Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of us on this side of the aisle who feel that many of the reductions that are being made in this bill to crucial environment programs, to crucial natural resources programs, are being made for the purpose of transferring these resources to the Ways and Means Committee to, in effect, finance a tax cut for lots of people making $200,000 a year or more. We do not happen to think that is the best use of money. There is another program which is being savaged in this bill which is the Indian Education Act. This bill eliminates funding for Indian education. My amendment would simply restore funding for that program. We would restore $80 million for the amendment and we would take it from sources that we think are much less damaged. For instance, we take it from the fossil fuels account, which is already very much over the authorized amount. It is $163 million over the amount provided in the authorized committee. So we think that $36 million reduction does no harm there and it takes it from other sources which we think do very much less harm. Mr. Chairman, let me explain what it is we are doing. I had always thought that there was general recognition that the education of Indian children was significantly a Federal responsibility, because of the Federal trust status that many of our tribes have. Now, the money in question, which I am trying to restore, will not go to tribes. The money that I am trying to restore will go to local school districts, will go to local public school districts. It will not go to tribal schools. And this money, if it is not provided, will, in fact, be lacking in those local school budgets and those local school districts will have to raise their own education budgets and their own property taxes to support education to the tune of about $80 million. I do not think they ought to have to do that. [[Page H 6963]] Now, there would be arguments made that this program is duplicative. People will say, for instance, that after all, you have a lot of programs within the BIA to educate Indian children. But the fact is that BIA programs only educate 8 percent of Indian children. This program deals with the rest. So you cannot fix this problem by relying on the BIA, because the BIA does not provide funding for this purpose. People will say that impact aid will take up the slack, but, in fact, again, I would point out that impact aid payments flow only to about 700 school districts located on or near Federal reservations. The program does not serve members of State-recognized tribes or off- reservation Indians, and that would leave a substantial gap. Now, we will also be told, well, title I funds can take care of this problem. The fact is, however, that title I stresses basic academic instruction, while Indian education programs focus heavily on students' culturally related academic needs, and there is a big, big difference. So I want to make quite clear, and I do not think this is an especially complicated proposition, this is not a proposal which is going to make life easier for Indian tribes. This is not adding money into tribal budgets. This is simply protecting local school districts who have a right to expect that the Federal Government will live up to their responsibilities in educating Indian children. Now, I must say I think that there is a broader issue involved here than just Indian education. I think that the Federal Government for a long time has been becoming Mr. Bugout When it comes to meeting its responsibilities for educating lots of people. If this amendment does not pass, not only are we asking local school districts to pick up an obligation which belongs on Federal shoulders, but we are also in many other ways abandoning local school districts. Example: Immigrants who come into this country or refugees who come into this country.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the fact that the gentleman with his amendment tried to respond to concerns that I raised in the minority views in the report. It is a constructive effort. However, I would also say that I think that we obviously would prefer to make it even more constructive by adding the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] to that amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that pro-choice and pro- life was brought up, perhaps we can assure our colleagues that we will see to it that the volunteers are equally divided between pro-choice and pro-life, understanding, of course, it is choice for the birds.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentleman from California somehow talk about unionization in this effort. Is the gentlewoman aware of any effort that she knows of to unionize birds?

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

Mr. OBEY. But I want to ask the gentleman from Ohio to reconsider what I think is really a mistake in attitude about how different functions of this Government can be carried out. You said during the debate on the rule that you would be happy to provide support for all of the volunteers that we wanted, if they were Ph.D. biologists. I would just make this observation. At the National Institutes of Health, if we insisted that only Ph.D. scientists could review routine data and perform routine tasks in compiling observations, we would raise the cost of medical research in this country tenfold. You do not need Ph.D. scientists to perform a lot of the functions at NIH or with respect to some of the surveys that the gentleman in the well is talking about and, with all due respect, to those who can make somewhat flippant remarks about the knowledge level of these volunteers, I suggest that their usage is perfectly appropriate in most of the instances that the gentleman in the well is talking about. And if you want to set up a standard that you have got to have a Ph.D. every time you deal with either a medical problem or an environmental problem, you are going to raise the cost of these programs by 10 to 15 times their present cost.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I share the concern of the gentleman in the well about the creation of the National Biological Service in the first place. I think it was a tactical mistake. I do not think it should have been done and I would join him in the actions that he described.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the pending rule, I do want to make a few comments that are, I think, required by conscience. I hope the House will indulge me. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] earlier indicated that yesterday we saw Bosnian Serb military forces in essence commit war crimes in places like Potocari and Srebrenica. Mr. Speaker, I have one simple message for Gen. Ratko Mladic and his associates among the Bosnian Serbian leadership. It is a four-part message. You are sick pigs. You are sick pigs. You are an embarrassment to the human race. If the world has any conscience, you will one day be where you belong, in prison, rather than disgracing the military uniform that you wear. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to move on to the matter before us. This rule is really, in many ways, worse than the rule before us last night. It still violates normal House rules in order to allow a continued onslaught on environmental protection and reversal of environmental progress made by previous Congresses. The bill, as has been mentioned by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] permits giving away Bureau of Mine facilities. The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection Act of 1990. The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion assessment restrictions and directions which should not be in this bill. The bill reverses the progress that this Congress made last year in establishing the California Desert Act. In general, it contains many legislative provisions that should not be in a spending bill. It also establishes a distinction between the arts and other unauthorized legislation which I think is both primitive and unfair. What is going on is simply this: The extreme conservatives on the Republican side of the aisle last night used their leverage which they had on the rule to try to further disadvantage the possibility for future funding for the arts. I would say to our Republican moderate friends who claim to be supporters of the arts that they can stop this onslaught on the arts by voting against this rule, and insisting that the arts be treated precisely the same as other unauthorized programs in this bill. That is all they have to do. That is all they have to do. They can then bring a bill to the floor which will allow us to have the normal debates on all of these programs without creating a special disadvantage for a tiny little program which has fallen victim both to the extremists of the right and to some of the extreme artists, that very tiny, uncivilized minority, who have, because of their thoughtlessness and their stupidity, allowed the enemies of arts funding to attack the entire program the Maplethorpes of this world, if you want, being joined in their extremism by the extremists on the other side, who together want to savage a program which is meant to increase the civility of this society by just a little bit. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote against this rule one more time, send it back to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules can do it right. It does not have to continue the onslaught on environmental legislation. It does not have to play this double standard game. We can pass a bill which is far more balanced and a product that is better than the one before us.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, trying to respond to the majority leader's interests, and I do not want to imply that he has agreed to it, he has not, but I think it is a reasonable proposal, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the Stearns amendment, debate on NEA, debate that for 10 minutes on each side, have a vote, adjourn for the evening, and when we return, agree to a time limit for title II on Monday of 5 hours of debate, with the votes to be taken the next day followed by the discussion on the remainder of the bill to be limited to 2 hours with whatever time is required for rollcall.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I say that I will feel required to push this to a rollcall vote.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply state that I would, or my intention would be to deal with the Stearns amendment tonight for 10 minutes apiece, take the vote, and then adjourn for the evening, and when we go into the full House, I would make the motion with respect to the remaining consideration of the bill.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. OBEY. Then I object, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, can we reach an understanding that this will be the last amendment of the evening?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee do now rise.

Mr. OBEY. Then I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida be permitted to offer the amendment, notwithstanding title II of the bill is not yet considered as read and without prejudice to further amendments to title I of the bill.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the third cutting amendment that I will have offered on this bill. Let me simply explain what it does. This amendment cuts $40 million in the bill for the advanced light water reactor program. What I would simply say is ``Here we go again'' as President Reagan used to say, with another example of corporate welfare for the nuclear industry. Essentially what these funds do is to help large corporations obtain design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This amounts to the Government funding a portion of the licensing costs of large corporations in order to comply with its own regulations. The committee has heard volumes of testimony this year from organization after organization saying, ``Let the marketplace determine what is commercially viable; the Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.'' How many times have you heard that? Yet these remarks apparently have fallen on deaf ears, or, alternatively, the committee has determined these concepts do not apply to the nuclear industry. Since 1974, the Federal Government has spent $26 billion on nuclear fission programs. This has occurred despite the fact that not one American utility has successfully ordered a nuclear powerplant in all of that time. The House budget resolution, which was passed with so much fanfare, presumes to set criteria for Government science funding, emphasizing that long-term noncommercial R&D with the potential for scientific discovery ought to be funded. What should not be funded, according to that budget resolution, are programs whose economic feasibility and commercialization should be left to the marketplace. Over and over we have heard those same themes, yet when it comes to actually cutting the corporate welfare out of appropriation bills, this House seems to back away again, and again, and again. Now, the nuclear industry makes a number of arguments for their program, which I am sure we will hear today. I would simply respond to those arguments as follows: First of all, nuclear energy supplies about 20 percent of our Nation's electricity; 72 percent of utility executives said in a recent poll conducted by the International Energy Group that their company would never consider ordering a nuclear powerplant. So the industry seems to have determined that the current mix is just fine as far as they are concerned. Second, I would ask, since when does industry want the Government involved in things like product design? I guess the answer is only when there are Federal dollars available. The NRC is charged with determining enhanced safety margins and regulatory acceptance of these designs. Their ultimate action on these proposals will be a determinant and will demonstrate to potential customers whether the U.S. Government considers them sound, not whether or not DOE is provided dollars to support industry design efforts. I would also say, third, that we have received letters in all of our offices indicating that ``Failure to meet commitments to the specified amount, $100 million, jeopardizes DOE's ability to recoup the moneys already invested in the program.'' Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have been here for quite a while, and I cannot recall anything quite so brazen. I want to make it quite clear, despite that veiled threat, the nuclear industry is legally committed to repaying DOE. Their threat to renege, in my view, borders on the outrageous or the scandalous. The fourth point I would simply make is that trying to convince somebody that the promotion of nuclear technology through the export of nuclear powerplants to foreign countries in Southeast Asia, that somehow promotes nonproliferation, is an argument I simply cannot swallow. Has anybody in the nuclear industry checked what is going on in North Korea lately? So I would simply say, in conclusion, this amendment comes back to one central point: Are you for cutting corporate welfare, or do you want to exempt the nuclear industry? Are you for letting the marketplace pick winners and losers, or does the nuclear industry get a buy on the one too? Are you going to respond to the threats of the industry that they are not going to repay previous funding, despite a legal obligation, or are you going to buckle to those threats? Last night, we met on the labor-health-education appropriation bill. That bill is being cut by $9.5 billion below last year. We are wiping out assistance to senior citizens who make less than $10,000 a year, so they do not have to choose between paying prescription drugs and keeping their houses warm in the winter. We cut back almost $700 million in student aid, not with my vote, but that is what the subcommittee did. We have seen huge reductions in job training, despite this House's vote for things like NAFTA and GATT. We are abandoning workers who desperately need help to be retrained. So it just seems to me with all of these cuts, for us to say that we are going to continue to subsidize one of the wealthiest industries in this country with funding such as this represents a badly warped sense of priorities. I would urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have not heard pure science. We have heard pure bunkum. Let me simply tell my colleagues what the real differences are between the parties as I see them. Let me stipulate I think both political parties have had a fine tradition in this country. But I think there are some very distinct differences between our party today and theirs, and they do not have to do with who wants to write welfare checks. I sat last night in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and I saw that committee take a number of specific steps which cut the guts out of efforts to help middle-class working families, not welfare recipients, but people who work and sweat every day to make enough money to keep a decent living standard, take care of their grandparents, take care of their parents and worry about sending their kids to school at the same time. And I saw that subcommittee last night cut $2 billion dollars out of, not welfare programs, but education programs to provide help to local school districts. The [[Page H 6853]] next biggest whack came at the expense of low-income elderly, disabled and poor kids, a billion and a half dollars cut from programs such as Healthy Start and Head Start. Head Start has been demonstrated to produce less welfare dependency, fewer pregnancies, and less high school dropout tendencies than kids that have not gone to Head Start programs. The next biggest cut came in programs to train people to get them off welfare. We hear people in this place talk out of both sides of their mouth and do a duplicitous routine, pretending they are really going to go after welfare. But then, when it comes right down to it, what happened last night is that they gutted virtually every program to help take people off welfare and get them into training programs and working programs. Example: displaced worker program. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, how many of you voted for NAFTA? or GATT? I did not because that was an elitist rip-off of working American and working people, but what did they do? What did they do? They wind up, they wind up saying that for displaced workers--and these are not welfare cases--these are people who worked for 20 and 30 years, and now being put out of jobs and are asking after they paid taxes for a long, long time to finally get some of that money back in order to help retrain them for a decent job. And what did your party do last night in Labor-H? They cut the guts out of programs like that. Then what you have done, you have also attacked the NLRB. You made it easier for corporations to violate wage and hour restrictions. You made it easier for them to set up bogus pension systems. You made it easier for them to treat workers like cattle. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, you bet you there is a difference between the parties. What is happening in this country is we are ceasing to be a country with a large and growing middle class. Fewer and fewer people are getting tickets into that middle class, and a whole lot more people who used to live like middle-class workers are now thinking of themselves as being lower-class workers, poor workers. And what is happening is, you are taking actions which seriously damage the ability of this society to stay tied together regardless of income because of your attack on working people, your attack on the poor. And yet you stand here, and you have done it on a number of votes today and yesterday, you have defended corporate welfare, all if it's for the nuclear industry. If it is for Westinghouse, if it is for GE, oh, my God, shovel the money out the door. We can't spend it fast enough. It just seems to me there is a big difference between the parties. We all have our faults, and frankly we deserved to lose the last election because we were lousy salesmen, we fought among ourselves, and we got diverted on some issues we should not have been diverted on, and the public taught us a lesson. Frankly I think it was good for our party that they did, but my colleagues are misreading that election if they think that election produced a battle cry from the American people to cut working people, cut education, cut health care, cut Medicare, but oh, by all means, keep corporate welfare. Baloney.