congress, unless we are facing extraordinary circumstances, should not be in a position to require the President to spend money on any country. I certainly do not oppose where these earmarks go. Israel, for instance, deserves great credit for steadfastly trying to move toward a resolution of the turmoil which we have seen in the Middle East for many, many years. I think that Egypt has cooperated fully in that process. I recognize in the past we have earmarked those Middle Eastern countries because we have not wanted to undermine the peace process, and I have no objection to that. But I do question the wisdom of earmarking over 50 percent of the funds that go to countries that were within the former Soviet Union, even though, again, I have no objection if the President wants to support those initiatives to those countries, because I think we need to be engaged in that region. I would simply say that I have defended Republican Presidents for 8 years against earmarks by the Congress, and I feel obligated to do the same for a Democratic President of my own party. There are some other problems I have with the bill, as anyone might, but, overall, I think that the bill is not a bad bill, and I intend to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, there is a problem: The bill as structured, provides for a return to the Mexico City language, which the administration strenuously objects to, and the administration has indicated that the President will veto the bill. I would not personally veto the bill over that item, but the administration intends to do so. So I will simply be offering a motion to recommit to try to find a middle ground. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] will be providing an amendment, the language of which would cut off family planning funds to organizations with which the committee disagrees with respect to abortion. It would also cut off aid to the UN Population Agency because they have a program in China who the committee feels is conducting forced abortions. My amendment would contrast with that amendment in this way: First of all, and I will simply read this language, it provides that none of the funds made available under this act may be used to lobby for or against abortion. I think everyone agrees with that. Second, it would drop the language on the cutoff of family planning assistance, because I believe that we ought to keep a very firm line between the issue of abortion and the issue of family planning. Third, it would provide the same cutoff that the Callahan amendment would provide in China, except for changing the date. It would read as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of this act or other law, none of the funds appropriated by this act may be made available for the United Nations Population Fund unless the President certifies to the appropriate Congressional committees that, (1), the United Nations Population Fund will terminate all family planning activities in the People's Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996; or, (2), during the 12 months preceding such certification there have been no abortions as a result of coercion associated with family planning activities of the national government or other governmental entities within the People's Republic of China. As used in this section, the term ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe psychological pressures. I think it is important for us on both sides of the aisle to send a signal to the United Nations population program that we are firmly convinced that the so-called population program in China is in fact coerced abortion, or at least it is facilitating coerced abortion. Anyone who takes a look at the record understands that is exactly what is going on in China. So all my amendment would do is give the agency 2 additional months to end their involvement in China or else face a total cutoff of funds. I think that is more realistic administratively and it would remain identical with respect to the rest of the gentleman's amendment.

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 take the well to urge Members to vote against the previous question on the rule when we have the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], or his designee, will be permitted to offer an amendment related to amendment number 115, which has language concerning abortion and the United Nations Population Agency. However, under the rule, Members are prohibited from offering amendments to that amendment. The White House has stated that if the language contained in the amendment by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is included in the foreign operations bill, the President will veto the bill. Under those circumstances, I would like to be able to try to offer compromise language that I believe would make real our apparent passage of the conference report on foreign operations today. My amendment, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record, would take out the so-called Mexico City language, which the administration opposes, leaving in a prohibition on lobbying for or against abortion, and prohibits funds to the United Nations Population Fund, unless UNFPA has terminated its program in China by May 1 of 1996. Mr. Speaker, permanent law already requires that none of the funds in this bill can be used to perform abortions. The Mexico City language included in the Callahan amendment purports to be related to abortion, but, in fact, the funds that it cuts off are family planning funds, and I think that is ill-advised. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is wise to proceed in that way on this bill. I do want to make clear, however, that the language that I would like to include in my amendment would allow funds to go to the United Nations agency involved in family planning only if that agency terminates its program in China by next May. In my view, Mr. Speaker, we need very much to separate the issues of family planning from the issues of abortion. In my view, those who describe themselves as conservatives are right to be concerned about the use of Federal funds for abortion, and I think they are right to be concerned about the abuse of government power associated with the Chinese program of so-called family planning, which is really coerced abortion. Mr. Speaker, I think that Members in this House, who describe themselves as liberals, are right to try to keep a distinction between abortion and family planning, but I think they are wrong if they defend the continued operation of the United Nations population program in China so long as China continues a policy that I consider to be coerced abortion. I think it is very important that this distinction be made. Mr. Speaker, I respect the views of people on both sides. I have almost given up the expectation that we can get a rational dialogue between people on either side of the abortion issue, either on this floor or almost anywhere else in society, because people seem to be more interested in shouting past each other than in working out these problems. But I do not see any sense in passing a bill which we know the President will veto. I do not think that we do what we say we do when in the name of opposing abortion, we wind up cutting off family planning funds. I think we ought to focus instead on the abusive abortion. I most certainly agree with that portion of the Callahan amendment which says that the United Nations should not be operating in China so long as China continues to follow its policy of coerced abortion. Any Member who has listened to or read accounts of what is happening in China can have no reasonable doubt that that government viciously, and with an incredibly heavy hand, coerces families and coerces women into having abortions. I think that the United Nations agency in the past has tried to soft- pedal criticism of the Chinese program. In recent months I think they have become more realistically aware of the defects in the China program. I think it is nonetheless important for us to indicate that we will not continue to cooperate in any way with an agency that does business within China so long as China continues to follow that abusive policy. The only difference between my amendment on China is that we give them several more months in which to close down their existing contracts, which I think is a much more realistic approach administratively. I would like, if we can beat the previous question on the rule, to offer this amendment, which I think is a reasonable compromise between the two poles. I recognize very much that we are not likely to be able to beat that motion today, but I nonetheless would urge Members' support so that we can try to bring this bill into a position that the President will be able to sign it and we will accomplish what we claim we are trying to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record: Amendment to House Resolution 249 On line 12, page 2, strike ``.'' and insert ``, except one motion to amend if offered by Representative Obey of Wisconsin. The text of the amendment is printed in section 2 of this resolution. Sec. 2. The text of the amendment to be offered by Representative Obey is as follows: Mr. Obey moves that in lieu of the matter proposed by Mr. Callahan, insert: Provided, That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion. Sec. 518A. Coercive Population Control Methods.-- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), unless the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that (1) the United Nations Population Fund will terminate all family planning activities in the People's Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996; or (2) during the 12 months preceding such certification, there have been no abortions as the result of coercion associated with the family planning activities of the national government or other governmental entities within the People's Republic of China. As used in this section the term ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or severe psychological pressure.''

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been at the center of virtually every reform movement that has occurred in this House since the day I got here, limiting outside income, stopping the practicing of law on the side, financial disclosure requirements, you name it. I have done it all, because I believe deeply that this institution cannot afford to be in a situation in which it does not have the absolute faith and confidence of the American people. We simply cannot afford to have the public witness year after year after year television exposes of Members on lobbyists' paid golfing vacations and other trips like that. We have to put an end to that. This is the right bill to use in order to do just that. I urge you to vote against the rule. I urge you to support the leadership of the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] and finally end this insider schmoozing which is bringing so much discredit to this institution.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I simply want to make a few short remarks about it before we vote. I think the agreement reached by the conferees is, for the most part, a fair agreement that respects the priorities of the House and recognizes the conflicting pressures on us as we try to work in a very difficult budget situation. I am especially pleased, on a personal note, that my State has continued the progress which it has made the past few years in receiving a fair share of Federal highway funds. I appreciate the fact that this committee has been helpful in seeing to it that we do not make or that we do not experience any significant backsliding in that respect. I would note that there is not as much in this bill as we would like to have for highways or for airport investments, but given the fact that the 602(b) allocation, which is set by the Chair of the committee, provided less funding for that than we would have liked, the committee had no choice but to produce a bill within those limitations, and I think it has done a fairly reasonable job under those circumstances. I would note that there is a significant reduction in transit operating subsidies for communities around the country. Communities are not going to like that. I know some communities in my own district are going to be uncomfortable about it. I wish it could have been otherwise. But the fact is if the public is asking for budget cuts, they have to expect that they are going to get budget cuts, and this is one of the places where those cuts are going to bite. I hope that we can make some adjustments in the future, but, frankly, it is probably going to be tougher next year than it was this year. I would make just one observation with respect to the personnel reforms at the Federal Aviation Administration that have been mentioned by both the subcommittee chairman and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member. I think all of us wanted to give the FAA additional ability to reorganize its shop, but I want to say that I think that a number of us have concerns about the lack of protections which we feel are in this bill for workers' rights during that reorganization process. The bill, in our view, does not preserve existing statutory requirements pertaining to labor-management and employee relations' issues, and that concerns us very much. I would simply say to the FAA that, in exercising the prerogatives which they will have under this legislation, I would urge the agency to proceed with utmost caution; and I would urge them to recognize basic elements of fairness as they deal with their employees. Because, if they do not, I think this Congress will and should in short order be right on their tail; and I think the FAA will wish that they had behaved in a sensitive manner. I would hope that, given the authority which they have been given by this committee, which I think is too broad, I would hope that they would exercise that authority with great discretion. We will be watching. Let me also say that I will hope the authorizers would take note of the lack of clarity in this bill on that issue, and I would hope that the authorizers would see to it in legislation that they develop that the agency does, in fact, meet decent standards of decency in dealing with the employees of that agency. I think Congress has a right to expect that and so do the workers at that agency.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into this. I came over here to talk about the Transportation appropriation bill. However, since I do have some considerable experience with the history of reform in this place, I think I would like to put in some perspective what I have heard here on this issue. I was appointed by the Speaker in 1975 to chair the House Commission on Administrative Review, which was supposed to do a top-to-bottom reform of the House administrative structures, write a new code of ethics, and produce new rules on outside income. That was probably the most bloody and brutal experience I have ever had in this place. It cost me a lot of friends, because we did some very tough things that a lot of people did not like. I can recall at the time when John Rhodes, who was then the Republican minority leader, appointed his members of my commission. He had the courtesy to come to me and say ``Dave, this is going to be a tough job for you. Understand, I am appointing Bill Frenzel as the ranking Republican,'' but he said ``Just because you get his vote on these issues does not mean you will get any other Republican vote, because frankly, the political pressures in this place are going to take over, and whatever you are going to pass, you are going to have to pass on your own side of the aisle.'' That is very much what happened. We brought the administrative reforms to the floor of the House, reforms which, among other things, would have created the first professional administrator in the House. I am convinced we would never have had the banking problem or any of the other problems if we had had a professional administrator at that time. However, when the votes came, we were clobbered. We had significant defections on my side of the aisle, we had a majority voting for it, a big majority, but we had some losses on my side of the aisle, and we got not a single Republican vote to take up those reforms that we had worked so hard on. Through the years, some of them were later adopted, but they were adopted on a piecemeal basis because we had not been able to get them all done on that day. And in fact a few of them were actually put into the rules of the House this year by the new majority party. I congratulate them for doing that. It is about 20 years late that they came to that position, but better late than never. I will take help on those issues anywhere I can get it. However, I simply want to take this time to point out that we will probably hear, just as we did a long time ago on those reforms, we are going to hear a lot of hypocrisy, because there are going to be people who say that they really do want reform on gift ban and on lobby reform, but they are going to find every way procedurally to drag their feet, hoping in the end we never finish the job. That, frankly, is at least partially what I think is going on right now. I just want to warn Members, Mr. Speaker, that when we were involved in this fight over outside income, for instance, we were importuned by a lot of Members not to proceed because it would be unfair to the Members. And when we tried to put limits on outside income, for instance, I remember one Member of the House coming to me and saying ``Dave, you don't understand. It isn't that my law practice takes anything away from my time. It is just that as I rise in seniority, the lobbies toss more business our way and I get a piece of the action.'' I said, ``Yes, I understand that is the deal. That is why we are trying to change it.'' And he understood, all of a sudden, that this was not a typographical error that we had in our bill, we were really trying to get something done with some teeth. I would simply say that there is, in my view, nothing more important that this institution can do to restore public confidence in it than to immediately deal with the issue of lobby reform and gift ban. I have had it up to here with having to see television stories about how Members will go off on these phony seminars, that are really golfing vacations disguised as seminars, run by some interest group that lobbies this place. That should not happen. That should not be allowed. That should be outlawed today, not a week from now, not a month from now, but today. We tried to do that last year. We passed it in this House. It was bottled up in the other body by the majority leader, and I would say the record on that is clear. I fully agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] when they say that this matter ought to be disposed of now and immediately. I have been involved in these reform efforts for some 20 years. I know foot dragging when I see it, and I have seen an awful lot of it the last 3 months. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is right on when he describes where that foot dragging is coming from and why it has to change.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and note that the gentleman from Florida has indicated that in my remarks I am doing nothing but rehashing old arguments. That is absolutely correct, and I intend to rehash those arguments again and again and again and again and again until people stop listening to bafflegab and start facing some true facts. We have heard about the draconian reductions in the U.S. military budget. My question is: In comparison to what? This chart shows a red bar representing the Russian military budget since the Soviet Union collapsed, and the blue bar is representing the United States budget since that time. This shows the comparative reductions in military spending by the Soviet Union and the United States. As we can see by the rapid decline in the red bars, the Russians have reduced their military spending since the Berlin Wall fell by about 70 percent. The United States, represented by these blue bars, has reduced our military budget by about 10 percent over that same time period. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest this hardly indicates that somebody is going to get you. It hardly indicates that we are about to be swarmed over by the red hordes or any other hordes in the world. This chart shows how our military budget compares to that of all our potential adversaries. If we take Russia, if we take China, if we take Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, that military powerhouse, Cuba, if we take them all and add them together and compare them to what the United States spends in the rest of the pie chart, we spend about 2\1/2\ times as much as all of our potential adversaries put together. Mr. Speaker, third point. We take the good old B-2. We are only buying twice as many B-2's as the Pentagon asked for at a cost of $1.2 billion a crack. Just the cost of one of those airplanes would pay the tuition for every single undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. That puts it in perspective. Just two B-2 bombers. If we just decided not to spend the money for those two B-2 bombers, we could restore $1.2 billion in cuts for education; we could provide $1 billion [[Page H 10251]] for home heating help that has been cut out of the budget, to help 6 million households; we could provide summer jobs for 300,000 kids, all with just what we are going to spend to buy two of those B-2 bombers. This committee, however, in its infinite wisdom, says ``Oh, oh, oh, we have to buy them, baby, because somebody wants them.'' The gentleman from Florida says that there are other items that some people in the Pentagon would like. Well, then, I suggest that they ought to get those items through the Pentagon's process, because right now the Pentagon itself has turned down the items that I am trying to eliminate in this bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not a bit surprised there is some general or some admiral who will come to us and whisper behind us and say: ``Hey, I have to have this. Really would like this.'' Of course, they do. Have any of us ever met a bureaucrat in any profession, military or otherwise, who did not have his hand out for something that he would like that the country cannot afford? Wake up, fellas. Wake up. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about what General Schwarzkopf said about the need for some equipment. The general I prefer to listen to in this case is named Eisenhower, and he warned us a long time ago of the pernicious effect on the ability of this Congress to control spending that is created when we have the huge military industrial complex that goes to work and decides that they are going to build a weapon system by putting projects in 48 of the 50 States so that they create pressure on virtually every single congressional delegation to vote for something even though it is not needed. Mr. Speaker, having said all that, I want to say that is not what is at issue here today. What is at issue here today is whether or not we are going to take over $4 billion in pork. Capital P-O-R-K, pork. If we are going to take $4 billion in pork and knock out three-quarters of it. I am not even asking that we knock it all out. You can keep your favorite items. We can get together and decide how we are going to divvy up the rest but knock out three-quarters of, not what I say is pork, but what Senator McCain says is pork. And the last time I looked, he is not exactly a left wing antidefenser. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we keep this in perspective and remember that this amendment does not attack the defense of the country and it does not attack the military preparedness of the country. All it says is, ``Boys and girls, take three-quarters of the pork out of the bill.'' That is all it says. It does not even single out which items should be taken out. It leaves it up to the committee and their great expertise. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have heard, ``Oh, we cannot cut this bill because we are going to endanger items important to national security.'' Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues would take a look at Senator McCain's list: Electric vehicles research, brown tree snake research, wastewater treatment plan for a community, a small business development center for another community, national solar observatory, a natural gas boiler demonstration project, Mississippi resource development center. That hardly sounds to me like these are crucial defense items. [[Page H 10252]] Mr. Speaker, I could name a lot more, and will, if pressed. But it just seems to me that, as I said earlier, I am not even insisting that we take the Senator's full $4 billion list of pork. I am suggesting that we ought to take three-quarters of it and take it out of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I would make another point. What I said, and my colleagues can go back and check the record, what I said was that there is not a bureaucrat, be they in the military or elsewhere, who does not have his hand out for something that the country cannot afford. I stand by that statement. I have too much experience around here to know anything other than that. Mr. Speaker, those bureaucrats come into our offices every day from the military, from universities, from you name it. There is not an agency of this government that does not have its hand out for something, trying to get around the budget limitations put on that agency by the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Speaker, I would make another point. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] says, Well, you know, we are going to have future contingencies that we have to pay for. I would be willing to buy an amendment right here and now which takes $3 billion out of the pork and put it right into the contingency fund. If the gentleman wants to offer that, I would be happy to accept it and start over with the motion to recommit. So, let us not kid ourselves that this money is here for contingencies. This money is here because there has been a political accommodation reached to try to fund projects which the Pentagon says are not necessary. I do not suggest that the Pentagon in all cases is right. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania is perfectly correct. That there are some instances in which we need to exceed what any agency asks for, and we have heard a number of those cases made during the Iraqi war, for instance. I agree with that observation. That is why this amendment does not call for the elimination of all pork. It does call for the elimination of three-quarters of it, because that is the only way I know how, that is the only way I know how to break up the insider dealing, which otherwise is going to prevent us from really forcing the tough questions. Because as all of my colleagues know, the great hidden secret in our military budget is that while in the 7-year period overall, this budget that the Congress has produced would spend more than the President, after the seventh year, it spends less than the President is suggesting. The fact is that there is no way we are going to be able to keep to that outyear glidepath to take us down to those lower numbers unless we start eliminating some of the waste up front, right now. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be on this floor tomorrow and we are going to be asked to cut Medicare benefits. We are going to be asked next week to gut the protection of the middle-class families when one in their family has to go to a nursing home. We are going to be asked to take major reductions in education, 30 to 40 percent reductions in job training, but we are being told that we cannot afford to cut this $3 billion in pork? Baloney. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that sometimes we need to repeat things about 50 times before Members hear what it is that is being said, I am going to repeat an argument I made 10 minutes ago. Before Members get all hot and bothered about the military threat facing the United States, let us compare military spending worldwide. This chart shows: this piece which represents all of the military spending by all of our potential adversaries put together, including Russia, China, and all of the popgun powers of the world, that compares to the United States military expenditures which are about 2\1/2\ times as much. Not included in this chart is the money spent by our European allies on military spending. Does [[Page H 10254]] anybody really think that we are at the edge of Armageddon with this kind of distribution of spending? When our principal military adversary, Russia, represented by these red bars, has reduced its military spending by 70 percent, while we have reduced ours only by 10 percent, represented by the blue bars, does anybody think there is not any room at all to save a dime or a dollar? I would suggest that is a pretty good margin for error. Now, the gentleman refers to some items listed on Senator McCAIN's list and says we should not cut them. Don't! Keep them! But I do ask why should we be funding wastewater treatment plants in Hawaii? Why should we in my own State be providing money for a cleanup of a site which the pentagon itself says there is no Pentagon liability for? Why should we be doing that? We did not do it in the House bill. Why is that being done? Why are we providing for the expenditure of $20 million worth of improvements to a federally owned educational facility prior to transferring that facility to local educational agencies? I know nothing about that project. But I can tell Members one thing. I would sure like to get that deal in my district, have the feds spend $20 million on a project and then turn it over to my local school people. Not a bad deal, baby, if you can get it. Not bad at all. Or, for instance, the committee prohibits the downsizing or the disestablishing of the 53d Weather Reconnaissance Squadron. I do not know if that is a good idea or not, but it costs additional money. It prohibits the use of Edwards Air Force Base as the interim air head for the national training center, in another pork fight between members. I do not know which side is right, but the decision the committee made costs the most money. I suppose I would not be here today doing this if it were not for the vote that the majority is going to ram down our throats tomorrow on Medicare. Tomorrow we are going to be standing here, and the majority party is going to be demanding that we cut $270 billion out of Medicare to provide a $245 billion tax cut, most of which will go to people who make over $100 thousand smackeroos a year. I think that is unfair. I think that is immoral. Yet, we are being told that we ought to further the squeeze on the appropriations side of the budget, on domestic programs. In fact we had to make $7 billion in additional reductions in education, in job training, in environmental protection, in agriculture, in natural resources protection in order to free up this $7 billion for the Pentagon. Then what is it spent on? Is it spent on readiness? No. As I said earlier, this bill, when we compare real dollars to real dollars and get the categorizations right, this bill spends half a billion dollars less on readiness than President Clinton's own budget. All of my colleagues know that the B-2 would not stand a chance of a snowball in we know where of surviving a vote on this floor if the contractor had not spread those contracts out to so many subcontractors that we have over 40 States who are going to get a little bennie from that B-2 project. In addition, Mr. Speaker, when we take a look at what that baby costs, 1 billion 200 million bucks a crack, and then we remind ourselves that the Pentagon did not even ask for it, that this committee is choosing to buy twice as many of those planes as the Pentagon wants! I would suggest to my colleagues, given this picture, and given this picture, there is a little room for cutting. So I repeat. All this motion to instruct says, without singling out any single item, all it says is let us take three-quarters of the pork which was listed by Senator McCain in his letter. Let us assume he is wrong on 25 percent of it and cut out the rest. The committee can choose which items get cut. That is all this motion says. Mr. Speaker, I want to see how many people on this floor are going to vote today to preserve $3 billion in pork in the military budget and then tomorrow are going to vote to stick it to the old folks. I want to see how many of my colleagues really have that much guts. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to instruct. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my motion to instruct conferees is fairly straightforward. It simply asks the conferees to delete $3 billion worth of pork which the conferees placed into this bill. Every Member who has told his or her constituents that they want to change business as usual in Congress ought to enthusiastically support this motion. It simply instructs conferees to bring back a new conference report that cuts $3 billion in pork projects that do not affect readiness and do not affect military pay or operation and maintenance when they bring the bill back to the House. The motion is very simple. It would save $3 billion. As Everett Dirksen used to say, ``That is real money.'' Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to review a little recent history to put all of this into context. Earlier this year we heard an awful lot of scare talk about how it was vital to our national interests to add another $7 billion to the Pentagon's quarter of a trillion dollar budget request in order to protect the readiness of our Armed Forces. Who could be against that? The House leadership told us that this $7 billion was so essential and of such high priority that it had to be done, even if in the process it required other areas of the budget to apply draconian reductions to America's senior citizens, to working families, to workers who needed training, to America's kids. As a result, over the last 3 months, this Congress has produced one of the meanest and most extreme budget proposals that has been produced in the history of the Congress, to pay for more military spending and to provide huge tax cuts, over 50 percent of which go to the wealthiest people in our society. Compassion for the sick and elderly has been thrown out the window; concern for clean drinking water and clean air has evidently evaporated; investments in the education of our children and in job training for workers tossed out of work have been severely savaged; summer jobs for lots of kids in [[Page H 10249]] this society have been eliminated; cops are being taken off the street as fast as they were put on it last year; and what are we getting for all of this sacrifice in the military budget? Well, that question was answered several weeks ago when the first Defense appropriations conference report, which this House voted down, correctly, was first produced. That gives us a clear picture of what the new leadership of this Congress feels is the top priority. The headline that should have accompanied the conference report on that bill is ``Pork Replaces Readiness.'' Now, where did that $7 billion go? It did not go to the troops. The critical readiness account in the conference report operation and maintenance was actually lower than it was in the Clinton budget by nearly half a billion dollars, after you take out non-DOD items, like the $300 million in Coast Guard funding that comes under the Transportation bill, the $260 million in inflation cuts which should have been credited to both the President's budget as well as the House budget, because it is merely an estimate, and $650 million in contingency financing. So in real, practical terms, the operation and maintenance account is half a billion dollars lower, not higher, than President Clinton's budget was. Yet the bill produced by this committee put the entire $7 billion into pet procurement projects that the Pentagon did not even ask for and says they do not need right now. If you do not believe me, if you do not believe a Wisconsin progressive, then why not take the word of a pro-defense conservative Republican Senator. I have a letter from Senator McCain which every one of us has received, and that letter lists some 100 projects, some 100 pieces of pork, which in his estimate, by conservative standards, will cost the taxpayers $4.1 billion in unnecessary spending. That does not even count the unnecessary funding for star wars and two extra $1 billion ships. My motion does not go nearly as far as Senator McCain suggested that we go. It simply says cut $3 billion, rather than the $4.1 billion that the Senator identified. Mr. Speaker, if Members are against pork, they ought to vote for this motion. If they are against corporate welfare, they ought to vote for this motion. If Members are for deficit reduction, they ought to vote for this motion. If anybody wants to see the list that the good Senator provided us, I am more than willing to show, and we have got some additional projects as well which we are willing to talk to people about, including projects put in these bills by some people who on Tuesday will talk about how much they are saving the taxpayer in the defense bill and then on Thursday will slip in extra items that raise the cost of everything from Navy construction projects to you name it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and urge every Member to read what the good Senator has said about the unnecessary pork items in this bill before you vote on this motion.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. My understanding is that the rationale for this is that for instance OSHA does this research, but OSHA relies on NIOSH to do its research, and the NIOSH budget, if anyone will bother to look, has been cut drastically in the Labor-HEW bill which has passed this House. I mean it would seem to me that this provision makes about as much sense as, say, passing a new Federal mandate saying people cannot breath indoors.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the last statement I just heard is the greatest exercise in circular logic I have seen in at least an hour in this place. Let me simply say that the gentleman just said, ``Well, we do not have to have EPA do this research, because OSHA does it and OSHA I going to be able to use NIOSH.'' Yet, the Republicans went after NIOSH with a vengeance when it was before this House in the Labor-HEW bill. They have had a longstanding history of trying to chain NIOSH and preventing it from doing much in the way of significant research. It seems to me it is absolutely ludicrous to use a budget justification for saying that an agency cannot do research which is crucial to public health. There is no area in this country that costs us more dollars each year than preventable diseases, and an awful lot of them are caused by air borne pollutants. The tiny, tiny pittance that EPA would spend on research on indoor air is a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the cost of human diseases caused by polluted air each year. I have never in my life heard such a Flat Earth justification for an idiotic piece of legislation as I heard just 3 minutes ago.

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.

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, it is my understanding that since the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] is in support of the conference report as it now stands, as is the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the ranking Democratic member on the subcommittee, that the rule provides that the time be allocated with at least one-third being given to a Member who is at this point opposed to the proposal. Given that rule, I would ask that one-third of the time be assigned to me.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I significantly disagree with the gentleman who just spoke. I do not think people should be confused by the debate that is going on with respect to basic farm programs and this appropriation bill. This appropriation bill has very little to do with that debate. I would point out the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] says if we are going to be cutting housing, that we should not exempt agriculture. I would point out that this is the appropriation for rural America, and it does cut housing in rural America as well. Rural America is not being exempted from these reductions. They are not being exempted from the budget squeeze. In fact, one of my concerns about this bill is that I think that in areas such as rural sewer and water and housing, this bill is not adequate enough. That is not the fault of the subcommittee. They tried to do everything they could within the limitations provided to them. Mr. Speaker, I would simply hope, as I said earlier, I do not want anyone to vote against this bill because of my comments on the frozen chicken issue, which is a very separate issue. I think this committee has done a fairly balanced job under very difficult circumstances in trying to allocate the budget actions. I do not agree with every action taken in the conference, but I think it is certainly a far better bill than the bill that left the House. I think people need to understand that in fact, rural America is taking a significant hit in the overall budget and in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the basic agricultural programs are screwed up, and I would not vote to continue them because, for one example, the milk marketing order system in this country substantially discriminates against small family farmers in my region of the country, and unfairly benefits the same region of the county which is, I think, speaking out the most loudly in favor of this [[Page H 9910]] frozen chicken fraud, which the committee is about to perpetrate. I urge with the gentleman that those basic farm programs are screwed up, but that has very little to do with what the committee is doing on the programs in this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am in a position under which, as I said earlier, because of the customs of the House, if I am in a position to offer the motion to recommit to try to correct this outrageous consumer fraud that is going on with respect to frozen chickens, then I really am virtually required to vote against the conference report. As I have indicated, I do so with great reluctance, because I think that the committee has done a pretty good job in restoring some of the reductions that were originally in this bill for rural sewer and water and housing. I think that responsible folks in rural America recognize that they have to accept their fair share of reductions. So while I do not agree with all of the reductions, I think the committee has done a reasonable job, given the limitations it has been operating under. I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition of the House Committee on Agriculture to this bill reminds me of the old story about Leo Durocher when he managed the New York Giants. Durocher was hitting ground balls to Eddie Stanky and Stanky dropped a couple. So Durocher said, ``Stanky, give me a glove. Let me show you how to play second base.'' He took the glove and went out to play second base, and the very first ball hit to Durocher, he dropped. He turned to Stanky and said, ``Stanky, you have second base so screwed up, nobody can play it.'' I would suggest right now that agriculture policy has been so screwed up by the House authorizing committee through the years, both in the past and in this session, that nobody can unscrew it. So what we are faced with is a ridiculous situation in which it appears like the Committee on the Budget is going to be writing farm policy, and what a lot of people on the Committee on the Budget know about cows, you can put in your left ear. It just seems to me that while I think there are good reasons to vote for this recommittal motion, and while I am required, because I am offering the recommittal motion, to vote against the bill, I think that this bill needs to be evaluated fairly in contrast to what is coming out of the House Committee on Agriculture. All I can say is that I see the chances of anything good for my dairy farmers coming out of the House Committee on Agriculture are slim and none, because we are being given a choice between either swallowing what is essentially on that bill the status quo, which really puts Midwest dairy farmers at a huge economic disadvantage, or else swallowing the idea that we ought to in essence end all farm programs. It seems to me that we ought to be able to do better than that, but obviously we are not going to be given that opportunity. I just wanted to say that to keep everything in balance before we vote on this turkey of a chicken proposal that is in this committee bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I doubt that this will take very much time at all. Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply instructs the conferees to refuse to agree to any Senate amendment that would require the executive branch to spend more in fiscal year 1996 than it did in fiscal year 1995 for assistance to any country or project. When this bill left this House under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], we had very few earmarks. The Senate added some 40. This simply indicates that in an era of declining budgets, we should not be requiring an additional amount of money be spent anywhere. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.