Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I can borrow this Republican mike, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this piece of legislation because I think we do need to distinguish between supporting our troops and supporting the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that the war in Iraq is the dumbest war since the War of 1812; but at the same time, we obviously want our troops to be as well-equipped as is humanly possible, and we hope that this bill will take a decent step in that direction. Having said that, I want to make three points about my concerns about this bill. Number one, it continues a fiction that this war must be financed through ``emergency spending.'' That is simply a gimmick that allows the entire cost of this war, some $450 billion by the time the defense bill, which is going to be considered by the Appropriations Committee tomorrow, is spent. By that time we will have spent $450 billion, and yet we continue to pretend that it is an unexpected contingency which means that it is handled outside of the normal limits of the budget. That does not fool anybody except the American people, unfortunately; and that is what it is designed to do, to mask the full costs of the war. Secondly, it is outrageous, in my view, that this Congress eliminated both Senate provisions and the single House provision which made it clear that the Congress did not want in any way to allow the impression to continue to exist that we intend to have a permanent presence in Iraq. The fact is over 70 percent of Iraqis continue to believe, despite the protestations of the President and the Secretary of Defense, they continue to believe that America intends to have a long- term permanent presence in Iraq, and we need to disabuse them of that fact in order to take the target off the backs of our soldiers. Thirdly, as the gentleman from South Carolina has indicated, we will have spent $450 billion on this war by the end of the year, and yet the Congress is refusing to spend an additional $2.5 billion to provide further strengthening and thickening of our efforts at border security and port security. This bill has a significant increase in funds for personnel as far as border security is concerned; but it shortchanges the equipment, it shortchanges the aircraft, it shortchanges the facilities, it shortchanges the construction efforts, it shortchanges all of the nonpersonnel items that go into providing solid border security on both the northern and southern borders. There is no excuse whatsoever for this Congress to be providing over $40 billion in tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year, while refusing to spend adequate amounts of money to secure our borders both the north and the south. I want to make one other point. It infuriates me to hear the White House say we will do whatever is necessary to secure the borders of the United States at the same time that the President has consistently refused to support adequate appropriations to do just that. And I want to tell, I want to close by telling a story that I have told many times because I think the American people need to know about it. Right after 9/11, when this Capitol Hill was hit by anthrax, this committee was then chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and when we could not get into our offices, I called Bill and I said, Bill, as long as we cannot do anything useful in our office, why do we not consult each of the security agencies of our government to see what they think we need on an emergency basis to deal with homeland security problems. We talked to the CIA, the FBI, the CDC, the NSA, you name it; and we got from each of them their estimate of what we needed to provide immediately to beef up our homeland security, border security, and port security operations. We then went down to the White House to talk to the President. The President came in. We were seated around the table. Before we could say a word, he said, well, I understand some of you want to spend more money than I do on homeland security. I just want you to know, if you appropriate $1 more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill. I have got time for four or five comments and I am out of here. So Senator Byrd made clear what he thought of that attitude. Senator Stevens pointed out to the President that we had already agreed that if there was any item on the list that the President did not want we would automatically strike it. And then finally it came my turn to speak, and I said to the President, Mr. President, I have been coming down here for over 30 years. This is the first time any President has ever told me his mind was closed before the subject was even open, and I want you to know since you are being hard nosed on the subject, I am going to be too. I asked him four questions about Federal installations that we had been told by his own security people were gravely at risk of terrorist attack, their words not mine, and I asked the President if he had been briefed; if he had, I wanted to know what he had been told because I know what I had been told and it scared the dickens out of me. And to put it kindly, if he had been briefed, he gave no evidence thereof. I did not expect him to. He is a busy man, but I did expect him to have an open mind. And we walked out of that room after the President said that, without listening to a single argument, he would veto any money we added for homeland security, and that has been the case ever since. Each year, whatever strengthening we have had on the border, of ports has come at the insistence of the Congress of the United States, overcoming the objections of the President; and we have tried on both sides of the aisle from time to time, we have tried to add more money than the President asked for for border security and for port security. This is just the latest chapter in the efforts of some Members of Congress to almost get a double hernia trying to do enough heavy lifting in order to get sufficient money into this budget so we do have a secure border on the south and a secure border on the north, and we still are a long way from being there. So while I will vote for this bill, I regret very much that it is woefully short in terms of the funding that it needs to truly provide full security on either border. I hope this country does not some day pay a very high price for that, but I worry each day that it will. With that, I would ask the gentleman if he has any more speakers. If not, I am prepared to yield back.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back my time.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this event is a sad day in the history of the House and the country. The fact that this bill is before us today indicates that the President's aim is about as faulty as the Vice- President's. The fact is that on 9/11 we were attacked by al Qaeda. They were sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The President correctly responded to that by going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But then he slipped off the track and diverted his attention and the country's to an unnecessary war in Iraq against a government that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack against the United States on 9/11. We have now spent, in 18 separate actions, we will now have spent $450 billion on this adventure, when you take into account what will be provided in the defense appropriations bill which will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee tomorrow. Now, my objection to the way this war is being funded is based primarily on my belief that the country and the Congress has a right to know what the cost of this war is and what we think future costs will be. But because, as the gentlewoman from New York has indicated, because the requests to finance this war have come in the form of supplementals outside the regular appropriation process, the actual cost of the war has effectively been hidden because the administration's plan was to reveal that cost to the American people on the installment plan. So a little bit at a time they get to understand what the cost is going to be. $50 billion here. $50 billion there. As Senator Edward Dirksen said, ``Sooner or later that amounts to real money.'' This is a huge expenditure for a misguided war, in my view. Mr. Speaker, I would make one other point. My second concern about this bill is not directed at what the bill does contain, but rather what this bill does not contain. The Senate adopted a separate amendment, the Byrd-Gregg amendment, which would have added $2.5 billion in additional funding for border security and port security. Unfortunately, the conferees chose to eliminate that funding from the bill. That means that they did not provide the $1.9 billion that the Senate had asked us to provide to do things such as replace out-dated aircraft. The P-3 fleet, which serves as border security's primary air surveillance mechanism, is over 40 years old, 20 years beyond the average life of that type of plane. The entire fleet needs to be overhauled to extend the service life. This bill does not measure up to that. We also have nearly 1,700 vehicles which are unusable due to wear and tear because of the environment, the extreme burden that that environment places on Border Patrol agents' equipment and vehicles. This bill does not provide funding for that. This bill lacks sufficient patrol aircraft. It lacks sufficient funding for armed helicopters on the border. Also, in addition, I believe the Congress should have provided $648 million in additional port security improvements. The Coast Guard has only 34 inspectors to review security plans at foreign ports. We should have provided $180 million more for customs and border protection, including $80 million for Border Patrol vehicle replacement, and $100 million more for border infrastructure and technology. We should have provided $50 million more for an upgrade of law enforcement communications. We should have provided $80 million the Senate requested for Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle replacement. We should have provided the amount that the Senate requested, $227 million, for additional port security grants. The Senate also asked us to provide $211 million in additional funds for rail and seaport inspection equipment. It asked us to provide $132 million more for radiation portal monitors to accelerate deployment to screen 100 percent of in-bound containers. Alas, this bill contains none of those items. So I think it is grossly deficient in meeting the needs of border security and port security. I regret that. But unfortunately I cannot do much about it because the majority party was determined to exclude these items. I was also stunned by the fact that the majority party refused to adopt, or refused to retain, the language that was adopted on the House floor which made clear that the United States had no intention of entering into permanent basing rights agreements in Iraq. Certainly I recognize that some Members of this House do not want us to leave Iraq anytime soon, but somewhere between leaving immediately and staying forever, we ought to be able to find common ground.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I regard the argument made by my good friend from Oklahoma to be essentially an ad hominem argument. The issue is not whether or not Saddam Hussein was a good guy or a bad guy. He is obviously a bad guy. And it is nice to see that he is gone. We have other bad guys in the world. We have the guy running Iran right now. We have got the guy running North Korea. I do not see the United States engaging in military action against either of them. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out, is it not strange that a man who was important enough to remove as head of Iraq by this administration was seen by this President's father and his administration, I am sorry, I got that wrong, was seen by the previous Reagan administration, for instance, as being someone we could do business with, and, in fact, was someone who the United States supported against Iran in a previous military engagement. So the issue is not whether Saddam is a good man or a bad man. He is obviously a bad man, and it is good that he is gone. I will grant the gentleman that. But I would also say, it came at a hellacious price. We simply did not have to incur 18,000 American soldiers wounded in order to remove him. We did not need to incur more than almost 3,000 dead in order to remove him. Let's not kid ourselves. We were misled into this war on the basis of manipulated and bad intelligence. We were told by the Vice-president we would be welcomed with open arms. The President landed on that carrier and said ``Mission Accomplished.'' Well, not so. Unfortunately, not so. So we continue to pay the price, bogged down in the same kind of mess that we were stuck in in Vietnam. And let us face it, there is not anybody in this city from the President on down who has a clue about how to get the United States out of this mess. There isn't anybody in this town who has a clue. And that is the sad fact we are faced with, as we are forced to continually appropriate more and more funds to support our troops. And then we go back home and say, ``Well, we know what we are doing.'' The fact is, this Congress did not know what it was doing when it gave the President the ability to go to war. The President did not know what he was doing, the Vice-President did not know what he was doing, and Secretary Rumsfeld has demonstrated that he is both the most arrogant Secretary of Defense since Bob McNamara and the most incompetent Secretary of Defense in the post-Cold War period of this country.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. I would simply say the fact is, you don't just have to look at what this bill does today on this amendment. You have to look at the whole and what it did yesterday on the Egypt amendment, coupled with what it is doing here today, and that means we have shortchanged those refugees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to put in perspective what this amendment is trying to do. As I understand the situation, this bill raises the eradication funds in Colombia by $30 million. It also cuts $103 million from refugees. All Mr. McGovern is trying to do is to take that $30 million increase that the committee has provided for eradication in Colombia and move it back into an account that has already been cut by almost three times as much as the amount of money he is trying to put back in the refugee account. I remember when Bill Lehman from Florida used to take this floor every year. There was no better human being I have ever met in this place than Bill Lehman, and he used to routinely remind us that there is no more miserable person in the world than a refugee. They live in often abominable conditions, and they have nowhere to turn. We have Members in this House who will engage in all kinds of meaningless gestures when it comes to Darfur. They will sign onto a letter to the President, and they will sign onto a bill that they know is going nowhere, and then they will put out their press releases posing for political holy pictures on how much they care about refugees and how much they care about Darfur. And yet what they do doesn't produce one plugged nickel. If you want to do something real for those wretched creatures, you will do what Mr. McGovern is trying to do: You will add this tiny little dollop of money back to the refugee account. I mean, if you want a perfect example of money that isn't working, it's money that is spent on eradication. I remember when we had a huge fight under the Reagan administration about how we were going to pull money into eradication and interdiction. And then I had one of the people in charge of the program come to me silently and say, ``Don't believe what we are saying. We only interdict 2 percent of the drugs.'' I thought conservatives routinely gave liberals lectures about looking at the effectiveness of programs. Well, I can tell you right now, we are not being effective when you have to cut half the food rations for refugees in Darfur. We are not being very effective in meeting our obligations there. So I would suggest if anybody thinks we are harming the program in Colombia, all we are doing is saying return that budget request to the same level that was requested by that well-known liberal leftist, George W. Bush. That is all this amendment is doing. I would urge its adoption.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman, and he is my good friend. But the fact is that the refugee count is being cut.

Mr. OBEY. I understand you are saying it is in a different pocket, but the overall account is being cut, right?

Mr. OBEY. This House thought of it yesterday that we wouldn't do anything about them, didn't they? This House denied the funds for fixing that problem yesterday, didn't they?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I know people want to get out of here. This is my wedding anniversary; I do, too. This will take just a moment. Yes, my wife is a saint. Yes. I know people want to catch their airplanes. But the gentleman from Arizona has served 22 years in this House, and this is the last time that he will be handling a bill on the floor of the House, and I think that we owe him to take note of that fact. Mr. Chairman, for 10 years I chaired this subcommittee, and I know how easy it is to demagogue this subcommittee and the bill that it handles. And on behalf of every Member on both sides of the aisle, I want to tell the gentleman that he has done honor to this House and to each and every Member, because at every moment that I can recall, he has dealt with the subject matter at hand on the basis of substance, not politics; he has brought an intellectual quality to his argument that is very seldom matched. We don't always agree on everything, as was evidenced by the debate yesterday; but as Will Rogers said, when two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. But I just want to say, Jim, good luck in whatever you do, and we appreciate what you have done for the House and for the country and for the world in the way you have handled this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, some of the things that happen in this place are enough to give hypocrisy a bad name. Example: I got a letter just 3 days ago from about 30 Republican Members of the House demanding that we add funding back for the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. All but one of those Republican Members voted for a budget resolution that makes it impossible for us to do what they ask us to do in that letter. That is what I call posing for political holy pictures in the most cynical way. Mr. Speaker, the second thing I would say is for any Member to come to the floor and ask that we fully fund programs like the Byrne Grant or any other grant, I would simply say this: Those who voted against the budget resolution have a perfect right to do that. Those who voted for the budget resolution need to simply look in the mirror to see why we do not have the money to do what they have just come to the floor and asked us to do.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have made this point several times before during the appropriations cycle, and I want to put Members on notice one more time. I think the record is pretty clear that the minority has cooperated at every step of the way on every appropriation bill before this House so far this year. We have facilitated time agreements, we have persuaded our own Members to stifle themselves and reduce the amount of time they take on amendments, we have asked numerous people not to introduce duplicative amendments, and we have, in general, worked as a willing partner with the majority to see to it that this House proceeds in an orderly fashion. I have had only one requirement. I do not believe that major issues affecting the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars should be decided in the dead of night, and I do not believe that this House has any business voting on these major issues at 11, 12, or 1 o'clock in the morning. It is clear to me that that is what is going to happen on this bill. I intend to support this bill, unless two amendments that are pending do not pass. But if that happens, I intend to support this bill. But I do not believe that it serves the interests of this country to be passing this legislation or dealing with major amendments thereto in the midnight hours. So I want to put every Member on notice. I am perfectly willing to agree to a unanimous consent agreement that enables us to get a substantial way through the consideration of this bill. I would love to see it finished tonight. If it can, by a reasonable hour, no one will be happier than I. But I do not intend to cooperate in a process which pushes all of these votes into 11, 12 or 1 o'clock votes. We saw that on prescription drugs, we saw that on major tax bills, we have seen that on several appropriation bills last year, and I do not intend to allow that to continue without doing everything I can to prevent it. We can either proceed in an orderly fashion, in a way which is reflective positively on what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, or we can run a death march where we hide most of our major actions after midnight. I don't intend to participate in the latter. I will be happier to cooperate in the former.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green). For some time, Mr. Chairman, I have been troubled by the repression of political freedom in Egypt and the lack of democratic reform. But in light of the historical role that Egypt has played in the region and the continuing stability that Egypt brings to an increasingly troubled region, I have appealed for patience and moderation in efforts to alter Egypt's aid package. I chaired this subcommittee for 10 years, and during that time I was responsible for providing over $20 billion in military and economic aid to Egypt. In the years since, I have helped to fend off amendments that sought to cut or restrict aid to Egypt. Last year, during the Full Committee consideration of the bill, I offered an amendment that earmarked some of Egypt's economic aid for democracy purposes, a move that allowed Congress to fend off yet another attempt to restrict the military aid. But in offering that amendment, I gave notice to the government of Egypt that my patience, and the patience of the American people, was wearing thin, and I hoped and expected that the government of Egypt would get the hint and make some moves to loosen its grip on political freedom and democratic reforms. Instead, I am sad to say, we have gotten backsliding on municipal elections, an extension of emergency laws, repression of judicial freedoms and a crackdown on demonstrations and rallies. Most recently, we have seen the appellate court in Egypt reject the appeal of Ayman Nour, a political opponent of President Mubarak who was conveniently arrested just prior to last year's presidential elections. Hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested and jailed in recent weeks, many of them young kids in their teens and 20s who have been beaten and bullied. Reporters have been roughed up and intimidated. Just this week, the government of Egypt suspended the work of the International Republican Institute in Egypt after the IRI country director criticized in an interview the pace of reform as being too slow. Now, I am not a naive peddler of global democracy. I am not preaching that we hold elections all across the Middle East and call it a day. I understand that the very free and fair elections in the West Bank in Gaza have resulted in a disastrous consequence for the peace process through the election of Hamas. But I do fear that Egypt is heading toward a precipice. What is happening in Egypt, Mr. Chairman, is that the government is systematically fencing in and squeezing out its moderate opposition. And if they continue to do that, they are going to wind up with the only viable opposition being the Muslim Brotherhood, the most radical of the forces in the country. That will be disastrous for Mr. Mubarak. It will be disastrous for his government. It will disastrous for the American people, and it will be disastrous for the entire region. I consider myself a lifelong friend of Egypt, and I have taken a lot of heat on this floor through the years for taking a number of actions that supported Egypt and the rest of the Arab world, sometimes even when I differed with my friends who were supporting various provisions for Israel. But it seems to me that if you are a friend of Egypt, you will try to make them understand that they are endangering their ability to have a peaceful transfer of power when Mr. Mubarak leaves office. Now, I have met Mr. Mubarak's son. I understand that Mr. Mubarak would like to see his son succeed him. I am very impressed by his son. I happen to think he would probably be a good leader. But he is not going to get the chance for very long if the moderate opposition in that country is systematically jailed, beaten up and wiped out, because then you will have only the most radical extreme elements left. So what we are doing in this amendment is to cut $100 million out of the Economic Support Fund, and we are moving 50 million of that to help refugees in the Sudan, and we are moving another 50 million of it to provide increased funding for the President's HIV/AIDS initiative. I am not doing this out of anger at Egypt. I am doing this out of a deep and abiding concern for the future of that country. I respect Egypt. I think the people of Egypt are a wonderful people. And I think that Mr. Mubarak has done many constructive things that have been in the interest of peace in the region and have helped promote our own national interests as well. But I am speaking as a friend, and I am saying this Congress has an obligation to recognize the problem and to act before it is too late to salvage the situation.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that there are some problems associated with this amendment. And if it were adopted, I think there would have to be substantial rejiggering of the allocation to the subcommittee. But I just want to make an observation, nonetheless. With the passage of the defense appropriations bill, we will have spent $450 billion on the dumbest war since the War of 1812, that war being our involvement in Iraq. The conferees on the supplemental two nights ago, despite the fact that there were two Senate votes and one House vote which put into that bill a declaration that the Congress was in opposition to creating permanent bases in Iraq, despite that fact, the conferees dropped all three of those. So we are now in the position where the Congress of the United States will not even take a position that we don't want permanent bases in Iraq. Now, I know there are some people in this Chamber who don't want us to pull out immediately. There are a lot of people who don't want us to do that. But, certainly, the only other option isn't to stay there forever, but that is what is being implied if we accept these permanent bases in Iraq. Imagine how our influence in the world would be transformed. Right now, since our invasion of Iraq, we are at an all time low in terms of American popularity in every region of the world. Imagine how our popularity would be transformed if we said that, instead of spending $450 billion on a stupid war, imagine how the world would look at us if instead we said we were going to take 1/10 that amount and use it to make certain that every single one of God's creatures who we could reach in the next 10 years would finally have access to water that doesn't make them sick and doesn't make a lot of their kids die. America would be transformed, at least our image would be transformed, into actually living up to our Judeo-Christian principles. Wouldn't that be a shocker? So I recognize that there are technical problems associated with the gentleman's amendment. But just because my heart moves me on that subject, I am going to vote for it. And if it means that somebody somewhere is not going to get all the weapons they have been planning on, isn't that too bad.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Last year, I said virtually everything that my good friend is now saying today. The problem is that in the last year they have jailed their main opponents, they have beaten up people who are defending an independent judiciary, they have imposed another round of martial law, and they have continued the very things that are totally opposed to our values. Now, to me the issue is not whether Egypt is a good friend and a good ally. They obviously are. The question is; Are they going to be around to continue to be that. If they do not change the way they are behaving, they are not going to be succeeded by a moderate government. They are systematically alienating every moderate group in that society, and you are going to wind up with the Muslim Brotherhood running that country unless they wake up before it is too late.

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

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. We were just told this amendment goes too far. The fact is the State Department made phone calls to a number of people here yesterday indicating they would be willing to support this amendment. The only difference was that they wanted $50 million going to added democratization programs rather than going to AIDS. That was the only difference, because the State Department is getting fed up with the conduct that Egypt is demonstrating, and the State Department recognizes that this is a very dangerous slippery slope the Egyptian government is on. So some may think this amendment goes far, but based on these conversation yesterday, the State Department is not one of them.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Someone on the other side just said ``What will the headline be tomorrow?''; that it will be that there is a slap in the face of the government. That is the point. That is the point. Our long-term security is tied not just to Mr. Mubarak, but whoever comes after him. And what we are trying to do is to send a message to all levels in Egyptian society that we stand for what we say we stand for, which is a modicum of decency in dealing with your political opponents, absent other trappings of democracy. And it is important that a lot of people in Egypt besides Mr. Mubarak understand that we are serious about our democratic values, that we are serious about assuming that the country that is more identified with us than any other Arab country, that it is important that they reflect certain norms of decency with respect to the way they treat their population and treat their political opponents. And it is in the interest of the United States to make sure that every citizen of Egypt understands that, because otherwise, we allow other groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, to paint caricatures of the United States, which will do us no good in the long run. I thank the gentleman for the time.

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