Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I very badly wanted to vote for this budget deal. I had expected I would be able to because I thought that the White House would hold out long enough to have a package that would truly be fair to average working Americans, and I am sorry that they did not do that. I support three-quarters of this deal. I support the child tax credit. I was one of the original four sponsors of that proposal with Vice President Gore when he was then in the U.S. Senate. I am a sponsor of the education tax breaks because I believe in them deeply. I support the children's health care package. There is much that is going to be good in this deal. But there are certain standards that must be met when we are talking about distributing almost $600 billion of the people's money. First of all, most of that relief should go to middle-income working families, not the economic elite of this country. Second, this bill should be used to close rather than widen the gap in income between the wealthiest 2 percent of the people in this society and everybody else. Third, this should prevent the unraveling of Medicare and, last, it should not cripple the long-term investments necessary for our country to grow in the future. These bills fail those tests. The most well off 5 percent of people in the country, as demonstrated by this chart, the most well off 5 percent of the people in this country, those who make $112,000 a year or more will gain six times as much tax relief in these bills as the 60 percent of the American people, well over a majority, who make less than $37,000 a year. That is not fair. The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this society who make more than $250,000 a year will get a $16,000 tax cut under this proposal. But if you make under $19,000 a year, on average you will have a tax increase. That is not fair. This package is also based on the assumptions, as have been indicated in the past, that we will cut the Social Security administration by 25 percent over the next 5 years. We already have a 3-month backlog now in handling Social Security cases. Do we really believe Congress is going to vote for a package that will extend that waiting period for a year? We are told that we are supposed to cut health care by 16 percent over the next 5 years. The bill which will come to the floor later today for this year is going to raise National Institutes of Health spending by 6 percent. Are we really going to vote to raise it this year and then to cut it by 16 percent in future years? Come on. I cannot believe this House would be that dishonest. Are we really going to vote to cut veterans benefits by 19 percent over the next 5 years? I cannot believe we would be that ungrateful. Are we really going to vote to cut community development programs by 30 percent? Seventy percent of the funding to the community development block grant program or to FEMA for emergencies? We just raised the budget for FEMA. Are we really going to cut it 30 percent? Come on. Get real. Are we really going to cut agriculture programs 23 percent over the next 5 years? Not if you come from agricultural districts, I will bet my colleagues. But those are the promises upon which this deficit reduction package is based. Those are false promises. I do not believe a majority of Members of either party will vote for those kinds of reductions when the time comes. That means the reality of this package in terms of the deficit is that we will be causing upward pressure, not downward pressure on the Federal deficit. I am sorry about this today. I am sorry that we do not even have the chance to further examine this package. It is a national disgrace to make decisions over the future content of the Tax Code, to make decisions which will determine for 5 years or more what happens to people's pocketbooks, what happens to their education, what happens to their veterans benefits, it is unconscionable that that is going to be made without having at least 5 hours to review what is in this package. Who knows what other special gimmicks are wrapped into this package. Vote against this rule. Vote against these bills tomorrow. You do not know what is in them and you will come to regret what is hidden from the public in all of these packages.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to vote for this bill, as I indicated earlier. There is much in it that I would like to support. I was one of the original sponsors of the child tax credit, for instance, with Vice President Gore some 5 years ago. I certainly supported the education tax credits. I support what we are trying to do for health care for kids. But there are a number of fundamental tests which this bill fails. The most important test to me is whether or not it provides most of the tax relief to middle-income families. The fact is it does not. As this chart will show, the wealthiest 5 percent of people in this country, those who make over $112,000 a year, will get six times as much tax relief as the 60 percent of all Americans who make less than $36,000 a year. I do not describe that as being fair. In fact, the wealthiest 1 percent, who make more than $250,000 a year, will get more in tax relief than the 80 percent of American people who make less than $60,000. That is simply not fair. Secondly, if we take a look at what happens with the wealthiest 1 percent, the wealthiest 1 percent will get $16,000 on average for a tax cut. The poorest 20 percent who make on average $8,000 will actually have a tax increase of $39. That does not shrink the gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country. It makes it worse. I do not think this Congress should do that. I think it can do better. Third, I do not think that we ought to fail the test of whether or not this package provides the needed investments that we need to make the economy grow over the next 10 or 15 years. The fact is, when Members of this House say that this is going to balance the budget, that promise is built upon the promise that we are going to cut Social Security Administration by some 25 percent. Does anybody really believe that we are going to extend the waiting time for getting the Social Security check from 3 months to a year? Is this Congress really going to do that? This chart will demonstrate that it is built on the promise that we are going to cut health appropriations by 16 percent over the next 5 years. The bill which is scheduled to come to the floor next will raise the spending for the National Institutes of Health by 6 percent. Yet this Congress is going to pretend that we are going to cut that spending by 16 percent over the next 5 years. I do not think this Congress will and I do not think the American people would want us to. Are we really going to cut veterans? Are we really going to cut veterans health care by 20 percent over the next 5 years? Just last week this House voted to restore money to the veterans health care budget. Are we really going to tell people we are going to balance the budget by cutting veterans health care 20 percent? Come on. We ought to know better than that. Are we really going to see a Congress cut agriculture programs by another 23 percent? Agriculture programs have already been cut more than any other part of the budget. I would like to see the Members from rural districts who vote for this budget today, who are going to vote to cut agriculture budgets by 23 percent over the next 5 years. It simply is not going to happen. Last week on the House floor this House refused to cut the science budget by 3 percent, and yet it is promising in the budget before us today that we are going to cut science by 18 percent over the next 5 years. Who is kidding whom? Do Members really believe these are anything but false promises? I do not. I have seen this Congress since 1982 break its promises on deficit reduction. I do not want to see them break more. That is what we will be doing if we vote for this bill. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that we are being asked to spend about $300 billion. And it seems to me that this is not out of line to spend approximately half an hour listening to the arguments against the expenditure of the item under review on this amendment. I would simply say that I know that the manager of this bill would like to see the House finish this bill with very little debate, but the fact is this is an appropriation bill, the Congress is exercising the power of the purse. We may make one decision on an authorization bill when real dollars are not in hand, but when we are on an appropriation bill, this is when we actually get to see what the trade offs are. It seems to me that it is not too much to expect. I mean, as far as I know, there are only about four speakers against this. They are going to win the amendment. But it seems to me that we have a right to have a reasonable amount of time to make the arguments against it. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is only the ranking member on the authorizing committee. He only knows more about this than probably anyone else on the floor. And given the fact that we have spent hours and hours on the legislative appropriations bill and other appropriation bills, I see no harm in spending less time on this bill in the end than we would have spent on virtually every other appropriations bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment and say that I recognize that there are some countries I would not mind providing sophisticated weapons to, but I think we need a policy ahead of time before we build these systems so that we know exactly who is going to get them and that we are assured that they are going to be provided on as limited a basis as possible around the world.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this country is going to spend $85 billion to build a new generation of fighter aircraft, the F-22, and we are told that the reason we must do that is because we have sold so many of our F- 16's around the world, and so many of our F-15's, that we now have to stay ahead of the capability of other countries. So we are told that in order to do that we have to make this large expenditure. Mr. Chairman, all this amendment says is that if we are going to go ahead and spend that $85 billion, that we ought not to make the same mistake we made in the past. That is why this amendment says that no F- 22's can be sold abroad. The reason I am urging that we adopt this amendment is that the contractor, Lockheed, has already been quoted several times saying that they fully plan to market the F-22 abroad, and the Air Force is also indicating they are looking at foreign sales as a means of reducing the overall cost of the program. Everything that we know about this plane tells us it is going to be a technological marvel. I would like to know why on Earth we would even consider selling this plane abroad if the purpose of building it in the first place is to react to the fact that we have sold abroad so many sophisticated fighters in the past that we now have to build this new plane in order to stay ahead of the people we have sold it to. Very simply, all I am saying is that we have to make a choice. We either stand up for America's interest and support this amendment, or stand up for the contractor's interest and oppose it, because this is an argument between those of us who believe that if we are going to spend $85 billion, we ought to keep that technology at home, versus those who say, ``Well, sorry, but we have not learned a thing from the last round. So even though we are being told we have to build this plane because we have sold so many sophisticated aircraft around the world, we are willing to ignore past history and do it all over again.'' So I think the purpose of the amendment is self-evident. I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine any reason for turning down this amendment except that the contractor wants to sell these planes abroad, and has therefore convinced people that we ought to make the same mistake over again. Anybody who is paid what we are is being paid enough to avoid a stupid mistake like that. I would urge support for the amendment.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply take this minute to say that I agree with one point the gentleman has just made. I think it is a mistake for us to stretch out the purchase time for every large weapon system that we buy because it does raise the per unit cost. But if we agree with that, then we have to face up to the choice that we have to cut out one or more of these weapon systems. And that is why, it seems to me, that the Congress is making a grave mistake if we do not eliminate one of the three tac air systems which the Pentagon is supposed to buy under this bill.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, in response to the last comment, keep in mind this is a weapon which is a cold war weapon. It was designed originally to drop nuclear weapons upon the enemy. There is a substantial question about whether or not, when it is converted to conventional use and you have to use it on repeated missions, whether or not the stealth capability of this weapon can be retained under those kinds of battle conditions. I think people need to remember that. Second, let me simply summarize, this weapon is not being driven on the merits, in my view, it is contractor-driven. We have had a lot of comments about the necessity to make the right decision militarily for the country. Does anybody on this floor believe that the existing Secretary of Defense, an honorable Republican from the Senate, does anyone believe that he is not going to try to make the decisions which he believes will save the most American lives and meet the greatest defense needs of the United States? I do not know of anybody who believes that about him. I simply want to read what his own summary said on this weapon: ``First, the B-2 would not provide the full range of warfighting and shaping capabilities offered by the forces it would replace''. It then goes on to say, ``For example, missions such as air superiority, reconnaissance, and forward presence would suffer. Second, the additional B-2s did not provide the same weapons delivery capacity per day as the forces that would have to be retired to pay for the B-2s.'' It then concludes by saying, ``* * * existing forces would have to be retired immediately to pay for the additional B-2s. Even then, the savings from retiring the forces are not enough to offset the large up- front investment for the B-2s * * * and there would be a loss in warfighting capability during the decade or more between when the outgoing forces were retired and all the B-2s were delivered.'' I think that is pretty clear. What we are simply asking Members to do is to save the $331 million in this bill for nine planes which the Pentagon does not want because it wants other greater defense capability. By doing that, we avoid making a down payment on a $27 billion expenditure that we cannot afford and instead we use that $331 million, we use two-thirds of it to cut the deficit. We use 12 million of it to increase breast cancer research in the Pentagon medical operation, and we use $105 million of it to strengthen the tanker capability of our Armed Forces which, as everyone knows, needs upgrading. That is what we do with the money. This amendment strengthens, not weakens, the defense of the country. It follows the recommendations of the Pentagon itself. It helps avoid a veto, which the Pentagon has indicated they will recommend if this amendment does not pass. If Members are interested in the best possible defense for the country and the best use of taxpayer dollars at the same time, they will vote for this amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not argue with that, but unless we are willing to cut the number of systems we buy, then the only choice we have is to pursue what the gentleman is pursuing.

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield, I know of only one other speaker on our side of the aisle.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and let me explain why. I do not think there are many Members of this House who are more greatly respected than the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. I think he is respected both as a legislator and for his past service to this country in his military capacity, and because he is a genuinely nice person to know. But I want to say, nonetheless, that I think on the merits this amendment has the better of the argument. I make that statement for this reason. The Pentagon is going to be buying three new tactical aircraft. One of them is the F-22. We are supposed to purchase them to replace the F-15. The F-15 is probably the finest fighter the United States has ever known. We have over 700 of them. The problem with this is that the cost of the F-22 has apparently been escalating by about 20 percent, if we take a look at the latest information, and that means it is going to cost about $85 billion to buy 438 of these babies. Now, the Congress hires the GAO, the General Accounting Office, to try to give us the best possible advice about how we ought to spend our money to get the biggest bang for it. And what they indicate is that the F-15, which is the plane that the F-22 is designed to replace, will last us at least until the year 2015. They indicate, therefore, that they believe the purchase of the F-22, which is in this bill, is at least 7 years premature. They think there will be at least a 7-year overlap between the use of the F-22 and the F-15. So they, therefore, suggest that we slow down the purchase of the F-22's so that we do not run up the cost of this program any more than is necessary. I think that is the correct thing to do. I would also point out that people say, ``Well, we have a huge threat that we have to respond to.'' They do not point out that many of the countries that possess the planes that we are worried about are countries such as France, which the last time I looked was our ally. They do not point out that the Rand Corp. says this about the threat to the United States: ``The air power forces of the former Soviet Union are fragmented and their recovery would take many years. The air fleets fielded by other potential adversaries are small and aging.'' Another Rand study concludes that China will retire about half of its fighters and tac aircraft within the next 10 years and that they cannot afford to replace them. And if we ask the Defense Department, they will tell us that they believe that there will be few purchases of high performance fighter aircraft by any potential U.S. adversaries any time soon. So I think the gentleman's amendment is a perfectly reasonable one. We all know we are going to have this plane some day, and it will, by all accounts, be a magnificent airplane. But the fact is we have competing needs in this defense budget and, once again, I tell my colleagues that this budget contains nothing but false promises if it continues to pretend that it can live under the existing 5-year budget ceilings that are established for it and still buy all of the new weapon systems, including tactical aircraft, which people are hoping to buy. There just is not going to be enough room in that bag to buy everything that we are scheduled to buy. Sooner or later we will have to make a decision about which purchases we are going to eliminate, or else admit that the 5-year budget ceilings that are talked about in this new budget agreement are nothing but a public lie. Now, that is the hard choice of it, and the sooner Congress faces up to it, the better off we will all be, and that is why I think the gentleman is correct in pursuing his amendment.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out the bill already contains a small appropriation for prostate cancer research as well, and I would certainly have no objection if in conference this is reallocated so we can provide additional funding for both breast cancer research and prostate research.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is enough time. I mean we cannot give everyone who wants to speak 5 minutes, but we can give them a good amount of time to speak. I think it is adequate. I only know of two people who want to speak on our side.

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that what is at issue here is not whether we ought to have a strong defense or not. It is not whether we ought to provide our troops with the best equipment money can buy or not. Obviously we need a strong defense and obviously we need to provide the best weaponry that money can buy for our troops. The question is, do we really need to buy nine additional bombers that the Pentagon is saying we do not need, the Secretary of Defense is saying we do not need, especially when we have other higher priority items in the military budget. I think the answer to that question is no. I think we ought to heed those some 20 studies that have been conducted on this matter. This amendment is supported on a bipartisan basis and I would urge the House to adopt it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and a number of other Members, including the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. I know there are other Members who will be speaking on it as well. This amendment essentially cuts 331 million from the bill to prevent the production of 9 B-2's that the Pentagon has not even asked for. It would reduce the deficit by $214 million. It would add $105 million for the air National Guard KC-135 reengining and it would add $12 million for Army breast cancer research. It would also remove a major veto threat to this bill and we would wind up spending less money. What I am trying to do is to remove a $27 billion fiscal time bomb which is tucked into this bill. I want to simply point out that the cost of these B-2 bombers by the time they are fully purchased, by the time they are fully equipped, will drive the rest of the defense budget into a squeeze which I do not believe thoughtful Members will want to see it experience. To put this in perspective, this is a bomber which has been turned down by some 20 different studies. Five different times the proponents of proceeding with the B-2 have asked for studies to try to object to the fact that four different Secretaries of Defense have tried to limit the number of B-2's that we are buying to 20. Each time the studies wound up saying that the decisions made by the Secretaries of Defense were the correct decisions and that we should not be proceeding to build more than the number of bombers asked for by the Pentagon. To put this in perspective, just 2 years ago the cost of one of these B-2 bombers was expected to be about $1.2 billion. That is enough to pay the undergraduate tuition for every single student at the University of Wisconsin for the next 11 years. Yet the Congress is being asked to buy 9 additional B-2's that the Pentagon does not want, that the President does not want, and that the Defense Department has indicated would cause a veto. I want to read from the statement of administration policy. It says: ``Overall, for the reasons stated below, the Secretary of Defense would join the President's other senior advisors in recommending that the President veto the bill if it were presented to him in its current form.'' It goes on to say about the B-2: ``The administration firmly opposes the $331 million increase to the President's request for B-2 production.'' And it goes on to say that ``this life cycle cost of over $20 billion would weaken the ability of the Air Force to acquire other urgently needed weapons systems and that these resources should be allocated to higher priority requirements.'' Now, what I am trying to do today is to remove that veto threat. I would also like to read from Secretary Cohen's QDI report which says as follows: ``The B-2 would not provide the full range of war fighting and shaping capabilities offered by the forces it would replace * * *. It goes on to say the B-2 ``did not provide the same weaponry delivery capacity per day as the forces that would have to be retired to pay for the B-2's.'' And then it concludes by saying there ``would be a loss in war fighting capability during the decade or more between when the outgoing forces were retired and all the B-2's were delivered.'' It seems to me that indicates that we ought to not proceed to make this very expensive purchase. Instead what we are trying to do is to use a good portion of this for deficit reduction and then to provide some funding so that we can increase the reengining of KC-135's for the Air National Guard which are crucial to our refueling procedures around the world. Basically we have a number of older planes with very low-flying hours which are in very good shape. We can reengine those planes, use them for refueling operations and save a good amount of money, over $105 million in the process. Third, we would add $12 million to the Army breast cancer research and treatment program, bringing that up above the level provided in the bill. That program has recently received a very good evaluation when it has been peer reviewed.

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