Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], compulsively mentions the question of military pay every time someone dares to question the total dollar amount in any of these appropriation bills. Let me stipulate I know of not a single person in this House who does not want to see the full military pay increase go through. It will. We have $243 billion in this bill. We are suggesting this bill is $7 billion over where it ought to be. That still leaves $236 billion in this bill. The first dollars that will go out under that bill, whenever it is signed, will go for pay. There is no action that any Member is going to be taking to eliminate in any way any of the contemplated pay increase for our military personnel, and the gentleman ought to know better than to suggest otherwise.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would again urge defeat of this rule so that this bill could be sent back to conference and we can get serious about deficit reduction. As every Member of this House knows, we are being asked in virtually every domestic arena to make incredibly tough cuts that will squeeze people out of opportunity for a decent education; we are being asked to squeeze people who are on family farms; we are being asked to make savage reductions in environmental protection laws of the country; we are being asked to make huge reductions in Medicare; we are being asked to eliminate the protections that seniors now have so that when one partner goes in a nursing home the other does not have to go bankrupt before they can qualify for Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to swallow all of that, and yet we are being asked to swallow a defense appropriations bill which does the following: We have a half billion dollars in here as a downpayment for more B-2 bombers than the Pentagon wants to buy. Just the cost of one of those B-2 bombers would pay the tuition for every single undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin for the next 12 years. We are having a big controversy in our State about whether or not the State should buy a new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers. Just the cost of one B-2 bomber would pay for four of those stadiums with a dome, and yet we will go ahead and build and buy those new B-2 bombers. We have a half billion dollars extra in here for star wars that the Secretary of Defense says is unneeded. We have another $350 million for C-130 aircraft built in Georgia for which the military cannot even identify a military requirement. We have a number of other [[Page H 9644]] items. We have $2.4 billion for a new fighter to be built in Georgia, the F-22, which the GAO has repeatedly recommended should be put on hold for at least 7 years because we already have hundreds and hundreds of F-15's, the best fighter plane in the world. And speaking of F-15's, Mr. Speaker, this bill also buys six new ones that the Pentagon did not ask for at a cost of $300 million. And yet the supporters of this bill pretend that they are going to abide by the budget limits in the Kasich budget resolution. There is a very well kept secret in the defense portion of this budget. The secret is that the Kasich budget resolution in the 7th year winds up taking the military budget below that of President Clinton. The problem is, if we buy every new weapon system in this bill, we will never be able to live within that budget ceiling imposed by the Kasich budget resolution. And so what this bill represents is the first shot fired in the effort to blow the lid off the budget ceilings in the Kasich budget resolution with respect to military spending in this country over the next 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest there are an awful lot of reasons to vote against this bill. The best reason is simply that we cannot seriously uphold the budget limitations in the Kasich budget resolution for the defense portion of the budget if we vote to pass this bill and turn it into law. The White House is absolutely correct to say that this bill is going to be vetoed in its present form. I think the President has no choice if he wants to impose fiscal prudence on all parts of the Federal budget.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for his kind comments. Mr. Speaker, Let me simply say that I think this bill is very simple. It simply guarantees that the functions of Government will continue and that innocent Federal workers will not, through no fault of their own, be furloughed because the Congress itself has not yet completed its work on appropriation matters. I appreciate very much the flexible attitude of the gentleman from Louisiana. As he knows I was especially concerned yesterday when things appeared to be breaking down, and I am happy that a little frank private talk could resolve those matters in a very short period of time, and I appreciate the gentleman's help on that. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, as the gentleman from Louisiana has indicated, this bill creates some additional pressure on both sides, both the White House and the Congress, to finish action on the appropriation bills on which action has not yet been completed, because it contains a spending level which is lower than the level provided for in the budget resolution. It also works out a reasonable way of dealing with the differences in funding levels between the bills in the two Houses. It does not unfairly advantage either the White House or the Congress in the disagreements that are still pending, and I think it is well worth the support of people in this body. Mr. Speaker, those who say that somehow the way to avoid these potential train wreck problems is some procedural fix, I would urge a bit of caution on that. It has been my experience that these bills get finished when the committee is allowed to do its work without outside forces and pressures intervening, and I think we demonstrated that last year, for instance, when every single appropriation bill was passed by the House and by the Senate and signed by the President before the expiration of the fiscal year. When other events intervene as they have this year, it makes it very difficult for the committee to do its work So this is the responsible thing to do. It does not cause unnecessary turmoil in the country just because there are strong differences on legislation before this body. Dick Bolling, my old mentor in the House taught me that when you do not have the votes you talk, and when you do have the votes you vote. So I would just as soon we get to the voting, as soon as the gentleman assures me there are no other speakers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that I might be allotted one-third of the time being in opposition to the bill.

Mr. OBEY. He certainly is.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in the next 45 days, this Congress will define--for years to come--our top priorities. We will decide how much we are going to gouge senior citizens on Medicare; we will decide how much we are going to threaten the quality of children's education, their ability to get student loans, their ability to get the assistance they will need in early childhood education programs. We will decide how much we are going to clobber low income senior citizens, who are desperately struggling to avoid a choice between heating their homes and paying their prescription drug bills and their bills for food. Yet, this Congress is apparently ready to pass a Pentagon spending bill which will add billions of dollars to the amount requested by the President and the Pentagon leadership, and even on this bill, that warped sense of priorities continues. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is $479 million over the amount requested by the President in his budget. It is almost $2\1/2\ billion above the amount spent last year, and that is a 28-percent increase in the amount that was spent last year. Of that amount, a significant portion is for what is known as quality-of-life projects such as barracks, child care centers, family housing. I do not begrudge anyone any of those projects, and I pose no objection to any of them. I have other objections to this bill, because this bill not only exceeds the amount requested by the President, but it adds significant amounts for unrequested projects, above the President's request. The conference agreement funds 102 unrequested projects, totaling some $801 million. Again, it is no Federal offense for the Congress to decide that it is going to fund some items that the President and the Pentagon have not asked for. That is our prerogative. However, I would point out that if we compare the House add-ons and the add-ons in the Senate, the Senate bill added a total of $774 million, of which only $303 million was for quality-of-life projects. While the conference agreement added some $430 million for quality- of-life, it also adds in excess of $370 million for non-quality-of- life. It contains funding for some 23 projects, totaling about $150 million, which are not even on the Pentagon's 5-year construction plan. That means that if we were to give the Pentagon all the money that they could spend for 5 years rather than 1 year for these construction projects, the Pentagon would still not choose to fund those 23 projects. It seems to me, at the very least, that the committee ought to reconsider the large amount of funding by which it has exceeded the Pentagon's 5-year project request list. Because of that, and because the committee declined to further limit those kinds of projects, I feel I have no choice but to oppose the passage of this conference report. I have served on this subcommittee in the past, and I respect each and every member who serves on it. I would suggest that the lion's share of the projects in this bill are fully justifiable, but I do not believe, given the desperate condition of the budget, and given the excruciating competition for scarce dollars, that we can afford to be almost half a billion dollars above the request of the Pentagon and the President for these projects. I would especially suggest that when we will be asked to vote very shortly on bills which make severe reductions in other programs that are severely needed by working-class people in this country--whether it be in programs for low-income workers who are being gouged by the loss of the earned income tax credit, whose taxes are being raised by recommendations, for instance, of the Committee on Ways and Means--we are going to be asked to swallow packages like that at the same time that we are being asked to buy this huge increase in spending. To me, it indicates a very warped sense of priorities and a degree of excess that the country neither can afford nor wants at this point. Therefore, I would urge opposition to final passage of the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into a rehash of this, but if the gentleman from California wants, I would be glad to oblige for as long as he desire it. Let me give some examples of the absolutely stupid and unnecessary spending which is being defended in the name of ``defense.'' We start with the B-2. Despite the fact that the major study being done to determine what the proper level of purchases for that airplane would be, despite the fact that that commission came back and told us that we ought to buy 20, which is exactly what the Pentagon suggested we buy, the great wizards of this House have decided that we ought to buy 40. The additional cost of each B-2 is $1.2 billion, and Congress in its infinite wisdom, if it follows the judgment of this House, will buy twice as many as the Pentagon wants at a cost of $1.2 billion per plane. For the cost of just one of those airplanes we could pay the tuition for every single student, every single undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin for the next 11 years. I call that widely outlandish and unnecessary and stupid spending. Next we have the F-22. It is supposed to replace the F-15. When we started buying the F-15, we were told it would last us until the year 2015. Now we are told we have to replace that baby years early, at a cost of $70 billion. I make absolutely no apology for thinking that that is waste and that it ought to be eliminated. I would also point out to the gentleman that after the seventh year of the budget, the defense budget adopted by this Congress is in fact lower than the defense budget submitted by President Clinton. There will not be room in that defense budget to fund every weapons system that this House has decided to buy. We are going to have to eliminate a number of them. I make absolutely no apology for calling attention to the waste and stupidity associated with funding those weapons systems. I would be happy, if the gentleman wants to rehash the entire defense budget, to go on all night. But I would simply say at this point, I would repeat the original point I tried to make on this bill. It has a number of projects which the Pentagon itself would not even put on its construction list if we gave them 5 years' money, let alone the 1 year's money contained in this bill. I think that indicates there is some spending here that ought to be eliminated. I stand by my original position. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. I concede no inaccuracies.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] in a letter to me dated today suggested that the Air Force base is not being closed as he said I erroneously asserted. What I asserted, and I stand by it, in my letter, I said that the base is being closed except for an ammunition storage function, which is in fact the case for active duty forces. I would point out with respect to the assertion that this proposal was scheduled to be on the 5-year Pentagon planning list, in fact, the Office of Management and Budget has assured me that this project is not included in the 5-year plan. Just because the base commander wants it included on the 5-year plan does not mean it has been put there yet. [[Page H 9326]] Third, I would simply note that in 1991, as I understand this project, there were some 3,200 civilian employees. Now there are about 700. Yet we are told that we need yet another fire station when they got by with one, the old one, before this base was significantly downsized. I stand by my view that this project under those circumstances ought not be funded.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, taking back the balance of my time, just because a general wants it put on the 5-year list does not mean it is there yet. It is not. The OMB determines what is on that list as the gentleman knows. It is not on the list yet. It might be in the future if somebody's plans come true, but it is not on the list yet, and that is all we can go by.

Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, that does not deny the fact that it is not on the Pentagon list. The gentleman is erroneous when he asserts it is.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 additional minutes. I would simply make one additional point with respect to the project that was just discussed between the gentleman from Indiana and myself. As I understand it, there are some 2,600 projects on the Pentagon's 5-year list. What the gentleman wants this House to do as I understand it is to move his project ahead of those 2,600 projects. I do not think that is justified.

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

Mr. OBEY. I do not support purchase of additional C-130's.

Mr. OBEY. I did not realize I was required to offer an amendment opposing every item that I was opposed to. Did the gentleman vote for my amendments to eliminate the F-22 and the B-2?

Mr. OBEY. We certainly do have a big disagreement. The gentleman wants to spend a lot of money that I do not want to spend. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. [[Page H 9321]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the rulings of the House provide that when the subcommittee chair and the ranking member are both in favor of the bill, that one-third of the time shall be allotted to allow a Member opposed to the bill.

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my motion to instruct is very simple. Last week the House adopted a motion which limited to $200,000 the amount that could be paid to any executive in any defense corporation from any contract which they had with the U.S. Government or any agency of the U.S. Government. In plain language, this simply says that any dollars that any defense contractor wants to provide by way of compensation to any of their executives above the salary paid to the President of the United States should be paid out of their profits and not out of contract receipts with the U.S. Government. If you take a look at the salaries of some of the CEO's of these corporations, you will see that, for instance, one of them was paid nearly $15 million in 1994. I do not really believe that, when we have the massive downsizing going on in the military, when we have the squeeze that we have not only in the military budget but on domestic budgets as well, I do not think we have any business encouraging the payment of those outlandish salaries. I do not see why anybody in this country ought to have to make more than the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this motion to instruct.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have just one additional observation. I recognize fully what the gentleman from Louisiana said, and I understand the position of the gentleman from Maryland. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the only people in America who never get a pay adjustment would be Members of Congress. I make no apology for the efforts of the past that have been engaged in on a bipartisan basis in this House, in full view of the public, not in a midnight vote, as did occur in the other body, but in full view of the public, in the afternoon, an up-or-down vote after a long discussion. I make no apology for the fact that we decided that we would make the public our only paymaster, because I believe this place is a much cleaner place for having done that. And I have no argument with the suggestion that Members of Congress should be treated the same as other Federal employees with respect to cost-of-living increases. That is probably as good a guide as any. Unfortunately we are stuck with the job, under the Constitution, of determining our own pay. I wish we did not have that job because it is a no-win situation, and so I think, if we are to set a guideline, what happens to other Federal employees is probably as good a guideline as we can find for what ought to happen to us in terms of pay. I would gladly have somebody else set that pay, but under the circumstances I think that it is appropriate this year, given what is happening with the budget, for the Congress to freeze its own pay. I would note that that is unquestionably a lot easier for Members of the other body to do because, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] indicated, newspaper stories indicate that there are possibly up to 80 percent of the Senate that are millionaires. I regret that condition; I think we would be better off if we had a more even spread among income groups in the other body. But we do not, and I recognize it is much easier for them to do this than it is for those on this side of the Capitol, but I think under the circumstances this is the best course of action. I think Members understand that.