Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, what is before us is the question of going to conference on the Treasury-Postal appropriation bill. The motion that I have just made is a motion which would accept the Senate amendment numbered 130, which in essence indicates that the congressional pay will be frozen for yet another year with no COLA, although that COLA will be provided for other Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House know, this House established a new procedure. As Members will remember in, I believe, 1991, the Congress took a step forward, at least I think many thoughtful Members will recognize it was a step forward, when we decided that outside income for Members of Congress was going to be limited and that instead we would have only one paymaster, that being the general public, rather than supplementing our pay through various activities, including giving speeches and earning outside income in a manner which many people were concerned created the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Congress took a lot of heat for that action at the time, but I think it was the right action because I think it substantially improved the financial practices around here. It was supported on both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis. We established a new process under that legislation which guaranteed that Members of Congress would never get a pay increase larger than that provided for other Federal employees. And, in fact, the way it was set up, we got that adjustment one year later, so that we could not be accused of setting the trend for increased pay, but rather we were following what would happen in other sectors of the economy. Mr. Speaker, under that we received two small cost of living adjustments: A 3.5 increase in 1992 and a 3.2 increase in 1993. Since that time we have taken action each year to freeze our own pay. So that means that for calendar year [[Page H 8705]] 1994, and 1995, the Congress voluntarily decided not to accept a congressional pay raise, even though other Federal employees did receive a pay raise. The Senate has now taken an action on this bill which indicates their belief that we should do that for another year. I think that probably the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle will share the view that under the circumstances that we face with other agencies of Government being cut, with many other programs being cut, when we are in the process of establishing budget guidelines that we will live with for either the next 5 or 7 years on our way to what people would like to think would be a balanced budget, I think that under the circumstances, it would be highly unrealistic to expect that the Congress this year would receive even a cost-of-living adjustment. So I am simply offering this motion because I think that it is generally accepted in the House that, under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to accept the Senate position. In doing so, I would make the following observation, however: I believe it is essential to the ability of this House over the long term to attract quality candidates, and I think it is essential to see to it that in the long term we do not have renewed pressures for providing other ways for Members to receive income by, in effect, cashing in on their own notoriety, for want of a better word, or by cashing in on their title as a Member of Congress to increase their pay. In order to prevent those actions from happening, it is going to be necessary at some time for Members of Congress to receive pay adjustments identical to those provided to other workers in the Federal Government. I do not believe that people can expect that forever there will be no adjustments in congressional pay. But I think it is common good sense to recognize that, under these circumstances, Members of Congress are not and should not be providing themselves with an increase in pay when we are in the process of establishing a multiyear effort to reduce the deficit and cut expenditures. So, for the third year in a row, the effect of this motion would be to deny ourselves a pay raise. I think that that is the rational thing to do under these circumstances, and I would urge support for the motion.

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

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman is accepting this motion. I think it is the right thing to do.

Mr. OBEY

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

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

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. [[Page H 8663]]

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, section 8077 of this bill reads as follows: None of the funds provided in this Act may be obligated for payment on new contracts on which allowable costs charged to the government include payments for individual compensation at a rate in excess of $250,000 per year. This recommittal motion simply reduces that $250,000 salary level to $200,000. In essence what it says is that if any defense contractor wants to pay any individual a salary in excess of that paid to the President of the United States, they cannot do it with taxpayer funds through contracting, they have to do it out of their own corporate profits. When you take a look at the total compensation provided to the CEO's of some of these corporations, you see one being paid $7,287,000, one being paid $5,827,000, another $3,596,000, another $3,538,000, and so on and so forth. I would simply ask one question. Who do these people think they are, that they think that they are entitled to be compensated at a rate higher than the level of the President of the United States? It seems to me that if we are asked to buy downsizing of the military budget, if we are asked to buy downsizing of corporations in general, we ought to also be taking a look at downsizing these outrageously high salaries paid to these corporate executives. All this does is say that you cannot compensate any of these corporations for any salary in excess of the salary paid to the President of the United States.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] says that the studies show that we need to have 40 B-2 bombers rather than 20. That is not true. The major study done, the Kaminski study which reviewed 17 other studies, indicated that the best buy for the United States was not 40 B-2's, but 20. Everybody knows it. Second, if we are talking about tradeoffs, just from the cost of the additional two B-2 bombers he wants to buy this year we could help 1,100,000 more kids under chapter 1, we could help 600,000 or 6 million families to receive low-income heating assistance, which we just cut out of the budget. We would still have enough left to provide summer youth jobs for 300,000 kids. You talk about comparative defense expenditures. The red lines on this chart indicate the Soviet Union has reduced its budget by 70 percent, its military budget. Our budget has hardly moved in comparison to that. There is no question of where the major threats come from. Mr. Chairman, if you take a look at how our budget compares to potential enemies, we are spending militarily about 2.5 times as much as all of them combined, including all of the rogue states that are talked about. This is a flying turkey. It will primarily benefit defense contractors, not the defense posture of the United States. We ought to pass this amendment and save the money.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I note the applause for the last speaker, and I certainly share the House's affection for him, but let us stop the hyperbole and look at the realities. We are told by the last speaker that if we do not fund the B-2 that we are not interested in deterrence. What a line of baloney. What a line of baloney. This chart demonstrates what has happened to Russian military budgets, in red, since 1989 versus what has happened to the United States defense budget. As we can see in the blue, the United States budget has dropped in minor ways. The former Soviet Union budget has dropped precipitously. The Russian military budget has been cut by some 70 percent. As we can see, the U.S. military budget cuts are markedly less than that. So much for the idea that we are not engaging in deterrence. People will say, ``Well, but you have some of those rogue states out there. We have to be prepared to deal with them.'' OK. Let us take a look at the potential enemies list. If we take a look at what the United States spends as a portion of the world's military budget, and then if we take a look at what all of the rogue states spend--down here on the chart--excluding for the moment China and Russia, we have the lion's share of military expenditures in comparison to that tiny little sliver for the rogue states, and if we add into it every dime being spent by China or by Russia, it demonstrates that the United States still has overwhelming superiority, not just in military quality but in military budgets. These two charts would show the United States dominance in terms of military spending and would show a clear and substantial excess of United States defense spending over Russian spending. To argue that that demonstrates that we are not providing military deterrence is patently laughable. If we want to argue the specifics of the B-2, go ahead, but do not for 1 minute suggest that the United States security is threatened by not buying that flying turkey. The only thing that is threatened are the corporate budgets of the people who build that plane.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 37.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am going to lose big for a number of reasons, I believe. No. 1, the F-22, which I am trying to delay, is largely built in the home State of the Speaker. Second, there are contracts for this program in 48 States. Under those circumstances, I have infinite confidence in the capacity of this House to make the wrong decision. Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge every single Member, especially those who just voted to keep the B-2, I want to urge them to remember that having just voted to keep the B-2, they have no rational choice if they are serious about retaining the B-2 in the budget. They have no rational choice but to vote to delay the F-22, because if they do not, there simply will not be room in the defense budget for the B-2 or a lot of other things. Mr. Chairman, I would especially urge us all to take a look at the votes of those who vote both for the B-2 and the F-22, because they are clearly not serious about sticking to the budget resolution. This amendment would cut $1 billion out of the $2.3 billion being appropriated for the F-22. It would delay that program by 5 years. Why do I do that? It is very simple. The F-22 is meant to replace the F-15. This F-15 is the finest fighter aircraft in the world, and right now we have more than 700 of them. The GAO has told us that the F-15 will be fully capable at least to the year 2015, yet the Air Force wants to spend over $70 billion to buy 442 F-22's. The GAO is urging that we have a 7-year delay. This amendment simply says, ``Let us have a 5-year delay in that program''. It seems to me it is eminently sensible. We will be told that there are new threats out there to our air superiority, because other countries have some fighters that are roughly comparable to the F-15. I would ask Members to remember that some of the countries who have them are Switzerland, Israel, France, Britain, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, hardly countries that represent a threat to us. For the few countries who do, such as Iraq and North Korea, I would suggest they learned in Desert Storm that merely having a few capable aircraft does not at all mean that you can match our military superiority by the time that we take into account our training, our superior manpower, and our additional complementary weapons systems such as the AWACS. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. If we want to save money, if we want to listen to the GAO on how to do so, if we want to avoid buying an airplane probably a decade sooner than we have to do it, we will vote for this amendment. This amendment does not kill the F-22 Program. All it does is delay it for 5 years: it saves $1 billion. It seems to me, given the crunch in both the defense budget and the rest of the budget, it makes eminently good sense. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply say I agree with that, and I would again point to the chart that I used on two other occasions today. The red bars on this chart show what has happened to the Russian military budget since 1989. The blue lines show what has happened to the American military budget since 1989. Mr. Chairman, we had almost a 70-percent reduction in the Russian budget, very small reduction in ours. I think that indicates there is ample room for the amendment of the gentlewoman to be accepted.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to note in response to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], that I think it is about the third time I have seen him roll out that sheet, the so-called shortages, and all I would say is that I have in my hand this, what someone else from Wisconsin used to say is a copy of a report from the General Accounting Office. It is not very old, August 1995, is labeled ``Defense Inventory,'' and the cover sheet says shortages are recurring but not a problem. The essence of the GAO report is simply that the accounting system of DOD grossly overstates shortage problems, and I would suggest that, therefore, we ought to take his concerns with a grain of salt when evaluating the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado. Now I ordinarily do not like across-the-board cuts. I think they are a brainless way to reduce expenditures and that we ought to have the courage to single out individual items of low priority before being excised from the budget in order to meet our responsibilities to reduce the deficit. But this House has demonstrated on every occasion today that it is not willing to make reductions in this bill in the intelligent way, and so I think that it leaves us with only one choice if we want to see a reduction, and that is to do it in the manner suggested by the gentlewoman from Colorado. I regret that, but I think the responsibility for the viability of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado lies with the committee for refusing to support amendments such as limiting the B-2 purchase to the number requested by [[Page H 8657]] the Pentagon or heeding the General Accounting Office when it says that we should not be spending $70 billion 7 years early on the F-22. Mr. Chairman, we have tried to go after specific nonessential programs and have not found a willingness on the part of the House to accommodate that, and so, if we are interested in seeing to it that this agency is not exempted from the budget squeeze which has been applied with great tenacity and sometimes with great viciousness to other programs in Government, we have no choice but to pursue this admittedly second- or even third-choice approach, but certainly being a better approach than no approach at all, and so I am going to reluctantly support the amendment.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I would clarify this motion does not address any added projects specifically. Therefore, the motion does not preclude any specific project from being considered in conference. The motion simply limits the total amount of non-quality-of-life add-ons. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that when the House passed the military construction bill, it included added projects for high- priority quality-of-life projects such as barracks, child care centers, family housing, and medical facilities. The bill also provided roughly $150 million for projects that were not requested by the President for operational needs. The other body, however, added some $350 million in projects, many of which do not appear to fit anybody's definition of a high priority. My motion, Mr. Speaker, provides very specific direction to the conferees that in resolving the differences between the House and the Senate on projects that the most high-priority needs be addressed and that the cumulative level of funding for non-quality-of-life projects added by the Congress not exceed the level currently in the House bill, which is roughly $150 million. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.