Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman form California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the idea behind the lockbox is that, supposedly, when savings are made on the floor in bills that are brought out of the Appropriations Committee, that that money, instead of being used for another purpose, is locked up in a box and used for deficit reduction. Sounds great. I think we ought to go through the history of the lockbox in this Congress. The first time that it was raised as a major issue was on the rescissions bill, when major reductions in the existing fiscal year's budget were being considered by this House. In that bill, in committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] tried to offer an amendment assuring that every dollar that was cut in that bill be used for deficit reduction, not for tax cuts. That amendment was defeated. We then came to the floor, and our Republican friends in the majority had a change of heart. Essentially, they were looking for votes. What they said was, ``All right, I tell you what. We will support the Murtha amendment.'' They supported the Murtha amendment and they also supported the Brewster amendment, which said ``No money for tax cuts, just use it for deficit reduction.'' One day after it was adopted, Mr. Chairman, the Republican chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, ``Oh, that was just a game to get the votes to pass the rescissions bill.'' They dumped it in Congress and came back with a hugely modified provision which allowed only the first year's savings to go for deficit reduction, and they allowed all of the out-year savings, billions and billions of dollars, over 90 percent of the savings in the bill, to be used for their tax cut. Guess who gets most of that tax cut, Mr. Chairman? The folks at the top of the heap. Folks making $100,000 a year or more. We then tried to help the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] and others, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] another, who wanted to have the lockbox attached to other appropriation bills as they moved through here. Bill after bill, ``Sorry, kiddo, no way.'' It was not done. Mr. Chairman, now, when we have the last of the major appropriation bills before us, or almost the last, all of a sudden the lockbox is attached to this bill. Why? Because our Republican friends are desperately looking for some Democratic votes for this turkey of a bill on final passage. I want to assure our friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I do not think that there are very many people on our side of the aisle naive enough to think that this lockbox provision is going to be sweet enough to make them vote for this labor, health appropriation bill. Let us not be fooled, Mr. Chairman. There are $9 billion or more in cuts in this bill from last year, but none of those dollars are going to go in a box for deficit reduction. Those babies are all going to be used to help finance that nice fat $20,000 tax cut for somebody making $300,000 a year and all of the other tax cuts associated with it. I would simply suggest, Mr. Chairman, lockbox has been spectacularly manipulated politically for the past 7 months. I find it ironic that the only bill that you wind up debating this on is this bill which contains funding for the poorest people in this country and for middle class working people. It did not apply when the Klug-Obey amendment passed to eliminate a fat subsidy for the nuclear power industry. Oh, no. You would not apply the lockbox to that. You would not apply the lockbox to pork projects when we had the public works bill before us. Oh, no. You would not apply it to the transportation bill when we had transportation pork out here. Oh, no. Now that it affects education, health, labor, however, now you are going to say, well, let us save the money. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there will be any amendments adopted which cut this bill anyway. What that means is that this is an empty gesture from the majority party. It is a desperate effort to pick up a few votes on our side. Frankly, I do not care how people vote on this amendment, because it is so meaningless, but I hope it does not divert Members from the fact that if anyone really cares about a fair balancing of budget priorities in this country, they will vote against the underlying bill when the opportunity presents itself.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express appreciation to Keith Jewell for the wonderful service that he has provided this House through the years. Many a time constituents have come to the Capitol, they have come to the Capitol steps. They wanted to have their picture taken with their Representatives, and Keith Jewell has been there, Johnnie on the spot, to try to provide that service both to us and to the people we represent. Mr. Speaker, he has recorded a significant portion of the history of this House. It has been a familiar sight to see him weighed down with four or five cameras, straps hanging around his neck, camera bag at his side, racing around this building and racing around Capitol Hill trying to do a decent job for us all. Mr. Speaker, we very much appreciate the graciousness with which he has performed that task and the reliability he has always demonstrated, and we are going to be very sorry to see him go.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have been incredibly frustrated by our situation is Bosnia, and I frankly, think that the only time that the tragedy which has happened there could have been prevented was at the very beginning, before Mr. Milosevic and the Serbs began their brutal series of attacks. I think through much of the period since then NATO has failed. I think they especially failed at the beginning, when they should, I think, have made it quite clear that they were going to take collective action if the Bosnian Serbs moved one troop across a designated line. Mr. Chairman, because of that concern and frustration, and my outrage at the conduct of the Bosnian Serbs, I voted on two occasions to lift the embargo in order to send a message to the United Nations that they needed to shape up their operations; in order to send the message to our NATO allies that they needed to get serious and get tougher; and that U.N. troops had to be in a position to shoot back when fired on; and, lastly, almost in desperation, to send a message to the Serbian leadership that they might, in the end, encounter more than they bargained for unless they backed off. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that things have changed, at least for the moment. I reserve the right in the future to again vote to lift the embargo, but it seems to me that, at least for the moment, the message seems to have partially been heard. There seems to be some at least temporary pause by the Serbs in their attack since the possibility of air strikes were announced. There has been a change in U.N. operating procedures so that we do not have Mr. Boutros-Ghali continuing to interpose himself in decisions on air strikes. It also seems to me that we have had a stiffer reaction on the part of the U.N. forces lately to attacks or threats of attack. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, under these circumstances, the most important thing, since we have gotten movement from our allies, and since we have gotten a change in procedure from the United Nations, it seems to me the most important thing at this point is for us to be together and for us to try to see whether this new effort by the President can, in fact, be expanded and enhanced. When we met with the President this morning, he indicated that perhaps those who had voted to lift the embargo in the past had in fact provided some help to him, because that had perhaps sent the message to our NATO allies, which helped him to get a stronger position out of them. I dearly hope so. But it seems to me at this moment, given the changes that have taken place on the ground and the changes that have been enunciated with respect to our allies' policy, as well as the United Nation's policy, that we ought to grant the President the time he needs to try to work out policy based on this new stance and this new posture. So I, with great reluctance, and with great frustration, and with great understanding for those who have in the past supported lifting the embargo, I would urge that for the moment we give this new adjusted policy a chance to work, because it seems to me the best chance to avoid having to send American troops into that area and to avoid the significant and perhaps even massive loss of life that could come if this situation unravels quickly, as it certainly might.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is always risky to try to compare activities of government with activities in the private sector, especially when you are dealing with military requirements. But nonetheless, this amendment is offered to try to bring attention to the fact that the General Accounting Office has reported that it cost the Department of Defense an additional 30 percent of its total cost of travel, $3.5 billion, or roughly $1 billion of that amount, in order to process their regular travel. They process about 8.2 million travel vouchers each year. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the GAO's estimate that the Pentagon [[Page H 8058]] could save around $800 million is accurate or not. They point out that the percentage difference between what this processing costs DOD and what it costs in the private sector is 30 percent versus 6 percent. I do not know how far down you can bring that number. But certainly, if the General Accounting Office thinks that you can bring it down to the tune of $800 million, we ought to be able to bring it down by at least $100 million. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not even do that. It simply says that we will cut this account by $50 million to indicate our concern about the problem. The Defense Department is aware of the problem. They are in the process of instituting reforms to try to deal with it, but they have not yet been able to put those in place to any appreciable degree. It seems to me that we have a requirement as an institution to indicate that we expect this problem to be attacked and to be attacked quickly, which is why I offer the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say there are two things wrong in general with the budget under which the Congress is now proceeding. One of them is a lot of the items that wind up being cut, and the other thing wrong with the budget is a lot of items that are not cut. [[Page H 8055]] Some of those items are in this bill. In my view, for instance, it is simply not a rational division of priorities for us to decide that we are going to see reductions in programs that support senior citizens living near the edge of poverty, to see reductions in education that are crucial to improving people's lot in life, to see reductions in job training programs and economic development programs, and yet seeing this bill commit to spend some $70 billion for the F-22, a plane which we do not need at this time, to see the recommendation made in the bill to exceed the number of B-2's that have been requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a cost of well over $1 billion a plane. Just one of those would pay the entire tuition bill for every single student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison for the next 12 years, just one of those planes, to put that in context. It seems to me that is a wasteful expenditure we should not be providing. We will be debating that tomorrow, but also other reductions that we ought to be having in DOD travel, in star wars. Even in my own district, the gentleman from Pennsylvania tells me that I am one of two Members of the House who has been suggesting the elimination of a defense facility, military facility, in his own district. The committee has not seen fit to share my judgment on that, but it seems to me that that is an example of things which are nice to have but which are not necessary, given the squeeze on the budget. So we will be dealing with this more tomorrow. I wanted to get that off my chest.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we hear some quite cynical remarks about Medicare this morning. Our friends on the Republican side of the aisle say they want to save Medicare, but their actions demonstrate they want to shred it. They say they want to save Medicare, but they took $90 billion out of it in their recent budget resolution. They say that they want to save Medicare, but when the Congress first passed it, they first tried to stop it, and only after they could not stop it did some of them vote for it. Their own majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], has indicated, very frankly, that if this world were shaped to his image, there would be no room in an entrepreneurial society for Medicare. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but their words cannot hide their intentions. America's senior citizens know that.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that some of our environmental laws need adjustments, but the fact is this bill is supposed to be a budget bill; yet it contains some 30 pages of riders, legislative riders, slipped into this bill, which represents little more than a wish list of corporate polluters all across this country. This bill, if it is not changed, will stop regulation of raw sewage. It will turn polluters loose to pump toxic chemicals into the air in American neighborhoods. It is a vivid example of the lock hold that corporate special interests have taken on this new Congress. I would simply suggest to the authorizing chairs that if the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], from the Committee on Natural Resources, or the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], of the Committee on Commerce, or any other person wants to change basic law on environmental questions, then have the courage to bring that to the floor in their own committee bill, face their own committee members who, after all, have the jurisdiction over it, debate it out in the open, and cut the American people in on the deal, instead of slipping it in in an almost undercover fashion in an appropriation bill, which is supposed to decide other questions. Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here, very simply, is, not just in this bill but in Labor-HEW, in a lot of other appropriation bills, authorizing chairs who do not, apparently, have the courage to bring their changes in law to the floor in their own bills. They are instead trying to slip it into the appropriations process, so they can avoid hearings, avoid public comment, and avoid some opportunity for the public to know what is going on. I do not think that is the way we ought to do business. I would just urge my friends on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, do not abandon the bipartisan commitment that this Congress has had for years to advance environmental protection. Do not abandon that bipartisan commitment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 50.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that some of the cuts in this bill are obviously acceptable in the interest of deficit reduction. But the problem with this bill is that it simply goes too far. It makes what I consider to be savage cuts in housing. It contains a wholesale assault on our ability to protect public health and to protect clean water and clean air and our natural resources, and it contains unnecessary reductions in veterans' health care, all to free up more money in this grand scheme to provide significant tax reduction for people who make $200,000 a year or more. I do not believe that is right. I would urge at the end of the day after we have had at it on the amendments that unless this bill is improved markedly, and I do not think it can be--I think it is beyond help almost--I would urge you to vote against it. I have great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], he is a good friend of mine, but I do not see any reason why we ought to use this vehicle to really crunch in a serious way our ability to protect public health from toxic chemicals. If you take a look at this bill, fully one-third of this bill, which is supposed to be simply a budget bill, contains illegitimate legislative language that prevents the Government from enforcing the law to protect the health of workers, to protect the right of neighborhoods to know what kind of toxic chemicals are being infused into the atmosphere, to protect the public's right to drink safe clean water, and it engages in all kinds of Rube Goldberg operations in the veterans' health care area in order to squeeze out yet more money for tax cuts for the rich. This is not a fair bill. It is not a decent bill. It ought to be defeated.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply cuts out the money for the space station, cuts the deficit by almost half a billion in the process, and transfers the rest of the unused money from the station into veterans' health care, into housing for the elderly and low-income and disabled, and to other science, especially other nonstation NASA science. Mr. Chairman, like anybody else, I am thrilled by the history of the space program. I was at the launch when Neal Armstrong went to the Moon. It was one of the most thrilling experiences of my life and, I suspect, that of [[Page H 7849]] every other American who witnessed it. However, these times require very tough choices. Some of those choices in this bill and a variety of other bills, are being avoided, rather than made. The result, I am afraid, is going to be severe constriction of our scientific capability, as well as a warping of our national priorities. Mr. Chairman, the space station is sold as science, and I suppose, in some ways, it is, but there are two kinds of science which are funded by Government. One is investigator-initiated science in which a scientist gets an idea, he applies for a grant, other scientists review that proposal, and, because we have limited funding, only the science which is judged to be the very best is actually approved for Federal financing. This is, I think, quite different science. Much of it, though certainly not all of it, Mr. Chairman, is what I would call politically generated science. It is, in many ways, a political project which has been redesigned countless times. And I do not mean to use the word ``political'' in a denigrating way. I happen to have great respect for the terms ``politician'' and ``public servant.'' Without politics, societies have wars, so I have great respect for political decisions. However, I think there comes a point when we have to ask by which process we will learn the most and gain the most to advance this country scientifically. I think in many ways this project, desireable though it might be if we had additional resources, I think it is in many ways a public works demonstration project. Its supporters will talk about it in terms of the scientific payoff it can have. I think the question is: What knowledge will we gain through the expenditure of money for the station versus what kind of knowledge we will gain if we put that money to use in other scientific endeavors. Mr. Chairman, the cost of this station is supposed to be, when we count up what has been spent and what will be spent, about $94 billion, $75 billion yet to be spent. To put that in perspective, that is about $4 billion a year; on average, that represents about twice as much as we spend annually on cancer research. It is more than we spend in the entire NASA or NSF budget, and it will not buy, in my view, 94 billion dollars' worth of new information. It will finance, to a very large extent, repeated performances of functions that we already know how to do. It will finance 73 additional shuttle flights, at least, to carry into space very large amounts of material and equipment which will be assembled by workers floating around the globe. I would describe that as being, say, 90 percent a large-scale construction project and 10 percent a science project. My percentages may be off, but I think Members get my general drift. Mr. Chairman, my concern at the scientific level, and because I have responsibility wearing my other hat as a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, where we fund all NIH research, for instance, I have great concern that, because of the budget squeeze, this station is going to squeeze out other science in our Federal budget. We are going to have additional budget cuts next year. Everybody knows that, no matter what decisions we make this year. I think if we keep the station, that over time, because of the declining level of Federal spending vis-a-vis previous plans, we will in essence obliterate our ability to support a lot of other needed science. If I can keep just for the moment on the scientific issue, by passing this amendment, I think you help us to save other NASA science, you help us to fully fund Mission to Planet Earth, or virtually fully fund it at its requested level, and in addition to, I think, improving the balance of science that these dollars would produce, you allow us to restore $400 million to help the elderly and the disabled get decent housing here on Earth and, frankly, those of you who know me, know that I would, any time, put decent habitat for people on the face of the Earth ahead of habitat for astronauts. In addition this amendment would allow us to restore $400 million to veterans' health, including correcting the problem which we have in the bill which will if not corrected squeeze the benefits of about 12,000 veterans, many of whom suffer from illness who will have their disability payments reduced because of the legislative provisions in this bill. This will allow us to try to correct that. It will also, in addition, give us a bonus of an additional almost $500 million savings on the Federal deficit. It seems to me that this is the rational thing to do given our budget squeeze. One the veterans' side, for instance. The bill before us delays funding for $750 million in medical equipment in our veterans' medical centers around the country. This would enable us to meet some of the shortfall in the veterans' funding area. I really believe it represents a far better balance in expenditures. I want to say this to those who have had a strong commitment to the station in the past. I understand that and I respect it. If this were the world that existed back in the 1960's when President Kennedy first began the space program, if we had an economy that was expanding at that rate, if we had resources which were expected to expand, if we did not have a poverty situation which was increasing, if we did not have a degenerating housing situation, if we did not have desperate needs in the environmental area, I would not be here offering this. But we have in the 1980's seen a huge run up in public debt because of policies which I largely opposed but nonetheless they were adopted and rammed through here over our objection, and those things have consequences. The consequence of those decisions in the early 1980's is that we have such a huge overhang of public debt, we are now being forced to make choices which squeeze out a good many valuable programs. The choices we face here is whether or not we will squeeze this one out or whether we will pretend for a while that we can continue it, meanwhile watching it every day gobble up other essential pieces of the budget, including other pieces of the science budget. I respect people who differ with me on this issue, and I know that this offers people tough choices, but we are paid to make those tough choices. I think we ought to begin on this one today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. That is perfectly acceptable to me.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it needs to be understood by Members that the understanding was that the majority party wished to come in at 9 o'clock tomorrow, and that in return for that happening, there would be an agreement that while there might be discussion of the amendments cited by the gentleman from California, that, in fact, there would be no votes occurring before 10 a.m.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it should also be pointed out in this conversation that because it is apparently the understanding that there will be no votes before 10, that that may affect in some way the number of votes that do occur at one time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to stop if we can get an understanding that as soon as the discussion on this amendment is completed, we will immediately inform all Members about what is going to happen for the rest of the evening.