Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Then it is also in order under the rules to bring a privileged resolution to the floor. Now, if we were not in session, even if I take your word for it, and I will for purposes of our discussion, I would hope you would grant me my good intentions as well. If I could have or someone else could have come to this floor and made such a representation as you indicate, I will accept that. However, the rules also allow us to bring a privileged resolution to the floor at any time with the proper notice and to have it considered. One of the reasons or the principal reason that the Chair stated for turning down this privileged resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] is that it was not presented on January 26. From what the Chair just told me, it does not matter that it was not presented on January 26. It could have been presented on January 26, but it was not imperative that it be presented on January 26. So if that is the only reason, why can it not be presented today?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry then. Again, I hold the Speaker in the highest respect in this regard, but my information is that if it is a pro forma session, I receive a piece of paper which says that no business is to be conducted. If no business is to be conducted, I hardly think it is fair for the Chair to then state that I should be or any other Member should be expected to make objection, if that is our intent with respect to this particular issue. If I receive information that no business is to be conducted, I do not see how I could come to the floor then demanding that business be conducted.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, was it a pro forma session?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, my distinct recollection is we were not in session on January 26. I just want to make sure for the record. Were the Members in fact here assembled on January 26? If they were not, I do not wish to get into a dispute with you, Mr. Speaker, but whether or not we could have made an objection or should have made objection I think does rest at least upon the practical possibility that we would have been in attendance here to be able to do that, if that in fact is the basis upon which the initial premise of your ruling was made. I am in no position to state for a fact whether we were here or not, because I am making the inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I maybe did not understand correctly. Did the Chair say in reply to my question that the House was in session on January 26 and that this proposition was presented to the Members for their assent?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, was the House in session? Were Members expected to be assembled or be able to be called to the House at that date? My recollection is we were in recess.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I hope I understood the Chair correctly. Did you indicate as part of your ruling that an objection would have had to have been made on January 26 of this year?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I take very seriously your admonition that we must address the question of privilege, that is to say, within the privileged resolution. That is what we must address here, is this a pertinent resolution to have before this House to be decided, not the merits or demerits of the proposition which may be under question? Am I correct that that is your admonition to us, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the question of privilege under rule IX of our rules.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding on this point, because I think he has been not only eloquent in making the presentation day after day, not only has taken a leadership position on the question of the debt, but he has helped to make a point very clear. I would like to reiterate it at this juncture by way of asking a rhetorical question of the gentleman from Texas, precisely because I think he has made the case on the face of it for not getting into a situation in which we attach other elements, attach other items to the debt limit bill. Would the gentleman agree it is fair to say that he certainly has tried to make the case that this debt limit resolution should be dealt with in and of itself as a consequence of the necessity of dealing forthrightly with our credit standing?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So they really did not have the balanced budget in mind as much as they had the destruction of these programs, the reduction of these programs, at the very least, which is what they had in mind. They were upset, the Speaker was upset because the President managed to do as he was asked by the Republican Party and still balance the budget in 7 years with the Congressional Budget Office certification, and save, in the process, the programs for environment, education, Medicare, and Medicaid, that he said would be his bottom line. He managed to do that. Now, the fact that the Speaker is upset that the President actually accommodated him on what was requested, he is attempting to recoup by attaching his desires not with respect to a balanced budget, but some new prospect for a balanced budget that remains beyond me in terms of how he wants to accomplish it, by attaching it to the debt resolution.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would like to ask him to comment and make such observations as he will. Is it not then the case, keeping in mind what the gentlewoman from Connecticut just outlined, that fundamentally what they are trying to do with the debt limit hike here is attach their tax cut for the wealthy and tax credits with respect to child care, if that is what they have in mind, which does not address either the short-term or the long-term needs with respect to child care, and if anything, is just the down payment on more indebtedness? So if we are to deal with the debt limit hike in and of itself, that is one thing, but if we are to deal with these other issues and attach it to it, is it not the gentleman's position, as it certainly is mine, that any attempt to attach a phony tax credit bill or some kind of tax giveaway is inimical to solving the debt limit problem, and in fact, will work against the best interests of the United States?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. On that point, will the gentleman yield one last time to me?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman agree, Mr. Speaker, if he would be kind enough to yield a bit further to me, would he agree that when there is an attempt to deal with balancing the Federal budget and attaching that or some element of that process to the debt limit process, that we are not only confusing the issues, but in fact, we are retarding the process? Specifically what I mean here is that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] has stated that the capacity to balance the Federal budget has failed for this year, and therefore, he wants to make what he terms a downpayment on this balanced budget, utilizing, utilizing the debt resolution as the vehicle for this. My contention would be, and I would be interested in the gentleman's reflection and observation on it, quite the opposite is the case. The President, and the gentleman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] have been on this floor with me many times in this special order process, and I think we would agree, and I think the Record would reflect, that over and over and over again at that podium and at that podium on the other side of the aisle the mantra was enunciated: ``Give us a balanced budget as scored by the Congressional Budget Office in 7 years, to be enacted in the year 2002, and that's the end of it for us. That is all we want the President to do. That's all we want the Democratic Party to do, give us a balanced budget in 7 years as certified by the Congressional Budget Office.'' Now, my understanding is, and I think I can read as well as, certainly, the Speaker of the House can, I think my academic credentials are in at least as much order as his, the President did precisely that. He presented a 7-year balanced budget as certified by the Congressional Budget Office. The problem was the Speaker did not like the numbers or how it was achieved, so he moved the goalposts.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I come here today in a rather interesting position, having recently been the recipient of what might be regarded, and I do regard it as a compliment. You may recall that in years past there was a so-called enemies list that President Nixon ostensibly had, the Nixon enemies list, and people after awhile were quite pleased to have been on it, and those who were not on it were a little bit disappointed. Well, I take it similarly as a compliment to be on Mr. Gingrich's target list. Mr. Speaker, I notice that one of our colleagues has come to the floor. I take it that he is maybe making an inquiry whether he might have been able to take some of the time from one of the previous speakers from the Republican side. Have I guessed correctly on that?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank you very much. That bit of Socratic dialog, Mr. Speaker, I think has stated the essence of it. Now, obviously any of our colleagues who were tuned in can say, well this is just a partisan observation or series of partisan observations by myself and the gentleman from Samoa, and that is OK. It does not bother me any it would be seen as partisan. The problem is, is it fair, is it accurate, is it factual? I will not say truthful. Truthful is always a matter of debate. What the truth is, is a matter of debate. I do think that people nonetheless come to conclusions. They nonetheless reserve judgment, if they are prudent, and when they think that they have heard the facts and contemplated the factual basis for a judgment, they then make it. Now let us take somebody outside the political system itself, the electoral system, and see what they have to say about it. I am referring now to Jodie Allen. I do not know Jodie Allen, if he is male or female. I have not met Mr. or Ms. Allen. All I know is Jodie Allen is editor of the Outlook section of the Washington Post where columnists are found of a Sunday. I do not blame Jodie Allen one way or another for the headlines. I think, Mr. Speaker, you and I are sufficiently well versed in dealing with newspapers as elected officials to know that the person who writes the story does not necessarily write the headline, and the headline does not necessarily refer to what is in the story, and you can find yourself reeling from what it says, but these headlines over the Allen columns say, ``Who won the budget battle?'' The sub headline is: ``Clinton's phony plan beats the GOP's phony plan.'' So I would guess that Jodie Allen has not got too much good to say about either. I will not say either of us, Mr. Speaker, but about either of these plans. But the whole point of the headline, I think, is to try and summarize the position of the Allen editorial which nonetheless contains some very interesting material which I would like to quote very briefly in what will be a series of remarks from me in time to come with respect to the budget and its realities as well as the debt limit and its connection to the budget. Just the opening commentary, and I am quoting now from Jodie Allen's editorial of January 28 in the Washington Post Outlook section, ``To hear the President tell it in his masterfully ingratiating State of the Union message last week, the country came very close to solving its Federal budget problem once and for all.'' Quoting further then the President within the column, ```There is now broad bipartisan agreement that permanent deficit spending must come to an end,' said President Clinton last Tuesday evening,''' again quoting, ```though differences remain among us which are significant.' He also noted, `The combined total of the proposed savings that are in common to both, that is to say, the White House and the congressional Republican plans, is more than enough using numbers from your Congressional Budget Office to balance the budget in 7 years and provide a modest tax cut. These cuts are real.' '' Jodie Allen then goes on to say, ``Are they? It is a question worth asking as the country, having clearly decided the President got the best of Congress in the blame affixing event tries to decide whether it should now care that the overall competition has been called on account of political rain. In fact, the details of the competing proposals suggest that at least as far as the cause of fiscal solvency is concerned, less has been lost than either side would care to admit. No doubt some elements in both plans are real enough. Both sides, for example, were and apparently still are, determined to give out a pre-election tax cut, deficit be damned. It is also a pretty safe bet the agreements Congress extracts from the President in return for allowing the Government to keep running and borrowing more money will make substantial cuts in the immediate operating budgets of the many Federal agencies. Beyond that,'' and I think this is the important point here, I say parenthetically, ``Beyond that, things get a lot less real. For example, even had the White House embraced the GOP's harshest cuts, the deficit would still be upwards of $150 billion this fiscal year and still higher in 1997. By the end of the century, it might or might not dip below $100 billion. After that further progress against the deficit would likely be arrested and ultimately reversed under either plan'' from the Jodie Allen column. Mr. Speaker, that has been the essence of the observations that I have made from this podium again and again during this whole budget process. I have maintained from this podium, while all of the broader discussion is going on, about the balanced budget and all the posturing was taking place and all the puffed up rhetoric was being stated on this floor and in press conferences and covered by television cameras and radio microphones with breathless anticipation, nobody wanted to talk about the fact that regardless of what kind of balanced budget proposal was coming forward, it was actually increasing the deficit. I will state without equivocation again: No one can come to this floor, at least no one has to this point, despite my invitations again and again and again, to refute the position that I am maintaining that there has not been a balanced budget proposal put forward by anybody of either party that will stand the scrutiny of an honest appraisal as to whether or not it is increasing the deficit. It might be possible, Mr. Speaker, to achieve a balanced budget at some point in the future. Going into debt is no sin and no crime. Anybody who has purchased a home over time or a major appliance, an automobile, et cetera, understands that. In fact, it is encouraged. The question is, are you able to pay? Can you acquire debt in such a way and such a manner and for such a length of time that enables those or that institution doing the lending to be reasonably sure you are going to be able to make the payment, be able to sustain the debt, and sustain your life and its requirements monetarily. That is all this is about. I do not think that can be done in 7 years, but I am in the minority. I have been in legislative life in a State legislature, in the house of representatives at the State level and the State senate, in a city council, and in the Congress of the United States. I have been part of the board of directors of nonprofit organizations in many venues, Mr. Speaker. In other words, just about every community and electoral venue there is, I have participated in a legislative function where you had to deal with budgets, where you had to deal with coming to grips in most of those instances with balancing the budget. I have participated both as the chairman of an authorizing committee and as a member of an appropriations committee in balancing budgets in every legislative venue. So this is not something strange and new to me. I have better than two decades of experience in this area. So I am quite willing to come to grips with the idea that I am in the minority on this floor with the question of the number of years that should be reasonably made available to deal with the balanced budget. But I am not required, Mr. Speaker, simply because I am in the minority at the moment with respect to the numbers of years that would be required to do this, I am not required in that context to keep quiet about the fact that those who are putting forward a proposal that they can balance in 7 years cannot do it, and that to delude the American people, deliberately or otherwise, I am not trying to at this juncture cast some sort of aspersions on those who say they want to attempt it at least. All well and good, if that is what the proposition is. If someone wants to come to the floor and say no, I do not think it can be done, or on paper it cannot be done in 7 years if we are being honest about it, and the word ``honesty'' has been used over and over and over again on this floor, we want honest numbers. If that is the case, fine. You want to make an attempt over 7 years to do it, possibly it could be done. I think it would entail the kind of cuts that would cause incredible pain to people in all kinds of areas. Part of the pain that would come would come after 2002, after the 7- year period, when I am maintaining, and I think the burden of the rest of the article by Jodie Allen is that once you pass 2002, to the degree that you are able to achieve anywhere near the kind of goal that has been set in 1996 over that period of time, that 7-year period of time, there will be an explosion of debt, an explosion of indebtedness, an explosion of deficit spending. One of the categories that would, I think, harm us the most would be in Social Security. The Allen article, again I am citing it because I wanted this to be an outside person. It justifies not Neil Abercrombie by standing up here and tossing out facts and figures as suit me and then could be dismissed as a result of simply being partisan, no matter how accurate it might be. I am citing these columns, and I am glad to see the Jodie Allens and some of the other people I am going to be citing are beginning to pick this commentary up. I will be going over that in greater detail in time to come. Mr. Speaker, I believe my half hour is almost up. Let me conclude simply by saying that it is not a question of who wins the budget battle, it is a question of who loses. If the American people lose the budget battle, believe me, we all lose here politically. I hope in days to come to be able to shed a little more light on not only what the process is to this point, but what we can do about it in a practical way to bring a successful conclusion to this budget confrontation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes. The proposal coming from the President, with all attendant difficulties associated with balancing the budget, nonetheless, has as its priorities the Medicare, Medicaid, environment and education. Those are priorities that the President has consistently stated from the very beginning as elements which he felt had to be protected in any budget proposal that came forward.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am sure many of our Republican friends, if not all of them, esteem education, including the Speaker. The problem is not esteem. The problem is paying for it. The problem is setting it as a priority. The problem is do you have education as a priority, or do you have a tax giveaway as a priority.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Of course, they are claiming now a deal cannot be reached, that we cannot come to an agreement even through the American people in poll after poll and inquiry after inquiry are requesting, is the nicest way I can put it, the Government, that is to say, the Congress of the United States regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, and the Executive in the person of President Clinton, to come to an agreement so that there can be some stability in our economy and in our political life.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Oh, yes. It gave them exactly what they wanted. As you know, the old saying is be careful what you ask for, you might get it. That is exactly what happened. What they asked for was a game plan according to the rules that they said they wanted established. The President appeared on the field with that game plan, and I am sorry to say some of our poor Republican friends then turned around to their quarterback, but he had left the field after moving the goal posts and was now hiding in the locker room under the bench.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, they did not like the numbers. After all, it did not do to Medicare what they wanted to do.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That request was made of the President over and over and over again, and obviously a brief reading and overview of the general press will show that he did, in fact, do exactly that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The answer to that question comes from the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], and he said that he felt that the 7-year was intuitive on his part. Now, if intuitive is taken to mean generally or generically a kind of sense that this was the right time, a kind of emotional and mental guesswork, that might be the correct phrase, but I think he intuited, I would project, that this was the number of years in which the kind of accounting gymnastics that I have mentioned would allow him to say that the budget was balanced even only for the briefest of bookkeeping moments.