Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the gentleman can cite any individual anomalies he desires, but all we have to do is ask the average worker on the street whether they think the rich have gotten richer while everybody else has stood still and we know that the answer will be. The answer will be, ``You betcha.''

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am using the numbers in the Federal Reserve gathered data. They selected the breakpoints. And, I mean, you can define it any way you want, but does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] really deny that worker income has gone down in this country while corporate profits have hit record highs?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have heard any more demagoguery on this floor today than I have in most days, but let me try to set the facts straight. I think the worst thing that a politician can do in public life is to try to mislead the voting public about serious issues. And so what I would like to try to do is to separate fact from fiction. Russian aid for this plant began in 1983 when Russia was still a communist country. It stopped in 1992, when the Russians demanded hard currency payment from Cuba. The only subsidy from Russia since that time was a $30 million credit to mothball the plant that so many Members suggest that they want to see mothballed and stopped. The only thing the Russians have done recently is to spend their own money to put this plant in mothballs, not to run it. Now, the Cuban Government says they want to conduct a feasibility study. Nothing is feasible under Castro. Nothing rational will happen under Castro. So I think we have had a lot of rhetoric about a plant that nobody wants to see built. What Mr. Wilson was trying to say is that the best way to see to it that Russia does not reverse its position and to begin funding this plant once again is to see to it that we do not damage reformers in the Soviet Union who are trying to keep the old horses at bay. What Mr. Wilson is trying to say is that Russian society is rampant with paranoia; not the only place I have seen paranoia recently, I would say. But they are certainly rampant with paranoia. That has been the history of Russia. And rejectionist and reactionary forces routinely in that country use innocent actions of the West in order to feed the paranoia in that society in order to do in Russia what Hitler did when he came to power in Germany, which is to feed on fears and feed on resentment against outsiders, against being dictated from the outside in order to build your own political power. Again, not the only politicians have I seen do that recently, but they do it very well. And so what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is trying to say is that if you want to be most effective in preventing Russia from taking a course that we do not want them to take, then do not take an action which through inadvertence would weaken the hand of the reformers in Russia. That is what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] is trying to say. Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest something to my colleague, Mr. Wilson. I am going to suggest that because this amendment is chasing a ghost, I would suggest that the gentleman withdraw his amendment and that the committee accept the amendment being offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] because it is stopping something that is not happening. Mr. Chairman, if we make more of it than it is, what will happen today is we will feed that very paranoia in Russia which we do not want to feed. So what I would suggest is that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] withdraw his amendment to the amendment, and we accept this amendment, which is justifiably aimed at something that we do not want to occur, but which I think has generated a debate which will leave the American people thinking that black is white and vice versa. The facts remain that the only thing that has been happening so far is that the Cubans want to do a feasibility study. No money has been provided. The Russians have indicated no intention of providing any. And I want to make quite clear that if the day ever come when the Russians would provide it, I would be the first one in this well offering an amendment to eliminate the same amount of funds. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this debate has really added an awful lot to the public's understanding of this issue. It has, in fact, wound up condemning Russia because they provided $30 million to mothball a plant we want mothballed. But I know how politics works and how often issues get misconstrued. And, so, I think to do the least damage possible, that what we ought to do is to withdraw the Wilson amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there is only 1 minute left.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, is all of this coming out of my time?

Mr. OBEY. Could I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. OBEY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. OBEY. That is my impression. My understanding is that there will be no time for the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] or the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] unless I yield to them, which I am trying to do.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put in perspective what we are being asked to do here. We have an awful lot of self-styled foreign policy experts, starting with people like Henry Kissinger himself and going right on down, who are saying that we ought to extend our NATO guarantees virtually to the Russian border. I ask Members, how many people really believe that the American people would support the idea that the United States ought to make a security commitment to defend all of eastern Europe, possibly even the Ukraine and some of the other countries in that region, much as we want to see those countries remain free? In a public opinion poll, how many Americans do you think would vote for us to extend that security commitment with all of the dollars that it would cost to maintain that commitment and with all of the cost it might someday reach in human terms? I suspect the answer is not very many. If you believe that, as I do, then it seems to me that what you need to do is to find a way to make sure, even though we only affect events on the margin in that region, to try to find a way to make sure that we never have to provide that kind of money and we never have to provide the use of American troops to defend those countries. What is the best way to do that? Well, when the Iron Curtain collapsed, the Bush administration and the Congress on a bipartisan basis decided the best way to do that was to try to promote market reforms in the Soviet Union. Secretary Baker came down to the committee and he said, ``Look, fellows and gals,'' he said, ``I know we're going to make some mistakes, but I beg you not to tie our hands. We don't know what opportunities are going to be presented to us, we don't know what choices are going to be presented to us. We ask you to just trust us to do our best in a situation we've never experienced before.'' It seemed to this subcommittee at that time to be a good bet, because we had literally spent trillions of dollars to win the cold war, and we did win the cold war. Now we are faced with a Russian economy which is in shambles because of the stupidity associated with the Communist system. So we are trying to work our way through both political reform and economic reform, not just in Russia but in some of the former captive nations. Now we are told that despite the fact that that rebuilding job has barely begun, that we ought to take this bill and reduce aid to the former Soviet Union by two-thirds from last year. As the gentleman who chairs the subcommittee has indicated, that is an almost three-quarters reduction from just 2 years ago. Mr. Chairman, I submit that what we are spending today is pennies in comparison to what we will have to spend if events go the wrong way in Russia and the Ukraine and in other countries in that region. You betcha there have been mistakes. I have great respect for the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], but I can give him some other examples of mistakes. I recall just a couple of years ago when there was an op-ed piece in the Washington Post attacking me because I withheld funds for the Enterprise Funds in that region because they were insisting on paying salaries of $400,000 a year. And our committee held up that whole operation for 4 months until they blew that arrangement away. You have been told by the subcommittee chairman that not a dime is going to be able to be spent in Russia until they bring the way they intend to spend it back to the committee so we can make a judgment about it. That is going a far piece, to make certain that to the best of our ability in the legislative as opposed to administrative body, that we can help prevent the executive branch from making further mistakes. I do not like the fact that a single dime was wasted. But the fact is I think that it was perfectly understandable for the previous administrations to say, ``look, we've got to try everything. Undoubtedly we will make some mistakes, but we're going to experiment. We hope you bear with us.'' I think it was reasonable for them to ask us that. I think it is reasonable for the Clinton administration to ask that we give them reasonable flexibility in dealing with all of the problems in that region. I would respectfully suggest that we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and damaging our own economic and political and national interest if we make this kind of reduction. I urge Members not to do this. [[Page H 6358]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one in the desire to save money on foreign assistance. During the years that I chaired the subcommittee, the foreign aid bill for the United States was reduced from $18 billion to $13 billion. I defy anyone to show me any other appropriation bill which was cut more deeply. I have in my possession, in fact I prize them, three letters from previous administrations, the Reagan Administration and the Bush Administration, each telling me that they were planning to veto my bill because we did not spend enough money, so I take a back seat to no one in my desire to see the taxpayers' money is spent judiciously in this area. However, there is a price for participation effective participation in the world. When we do not pay that price, we often pay a far higher price. If Members question that, all they have to do is to take a look at what happened to the world when the West essentially ignored what was happening in the Weimar Republic after World War I in Germany. A fellow by the name of Hitler came to power because he exploited the fact we did nothing to ease the economic collapse in that country, and only 50 million people died, including a good many Americans, so there is a price for participation in the world. I would much rather it be financial than human. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a mistake to cut aid to the Soviet Union, or the former Soviet Union, below the amount in the administration's request. I in fact think it is a mistake to pass this amendment. Aid to the former Soviet [[Page H 6355]] Union has already been reduced by 27 percent below last year's level. This cuts another $30 million. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that two-thirds of this cut will not be applied to Russia. It will be applied to other former republics, such as Armenia, Ukraine, countries that we would like very much to see maintain as much independence as possible. This amendment is going to make it more difficult for them to sustain that independence. I would also suggest this cut is going to hurt the very people we are trying to help in Russia itself, the reformers who want to see a market-based economic system, and who want to see a democratic political system. I understand that this amendment is being offered by members of the Florida delegation because they are unhappy about the fact that Cuba began in 1983 (before the Communists fell from power in Russia) they began the construction of a nuclear power plant, financed partially by the former Soviet Union. However, I would point out that all Russian aid stopped in 1992, when Russia demanded hard currency payments from Cuba. I would point out that the only subsidy from Russia since that time was a $30 million credit to mothball the plant, not to build it, but to mothball the plant. We want that plant mothballed! Mr. Chairman, I would also make the point that the press has reported that the Cubans would seek Western backers for that plant, but in fact the Wall Street Journal contacted the companies allegedly involved and they denied any concrete intention to proceed. So it seems to me shortsighted to deny $30 million aid to former Soviet Republics because they provided $30 million to put the nuclear plant in mothballs. It seems to me that is exactly what we want. No sane person, Russian or American, want to see that plant built. Therefore, it seems to me if we want to effectively oppose the construction of any nuclear plant in Cuba that is not to our liking, what in fact we ought to be doing is to promote the political causes of the factions within Russia who are most opposed to that, and other idiotic actions that some of the other factions would like to take. Mr. Chairman, I know it is very easy to come into this well and say ``Let us cut foreign aid.'' As I say, we have cut it billions of dollars over the past few years. However, there are times when a specific cut can be the wrong thing from the standpoint of American interests, and this is such a time. amendment offered by mr. wilson as a substitute to the amendment offered by mr. miller of florida

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this: If the House wants to have bipartisan support for this bill, it needs to defeat this amendment. If it does not care about getting support for this bill from this side of the aisle and wants to pass it all on your own, then vote for the amendment, because that is going to be the result. When we came out of the subcommittee, we had reached a very delicate compromise. Basically what we had done is, taking into account the level of DA already recommended by the subcommittee, we simply suggested that other accounts that had been increased over last year be reduced so that through a combination of development assistance and assistance to Africa, we would reduce somewhat the huge cuts that had already taken place in those accounts. The problem with this amendment is that it is cutting an account which has already been cut by 40 percent at the same time that military assistance in this bill is $1 million above last year's level. We do not believe that that is a balanced approach, we do not think you ought to do that, and frankly I do not instead to support a bill if it becomes nothing but a delivery mechanism for warped priorities. It seems to me it is essential for us to stick with a bipartisan product. If this amendment is passed, you abandon that. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, he keeps indicating that one of the authors of one of the amendments was a Democrat. It is immaterial to me whether it comes from either side, which side of the aisle it comes from. The fact is our committee knows about as much about that subject as the gentleman can put in his left ear. It ought to be handled by the authorizing committee.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is the technical amendment only in the Hall amendment and no other portion?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply observe, with respect to the statement by the gentleman from New York, that the foreign aid bills for the last 10 years have reduced the level of foreign assistance. They used to be $18 billion, and in the last decade they have been brought down to $13 billion. So this is not, by any means, the first foreign assistance bill which was lower than the previous year. We have had that occur on a number of occasions during the years that I have chaired that subcommittee. Let me say that I have opposed the authorization bill because I felt that it represents some of the most incredible micromanagement of foreign assistance in the history of the foreign assistance program, and I think that much of the micromanagement in that bill is idiotic. But I have been intending to support the appropriation bill because despite the fact that I believe it has a poor allocation of priorities and, despite the reckless manner with which it deals with issues such as NATO and our relationship with the Soviet Union, it does, in fact, not have a lot of the micromanagement that is contained in the authorization bill. I was informed earlier that it was the intention of the committee not to accept legislative language, save two amendments which everyone understood would be offered, one being the one by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and the other by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. The abortion issue is so contentious that we almost always have an issue like that, and that cannot be avoided. But there are two other legislative amendments which are now being made in order which have, in my view, no business on an appropriation bill which would tie our entire relationship with the Soviet Union to one narrow question of what happens in Cuba, and another amendment which would tie our entire aid relationship to Haiti to legislative language which I have not even yet had an opportunity to review, let alone staff out. And so, under these circumstances, what I had thought would be a rule which would be a straight appropriation rule bill, in fact, allow for a number of policy issues which, in my view, properly ought to be debated on the authorization bill and not on the appropriations bill. And because of that, and because I believe that the amendment with respect to our relationship with the Soviet Union further adds to the recklessness with which that issue has generally been dealt with by this committee, I am sorry to say that I will have to oppose the rule and will, in fact, oppose the previous question on the rule and would ask that if the previous question is not approved, that the House support an amendment correcting the fact that there are two legislative amendments on this proposal that do not belong here.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I agree with both gentlemen on substance; I agree with the previous speaker. I do not want to see that reactor built in Cuba either. I think it is an idiotic, asinine, and stupid thing for the Soviets to do, and I think we ought to do everything possible to stop it. The question is whether the method chosen by the gentleman is the most effective way to accomplish that end, and I do not believe it is, and that is the simple issue here. I do not want for one moment for anyone to believe that I do not agree with both gentlemen with respect to their policy positions on either Haiti or with respect to that reactor. I say to them, ``I agree with you on both of them. I do, however, have substantial question about whether or not the method you have chosen to try to accomplish that purpose will do it.'' I, in fact, think it may have the opposite reaction, and that is one reason why I believe that on short order, on the basis of a very brief discussion in the Committee on Rules, this amendment should not have been made in order, because frankly I do not think the Congress at this point knows what it is doing on either one of these subjects.

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. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of the rule which have just come to my attention, which mean that this gentleman at least would be asked for a vote on the rule. I do not know what the wish of the majority is in terms of proceeding, but I do not believe that Members should be given assurances that if the rule is going to be voted on tonight, that there will not be a rollcall vote, because with my new understanding of what the Committee on Rules has done, I intend to ask for a vote on the rule.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point, because that is no longer correct. Will the gentleman yield for a clarification?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, none of us do. It could be a significant threat to the security of the United States. Everybody recognizes that. The question is, what is the best way to see to it that it never happens, and I think to achieve that we all need to work together on another vehicle.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to take a second to respond to the comments of the gentleman who just spoke. I very much admire the way the gentleman attends to the needs of his district and his constituents and his substantive concerns. But I want to make clear something which I said earlier with respect to that nuclear power plant in Cuba, since he was referring to me in his comments. As I said earlier in my exchange with the gentleman from Florida, I very much agree with people on the substance of the question of the nuclear power plant in Cuba. I think it should not be built. I think it is very bad business. I think the Russians should not be financing it in any way, shape, or form. There is no disagreement whatsoever on substance. I would simply point out that the GAO report to which the gentleman referred was a 1992 report. My understanding is that that nuclear operation has been mothballed since 1993, and it is quite clear that the administration shares the gentleman's concerns about that plant and is trying to find the best way to see to it that it does not proceed and is not ever put in place. The only question before us is what the best way is to discourage that. The only question is how do you prevent it from actually happening. That is what is in dispute here. So, with all due respect to people's concerns about it, which are legitimate, I would simply suggest that it is occasionally possible to be correct in terms of one's goal, while being very mistaken in terms of the means that one chooses to get to that goal. Sometimes you have a law of unintended consequences, which means that what you start out to try to stop, you in fact create because of inadvertence. I do not want that to happen here, which is why I am concerned that this amendment is considered on this bill, when I think it ought to be considered by another committee that knows a whole lot more about it than this committee does.