Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. This still cuts $574 million from education.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to restore an atmosphere in which perhaps Members will absorb a little more information and a little less heat at the same time. First of all, let me say to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] my good friend who is the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, that after this is over, I would suggest that we both go have a sedative somewhere. I think we need it. But let me say that I would respectively point out that the problem that the gentleman is having with the Clinton administration is not due to numbers, as he knows. The problem is because the gentleman's party leadership decided that they were going to use the appropriations process, which is supposed to be used for budget matters, they decided to use that process instead to bulldoze through the Congress major changes in environmental laws. Mr. Speaker, I happen to partially favor one of those changes. But I do not favor disrupting the entire budget process of the United States in order to accomplish it. As the gentleman very well knows, that is the major bone of contention, or at least one of the major bones of contention, between the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the Clinton administration right now; not their lack of desire to cut the deficit. Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think when we had the last election and the public decided to put our good Republican friends in control for the first time in a long time, I think they did that because out of desperation they thought that that just might force both parties to work together, whether they liked it or not. I would suggest that last night in the midst of swirling partisanship on other matters, this committee, the Committee on Appropriations, managed to work its way through a very contentious appropriation bill that deals with our international responsibilities in a very nonpartisan, bipartisan way. I wish that that were happening on the budget, but it is not. Mr. Speaker, I think it is not because I think the product that is being produced on the budget is at great variance from that which the public expected when they voted in November. I think they wanted us to have an attack on the deficit. They wanted us to have an attack on waste. They wanted us to have an understanding that programs needed to be as well managed as they were well meaning. Instead, I think what they are getting is something that has come down to a near war on kids, on students, and on seniors. The fundamental problem with this bill is that it is almost the same bill that it was when it left the House. It has been changed by about $700 million from the conference report that the President vetoed; $700 million or so out of a $16 billion bill and it is largely a bill which takes away from seniors and takes away from education in order to finance a very large tax cut for some very rich people. The Brewster amendment has been mentioned. The Brewster amendment was the effort by our party to see to it that every dollar in this bill was used for deficit reduction, not for tax breaks that rich people don't need. The Brewster amendment passed with less than 10 dissenting votes in this House and then one day after it passed, we were told by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget, that after all, that was just a game to get votes to pass this vehicle. Indeed, the language which was adopted in conference provides about $5 billion in deficit reduction in terms of outlays from the first year's savings in this bill. But it provides between $130 and $140 billion in money to be used for that tax cut and 50 percent of that tax cut is going to the wealthiest people in this country, people who make more than $100,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything against rich people. I would like everybody to be rich. That is the American dream. But I want to tell you why I do not think America's No. 1 need is to feed the desires of rich people to make more money, as this package will. Workers are wondering in this country what happened to the American dream. They feel squeezed. They feel desperate. They do not know how they are going to take care of their parents and put their kids through an education at the same time. And I think the answer can be found in some Federal Reserve numbers. I do not happen to think much of Alan Greenspan's interest rate policy; I do think a lot of their ability to analyze where wealth has gone in this economy. And what they have pointed out is that in the 1980's, or rather before the 1980's, or 3 decades following World War II, when workers productivity increased, they got that full productivity reflected in increased wages. During the 1970's, workers got about half their productivity increases reflected in wages. During the 1980's and 1990's, worker productivity went up while wages went down. Productivity went up 18 percent; wages fell by 7 percent in real dollar terms. Where did that money go? I will tell you where it went. If you exclude homes and cars from the net assets of households, nine-tenths of the increased wealth of this society in the 1980's went to the richest one-tenth of American families. But even more striking is the fact that the richest one half of 1 percent of households got 60 percent of the increase in individually held financial assets. The half-million richest households increased their average net worth from $8.7 million to $12.7 million in those 6 years and as a group, their net worth increased by $2 trillion, which is more than twice the entire increase in the national debt during that same period. So that is where the American dream has gone. It has gone into the pockets of some of the wealthiest people in this society. And with all due respect, I do [[Page H 6600]] not believe that this bill ought to add to their wealth at the expense of the middle-class and the workers in this country and that is what I suggest this bill is doing. So, my colleagues can vote for it if they want, but do not pretend that the Brewster language is in here. It is not. They are taking the money which this House voted to use for deficit reduction and they are using it instead to finance tax cuts. That is why we will use the previous question on the rule to try to break the stranglehold which the majority party has on this process. And if we are able to defeat the previous question on the rule, we will offer an amendment to reinstitute the Brewster amendment which will require that all of the dollars that are saved in this package go for deficit reduction. That is where you voted to put it in the first place, that is where we tried to put it in the first place, and that is where it ought to go tonight and that is where I hope you are willing to put it.

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

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one additional minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have now been going 2 days without sleep. We have not been able to review the timber issue on paper or to talk to people who have actually done the negotiating, except for the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], evidently. We are relying on the word of people who are in the room. We are debating the work product even as the work product is being put together. I think that is a ludicrous way to do business, absolutely ludicrous. We should be debating this issue after we know what the full agreement is, not before. As I said earlier, I understand the pressures on the President to sign this legislation and get on to other things. His veto has made this bill almost $800 million less pernicious. For that, I am happy. But this bill has always been basically a hit on kids and a hit on old folks for two purposes: One, to pay for disaster relief for California, and, second, to provide tax breaks, the lion's share of which are going to the wealthiest people in this country. This bill is paraded as a deficit reduction package. In fact, because of the denial of the Brewster language, this bill is in fact providing only $5 billion in deficit reduction in the first year numbers, and then the out year numbers are devoted and fully available for use to finance that tax package that I am talking about. I do not believe it is fair, I do not believe it is right. So Members are certainly entitled to vote any way they wish. They all have their own views and their own consciences, but I would suggest that if this Congress cannot do better, it is a pretty sad day.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this recommittal motion is very straightforward. I would urge its support. It simply restores $50 million which has been cut from veterans' medical care. The account it has been cut from has traditionally run small surpluses, but it has almost always been used to take care of the backlog of needs for medical equipment at the VA which total over $800 million. We have, for instance, an MRI scanner at Salt Lake; x ray machine at Shreveport, which is needed; nuclear imaging system at Bay of Pines; a variety of other backlogged items which I will show anybody who has the slightest bit of interest. We offset the funding for this by simply taking three quarters of 1 percent out of what are in effect unobligated balances from the disaster account in the bill. It will do no damage to anyone, but it will provide our veterans some very badly needed additional medical care. I would urge the adoption of the recommittal motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] no. I am dismayed that when I tried to offer an amendment in the Committee on Rules that would have enabled me to reduce the funding for the F-22, that I was denied the right to offer that amendment. I would point out, we are very willing, I guess, to cut $574 million out of education programs. I am not willing to do that when I look at some of the things that are not being cut that should be. But I find it dismaying that that kind of cut is easily acceptable. But yet we face a situation with the B-22, for instance, where the plane is supposed to replace the F-15. The F-15 is the finest fighter in the world. We have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them. The Pentagon tells us that the useful military shelf life of that plane will extend out at least to the year 2014, and yet we are asked to replace that with the F-22 at a cost of $70 billion, $160 million a plane. So I do find our priorities a bit warped. Amendment offered by Mr. livingston

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, simply to say that I think it is a distinct disservice to Members to ask them to participate in this debate before they know whether an agreement has been reached. I do not think it serves the country well either. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would be kind enough to yield, I would simply say that I was just informed by a key White House person in the meeting, or my staff was, that they are still trying to work out language, and it just seems to me particularly graceless for us to be proceeding if, in fact, both parties are working in good faith. I really do believe that it does no one any good, the Congress or the White House, for us to be proceeding if there is, in fact, uncertainty about this, and I think Members are entitled to know what the facts are before they cast a vote. So I would respectfully urge, and I see the majority leader on the floor, I would respectfully urge that he suspend further consideration of this bill until we can honestly tell Members what, in fact, is going on.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to say one thing. Apparently, I misspoke a second ago when I said or when I talked about how I understand if the President felt a need to sign this bill. I had been informed erroneously, it turns out, that the Administration had agreed to sign this bill, and hearing that, I had also erroneously assumed that certainly our Republican friends would never be rash enough to bring this bill to the floor while negotiations were still going on with the President, because I thought that things would be handled more gracefully than that. But apparently they have not been, and I am informed that there is still a negotiating process going on. So I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman, if that is the case, that if they are interested, if you are sincerely interested in getting an agreement with the White House, and I know the White House is interested in getting an agreement with you, I would suggest that the responsible thing would be to suspend the rest of this debate until, in fact, we do have something to present to the House which does represent the genuine agreement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very fine statement.

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, I yield myself 30 seconds to simply say it is a miracle. We are now told that within the last minute there actually has been an agreement reached on this letter. I still find it phenomenal that this House is being asked to vote on this agreement without even having seen it. The timber issue is important to a lot of people in this House, including me, and just for the heck of it, I would like to know what the agreement is and see it in black and white before we debate it. It might be kind of quaint, but it might also be kind of useful. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask, ``Why don't we all get 10 minutes' sleep, and then I will yield to somebody.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. Mr. KENNEDY from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that there is an enormous amount of controversy over the number of board feet, and when those board feet are going to be cut, and who they are going to be sold to, and when they are going to be turned into homes and other kinds of products. I am more concerned with the $17 billion that is going to be cut out of this Nation's economy by this bill and the complicity that our administration is showing with the Republicans to gut most specifically the housing programs of this country. We are talking about wood, but that wood ultimately gets turned into homes, and, as a result of the actions being taken in this bill, we are going to see thousands and thousands of Americans thrown into homelessness. I say to my colleagues, make no mistake about it. When you cut a quarter of the Nation's housing budget in 1 year without even a weekend's thought as to how these programs are going to be affected, homelessness is going to be created. People don't like seeing homeless people on the street. It makes them feel awkward. It makes them feel badly. You look around and remember where this country was. Mr. Speaker, in 1980 we spent $30 billion building affordable housing, built over--300,000 units of affordable housing got built in that year. This year we built about 10,000 units of affordable housing, and we wonder why we created homelessness. The fact of the matter is that, if we are truly concerned about where we are headed in this country, then we ought not to be going after programs that provide for fuel assistance in the wintertime, that go after housing assistance throughout the year, or safe drinking water, or women, infants, and children, or the national service program, or education grants. What we ought to be doing is going after where the money is in America. We ought not to be providing these huge tax cuts. We ought to be looking at whether or not we need to be spending $2 million more on star wars, whether or not we want to be underwriting the nuclear power industry of America through new breeder reactors, whether we ought to be going after the oil and gas industry. That is where the money is in this country. If we want to make cuts, go where the money is. Do not go where the poor people are. That is what this budget does. The Clinton administration, the Clinton Republicans, ought to be ashamed. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] to complete his statement.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have not been able to find any. I would like to think that I have missed one or two.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 13 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I understand full well why the President feels he has to sign this bill. As President, he feels a deep obligation to try to assure that funds are available for the California and other disasters. He is deeply concerned about obtaining Jordan debt relief. We all understand why. There are a number of other high-priority items which the President feels that he needs. But we have a different role. As I look at this bill, I see it quite differently than does my good friend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. I see a bill which has total rescissions of over $16 billion, total additional spending of some $7.2 billion, a net change of $9.2 billion in budget authority. But that results in only about $5 billion in actual outlay savings. In the first year those outlay savings are used to reduce the deficit, but over the life of this bill, the 7-year life of this bill, the rest of these savings are used to pay for the tax cut which our friends on this side of the aisle are pushing. As we have discussed many times, the lion's share of that tax cut is going to people who make more than $100,000 a year. To put it in perspective, the first year savings which result, which are used for deficit reduction, are about $5 billion, but over the life of the bill, the amount of money available to be used to help finance that tax package is between $130 and $140 billion. That is why, when this bill was before the House the first time, the Democratic Members of this House tried to assure that those savings would be used to reduce the deficit, not to provide somebody who makes $200,000 a year a tax cut. We tried to pass the Brewster amendment, and we did pass the Brewster amendment. I believe only 9 Members of this House voted against it. I may have to correct that number, but I think that is the number. But then, as I said earlier in debate, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget told the press that, well, passage of that Brewster amendment was all just a game in order to get the votes to pass this rescission bill. The problem is that what this winds up being is a great transfer of resources from middle-income families, from low- income seniors, to people who I think in the name of the national interest because of their high income could very well afford to forgo a tax cut if they are in the $200,000 bracket. Mr. Speaker, I do not see any reason why to finance that kind of a tax cut we ought to cut housing for people who desperately need it by $5 billion, HUD-assisted housing; why we ought to cut HUD housing renewals by $1.2 billion; why we ought to cut 1996 summer jobs by $872 million; why we ought to cut other youth training programs by $272 million; why we ought to cut low-income heating assistance by $319 million. That low-income heating assistance program may not be important to somebody in a warm weather state or in a moderate weather state, but in my district it gets to be 42 below zero in February, and I am not talking chill factor. Eighty percent of the people who use that program make less than $10,000 a year. I started that program with Senator Muskie years ago because I just got awfully tired of seeing, in my own communities, seniors who had to make a choice between paying for prescription drugs and buying their own food and keeping their house warm. As I said before on this floor, I will never forget meeting a woman who I met in a city called Stevens Point in my district, who lived in a house which was built for her as a wedding gift by her husband many years ago. She was in her 80's, very poor. That house meant more to her than anything else in her life and the only thing kept her in that house was that low income heating assistance program. She had closed up every other room in the house except the living room, the kitchen and the bathroom and she slept on an old beat up couch in the living room and was desperately grateful that she was getting a little bit of help so she could stay in the home that she loved. Now, I know that some people think that sentiment is passe and that emotions should not count, but I hope that Members of Congress are not just numbers machines. I hope we remember that behind each and every number we deal with are human beings: working families, very often, people who count on us to make the right decisions on behalf of their welfare. Mr. Speaker, I take a back seat to no one in my desire for a balanced budget and I have indicated many times that I would support most of the cuts in this bill, certainly not all of them, but I would support most of these cuts even though some of them, no question, will hurt, if they were going to actually reduce the deficit. But this is the leading wedge that is pushing the way open to provide for that rich man's tax cut which is going through this place and I just think it is wrong. And while the President has to except the bill because he has other responsibilities, I am simply casting a protest vote against what I consider to be the misguided priorities and the insufficient attention to deficit reduction as opposed to tax cuts for high-income folks. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], our distinguished friend and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said today that when they passed the budget resolution, they were delivering on their promise on the Republican side of the aisle. But I would simply note that you cannot deliver on a promise by making another promise and as we all know, all a budget resolution is, is a promise. It has no force of law until we do something else. But this, my friends, is real. When we pass this legislation, this appropriations and rescission legislation, it is real. And the problem is that when it became real on the Republican side of the aisle, they refused to accept our language for more than 1 day when we tried to attach, when we did attach that amendment that tried to assure that all of the cuts be used for deficit reduction rather than for the kind of tax package working its way through this House. So Mr. Speaker, since the huge majority of the dollars in this bill will really go for that purpose, and not for deficit reduction, I feel required to lodge a protest vote, because I really do think we can do better. I really do think we can be more fair and I really do think we can be more disciplined on the tax side. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues frankly, I have talked to a number of constituents in my district who do very well under this tax cut who tell me, ``Dave, forget it. Until we do better on balancing the budget, in my income level, I do not need a tax cut.'' I really think we underestimate the sense of patriotism and the sense of reality and the willingness of the American people to sacrifice. I think we underestimate the willingness of the people in this society to sacrifice, if they truly believe it is shared sacrifice, balanced sacrifice, and really is for the purpose of significant, long-term deficit reduction. This package is a smoke screen for tax reduction and, again, I say I understand why the President feels he must sign it, because he has other responsibilities. But I think we have responsibilities in our own roles to try to insist that these packages be as fair as possible, even while we go about the business on both sides of the aisle of trying to find responsible ways to reduce the deficit.