Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do so to make a couple of points. One is that it is less then clear, I think, to the American public when we say the budget becoming in balance as to what we mean in respect to the national debt that has accumulated. We keep referring to a balanced budget as if just the removal of the deficit would in fact bring the budget into balance. But the real purpose of my remarks at this moment is to speak to the amendment before us. This amendment, seemingly, would restrict any line-item veto limited to items of $25 million, to no more than $25 million. It would seem to me that with some creative budgeting you could make a number of budgets, programs not presently in the defense budget part of the defense budget, and therefore protect them from the line-item veto. If the majority is trying to legitimately pass a line-item veto, they would not want to create this kind of creativity in the budget process. Even though I do not degree with the notion of line-item veto, I have talked about my experience with it in Pennsylvania where it has been abused. But if the purpose is a pure one and a sincere one, it would seem to me this amendment would be rejected.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe that even though it may not appear it is the case, that this is indeed a defining moment for the new majority here in this House. The Contract With America is on the best sellers' list. People are reading it all across the land. The words, as inartful as they have been deemed to be, are fairly clear. That is, that it has been asserted and promised and contracted with that there would be a line-item veto that would allow the President of the United States the opportunity to correct the Tax Code and to do away with special provisions that allow the rich and powerful in this country to get away with not paying their fair share. Now we have arrived at the moment of decision and we hear this notion about the problem with this language. David Brinkley, whom many of us watch on Sunday morning, once said, ``I was told that campaigning time is promising time and after that is alibi time.'' We have a majority who has read the contract every morning on the floor, at least some of their leadership carry it around in their vest pocket, and that they are determined under all circumstances to implement this contract. However, when it comes to the point of addressing what is the most outrageous example of improper action by this House, that they are unwilling to step up to the plate and live up to their commitments. When it comes to taking away a few dollars from a promising kid who is trying to go to college, they are all willing to stand up for that or to attack the few measly dollars that are provided to a single parent on welfare, or to go after affordable housing programs or to attack mass transit funding, they are all eager to march in a straight line towards that goal. But now when in face of the multi-national corporations and billionaires in our country who have somehow ripped off the American taxpayer by their lobbyists making room in the tax code to benefit them, they are unwilling to turn over to the President an opportunity to veto these types of unfortunate loopholes. Let me just conclude by saying that what we have now is a loophole in the contract. Loose language that has now been added to H.R. 2 makes the entire commitment that has been made by the new majority to be called into question. I would just suggest, not to the majority because I know they will not change their position, but to the American people, that they look very, very carefully at the votes on this amendment and that they understand that the contract that was promoted as a Contract With America really was a contract that the hands were shook on later on that night in a roomful of lobbyists who were fund raisers at a fund raiser that was a part of that campaign.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, under the bill, the President says we can reduce funds appropriated for a particular House committee, perhaps in response to an oversight investigation by that committee. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill and give up control of the details of our own budget to the President and a minority of the Senate, it is unlikely we will ever be able to reclaim it. Mr. Chairman, I include, for the Record, a table showing the increase in debt for each State between 1984 and 1992. The material referred to follows:

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we may differ on whether the line-item veto will reduce Federal spending. For example, Pennsylvania has a line-item veto. Its total debt has tripled since 1982, growing from $6.2 billion in 1982 to $16.5 billion in 1994. For all of the States, total debt has doubled in just 8 years, growing from $186 billion in 1984 to $372 billion in 1992. At a hearing last month on this bill, Mr. Chairman, the director of the Congressional Budget Office testified: ``Evidence from the States suggest that the item veto has not been used to hold down State spending or deficits, but rather has been used to State Governors to pursue their own priorities.'' Mr. Chairman, I had the honor of serving in the Pennsylvania Legislature prior to being elected to the Congress. The experience from Pennsylvania demonstrates how the executive branch can use this power. In the 1983-84 fiscal year, the Pennsylvania Legislature initially refused to adopt the budget submitted by the Governor, including his proposals to increase taxes. The Governor responded by cutting from the State Senate 62 percent of the Senate's budget, including Senators' salaries and expenses, and by completely eliminating salary and mileage expenses for Members of the State House. This episode has affected all subsequent negotiations between the legislature and the Governor, not just on budget and taxes but on nonspending bills. While the President may know the most efficient way to run the executive branch, he does not know the most efficient way to run the Congress. Indeed, a future President may want to make Congress less effective in its oversight of the executive branch. The appropriations bill for the Congress provides funds so that the Congress can hire staff, such as the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office, to do its job, even though frequently their jobs involve presenting conclusions that the President dislikes. This function is different from what the report of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight says it is seeking to eliminate in H.R. 2, which is called ``log roll, pork barrel projects.'' The appropriations bill for Congress is also more detailed than the appropriations bills for the executive branch agencies. The committee's report says ``We do not itemize appropriation bills and see no reason to do so. For the most part, Congress provides large lump sum accounts for agencies,'' but the appropriations bills for the legislative branch are very detailed.

Mr. FATTAH. I know that the gentleman is sincere, but I wanted to ask one question. What would prevent a group of projects that some might call pork being put together to get over the 200 million mark? There was some creative budgeting done back home where I come from, and I am just trying to understand how would the gentleman guard against that in this particular amendment.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the intent of the majority was that we would have no strengthening or weakening amendments to this bill. The other Chamber has acted on this matter, and this amendment would seemingly fly in the face of reaching some appropriate compromise on this matter, because it actually moves in the opposite direction. So I would hope that even though it has been indicated that there is support, that there would be some consistency as we move through this process.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his explanation. Mr. Chairman, in consideration of what has been offered as an explanation, I would reiterate that it would seem to me that it would be appropriate for us to provide in this section absolute guarantees of private sector input and private citizen input. However, so that we would not delay the process and in consideration of the vote on the previous amendment which was similar to mine, I at this point would withdraw my amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to protect my right to offer an amendment, amendment No. 14. I understand a similar amendment has already been considered today, and I was not on the floor at that time. But I do, nonetheless, want to raise the issue. Mr. Chairman, on page 17 of this bill it provides that each agency shall develop an effective process to permit elected officials or their designated representatives of State, local, or tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals. The amendment that I had considered offering today and, therefore, had printed in the Record, was an amendment that would also provide for private sector input and not just the input of elected officials. I thought the thrust of what I had been hearing here on the Hill was that we wanted to give the government back to the people, and that perhaps we wanted to have input from individuals, private individuals, not just elected officials. Having understood a previous amendment which was very similar to mine was not passed, I would be willing to not belabor the point if I could get a point of view as to why this type of amendment would not be found acceptable by the majority.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, today I continue my endeavor to refresh and remind my Democratic colleagues of the excellent legislative record we have created over the past 40 years. Last week, I began this series of floor speeches with the 84th Congress. Ike was President and the Democrats had just taken control of the House of Representatives. The 84th Congress raised the minimum wage, ratified the Southeast Atlantic Treaty Organization, established peace with Austria, and freed Germany from allied occupation. The Democrat Party did this and more. Today, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are often chastised as the party of intrusive government and personal dependency. Today, I will cite examples from 85th Congress and provide historical evidence that counters these misconceptions. Between 1957 and 1958, our country was rebounding from fighting World War Two and the war in Korea. The United States was able to do this while engaged in the cold war with our Communist adversaries. Also during Congress joined the civil rights battle. The 85th Congress confidently and effectively addressed these pivotal national issues. The threat from the Soviet Union was crystallized in 1957 when the U.S.S.R. launched the Sputnik satellite. To address this menace from the sky, the Democratically controlled Congress established the National Aeronautic and Space Administration to direct the Nation's outer space program. In 1958, Mr. Speaker, this Congress passed the National Defense Education Act. This act is probably the most important human investment program undertaken in our Nation's history. Because without it, millions of Americans would not have been able to go to college. In addition, this act improved the teaching of science, mathematics, and foreign languages to our children. It provided an educational foundation which enabled the United States to put the first man on the Moon in 1969. However, the accomplishments of this Congress were not restricted to the heavens. The 85th Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. This act created the Commission on Civil Rights and a new Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, laying the foundation of the Federal involvement in protecting civil liberties and individual civil rights. Building on the 84th Congress' passage of the Interstate Superhighway Program, the 85th Congress, passed both the Federal Highway Act and the National Transportation Act. These two acts expanded road building programs and provided loans to the Nation's failing railroads. Both of these actions created opportunities for American businesses to expand and compete both here and abroad. The Democratic party has always believed in investment--investment in human capital and in physical and financial infrastructure. Over these 40 years the Democratic Party has demonstrated a strong commitment to providing the necessary resources to educate children, to defend constitutional rights and to expand our national transportation systems. The return on these investments are clear and indisputable. Investments made 40 years ago continue to yield results today. As a party we should not be fearful of committing these necessary resources and redirecting our efforts into helping every citizen of this country. As we enter the 21st century, this commitment to human investment will ensure that every American is equipped to reap the benefits of national prosperity. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples from the 85th session of the U.S. Congress. Promoting our country, preserving our national interests and protecting individual rights have always been part of the Democratic Party's legacy. As a Member of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge my colleagues to regularly remind themselves of the fundamental commitments that make us Democrats. We must allow these commitments to guide us in our actions. I urge my colleagues to examine the historical records, to see what our party has achieved and to allow this vision to carry us into the future.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I thought that the motion that was handled in the House yesterday that the Chair referred to had to do with the carrying on in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I am a duly elected Member of this House, and I am a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which is ably chaired by a fellow Pennsylvanian, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. We have been in a markup for a good part of today on a line-item veto, a very serious legislative matter to come before the House. We just recessed so that we could come to the floor in response to the bells ringing. I would like to know whether there is some opportunity or protection in the rules that would allow Members like myself to be here for the debate on the floor on what is an important matter and hear the debate so that we are casting votes that are informed votes rather than to be handling one matter of business someplace else and then rushed to the floor. I think this is a matter than should be of concern to Members on both sides of the aisle. I admit that I am new. I come from the Pennsylvania Senate, but this is at least, in my perception, no way to run a railroad.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thought that was in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair. I hope that the House will consider my comments.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, are we in the Committee of the Whole?

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. I am trying to understand the distinction between a concurrent resolution as it is presently before the House.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the legal effect of the resolution in front of us. Is it binding?

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

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. speaker, I am interested to hear that, from the point of view of some, the past 40 years of Democratic leadership in the Congress has been disastrous. The Democrats have squandered public resources, destroyed national institutions, and in general presided over the complete destruction of that ideal called the American Way of Life. As I look back on those 40 years, a very different picture unfolds for me as the legacy of the Democratic Party. And since nothing is so liberating or enlightening as a simple statement of the truth, it would be useful for this body in general, and for my Democratic colleagues in particular, to review the historical reality, and from time to time, to remind ourselves what it has meant, and what it still means today, to be the Party of the people. Let us start with 1955, Mr. Speaker--exactly 40 years ago. That was the 84th Congress, and even then Democrats were pursuing peace among nations, while building the physical, economic, and social infrastructure which this great nation requires to support the lives of its people. Most significant among all the actions taken during the 84th Congress was the increase in the minimum wage from 75 cents to $1 per hour. It is important to mark that point in history--that in the very beginning of this much maligned 40 year period, the Democratically-controlled Congress took action to improve the lot of the broadest possible base of our society. This was not an action which benefited only a few of the wealthiest individuals--like a capital gains tax. This was an action which benefited the entire Nation, because it lifted the boats stuck at the bottom and set a new and higher minimum standard of living for all Americans. Far from destroying the American way of life, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have defined the American way of life and brought it within reach of us all. To normalize relationships with potential international partners, working with the President, the 84th Congress ratified the Southeast Atlantic Treaty Organization, established peace with Austria, and liberated Germany from Allied occupation. To secure the nation, they established the national reserves. In order to stimulate economic development, they built four major dams which provided electricity to the upper Colorado River region. In order to stimulate economic development, they built four major dams which provided provided electricity to the upper Colorado River region. To stabilize the agriculture industry, they established the soil bank program which insulated farmers from fluctuations in farm prices. To connect this vast Nation from sea to shining sea, the Democratic 84th Congress initiated a 41,000-mile interstate superhighway program, and established the user-fee-financed highway trust fund to help pay for it. To protect the quality of our environment for future generations, they passed and funded the Water Pollution Control Act of 1956. A simple assertion of the truth, Mr. Speaker. I cannot imagine a more auspicious marker for our proud Democratic legacy than that provided by the 84th Congress. A self-governing people cooperatively managing their society, meeting their immediate needs, and providing for their future through the processes of government. From this podium during the coming year, I will demonstrate by such simple statements of the unvarnished truth, that the American way is the way of the Democratic Party. Democrats have served this Nation well. We must claim and proclaim and embrace it as our mission to carry this great, but not yet perfect Nation forward as one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. FATTAH

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I do think it is important that we not be opposed to the tyrant but that we be opposed to the tyranny and that if we want to look at this issue that we have, we do it in a broad brush. I thank the gentleman for his cooperation.

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