Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield so I could answer his question?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would simply say that I sent two of my staffers into the region to try to determine what the facts were. They came back with many indications that the voluntary agencies involved do not support the elimination of the ability to assist people who want to go back to their own country.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I very much respect the gentleman's concern about the refugees in question, but I would simply ask this: Why should we engage in a legislative process which in fact cuts off the assistance to refugees who do, on a voluntary basis want to go back to their own country? Why should we eliminate the financial assistance provided to those people?

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, does he really believe that Save the Children would be participating in forced repatriation? Does the gentleman really believe that? That is one agency we have provided the $1.5 million to to assist people who want to return to their own country. Does the gentleman really believe Save the Children Foundation is in the business of forcing people to be repatriated?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to make clear when I used the term soft-headed I was referring to Members of Congress, not members of the American Legion.

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

Mr. OBEY. Are we not in fact by this action today going to make it highly unlikely that the Thai Government would in fact make that third option available to those Hmong refugees? And does that not in fact mean, just as the gentleman says, that the United States is going to unilaterally assume onto its own shoulders all of the burden for the turmoil that will result and all of the financial burden that will result as well? It just seems to me that if we want to change the screening process, we ought to focus on demands to change the screening process. We should not in the process blow up an international agreement unilaterally, which this language does.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a specific question with respect to a specific group of refugees. Right now, there are a lot of Hmong refugees trapped in Thailand. Some of them want to go back to Laos. A lot of them want to come to the United States. And a lot of them, if given the opportunity, would prefer to stay in Thailand. I would simply ask this question of those who are supporting the Smith amendment. If this country today unilaterally takes this action, and sends a message to refugees around the world that we are about to absorb all of the refugees discussed under this amendment, and if under those circumstances the Thailand Government then decides against allowing those Hmong refugees to resettle in Thailand, are we really doing those Hmong refugees any good?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith perfecting amendment. Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one in this institution in terms of my concern about decent treatment for refugees. I think all who know me know that. But the fact is that section 2104 of this bill, in the original bill, sets aside $30 million specifically for the purpose of admitting for resettlement in the United States thousands of Southeast Asian refugees who do not qualify for legitimate refugee status. It also creates artificial incentives for those people to come to the United States rather than return to their homeland, because it in effect cuts off any aid to Southeast Asians who want to return to their homeland and need tiny amounts of help to do so. In my view, that is wrong-headed. The amendment that Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Smith and I are trying to offer would eliminate that section of the bill. Now, I am supporting and offering this amendment with these other two gentlemen for two reasons: First of all, I think the committee provision really breaks an international agreement which was made by the United States with 78 other countries. It makes no distinction between legitimate political refugees and persons who simply want to come to the United States for economic reasons. It also, I would point out, leaves local communities holding the bag for the cost of educating and training refugees who can often be very difficult to resettle and train, because some of them, for instance, do not even have a written language. I want to get into the case of the Hmong, for instance. The United States Government has allowed more than 120,000 of the 400,000 Hmong who were living in Laos in 1975 to enter this country. There was a very good reason for the United States doing that. The Hmong had done our dirty work in Laos during the Vietnam War. When the government collapsed, we allowed many of them to come into this country because of the service they had provided to the United States during the war. I understand that. But I would point out that the obligation that the United States has to recognize what people like the Hmong did for us is an obligation of the Federal Government. It is not an obligation of the county government, it is not an obligation of the municipal government. In fact, what we have now is the Federal Government in effect posing for political holy pictures by allowing into this country all of the refugees that we can allow in, but then transferring the responsibility to pay for the cost of those refugees to the States and local government. I do not believe that is an equitable arrangement. It seems to me that if this committee wants to create the impression that it is allowing any and all refugees under this amendment to enter this country, then they ought to be guaranteeing that the Federal Government in fact is going to meet its responsibility by sharing the costs of educating and training those refugees. If it does not, the Federal Government is welching on [[Page H5535]] its commitment not only to those refugees, but to local communities as well. I would also point out that if you adopt the Smith amendment to the Bereuter-Obey-Smith amendment, what you are doing in effect is creating false expectations and making a shambles of what an orderly refugee process is supposed to be. I do not favor forcing a single refugee back into their original country if they do not want to go. I believe even in the case of refugees who have initially determined they want to go back to their country of origin, that in the case of the Hmong, which is the one case I know pretty intimately, it seems to me they ought to be given a chance to change their minds so that there can be no doubt that the United States is not forcibly repatriating a single refugee. I did my graduate thesis on Operation Keelhaul. I am very familiar with it. It was an outrageous chapter in American history. I do not want to see us repeat that chapter. But neither do I want to see us in a soft-headed way simply appear to be doing a favor for refugees, when in fact what you will be doing is causing more turmoil in those refugee camps, causing more confusion, causing them to believe that the refugee program is now blown away and that they will therefore all have an opportunity to enter the United States. I would point out or simply ask why we should be creating an artificial incentive so that not only do we make available resources to bring refugees to this country, but we also shut off, in effect, the resources necessary to allow refugees who want to return to their original country to do so.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would, frankly, be surprised if there had not been any cases of retribution, because, after all, this is not heaven. However, the fact is that I do not oppose anybody's efforts to try to see to it that each and every refugee has an honest choice about where they want to go, but I do think it is softheaded for this Congress or for the American Legion or any other organization in this country to say ``Oh, yes, we will accept the system which will in fact bring financial incentives for all of them to come to the United States, and by the way, we will not provide the funds for it, and we will let the local units of government get stuck with having to support them.'' That is not good.

Mr. OBEY. Tell the whole story.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask the gentleman, why do we not also explain the fact that the same organization which is peddling those stories in fact is also raising funds by selling military, police, and civilian titles in their resistance army? Why do we not talk about the intimidation [[Page H5537]] from them that is going on within the Hmong community? There is intimidation going on on both sides.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the fact is that under the process for Hmong refugees, each refugee will have to again resign a statement indicating that he or she is engaging in voluntary repatriation, and if they do not sign a statement, they are not repatriated. It seems to me the gentleman's statement is off base.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Wisconsin delegation, it is my sad duty to officially announce to the House something which most Members already know, that our friend and former colleague, Les Aspin, passed away at 7:55 Sunday night at Georgetown Hospital. His official biography will note that he was born July 21, 1938. He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University, his master's in economics from Oxford University, and his Ph.D. in economics from MIT. He served as a staff assistant to U.S. Senator William Proxmire, and as a staff assistant to Walter Heller, the Chairman of the President's Council on Economic Advisers. He served in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968. He taught economics at Marquette University before being elected to Congress in 1970. He served in Congress for 22 years, until 1992, when President Clinton appointed his as Secretary of Defense. When he resigned his congressional seat to become Secretary of Defense, he was, as Members know, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and he was a darned good one. That is his official biography. Mr. Speaker, let me say on a more informal note, as a friend, that Wisconsin has lost one of the most significant and effective human beings to ever serve our State, and the United States has lost one of the most decent and concerned citizens and leaders it has ever had. In this time of cynicism about government and about politics and about politicians, I think it appropriate to note that Les Aspin literally worked his heart out to make this a better country and a safer world. He was totally dedicated, absolutely and totally knew him knew that he put public service ahead of personal life. He gave it everything he had, and he is now gone. Mr. Neumann and I will announce at a later date when special orders will be held for Les, but on behalf of the Aspin family and his friends and staff, I want to make certain that Members understand what the information is regarding his funeral and memorial services. Visitation hours will be held on Thursday, May 25, at the Schmidt- Bartelt Funeral Home at 10280 North Port Washington Road in Mequon, WI. Family and friends are invited to attend from 1 to 4 p.m. The public is invited to attend from 6 to 9 p.m. Funeral services will be held on Friday, May 26, at 10 a.m. at Gesu Church, Marquette University, in Milwaukee. I have been asked to say that the family would very much welcome any Members who might like to attend those services. At this point, as I understand it, transportation arrangements have not yet exactly been finalized, but it is expected that a plane will be provided by the Pentagon for a significant number of Members. If Members are interested in attending, please call my office and we will try to help facilitate that. A memorial service will be held in Washington, DC, probably in the Capitol, around June 7. That is not exactly tied down, but we expect it to be on that date. Details will be made available as soon as possible. The family advises that in lieu of flowers, donations may be made in Les Aspin's name to one of the following charities: Countryside Humane Society, Racine, WI, Wisconsin Public Radio, or Georgetown Cardiology Research Fund, care of Dr. David Pearle, Georgetown University Medical Center. Written expressions of sympathy to family and friends may be sent in care of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, room 340, Old Executive Office Building, the White House, Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, with the Speaker's sufferance on time, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] who, as we all know, is now occupying the seat once held by our good friend, Les Aspin.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I yield to the gentleman from Milwaukee, WI [Mr. Barrett].

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct the impression left by the last speaker. The fact is, the last speaker arrives at his number by carefully excluding certain activities that were undertaken by the administration. The fact is, the administration's proposal would have allowed cancellation of projects in ISTEA, which is the authorizing highway legislation, as well as allowing the cancellation of appropriated items. If we look at all of the projects that the administration was talking about being allowed to cancel, including those in the authorizing legislation, there are 9 projects in the gentleman's district and there are 30 in the gentleman's State. The gentleman is correct that if we look only at what the Senate rescinded, or tried to rescind, that he only has 2 projects, but if we look at the totality of the projects the administration wanted to cancel in both the authorization and appropriation bill, then the administration's numbers are correct.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, this debate is the not about spending levels. The President in his message yesterday indicated he wants to spend $50 million less than the amount provided in the conference report. There are some other very good reasons to vote against this bill. First of all, this bill cuts programs for kids and old folks, and despite the denials on the Republican side of the aisle, it does so to pay for tax gifts for the wealthy and the well-connected. We just passed a budget resolution which slashed Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. Under that proposal, we are going to go back to the ``good old days,'' such as we had between 1982 and 1985, when 47 Fortune 500 corporations, even though they made hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, paid not one dime in Federal taxes. Even President Reagan recognized that was wrong, closed the loophole in 1985. Under the tax proposals passed by this House and endorsed by the budget resolution passed today, we are going to go back to those ``good old days.'' And this bill is going to help pay for that new loophole. We should not be doing that. Let me trace for you the history of what has happened on so-called deficit reduction in this bill. When this bill was first in the committee, as the gentlewoman from California pointed out, the committee chairman said that the cuts in this bill were going to be used at least in part to pay for those tax cuts. Then that rhetoric was softened. During the debate in the committee, we said we thought it was wrong to cut Healthy Start for preborn kids; we said we thought it was wrong to cut school nutrition; we said we thought it was wrong to cut public broadcasting for preschool kids; we said we thought it was wrong to cut education and training funds; we said we thought it was wrong to cut fuel assistance and housing for the elderly all in order to give somebody who was making $200,000 a year a tax cut. The Republicans in committee voted down the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], which tried to dedicate all cuts to deficit reduction. On the floor, after pressure on that subject, the Republican majority said: ``OK, we changed our mind.'' They voted for the Brewster amendment, and so did we, which said that all of the funds that were saved in the bill would be used for deficit reduction. One day after that amendment passed the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, said that well, they could not afford to live with that language because they wanted to have the out-year savings used in order to finance that tax package. Now the chairman of the committee claims that because of the adoption of the Senate amendment in conference, that somehow the Brewster amendment is protected. I want to ask one question: If the Brewster amendment was protected, why did the Republican conferees vote against my motion in conference to keep it? You voted against it, you killed my amendment that would have saved the Brewster amendment, 8 to 6. If the Brewster amendment had been protected in conference, $50 billion more of savings in this bill would be dedicated for deficit reduction. They would not be available to finance that turkey of a rich man's tax cut that you supported on the other side of the aisle. The CBO, as I said earlier, fully understands that if all of the dollars that were saved in this bill were dedicated to deficit reduction, as the Brewster amendment provided, there would be $50 billion more in deficit reduction provided under this proposal. So I think that is reason enough to vote for this proposition. And there is a second reason. It is simply because this bill represents warped priorities. It cuts education and training funds by $875 million. Is it really smart to cut our effort to preserve drug- free schools by 50 percent? Is it really smart to cut school-to-work programs? Do you really want to take deep cuts in elderly and housing projects in order to move funds down the line to use for tax cuts for wealthy people? Someone on the other side have just suggested that the LIHEAP program, low income heating assistance program, was not all that important to old folks anymore. I want to tell you, 80 percent of the people who use that program make less than $10,000 a year. One-third of them are disabled. Two million senior citizens nationally use that program. I will never forget a woman in my own district, in Stevens Point, I met when I walked into her house to talk to her about the program. She lived in a house that was built for her by her husband as a wedding present. She was 82 years old. She had very little money. She had every room in that house closed up except the living room, the kitchen, and the bathroom, in order to save heat. She slept on an old beat up couch in the living room. That house meant as much to her as life itself. It was her last link with her husband. She desperately wanted to hang onto it, and it was low income heating assistance program that helped her to do so. Do you really think you ought to cut a woman like that so you can give one of your wealthy $200,000 a year income friends an additional tax break? Pardon me, I do not agree with those kind of priorities. I think we also ought to take a look at what you have not cut. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, got up here and defended highway demonstration projects. I like to see highway projects built just like anyone else, but not at the expense of senior citizens, not at the expense of drug-free schools, not at the expense of decent education and training opportunities for our young people. Of all things, I do not see why this Republican-controlled Congress should have retained the Benedict Arnold tax loophole provision which allows people to renounce their American citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes to the country that made them rich in the first place. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich] said that we hate rich people on this side of the aisle. Absolute nonsense. I would like everybody in this society to be rich. Profits are good for this country. High incomes are good for this country. But what is also good for this country is that when people make it, and they make it very well in this society, they should not be pulling the ladder up after them. They should be willing to pay their fair share to support the public services in this country that the entire society needs. That is all we are suggesting. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], said the vote today was about balance. There is nothing very balanced about proposals that cut back on aid to seniors, that cut back on educational opportunities, that cut back on veterans who have fought and risked their lives for this country, in order to give somebody who makes $200,000 bucks a year a tax cut. That is not balance at all. That is extreme. It is wrong economically, it is wrong morally. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the President for drawing the line in the right place. We ought to turn this bill down. We ought to reshape it, we can easily do that in a week, and we can come out here with something that we can be proud of.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].