Military Construction And Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have just one observation to make about the remarks of the previous speaker when he indicated that the Speaker did not want to hear the truth.

I would simply observe that when the VA several years ago was insisting that the administration's budget for veterans' health care was insufficient to meet the needs, the Speaker heard the truth and acted on it. And as a result, even in the teeth of fierce opposition from the administration, she insisted that we provide another $1 billion to the veterans' health care budget. And eventually, even the VA came to admit that that money was needed.

When veterans' organizations after our party took control of the Congress 1.5 years ago, when those veterans' organizations told us that we needed to provide at least $3.5 billion more than the President's budget had provided for veterans' health care, she heard the truth and she acted on it.

The Speaker need never take a back seat to the gentleman from Indiana or anyone else in this chamber when it comes to hearing the truth and acting on it when it concerns America's veterans. She made quite clear that the welfare of American veterans was going to be her number one budget priority when she became Speaker, because she was objecting to the fact that the only families in America who ever had to make any sacrifice because of the Iraq war were military families. That was indeed a truth which she not only heard but saw and acted upon, and this House can be proud of that on both sides of the aisle.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that projects in this bill are allocated on the basis of one's power and influence. Well, I think, when it comes to the appropriations process and since I'm the chairman of the committee--and I'm a fairly powerful or influential person except when I'm at home with my wife--I would, nonetheless, say that I have no projects whatsoever in this bill--none, zip. I would also say that, whether you like the reforms that have been instituted in the last 2 years or not, just about the only reforms that have been instituted on the earmarking process have been sponsored by me, and I think the House knows what they are. We wouldn't even be on the floor tonight, dealing with these in this way, had it not been for those reforms.

I want to make a point: Regardless of what individual Members think about earmarking, there are certain appropriations which by their very nature require earmarking. There are other bills that by their very nature do not. This is one of the three that does. You've got the Military Construction bill; you've got the energy and water bill, and you've got the interior bill. Large portions, if not all of those bills, are simply construction accounts. When it comes to construction accounts, those projects are in the main, requested and defined by the administration. The overwhelming majority of projects in this bill are selected by the executive branch.

This bill includes 518 total earmarks: 408 earmarks, 79 percent of them, were included at the request of the administration. Of the 110 other earmarks, on its own initiative, the committee added seven earmarks to improve better training barracks and medical facilities for soldiers, marines and their families. They were not added at the request of particular Members, but they are in this bill, nonetheless, and the committee makes no apology for them.

I would also point out that 103 of these projects were added at the request of a Member. One hundred two of them are military construction projects, and one is a VA project. All of the military construction earmarks, including the quality of life projects, were also included in the authorization bill, and the VA earmark is included subject to authorization.

There is no difference between what the Congress does in earmarking military construction and what the White House does when it requests earmarks for military construction. For example, five different Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, asked the committee to provide the second phase of a facility, $7.5 million, to support a facility for a pararescue unit at the Gabreski Air National Guard base in New York. Now, the sponsors of this amendment, evidently, are going to crow about cutting 103 earmarks. Let's look at what they will actually be cutting.

They will be cutting Air Force runways, aircraft refueling stations, training facilities, maintenance facilities, fire stations, chapels, barracks, control towers, firing ranges, and so on. You would be hard-pressed to find a substantive difference between these projects and the other 408 contained in the bill. The only difference is that they have not been blessed by the White House.

Now, apparently, the sponsors of this amendment believe that the only spending that is legitimate is that which is blessed by the executive branch. Well, this document, the Constitution, reads as follows: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' It doesn't say, ``only in consequence of funds requested by the executive.'' It doesn't say, ``Only spending by the executive is sacrosanct.'' It says that Congress has the responsibility of making these decisions.

Now, Congress may make some wise choices. It may make some bad choices. So may the executive branch. I would submit that, regardless of your attitude about earmarks in general, it is ludicrous to say that you cannot have the Congress using its judgment on occasion to decide where money ought to go in the development of facilities on military bases, just as it would be ludicrous to say that, for the Army Corps of Engineers in the energy and water bill, the only projects that are worthwhile proceeding with are those which are requested by the executive branch.

I invite you to take a look at the way a number of accounts in the executive branch have been turned into political slush funds. Take the Reading First program. Look at the major job training program in the Department of Labor. There are ample examples of abuse of the earmarking process in the executive branch and in the legislative branch. Our obligation, in my view, is not within the process of trying to dig those out to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think this committee has done a responsible job in making its judgments about what those projects ought to be. If the gentleman is concerned about members of the Appropriations Committee who he feels have an inordinate number of earmarks, well, I have none. Yet I stand here tonight, defending this process, because at least, on this bill, I think there is very little to be said for the idea that only the executive branch may make choices about whether barracks or hospitals or daycare centers are built to facilitate the convenience of military families. This bill is an example of Congress' meeting its responsibilities and controlling the power of the purse.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source