Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, at this point I certainly am.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous gentlemen on this side of the aisle said this issue is, and I have forgotten what reason he gave, but he indicated this issue was here because people were concerned about bureaucrats. This issue is here for one very simple reason: because Tyson's chicken company and a number of others like them want to sell what is in essence frozen products [[Page H 9909]] and label them fresh, and earn extra money because they can charge the fresh rather than the frozen price. That is why this issue is here. They got their friends in the Senate to swallow it and push it down our throats. Shoppers, I think, know the difference between fresh and frozen. It seems to me it is time that Congress learned that, too. Chickens hard enough to hammer nails are not fresh. They should not be labeled as being fresh. One of the other gentlemen said, ``Oh, this is just a California issue.'' I am not from California, I am from Wisconsin. I believe in legitimate labeling of agricultural products, whether they are chickens or whether they are BGH-laced milk. I want that label to show what the consumer is buying. My farmers do, too. I certainly know my consumers do. The issue here is very simple. If you think that the consumer ought to know that they are not buying fresh chicken when they purchase chicken that is frozen down to 1 degree, then vote for my motion to recommit. If Members think the industry ought to be able to continue to scam them and continue to deceive consumers into thinking that they are buying fresh chicken when they are not, then stick with the committee. It is just that simple.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that, when I left, or when the bill left the House originally, I opposed it because I thought that the reductions that were provided for rural sewer and water and rural housing were very much too deep to reflect a fair share of the required spending reductions in the budget which were assigned to rural America. Mr. Speaker, I think people often forget there is as much poverty in rural America, in fact more, than there is in urban America, and we, as a society, have a tendency to ignore that. I want to congratulate the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] because I think that they have done probably the best job that was possible to do in restoring some of those unfair reductions and achieving a better balance within the bill in terms of the reductions that are required. And I guess, while I am uncomfortable with some of the reductions, I guess I would have to say that I think people in rural America want spending reductions as much as anybody else, and, if they do, then they have to expect them to be applied to programs that affect rural America just like everybody else. So, while I still have great misgivings about some of the squeeze that this will put on our rural communities, I cannot really quarrel with the judgments that the committee has made. And I think it is a substantially improved bill, and I really do not want to urge anyone to vote against it because of what I am going to say here this morning. But I am taking the well because I am concerned with the item that was mentioned by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and I will have a motion to recommit at the proper time because I think that, while this bill is a reasonable bill in terms of its spending reductions, I think that is unreasonable with respect to the fraudulent labeling of poultry products which it allows to continue. Mr. Speaker, let me simply summarize what that situation is: The insane situation that the conference agreement would continue allows poultry to be labeled as fresh if its internal temperature is 1 degree above zero and below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. Only poultry chilled to zero degrees or below would have to be labeled as frozen under the existing situation. Now it is that existing situation which has led to considerable consumer confusion and to court cases. In fact, in one legal action striking down what was a fairly sensible California State law, Mr. Speaker, a U.S. appeals court wrote the following: We affirm this absurdity. Congress has given Federal bureaucrats the power to order that frozen chickens be labeled fresh. Now to remedy that situation, Mr. Speaker, the Food Safety and Inspection Service has tried to stop that fraudulent labeling. They reviewed some 26,000 comments from the public and from interested parties, and they decided that in the interests of consumer protection and honesty in advertising they decided to require that in order to be labeled fresh, poultry must have an internal temperature not lower than 26 degrees, because 80 percent of the water in a chicken is frozen at that temperature. And they decided as a concession, as a concession to the poultry processing industry, that chicken with temperature greater than zero, but less than 26, would be labeled as hard-chilled rather than frozen. But even that was not good enough for some of the special interests, Mr. Speaker, and so unfortunately the other body, the Senate, agreed to a proposition, and the conferees in turn agreed to that Senate action, which would continue the present absurdity of letting obviously frozen poultry be labeled as fresh. It will mean that the large special interests in the poultry industry will have won another battle in their ongoing effort to keep the American consumers as uninformed as possible as far as labeling is concerned. Under this turkey of an agreement they will continue to label as fresh, poultry that is chilled down to 1 degree Fahrenheit. Now why is that important to the special interests? Because they can charge more and get away with it in the marketplace for poultry which is labeled as fresh rather than frozen, and that mislabeling has led consumers to overpay for what they are buying to the tune of up to $1 billion, and so it just seems to me that to allow this rip-off to continue is something which the Congress simply should not do. Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural area myself, and I want to see as many agriculture products sold as possible around the country, but I do not want to see them sold under false pretenses, and to suggest that a piece of poultry which is chilled to 1 degree above zero is not frozen or at least hard-chilled is to me to revamp the Webster's dictionary definition of what indeed is fresh. So, Mr. Speaker, I will be offering a motion to recommit which asks the House to reject that specific provision in the conference report so that this conference committee can go back and do what is honest, tell the American public what it is they are buying when they are buying something that is labeled fresh, and, if it is not fresh, for God's sake tell them. I think the Congress would be better off if we take that approach. I think the industry itself would have more credibility and certainly the consumer would be better informed than they would be under this turkey of an arrangement which the committee is bringing us here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get this straight. As I understand it, this bill says in essence that EPA can do no research on indoor air.

Mr. OBEY. And the argument for that is that OSHA does that research?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the gentleman say we were not supposed to attach legislative language to appropriations bills. Labor- HEW is tied up because we have a bundle of legislative language attached to that bill from their side of the aisle. Treasury-Post Office is tied up because we have got a disagreement about legislative language. We have got 30 pages out of a 90-page EPA appropriation bill that has legislative language. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say Members on their side of the aisle who are concerned about seeing activity on that question are right.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me inquire how much time is remaining on all three sides.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that I think Members have given ample reason for opposing the bill in general. I would also urge that they support the motion to recommit for the simple reason that it prevents a $31 million ripoff of the taxpayers to the United States, a ripoff which will enrich a few corporate directors while the workers of that same company are being laid off. I do not think that is a proposition any of us can go home and explain to any of our constituents, and I do not think we should even try. So I would urge the adoption of the recommittal motion and the defeat of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, as Members of this House know, the gentleman from Louisiana and I are very good friends. But [[Page H 9705]] I have to say that I think he misdescribes what our responsibilities are to the people of this country. In my view, our responsibilities are to provide a budget which has a balanced set of budget reductions so that the pain is shared evenly and so that major portions of the appropriations are not exempted from the squeeze that is being applied to everybody else. This bill does not meet that test. It does not even allow us over time to stay within the Republican budget that was passed with overwhelming Republican unity in this House just a few months ago. Because with all of the weapons systems piled into this bill, they will be forcing spending far in excess of the Kasich budget. We also have a responsibility to see to it that the Congress of the United States does not embarrass itself by giveaways to corporations in the process of providing a defense bill. This bill also does not meet that test, and so the bill ought to go down until those two items are corrected. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire, I understand the normal procedure is to have the time split 50-50 between the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] and the gentleman form Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. Is my understanding correct that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is in support of the bill?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, then I ask that the time be divided three ways and I be allocated the customary 20 minutes.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania are both strongly in support of this bill. They care very deeply about the defense posture of the United States and they know a lot about it, and I respect that. I respect their commitment to this bill, even though I happen to disagree with them. But I have to say that I think this bill ought to go down in its present form. I do not enjoy saying that. But the fact is this bill is $7 billion above the President's budget request. The main problem is that this bill cannot possibly result in a defense budget which will live within the budget limits established by the Kasich budget, which just passed this House just a few months ago. One of the best kept secrets in this town is that, while the defense bill this year spends more money than President Clinton wants to spend, in the outyears, the Kasich budget resolution calls for a lower defense number than the President's own budget provides. Yet, this bill is so loaded up with procurement items that it cannot possibly live below that ceiling in the outyears, if we do not make some major adjustments now. Just as a smattering of items, for instance, this bill has moved a good deal of money out of readiness and into procurement, including unnecessary purchases for B-2's, $500 million above the President's budget on star wars. We have additional C-130's. We have a number of ships that the President did not ask for, and we have got the beginning of a huge new buy for the F-22. We simply cannot afford to buy all of those things if we are going to stay within the budget ceiling that the Kasich budget resolution establishes. I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the motion to recommit, which I expect to offer at the end of this debate today. The taxpayers in my State, and I think around the country, are outraged by reports that over the last several months the bosses in the Pentagon have gotten together with the bosses the defense industry to cook up a scheme to stick the taxpayers with a huge bill for corporate welfare. The Pentagon has agreed to pay millions of tax dollars to 460 executives affected by the merger of two defense contractors, Lockheed and Martin Marietta. That reported plan is to hold up the taxpayers for $31 million out of a $92 million golden parachute deal. In fact, one of the gentlemen involved, one of the gentleman who will receive those nice benefits will receive over $8 million, a good portion of that right out of the pockets of the taxpayer. In the meantime, Lockheed/Martin expects to fire a total of 30,000 workers over 18 months. Where are their goodbye Christmas presents in comparison to what is happening to these executives? Under our system, if these private corporations choose to waste their private funds in this fashion, I guess it is all right with me, although I question it; but I certainly do not see why the taxpayers ought to have to pay one- third of the deal. I think it is especially ironic that some of the same budgeteers who would have us gut programs to educate our kids, to take care of our senior citizens, to retrain the very workers who are being fired in these mergers, they do not even bat an eye when their corporate friends cook up these cozy deals for their multi-million-dollar handout. Now, what happened is that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] offered language in the House floor which tried to fix the problem. The [[Page H 9701]] committee accepted that language. But then the legal beagles down at the Pentagon sent us a note telling us that they had found a way to get around it. They will try to find a way to get around virtually everything we send them. But my motion to recommit will, if adopted by the House, fix the problem so that they cannot get around it. It will see to it that, if they want to provide those golden parachutes for those executives, they do it out of their own profits, that they do not do it out of the deficit-laden budget of the United States at the expense of the taxpayers. There should not be this $31 million giveaway in this bill. So I would urge, when the time comes, that Members vote for the motion to recommit. I would urge that Members vote against the conference report because this bill does not live up to the fiscal promises made just 4 months ago in this House.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. OBEY. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a case where a very good Member is bringing us a very bad bill, and I am sorry about it. but I just cannot bring myself to support it. Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at what this bill does to the Tongass; if we take I look at what it does to the Bureau of Indian Affairs; if we take a look at what it does to the California Desert Act; if we take a look at what it does on mining, as has been discussed often this morning, my only question would be where is Bill Proxmire when we really need him? If Bill was here, he would absolutely give this bill the Golden Fleece Award for this Congress, because this bill, which is above all supposed to be a bill that protects the public's interest, instead caves in to the private interests. Mr. Speaker, the worst of all offenses is what has been done or what has not been done to reform the mining law. As I pointed out on the floor yesterday, under existing law, Interior was forced last year to sign away land under which was located an estimated $10 billion in gold, and they had to sell it for 10,000 bucks. Under the so-called reforms working their way through this place, that price tag would rise to 100,000 bucks. Big deal. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me that the only logical thing for this House to do, if we care about defending the public's interest, is to support the recommittal motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], repair this bill, at least in one way. That still does not mean that the bill would be worth passing, in my view, because of all of the other problems. But at least it would fix up a notorious rip-off of the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I would urge support of the motion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves to be stopped dead in its tracks. It is an absolutely lousy bill. The best way to stop it is to defeat the rule that will allow its consideration. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but the worst thing in the conference report is the provision which relates to the moratorium on mining patent claims which is an abomination under the guise of reform. The conference agreement lifts the existing moratorium and allows mining companies, many of which are foreign owned, to gain title to Federal lands containing valuable hard rock minerals for a pittance. It will result in billions of dollars being pocketed by mining companies without payment of any royalties to the owner of the land, the U.S. taxpayer. This, in my view, is a travesty left over from the political stone age. The original law that permits this outrage, this outrageous raid on the Treasury, was enacted in 1872. If my old colleague Bill Proxmire were still representing Wisconsin in the other body, you can be sure that this provision would be the recipient of one of his Golden Fleece awards. The magnitude of this giveaway is incredibly hard to grasp. Let me give you one example. Just last year the Interior Department signed away land containing an estimated $10 billion in gold for less than $10,000. The so-called reform in this bill would mean that it will only cost $100,000. The land is now owned by a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign-owned corporation. Not only are we giving away the mining rights for a tiny fraction of their value, we are also giving away title to the land. Now, that is not the only problem with this bill. If you take a look at other sections of the bill, you will see, for instance, that it allows increased logging in some of the most sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. It reverses key parts of the California Desert Act passed last year. The conference also contains draconian reductions in funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It cuts funding for Indian education almost in half. It reduces the Department of Energy's weatherization programs by one-half, while at the same time it provides these gigantic ripoffs, this huge glom of corporate welfare, to some of the largest corporations in this country, and in fact some of the largest corporations who originate outside the boundaries of our own country. So for these and a variety of other reasons, some of which were cited by the gentleman from California, I would strongly urge a vote against the rule and a vote against the bill tomorrow if this House is ill- advised enough to pass this rule this afternoon.