Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, when this bill originally left the House, I voted against it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it took money from domestic programs to pay for some of the additional Pentagon spending in the bill. Second, the bill added to the deficit. At the time the bill left the House, the committee indicated that even though the outlays were not in balance, that in fact the bill was balanced in terms of budget authority. But after the bill passed the House, the committee produced a table, I did not produce that table, the committee produced a table, which indicated that in fact the bill, as it left the House, added $186 million in budget authority to the deficit and it added $250 million in outlay spending to the deficit in the first year and $650 million to the deficit in the out years. I thought that was a very important reason to object to the bill. When we went to conference with the Senate, I offered a motion to instruct conferees. And essentially at that time what I said is that I was willing to overlook, though I was not enthusiastic about the idea, I was willing to overlook the fact that some domestic-related programs were used to finance some of the Pentagon spending in the bill, provided that the bill, in fact, would be paid for. So we asked the conferees to produce a bill which was, in fact, paid for. In conference, I did not sign the conference report for a number of reasons. First of all, because in the nondefense portion of this bill, it retains spending for an item which was strongly insisted on in the Senate, which begins a new construction program in the area of education. I, frankly, think it is silly and shortsighted and stupid, even though that program in and of itself may be useful, for us to spend money on that program which we do not have at the very same time that we are cutting money from existing education programs. Second, I wanted to register my objection to the fact that the committee continues to insist that we spend $14 million in my district which I do not want to spend. I do not know of another situation in the Congress where you have both U.S. Senators and the Member of the House representing a specific district asking that a project be canceled in our district. That is what we are asking to do. Yet the Congress, in what I regard as a typical lap dog puppy situation, again rolled over and decided to give the Navy the money for its toy again. Third, I do not like the fact that this is treated as an emergency and, therefore, does not count added defense spending in out years against the budget caps. In fact, it should, if we are serious about deficit reduction. And fourth, I was trying to help the administration on the issue of Jordan because the administration was asking for help in seeing to it that the Jordan debt provision, which in the Senate was originally contained in this bill, not be moved from this bill to the $17 billion rescission bill which we have sent to the Senate. But on that score, I would say that, in light of the administration's negotiations which they conducted last night in the Senate, without consultation on the side so far as I know, it appears to me that the White House does not mind being jerked around on the issue of Jordan. It would appear to me the White House does not mind being blackmailed on the issue of Jordan. And so if they do not care, why should I? So what I am going to do on the floor, now that I have registered my concern on the individual points, is to support this conference report, because in essence, it does what we asked them to do in the motion to instruct, and it does what the bill did not do when it originally left the House, which is to largely offset the spending with cuts, so it does remain significantly deficit neutral. So I think that in comparison to the House-passed package, this is much more preferable. Having registered my concerns on the details, I will, in the interest of comity and the interest of getting things done, recognize the progress that was made in the conference report and support the bill as it is reported.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest that I do not think it is particularly constructive for individual Members of Congress to try to write a record of legislative intent when in fact the record that is being written is probably not accurate nor legitimate. I do not believe, for instance, that any Member of the House who is not a member of the conference can really assure the House about anything with respect to what that language means. I certainly do not necessarily subscribe to the interpretation of the gentleman from Indiana since he was not a member of the conference and cannot possibly have an understanding of what the agreement was that was reached by persons who were in the room.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Does that rationale mean that when it was suggested that there was a tax increase on Social Security recipients last year simply because the percentage of income that was being Republican Party is now changing their opinion that that was a tax increase? Are they not taking it back?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, may I finish my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I really do not wish to draw this out. I would like to go home as much as anybody else. But in light of the statement made by the previous gentleman in the well in which he asserted in his advice to the Chair that this was a simple question because tax rates were not being raised, we were simply expanding the percentage of income being taxed at that rate, does that mean----

Mr. OBEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. I think the greatest disservice that any public official can pay to the people he represents and to the democratic system is to cynically manipulate public frustrations and to then give their voters the impression that they are pretending to be for something which they really are opposing. I think that is happening today. I think the greatest honor a public official can do to the people he represents is to deal honestly with them, especially when he has an honest disagreement with them. In my view, voters are being treated to a cynical charade by the way this term limit proposition is being handled in the House today. For many years, many in the Republican leadership have told the public that they are for term limits in order to get votes, but then they unexpectedly came into power. They find themselves now in control, and they now have to produce what they promised. Does anybody really believe that a Member who has served 16 years is sincere in saying that he is for term limits when he continues to file for reelection every 2 years? If they were sincere, it seems to me all they would have to do is to demonstrate that sincerity by simply deciding not to run again. The process today, in my view, is designed to kill term limits. It allows Members to pretend that they are opposed to term limits by voting for any one of the four propositions before the House. But because there are four propositions rather than one, procedurally you virtually guarantee that there will be insufficient votes for any one of the four, thus enabling people to go home and say, ``Oh, I voted for term limits, but * * *'' It just seems to me that that is a charade which does the public no great service. I would also point out that the main term limits amendment does not even apply to most senior Members of this House, such as myself. It is a ``let's pretend'' term limit. It takes place only in the hereafter. It does not take place in the here and now. To me that is a measure of its unreality. I oppose the concept of term limits because I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I take that oath seriously. I honestly believe that if these proposals pass, from the day Members walk into this institution they will be on the lookout and they will be shopping for their next job. As my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], said, every time a lobbyist walks into their office, they will be looking at that lobbyist as a potential employer in a few short years. I do not think you want to do that to this institution. I believe the public ought to have a right to vote for anybody they want, without the benefit of social engineering by would-be constitutional scholars in this House. I believe term limits would allow bureaucrats whose favorite weapon is inertia to simply try to out wait any aggressive committee chairman. Whenever they are in conflict with the committee, they will simply say to their agency people: ``Do not worry about it, just stall and we will out wait them.'' Most of the time they would win under these propositions. I also believe that small States like mine would very seldom be able to see Members of their delegation rise to chairmanships because if there were no long-term development of seniority, I think the large States would simply divide up the major chairmanships and the major committee assignments for themselves. I would like to pay tribute in this debate to people like the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], not because he agrees with me but simply because he is true to his conscience and is not engaged in a cynical double game. He does the country honor by playing it straight. And in my view, he does that on virtually every issue that is before the House. That is why I think he is a very valuable Member for the House and that is why I believe that if we had more like him, we would not be engaged in this charade today. So I would simply say, let us not really even give credibility to this ``let's pretend'' process. We all understand that many of the sponsors of this proposal are in a very uncomfortable position. They promised something they never dreamed they would have to deliver on, and now I think we have an elaborate charade to pretend that they tried. I do not think that does any real service to the American people. I think we ought to play it straight and lay out our views on this issue honestly. That is what I think the gentleman from Illinois has done today.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I do not regard the motion that I am making today as ``fooling around.'' What I do regard as fooling around is the action of the House leadership in twice over the last month talking about deficit reduction but, in fact, producing bills which either add to the deficit or, after they have promised that the funds would be used to reduce the deficit, instead announcing a day later that they really did not mean it. They simply said that to get votes and that what they are really going to do is to use it for their tax cut package for very wealthy people. I would also point out that I do not think that this motion to instruct is in any significant way delaying our ability to go to conference and produce a bill in a timely fashion. As far as I am concerned, if this motion to go to conference is passed by the House today, we could go into conference at 5 or at 6 tonight. We certainly can deal in conference with the issue tomorrow. And we can produce a bill in plenty of time, if Members are serious, both about providing the Pentagon the funds they need and, if they are serious about it, deficit reduction. I thank it is, frankly, nonsense to suggest that this motion in any way prevents our being able to produce that bill in a timely fashion. I would point out that suggesting that this motion in any way delays our ability to produce a bill is about like saying that after a basketball coach takes a 20-second time-out, with 1 minute left to go in the game, that somehow that is the reason that you had a 4-hour basketball game. The fact is this bill has already taken an unusually long period of time to move through each stage of the process, compared to past supplemental appropriation bills. A good example is the emergency supplemental bill our committee moved through the process just 1 year ago. The chairman will recall that conferees met during snowstorms that paralyzed this city and produced a conference report in short order because of the urgency of the matter at hand. Last year's emergency supplemental took a total of 19 calendar days to move through the entire process. The bill we have before us today, by contrast, has been lingering for some 60 calendar days, three times as long. I would suggest that the most rapid way for us to reach agreement in conference, since the Senate has already, in my judgment, met its responsibility by providing full offsets for the new spending that they contemplate in their bill, I would suggest the fastest way for us to get an agreeable result in the conference is for the House to do the same. And that is why I am offering my motion. My LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply point out that actually we could have gone to conference yesterday, but the gentleman objected on Friday. So I do not think that the question is whether or not we are taking an inordinately lengthy period of time. The question is whether we are going to put ourselves in a straitjacket that prevents us from expeditiously getting this matter resolved as quickly as possible. If we do not get it resolved, if it does get hog-tied in the rigors of internal legislative warfare, I would like to request the gentleman from Florida to rise and I would like him to tell us some of the problems that the Defense Department will face. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].

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

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 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, one of the worst things that can happen to you in this town is you begin to believe your own baloney. I have just heard an awful lot of baloney, with all the due respect to my good friend.

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

Mr. OBEY. No, with all due respect, the baloney that I am hearing is coming from a different source. It is not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Let me suggest, no one is suggesting, not one person in this House is suggesting that this money not be replaced. We are simply suggesting that it be replaced in a way which does not add to the deficit. That is all we are saying. There are not going to be any aircraft that are required to stand down. There will not be any maintenance that will not be provided because we are asking the House to do what the Senate did, which is to simply pay for the bill before us. The gentleman from Louisiana suggests that somehow if we pass this motion to instruct that we will be putting the Congress in a straitjacket. My God, I thought we did that when this House passed the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That document requires us to balance the budget. I assume an awful lot of Members of this House are going to proceed to try to deal with fiscal matters as though the budget should be balanced. If that is the case, why start in the hereafter? Why not start in the here and now? Why not start with this bill? That is all we are saying. We are saying do not add to the deficit. I would point out that the Senate bill does exactly what we are asking. For 1995, the Senate bill cuts the deficit by $72 million; whereas, the House adds to the deficit to the tune of $250 million. Over 5 years the Senate bill cuts the deficit by $341 million; whereas, the House bill adds $650 million to the deficit. That is a swing of nearly $1 billion. All we are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the House on this bill show the same degree of fiscal discipline shown by the other body, even though I will readily grant that the other body added a number of items which do not appropriately belong in this conference, and they ought to be taken out. However, in spite of that mistake, the Senate has at least met its obligation not to add to the deficit. I do not think the House is any less capable of doing that. That is the purpose of my motion.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, with all due respect, our good friends from the Department of Defense do not have to vote on budgets. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs does not have to go to constituents and explain why the budget is not balanced. We do. It seems to me, given that difference in responsibilities, we ought to meet our responsibilities to the Department of Defense to reimburse them for the funds that they have had to expend, but we ought to do it in a way which does not add to the deficit. That is all I ask. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances, I would not be here making this motion that I am making today, because I think that under ordinary circumstances the administration would have every right to request an emergency appropriation for these items and the Congress would have every right to consider them on an emergency basis. In plain language, considering them on an emergency basis means that we would not have to offset the expenditures in this bill, and they could be treated as an emergency and could, therefore, add to the deficit and still be within the rules of the House. The problem, however, is that while I personally feel that under normal circumstances it would be perfectly appropriate for these items not to be offset, I do not think we are operating under ordinary circumstances. In fact, we have seen this House pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, even though the other body has not concurred, and we have seen a great deal of effort expended over the past 60 days on efforts that were described as efforts to ``reduce the deficit.'' But in fact those efforts have not done that. So I am offering this proposal today in the spirit of truth in advertising. It simply directs the House conferees to produce a conference report that does not add to the deficit, period. Now, we have had two recent examples that illustrate the need for the motion which I am making today. First of all, when this bill first passed the House, we were told by the committee that even though the bill was not balanced on the outlay side, it was in fact balanced in budget authority and did not add to the deficit. The problem, however, is that after the bill passed, the committee's own documents which the committee produced showed that the bill added over $250 million in outlays and $186 million in budget authority to the deficit, and over 5 years, added to the deficit to the tune of $650 million. So I think that was misstatement No. 1 on the way to a so- called balanced budget. Last week on the rescission bill, in order to get the votes for the rescission bill that targeted kids and old folks for major reductions, the Republican leadership said, after first having all of the Republicans vote against the Murtha amendment in committee, the Republican leadership then did an about face and indicated that they would in fact use the dollars produced in that rescission bill last week, the dollars that were not going to be used for the California earthquake relief, that they would use the remainder of those dollars for deficit reduction. But after the rule had passed, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget then was reported to say that the action in indicating that those funds would be used to reduce the deficit was just a game, and that in fact they were going to be allocated to finance the tax cuts, which contain a number of items which many of us on this side of the aisle feel are simply rewards for the wealthy that we cannot afford at a time of multibillion-dollar deficits. Despite the fact that that money which was indicated would go for deficit reduction for one day, and then was later used for tax cuts, we were still given lectures about deficit reduction. It seems to me what we need to do is to cut through those lectures and get to a real intent to reduce the deficit, or at least certainly not to add to it. This bill itself was produced out of subcommittee 1 day after the House passed the balanced budget constitutional amendment, and the bill as it left the committee, as I said, added significantly to the deficit, some $650 million over 5 years. In contrast to the House bill, the Senate bill, which we will meet when we go to conference, is fully offset. It does not add one dime to the deficit, and in my view, if the other body can produce a bill for conference which does not add one dime to the deficit, the House ought to be able to do the same thing. Now, this motion makes one concession. It does not even require that all of the amounts be totally offset within the defense function of the budget. It simply says that all of the funds should be offset, period. While I certainly do not approve of using domestic reductions in order to offset Defense Department add-ons, as an indication of conciliatory spirit I am willing to offer a motion that simply says the funds should be fully offset so they do not add one dime to the deficit. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me that after the House has, in my view, been misled twice about whether or not funds in legislation before this House would add to the deficit or would reduce the deficit, it seems to me, after the House has been misled twice on it, the House finally needs to make a statement with great clarity that we do not want this process used to in any way add to the deficit. As I said originally, under ordinary circumstances, absent the great pressure on the deficit and absent the House action in passing the constitutional amendment on the balanced budget, I would not be here insisting that this bill be fully offset, because I think in the real world there are emergencies which require emergency treatment. But the House has indicated that it is going to be in pursuit of deficit reduction, and it seems to me if that is the case, we ought to get on to it, and we certainly should not produce a conference report which will add to the deficit either on the budget authority side or the outlay side. That is the reason I make this motion this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. general leave

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Is it not true that the gentleman can easily find himself in conference on Tuesday just as he would have found himself in conference on Tuesday if he makes this motion Tuesday using the right rule?

Mr. OBEY. It may not be, but it is a fact.

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

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of order.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note with all due respect to my friend the gentleman from Louisiana, that it is true that we were given a tenative list of conferees yesterday but at the same time we were told by persons on that side of the aisle that the Speaker was contemplating changing decision was made so we would have an opportunity to discuss that issue with our side of the aisle and were given no such opportunity. I feel we are perfectly within our rights to object because of the way this has been handled.

Mr. OBEY. Surely.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that with all due respect to what may happen on other committees, on our committee there has always been a tradition of due notice and due consultation before any such appointments have been made. I would also ask the gentleman if he can tell me any time in the past during which the Speaker has threatened to reduce the number of Democratic conferees on an appropriations conference below that of the ratio on the committee.

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