Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, in contrast to the last rule, I fully support this rule, and I want to explain why and explain the difference. We heard speakers on the previous rule suggest that if we voted that rule down, that somehow we in the Democratic minority would be responsible for holding up the appropriations process. I would simply make the point to my friends on the majority side of the aisle, you are in the majority, you have the votes to pass any provision you want and any rule you want on this House floor, and you have demonstrated that many times. But I would just simply say this. Do not ask us to support a rule on the companion bill that was just before us simply because you cannot get your act together on passing the basic budget in the first place. When that budget was before this House, which changed the agreement that you had reached with the President of the United States last year to establish a very different trend line for appropriations than was the case in that bipartisan budget agreement, we warned you at that time that the budget resolution that you were passing would never pass your own Republican Members in the other body, in the Senate. You ignored that warning, and now you are finding out that that is true. You are finding out that your own Republican colleagues in the Senate believe that the budget that you passed was extreme, and, in fact, the rules preclude me from naming other Senators but the Senator who is chairman of the Budget Committee in the Senate, a Republican, said as much. I would simply ask, why did we go through the charade of passing that budget in the first place if you yourselves did not intend to abide by it? That is my question today. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that what you have done in the previous rule in contrast to this one, in the previous rule what you did was bring to the floor a stealth provision which calls for the amending of the budget resolution which you passed with such fanfare just 2 weeks ago. I find that procedure quaint but not surprising, because it simply demonstrates what everyone knew but did not admit when that bill was before us, that that budget was essentially a political document to allow the majority party to pretend that it had room in the budget for a tax cut when in fact it is not able to pass the budget resolution which would make that tax cut possible. I will simply say, I will vote for the rule on this bill, because this rule does not contain that gimmick. The previous rule simply asked every member of our party and every member of yours to ignore the very rules which you imposed on this House just 10 days ago. Maybe you can explain that in your caucus. I would find it very difficult to explain in ours.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the assertion of turning down this rule will deny anything to anybody in the military is absolute, total, flat nonsense. This military construction bill is going to pass with bipartisan support. The problem is that there is added an illegitimate and, in my view, strange and sneaky way around the Kasich budget in the rule, and that is the objection. So do not drag out the red herring about endangering military. That is absolute, total, bald-face nonsense.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide the question.

Mr. OBEY. But what did it deem?

Mr. OBEY. The difference is what it deems, not whether there is a deeming provision.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make it clear, we have absolutely no criticism of the job the gentleman has done. He has simply run into an accident that started out to happen to somebody else. That is the problem here. I want to make clear that when we do get to his bill, there will be a lot of Democrats supporting his bill, including this one.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what needs to be understood is that this is not a rule on the military construction bill. This is a rule which allows this House to totally ignore the budget resolution that just passed 2 weeks ago on this and every another appropriation bill that comes to the House. That is the problem, this is not a military construction rule. This is a rule that blows away the votes that my colleagues just cast 2 weeks ago in favor of the Kasich budget, and my colleagues are trying to hide it.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make perfectly clear to the gentleman from New York, there is nothing wrong with the rule on the military construction bill. The problem is the new budget resolution that my colleagues have slipped into it which allows them to spend billions of dollars more than they told the country they were going to spend just 10 days ago. That is the problem. If the gentleman is looking for a definition of hypocrisy, I would suggest that maybe he ought to look at that.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is really an incredible process that we are going through here this morning. When the majority party took control of the House, they said they would do things differently, and they sure have. If we take a look at what has happened, this House has, or is supposed to have, an orderly budget process. We are supposed to produce a budget resolution which defines priorities and defines overall spending patterns, and then and only then are committees supposed to bring up their legislation which fits within the budget resolution which has been passed. Instead, this House, this year, under this leadership has blown that process to smithereens. First it started with the highway bill, which before the budget resolution was even considered ran that horse out of the barn. That bill wound up spending about $25 billion more than the budget allowed it to spend. Then this House passed the Kasich budget, which indicated that they were going to make substantial reductions below the budget which we agreed to last year. This chart demonstrates the difference between the Kasich budget and the budget that had been agreed to on a bipartisan basis with the White House last year. Under that bipartisan agreement last year, we are already supposed to be cutting domestic discretionary spending $43 billion below current services. Under the Kasich plan which this House passed, which that side of the aisle passed, those cuts are increased to $64 billion by the fourth year. But then, having posed for political holy pictures by saying that they are going to cut that amount in the generic, what has happened? They then bring to the floor appropriation bills which do not meet the Kasich targets, and now we are supposed to, under this rule, for instance, approve a proposal which has a $1.4 billion adjustment in this year alone to the Kasich budget. That is not the only variance from the Kasich budget that we have here today, and it certainly is not the only variation from square budgeting. Because in addition to this $1.4 billion gimmick, the committee is also bringing appropriation bills to the floor which exempt from the caps, which they just imposed, spending to solve our computer problem for the year 2000; in addition to which they brought additional spending to the floor in the defense bill which provides an additional amount of spending above the cap for computer security. In addition to that, the majority party which for years has said that the CBO should be the Bible when it comes to determining what spending levels are, they have just decided that they are going to direct the CBO to say that the defense bill costs $2.5 billion less than it actually costs. So when we total it all up, we have a $1.4 billion gimmick in this rule this morning. We had in the defense bill almost $5 billion in excess of the caps if those caps are going to be counted on a real basis; plus, we have in the Treasury Post Office appropriation bill another $2 billion in excess of where the caps are supposed to bring us in. So at this point I would simply say, it is very, very difficult to figure out what the rules are, because so far we have been proceeding under 3 different sets of rules, 3 different sets of assumptions within the past 3 weeks. I have finally figured out what the rules are for spending this year. The rules are whatever the Speaker's office says they are. So I am going to vote against this rule because I think that this is an incredible way to run a railroad. What has happened is that the Republican leadership has brought to the floor the Kasich budget resolution, which pretended to their most conservative Members within the Republican Caucus that they intended to make these deep reductions shown by this chart. They are now bringing appropriation bills to the floor which totally ignore those levels. All I can say, fellows, if this is your idea of reform, I would hate to see your idea of what the status quo is all about.

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

Mr. OBEY. The answer is there was not a year.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that this is a stealthy process. Will this budget fly in the rain? I know the B-2 will not fly in the rain. Will this budget fly in the rain?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have great reverence for this House and great respect for the office of the Speakership. It is, after all, the third highest office in the land, and despite partisan attachment, the Speaker, as the leader of the legislative branch of government, serves as a symbolic representative of every Member. The manner in which he fulfills that role reflects, like it or not, on all of us. That is why I must express great regret about the recent action of Speaker Gingrich with respect to U.S. policy in the Middle East. In my view, this represents the most reckless and destructive undermining of an American peace effort that I have ever seen. Mr. Speaker, I have been closely involved with U.S. policy toward the Middle East since 1974, when I first began my service on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations. From 1984 until 1994, I chaired that subcommittee. I think it is fair to say that during that time, every effort by any American President to pull Arabs and Israel toward peace was supported on a bipartisan basis by our subcommittee and by the Congress as a whole. When President Carter, at great political risk to himself, pressured both the Egyptian and Israeli Governments to reach an agreement at Camp David, the Congress supported his action. When President Reagan and Secretary Shultz withheld debt restructuring from Israel until its government adopted economic reforms that were a necessary precondition for bringing rampant inflation under control, the Congress supported that tough medicine in a bipartisan fashion, and that enabled us to provide some crucial help to stabilize Israel's economy. When President Bush courageously withheld loan guarantees from Israel until Israeli policy on West Bank settlements no longer conflicted with long-standing American policy, those of us in positions of responsibility supported him, and the peace process moved forward. The historic ceremony that celebrated the Oslo Accords reached between Mr. Arafat, representing the Palestinians, and Prime Minister Rabin, representing the State of Israel and hosted by President Clinton, would never have occurred if it had not been for President Bush's courage. Since that time the road to peace in the Middle East has been harmed because of foot dragging by the Syrian government, because of vicious terrorist activities by Palestinian extremists, the sometimes disingenuous actions of the Palestinian leadership and, most of all, because of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a rabid anti- peace Israeli citizen. The collapse of that peace process would have grave implications for every party in the Middle East. It also would have grave consequences for the United States, for our security, for our world influence and even for the safety of our citizens at home and abroad. Recognizing that fact after much patient hand holding with both sides, President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk and our tireless Mideast negotiator, Ambassador Dennis Ross, presented to both sides their best assessment of what interim steps needed to be taken to keep the peace process from collapsing. At that point the Speaker of this House took a number of actions, the result of which clearly undercut and undermined U.S. peace making efforts in the region and raised the risk of catastrophe. First, the Speaker described America's Secretary of State as being an agent of the Palestinians in negotiations. He then attacked President Clinton for turning America into a bully in the peace process because the President, acting as an honest broker between the parties, has courageously and frankly spelled out to both sides the best assessment by our negotiators of what minimum actions would be required to keep the Oslo process alive. The United States is not today and has never been a bully in the Middle East process. Quite the contrary. It has been an incredibly generous benefactor. The United States has provided Israel with $75 billion in direct U.S. assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees. Sixty-five billion dollars of that has been provided since 1977, and those numbers do not count various other packages of assistance that this Congress has provided through less direct and less obvious means. Under President Clinton alone Israel has received $18.7 billion in direct aid and $8 billion in loan guarantees plus a number of additional valuable items. For that kind of money the President has not just the right, but an obligation, to provide leadership toward a peace settlement especially when we have been invited by both sides to do so. Now a letter from the Speaker alleges that the administration's, quote, strong-arm tactics send a clear symbol to supporters of terrorism that the murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing concessions from Israel, end quote. In my view that kind of rhetoric completely ignores the facts and in my view is the worst kind of excess. President Clinton's record in fighting terrorism is exquisitely clear, strong and consistent, especially in the Mideast. In 1996, after a horrible series of attacks in March, President Clinton traveled to Israel and along with 20 other world leaders vowed to renew the fight against terrorism and pledged an additional $100 million to assist in that effort. To make matters worse, after the Speaker wrote his letter, he then traveled to Israel and gave Israeli leaders the clear message that in any disagreement between the Clinton administration and the Israeli government that they and not the President could count on the Congress. Mr. Speaker, the Logan Act provides as follows: Quote: Any citizen of the United States who carries on any intercourse with any foreign government with intent to influence its measure of conduct in relation to any dispute or controversies with the United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both. I will not suggest that the Speaker violated the Logan Act by imposing U.S. policy in conversations with the leaders of other governments, although he, in fact, years ago did accuse a previous Speaker, Speaker Wright, myself and a number of others of doing so. What raised Mr. Gingrich's ire at the time was a much more limited action which consisted of our simply writing a letter to the then President of Nicaragua. In the letter we indicated that even though we were publicly known to be opponents of U.S. military aid to the Contras we nonetheless urged him to support the principle of open and fair elections in his country, and when he did, by the way, he was voted out of office. No, I will not accuse the Speaker of that action although there is one clear difference between our actions and that case and the actions of the Speaker in this one. Our letter asks Mr. Ortega to do something that was fully consistent with U.S. policy, to support such elections. In contrast, Speaker Gingrich's counsel to Israel was to feel free to resist U.S. policy. When Mr. Gingrich was attacking Mr. Wright, he told the House during the course of debate, quote, it is not the business of the legislative branch to be engaged in negotiations with foreign leaders, to be talking directly with people as though they were the executive branch. The history is clear over and over that that is precisely what they, the Founding Fathers, were terrified of because of the Articles of Confederation, end quote. It should be noted that the letter that Mr. Gingrich attempted to bring into question was consistent with this Nation's foreign policy not only with respect to what it requested of Nicaragua, but also with respect to other comments which it might have contained but did not. Unlike the Speaker's present actions, our letter made no criticism of any U.S. official, diplomat or negotiator representing our Government in the region. It certainly contained no offer or indication that the Congress, acting separately from the executive, would respond with any assistance or other incentive if its separate policy conditions were met. By contrast, Mr. Gingrich is openly critical of the offers made and the positions taken by those whose responsibility it is to negotiate on behalf of the United States. He has virtually invited a foreign government not to take the deal that his own government has offered. His actions undercut the ability of the Secretary of State to pursue peace in the region. Mr. Speaker, the actions and utterances of Speaker Gingrich can produce downright dangerous results. If any of us contribute to the illusion that there can be any long term security for Israel or anyone else with interests in the region so long as there is no progress on the peace front, we invite tragedy. As Tom Friedman, the respected Pulitzer Prize winning columnist from the New York Times, said recently, quote, believe it or not, there is still a Middle East. Out there pressure is mounting to bring Iraq back into the Arab fold. Saudi Arabia is trying to organize an Arab conference. It would probably freeze Israel-Arab relations as long as the peace process is frozen. The Hamas leader, Sheik Yassin, has just completed a triumphant money-raising tour of Arab capitals as part of his goal to wipe out Yasser Arafat, and then Israel, and Jordan is terrified that Mr. Netanyahu is going to reject the U.S. plan and make it impossible for Jordan to sustain its relationship with Israel. Mr. Friedman then goes on to say, we have seen this sort of pro-Israel muscle beach party before where everyone thinks that the only reality is U.S.-Israel politics and that everyone else is a paper tiger. It was 15 years ago when on May 17, 1983, the Reagan team in Israel's Likud government crammed down the throats of the Lebanese an unbalanced, totally pro-Israel plan for the withdrawal of most, but not all, Israeli troops from Lebanon. But the May 17th agreement was never implemented. The U.S. marine compound in Beirut was blown up 5 months after it was signed, and both the marines and Israel had to pull out of central Lebanon unilaterally at great cost and leaving an enormous mess. Now, Mr. Speaker, both the Arab world and Israel have lost great leaders, have literally given their lives for peace. I remember talking to President Sadat in Egypt shortly after Camp David. In a long conversation I asked him if he thought that the new agreement at Camp David represented a separate peace between Israel and Egypt or whether it would be the first step in a comprehensive peace process that would address the Palestinian problem. I do not know, he replied, but if it is not the latter, I will be dead within 5 years. And he was. The last time I saw Yitzhak Rabin, whom I had grown to love and respect over 20 years, he asked me two things. The first was to do my best to keep Congress from interjecting itself into relations between the executive branches of our two governments. He felt strongly, going back to the time of his negotiations with President Nixon, that negotiations should be between the two executives. The second was to prevent well meaning but misguided friends of Israel in the Congress from taking actions that would prevent the U.S. Government from dealing directly with the PLO. ``If you cannot deal with them,'' he said, ``you lose your unique position as the only party in the world who can serve as an honest broker in our neighborhood, and if you cannot deal with the PLO, then there is only Hamas, the extremist militant rejectionists, and that would be disaster.'' Shortly thereafter the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on International Relations, was exploring opportunities to obtain a unanimous consent agreement on the House floor to bring up legislation that would have renewed the authority for the U.S. Government to deal with the PLO. It was made clear by a junior Member on the Republican side of the aisle that an objection would be lodged if that request were offered. At that point I approached Mr. Gingrich on the House floor, and I said, ``Newt, please. You can't let this happen. It will make it harder for Rabin to move the peace process forward.'' He looked at me and said, ``Dave, you have to understand. I am Likud.'' Shortly thereafter Rabin was assassinated. After that, the objections disappeared, and the legislation was passed, and some of the same politicians who on this floor blocked action before Rabin died scrambled to then climb on board after he died, and their action brought to mind, at least to me, Will Rogers' observation that nothing is quite as pitiful as the sight of a flock of politicians in full flight from their own responsibility. Mr. Speaker, there are human lives on the line. Our taxpayers have invested countless billions and a major portion of our total storehouse of foreign-policy resources, military, economic, diplomatic toward the goal of preventing future wars in this region and alleviating the tensions that result on an almost weekly basis in deaths from terrorism and organized military action. At this particular moment that investment is seriously at risk. The last thing the United States needs is a loose cannon rummaging around the Middle East making an uncoordinated and unauthorized representation of U.S. policy or legislative policy. Mr. Gingrich on this issue does not speak for the U.S. Government, he does not speak for the State Department, he does not speak for the United States Senate, and he does not speak for this House. He is certainly entitled to voice his views on foreign policy publicly, even if they are contrary to the policy of the U.S. Government. The Constitution gives every American, including Members of Congress, the right to be wrong. It even gives them the right to make fools of themselves. However, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of this House is not entitled to act unilaterally as an independent emissary representing his own personal foreign policy; he is not entitled to act like the Secretary of State in waiting. I would like to continue to believe that he is not putting domestic politics above the national interest. Mr. Speaker, as Pat Holt, writing for the Christian Science Monitor wrote last week, quote, ``One of the so far unsurmountable difficulties is that neither most Jews nor most Palestinians are willing to admit that the other side has always suffered legitimate grievances. If either group could see their dispute through the eyes of each other, the peace process would take a giant leap forward.'' Instead, in my view, the Speaker's actions are likely to make that leap more difficult. Mr. Speaker, U.S. Presidents have consistently exerted pressure on Israel as a friend and ally in the context of obtaining diplomatic solutions to complex problems. In 1973 under President Nixon, the United States threatened to reassess Israeli relations in order to secure withdrawals in the 1973 war. President Carter exercised his influence over Menachem Begin at Camp David to grant concessions on giving the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt. He also exercised his influence over Anwar Sadat to not insist on concessions beyond Camp David to the Palestinians. Both of those actions were necessary to move the process forward. President Bush took a courageous stand in 1991 to withhold support for U.S. loan guarantees to Israel until understandings on Israeli settlements were reached. These were all tough actions taken by U.S. leaders to help a friend, and Israel is a friend, while at the same time protecting U.S. national interests. What the Speaker has done, in my view, is to make it more difficult for Israel to make tough decisions that it needs to think through and make for their own long-term interests. That is no doubt why the column written about this episode by Thomas Friedman in The New York Times was headlined, ``Brainless in Gaza.'' It is also probably why Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote, quote, ``Whatever the case, the Speaker is playing with fire. Netanyahu is a notoriously unpredictable fellow who vacillates between accommodating the Palestinians and rebuffing them. He has an inflated view of his standing in Congress. (The Israeli press quoted him as vowing to 'burn down Washington' if Clinton publicly blamed him for scuttling the peace process), which Gingrich has done precious little to correct. His political allies are some of the most reactionary and fanatical elements in Israeli society, zealots who want land more than peace. They know what God intends. Others, though, are less sure. In fact, a good many Israelis think there will be no security until Israel and the Palestinians reach an agreement about land. Gingrich has now complicated that process, encouraging Netanyahu in his intransigence and Arab radicals in their bitterness.'' Mr. Speaker, I would add parenthetically, it also makes it easier for cynical Palestinian rejectionists to undercut any willingness displayed by the PLO leadership to live up to their promises. Richard Cohen then concluded his column as follows: Quote, ``If the Nobel Committee gives a booby prize for peace, this year's winner is a foregone conclusion. Newt, take a bow.'' Mr. Speaker, the world's Jews and Israelis in particular have paid a terrible price for the world's intermittent fits of insanity. Israel would not have been created without the actions of the United States 50 years ago in trying to create a place that would be a sanctuary for that insanity. Because we helped create the State of Israel, we have a special obligation to stand by it and to assure its survival. But with that obligation comes a concurrent obligation to be frank and truthful with them and the world about what steps we believe are necessary to change the Middle East into a neighborhood that is safer for Israel's survival. For any American President to be silent in the face of Israeli indecision or miscalculation would be the ultimate failure of friendship. The President and our negotiators, who long ago have demonstrated their concern for Israel's future, have courageously recognized that. Now, ultimately, the hard decisions that need to be made are Israeli and Palestinian decisions. The President and our negotiators have long ago demonstrated that they understand that too. Let them make those decisions in honest dialogue in partnership with the steady and knowledgeable American hands who have worked with them under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Let them not be misled by new-to- the-scene kibitzers in Congress who, despite their bravado, do not really know the territory or the sensitivities and cross-currents and intricacies that shape it. It may be popular for individual Members of Congress to issue pronouncements that tell our friends at home and abroad what they want to hear, but that is not what dangerous situations require. They require thoughtful, measured and judicious cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government. That, unfortunately, has not been forthcoming from this congressional leadership on this issue. It is about time that it is.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget claims to cut $100 billion below last year, and this amendment would add $50 billion to it. Yet I have in my hand a sheet of requests from Members to the Committee on Appropriations asking us to add 7,000 items totaling $353 billion above the President's request. In energy and water, for instance, there are at least 120 Members of the Republican Caucus who have written us asking us for spending above the President's request. In transportation, at least 40 Members on that side of the aisle are asking us to spend money above the President's request. Yet in the generic, they pretend they are going to cut $100 billion here today. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. Is that kind of hypocrisy learned, or does it come naturally?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, last year, the Congress passed a proposal that was meant to take care of the health insurance needs of poor children. This year, the Congress is looking at ways to reform managed care so that the 85% of Americans in HMOs can be guaranteed quality health care based on need and not on profit margins. These are important steps but we need to, and we can go further. Good health is one of God's greatest blessings. Those of us who have it have an obligation to see that every American who doesn't can walk into a hospital or a doctor's office and get the health care they need without begging. Over forty-one million Americans are without health insurance, and that number is rising by about one million every year. Many more have insurance today but are afraid of losing it. There is no reason why we cannot figure out a way to assure that every American has and will be able to keep affordable health insurance coverage. That's why Congressman Bob Matsui of California and I are sponsoring the American Health Security Partnership Act which is based on the premise that if revenue is raised from tobacco companies, it ought to be used to help see to it that every person has secure health insurance. This legislation creates a cooperative cost sharing partnership between the federal government, state governments, employers and individuals. With each sharing in the cost and bearing a reasonable load, we can finally end the gap in health insurance coverage and put a stop to the cost shifting games that go on when the cost of providing care to the uninsured is shifted to those who do have insurance. In the best Wisconsin LaFollette Progressive Tradition we would use the states as laboratories of democracy to help find alternative health care reform models that work. States will have maximum flexibility to make choices on what devices to use, what systems to implement, and how best to use the federal funds for their citizens. But, the main federal requirement is that everyone in the state will have access to health insurance that is at least as good as what is available to Members of Congress under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). Employers need to play a role too. That's why this legislation requires large employers to provide health insurance coverage for their workers and it provides funds that States can use to help small businesses expand health care coverage for their employees even though small business is not required to do so by this bill. But this is not a something for nothing approach. Individuals have a responsibility to get health insurance and to the extent possible, pay for some of the cost of that insurance. Cost shifting contributes greatly to the rising costs of health care and the only means of putting an end to it is to ensure that every individual has health insurance coverage. Many American families feel threatened by health care costs and many others are afraid of losing the health insurance coverage they have. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the health care security of every American family. We do that by creating a 4 legged stool comprised of the federal government, the State government, employers and individuals. If there is going to be a tobacco settlement of any kind, the most logical use of that settlement is to make sure the average American family has health care coverage when they need it. Here are some of the elements of the plan. It establishes a federal and state partnership in which states have the flexibility to decide how everyone in the state is covered by health insurance. The rules would be set by the states and not the federal government. The only federal requirement is that health insurance coverage must be at least as good as what is currently available for Members of Congress and other federal employees under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Farmers and people who are self-employed will be able to deduct 100% of their health insurance costs. Workers who do not have employer subsidized health insurance will also be able to deduct 100% of their health insurance costs. Businesses with 100 or more employees will be required to offer health care coverage to employees and their families. It is paid for in two ways. A portion of the tobacco settlement would be used to establish a cost sharing agreement with the federal government and the states. That amount would be supplemented by a 1% increase on corporations with over $10 million in taxable income. Out of the one million corporations in the country, fewer than 3,000 pay income taxes at the top rate and would be affected by this increase. That cost is a small price to pay to meet the moral responsibility that any ethical society has to ensure that all Americans receive the health care they need simply because they are God's creatures.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to hand it to some of our friends on the other side of the aisle. They are really something. They give their poll-driven speeches, they bring cliches and mantras to the floor. Regardless of subject or regardless of content, they utter them with the alacrity that we expect from political slogans in a campaign season. Their campaign slogans are what passes for thought at 11 o'clock at night in this place, I guess. Then they produce budgets which have virtually nothing whatsoever to do with the rhetoric that they have just expounded. They pretend they are bringing a 1 percent cut in the budget in discretionary spending to this floor, when in fact, in real dollar terms over the life of this budget resolution we are talking about at least a 18 percent across-the-board cut, and by the time we apply it only to the programs that they expect to cut, we are, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has told us, really talking about at least a 30 percent cut. So get off this 1 percent baloney. That is exactly what it is, it is baloney. It is a packaging gimmick that has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens to real, live people under the budget. I would also suggest that, again, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is absolutely right when he lays out that this budget has a double cut on veterans. It doubles the reduction in veterans' health care benefits that were mandated in the highway bill. For anyone to pretend otherwise in my view is to give hypocrisy a bad name. I would simply say, there is a very good reason why the Republican leaders in the Senate have already labeled this budget unworkable and extreme. That is because it is. If it were not, we would have the Republicans in the Senate rushing to endorse it, rather than running away from it in their acute embarrassment. Everyone knows that this is not a program designed to get through the Congress, it is designed to get the Republican Party through the night. They want to vote on this package. At least they want to debate it at 11 o'clock at night when nobody is watching, because they are so embarrassed by it they would not bring it to us in the light of day. That is because the numbers do not work. The numbers clobber real, live Americans. This is not a 1 percent solution, this is a 35 percent hatchet job, so they can have a campaign slogan that once again involves their mantra of pretend that what they suggest is they are going to cut spending. But if we look at the Kasich budget, it does not cut anything this year. It saves all of the cuts until after the election, so they can package a tax cut before the election. That, too, is enough to give hypocrisy a bad name.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to simply note that on the last three votes in some buildings on Capitol Hill the bells are simply not working, and so a number of us have apparently missed three votes in a row because the bells were malfunctioning. I just wanted the Record to show that.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am, Mr. Speaker.